HAULING OUT:
International Trade andManagement of Walrus
Tanya Shadbolt, Tom Arnbom,& Ernest W. T. Cooper
A TRAFFIC REPORT© 2014 World Wildlife Fund. All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-9693730-9-4
All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted andmay be reproduced with permission. Any reproduction, in fullor in part, of this publication must credit TRAFFIC.
The views of the authors expressed in this publication do notnecessarily reflect those of TRAFFIC, World Wildlife Fund(WWF), or the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN).
The designation of geographical entities in this publication andthe presentation of the material do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF, TRAFFIC, or
IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries.
The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark
ownership are held by WWF. TRAFFIC is a strategic allianceof WWF and IUCN.
Suggested citation:
Shadbolt, T., Arnbom, T. and Cooper, E.W.T. (2014). Hauling
Out: International Trade and Management of Walrus.
TRAFFIC and WWF-Canada. Vancouver, B.C.
Cover photo: Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)males hauled out at Round Island, Alaska, United States ©
Kevin Schafer/WWF-CanonTABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of ContentsiAcknowledgementsv

Executive Summary

11Introduction

9

1.1
Purpose of the report
1.2
Background
1.2.1
Walrus population and conservation status
1.2.2
Climate change in the Arctic ecosystem
1.2.3
Importance of wildlife and wildlife trade in the Arctic
1.2.4
Regulating international trade of wildlife

9
10
12
17
22
26

2

Methods

29

3

Harvest Management

33

3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4

35
36
40
41
42
42
43
45
46
46
46
47
47
48
50
50

CanadaHunting regulations
Hunting seasons, methods and techniques
Harvest statistics
Illegal hunting and illegal trade
Greenland
Hunting regulations
Hunting seasons, methods and techniques
Harvest statistics
Illegal hunting and illegal trade
Norway (Svalbard)
RussiaHunting regulations
Hunting seasons, methods and techniques
Harvest statistics
Illegal hunting

i

4

5

3.5
United States
3.5.1
Hunting regulations
3.5.2
Hunting seasons, techniques and methods
3.5.3
Harvest statistics
3.5.4
Illegal Hunting and illegal trade

50
50
53
55
55

Trade Agreements and Regulations

59

4.1
Walrus range State regulations and restrictions on trade
4.2
International regulations and restrictions on international trade
4.2.1
CITES
4.2.2
EU WTR
4.2.3
Customs Union (CU)

59
61
61
61
62

Walrus Trade

65

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.5

65
66
68
68
76
89
90

Types of items in trade
Accuracy of CITES trade data
Analysis of export data
Recent international trade (sum of 2005 to 2009 export date)
Trends in items (1987 to 2009 export data, per year)
Impact of international trade on walrus
Socioeconomic importance and value of walrus parts and derivatives

6

Conclusions

95

7

Recommendations

99

References

103

Appendix A Walrus population estimates

124

Appendix B Multilateral Agreements, and International Committees and Commissions 131
Appendix C Range State Legislation

143

Appendix D Detailed Harvest statistics and Quotas

157

ii

LIST OF BOXES
Box 1.1
Box 3.1
Box 3.2
Box 3.3
Box 3.4

Edible walrus parts
Precautionary approach
Adaptive Management
Marine Mammals Regulations of the Canadian Fisheries Act
Executive Order No. 20 of 27 October 2006 on the protection and hunting of walrus

25
33
34
38
43

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1

Walrus killed by country, harvest season 2006/2007 to 2010/2011

34

Table 3.2

Number of walrus killed by sport hunt in Nunavut, 1999/2000–2010/2011

39

Table 3.3

Number of walrus killed during recent subsistence and sport hunt in Canada from2007/2008 to 2010/2012

41

Table 3.4

Number of walrus killed during past subsistence and sport hunt in Canada(1999/2000 to 2004/2005)

42

Table 3.5

Quotas for the Atlantic walrus hunt in Greenland, 2006-2012

44

Table 3.6

Number of walrus killed in Greenland from 1999 to 2010 (quotas introduced in 2006)

46

Table 3.7

Number of Pacific walrus killed in Russia from 1997 to 201049

Table 3.8

Number of Pacific walrus killed in the United States from 1999 to 2012

54

Table 5.1

Walrus items reported in export data during a five-year period (2005 to 2009 inclusive)

69

Table 5.2

Walrus items reported by weight (kg) in export data, per year, 1987 to 200977

Table 5.3

Walrus items reported in export data, per year, 1987 to 200978

Table 5.4

Number of walrus tusks and purpose of reported exports, per year, 2005 to 200980

Table 5.5

Key destination countries for walrus tusks, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year

83

Table 5.6

Number of walrus skulls and purpose of reported exports, per year, 2005 to 200984

Table 5.7

Key destination countries for walrus skulls, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year

86

Table 5.8

Walrus products advertised on the Internet

92

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.3
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.11
Figure 5.12

Global walrus distribution
13
Definitions of the Arctic
23
Demography of indigenous peoples of the Arctic based on linguistic groups
24
Walrus items recorded by range State export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009).
71
Walrus items from Greenland and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data
72
(2005 to 2009).
Walrus items from the United States and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data
73
(2005 to 2009).
Walrus items from Canada and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009) 74
Walrus items from Russia and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009) 75
Trends in reported exports of skulls and tusks, per year, 1987 to 200979
Purpose of walrus tusk reported exports, per year, 2005 to 2009.
81
Key destination countries for walrus tusks, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year 82
Purpose of walrus skull reported exports, per year, 2005 to 200985
Key destination countries for walrus skulls, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year 85
Trends in reported export of bones/ivory/carvings and teeth, per year, 1987 to 2009
87
Trends in reported export of specimens and other items, per year, 1987 to 200988

Maps references:r

Definitions of the Arctic. Map by Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2015. Available at www.grida.
no/graphicslib/detail/definitions-of-the-arctic_12ba. Data sources: AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report:
Arctic Pollution Issues; AMAP, 1997. Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report;
CAFF, 2001. Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation.

r

Demography of indigenous peoples of the Arctic based on linguistic groups. Map by Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/
GRID-Arendal, 2010. Available at www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/demography-of-indigenous-peoplesof-the-arctic-based-on-linguistic-groups_1188. Data sources: Adopted from map by W.K. Dallmann
published in Arctic Human Development Report (2004). Data and information compiled by W.K. Dallmann,
Norwegian Polar Institute and P. Schweitzer, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contributions made during the completion of this report andwould like to offer sincere thanks to the following:r

The managers, government officials and biologists who generously took time to provide technical advice andto review and comment on the contents of this publication: staff from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
staff from the Canadian Wildlife Service and the CITES Scientific Authority; staff from the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service; staff from the USFWS International Affairs program, specifically staff in the divisionsof Management and Scientific Authority; Ian Gjertz of the Research Council of Norway; Higdon Wildlife
Consulting; Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen of Greenland Institute of Natural Resources; Martin Robards ofthe Wildlife Conservation Society; and David Lee of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

r

Staff of TRAFFIC and WWF who reviewed all or particular sections of the report: Amelie Knapp, Crawford
Allan, Stephanie Von Meibom, Thomasina Oldfield, Richard Thomas and Steven Broad of TRAFFIC; andColman O’Criodain, Geoff York and Mette Frost of WWF.

r

Alexey Vaisman of TRAFFIC and Sergey Minkov and Andrey Boltunov of the All-Russian Research Instituteon Game Management and Fur Farming for their assistance in compiling relevant literature, research,
policies and legislation on walrus in Russia.

r

Tonya Wimmer of WWF-Canada for her assistance in compiling relevant information on walrus.

r

Individuals who provided clarification and insight to government regulations, policies and CITES:
Roland Melisch, Katalin Kecse-Nagy and Vinciane Sacre (TRAFFIC), Craig Hoover (USFWS Divisionof Management Authority), Oystein Storkersen (Senior Advisor, Norwegian Directorate for NatureManagement), Per Erik Sigstadsto (Legal Advisor, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management), Tor
Punsvik (Environmental Advisor, The Governor of Svalbard), Niels K. Nielsen (Head of Section, Danish
Ministry of the Environment), Elmer Topp-Jorgensen (former Head of Section, Greenland Environment andNature Agency), Kelly Malsch (UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre) and John Caldwell (former
staff of UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre).

r

Mike Jette of Drive design for completing the design, layout and graphics of the report; and Sabrina Ng forcontributions towards design elements.

r

Jeff McDonald for copy-editing the entire report.

r

The Rufford Foundation for its support to TRAFFIC publication production.

Without the assistance and support of all of the above, this publication would not have been possible. The
development and production of this publication was made possible primarily through generous funding
provided by WWF-US; and additional funds provided by WWF-Canada.

v

ACRONYMS
ADF&G
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (US)ChAZTO
Chukotka Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters (Russia)
CSAS
Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat (for DFO)
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations (US)CoP
Conference of the Parties (for CITES)CITESConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraCITES MACITES Management Authority
CITES SACITES Scientific Authority
COSEWIC
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
DFO
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
EWC
Eskimo Walrus Commission (US)EC
European Community
EU
European Union
EEC
European Economic Community
ESA
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (US)EU-TWIX
European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange
GINR
Greenland Institute of Natural Resources
HTO
Hunters and Trappers Organization (Canada)
HFTCC
Hunting Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee (Canada)
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
KNAPK
Kalaallit Nunanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (Greenland)
KANUKOKA Kalaallit Nunaanni Kommuneqarfiit Kattuffia (Greenland)
LPN
Listing Priority Number (for US ESA)LEMIS
Law Enforcement Management Information System (US)MMC
Marine Mammal Commission (US)MMTL
Marine Mammal Transportation Licence (Canada)
MTRP
Marking Tagging and Reporting Program (US)MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act (US)NDF
Non-Detriment Finding (for CITES)
NLCA
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Canada)
NTI
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (Canada)
NAMMCONorth Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
NMRWB
Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board (Canada)
NWMB
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (Canada)
OSP
Optimal and Sustainable Population

vi

PBR
Potential Biological Removal
QWC
Qayassiq Walrus Commission (US)RWO
Regional Wildlife Organization (Canada)
RSFSR
Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
SRG
Scientific Review Group (EU)SARA
Species at Risk Act (Canada)
TAH
Total Allowable Harvest (for DFO Canada)
TAR
Total Allowable Removal (for DFO Canada)US
United States
USSR
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
WWG
Walrus Working Group (Canada)
WITS
Walrus International Technical and Scientific committee
WHMP
Walrus Harvest Monitoring Program (US)WTR
Wildlife Trade Regulations (EU)WCMC
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
WAPTR
Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations (Canada)
WAPPRIITA Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act(Canada)vii

© WIM VAN PASSEL / WWF-CANONHAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
The Arctic has attracted increasing international attention in recent years from the media
and from the scientific community over concerns regarding climate change and theanticipated changes that will occur in the Arctic ecosystem. This means more attention isplaced on Arctic wildlife, including the charismatic walrus, which plays an important rolein the Arctic ecosystem and is also of great importance to the livelihoods of Arctic peoples.

Walrus hunting has occurred for centuries.
It helps to maintain cultural identity for
Arctic peoples and provides a strong link totheir environment. The hunt contributes to a traditional
subsistence economy, providing a nutritional component
to Arctic peoples’ diets and income from the sale ofanimal products which is used to meet householdliving expenses and to purchase equipment for harvest
activities. Changes to the Arctic ecosystem will not only
affect wildlife and their habitats, but also the livelihoodsof Arctic communities. Given the potential impactsof climate change, it will be important to ensure thatinternational trade does not pose a threat to the species.

This report focuses primarily on the international
trade of walrus parts and derivatives. The purpose
is to provide insight into current international trade,
limitations in available information and potential
impacts trade might be having on the conservationof the species. To give context to the discussion oninternational trade, the report provides backgroundmaterial on walrus, and then summarizes thewalrus management structure for walrus range
States (Canada, United States, Greenland [Denmark],
Norway and Russia).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus1Lack of long-term data and poor quality of
information on population estimates for walrus
makes it difficult to determine whether the harvest
and resulting international trade will affect theconservation of the species. While neither illegal
hunting nor illegal trade appear to be at levels thatwould cause conservation concern for most walrus
range States, there have been some infractions of legal
measures. Due to challenges in identification, it ispossible that some modern walrus ivory (post-1975)
could be traded as “pre-Convention” in attempts tocircumvent regulations. However, the extent to which
this occurs (if at all) is not known.
Walrus are unevenly distributed throughout thecircumpolar sub-Arctic and Arctic. They comprise
two geographically isolated subspecies: the Atlantic
walrus, O. r. rosmarus, and the Pacific walrus, O.
r. divergens. In 2008, the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assessed thespecies as data-deficient with an unknown global
population trend. The impacts of climate change on
walrus are not known, but likely to have a negative
effect on some stocks. Long-term ecological data on
the species are limited and like most Arctic marine
mammals, walrus are difficult to study. Therefore,predicting what impacts climate change could haveon these species is challenging. However, in recent
years, concerns over loss of summer sea ice and its
effects on walrus have been of increased interest.
Since the foraging success, distribution and densities
of many Arctic pinnipeds are associated withsuitable ice conditions, it is anticipated that changes
in the sea ice extent and concentration could impact
walrus. Research on impacts of climate change has
focused primarily on Pacific walrus and very little
on Atlantic walrus. Since there are variations in thetype and extent of sea ice throughout the Arctic, theeffects of global climate change will vary regionally.
Consequently, the responses of walrus will differ
between regions and subspecies, and will likely be
influenced by ice conditions, availability of prey and2

hunting pressure. As sea ice melts, walrus will lose
sea ice platforms and will be more likely to congregate
on coastal haul-outs. This makes walrus, particularly
calves, more vulnerable to disturbances fromanthropogenic activities and predators, which could
increase natural mortality associated with trampling
events. If sea ice is present, walrus rest on the ice
and forage nearby. However, when sea ice is missing,
additional physical stress may be imposed on walrus
because they may have to swim longer distances toand from haul-out sites to feeding areas.
The historical commercial exploitation of walrus
greatly reduced the population size of both subspecies;
however, commercial hunting has not occurred since
the mid-20th century. Canada, the United States,
Greenland (autonomous territory of the Kingdomof Denmark) and Russia currently allow hunting of
walrus for subsistence purposes. Aboriginal peoples
in Canada, coastal-dwelling Alaskan Natives in the
United States, and indigenous people inhabiting
Chukotka (Russia) are permitted to hunt walrus for
subsistence purposes. A small walrus sport hunt ispermitted in Canada for non-indigenous people;
however, any edible parts of this hunt must remain
with the community. In Greenland, only hunters inpossession of a valid hunting licence may hunt walrus.
Norway (and its territories including Svalbard) is
the only range State that prohibits the hunting of
walrus. According to available data, on average 3,215
walrus (401 Atlantic walrus and 2,814 Pacific walrus)
were harvested globally per year from 2006/2007 to
2010/2011. If the estimates for struck and lost rates areapplied to the landings, on average 5,406 walrus (555Atlantic walrus and 4,851 Pacific walrus) were killed
globally per year. Struck and lost refers to animals
which are struck (by a bullet or harpoon) but not
retrieved. A struck and lost animal may or may not die
from its wound(s). Struck and lost rates vary widely
depending on the weather, location, season, hunter
experience and animal behaviour. Using a higher
mortality estimate (which includes a correction

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusfactor to account for struck and lost animals), lessthan four per cent of the estimated global populationof 150,000 to 160,000 walrus were killed during thehunt. Broken down by subspecies, this is less than
three per cent of the estimated 20,000 to 27,000
Atlantic walrus population and less than four per centof the estimated minimum 129,000 Pacific walrus
population. This is a conservative estimate when
considering the actual struck and lost rates may belower than the estimated correction factors used (e.g.
struck and lost rates in the United States and Russia
have been estimated at up to 42% [Pacific walrus], up
to 32% in Canada [Atlantic walrus] and up to 15% inGreenland [Atlantic walrus]).

© FITZ PÖLKING / WWF

For many Arctic communities, hunting activities
satisfy not only cultural, social, and nutritional
needs, but also the financial needs of families andhouseholds. Money earned from the sale of animal
products is used for household living expenses and topurchase equipment for harvest activities. The value ofsubsistence hunts is greater than the monetary valueof the animal parts it generates. Cultural, nutritionaland spiritual value must also be taken into account. In
1994, the annual value of sport hunting in two areasof Canada was estimated to be between CAD160,000
to CAD659,000 (USD117,000 to USD482,000). The
cost of a single walrus sport hunt (paid to southernwholesalers [outfitters]) can reach USD9,000 for a fiveday trip. There are no global estimates on the annual
value of walrus products. However, in Alaska (UnitedStates) in1994, the US dollar value was estimatedto be in the millions. The value of walrus productsvary depending on the country, the item (e.g. carved
figurine, jewellery, tusk, skull), the artistic value andmarket (e.g. auction, tourist shop, online store). The
value of skulls and tusks also varies depending on
the sex, size, and quality and whether it is raw or
carved. Advertised prices in 2008/2009 ranged up
to USD1,880 for carved skulls with tusks, USD3,590

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus3© ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / WWF-US

such as the United States and the European Union(EU). Since 2006, the EU has restricted the import of
walrus parts and derivatives from Greenland, and theUnited States Marine Mammal Protection Act (USMMPA) has prohibited the import of walrus parts
since 1972. However, for each case, under very specificcircumstances and with issuance of permits, imports
can be allowed.

for raw skulls with tusks, up to USD4,100 for carved
tusks, up to USD550 for single raw tusks and up to
USD835 for a pair of raw tusks.
International trade in walrus parts and derivatives isregulated by the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES). The walrus was listed on Appendix III (byCanada) in 1975. Under this listing, CITES export
permits are required for exports of walrus parts andderivatives originating from Canada, and CITES
certificates of origin are required for exports from allother CITES Parties. Issuance of such documents does
not require that a non-detriment finding be madeprior to the export of walrus parts and derivatives (i.e.
proof that international trade is non-detrimental toconservation of species is not required). Independentof CITES, some countries have restrictions on imports,

4

All signatory countries to CITES must submit annual
reports on their international trade of CITES listed
species. The information is then compiled into theUnited Nations Environment Programme-World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)CITES Trade Database, which can be queried online.
These data are the only comprehensive international
trade data available for walrus. The data provide an
overview of international trade in walrus and theirparts and derivatives, but the data cannot provide anestimate of actual number of walrus represented ininternational trade or its impact on the conservation of
the species. Some of the data are based on informationfrom permits issued, not from permits actually used.
International trade in walrus is represented by a variety
of items, such as carvings, bones, ivory pieces, tusks
and skulls. For many of these items, it is impossible todetermine the number of walrus represented by thistrade. For example, one walrus could be the source ofany number of scientific specimens (blood samples),carvings and bones. Only two walrus parts—tusks
and skulls—can be used to make inferences on theimpact of international trade because these parts canrepresent a finite number of animals. A minimum
estimate for skull and tusks data would assume that
two tusks represent one walrus, while a maximum
estimate would assume that two tusks represent two
walrus. Based on the UNEP-WCMC export data forskulls and tusks, a minimum of 461 walrus (149 skulls+ 623tusks/2) were represented in international tradeduring 2005 to 2009, or an average of 92 walrus per year,
to a maximum of 772 walrus (149 skulls + 623 tusks), oran average of 154 walrus per year. The majority of these

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

The total number of items traded internationallyfluctuated from 1987 to 1997 and increases wereheavily influenced by numbers of tusks. These data
could be incorrectly interpreted to indicate that the
numbers of walrus being hunted for trade were also
increasing. However, it is important to note that formost of these fluctuations, a significant number ofthese tusks were recorded by the United States as preConvention (prior to CITES listing in 1975). Since
1998, there has been variability in the quantity ofitems exported, variability which was primarily the
result of greater numbers of bones, ivory and carvings
entering international trade (which cannot be used
to determine finite numbers of walrus). However,the numbers of tusks and skulls (which can be used
to determine numbers of walrus) remained relatively
constant throughout the same period (1998 to 2009).

international trade levels and improving collectionof trade data, before considering more costly andsignificant changes to current management practices;such changes may not be realistic, practical or
financially possible in the short term. Since some
Arctic people and villages are highly dependent on theincome acquired from selling Native handicrafts, any
solutions should consider local needs in an effort toprevent unnecessary hardship to local communities.
If new information suggests that more extensive
solutions are needed, they should then be exploredand management practices adapted where needed.
New information and more precise data on population
size, trend and demographics on both Atlantic andPacific walrus are needed to ensure harvest levels are
sustainable. These will help to ensure that resulting
international trade will not be detrimental to walrus
conservation and that international trade is sourced
from sustainably harvested animals. Cooperation,
collaboration and commitment are needed by all tohelp fill the gaps in our current knowledge. Successful
management will result in populations and stocks
that remain healthy, stable, resilient to threats and a
resource to local communities.
© STAFFAN WIDSTRAND / WWFskulls and tusks were from Atlantic walrus. Very little data
for Pacific walrus were recorded. However, items exported
as personal and household effects (including tourist
souvenirs) may not require permits; therefore, these data
would not be recorded in the CITES Trade Database andwould not be available for analysis (e.g. the United States
does not require permits for these types of items).

Since much of the international trade consists of items
other than tusks and skulls (e.g. carvings, ivory pieces,etc.), and items traded as personal and household
effects may not be recorded (e.g. tourist souvenirs), it
is impossible to determine the number of walrus ininternational trade. However, the available information
does not suggest that international trade currently
poses a threat to walrus conservation. Limitations
in available trade data make it very difficult to makeinferences on the impact of international trade, whether
current provisions and regulations are adequate andwhether further action is needed.
Given the uncertainties regarding the impact ofinternational trade on walrus conservation, thefirst step could be to direct efforts at monitoring

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

5Key recommendationsrr

The inconsistencies in CITES trade data reportingare not specific to walrus; they apply to all taxa
listed under CITES. Therefore, any changes
and improvements to the reporting of the data
would require the agreement, participation andcommitment of the signatory Parties. This could
be facilitated by: development and agreement on
definitions for the purpose of transaction codes;
reporting trade data for the actual items tradedrather than on permits issued (as recommended
by CITES Res Con 11.17), improved reportingof Appendix III species (which includes walrus),
reporting seizure data and by following theguidelines for the preparations and submission of
CITES annual reports. The result would be moreconsistent reporting of data and better analysis
and monitoring of trade in the species. If lack ofconsensus among Parties impedes such changes,
the walrus range States could take a proactive
approach and signal that approach to the CITES
Parties by improving their monitoring andreporting of CITES trade data.

▶

proper use of terminology codes (e.g. theterm “carvings” should not be used for any
ivory or bone-related product because there
are existing codes for “ivory carvings”, “ivory
pieces”, “ivory scraps” and “bone carvings”);
improvement in recording units ofmeasurement (e.g. use number of items fortusks, but use weight for smaller items suchas carvings and ivory pieces) or use multiple
measurements (e.g. record both number of
items and total weight);

future considerations could include creationof new codes (e.g. raw tusks, carved tusks,
ivory jewellery, small ivory carving, andlarge ivory carving [size can be defined in
guidelines]) and information on year of
harvest and possible region.

r

The reporting of items exported as personal andhousehold effects (including tourist souvenirs)
would greatly improve the understanding oftrade dynamics, and provide a more accurate
estimate of the number of walrus represented ininternational trade and whether international
trade poses a threat to the conservation of thespecies. One way to facilitate such reporting
could be through forms (e.g. declare wildlife
products) or issuance of special permits.

r

A range State workshop on international trade in
Arctic species could help to facilitate information
sharing and discussion on issues related tointernational trade, potential problems andrecommended solutions.

r

A review of existing management regimes should
be conducted to ensure effective methods areused to validate and ensure “modern ivory” is not
being recorded and traded as “pre-Convention”,“pre-Act” or “fossil ivory” in attempts to bypass
regulations regarding commercial exportof walrus parts. Clear definitions on what
constitutes fossil ivory may help to prevent suchattempts.

r

The effects that climate change may have on
walrus are not well understood. There arestudies on Pacific walrus and climate change, butlittle more than speculation as to the impactsof climate change on Atlantic walrus. Moreinformation is needed for both subspecies, toensure adequate measures are taken for theconservation and management of the species andto ensure that international trade will not pose athreat to the conservation of the species.

Countries that trade in walrus parts andderivatives could be more explicit whensubmitting information in their CITES annual
reports. Improved reporting of trade in walrus
parts and derivatives could facilitate better
analysis of trade activities. This could include:▶

6▶

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusrr

Range States need to establish more precise struck
and lost rates for multiple regions and during
different seasons over a multi-year time frame.
Since struck and lost rates vary substantially, it
would be preferable to establish estimates for
specific regions rather than apply the same rate
to every region. For instance, while some locals
report that loss rates are as low as five per cent,the rates often used by managers are much higher
because they use rates from studies completed
20 to 40 years ago. Management authorities andArctic communities in each range State should
consider implementing programs that promote
reporting of struck and lost animals. Incentivebased programs could be explored. Alternatively,
trained observers could be used to record
information so hunters do not lose opportunities
to hunt. The development of community outreach
and/or awareness programs focused on improved
reporting could help underscore the benefitsof reporting. Such programs could include
discussion of harvest methods and techniquesthat can help to reduce losses.

in international trade. Ivory carvings could
be traded with certificates or holographic
stickers: hunters and carvers could report theweight of the carvings and tusk tag number
to local authorities and receive a certificate orholographic sticker. The carvings would thenbe associated with a tagging number and any
instance where the total weight of carvings
was greater than the original weight of thetusk would indicate use of an unreported(and possibly illegal) tusk. Branding strategies
or certifying programs using holographic
stickers or certificates could also be usedas marketing tools (similar to the branding
strategy for seafood that has been certified
as sustainable by the Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC)).
▶

Stakeholders and/or range States could
consider developing a study on the supply
chain and consumer demand dynamics forwalrus parts and derivatives. This could
provide more insight into the types of items
traded internationally (e.g. raw vs. processed,
carvings vs. tusks). Analysis of import data,
export data and re-export data can help
determine patterns of trade and countries(or regions) of interest. Such a study could
help determine market drivers whether thereis evidence of illegal trade or indicationsof poaching activities. If markets are better
understood and monitored, measures can betaken to better manage trade activities andinform range States of emerging demand
trends that could impact management efforts.

▶

A study on domestic trade in walrus could
help to provide insight into market dynamics
and international trade (i.e. there may besimilar trade patterns or trade dynamics.
A centralized system for recording andmonitoring domestic trade could provide
useful information for such a study.

Given the resources and costs required to change
current management practices, if concerns withinternational trade become evident at a later date,future considerations could also include these:▶

Range States could consider t hedevelopment of modern tracking systems or
documentation schemes to track and identify
movement of walrus parts and derivatives.
Programs for tagging walrus skulls and tusks
after the hunt (e.g. pit tags, microchips, or
metal tags in skulls or tusks) could help tocollect information on the size and weight oftusks and skulls, and items could be marked
with a unique tagging number. A similarsystem is already utilized in the United States.
Alternatively, range States could consider
developing a documentation scheme to help
identify and track the source of walrus ivory

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

7

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© WILD WONDERS OF EUROPE / OLE JOERGEN LIODDEN /WWF

8

1.0
INTRODUCTION
Increasing international attention has been placed on the Arctic in recent years, most notably due toconcerns over climate change. The recent and anticipated loss of sea ice is a concern for many marine
mammals, including walrus. Public, governmental and industrial interest in the Arctic is at an alltime high and decisions made now will affect the future of the Arctic and wildlife that reside there.

T

he walrus hunt contributes to a traditional
subsistence economy, providing a nutritional
component to Arctic peoples’ diets andincome from the sale of animal products which
is used to meet household living expenses and topurchase equipment for harvest activities. Changes
to the Arctic ecosystem will not only affect walrus
and their habitat, but also the livelihoods of Arctic
communities that coexist with them. Given thepotential impacts of climate change, it will be
important to ensure that international trade does
not pose a threat to the species.

1.1 Purpose of the report
This report focuses primarily on the international
trade1 of walrus parts and derivatives with the purposeof providing insight into current international

International trade is defined as “The exchange of goods and services across international borders” (First National Bank-International Trade Services,
2006) while CITES defines domestic trade as “Any commercial activity, including, but not limited to, sale and purchase, within the territory under thejurisdiction of a CITES Party” and trade as “export, import, re-export and intro from the sea” (CITES, 2008a).
1

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

9trade, limitations in available information and thepotential impacts this trade might be having on theconservation of the species. No attempt was madeto analyse domestic trade or live trade: the intention
is to provide insight into dynamics of international
trade. A centralized system to track and record trade
within a country does not exist for all range States.
As such, this report does not provide data on thedomestic trade (trade within the national borders of acountry). However, in some instances, domestic trade
is discussed in more general terms (e.g. types of items
in trade). Since walrus are listed in Appendix III of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), analysis
of international trade data is possible, but it is notpossible to isolate and analyze data from specificregions within a country, nor can the age of items ininternational trade be distinguished (i.e. only whether
an item is recorded as pre- or post-CITES listing canbe distinguished). The report only utilizes available
scientific information on harvest and international
trade. It does not attempt to incorporate thesubstantial and varied traditional knowledge held byindigenous peoples from around the Arctic regarding
the biology of or population trends related to walrus.

1.2 BackgroundTo provide context to the discussion on international
trade of walrus parts and derivatives, the report
includes background material on walrus, the status of
the species and the importance of wildlife and wildlife
trade in the Arctic. Since climate change is a growing
concern for many Arctic marine mammals associatedwith sea ice, it could, and in some regions already is,affecting hunting activities (and the resulting trade in
walrus). As such, the potential threat climate change
poses to walrus and walrus habitat is briefly discussed.
Although there is a wealth of available literatureon these topics, background material is included inthis report for the reader’s convenience because thisThe walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) is the largest speciesof pinniped (marine mammals including seals andsea lions) in the Arctic (Born et al., 1995; NAMMCO,
2004a). They spend the majority of their time in thewater (Jay et al., 2001; Oakley et al., 2012; Udevitz etal., 2009) and for the remainder, they are hauled out
on sea ice or land (COSEWIC, 2006; USGS, 2011).
Walrus use sea ice as a platform to travel, moult,mate, give birth, nurse and rest between foraging
trips (Fay, 1982; Jay et al., 2010; Kapsch et al., 2010).
They are typically associated with moving pack ice;
however, when ice is lacking in summer2 and fall, they
will congregate and haul out on land (COSEWIC,

2

information is helpful for understanding various
management structures and basis for management
decisions within walrus range States (Canada, UnitedStates, Greenland [Denmark], Norway and Russia)
and at international forums (e.g. meetings andconferences of CITES).
Walrus range across five nations, so management
and conservation of the species is ultimately the
responsibility of those individual range States andis subject to their respective legislation, regulations
and policies. This report presents an overview
of the current management regimes, which vary
substantially across the global distribution of
walrus. Management and trade are closely linked,
so a comprehensive understanding of international
trade dynamics for the species requires familiarity
with how walrus are managed in the different range
States (i.e. management decisions can determine
what can or cannot enter into trade). A summaryof relevant agreements, legislation and regulations(both domestic and international) is provided in the
appendices of the report.

Seasons refer to the northern hemisphere.

10

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© MIKHAIL CHERKASOV / WWF-RUSSIA

2006; Fay, 1982; Jay et al., 2012; Lowry et al., 2008).
Although walrus occupy a large area, they are
considered specialists that occupy a limited ecologicalfood niche (Born, 2005a; 2005b; COSEWIC, 2006;
Kovacs and Lydersen, 2008; USFWS, 2009b). Molluscs
are their primary prey source, but they also eat avariety of small crustaceans, snails and polychaete
worms (Fay, 1982; Jay et al., 2011). Occasionally they
may feed on pinnipeds, fish and birds (Riedman,1990). Walrus require shallow water areas that can
support their prey, access to areas where ice is not
too thick and dense, and haul-out sites on either iceor land (Anderson et al., 2009; Born, 2005a; 2005b;
COSEWIC, 2006; Garlich-Miller et al., 2011; Jay et al.,2012; Kovacs and Lydersen, 2008).
Life history parameters among pinnipeds vary.
Walrus in particular have a long life span (up to 40
years) (NAMMCO, 2004a) and very low reproductive
rates (often half that of other pinnipeds) (Fay, 1985;
NAMMCO, 2004a). Age of sexual maturity varies

between four and 10 years, depending on thesubspecies and sex. However, most males cannot
successfully compete for females until they are 15
years of age (Fay 1982; 1985; NAMMCO, 2004a).
Females reproduce every two to three years andoften have single pups, give birth 15 to 16 months
after conception and nursing their pups for up to two
years (Fay, 1982; 1985; NAMMCO, 2004a). Some life
history traits can make walrus more susceptible toover-harvest and environmental changes (COSEWIC,
2006). However, females invest heavily in their young
which can help to offset their low reproductive rates(Garlich-Miller et al., 2011). A long life span can help
during short-term disturbances, but low reproductive
rates prevent the walrus population size fromincreasing if the population declines to low numbers.
Walrus are well adapted to the cold and ice. They havea thick (up to 15 cm) layer of blubber important forstoring energy and insulating them from the cold,
thick (two to four cm), tough skin for protection in

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

11fights with other walrus and from sharp rocks whilehauling out on land, a streamlined body and broad
flippers that aid in swimming and sensitive whiskers
that help in locating prey (Fay, 1985; NAMMCO, 2004a;
2004b; USFWS, 2009b). Physiologically, their bodies areable to reduce heat loss in extreme cold conditions byconstricting the flow of blood to their peripheral vascularsystem and, like other marine mammals, they can store
oxygen in their blood and muscle providing enormous
blood volume which aids in diving (COSEWIC, 2006;
NAMMCO, 2004b; USFWS, 2009b).
Walrus foraging habits play an important role in the
Arctic ecosystem by influencing the structure of benthic
invertebrate communities (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011;
Jay and Fischbach, 2008). As they forage, they disturb
the seabed. The stiff bristles around their mouth act likefingers, which help locate and identify prey. When afood item is located, walrus pump sediment away fromthe prey with their flippers or by squirting water fromtheir mouths, and then use their powerful mouths tosuck prey out of the sediment (Born, 2005b; GarlichMiller et al., 2011; Oliver et al., 1983). These activities
create furrows or pits which open up new areas andcreate habitat for invertebrate larvae to colonize (Born,
2005b; Oliver et al., 1983). In addition, habitat forbenthic biota is provided under the discarded shellsof their prey (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011; Oliver et al.,
1983; Ray et al., 2006). The disturbance of the sediment
releases nutrients, oxygen and nitrogen into thesurrounding water column, which are then available tophytoplankton (Born, 2005b; Ray et al., 2006; USFWS,
1994). The release of nutrients during foraging may
also contribute to increases in production and benthic
biomass (Ray et al., 2006).

1.2.1 Walrus populationand conservation statuswaters near Canada, Svalbard (Norway), Greenland(Denmark), the United States and Russia (Figure1.1). Walrus comprise two geographically isolated
subspecies: the Atlantic walrus, O. r. rosmarus, and
the Pacific walrus, O. r. divergens (Reijnders et al.,
1993; USFWS, 2010b). A third subspecies of walrus in
the Laptev Sea, O. r. laptevi, has been proposed (and ismanaged as a separate subspecies in Russia); however,its taxonomic status remains uncertain (COSEWIC,
2006; Lindqvist et al., 2009; Reijnders et al., 1993;
Richard and Campbell, 1988). A study by Lindqvist
et al. (2009) has provided evidence based on DNA
analysis suggesting that O. r. laptevi be abandoned
and that walrus in the Laptev Seas be recognized as
the westernmost population of the Pacific walrus
subspecies. However, the samples used in this study
were from old samples collected in the late 1880s to
early 1930s (Lindqvist et al., 2009). In 2013, WWF
and Canon led an expedition to the Laptev Sea where
DNA-samples were collected from live walrus in theregion. The samples have been sent for analysis to becompared with DNA from Atlantic and Pacific walrus,
but results are not yet available.
Many publications and reports are inconsistent
with use of the terms “population”, “stock” or“sub-population” with regard to walrus and theirgeographical boundaries without clarification on thebasis of delineation (genetic or management). The
biological definition of a population generally refers toa reproductively isolated group of animals, whereas astock is a concept often used in fisheries management
and refers to resource units that are subject to hunting
removals (Outridge et al., 2003). For the purposes ofthis report, the term stock refers to resource units
or management units keeping in mind that some ofthese stocks may or may not be populations in the
biological sense.

Walrus are unevenly distributed throughout thecircumpolar sub-Arctic and Arctic (Figure 1.3)
(Lowry et al., 2008). They are found primarily in

12

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusFigure 1.1

Global walrus distributionŽŵƉŝůĞĚďǇ<ĂƐƐĞƌΘtŝĞĚŵĞƌ͕ϮϬϭϭ

Source: © KASSER AND WIEDMER (2012).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

13The commercial exploitation 3 of walrus from the18th and 20th centuries significantly reduced the
population size and population structure of thespecies, and some stocks have never recovered For
example, the Northwestern Atlantic population of theAtlantic walrus is now extirpated (COSEWIC, 2006;
DFO, 2008; Fay et al., 1989; Richard and Campbell,
1988;). The global conservation status for walrus
was last assessed in 2008 by the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The species
was designated as data-deficient4 in the Red List of
Threatened Species with an unknown population
trend (Lowry et al., 2008). The global population of
walrus is currently estimated at 150,000 to 160,000
animals (approximately 20,000 to 27,000 Atlantic
walrus, a minimum of 129,000 Pacific walrus and an
estimated 2,000 to 3,000 Laptev walrus) (Appendix
A). This estimate is based on the sum of available
population estimates for the various stocks; however,
not all of these estimates have been accepted by thescientific community. The correction factors used
to calculate some of the estimates could still be readjusted or modified depending on advice fromscientific and management bodies. Such changes
would result in adjustments to the final population
estimates provided in this report. Therefore, caution
should be used when using these aggregated estimates(see Appendix A for additional details).
Furthermore, many estimates are not consideredadequate or accurate due to incomplete coverageof areas, and in some cases they are no more thaneducated guesses. Population estimates are very
difficult because walrus occur in patches over vastand remote areas. Aerial surveying methods aremost often used, but these can be time-consuming,
expensive and inaccurate, because an unknown
proportion of the population may be hidden in
the water at any given time (NAMMCO 2004a).
Therefore, it is likely that there are more animals thanare actually observed or estimated. An additional
complication is that walrus may conduct seasonal
movement divided by sex and age, which makes
precise total population estimates difficult to obtain.
In the span of a few days, large numbers of walrus
could move from one area to another haul-out site.
Some of the main anthropogenic threats to walrus
include hunting activities, noise disturbance andindustrial activities. Commercial fisheries, oil andgas development, and shipping activities can cause
disturbances to walrus during feeding or near haulout sites. These activities do not currently appear to bea significant threat to the species; however, all these
activities have the potential to impact walrus in the
future (COSEWIC, 2006; Miller et al., 2011). As sea
ice melts, areas which were previously inaccessible
may see increases in industrial activity or shiptraffic, which may increase risk of oil spills andother pollutants. Noise from seismic activity, ships
and aircraft could disturb walrus and cause themto flee from or even abandon haul-out sites for ones
less disturbed (COSEWIC, 2006; Miller et al., 2011).
Disturbances may also the increase risk of natural
mortality if animals stampede to the water and aretrampled by other walrus; this has occurred more
frequently in recent years. Other threats include
disease and predation, changes to prey sources,
alteration and destruction of habitat, and othernatural mortality events, such as stampede events

3
Commercial harvest of wildlife is defined as “the act of killing wild animals or plants primarily for economic benefits. Subsistence hunting and sport
hunting are not considered to be commercial harvest” (Eggers and Carroll, 2011). Subsistence is defined as “The patterned acquisition and use of local
resources in such a way as to enhance the social relationships existing among a community of people. Subsistence, so defined, allows the community
to reproduce itself and its enabling cultural traditions over time” (Freeman et al., 1992).

“A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its
distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat.” (IUCN, 2008).
4

14

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

© WILD WONDERS OF EUROPE / OLE JOERGEN LIODDEN / WWF(COSEWIC, 2006; Miller et al., 2011). Threats tosome walrus habitat are primarily influenced by lossof sea ice. Since loss of sea ice is considered a primary
threat to walrus and could potentially impact hunting
activities (and resulting trade) in the future, climatechange is discussed in more detail in Section 1.2.2
Climate change in the Arctic ecosystem.

Atlantic walrus
There is ongoing debate on how many stocks exist
within the Atlantic walrus subspecies and whether
they should be labelled as stocks, populations or
subpopulations. There are two general regions of
distribution for Atlantic walrus: one in the western
Atlantic Arctic and one in the eastern Atlantic
Arctic. However, several stocks have been recognizedwithin these regions (Reijnders et al., 1993). The
Atlantic walrus inhabit the coastal areas throughout
the eastern Canadian Arctic, Greenland, Svalbard(Norway) and the Russian Arctic (COSEWIC, 2006;
DF0, 2000; NAMMCO, 2004a), with the majorityof Atlantic walrus found within northern Canada
and Greenland. In winter, Atlantic walrus are foundin areas where ice is thick enough to support theirweight and in close proximity to leads or polynyas(open water areas surrounded by sea ice) (Born et al.,
1995; NAMMCO, 2004a; Steward, 2008b). Atlantic
walrus breed in restricted areas of open water ornear polynyas (Steward, 2008b). In summer, they arefound in herds (ranging from a few individuals up to athousand animals) hauled out on ice or land. They are
typically segregated by sex and age, with adult males
forming separate groups. However, mixed herds are
not uncommon (Born et al., 1995; NAMMCO, 2004a;
Steward, 2008b).
The current population estimate for the Atlantic
walrus is based on known estimates for some stocks. A
minimum population estimate of approximately 20,000
animals to 27,000 animals was calculated by combining
these estimates (see Appendix A). The Atlantic walrus

population prior to the European discovery of North
America numbered in the hundreds of thousands(NAMMCO, 2004a). This rough estimate was basedon recorded observations by early explorers, tradersand commercial walrus hunting records (NAMMCO,
2004a). However, there is no comprehensive compilationof historical records to estimate initial populationlevels (COSEWIC, 2006). The global Atlantic walrus
population was severely reduced by extensive
overharvesting for commercial purposes from the18th to the 20th century (NAMMCO, 2004a). Since
population estimates for each stock are not all wellquantified, it is difficult to determine trends of increaseor decrease (NAMMCO, 2004a).

Paciﬁc walrus
Pacific walrus are larger and have longer tusks thanAtlantic walrus. A single population is shared by theUnited States and Russia, which inhabits the Bering,
Chukchi and most likely Laptev Seas. The status of
walrus in the Laptev seas is uncertain and unclear onwhether they are part of Pacific walrus population orif they are a separate subspecies (i.e. Laptev walrus).
However, DNA and data collected from the Laptev Sea
in October 2013 may help to resolve the uncertainty.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus15© Y.-J. REY-MILLET / WWF-CANON

Occasionally walrus move into the East Siberian Sea
and the Beaufort Sea in summer (USFWS, 2010b). In
winter, nearly the entire population is found in the
Bering Sea on packs of sea ice (USFWS, 1994).
The population size for Pacific walrus has never been
known with certainty (USFWS, 2010b; WWF andNature Conservancy, 2004). Pacific walrus werecommercially over-exploited from the 18th to the 20th
century which significantly reduced the population(USFWS, 1994). It is speculated that the adoption of
quotas in the 1960s allowed the population to increase.
By the 1970s and 1980s, walrus researchers wereconcerned that the population may have reached its
carrying capacity5 and predicted that the population
would likely decrease in response to densitydependent mechanisms (USFWS, 1994; 2013). Reduced

productivity levels in combination with the removal of
United States harvest quotas/limits in 1979 resulted ina further population decline (USFWS, 2013).
The current population estimate for Pacific walrus
is based on data collected from a joint United States/
Russia survey in 2006. A minimum population
estimate of approximately 129,000 animals wascalculated (see Appendix A) (USFWS, 2010b).
However, due to poor weather conditions, a large
portion of available habitat was not surveyed(Speckman et al., 2011). Therefore, the population is
likely larger and the number provided is considered to
be a minimum estimate of population size (Speckman
et al., 2011; USFWS, 2010b). Since the historic
population size is unknown and past population
estimates were highly variable and not comparable

5
In population biology, a carrying capacity is essentially the maximum population size of a species that can be sustained indefinitely in a given
environment.

16

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusbetween years due to differences in timing of surveys,
methodologies and areas surveyed, it is difficult
to determine trends of increase or decrease in the
population. In 2010, the United States Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) established a potential
biological removal (PBR) of 2,580 animals for the
global Pacific walrus population. Since the total
human-caused removal of the global Pacific walrus
was estimated to be approximately 4,963 to 5,460
walrus per year (from both the United States andRussia), which exceeds the established PBR of 2,580
animals, the USFWS classified the stock as a strategic
stock6 (USFWS, 2010b). This survey did not include
walrus from the Laptev Sea. In 2013 approximately
2,500 to 3,000 walrus were observed in the region(Sandford, 2013).

characteristics of the Arctic climate are influenced
by the physical properties of ice and snow, including
low thermal conductivity, high reflectivity and highlatent heat required to convert ice to water. Therefore,
the Arctic climate comprises a variety of regional
climates with different physical and ecological climatecharacteristics (McBean et al., 2005). As a result,future climate change will impact Arctic regions
in different ways, both spatially and temporally.
These characteristics and features make the Arctic
a complex system that has significant inputs to theglobal climate system (McBean et al., 2005).

Global climate change is considered by many to be
the leading environmental concern the world faces
today. Within this century, our world is expected tochange dramatically, and how its natural systems will
respond, or to what extent these changes will affectbiodiversity and the way in which people currently
live, is uncertain.

Three main Arctic mechanisms can impact climatechange for the entire planet: changes in surface
reflectivity as vegetation cover changes and as snow andice melt; changes in ocean circulation as fresh water isadded to the ocean by melting Arctic ice; and changes
in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into theatmosphere as Arctic warming progresses (ACIA, 2004).
Changes in the global climate system are indisputable
and are evident from observations of the increases in the
global average air and ocean temperatures, rising global
average sea levels (IPCC, 2007), widespread meltingof snow and ice (ACIA, 2004; IPCC, 2007), reductionsin the thickness and extent of sea ice and thawing
permafrost, etc. (ACIA, 2004).

Life in the Arctic is both vulnerable and resilient,surviving in some of the most extreme conditions on
the planet (ACIA, 2004). The short growing season
contributes to the Arctic’s vulnerability and the highlyvariable climate also affects Arctic life (ACIA, 2004;
McBean et al., 2005). The Arctic climate is driven toa large extent by seasonal variations in the amountof solar radiation, with long summer days and very
little sunlight during winter months. Regional

The population ecology of some Arctic marine
mammals is affected by factors that influence theannual duration and distribution of sea ice and snow
(Loeng et al., 2005). Changes in the quality of sea ice,
timing of seasonal sea ice formation, disappearance of
seasonal sea ice and the extent of cover for both multiyear and seasonal sea ice could affect ice-dependent
species in the Arctic (Loeng et al., 2005). The meltingof sea ice will result in a loss of habitat for many Arctic

1.2.2 Climate change in
the Arctic ecosystem

The US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) defines a strategic stock as “ a marine mammal stock: A) for which the level of direct human-caused
mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to belisted as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [16U.S.C.1531 et seq.] within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed asa threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16U.S.C.1531 et seq.), or is designated as depleted under thischapter (Section 3).”
6

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

17species. This loss of habitat and related changes inphenology across the Arctic could affect survival rates,
reproductive rates, and changes in prey abundance anddistribution, and these could result in decreased fitness(e.g. poor body condition or exhaustion) and increased
risk of disease (Burek et al., 2008; Laidre et al., 2008).
Aside from potential fundamental changes to the Arctic
ecosystem, loss of sea ice may also open up areas in the
Arctic that were previously inaccessible to humans andspecifically to industrial activities such as shipping,extraction of natural resources such as oil and gas, andcommercial fisheries (ACIA, 2005). This will likely
increase shipping traffic and hence underwater noise,but how this will affect marine mammals, especiallythose that communicate by underwater sound, is
not known. Changes in sea ice conditions may also
prevent hunters from accessing marine mammals. In
the fall of 2013, poor weather conditions (fog, winds
and fast retreat of ice) meant fewer opportunities tohunt walrus because hunters were not able to get out
onto the ice (D’oro, 2013). This resulted in a historically
low harvest of walrus – less than 20% of the 10-year
harvest for communities of Gambell and Savoonga(Alaska, United States) (D’oro, 2013). The villages relyon the walrus harvest, where meat is a staple foodand proceeds of ivory trade pay the utility bills (D’oro,2013). It was one of the coldest winters to hit the area
in decades, and hunters were unable to maneuver theirboats past unusually thick ice in the Bering Sea as thewalrus herds migrated past (Carlton, 2013).

WalrusLong-term ecological data for walrus are limited and,like most marine mammals, walrus are difficult to
study. Therefore, it is difficult to predict how climatechange will impact the species. However, in recent
years, concern over loss of summer sea ice and its
effect on walrus have increased. Since the foraging
success, distribution and densities of many Arctic
pinnipeds are associated with suitable ice conditions,
it is expected that changes in the sea ice extent

18

and concentration will affect walrus (Tynan and
Demaster, 1997). Walrus are specialists occupying alimited ecological food niche; thus, changes in theirmain prey base (e.g. bivalves) will likely impact them
(MacCracken, 2012). The distribution, type and extent
of sea ice vary throughout the Arctic, and climate
trends and patterns of change are not uniform andare highly complex (Tynan and Demaster, 1997).
Therefore, the effects this could have on marine
mammals are expected to vary geographically (Tynan
and Demaster, 1997). Consequently, the responses of
walrus to climate change may differ between regions
and subspecies and will likely be influenced by ice
conditions, human pressure (harvest and disturbance)
and the availability of prey (Born, 2005a; 2005b; Jayet al., 2010b; MacCracken, 2012). Recent studies
have provided some insight into the potential effects
climate change could have on the species. However,many of the predictions and hypotheses are largely
based on information known about the species, theirhabitat requirements, projections of summer sea ice
extent and their role in the ecosystem.
Like climate change, ocean acidification is also a
consequence of rising atmospheric CO 2 (Doney et al.,2009). Until recently, summer sea ice cover has limited
the amount of atmosphere ocean exchange possible(Loeng et al., 2005; McBean et al., 2005; Robbins,2012). However, in the past few decades, melting ofsummer sea ice has increasingly exposed shelf waters,
added freshwater to the ocean and allowed for greater
atmosphere ocean exchange to occur (i.e. the Arctic
Ocean could potentially absorb more CO2) (ACIA,
2004; Loeng et al., 2005; Robbins, 2012). As CO 2 isabsorbed by sea water, chemical reactions occur that
reduce seawater pH and carbonate ion concentrations(Doney et al., 2009; Garlich-Miller et al., 2011;
Robbins, 2012). This process is known as ocean
acidification. Since the 1800s, pH levels in the ocean
have dropped by 0.1 units and predictions suggest pH
reductions of 0.3 to 0.5 units by year 2100 (Caldeiraand Wickett, 2005; Cumin et al., 2011; Doney et

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANAON

al., 2009; Orr et al., 2005). Some organisms, such asclams and snails, require carbonate ions to produce
calcium carbonate (aragonite and calcite) which isused for building and maintaining exoskeletons andshell material (Doney et al., 2009; Garlich-Miller et al.,2011; Robbins, 2012). A decrease in concentrations ofcarbonate ions could place some [important walrusprey] organisms at risk (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011).
However, there is currently no direct evidence thatsuggests changes in ocean acidification have resulted
in alterations to walrus distribution, behaviour or
population dynamics (MacCracken, 2012).
Changes in the Arctic marine ecosystems may also
influence shifts in marine species composition(Grebmeier, 2012). In the northern Bering Sea, forinstance, there have been indications of a northward
shift to pelagic-dominated marine ecosystems, whichwere previously limited to the southern Bering Sea(Grebmeier et al., 2006; 2012). The previously icedominated shallow ecosystems which favoured
benthic communities and bottom feeders may bereplaced by ecosystems dominated by more pelagic
fish (Grebmeier et al., 2006). This would result in a shift
from Arctic to more sub-Arctic conditions (Grebmeier
et al., 2006). Changes in species composition combinedwith the effects of ocean acidification could resultin fundamental changes to the walrus prey baseand structure. However, to what extent and in what
timeframe that may happen are not known.

Atlantic walrus
Atlantic walrus typically segregate according to sex
and age class (Born et al., 1995). However, mixed herds(of both sexes and age class) have been known to haul
out together on land, even if sea ice is present (Laidre
et al., 2008). Many of the productive feeding areas for
Atlantic walrus are closer to coastal haul-outs, possibly
due to a narrower continental shelf in comparison tolarger offshore shelf areas in the Bering and Chukchi
Seas used by Pacific walrus (Laidre et al., 2008). Fast ice(ice attached to the shoreline) has also been considered
one of the limiting seasonal factors excluding Atlantic
walrus from some feeding areas (Laidre et al., 2008).
There is speculation that climate change could provide somebenefits for Atlantic walrus, at least in areas they occupy
currently (Born, 2005a). The islands in the Northeast
Atlantic Arctic may provide more terrestrial habitat thanareas near Svalbard and Frans Josef Land in the Northwest
Atlantic Arctic (Kovacs and Lydersen, 2008).
An earlier sea ice break-up in spring and later sea ice
formation in fall would increase the duration of open,
ice-free water areas (Born, 2005a; 2005b; Laidre et al.,2008). Prolonged periods of open water conditions could
increase the amount of time Atlantic walrus have toaccess coastal areas, allowing them to spend more time
inshore (Born, 2005a). Prolonged access to foraging
areas could enhance body conditions (i.e. allow walrus
to acquire more blubber), enabling them to better
withstand and survive winter conditions (Born, 2005a;
2005b). However, if the population grows, competition
for food and other resources will increase (Born, 2005a).
Whether the current prey source is able to withstandincreased foraging by Atlantic walrus and whether
walrus are able to switch to alternative food sources if
this occurs is unclear (Born, 2005a). However, there areareas in which Atlantic walrus do prey upon seals (Bornet al., 1995; NAMMCO, 2004a), which could eventually
become an important alternative food source (Born,

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

19

2005a; Born et al., 1995). Factors which contribute to low
primary productivity in some Arctic waters include lowtemperatures, solid ice cover and limited sunlight, andnutrient availability (Born, 2005a). Reduced ice coverand shorter periods of ice coverage would allow sunlightto penetrate to a greater depth in the water column,
which could potentially increase marine primary
production (Born, 2005a; 2005b; Laidre et al., 2008).
Available information about Atlantic walrus has
been used to make inferences and hypotheses about
the effects climate change could have on the species.
However, there are no scientific studies or research
into this particular topic. Until such research is
conducted, available information is insufficient tomake firm conclusions or to predict what effects
climate change could have on Atlantic walrus.

Paciﬁc walrus
Pacific walrus movements and distribution appear to
be closely associated with seasonal variations of sea
ice (MacCracken, 2012). Within their range, Pacificwalrus inhabit areas with unconsolidated ice in close
proximity to polynyas, open leads and ice-divergent
regions (Jay et al., 2011; Ray et al., 2006; Tynan and
Demaster, 1997). In winter, the majority of the
population aggregate in large groups in the Bering
Sea near broken pack ice that is thin enough for themto break through, but thick enough to support theirweight (Born, 2005b; Jay et al., 2010a; 2010b; Jay andFischbach, 2008; MacCracken, 2012; Rausch et al.,2007; Ray et al., 2006; Tynan and Demaster, 1997).
In spring, the majority of young walrus and females
follow the receding sea ice north into the Bering Strait.
By late June or July, they are distributed throughout
the Chukchi Sea, using seasonal sea ice as resting
and foraging platforms (Fay, 1982; Jay et al., 2010a;
2010b; Jay and Fischbach, 2008; Krupnik and Ray,2007; MacCracken, 2012; Rausch et al., 2007; USFWS,
2009b). In contrast, the majority of adult males stayin the Bering Sea during summer, foraging from20

coastal haul-outs in Alaska and Chukotka, and they
stay in these regions until September or October (Fay,1982; Jay et al., 2010a; 2010b; Jay and Fischbach, 2008;
Krupnik and Ray, 2007; MacCracken, 2012). Little is
known about their fall migration, but it is suspectedthat as the sea ice begins to form in fall, Pacific walrus
in the Chukchi Sea migrate south through the Bering
Strait, often ahead of the freezing pack ice. They gather
on coastal haul-outs from November to December
while waiting for thick sea ice to form which cansupport their weight (Krupnik and Ray, 2007). Oncethe ice conditions are favourable, they aggregate ingroups on the sea ice which transports them to thecentral Bering Sea (Krupnik and Ray, 2007).
An earlier, more extensive sea ice retreat beginningin June and lasting until September, and a freezeup delayed until October and November, have been
observed in recent years (Jay et al., 2012). Hunters
in Alaska have also observed changes in Pacificwalrus migration, with spring migration occurring
a month earlier and fall migration delayed by amonth (MacCracken, 2012). Thus, Pacific walrus arearriving earlier, occupying more northern regions of
the continental shelf and leaving later than has been
observed in the past (Jay et al., 2012). Pacific walrus
are now foraging in nearshore areas rather thanoffshore areas (Jay et al., 2012). In the past, young
walrus and females did not typically use coastal haulouts, possibly because of the limited distances they can
travel to forage (especially females with calves in tow)
or possibly to reduce calf mortality from potential
trampling at crowded coastal haul-outs (Laidre et al.,2008; MacCracken, 2012). The reduction of summer sea
ice has increased the use of coastal haul-outs by young
walrus and females (Jay et al., 2011; Kavry et al., 2008)
both in Alaska (United States) and Chukotka (Russia).
In some instances, this has resulted in large
aggregations of Pacific walrus at new coastal haulout sites (e.g. Cape Kozhevnikov) and the revivalof inactive or old coastal haul-out sites (e.g. CapeHAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Vankarem) (Bultunov et al., 2008; Kavry et al., 2008;
Kochnev, 2006). In summer and fall of 2007 and 2009,
thousands of Pacific walrus used haul-outs along thecoast of northwestern Alaska and tens of thousands
did so along the coast of northern Chukotka; this was
not a common occurrence in the past (AssociatedPress, 2007; Bultunov et al., 2008; Jay et al., 2011;
Joling, 2009b). In 2010, approximately 120,000 Pacificwalrus were observed on coastal haul-outs on Russia’s
Cape Serdse Kamen in Chukotka (MacCracken,2012). If adequate sea ice exists (as it did in 2008),
Pacific walrus will not typically haul out on land
(MacCracken, 2012).
As Pacific walrus gather in high densities on coastal
areas, a stressful environment can be created foranimals that are tired, weak and hungry (Kavry et al.,2008; Kochnev, 2004). This makes them vulnerable
to disturbances in which anthropogenic or predator
stimuli can cause Pacific walrus to panic and createa stampede as they flee to the water (Jay et al., 2011;
Kavry et al., 2008; Kochnev, 2004; MacCracken, 2012).
During such an event, many animals (often juveniles
and calves) are trampled by other walrus (Jay et al.,2011; Kavry et al., 2006; MacCracken, 2012). Manyof these animals become injured and some die fromtheir injuries (Kochnev, 2004). Some coastal haul-outs
are situated on steep, rocky slopes which exacerbate
mortality during a stampede (Kavry et al., 2008). As
Pacific walrus crowd these areas, they also increase
the likelihood of erosion and rock slides which canalso trigger stampedes (Kavry et al., 2006; Williams,
2006). In 2007, thousands of animals were trampled
and killed during a stampede event in Russia (Joling,
2009b); and in 2009, over a hundred animals were
killed during a suspected stampede event in Alaska (i.e.
there was evidence of bruising and injuries consistent
with trampling) (Anon., 2009b; Joling, 2009a).
Sea ice provides platforms for offshore feeding, but it
also provides constant motion over widely dispersed
feeding grounds (e.g. prey patches) (Jay and Fischbach,2008). As the sea ice recedes, Pacific walrus lose suchplatforms and must either haul out on coastal areas
or follow the receding sea ice to the deep ocean basin
where access to food is limited (Cooper et al., 2006;
Jay and Fischbach, 2008; Kavry et al., 2008). Evenif food is available, the water depth in these areas
may exceed their diving capabilities (Kavry et al.,2008). Although Pacific walrus are capable of diving
to depths of up to 250 m (Born et al., 2005), they
typically feed in waters less than 80 m deep where itis easier to obtain and find prey (Cooper et al., 2006;
Jay and Fischbach, 2008). Data from tracked Pacificwalrus in 2007 showed that they rested on remnant
ice floes over shallow waters of the Chukchi Sea as themain ice edge retreated over deeper waters (Jay andFischbach, 2008). The data suggested that in order tomaintain access to preferred foraging areas, Pacificwalrus will exploit sparse ice if it is present (Jay andFischbach, 2008). Results from a recent study by Jay etal. (2010a) suggest that local areas for Pacific walrus
activities were independent of the movement of ice
floes (at a local scale) and that sea ice movements
may not prevent animals from feeding intensely on
local benthic prey. Pacific walrus will also travel long
distances to reach suitable feeding grounds and, insummer, males will swim to and from coastal haulouts to foraging areas (Ray et al., 2006).
Nearshore prey populations are likely to be subjected
to greater predation pressure as more Pacific walrus
use coastal haul-outs (Jay and Fischbach, 2008). The
impact this could have on prey sources is not known,
and it is unclear whether increased foraging pressure
will alter or deplete nearshore prey communities (Jayand Fischbach, 2008). As stated earlier, Pacific walrus
play an important role in the Arctic ecosystem andcan influence the benthic invertebrate community
structure (Jay and Fischbach, 2008). Increased useof land haul-outs by young walrus and females insummer months could also lead to increased energy
expenditures from foraging trips due to longer travel
distances to access prey (Jay et al., 2011). However, the

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

21energetic consequences of this foraging behaviour are
not well understood (Jay et al., 2012).
Jay et al. (2010b) developed a model that integrated
anthropogenic stresses and potential effects ofchanging environmental factors for the status ofPacific walrus into the 21st century. Probabilities
of robust and persistent status of the population
decreased from levels of 95% in 2004 to 78% by 2050
and to 60% by 2095, while probabilities of vulnerable,rare and extirpated increased from levels of five percent in 2004 to 22% by 2050 and to 40% by 2095 (Jayet al., 2010b). These probabilities indicate a trend toworsening conditions for Pacific walrus. However, thedegree of uncertainty increased over future periods,
and hunting and sea ice habitat had the greatest
inf luence on probabilities of future population
outcomes (Jay et al., 2010b).

1.2.3 Importance of
wildlife and wildlife
trade in the Arctic
The Arctic is the northernmost region of the Earthand generally bounded in the south by the tree lines ofEurasia and North America (Figure 1.2). It is a highly
complex and integrated system which encompasses
an ice-covered ocean that spans approximately 14
million km2. Surrounding landmasses comprise avariety of landscapes such as mountains and glaciers,
flat plains and plateaus, polar deserts, rugged uplands,
wetlands, rivers and ponds (Huntington et al., 2005b).
Since the last Ice Age, many parts of the Arctic havebeen inhabited by humans who have evolved, adaptedand altered their distribution in relation to changes inclimate, resource availability, landscape, and hunting
and fishing technologies (Huntington et al., 2005a).
Immigration to the Arctic increased substantially,

most notably during the 20th century, when people
relocated there in search of opportunities such as
exploiting natural resources (e.g. oil, gold and fish)(Huntington et al., 2005b).
Today, close to four million people live in the Arctic,
including indigenous peoples and recent arrivals,
hunters and herders living on the land, and citydwellers (Huntington et al., 2005b). Indigenous people
throughout the Arctic have distinct cultures, traditions
and languages and can be subdivided according todifferent language families7 (Figure 1.3), but all havea close connection to their surrounding environment(Huntington et al., 2005b; Nuttall et al., 2005).
Wildlife is of great spiritual significance and has
provided a foundation for the development ofmany Arctic cultures. Wildlife is often portrayed inmythologies, festivals, oral histories and sacred places(Klein et al., 2005; Nuttall et al., 2005). Many Arctic
communities still rely on hunting, fishing, herding
and gathering renewable resources as an importantpart of their livelihood and as a main source ofsubsistence (Huntington et al., 2005b; Nuttall et al.,2005). These activities provide a strong link to theenvironment and continue to be of great importancefor maintaining social relationships and cultural
identity (Nuttall et al., 2005). Many traditions
have been maintained largely due to the cultural
importance of wildlife and the economic incentivethat wildlife provides, such as cheaper and relatively
accessible local foods (e.g. fish, meat from terrestrial
and marine mammals, edible plants, berries, etc.)
compared to more expensive imported foods (Nuttall
et al., 2005).
Walrus have been hunted for many centuries.
Commercial exploitation of walrus in Canada began
in the late 17th century when walrus were hunted for

The subdivisions of Arctic language families include: Inughuit and Kalaallit of Greenland; Inuit, Inuvialuit, Athapaskans, and Dene of northern Canada;
Iñupiat, Athapaskans, Yup’ik, Alutiiq, and Aleuts of Alaska; Yukaghir, Chukchi, Even, Evenk, and Nenets of the Russian far north and Siberia; and theSaami of Fennoscandia and Russia’s Kola Peninsula (Nuttall et al., 2005).
7

22

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusFigure 1.2

Definitions of the Arctic

Source: © PHILIPEE REKACEWICZ, UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL, 2005.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

23

Figure 1.3

Demography of indigenous peoples of the Arctic based on linguistic groups

Source: © HUGO AHLENIUS, UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL, 2010.
Note: This figure does not include the Cree of Eeyou Istchee in Québec (Canada) or the six Coastal Cree Nations of Ontario (Canada).

24

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

blubber (oil), skins, meat, tusks (ivory), etc. (Reeves, 1978;
Born, 2005b; NAMMCO, 2004a; USFWS, 1994). This
was the primary cause of the extirpation of the CanadianNorthwest Atlantic walrus population (Richard andCampbell, 1988). In Greenland, the commercial trade in
walrus products dates back to the late 9th century when
walrus parts were a significant trade item for the Vikings.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, walrus skins, oil and tusks
were important trade commodities in Europe (Born,
2005b). Atlantic walrus were also harvested in Russia (inthe Barents and Kara Seas) in the 12th century, mainly for
their skins, tusks and blubber, for use in Russia and western
Europe (Timoshenko, 1984; Chapsky, 1939). Pacific walrus
were harvested in the Russian Arctic in the early 16th
century, when tusks were the primary target, and until
the middle of the 20th century, skins and blubber weresought (Arseniev, 1927; Chapsky, 1934). Pacific walrus werealso commercially harvested in the United States8 during
the 19th and 20th centuries during the pelagic whaling
industry (Bockstoce and Botkin, 1982; Garlich-Miller etal., 2011). This exploitation led to the decline of both the
Atlantic and Pacific walrus populations. From 1869 to 1879,
an average of more than 12,000 walrus were killed peryear and their numbers fell by half (Fay et al., 1989). The
population appeared to recover between 1880 and 1900,
but exploitation began again and at a higher rate, peaking
in the 1920s. In Russia during the 1930s, between 1,000 to
8,000 walrus were killed each year, and by the mid-1950s
the population was again reduced to almost half its size
(Fay et al., 1989). In Canada, hunting was the main causeof the loss of the Northwest Atlantic population, which
is now extirpated (DF0, 2008). However, walrus have notbeen commercially hunted since 1928 in Canada, since1937 in the US, since 1952 in Norway and its territories, andsince 1956 in Greenland and Russia. At present, walrus are
hunted only for subsistence purposes, with the exceptionof a small sport hunt in Canada (Anon., 1928; 1952; 1956a;
1956b; USFWS 1994).

Historically, walrus were a vital resource providing
food, shelter and tools to Arctic communities(Knudtson, 1998; Richard and Campbell, 1988). Walrus
meat provided nutrition, hides were used in theconstruction of skin boats, blubber was a source of oil
for cooking and heating, and the tusks were carved into
tools, weapons such as harpoon tips, and handicrafts(Knudtson, 1998; USFWS, 1994).
Today, walrus hunting contributes to the subsistence
economy in Arctic communities (Anderson andGarlich-Miller, 1994; COSEWIC, 2006). The meat isfood for humans and dogs, while the tusks and bacula(penis bones or oosiks) can be sold for additional
income (Anderson and Garlich-Miller, 1994; Born etal., 1995; COSEWIC, 2006; USFWS, 1994). The hunt
is a traditional activity that contributes to spiritualand cultural well-being (COSEWIC, 2006).

Box 1.1 Edible walrus parts
Many communities in the Arctic consume
walrus meat. It can be eaten raw or boiled, or
it can be aged (fermented) to make “igunak”
or “igunaq” which is considered a delicacy(Anderson and Garlich-Miller, 1994; Born etal., 1995; COSEWIC, 2006; Fall et al., 1991).
In some regions the hide, flippers, blubber
and organs are also consumed (Fall et al.,1991). The hide can be boiled, cooked witha layer of blubber attached or aged for later
consumption. Flippers can be fermented tomake “taaqassaaq”; and small amounts of
walrus blubber are also eaten raw or cooked,
although seal blubber is more desirable(Fall et al., 1991). Mollusks found inside thewalrus stomach are also considered a delicacy(COSWEIC, 2006).

8
The State of Alaska was purchased from the Russian Federation on March 30, 1867 and officially became a state of the United States on January 3,
1959 (Gislason, 2010).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus25

Trade9 in animal parts has existed for many years, butduring the past few centuries, the income acquired
from trade in animal parts such as meat, skins, ivory
and handicrafts has become important for many
Arctic communities (Klein et al., 2005). This income
helps cover basic living costs (e.g. heating of homes,
goods and services, travel) and helps cover equipment
and fuel costs for subsistence activities (Klein etal., 2005). This is particularly important in regions
such as the Arctic, where there are few alternate
sources of income and the cost of living is very high10.
The products from a walrus hunt are either usedby the community (e.g. meat) or traded and solddomestically and/or internationally (e.g. skulls, tusks,
handicrafts) (COSEWIC, 2006). The financial returnon the sale of items provides an incentive to conserve
the species and their habitat. Economic benefits play
an important role around the world in ensuring theconservation of wildlife and maintaining healthy
populations (CAMPFIRE, 2009; Environment
Canada, 2010; USAID, 2009).

1.2.4 Regulatinginternational trade ofwildlife
International trade in walrus parts and derivatives ismonitored through CITES, which is an international
agreement between governments created to ensurethat the international trade11 in wild animals andplants does not threaten the survival of thosespecies (Anon., 1973a; Cooper and Chalifour, 2004).
Species covered by CITES are listed in one of three
Appendices depending on the level of protectionneeded. Species can be added to or removed from
Appendices I or II or moved between them only by
a vote by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) which
is held once every three years. However, species canbe added to or removed from Appendix III at any
time (Anon., 1973a; Cooper and Chalifour, 2004).
An important component of the Convention is therequirement for Parties to complete non-detrimentfindings (NDFs) to ensure that international tradein species in Appendices I and II is not detrimental
to the conservation of the species in the wild.
Completion of scientifically supportable NDFs
is critical to securing the conservation goals andobjectives of CITES. Generally, international tradein species listed in CITES requires the issuance ofpermits or certificates, as required under Articles
III, IV, and V of the Convention. However, there areseveral exemptions to the provisions of Articles III, IV,
and V. The most commonly used are the exemptions
for reservations, pre-Convention12 specimens andpersonal and household effects (Anon., 1973a; Cooper
and Chalifour, 2004).
Species listed in Appendix I are those threatenedwith extinction and international trade in thosespecies must be accompanied by import and export
permits (or re-export certificates) which can only
be issued under specific conditions (Anon., 1973a).
Species listed in Appendix II are those not currently

9
For the purposes of this report, the term “trade” does not distinguish the type of trade (e.g. domestic, international, personal, commercial). The type oftrade being discussed will be specified in the text when relevant. Some cited literature only refers to trade in general terms.

Due to factors such as a limited consumer market resulting from a low population density and the very high cost of transporting food, fuel and othernecessities of life into the Arctic and to remote communities.
10

11
Article I(c) of CITES defines trade as “export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea.” Article I(d) defines re-export as the “export of any
specimen that has previously been imported” and Article I(e) defines introduction from the sea as “transportation into a State of specimens of any species
which were taken in the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State” (Anon., 1973a).

Pre-Convention specimens are any specimens of a CITES-listed species acquired prior to the date when the provisions of CITES applied to thatspecies. If a CITES pre-Convention certificate is issued by an MA for such specimens then no other certificate or permit is required by CITES toauthorize the export, import or re-export of such items (CITES, 2008a).
12

26

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusthreatened with extinction but could become so if theirtrade is not regulated;13 international trade in thosespecies must be accompanied by export permits (orre-export certificates) which can only be issued under
specific conditions (Anon., 1973a). Species listed inAppendix III are those identified by individual countries
that wish to regulate the export of certain native
species; international trade must be accompanied byexport permits (from the country listing that species)
or certificates of origin (from all other countries) which
can only be issued under specific conditions (Anon.,
1973a). Unlike Appendix I and II, the issuance of export
permits for Appendix III species does not require
the exporting country to make an NDF (to show thatinternational trade in the species is not detrimental tothe conservation of that species). However, the exporting
country must determine that the specimens were legallyacquired before issuing export permits (Anon., 1973a).
Walrus are currently listed in Appendix III (by Canada).
A summary on walrus with respect to CITES is provided
in sections 4.2.1 and further information on CITES canbe found in Appendix B.
Although CITES is an international agreement, it is
the responsibility of signatory countries to implement
provisions of the Convention within their country
through their national legislation. Prior to 1984, only ahandful of EU member states were signatories to CITES
and the absence of systematic border controls in the EU
made implementation of CITES difficult. As such, tworegulations came into force to implement CITES in all EU
member states, including those countries which were notsignatories to CITES. All taxa listed in CITES were madesubject to these regulations and additional restrictions
were placed on trade in certain taxa listed under the
Annexes of these regulations. Together, these regulations(known as the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations [EUWTR]) form the legal basis for CITES implementationin the EU regulating internal and international trade,13

and provide additional provisions for the import, export
and re-export of specimens listed in Annexes A, B, C,
and D of the regulations. The Annexes correspond to
the CITES Appendices, although they may provide
stricter provisions than the CITES Appendices andmay also include non-CITES-listed species (European
Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013). Trade in
species under the Annexes requires documentation(permits or certificates) which vary according to the levelof protection. There are more lenient permit requirements
for trade in items which are considered personal andhousehold effects (European Commission and TRAFFIC
Europe, 2013). The regulations also provided the EU withthe legal authority to suspend imports of certain species
from certain countries into the EU. Walrus are currently
listed on Annex B. A summary on walrus with respect
to the EU WTR is provided in sections 4.2.2 and further
information on the EU WTR can be found in Appendix B.
A Scientific Review Group (SRG) was established to
examine all scientific questions related to the applicationof the EU WTR and can form opinions regarding theimports of a particular species from a particular countryof origin (which are listed under Annex A or B, but not Cor D) and whether they comply with the regulations. If the
SRG feels that the import would have a detrimental effecton the survival of the species or the extent of territory
occupied by the relevant population, a “negative opinion”
is formed. This requires all EU member states to reject
all import permit applications for the species or countryof concern until the negative opinion is removed. If theconcern is not resolved, the European Commission can
impose a formal import suspension which is publishedin the EU Official Journal (European Commission and
TRAFFIC Europe, 2013). If the SRG feels that trade will
not have a harmful effect on the conservation of thespecies a “positive opinion” may be formed, and tradeis allowed, while a “no opinion” means the SRG has
concluded there is no trade or insignificant trade.

Species may also be listed in Appendix II because they cannot easily be distinguished from other species listed in Appendix I or II.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

27

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANON

28

2.0
METHODS
The information in this report was compiled via literature review, review of Internet
resources and analysis of available international trade data. The authors also
conducted interviews with relevant experts and authorities familiar with trade andthe management of walrus.

Currency in this report is written as the currency
that was provided in the cited works andreferences. However, the USD currency isprovided in parentheses using the conversion rate of theyear the cited work was published. All currency conversions
used the historical exchange rates provided fromwww.oanda.com. Values were not adjusted for inflation.

Harvest management and wildlife
trade agreements and regulations
Information on harvest management regimes, harvest
statistics, wildlife trade regulations and restrictions
were all compiled from published reports, personalcorrespondence and information provided bygovernment agencies.

Walrus trade data
International trade data from CITES annual reports
are entered into the United Nations Environment
Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre(UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database, which holds
over 10 million records of international trade data in
CITES-listed species. Approximately 700,000 recordsof data are reported annually and entered into the
UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database, which can bequeried online (UNEP-WCMC, 2010). Walrus range

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

29

State export data (Canada, Greenland, Norway, UnitedStates, and Russia export data) from the UNEP-WCMC
CITES Trade Database were analyzed for this report,
using the option for comparative tabulation reports. The
data are displayed as either a comparative tabulations
report or a gross/net trade report. Both reports provide
the wildlife term (type of item), the quantity traded
and the species name. However, the comparative
tabulation provides a report with more detailed
information including country of import and export,
country of origin, CITES Appendix listing, source oftrade, purpose of trade and unit of trade As such, thecomparative tabulation allows for more specific analysisof data. In contrast, the gross/net trade report is lessdetailed because it only provides the quantity of items,
the species chosen, the wildlife term and country ofimport or export. The gross/net trade report can beused to determine the volume of trade in a particularspecies or by a particular country where information on
purpose or source is not required. However, the gross/
net trade reports often overestimate the volume of trade
because when the quantities reported differ between
import country and export country, the higher value is
automatically selected (UNEP-WCMC, 2010).
In the early years of CITES, reports of international tradein specimens provided less detail than current reports.
For instance, prior to 1987 the purpose of export was notconsistently defined and items were most often recorded
as traded for an “unknown” purpose. From 1987 onward,
the purpose of export was recorded more consistently
with defined specific purposes (though improved
standardization is still needed). Therefore, this analysis
only used data from 1987 to 2009. When this analysis wascompleted, data for 2010 and 2011 were not available for
all walrus range States.
The authors excluded data on the international tradein live animals (i.e. for zoos) because the purpose of
the report is to look at international trade in walrus
14parts and derivatives, not trade in live animals. The
authors considered entries for data recorded as “sets”
to be items (i.e. one set = one item). Data recordedwith units as units of volume were excluded as they
were not comparable with the entries for the majorityof the data, which consisted of quantity of items. Data
recorded with units as units of weight and/or volume
were summarized and reported separately, as they
were not comparable with the entries for the majorityof the data, which consisted of quantity of items.
Export data from walrus range States (excluding
re-export data) were used for the analysis as thesedata can provide some indication of the impact
of international trade on walrus conservation (e.g.
removal of an animal from its habitat and export froma range State). Import data were not analyzed mainly
because not all Parties report imports adequately or
consistently. Importing and exporting countries do
not always record the same information (e.g. purposeof trade, product descriptions) about the same item.
Furthermore, the year of import and export may not
match for the same item if the export permit is issued
late in the calendar year. Re-export data14 were notanalyzed mainly because it is difficult to determine
how many times items were re-exported to and fromvarious countries. These data are also less relevant toconservation concerns because a re-exported specimen
has already been removed from its environment.
Therefore, data that included information for countryof origin indicated that the items had been re-exported,and as such they were excluded. There were someinstances of non-range States reporting export data,
which was likely an error in reporting (because walrus
never ranged into these countries). In some instances
the source country was not indicated, thus resulting
in export data that should have been recorded as reexport data. As such, only walrus range States’ export
data were included in the analysis.

CITES defines re-export as the export of “any specimen that has previously been imported” (Anon., 1973a).

30

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

The analysis included all sources, except for items
recorded as confiscated or seized specimens (sourcecode “I”). Specimens recorded as seized or confiscatedare relatively incomplete and do not represent all CITES
seizures internationally. Furthermore, some items thatare not illegal in nature (e.g. movement of previously
seized or confiscated specimens between governments)
may be recorded as seized specimens. Illegal trade
data are very difficult to obtain. The United States Law
Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS)
and the European Union Trade in Wildlife Information
eXchange (EU-TWIX) record information on seizures
and/or illegal trade, but are focused on trade to and/orfrom the United States and within the EU respectively.
LEMIS or EU-TWIX data would not show seizures orillegal trade between Canada and a non-EU/non-US
country. Although the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade
Database provides some information on seizures, alimited number of cases are reported to CITES in their
Annual Reports. Most seizures are reported to customs
in insufficient detail and the database either does notprovide an explanation of why an item was seized(J. Caldwell, UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database
Manager, in. litt. to E. Cooper, September 21, 2006) ordoes not report the information at all (UNEP-WCMC,
2010). This means the available data on illegal trade
could reflect simple regulatory errors, gross attempts tosmuggle or anything in between (J. Caldwell, UNEPWCMC CITES Trade Database Manager, in. litt. to E.
Cooper, September 21, 2006). As a result, the authors did
not analyze seizure data because they do not indicate
levels of illegal trade.
It is important to note that one item traded is notnecessarily equivalent to one animal traded. There canbe multiple items in trade which can all be sourced to
an individual animal (e.g. one skull, many bones, many
carvings, many teeth, meat). Therefore, determining afinite number of animals represented by these data is notpossible. However, minimum estimates of animals in
trade can be made by looking at specific items which are
known to represent a single animal; for example, a skull.

The export data for 2006 to 2009 were tabulated tosummarize the type of items (with purpose of export)
according to range State, and the data were also depicted
in info graphics. The authors did not provide an analysis
on this five-year trade; instead, the authors provided
an in-depth analysis on trends in international trade
data over a 23-year period (1987 to 2009). These 23
years of data were tabulated to provide a summary ofthe quantity and type of item per year as a means todetect trends in international trade. Only trends inthe international trade in tusks and skulls (which canbe attributed to individual animals) were analyzed
separately in more detail (annually from 2005 to 2009
inclusive) and tabulated to provide a summary of:r

the quantity of tusks exported by each range Stateaccording to purpose of export, by year;r

the quantity of tusks with their destinationaccording to purpose of export, by year;r

the quantity of skulls exported by each range
State according to purpose of export, by year; andr

the quantity of skulls with their destinationaccording to purpose of export, by year.

Information on the value of sport hunting and thevalue of walrus parts and derivatives was compiled
from published reports, personal correspondence,
information provided by government agencies andfrom Internet stores. The authors viewed Internet
stores to determine the range in advertised prices
of walrus products from 2009 to 2012 with the aidof The Wayback Machine (Internet Archive, 2012) a
service that enables users to view and search archived
versions of web pages over time.
Some text from Icon on Ice: International Trade andManagement of Polar Bears has been directly placed
into this report since it is general information that is
also applicable to this report (e.g. parts of sections 1.2
Background, 5.2 Accuracy of CITES trade data, andAppendices B and C).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

31

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© MIKHAIL CHERKASOV / WWF-RUSSIA

32

3.0
HARVESTMANAGEMENT
Box 3.1 Precautionary approach
If insufficient information is available to determine whether an action or policy will harm a species andits functioning in the ecosystem, managers will often use the precautionary approach. Although there
are various definitions of this approach, one of the most widely cited definitions is Principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration (1999 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro) which states: “In order to protect the environment, theprecautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there arethreats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”W

alrus hunting is a regulated and/or
monitored activity for most stocks. The
species is managed in the range States undereach country’s domestic legislation and regulations andin some cases through multi-national agreements (seeAppendices B and C for more detailed information).
Canada and Greenland are the only range States thatallow hunting of Atlantic walrus and walrus in theLaptev Sea, while Norway and its territories and Russia
prohibit hunting of Atlantic walrus and Laptev walrus.

The United States and Russia both allow hunting ofPacific walrus for subsistence purposes.
It is not possible to provide a precise number of
walrus killed globally during the hunt since theharvest data for range States are compiled using
different times scales. Furthermore, animal losses
associated with the hunt are not known, or theyvary depending on the region, season and year.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

33Box 3.2 Adaptive Management
It is not always possible to know all aspects of biological systems or the social and economic factorsthat can affect the sustainable use of resources. Therefore, monitoring the effects of use and allowing
for adjustments as needed (by using all sources of information available) is preferable when deciding
how to manage a resource. The Convention on Biological Diversity provides a definition for Adaptive
Management in the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity.
Specifically, Principle 4 states: “Adaptive management should be practiced, based on:rrr

Science and traditional and local knowledge
Iterative, timely and transparent feedback derived from monitoring the use, environmental, socioeconomic impacts, and the status of the resource being used; andAdjusting management based on timely feedback from the monitoring procedures.”

Table 3.1
SUBSPECIESAtlantic walrus(~13,600 to 20,400 in
Canada and Greenland)

Pacific walrus(~129,000)

Total

Walrus killed by country, harvest season 2006/2007 to 2010/2011

RANGE STATE

2006/
2007

2007/
2008

2008/
2009

2009/
2010

2010/
2011

5-YEARAVERAGE

Canada/Greenland

597 (836)

342 (463)

288 (393)

344 (469)

436 (604)

401 (555)

Canada452 (665)

209 (307)

185 (272)

216 (318)

307 (452)

274 (403)

Greenland

145 (171)133 (156)

103 (121)

128 (151)

129 (152)

128 (152)

Russia/United States

2,333 (4,022)

3,549 (6,119)

2,220 (3,827)

3,233 (5,574)

2,735 (4,716)

2,814 (4,851)

Russia1,047 (1,805)

1,173 (2,022)

778 (1,341)

1,110 (1,914)

1,053 (1,815)

1,032 (1,779)

United States

1,286 (2,217)

2,376 (4,097)

1,442 (2,486)

2,123 (3,660)

1,682 (2,900)

1,782 (3,072)$OOb

2,930 (4,858)

3,891 (6,582)

2,508 (4,220) 3,577 (6,043)

3,171 (5,320)

3,215 (5,406)

Source: DFO, (2009; 2013c); Grønlands Statistik, (2011); USFWS, (2013)
Note: Canadian data are compiled from the management year (April 1 to March 31), Greenland data are compiled from calendar year
(i.e. data in 2006/2007 column are Greenland data acquired for the 2006 calendar year). Numbers in parentheses are harvest data
corrected for animals struck and lost. The correction factors used are based on the struck and lost rates according to the rates usedby range States for management purposes (42% for both the United States and Russia; 32% for Canada and 15% for Greenland).
Some of these rates have been calculated based on data collected from various studies, while some were from observations during
the hunt. Since some of these studies were completed over 20 years ago, the rates used may not be reflective of the actual current
rate of animals struck and lost and caution should be used when referring to such estimates. The estimates, including animals struck
and lost (in parentheses), were calculated by the authors and are not official government estimates.

34

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

However, it is possible to provide a rough estimate of
the number of walrus harvested. Reported harvest
numbers may be corrected to account for struck andlost animals; however, these rates vary according to
the range State15. According to the available data, on
average 3,215 walrus (401 Atlantic walrus and 2,814
Pacific walrus) were harvested globally per year
from 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. If the struck and lost
factors are applied to the harvest data, on average
5,406 walrus (555 Atlantic walrus and 4,851 Pacificwalrus) were killed globally per year. Using thehigher mortality estimate which includes struck andlost rates, less than four per cent of the estimatedglobal population of 150,000 to 160,000 walrus were
killed during the hunt (see Table 3.1). Broken down
by subspecies, this is less than three per cent of theestimated 20,000 to 27,000 Atlantic walrus populationand less than four per cent of the estimated minimum
129,000 Pacific walrus population (walrus in theLaptev Sea are fully protected) (see Table 3.1). Thisis a conservative estimate, considering the actual
struck and lost rates may be lower than the estimatedcorrection factors used.

3.1 Canada
Only Atlantic walrus are found in Canada. Seven of
the 10 extant stocks occur in Canada: five are foundonly in Canada and two are shared with Greenland(see Appendix A). An additional population used to befound in Canada but has been extirpated. In Canada,
Atlantic walrus can only be hunted by Aboriginal
people for subsistence purposes (Hall, 2003) or sport
hunting by non-Aboriginals. This has been permitted
since 1995 and requires a licence (COSEWIC, 2006).
One territory (Nunavut) and one province (Québec,specifically northern Québec, which is known as
Nunavik) participate in the subsistence and sport
hunts (COSEWIC, 2006).

Atlantic walrus are managed in accordance withvarious pieces of legislation, regulations and policies
in addition to land claims agreements. A summaryof these is provided in greater detail in Appendices
B and C. In Canada, responsibility for managementof wildlife lies primarily with the provinces andterritories, except for matters related to international
agreements, international trade in wildlife andaquatic/fisheries resources (including marine
mammals) which is the responsibility of the federal
government (Environment Canada, 2009). In addition,
co-management boards and regional governments
created under land claims agreements play anessential role in wildlife management decisions (seeAppendix C).
Therefore, the management and conservation ofAtlantic walrus in Canada falls under the jurisdictionof the federal government: specifically, Fisheries andOceans Canada (DFO) (Anon 1993a). However, theNunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), signed
in 1993, gave Nunavut Inuit the right to harvest
walrus in the Nunavut Settlement Area (Nunavut
prior to its formation) (Anon 1993b). As per the
NLCA, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board(NWMB) was created in 1994 as an Institution of
Public Government (Anon, 1993b; NWMB, 2008b).
Although the federal government retains ultimate
responsibility for wildlife management, the Nunavut
Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) is the main
instrument for wildlife management in Nunavut(Anon 1993b; NWMB, 2008b). Within the boundary
areas of Nunavut (Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy),
wildlife resources are shared with Inuit from Nunavik,
who also participate in wildlife management throughmembership in the NWMB (NLCA, S.40.2.14)(Anon 1993b; Hall, 2003). In Nunavik (northern
Québec), the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife
Board (NMRWB) is the main instrument for wildlife

15
Struck and lost rates have been estimated as the following: up to 42% for (both the US and Russia [Pacific walrus]), up to 32% for Canada (Atlantic
walrus) and up to 15% for Greenland (Atlantic walrus). More detailed information is provided in range State summaries in Table 3.1 below.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

35management in Nunavik (Anon., 2006b; NMRWB,2010). Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWO) andthe Hunters and Trappers Organization (HTO) areco-managing partners who play an important role inthe management of walrus by regulating harvesting
practices, techniques and management among theirmembers (Anon., 1993b; COSEWIC, 2006). As such,
DFO, the co-management boards and resource usergroups share responsibility for the conservation andmanagement of Atlantic walrus in Canada (Hall,
2003; COSEWIC, 2006).
The DFO Science Sector is the basis for sound decision
making, providing all scientific information andadvice on marine and aquatic issues, including
species at risk and environmental impact assessments(DFO, 2013e). To help inform management andpolicy decisions, the DFO Science Sector provides
information on the risks of such decisions and thelikelihood of achieving policy objectives underalternative management tactics and strategies.
DFO’s science advisory processes are managed by
the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS)
which coordinates the peer review of scientificissues for DFO (DFO, 2013e). Although Canada
is not a signatory to the North Atlantic Marine
Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), which provides
scientific advice on harvest sustainability, Canada
does participate as an official observer nation (seeAppendix B for more information on NAMMCO).

3.1.1 Hunting regulations
Commercial hunting of walrus was banned in
Canada on June 20, 1928, when regulations on theprotection of walrus in the Hudson Bay and adjacentwaters were introduced. This regulation, also known
as the Walrus Protection Regulations (PC1036),
prohibited the hunting of walrus by non-Aboriginals(Anon, 1928). The regulations were amended manytimes and finally replaced in 1993 with the current
Marine Mammals Regulations (SOR/93-56) (Anon.,36

1993a).Provisions for walrus hunting in Canada are
currently implemented through the Marine Mammals
Regulations (SOR/93-56) under the enabling statute,
the Fisheries Act of Canada (R.S., 1985, c. F-14).
A Total Allowable Harvest (TAH) has been
established for some wildlife in Nunavut; however,no such levels have been established for walrus. The
NWMB requested that DFO provide advice on TAHlevels for walrus. However, due to the poor quality of
information on minimum population size and little
data for losses associated with the hunt, DFO was notable to provide valid scientific advice on TAH for most
walrus stocks in Nunavut. Improved information on
both population estimates and hunting losses wereneeded before a valid assessment could be made. In
2011, the NWMB was asked to establish the basic
needs level for beluga, narwhal and walrus, and doing
so would require information on the TAH.
There is much uncertainty as a result of insufficientdata, such as accuracy of population estimates,
reported landings (harvest statistics), reporting of
hunting losses and little information on struck andlost rates (which vary widely and should be quantified
by community and type of hunt). Such uncertainty
affects the calculation of TAH; however, it does
not affect the estimation of PBR from which Total
Allowable Removals (TARs) are calculated (DFO,
2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013).
In November 2013, using the best available
information, DFO published TARs for six of the seven
Canadian stocks. DFO Science used the PBR method
to provide advice on sustainable harvest for data-poor
populations (walrus are considered data-poor under
the Precautionary Approach). Data from several aerial
surveys were used to calculate the TAR levels. The
sum of the recommended TARs for stocks in the highArctic population is 27 to 31 animals; more specifically
10 to 11 animals for the Baffin Bay stock, seven toeight animals for the west Jones Sound stock and 10

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

to 12 animals for the Penny Strait-Lancaster Soundstock. As a whole, the central Arctic population lacks
sufficient data for a meaningful population estimate
and advice on TARs. However, the TAR for both thenorth and central Foxe Basin stocks is 106 to 166
animals in total and 18 to 30 animals for the Hudson
Bay-Davis Strait stock. The relationship between thesix stocks and the walrus distributed in the seventh
stock (south and east Hudson Bay) is unknown anda TAR could not be recommended as there are no
reliable population estimates for the stock (DFO,
2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013).
The assessment did not suggest any immediateconcerns about the sustainability of the high Arctic
walrus population; however a better understanding of
walrus movements and total hunting mortality (from
Canada and Greenland) is needed before assessing
the sustainability of a cumulative harvest. Insufficient
data on the central Arctic population makes it
difficult to calculate meaningful population estimatesand advice on TARs. This is partly attributed toincomplete surveys of areas where walrus are, survey
counts being negatively biased, adjustment factors
being based on small samples or data from other areas,animal losses not being reported and incomplete
harvest statistics. Similarly, a better understandingof walrus movements and more complete harvest
statistics are needed on the central Arctic population
before assessing the sustainability of a cumulative
harvest (DFO, 2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013).

views of Nunavut [and Nunavik] Inuit, traditional
Inuit knowledge and the best available scientificinformation, and this is facilitated through walrus
working groups (NWMB, 2013a).
The Foxe Basin walrus working group (establishedin 2007) and the Baffin Bay-High Arctic walrus
working group (established in 2010) are therefore
made up of representatives from HTOs, RWOs,
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), DFO,NWMB, and communities of Arctic Bay, Grise Fiord,
Hall Beach, Igloolik, Pond Inlet and Resolute Bay(DFO, 2013a; NWMB, 2013a). These working groups
are collaborating on the development of a draft
Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for walrus in
Nunavut (DFO, 2013a; Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development, 2011). The groups havediscussed management issues, developed maps andterms of reference, consulted with communities anddrafted text for the Integrated Fisheries Management,
which is still under development (DFO, 2013a).
Hunting tags and licences are not required for all
walrus hunting activities in Canada. However, any
person authorized to hunt walrus must keep a record
for a period of two years after any activity, andproduce records when required to do so by a Fisheries
Officer. These records are to include information on
the time and place the walrus was taken, the sex andcolour of the animal (Anon., 1993a). Box 3.3 provides
a summary of regulations in Canada (Anon., 1993a).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANONIn 1998, the NWMB approved the establishmentof a Walrus Working Group (WWG) composed ofrepresentatives from DFO, Makivik Corp., NWMB,
Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board and representatives
from the communities of Arctic Bay, Cape Dorset,
Coral Harbour, Hall Beach, Igloolik and Sanikiluaq(IAND, 1999; 2000). The WWG met in 1999 todiscuss the development of a walrus management
plan (IAND, 2000; NAMMCO, 2004a). Changes towalrus management in Nunavut must consider the37

Box 3.3 Marine Mammals Regulations of the Canadian Fisheries Act
Source: Anon., 1993a.
r

Subject to section 6, no person can fish for marine mammals unless under the authority of a licence (Section 5).

r

Only an Indian or Inuk (or beneficiary covered under the agreement which they are enrolled) may
hunt up to four walrus a year for food, social or ceremonial purposes without a licence (Section 6).

r

Walrus which are killed must be done in a manner that kills them quickly and the hunter must haveproper equipment to retrieve it (Section 8 and 9).

r

Hunters must make a reasonable effort to retrieve wounded or killed walrus without delay, should notdiscard or abandon it, and must not waste any edible parts of it (Section 10).

r

No person (other than Indian, Inuk or beneficiary covered by agreement) shall buy, sell, trade orbarter edible parts of a walrus (Section 13).

r

A marine mammal transportation licence is required for transportation of walrus parts from one
province/territory to another (Section 15 and 16).

r

Walrus taken must be recorded, and include information on the time, place, and sex of the walrus taken. The
record must be kept for a period of two years and presented to a fisheries officer if ever requested (Section 17).

r

If a hunter chooses to use firearms, they are permitted to use either a rifle with bullets that are not full
metal jackets or a shotgun with rifled slugs where both weapons must exceed the muzzle energy of2033.8 joules (1,500 foot pounds). Any other firearm is not permitted (Section 25)r

No one may hunt for walrus once a notice has been given out by a Fisheries Officer that the annual
fishing quota has been reached (Section 26).

QuotasSports hunting

There are no established national quotas for Canada.
As per the Marine Mammals Regulations, an Inuk orIndian may take up to four walrus in a year withouta licence unless a community quota is in place.
Community quotas exist in Coral Harbour where they
are allowed 60 walrus per year, and in Clyde River
where they are allowed 20 per year, as well as 10 per
year in Sanikiluaq and 10 per year in Arctic Bay. Aftera Fisheries Officer gives notice that the community’sannual quota has been reached, walrus hunting mustcease (Anon., 1993a).

Although sport hunting is not permitted under the
Marine Mammal Regulations, the NLCA does permit
Inuit to assign their individual hunting rights to others(DFO, 2003). Walrus sport hunts have been approved
annually since 1995 (COSEWIC, 2006). Sport hunters
are allowed to take the tusks, skull and baculum homewith them, depending on the import requirementsof their country; however, the meat must stay in thecommunity (COSEWIC, 2006). Non-Aboriginals may
hunt under a licence issued by DFO (Hall, 2003) andsport hunt applications from communities in Nunavut
and Nunavik are reviewed by the NWMB annually38

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable 3.2
CANADIAN
POPULATION

Up to 19,000
animals(includes
stocksshared with
Greenland)

Number of walrus killed by sport hunt in Nunavut, 1999/2000-2010/2011

REGION

1999/
2000

2000/
2001

2001/
2002

2002/ 2003/
2003 2004

2004/ 2005/
2005 2006

2006/
2007

2007/
2008

2008/
2009

2009/
2010

2010/
2011

Baffin region

10

7

13

14

15

10

15

6

0

0

0

0

Hall Beach

0

1

0

4

1

0

3 (15)

4 (15)--

0 (10)

0 (15)

Igloolik

10

6

12

10

14

10

12 (25)2 (25)

Nd (25)

M

M-

Cape Dorset

0

0

1

0

0

0

0 (2)

-

-

-

-

-

Grise Fiord

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (5)

-

-

Kimmirut

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (3)

0 (2)

-

-

-

-

Pangnirtung

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (10)-

Qikiqtarjuaq

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (5)

0 (5)

-

-

-

-

Kivalliq Region

0

0

2

2

0

0

2

3

0

4

9

8

-

-

-

-

-

0 (6)

2 (2)

3 (7)

Nd (17)4 (4)9 (22)

8 (24)

ArviatCoral Harbour

0

0

2

2

-

-

Rankin Inlet

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Nd (4)

-

-

Total

10

7

15

16

15

10

17

9

0

4

9

8

Source: DFO (2013c). Data are compiled from management year (April 1 to March 31).
Notes. Figures in parentheses are the number of sport hunts which were approved, while other figures indicate how many approved
sport hunts resulted in a successful hunt. Figures do not include struck and lost animals.
M: The Igloolik HTA implemented a moratorium on sport hunting
ND: Data were not reported to DFO- indicates no sport hunts were conducted
0 indicates the sport hunt was not successful(Hall, 2003; DFO, 2003). Licences for the sport hunt
are subject to approval by the NWMB (COSEWIC,
2006) and reporting struck and lost animals is arequirement of this licence (NWMB, 2013b). The
NWMB has developed an interim policy for walrus
sport hunts. Prior to approving a sport hunt for aparticular community, the NWMB ensures thecommunity has met four conditions:“(i) no conservation concern arises;(ii) hunter and public safety are maintained;(iii) humane harvesting takes place and the wholeanimal is used; and(iv) the developing industry is healthy and willcontinue to deliver a quality product, thus
serving and promoting the long-term
economic, social and cultural interests ofInuit harvesters (see NLCA in Appendix C (b)(iii))” (NWMB, 2013b).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

39© STEVE MORELLO / WWF-CANON

3.1.2 Hunting seasons,methods and techniques
There is no particular harvesting season within
Canada (Anon., 1993a), although some communities
conduct the harvest at specific times of year (e.g.
most hunters from Igloolik and Hall Beach hunton the pack ice during spring and early summer)(NAMMCO, 2006a).

Furthermore, until the walrus working group canoffer more detailed recommendations, the NWMB is
encouraged to apply three criteria when deciding on
the number of sport hunts for a community:“1. In a community that is not subject to a quota(beyond the individual limit of 4), attempt toensure that the combination of communityand sport hunts does not exceed the average
total harvest for the previous 5 years(condition i);
2. Ensure that a hunt plan is in place that meetsthe safety, humane and other requirements
necessary under the NLCA, the Fisheries Act
and the Regulations (conditions ii and iii); and3. Ensure that the community or enterprise starts
with a relatively small and closely monitored
number of hunts (the “pilot” stage), prior topermitting an expanded sport hunting effort(condition iv)” (NWMB, 2013b).
In the 12 years from 1999/2000 to 20010/2011,
approximately 120 walrus were sport-hunted in
Nunavut (Table 3.2). The number of approved sport
hunts is higher than number of sport hunts whichhave occurred possibly because hunts may have beencancelled due to poor weather conditions. In most
instances, the number of successful sport hunts is lessthan half of the total that has been approved for sport
hunting (Table 3.2).

40

A combination of traditional methods and modern
equipment is used for walrus hunting in Nunavut (e.g.
traditional sleds towed by snowmobiles, boats withoutboard motors, harpoons with seal skin lines andfloats or modern floats) (NAMMCO, 2004b). Huntersfrom some communities must travel long distances toaccess areas with walrus; only a few communities haveeasy access to them. As such, hunters may make only
one to two hunting trips each year, in which several
animals are taken (NAMMCO, 2006a). In most cases
rifles used for killing walrus are .30 calibre, .303 calibre
or smaller (NAMMCO, 2004b). In some areas, walrus
are hunted from boats in open water during summer(NAMMCO, 2004b; 2006a). Hunters often shoot awalrus somewhere in the body to slow it down, whichlets them get close enough to harpoon it and thenkill it with a lethal shot (NAMMCO, 2004b). Smaller
numbers of animals are taken at the floe edge and atbreathing holes during winter (NAMMCO, 2004b).

Losses associated with the hunt
Struck and lost refers to animals which are struck (bya bullet or harpoon) but not retrieved. A struck andlost animal may or may not die from its wound(s).
Struck and lost rates vary depending on the weather,location, season, hunter experience and animal
behaviour (DFO, 2000). Struck and lost rates havebeen estimated at approximately 30 to 32%; however,
Inuk hunters believe loss rates to be lower, closer tofive per cent (DFO 2000; COSEWIC, 2006). Reportingof struck and lost animals is required for sport hunts,

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusbut not for subsistence hunts. A maximum struck
and lost rate of 32% is used by DFO for management
purposes (DFO, 2013a).
Since loss rates can be higher in open water, hunters
prefer to kill walrus on ice or land (COSEWIC, 2006).
For hunts in shallow water, hunters can harpoon
the animal before it is shot to reduce the chance oflosing it. It is then retrieved with grappling hooks or
at low tide (DFO, 2003). NWMB, DFO and NTI haveestablished a working group of experienced hunters
to make recommendations on harvesting methods
and equipment used to hunt marine mammals(NAMMCO, 2004b). In March 2013, Nunavut hosted
a workshop on marine mammals struck and lost,
discussing the issues and potential solutions. Findingsof this workshop are not yet publically available.

Table 3.3
CANADIAN ATLANTICWALRUS POPULATION

Up to 19,000 animals(includes stocks sharedwith Greenland)

3.1.3 Harvest statistics
Catch data of Atlantic walrus in Canada areinconsistent, incomplete and vary widely in quality;
they are at best rough estimates. However, they are
unlikely to be overestimates (NAMMCO Annual
Report, 2010; COSEWIC, 2006). The data have beencollected from various agencies using different
methods and collected for different purposes(COSEWIC, 2006). The annual management year for
walrus in Canada is April 1 to March 31. Tables 3.3
and 3.4 provide summaries of the Canadian harvest
by jurisdiction for the 1999/2000 to 2010/2011 hunting
seasons. Appendix D provides a breakdown of harvest
data by community.

Number of walrus killed during recent subsistence and sport hunt in Canada from2007/2008 to 2010/2012

PROVINCE/TERRITORY

2007/
2008

2008/
2009

2009/
2010

2010/
2011

2011/
2012

Nunavut

142

124

209

265

187

Including struck and lost estimates

209

182

307

390

275

Nunavik (northern Québec)

67*

61*

36*

42*

42**

Including struck and lost estimates

99

90

53

62

62

Total

209

185

216

307

229

Including struck and lost estimates

307

272

360

452

337

Source: DFO, (2013c; 2013d). Data are compiled from management year (April 1 to March 31).
Note: Figures include sport hunts. In an attempt to provide an estimate of the maximum number of animals that could be killed during
the hunt, harvest numbers were corrected for animals struck and lost using a rate of 32%, a rate which has been used by DFO in thepast. The corrected rates were calculated by the authors and were not provided by DFO. As such, the struck and lost estimates are
not official government figures.
* Numbers provided by Makivik Corporation in part under the Trichinellosis Prevention Program.
** For 2011/2012, there were two sources of reporting information: a report from the Makivik Corporation under the Trichinellosis
Prevention Program and reports by Uumajuit wardens and technicians from the Kativik regional government. In instances of
discrepancy, the higher reported number was provided in this table.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

41

Table 3.4
CANADIAN
ATLANTICWALRUSPOPULATION
Up to 19,000
animals(includes
stocksshared with
Greenland)

Number of walrus killed during past subsistence and sport hunt in Canada(1999/2000 to 2004/2005)PROVINCE/TERRITORY

1997/
1998

1998/
1999

1999/
2000

2000/
2001

2001/
2002

2002/
2003

2003/
2004

2004/
2005

2005/
2006

2006/
2007

Nunavut

241

284

59

368

140

152

262

103

246

395

Including struck and lost estimates

354

418

87

541

206

224

385

151

362

581

Nunavik (northern Québec)

76

46

17

3

6

21

42

42

47*

57*

Including struck and lost estimates

112

68

25

4

9

31

62

62

69

84

Total

317

330

76

371

146

173

304

145

293

452

Including struck and lost estimates

466

486

112

546

215

254

447

213

431

665

Source: DFO (2013c; 2013d). Data are compiled from management year (April 1 to March 31).
Note: Figures include sport hunts. In an attempt to provide an estimate of the maximum number of animals that could be killed during
the hunt, harvest numbers were corrected for animals struck and lost using a rate of 32%, a rate which has been used by DFO in thepast. The corrected rates were calculated by the authors and were not provided by DFO. As such, the struck and lost estimates are
not official government figures.
* Numbers provided by Makivik Corporation in part under the Trichinellosis Prevention Program.

3.1.4 Illegal hunting andillegal trade
The authors could find no documented information
to suggest illegal hunting or illegal trade is amanagement concern for Canada. Some offences
have occurred and were investigated. From 2003 to
2008, United States and Canada jointly investigatedthe export of walrus products to the US. Although
the animals were legally harvested in Canada, import
into the United States contravened United States law.
The investigation resulted in charges and fines in the
United States (further details in section 3.5.4).

Greenland primarily for subsistence purposes, andmay only be hunted by residents who hunt as a fulltime occupation and are in possession of a commercial
hunting licence (Anon., 2006a; DFO, 2013a).

3.2 Greenland

Atlantic walrus are managed in accordance withvarious pieces of legislation, regulations and policies. A
summary is provided in greater detail in Appendices
B and C. Two ministries are responsible for the
management of Greenland’s living resources: Ministryof Nature and Environment (previously the Ministryof Infrastructure and Environment), responsible forinternational agreements, conventions and nature
conservation; and the Ministry of Fisheries Hunting
and Agriculture, responsible for the management andpolicy matters for all living resources (JCNB, 2009).

Only Atlantic walrus are found in Greenland. Three ofthe 10 extant stocks occur in Greenland: one is foundsolely in Greenland and two are shared with Canada(see Appendix A). Atlantic walrus are harvested in

The Department of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture
is responsible for the management of Atlantic walrus
in Greenland (Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011), and42

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusthe local municipal authorities play an important roleby assisting in the monitoring of quotas and harvests
in the municipalities (Anon., 2006a). Scientific adviceon harvest sustainability is provided by NAMMCO’s
Scientific Committee and the NAMMCO ScientificCommittee Working Group on Atlantic Walrus(Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011).

3.2.1 Hunting regulations
Greenland has regulated walrus hunting in various
regions since the late 1920s (Born et al., 1995) andintroduction of a ministerial order in 1956 provided
regulations on walrus hunting (Anon., 1956b; 1994).
New regulations introduced in 2006 included a quota
system for walrus hunting (Anon., 2006a). Provisions
for the harvest of Atlantic walrus in Greenland are
currently implemented through the Greenland Home
Rule Executive Order No. 20 of 27 October 2006 on
protection and harvest of walrus (Anon., 2006a).
This legislation included protection for calves andfemales accompanied by calves (Qaanaq is exempt
from this) and protection of walrus on land or at

Box 3.4 Executive Order No. 20 of 27 October 2006 on the protection and hunting of walrusrWalrus are on land or haul-outs are protected. Adult females and females with calves are fully
protected (Qaanaq is exempt from this). Hunting of walrus is only permitted in the areas and periods
outlined in the regulations (Section 2).

r

Walrus hunting is subject to quota restrictions for the following regions and periods (Section 3):▶

West Greenland from 66° N (southern edge of the mouth of Sondre Stromfjord) and 70°30’ N(northwest tip of Hare Island), in the period from 1 March to 30 April, both days included.

▶

North-West Greenland, in the areas north of 70°30’ N (northwest tip of Hare Island), in the period
from 1 October to 30 June, both days included.

▶

East Greenland, in the local authority districts of Ittoqqortoormiit and Ammassalik, in the period
from 1 October to 30 June, both days included.

r

Only those in possession of a permit may hunt walrus (Section 5).

r

Only those in possession of a valid commercial hunting licence can obtain a permit to hunt walrus. This licence
may not be transferred or sold and allows for the catch of one walrus in the quota year in which the licence wasissued. (Section 6 & 8)r

The use of airplanes, helicopters, or any kind of motorized vehicles, and vessels over20GRT/15GT are notpermitted for hunting walrus or as means of transportation to and from the hunting area (unless approved forremoval of sassat (or savssat) catches in inclement weather). Hunters are permitted to use a rifle with a minimum
caliber of.30-06 (7.62 mm).Only full metal jacket bullets are permitted. The use of fully-automatic and semi
automatic rifles are not permitted. A walrus must be harpooned before it is shot, and one or two floats need to be
attached to the harpoon. (Section 9)r

The catch and wounding of all walrus must be reported and documented in a hunting form and sent to the local
authority as soon as possible (Section 11)

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

43

Table 3.5
GREENLANDATLANTIC WALRUS
POPULATION
Up to 5,400 animals(includes stocks
shared with Canada)

Quotas for the Atlantic walrus hunt in Greenland, 2006-2012

REGIONS

2006(OCTOBER TO

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

DECEMBER ONLY)

North Water

-

99

80

75 (-2)*64 (-16)*64 (-12)*64West Greenland

60

71

65

38

61 (-1)*61 (-1)*

61

East Greenland

15

30

30

23

18

18

18

Total

75

200

175

136

143 (-17) 143 (-13)

143

Source: Quotas for 2006 (Grønlands Selvstyre, 2009b), quota for 2007 (Grønlands Hjemmestyre, 2007), quota for 2008 and 2009
(Grønlands Selvstyre, 2009a), quota for 2010-2012 (Grønlands Selvstyre, 2011).
Note: Numbers in parentheses are deductions to account for animals that were overharvested from the previous season; they havebeen deducted from the original quota.
*Exceeded quota in the previous year

haul-out sites. It also regulates the type of hunting
equipment permitted, the hunting season and regionsin which walrus may be hunted (Anon., 2006a). Box
3.4 provides a more detailed summary of regulations
for walrus hunting in Greenland.
The hunting of walrus in Greenland is controlled
through a quota system (Anon., 2006a). The quotas
are determined in consideration of biologicaladvice, international agreements, users’ knowledge,
and in consultation with the Hunting Council(Anon., 2006a). Quotas are ultimately determinedby the Greenland government but are based onrecommendations from the Ministry of Fisheries,
Hunting and Agriculture (Anon., 2006a; Grønlands
Naturinstitut, 2011). Regional quotas are determinedfor each of the three walrus stocks that are exploited
in Greenland (Anon., 2006a; Grønlands Naturinstitut,
2011) (see Table 3.5).
Quotas are distributed among the local authorities by
the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture
after consultations with the Kalaallit Nunanni

44

Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiatthe Association ofFishermen and Hunters in Greenland (KNAPK) andthe Kalaallit Nunaanni Kommuneqarfiit Kattuffia—
the National Association of Local Authorities inGreenland (KANUKOKA). The local authorities
are responsible for issuing numbered permits toapplicants holding valid commercial hunting licences.
The local authority controls the allocation of quotas
through careful monitoring. Once the quotas arereached, it is the responsibility of the municipal
authorities to stop the harvest and notify the Ministryof Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture that the quotas
have been reached (Anon., 2006a).
The hunt is monitored through a licencing and dual
reporting system by municipal authorities (Anon.,2006a). Prior to hunting a walrus, a hunting permit
must be obtained from the local authority. Only
hunters in possession of a valid commercial hunting
licence will be issued a permit (Anon., 2006a). A
general reporting system (PINIARNEQ) was
introduced in 1993, which requires hunters to report

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrustheir total harvest of all species for each month (fromSeptember to September). A second reporting system
was introduced in 2006, which requires hunters tocomplete a catch report form for each walrus landed(Anon., 2006a; Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011).
Reporting of animals struck and lost is mandatory.
After each hunt, any animal harvested or woundedmust be recorded by the hunter in a catch reporting
form and delivered to the local authority (Anon.,2006a; Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011). This is inaddition to hunters reporting the harvest under the
PINIARNEQ reporting system (annual reportingof monthly catches) which is cross-referenced withthe hunters’ catch report forms (Anon., 2006a;
NAMMCO Annual Report, 2010). At the end ofeach month, the local authority submits the hunting
forms to the Department of Fisheries, Hunting andAgriculture (Anon., 2006a).
Although not required under CITES provisions,Greenland has been proactive in making NDF
assessments in 2007 and 2011. Results of the2011 assessment indicated that current levels of
exploitation of walrus in Greenland and the export of
walrus products from Greenland are not detrimental
to the three subpopulations/stocks that range into
Greenland (Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011). In
2010, NAMMCO provided scientific advice onsustainable removals that included landed walrus
and animals that were struck but lost. At that time, it
was suggested that there was a 70% probability thatthe population would increase to earlier levels if the
combined harvest (Canada and Greenland) werelower than 68 for northwest Baffin Bay, 89 for West
Greenland-Baffin Island and 20 for East Greenland(Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011). In November 2013,
the NAMMCO Scientific Committee Working Groupon Atlantic Walrus met again to discuss walrus, assess
population estimates and provide advice on harvest
sustainability. Results from the meeting, such asadvice on harvest sustainability, are not yet available.

3.2.2 Hunting seasons,methods and techniques
The hunting of walrus is subject to restrictions andseasons vary depending on the specific geographic
area (see Box 3.4).
Walrus are hunted in Greenland by boat or from theice edge (NAMMCO, 2004b). In both cases walrus
must be harpooned prior to being shot. Females
and calves are fully protected, except in Qaanaaq(Northwest Greenland) (DFO, 2013a). Airplanes,
helicopters and motorized vehicles cannot be usedduring the hunt (See Box 3.4).
r

In West Greenland, fishing vessels (less than 20
Gross Register Tonnage [GRT]) are also used for
hunting walrus; the animal is first harpooned before
being shot (Anon, 2006a). Walrus are also shot on
the ice or in open water (NAMMCO, 2004b).

r

In Northwest Greenland, walrus are primarily
hunted from small boats or fishing vessels in May
and June and in October, and sometimes at thefloe edge using dog sleds (DFO, 2013a; NAMMCO,
2004b; WWF-Denmark, 2005). Walrus are also
hunted at breathing holes (NAMMCO, 2006a)
and when the ice first appears in late fall, they are
hunted at the floe edge (NAMMCO, 2004b).

r

In East Greenland, walrus are hunted in open
water from small boats, from land or from the iceedge (NAMMCO, 2004b; WWF-Denmark, 2005).
Walrus are also taken while they rest on the ice(WWF-Denmark, 2005).

Losses associated with the hunt
Loss rates vary with location, season, hunting method
and hunter skill (NAMMCO, 2004a). Firearms
have made killing walrus easier, but they have also
increased the proportion of animals struck and lost
(NAMMCO, 2004b). Loss rates are generally highest
for open water hunts and lower for hunts on land and

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus45at ice haul-out (NAMMCO, 2006a). The experience,skill and judgment of the hunter are important factors
determining the incidence of struck and lost animals(NAMMCO, 2006a). The estimated loss rate varies
from as low as zero (reported by hunters) to 15 to 25%(observed by scientists in the 1970s) (Born et al., 1995;
Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011). A rate of approximately
15% has been accepted by NAMMCO as an estimate
for animals lost (Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011). The
regulations introduced in 2006 require that any
animals struck and lost are recorded (Anon., 2006a);
however, these figures were not available to the authors.

highest was 343, for an average of 292 walrus per year
(Table 3.6). From 2006 to 2010 (after introduction of
quotas), approximately 637 walrus were harvested,with a low of 103 and a high of 145, for an average of
127 walrus per year (Table 3.6). Appendix D provides
a breakdown of harvest data by community.

3.2.3 Harvest statistics

3.3 Norway

From 1999 to 2005 (prior to introduction of quotas),
approximately 2,044 walrus were harvested. The
lowest number killed in one year was 194 and the

The Directorate of Fisheries is responsible for theoverall policy and political matters regarding walrus
management in Norway (S.T. Stub, Advisor for the

Table 3.6
GREENLANDATLANTIC WALRUS
POPULATION

Up to 5,400 animals(includes stocks
shared with Canada)

3.2.4 Illegal hunting andillegal trade
The authors did not find documented evidence ofillegal hunting or illegal trade of walrus in Greenland.

Number of walrus killed in Greenland from 1999 to 2010 (quotas introduced in 2006)PROVINCE/TERRITORY

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

North Water

128

43

194

171

181

99

137

72

80

66

91

60

including struck and loss estimates

151

51

228

201

213

116

161

85

94

78

107

71

West Greenland

146

264

93

91

77

76

95

60

43

28

33

62

including struck and loss estimates

172

311

109

107

91

89

112

71

51

33

39

73

6

East Greenland

26

7

10

34

11

4

16

5

10

9

4

including struck and loss estimates

31

8

12

40

13

5

19

6

12

11

5

7

Other regions

11

15

46

35

15

15

4

8

-

-

-

-

including struck and loss estimates

13

18

54

41

18

18

5

9

-

-

-

-

Total

311

329

343

331

284

194

252

145

133

103

128

128

including struck and loss estimates

366

387

404

389

334

228

296

171

156

121

151

151

Source: Grønlands Statistik (2011); NAMMCO Annual Report (2011). Data are compiled from calendar year (i.e. January 1 to December 31).
Note: In an attempt to provide an estimate of the maximum number of animals that could be killed during the hunt, harvest numbers
were corrected for animals struck and lost using a rate of 15%, a rate which has been accepted by NAMMCO. The corrected rates
were calculated by the authors and were not provided by the Greenland government. As such, the struck and lost estimates are notofficial government figures.

46

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus3.4 Russia
All walrus subspecies are found in Russia. Two of theextant Atlantic walrus stocks are found in Russia; one
is found only in Russia and another is shared with
Norway (see Appendix A). Although the taxonomic
validity of the Laptev walrus is debated in the scientificcommunity (the debate centres on whether it is aseparate subspecies or the westernmost population ofPacific walrus), the Russian government recognises
and manages it as a separate subspecies (NAMMCO
Annual Report, 2010; Lindqvist et al., 2009; Reijnders etal., 1993; Vaisman et al., 2009). Pacific walrus comprisea single population that is shared with the United States.
Walrus in Russia are managed in accordance withvarious legislation, regulations, and policies. A
summary is provided in greater detail in Appendices
B and C. Atlantic and Laptev walrus are fully
protected (including no subsistence hunting) andboth are managed by the Department of State Policy
and Management of Hunting and Wildlife of the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of theRussian Federation (Vaisman et al., 2009). Only
Pacific walrus may be hunted by indigenous people
inhabiting Chukotka for subsistence purposes(Vaisman et al., 2009). The Federal Fishery Agency’s
Division of Fisheries Inspection is responsible for the
management of Pacific walrus in Chukotka (Meek etal., 2008). Several non-governmental organizations,
including the Association of Traditional Marine
Mammal Hunters of Chukotka (ChAZTO), sharemonitoring and management activities concerning

Pacific walrus. The ChAZTO Pacific Walrus
Commission was formed in 1997 (Lunn et al., 2002).
Bilateral workshops were held in 1994 and 2004
between non-governmental Russian groups and local
and federal groups in the United States to facilitate
the exchange of information on Pacific walrus
harvesting (Meek et al., 2008). Since 1975, UnitedStates and Russian scientists have conducted several
joint population studies of walrus under the 1972
bilateral Agreement on Cooperation in the Field ofEnvironmental Protection (MMC, 2003).

3.4.1 Hunting regulations
Regulations for walrus hunting were first provided in
1921 for specific areas of the Russian Arctic. In November
1956, the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic(RSFSR) Council of Ministers issued Decree No. 738
On Protection of Arctic Animals which prohibited thehunting of all walrus subspecies with the exception ofsubsistence hunting (Anon., 1956a; Vaisman et al., 2009).
Full protection for both Atlantic and Laptev walrus wasprovided in 1982 when they were listed in the Red Data
book, which prohibited all hunting (including subsistence)(Anon., 1982a). Only the Pacific walrus may now behunted for subsistence purposes (Vaisman et al., 2009).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© PAUL NICKLEN / NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC STOCK / WWF-CANON

Directorate of Fisheries, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, March
31, 2009). Walrus hunting has not been permitted in
Norway or its territories since 1952 (Anon., 1952; Bornet al., 1995). A summary of regulations and legislation
pertaining to Atlantic walrus in Norway and Svalbard
is provided in Appendices B and C. The authors did
not find documented evidence of illegal hunting orillegal trade of walrus in Norway.

47

Before the late 1950s, hunting of Pacific walrus waslargely unregulated. From the 1930s to 1950s, a vesselbased commercial hunting program sponsored by the
USSR government was initiated (Fay, 1982). It has been
speculated that up to 8,000 animals (not including
those struck and lost) were harvested annually throughthis program (Fay, 1982). The Pacific walrus population
was greatly depleted (Fay et al., 1997). To curtail thisdecline, strict quotas were introduced and the harvest
was limited almost entirely to male walrus. These
restrictions greatly reduced the harvest and provided
protection for females and calves (Garlich-Miller etal., 2006). From 1972 to 1982, quotas were set at 2,000
animals per year, but from 1982 to 1993 quotas ranged
from 3,600 to 4,000 (Grachev, 2004). In 1993, quotas
were reduced to 3,000 animals annually (Vaisman etal., 2009). In 2004 quotas were reduced to 2,000 and in2006 and 2007 quotas were reduced again to 1,500 per
year. In 2008, quotas were increased to 1,900, decreased
to 1,500 in 2009 and decreased again to 1,300 in 2010(see Table 3.9) (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011).
Prior to 2004, subsistence quotas were issued under
Order No. 349 of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR) Ministry of Fisheries of 30 June
1986 On approval of the Rules on conservation andharvesting of marine mammals. This order also
regulated hunting methods, hunting seasons andprohibited sport and amateur hunting. Since 2004,
harvest quotas have been set in accordance with theprovisions of Federal Law No. 166-FZ On Fisheries
and conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources.
Walrus may only be hunted when a fishery inspector
is present, and any animals struck or lost are counted
toward the quotas (Vaisman et al., 2009).
Quotas are issued through a decree of the RussianFederal Fisheries Agency and are determinedwith input from scientists at the Pacific Research
Fisheries Center (Chukotka Branch-ChukotTINRO)(Garlich-Miller et al., 2011). Quotas in Chukotka
Region are allocated by the local government under48

the supervision of local fisheries inspectors. Every
settlement on Chukotka gets a portion of the quota.
Hunters are issued a set number of licences and are
permitted to hunt walrus until their licences are used.
Fisheries inspectors collect information such as age andsex for every walrus that is killed (Vaisman et al., 2009).
Pacific walrus are considered a fisheries species andis listed as such under Order No. 131 of the Federal
Fisheries Agency of 1 September 2008 On approvalof the list of aquatic biological resources which
are considered to be fisheries targets, but only for
subsistence purposes (Vaisman et al., 2009).

3.4.2 Hunting seasons,methods and techniques
Hunting of Pacific walrus in the Chukotka
Autonomous Okrug is carried out by all local Native
villages on the Pacific and Arctic coasts of Chukotka(NAMMCO, 2006a; NAMMCO, 2004b). Pacificwalrus are hunted along the Pacific coast from spring
until fall, and on the Arctic coast in summer and fall
(NAMMCO, 2004b). In the Bering Sea and in the Sea of
Okhotsk, walrus may be harvested from boats and on
the coast from April 10 to July 1, and from September
15 to March 1 (Vaisman et al., 2009).
Pacific walrus are hunted on land, on ice and on
open water. On land, hunters use harpoons instead ofrifles because the sound of a gunshot will often alert
the walrus and can cause a stampede. If the area isaccessible by boat, walrus are killed using a harpoon/
lance. Walrus on the ice floe are shot from a boat orfrom a neighbouring ice floe. If hunters cannot get
onto the ice floe, they will often attempt to harpoon the
animal before it enters the water. Boats are used to hunt
walrus on the open water. With a rifle, hunters willoften injure the animal with a non-lethal body shot sothat it can be approached and harpooned before given
a lethal shot. Harpoons and attached floats help reducehunting losses (NAMMCO 2004b; 2006a).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Losses associated with the hunt
According to many researchers, the struck and lost
rate for Pacific walrus in Russia ranges from 40 to 50%.
However, that rate is dependent of many factors andmay vary greatly (NAMMCO, 2004b). Communitybased monitoring of Russian walrus hunts suggeststhat struck and lost rates range between four and20%. Higher rates are often associated with open
water hunts, while rates are lower on land and ice
haul-outs (NAMMCO, 2006a). Factors determining

Table 3.7
RUSSIAN PACIFIC WALRUS
POPULATION

129,000 animals (includes
stocks shared with the UnitedStates)the incidence of struck and lost are the hunter’s
experience, skill and judgment (NAMMCO, 2006a).
Monitoring of struck and lost animals on Chukotka isdone at the local level. To track of the number of walrus
harvested and to obtain information on struck andlost animals; a person in each village is designated toobserve the hunt and interview hunters. That personcollects information on the age and sex of walrus thatare taken, and collects teeth samples for ageing andtissue samples for genetic analyses (NAMMCO, 2006a).

Number of Pacific walrus killed in Russia from 1997 to 2010

YEARS

QUOTA

LANDINGSESTIMATED STRUCK
AND LOST ANIMALSTOTAL INCLUDING ESTIMATEDSTRUCK AND LOST RATES

1997

ND

731

529

1,260

1998

ND

950

688

1638

1999

3,000

1,670

1209

2879

2000

3000

1212

878

2090

2001

3000

1332

965

2297

2002

3000

1317

954

2271

2003

3000

1425

1032

2457

2004

2000

1118

810

1928

2005

2000

1436

1040

2476

2006

1500

1047

758

1805

2007

1500

1173

849

2022

2008

1900

778

563

1341

2009

1500

1110

804

1914

2010

1300

1053

762

1815

Source: Russian data were provided to the USFWS (2013), courtesy of Chukotka TINRO. Quotas are taken from Garlich-Miller et al., (2011).
Note: ND is no data available. In an attempt to provide an estimate of the maximum number of animals that could be killed during the hunt, harvest
numbers were corrected for animals struck and lost using a rate of 42%, a rate which has been used by the United States. The corrected rates
were calculated by the USFWS and not by the Russian government. As such, the struck and lost estimates are not official figures.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus493.4.3 Harvest statistics
According to the most recent available catch data from2006 to 2010, approximately 5,161 Pacific walrus werelanded in Russia over that five-year period, The lowest
number killed in one year was 778 and the highest was
1173, for an average of 1,032 animals per year (Table
3.7) (MMC, 2010b; USFWS, 2013).

3.4.4 Illegal hunting
The authors did not find documented evidence ofillegal hunting of walrus in Russia. Subsistence quotas
in recent years have never been fully used. There may
be little incentive for illegal hunting activities.
In August 2008, there were reports of 800 walrus
carcasses found on the eastern coast of Chukotka(Federation News, 2008a; 2008b). The Ministryof Natural Resources began an investigation todetermine if animals were illegally killed or had diedof natural causes. Some of the carcasses appeared tohave bullet holes and many had tusks removed (which
could have occurred post-mortem). One carcass wassent for analysis (Federation News, 2008a; 2008b).
In 2007, over a thousand dead walrus were foundscattered along the same coast, and it is possiblethat the carcasses found in 2008 were from the 2007
event (Polar Bear Patrol, 2007; 2008). Experts fromthe Polar Bear Patrol analysed available informationand suggested that it would have been impossible
to hunt and kill that number of walrus during that
July since sea ice was still present. In such situations
walrus prefer to haul-out on sea ice; it would havebeen difficult to hunt so many walrus on the ice andvery unusual to then bring the bodies onto shore(Polar Bear Patrol, 2008). The authors were unable tofind any additional information regarding the resultsof the Ministry of Natural Resources’ investigation.
In December 2007, several hundred dead walrus werealso scattered along the beaches close to Ryrkaipiy(Cape Schmidt, Chukotka) and according to local

50

authorities almost 600 walrus were trampled in astampede in the fall of 2007.

3.5 United States
Only Pacific walrus are found in the United States,
specifically in Alaska. Pacific walrus comprise a single
population that is shared with Russia.
Pacific walrus are managed in accordance with various
pieces of legislation, regulations, and policies. A
summary is provided in greater detail in Appendices
B and C. The USFWS is currently responsible for the
management and conservation of walrus in the UnitedStates. This authority was transferred from the Stateof Alaska to the USFWS when the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) was implemented in 1972
(NOAA, 2008; USFWS, 1994). Prior to this, the Stateof Alaska regulated walrus hunting (USFWS, 1994).
In the United States, only qualified coastal-dwelling
Alaskan Natives are permitted to hunt Pacific walrus
for subsistence purposes or for making and selling
authentic Native handicrafts or clothing, providing theharvest is not wasteful (Anon., 1972; USFWS, 1994).
The MMPA regulations defines wasteful manner as “...
any taking or method of taking which is likely to resultin the killing or injuring of marine mammals beyond
those needed for subsistence purposes or for the
making of authentic Native articles of handicrafts andclothing or which results in the waste of a substantial
portion of the marine mammal and includes without
limitation the employment of a method of taking
which is not likely to assure the capture or killing of amarine mammal, or which is not immediately followed
by a reasonable effort to retrieve the marine mammal”(50 CFR 18.3 and 50 CFR 216.3).

3.5.1 Current hunting
regulations
In the United States, all marine mammals (including
walrus) are protected under the MMPA (Public

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Law 92-522), enacted by the United States federal
government in 1972 (Anon., 1972). The Marine
Mammal Commission (MMC) is an independentagency of the federal government created under Title
II of the MMPA to provide independent oversightof policies and programs pertaining to marine
mammals carried out by the federal regulatory
agencies (MMC, 2010a). The primary focus is on theprotection and conservation of marine mammals(MMC, 2010a). The MMPA also has provisions under
section 119 for cooperative management agreementswith Alaskan Native organizations to provide comanagement of subsistence use by Alaskan Natives.
In 1997, the USFWS signed a formal co-managementagreement with the Eskimo Walrus Commission(EWC) (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011) (see Appendix C).
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
works closely with the USFWS through their marine
mammal program, which conducts research projects
that complement and/or supplement those undertaken
by Alaska Native organizations and federal agencies.
The ADF&G promotes co-management of marine
mammals with Alaska Native marine mammalorganizations (ADF&G, 2010). A conservation
plan for walrus in Alaska was developed in 1994 toensure walrus in Alaska are healthy functioning
components of the Bering-Chukchi Shelf ecosystems
and to maintain the populations within their optimum
sustainable range. This ensures that walrus remain asustained resource for coastal Native inhabitants of theregion (USFWS, 1994).
The introduction of the MMPA transferred theauthority for walrus management from the State of
Alaska to the USFWS. However, provisions under the
MMPA can allow states to re-assume the managementof marine mammals under guidelines developed byfederal agencies. In 1972, the State of Alaska resumed
management of Pacific walrus for a short period oftime but with federally imposed provisions limiting
the hunt to 3,000 walrus per, year. In 1977 the peopleof Togiak filed a lawsuit against the United States(People of Togiak v. United States, 77-0264), arguingthat the freedom to hunt marine mammals granted in
the MMPA could not be restricted by reinstituting stateconservation laws (Rosenblatt, 1979). The court agreed,
and transferred management authority back to the
USFWS in 1979 (USFWS, 1994).
The MMPA provides for more liberal regulations on
walrus hunting compared to the previous Alaska state
regulations. Prior to the MMPA, from 1960 to 1972,
Alaska state regulations imposed a limit of five females
per subsistence hunter per year, with no limit on thenumber of males (USFWS, 1994). Under the MMPA,
qualified Alaskan Natives are permitted to take walrus
at any time of the year for subsistence purposes, orfor the purposes of making and selling traditional
clothing and handicrafts, without regulations on thesex, age, time of hunt and number of walrus providing
the harvest is not wasteful and the population is notdetermined to be depleted (USFWS, 1994; Anon 1972).
The federal government is required to manage thepopulation within optimum sustainable population(OSP) levels (USFWS, 1994). The OSP is defined by
the MMPA under Section 3 (9) to be “with respect
to any population stock, the number of animals
which will result in the maximum productivity ofthe population or the species, keeping in mind thecarrying capacity of the habitat and the health of theecosystem of which they form a constituent element”.
OSP is further defined under its regulations (50 CFR
216.3) as “a population size which falls within a range
from the population level of a given species or stock
which is the largest supportable within the ecosystem
to the population level that results in maximum
net productivity. Maximum net productivity is thegreatest net annual increment in population numbers
or biomass resulting from additions to the population
due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due
to natural mortality.” Under the MMPA, the Native
harvest cannot be restricted if the populations areabove their maximum net productivity level, arehealthy and the harvest is non-wasteful (USFWS, 1994;

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus51© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANON

Anon 1972). If the population is considered depleted(which occurs when the population falls below its OSP),
then actions can be taken to regulate the Native harvest(USFWS, 1994). Estimates of four critical values areneeded to determine a precise calculation of the OSP
range: current population size, annual female harvest
rates over the last 150 years, carrying capacity andwhere maximum net productivity occurs relative tocarrying capacity. Since the latter two are not known orcannot be calculated with precision for Pacific walrus,
the OSP cannot be defined in a statistically rigorous
manner (USFWS, 1994).
Although the MMPA has not needed to take action toregulate the harvest (i.e. there are no federally imposed
quotas), some local management programs have beendeveloped (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011). For example, thecommunities of Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence
Island formed Marine Mammal Advisory Committees
to implement local regulations imposing limits on thenumber of adult/sub-adult walrus that can be killed
per hunting trip. Another example is the Walrus
Island-State Game Sanctuary, which has provisions for
hunting in the area (Garlich-Miller et al., 2011). The

52

sanctuary was created in 1960 by the State of Alaska,
which prohibited walrus hunting in the area (Round
Island) (Anon., 1960; BBNA, 2009). In the early 1990s,
the Board of Game was petitioned by hunters from
Bristol Bay to reinstate subsistence access to traditional
hunting grounds (BBNA, 2009). After several years,
permission was granted and in 1995 the Qayassiq
Walrus Commission (QWC) was formed. In September
1995, the USFWS entered into a cooperative agreementwith the ADF&G, the QWC and the EWC to establish
a co-management plan for a limited subsistence walrus
hunt on Round Island (EWC, 1997). Under the terms ofthis agreement, Native hunters honour a self-imposed
harvest limit and season (Okonek and Snively, 2005).
A maximum of 20 walrus may be taken including any
walrus struck and lost, and the QWC Commissioners
and hunters decide the allocation for each village prior
to each season (Okonek and Snively, 2005). Struck andlost animals are subtracted from the total allowable
catch for the villages (Okonek and Snively, 2005).
The MMPA implemented a moratorium on hunting
and importation of marine mammals (including
walrus) unless exempted or authorized under the
MMPA, which requires permits issued by the Secretaryof the Interior. However, coastal-dwelling Alaskan
Natives are exempt from the moratorium. Any
qualified Alaskan Native that lives on the coast of thenorth Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean is permitted
to take marine mammals for subsistence purposesor for making and selling authentic Native clothing
and handicrafts, provided it is not done in a wastefulmanner (Anon., 1972).
Amendments to the MMPA in 1994 allowed for marine
mammal products to be imported into the UnitedStates if they were (Anon., 1972):rlegally possessed and exported in conjunction
with travel out of the United States providing
the products were then imported back into theUnited States by the same individual; or

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

racquired out of the United States as a part ofcultural exchange by an Alaskan Native residingin Alaska; orrowned by a Native inhabitant of Russia, Canada
or Greenland and imported for non-commercial
purposes in conjunction with travel to the UnitedStates or as part of a cultural exchange (Anon., 1972).

In 2008, the USFWS was petitioned to list Pacific walrus
under the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) (US Federal Register, 2011; USFWS, 2011). The
USFWS announced a 12-month finding in February
2011 (76 FR 7634). In that finding, and after reviewing
the best scientific information, the UFSWS identified
the potential threats to the Pacific walrus according tovarious factors. In summary, the primary threats wereidentified as loss of sea ice due to climate change and, inthe foreseeable future, subsistence hunting. Therefore,
the USFWS found that the listing of the Pacific walrus
under the ESA was warranted. However, the listing was
precluded as a result of higher priorities for amendments
to the list of endangered and threatened wildlife andplants, and the Pacific walrus was added to the candidate
species list. A species on the candidate list is given alisting priority number (LPN) to ensure that species
most need of protection are addressed first. The highest
priority ranking is an LPN of 1 down to the lowest LPN
of 12. The Pacific walrus has been assigned an LPN
of 9 (US Federal Register, 2011; USFWS, 2011). A final
decision on the listing is expected in 2017 (USFWS in litt.
to T. Shadbolt, March 25, 2013). If the species becomeslisted under the ESA, it will automatically be designatedas depleted under the MMPA and further action can betaken to manage the species.
Walrus hunting is monitored through two separate
programs administered by the USFWS: the Marking
Tagging and Reporting Program (MTRP) and the
Walrus Harvest Monitoring Program (WHMP)(Garlich-Miller and Burn, 1999; MMC, 2010b). The
USFWS derives its harvest estimates by comparing
and extrapolating data from these programs (MMC,

2003). Created in 1988, the MTRP is a federally
mandated, year-round state-wide program which
requires hunters to present walrus tusks to USFWS
representatives for tagging within 30 days of harvest(Garlich-Miller and Burn, 1999; USFWS, 2008b).In
the 1960s and 70s, the ADF&G carried out a harvest
monitoring program which was taken over by the
USFWS in 1980 (MMC, 2003). The WHMP wasestablished as a co-managed effort between the EWC
and the USFWS. This program began monitoring thesubsistence harvest of walrus in Gambell, Diomede,
Wales and Savoonga (EWC, 1997; Garlich-Miller
and Burn, 1999), but now operates only in Gambell
and Savoogna (USFWS in litt. to T. Shadbolt, March
25, 2013). Once hunters return from a hunting trip,
village residents (under contract to the USFWS) meettheir boats and collect information on the size anddemographics of the harvest by interviewing huntersand obtaining biological samples (EWC, 1997;
Garlich-Miller and Burn, 1999).

3.5.2 Hunting seasons,techniques and methods
Under the MMPA, Alaskan Natives are permitted tohunt walrus at any time of the year (USFWS, 1994).
However, the QWC established a hunting season for
walrus hunted on Round Island (Walrus Island-State
Game Sanctuary) from September 10 to October 20(BBNA, 2009; Okonek and Snively, 2005).
Most walrus hunting in Alaska takes place in spring,from March to May (USFWS in litt. to T. Shadbolt,
March 25, 2013). Most hunters prefer to hunt on ice floes
in single small boats or small groups of boats, as open
water hunts are often less successful (NAMMCO, 2006a).
Hunters typically use rifles to shoot the animal on theice and then harpoon them if necessary (NAMMCO,
2006a). If a lethal shot is not possible, hunters try toimmobilize the animal with a first shot so that it cannot
enter the water and be lost (NAMMCO, 2006a). Hunters

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

53

Table 3.8
US PACIFIC WALRUS
POPULATION

129,000 animals (includes
stocks shared with Russia)

Number of Pacific walrus killed in the United States from 1999 to 2012YEAR

WALRUS HARVESTEDESTIMATED STRUCK AND
LOST ANIMALS*TOTAL INCLUDING ESTIMATEDSTRUCK AND LOST RATES

1999

2830

2049

4879

2000

2428

1758

4186

2001

1880

1361

3241

2002

2248

1628

3876

2003

2162

1566

3728

2004

1549

1122

2671

2005

1399

1013

2413

2006

1286

931

2217

2007

2376

1721

4097

2008

1442

1044

2486

2009

2123

1537

3660

2010

1682

1218

2900

2011

1240

898

2138

2012

1626

1176

2802

Source: USFWS, (2013). Data are adjusted for unreported harvest.

© STEVE MORELLO / WWF-CANON

Note: In an attempt to provide an estimate of the maximum number of animals that could be killed during the hunt, harvest numbers werecorrected for animals struck and lost using a rate of 42%, a rate which has been used by the USFWS. The corrected rates were calculatedby the USFWS.

54

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

taking animals on the ice try to have a harpoon ready incase the animal tries to escape into the water or is pushed
or pulled into the water by other walrus (NAMMCO
2004b; Fay et al., 1994).

Documented cases of illegal domestic trade andhunting of walrus include:r

In 1989, leaders of the Alaska Native walrus
hunting community urged the USFWS toinvestigate walrus poaching. In 1990, “Operation
Whiteout” was initiated by undercover agentsof the USFWS who set up a storefront business
in Anchorage. During the investigation, theagents bought and sold ivory wholesale (USFWS,
1992), engaged in hundreds of transactions
involving trade in walrus ivory and videotaped
an illegal harvest. By 1992, a total of 29 people
were charged with 80 counts of illegal activities;
but 25 people were convicted on 39 counts. Fourof the convicted people received jail sentences
ranging from two to six months and one received
a sentence of one year of probation with twomonths spent in a halfway house (Highbeam
Research, 1992). A total of 314 kg (693 pounds) ofivory tusks, 32 walrus heads, six polar bear skins,
four seal skins and nine sea otter skins were soldto undercover agents during the investigation(USFWS, 1992).

r

In 2003:

Losses associated with the hunt
Struck and lost rates for modern walrus hunting
are estimated to be from four per cent to over 50%(NAMMCO, 2004b; 2006a). For Pacific walrus hunted
between 1952 and 1972, Fay et al. (1994) found an
average struck and lost rate of 42% which is the ratecurrently used by the USFWS (USFWS, 2010b). To
avoid losses, hunters try to avoid shooting an animalin the water. If forced to (e.g. because animals are
scarce), they attempt to harpoon the animal before
administering a fatal shot (Fay et al., 1994). Hunters
have also been trying to improve struck and lost rates
by using more powerful rifles, attach more floats tothe animals and by shooting at as close a range as
possible (NAMMCO, 2004b).

3.5.3 Harvest statistics
According to the most recent available catch data, inthe last five years (2008 to 2012) approximately 5,873
Pacific walrus were harvested in the United States, oran average of 1,175 walrus per year. The lowest number
harvested in a single year was 1,240 and the highest
was 2,123 (Table 3.8) (MMC, 2010b; USFWS, 2013).

3.5.4 Illegal hunting andillegal trade
The authors could find no documented information
to suggest illegal hunting is a significant management
concern for Alaska. However, many charges have beenlaid in regard to trade in walrus parts which indicatesthat there are some problems. These charges appear tobe primarily with illegal domestic trade (between theState of Alaska and the lower 48 states), but some areinternational in nature.

▶

An Alaskan Native who worked as a marine
mammal tagger under contract to the USFWS
in his village was investigated for selling raw
tusks and falsifying records. The man was
required to pay USD2,500 in fines. Eight raw
tusks and six walrus heads were abandoned
to the USFWS (USFWS, 2004; 2005).

▶

Five people were charged with killing 41
walrus on the ice floe offshore of St. Lawrence
Island with the intention of selling the tusks
without using the rest of the animal. The
hunters attempted to conceal their actions
by discarding the carcasses in the ocean but
poor weather conditions forced them to leavesome of the carcasses on the ice (AssociatedPress, 2004; USFWS, 2004; 2005). Two people

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

55were convicted: one received a three-yearjail sentence and the other was sentenced
to 12 months’ probation and 900 hours ofcommunity service (USFWS, 2006).
▶

rComplaints of a wasteful harvest led to five menbeing charged with an unlawful take of walrus
near Barrow, Alaska (USFWS, 2004; 2005). Six
walrus heads were seized in the investigation.
One of the defendants was sentenced to sevenyears of jail time (USFWS, 2006).

In 2004, an Alaska resident supplied tags andtagging certificates to a non-Native. The nonNative used the tags for beach-found ivory
which was sold to non-Natives for USD1,500 to
USD2,000 per walrus head (USFWS, 2005).

r

In 2005, a pawn shop owner in Alaska was fined
USD3,750 for purchasing raw walrus ivory
and later fined USD1,250 for illegal trafficking(USFWS, 2006).

r

In 2007:
▶

▶

56

r

An Alaskan resident was sentenced to six
months in prison and fined USD20,000 for
unlawful collection and selling of walrus bone
and ivory. A co-defendant was sentenced toeight months in prison (USFWS, 2008a).
An Alaskan resident was sentenced to eightmonths in prison for conspiring to sell
walrus ivory and other parts. The defendant
claimed that the items were found on thebeach. Under United States law, beach ivory
can be collected by non-Natives, but it must
be registered within 30 days and cannot be
re-sold or traded without permission fromthe USFWS. A total of 10 walrus head mounts
were seized and 50 walrus teeth, a baculum,
two jaw bones, a skulls and a tusk head
mount were all abandoned to the USFWS (USDepartment of Justice, 2007).

r

In 2008:▶

An Alaska resident pleaded guilty to illegallytransporting and selling a walrus head mount,tusk and jawbone (Anchorage Daily News, 2008).

▶

A man was sentenced to eight months inprison for conspiring to sell walrus parts, anda co-defendant was sentenced to six months
in prison and forced to pay a USD15,000 fineand USD5,000 in restitution (USFWS, 2009a).

▶

A man was fined USD3,000 for selling marine
mammal products (including walrus) to anundercover officer (USFWS, 2009a).

In 2009, an Oregon resident was sentenced tothree years’ probation and a USD10,000 finefor selling walrus ivory illegally. The man wasplanning to act as a retailer and market theitems in Oregon, but was caught when he tried
to sell items to a USFWS undercover agent (USDepartment of Justice, 2009).

Documented cases of illegal international trade in
walrus include:r

In 2003, the Wildlife Enforcement Directorate
of Environment Canada received informationfrom a Nunavut wildlife enforcement officer on
the illegal activities of two Nunavut big gameoutfitters. Some of the information suggested that
walrus trophies had been illegally exported to
the United States. Various offices of the Wildlife
Enforcement Directorate and the USFWS
investigated the case from 2003 to 2008. The
USFWS interviewed more than 30 United States
hunters across the region which resulted in the
seizure of four individual tusks, two walrus skulls
with tusks, a baculum and an individual walrus
tooth. All items were forfeited to the United States
government. Charges were laid in the UnitedStates and fines totalling USD18,325 were levied(R. Labossiere, Wildlife Enforcement Directorate,
in litt. to E. Cooper, February 19, 2008).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

In 2007 in Dallas, Texas, defendants paid
USD10,050 in fines for smuggling a walrus trophy
to the United States from Canada (USFWS, 2008a).

r

In 2007, wildlife inspectors found walrus bones
and carvings coming from Bali to the UnitedStates that were falsely declared. The importer
was fined USD5,025 (USFWS, 2008a).

r

In 2008, a Virginia resident was fined USD5,000
and received a year’s probation for smuggling
a walrus penis bone (baculum) into the UnitedStates from Russia. Federal agents had warned
the defendant about trading in marine mammals
parts, but the defendant ignored the warning andlater lied to the agents (Juneau Empire, 2008).

r

In 2011, three people were charged with the illegal
sale and transportation of walrus parts and tusks
to out-of-state buyers. Two of the defendants had
purchased more than 227 kg (500 pounds) of
walrus tusks from an individual in Alaska during

2010 and 2011, and the third defendant marketed
the tusks via the internet and contacted potential
buyers. The defendants attempted to conceal
the illegality of the tusk sales to non-Alaskan
Native buyers by using a Bureau of Indian Affairs
number belonging to one of the defendants, thewalrus tusk tag number and a letter identifying
the items as gifts. The investigation found thatapproximately 104 kg (230 pounds) of walrustusks were sold (valued at approximately
USD22,000). The three defendants pleaded guilty
to the charges: one defendant was sentenced to
108 months in prison to be followed by a threeyear term of supervised release; the second
defendant was sentenced to 42 months in prison,
to be followed by a three-year term of supervised
release and the third defendant (who marketed
the tusks) was sentenced to three years’ probation(US Department of Justice, 2011a; 2001b).

© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANONr

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

57

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© WILD WONDERS OF EUROPE / OLE JOERGEN KIODDEN / WWF

58

4.0
TRADE
AGREEMENTS AND

REGULATIONS

4.1 Walrus range
State regulations andrestrictions on trade

1993a). Export of walrus products out of Canadarequires CITES documentation (i.e. an export permit),
unless the item is considered a tourist, personal or
household effect (as defined by Canadian regulations).

CanadaGreenland

No edible parts of a walrus can be sold, bought,
bartered or traded, except by Aboriginal peoples incertain jurisdictions (Anon., 1993a). There are no
restrictions on the possession or sale of non-edible
walrus items within the country, provided the items
were acquired legally. However, any transportationof a walrus or its parts and derivatives from one
province or territory to another requires a Marine
Mammal Transportation Licence (MMTL) (Anon.,Before any walrus part can be sold, the hunting
permit used to harvest the walrus must be stampedby the local authority or settlement office who willthen register the harvest. When a sale takes place,the hunter must endorse, via signature, a copy of thestamped permit which then accompanies the item
being sold. The copy must show that the catch has
been registered by a municipal authority (Anon.,2006a). If the local settlement office is closed, selling

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

59may occur if registration of the harvest and saletakes place immediately after the office opens. Anysale or resale of the skulls, tusks and bones mustalso be accompanied with a copy of a signed andstamped hunting permit. This requirement provides
for increased control and helps prevent the sale ofillegally hunted walrus. The purchase of or receivingof walrus parts that were hunted illegally is prohibited(Anon., 2006a). Export of walrus products out ofGreenland requires CITES documentation. A CITES
Export permit is required for exporting items for
personal use (which must be transported in personal
luggage) and a different kind of CITES Export permit
is required for exporting gifts and items sent by mail(Greenland Home Rule, 2008).

The United States
Items from the subsistence harvest (e.g. modern ivory
post-1972) and beach-found ivory16 can be sold to nonAlaskan Natives (non-indigenous people) provided they
are first fashioned into authentic Native handicrafts.
To be considered Native handicrafts, items must be
significantly altered from their raw appearance andcannot be fashioned using pantographs, multiple carvers
or other mass copying devices (Anon., 1972). NonAlaskan Natives can be in possession of raw beach-foundivory provided it has been registered within 30 days of
its find, but this ivory cannot be transferred to anotherowner without written permission from the USFWS(USFWS, 2012). Fossil ivory does not need to be carved
into a Native handicraft before being sold and can besold to anyone as a raw tusk (USFWS, 2007b; 2012).
There is also substantial trade in fossil ivory collectedor mined from ancient walrus haul-out sites (e.g. on St.
Lawrence Island and surrounding islands) (Hollowell,2006). These areas provide a source of natural depositsof ivory, bones, and tusks from animals that died years

ago (Hollowell, 2006). Fossil ivory can be collected fromprivate or reservation lands with permission from thelandowner (USFWS, 2001). It is not regulated under the
MMPA and does not need to be registered before being
traded or sold. However, this ivory cannot be collected
if found on state or federal public lands (USFWS, 2001).
Meat and other edible parts of a walrus may only be soldto an Alaska Native or sold within an Alaskan Native
village (Anon., 1972). Walrus ivory cannot be exportedout of the United States for commercial purposes unlessthe item is approved as a pre-Act specimen (i.e. antiqueor fossil ivory) (USFWS, 2012). Modern ivory (post1972) and beach-found ivory cannot be exported forcommercial purposes even if carved into a handicraft.
However, modern ivory and beach-found ivory madeinto authentic Native handicrafts can be exported for
non-commercial purposes (C. Hoover, Division ofManagement Authority, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, February
3, 2012). Walrus parts and derivatives can only be
imported with issuance of permits under specificcircumstances (e.g. pre-Act specimens, part of cultural
exchange involving Alaskan Natives) (Anon., 1972;
USFWS, 2012). Walrus parts and derivatives permitted
for export out of the United States (as explained above)
require a CITES permit or certificate, except for items
which are considered personal or household effects (as per
the definitions of the United States (USFWS, 2007b; 2012).

Norway (and its territories)
Hunting of walrus has been prohibited since 1952
(Anon., 1952). Therefore, there is generally no tradein walrus from Norway or its territories unless theitem was acquired prior to 1952, or if it was proven tobe beach-found from Svalbard prior to 2001. Exportof walrus products out of Norway and its territories
requires CITES documentation (e.g. a pre-Convention
certificate).

16
Modern ivory is ivory that has been harvested from a walrus since 1972; beach-found ivory is ivory found on the beach within .4 km (1/4 mile) of theocean; fossil ivory is ancient ivory with a composition that has changed from ivory to mineral; pre-Convention ivory is ivory that was acquired prior to
November 16, 1975 (the date that Canada listed the walrus in Appendix III); and pre-Act ivory is ivory acquired prior to 1972 (introduction of the MMPA).
All antique ivory is both pre-Convention and pre-Act but not all pre-Convention and pre-Act ivory is antique.

60

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Russia
Commercial hunting of Atlantic and walrus fromthe Laptev Sea has been prohibited since 1956 and forsubsistence harvest since 1982; as such, trade in thesewalrus is prohibited (Anon., 1956a; 1982a). Russia does,
however, allow hunting of Pacific walrus for subsistence
purposes and there are no restrictions on possession orsale of Pacific walrus parts and derivatives providing
the harvest was legal; proper documentation is required
to confirm legal origin (Vaisman et al., 2009). Export ofPacific walrus products out of Russia requires CITES
documentation (e.g. certificate of origin).

4.2 International
regulations andrestrictions on
international trade

4.2.1 CITESLimited regulation of the international trade in walrus,
their parts and derivatives was implemented in 1975
when the species was listed in Appendix III of CITES at
the request of Canada (CITES, 2008b). In 1977, Denmark
submitted a reservation17 to the Appendix III listing but
withdrew it in 1984 (CITES, 2008b). The Netherlands
submitted a proposal to list walrus in Appendix II in 1987
but it was withdrawn before being put to a vote (USFWS,
1994; Anon., 1987). As a result, range States agreed to
exchange scientific information on walrus regularly. As
well, an International Workshop on the Ecology andManagement of Walrus Populations was organized
and the Walrus International Technical and Scientificcommittee (WITS) was established (Stewart et al., 1993). A

proposal was considered again prior to CoP 8 in 1992 but a
proposal was not submitted (USFWS, 1994). An Appendix
III listing for a species can be requested at any time, by any
range State, for a species native to that country. Since thewalrus is listed in Appendix III, a CITES export permit isrequired prior to export of walrus parts and derivatives
from Canada. Exports of walrus parts and derivatives
from any other country must be accompanied by a CITES
certificate of origin which verifies origin of species. Reexport of Canadian walrus parts and derivatives fromanother country would require issuance of a CITES reexport certificate (Anon., 1973a; Cooper and Chalifour,2004). Further information on CITES can be found insection 1.2.4 Regulation international trade of wildlife andalso in Appendix B.
Some countries have taken measures that go beyond
the minimum requirements of the Convention,requiring additional permits or certificates (e.g.
EU Wildlife Trade Regulations [EU WTR]). Any
range State can list a species within their borders inAppendix III at any time, because this does not requirea vote by the CITES Parties. Furthermore, a country
making an Appendix III listing is not required under
CITES to make an NDF prior to exporting specimens.
Appendix III’s purpose is to monitor trade to help thelisting country evaluate whether export may havean impact on the conservation of species in question(Anon., 1973a; Cooper and Chalifour, 2004).

4.2.2 EU WTR
As stated earlier, the EU implements CITES throughthe EU WTR. In 1984, trade in walrus was regulated
in the EU when the species was listed on Annex C218
under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3626/82. When17
As per the text of the Convention, any Party may (by notification in writing) make a reservation with respect to an amendment to Appendix I or II.
Until the reservation is withdrawn, the Party is to be treated as if it was not a Party to the Convention with respect to trade in the species concerned(Anon., 1973b).

Annex C2 of the previous EU WTR (Council Regulation (EEC) Reg. No. 3626/82) included both CITES Appendix II and III species. Annex
C2 was equivalent to the current EU WTR (Council Regulation (EC) Reg. No. 338/97) Annexes B and C.

18

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus61that regulation was replaced in 1997, the walrus waslisted on Annex B under Council Regulation (EC)Reg. No. 338/97 (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Annex B are
equivalent to CITES Appendix II; however, theseprovisions for Annex B are more strict than what
is required by CITES. Trade in Annex B species(e.g. walrus parts and derivatives) requires importpermits, and a second NDF, in addition to export
permits or re-export certificates (C. O’Criodain,
WWF International, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, September
25, 2013). On September 26, 2006, the SRG formeda negative opinion on the import of walrus fromGreenland (UNEP-WCMC, 2011; European
Commission, 2006). There was concern that thecurrent or anticipated levels of trade could have a
harmful effect on the conservation of the species(European Commission, 2006). As a result, EU
member states must reject all applications to importwalrus parts or derivatives from Greenland. This
resulted in an import ban; however, as long asGreenland issues export permits, items classified as
personal and household effects are not affected andcan be imported into EU member states providing
they are in the personal luggage or part of a household
move, or trophies taken by the person concerned andimported later, after curing (C. O’Criodain, WWF
International, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, September 25,
2013; Greenland Home Rule, 2008). On August 13,
2008, the SRG imposed a formal import suspension
on walrus parts and derivatives originating fromGreenland. This import suspension was published asa “Suspension Regulation” in the EU Official Journal,Commission Regulation (EC) No 811/2008 of 13 August
2008 suspending the introduction into the Communityof specimens of certain species of wild fauna andflora (Anon., 2008b). On June 17, 2013, the importsuspension was still listed in the EU Official JournalCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No
578/2013 of 17 June 2013 suspending the introduction
into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild
fauna and flora (Anon., 2013). Further information

62

on the EU regulations can be found in section 1.2.4
Regulation international trade of wildlife and also in
Appendix B.

4.2.3 Customs Union (CU)With the creation of the Customs Union (CU) formallyestablished in 2007, CITES listed species can now be
traded freely within the CU countries without bordercontrol (Taylor et al., 2012). The CU is an integrated
customs area between the Russian Federation and theRepublics of Belarus and Kazakhstan. However, othercountries have expressed interest in joining the CU(Taylor et al., 2012). The Republic of Kyrgyz has been
negotiating for accession to the CU since 2011 (Taylor
et al., 2012), which is expected in the near future(Vaisman et al., in prep). The Republic of Tajikistan(currently not a Party to CITES) has also expressedinterest, but because it does not border a current CU
member country, Tajikistan will have to wait until
the Republic of Kyrgyz is officially a member of the
CU (Taylor et al., 2012). Although it does not shareborders with existing members, in September 2013
Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan publicly statedthat Armenia is joining the CU (Rodeheffer, 2013).
The Eurasian Economic Commission for Europe(ECE) became operational in February 2012 and has
been established as the permanent governing body of
the CU (Eurasian Economic Commission, 2013).
While formally the CU is not meant to affect CITES
implementation and enforcement in the CU member
countries (i.e. according to the regulations in place,
CITES-listed species are not covered by the ECU), it
does have implications for wildlife trade (Vaisman
et al., in prep.). Removal of previous border controls
between the CU member countries inevitably
removes several barriers to legal and illegal wildlife
trade and reduces opportunities for border control
and enforcement (Taylor et al., 2012). Potential
implications and ramifications of high conservation
concern include: lack of co-ordination and exchange

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

coordinated monitoring and enforcement actions
necessary for effective wildlife trade regulation within
the CU (Taylor et al., 2012).
When the EU experienced a similar situation in the
1980s (i.e. a single market resulting from absenceof systematic internal border controls levels), theEU decided that provisions of CITES needed to be
implemented in all EU Member States uniformly
and in a co-ordinated manner through the adoptionof a comprehensive set of EU regulations that wereapplicable to all EU Member States—the EU WTR.
These were introduced with three co-ordinating
bodies established at the EU level to allow for
regular and frequent information exchange andconsistent decision-making for the different aspectsof CITES implementation, ranging from scientificto management and enforcement issues (European
Commission, 2012).

© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANON

of information on all levels of CITES implementation,
which is necessary for consistency within the CU
and to avoid abuse of the system; lack of internal
trade monitoring; reduced ability to control andmonitor exports of native species; and fewer barriers
to transport of legal and illegal wildlife trade (Taylor
et al., 2012). Article XIV.3 of the Treaty states: “Theprovisions of the present Convention shall in no way
affect the provisions of, or the obligations deriving
from, any treaty, convention or international
agreement concluded or which may be concluded
between States creating a union or regional trade
agreement establishing or maintaining a common
external Customs control and removing Customs
control between the parties thereto insofar as they
relate to trade among the States members of that
union or agreement. However, as of 2012, it does
not appear that the CU has implemented legislation(regarding CITES) nor has it taken steps for the

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

63

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© STEVE MORELLO / WWF-CANON

64

5.0
WALRUS TRADE
Walrus are important both culturally and spiritually, and valued as a subsistence resource(NAMMCO, 2004b, USFWS, 2008b). They provide a source of food (meat consumed byhumans and dogs) and raw materials for traditional equipment and the making of handicrafts(Garlich-Miller et al., 2011). Walrus ivory is the most common walrus product in international
trade. It includes the teeth, tusks and skulls (with tusks intact) which are traded in their raw
form, carved or used to make handicrafts (e.g. figurines, jewellery) (Anderson and GarlichMiller, 1994; COSEWIC, 2006; Hall, 2003; NAMMCO, 2004b; USFWS, 1994)

5.1 Types of items in trade

CanadaIn some cases, items may be legally traded within a range
State (domestic trade), but not for export out of the country(international trade). Furthermore, the domestic andinternational markets for walrus items vary depending on
the country, the purpose of the items (e.g. carvings versus
tusks), in addition to the artistic value of the item.

In Canada, trade includes raw and carved bones (e.g.
bacula19, lower jaws), raw and carved skulls, tusks,
teeth, carved ivory handicrafts and other minor items(UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database; Hall, 2003).

19

In Canada, the term “bone” is applied to the baculum (penis bone) of a male walrus.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

65Greenland
In Greenland, trade includes skulls, tusks, teeth,
carved ivory handicrafts (including jewellery), ivory
figurines known as “tupilaks”, bones (e.g. bacula,lower jaws) and other minor items (UNEP-WCMC
CITES Trade Database; Grønlands Naturinstitut,
2011; Born, 2005b).

Norwayderivatives, including ivory jewellery, ivory and bonecarvings, and ivory pieces and tusks (Garlich-Miller
et al., 2011). Walrus hides are also used for rope andin the construction of covers for wooden boat frames(USFWS, 2008b). Walrus whiskers are marketed totourists as toothpicks (E. Cooper, pers. obs.).

5.2 Accuracy of CITES
trade data

There is no legal domestic trade of local walrus killed
after 1952. A variety of products such as tusks andcarvings are traded in Norway; these are remnantsof the historical sealing and hunting expeditions thattook place prior to protection in 1952. There is also
trade in beach-found ivory acquired in Svalbard prior
to 2001 (I. Gjertz, Research Council of Norway, in litt.
to T. Shadbolt, March 4, 2013).

Data recorded in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade
Database are compiled from information provided
in the Parties’ annual reports; therefore, the accuracyof the data depends completely on the quality of thereporting by the CITES Parties. Unfortunately, someannual reports do not always provide accurate andprecise data, and reporting of data is not always
consistent between Parties. When considering CITES
trade data, the following caveats should be considered.

Russiar

Reporting of Appendix III data. Doubts about
the effectiveness of Appendix III and difficulties in
its implementation have resulted in some Parties
being unwilling to take on the administrative
burden of implementing Appendix III. As such,international trade by these Parties will not be
submitted in their annual report; thus it is not
captured in the CITES Trade Database.

rInternational trade for personal and household
effects. Some Parties may not require documentation
for items exported for these purposes (which includes
tourist souvenirs). If not required, this information
will not be recorded and not submitted in annual
reports or reported in the UNEP-WCMC CITES
Trade Database.

r

Export data are not always accurate. Export data
may not represent the actual number of items

In Russia, trade includes sculptures and carvings
made from bones and ivory, as well as carved skulls
and tusks. Skins are also traded locally and used in
the construction of “biddarah” (kayak) covers and forstraps used in dog harnesses (Mymrin, 2007, Vaisman
et al., 2009). Small pieces of ivory are also used forknife handles (Vaisman in litt. to T. Shadbolt, July 30,
2013; Knifewood, 2013).

United States
In the United States, trade includes handicrafts and/or
pre-Act20 specimens only. Pre-Act fossil ivory does notneed to be carved into Native handicrafts before being
traded in the United States (USFWS, 2007b; 2012).
The majority of items in trade consist of parts and20
Pre-Act specimens are any marine mammals taken prior to December 21, 1972, when the United States MMPA came into effect (Section 102(e) of
the MMPA of 1972).

66

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

exported since some Parties report data frompermits issued, not from permits used. Although
CITES recommends that annual reports provide
the actual number of items exported based on
permits used, some Parties instead report the
numbers of items that were listed on issued
permits or certificates. Unfortunately, the numberof items approved for export in a CITES export
permit may not be the same as the number of
items actually shipped (i.e. exporters may export
fewer items than approved on permits). The
United States was the only walrus range State thatreported based on the permits used for all years.
For 2000 to 2003 and 2006, Greenland reported
on permits used, but for all other years thesource of data was not specified. Russia did not
specify the basis of reporting. Norway reported
a combination of permits issued (1996 to 1998,
2001, 2004 and 2005) and actual trade (1999, 2000
and 2003), but the basis of trade was not specified
for all other years. Canada did not specify thebasis of their reporting in any year (K. Malsch,
Species Programme UNEP-WCMC, in. litt. to T.
Shadbolt, December 1, 2010). Greenland did notreport export data for 2007.
rr

Import data are not consistent. Import data are
not always recorded in annual reports, whichmakes it difficult to compare CITES importand export data. Some items may have not beenreported by the importing country, or they may
have been imported in a different calendar year
than export permit was issued (e.g. the export
permit could be issued in November, but the
goods not shipped until the following January).
Inconsistent terminology. The importing
country and exporting country may report thesame items using different terminology (e.g.
purpose of trade, units of measurement), whichmeans that data may not correlate between

countries (J. Caldwell, UNEP-WCMC CITES
Trade Database Manager, in. litt. to T. Shadbolt,
March 9, 2009; UNEP-WCMC, 2010).
r

Inconsistent use of purpose codes, items
descriptions, and units of measurement.
Transaction codes (e.g. purpose of export) are
important for monitoring trade in CITES-listed
species because they help determine the nature of
the trade. They also allow CITES Parties to monitor
the volume of non-commercial and commercial
trade. Since the purposes of transaction codes
are not adequately defined, they are open tointerpretation and not used consistently by thevarious CITES Parties. For instance, a sport
hunter might obtain a CITES permit for a skull
but indicate that the item was “personal” in nature,
which may be confused with personal purposes,
rather than “hunting trophy” purposes.

r

CITES trade data are not comparable to harvest
data. Harvest statistics are compiled basedon management seasons (which may overlap
between two calendar years), while the CITES
trade data are compiled based on a calendar year.
Furthermore, the export or import of an animal
product may occur years after the animal was
actually hunted.

r

Unknown source of items (from live or deadanimals). While most items in trade clearlyrequire the death of an animal (e.g. skulls andtusks), some items (such as specimens) could havebeen sourced from a live walrus in the wild. Thisis important information when considering theimpact of trade on conservation of a species.

r

Inconsistent reporting of seizure data. The
CITES Trade Database is not a seizure database.
Seizures data are not always reported, or arereported with insufficient detail and do notindicate the reasons an item was seized.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus67© ERNIE COOPER 2013

precisely determine the number of harvested walrus
represented in international trade because some ofthese items (e.g. carvings or teeth) could originate
from a single walrus or from many walrus. Whenexamining the data, considering the items in trade
and the purpose of export for these items wasimportant. For instance, 5,500 walrus items in trade
could be interpreted as significant based on thequantity. However, without looking at the data inmore detail, they can be misinterpreted. If 5,400 of
those items consisted of specimens such as teeth andcarvings, and only 100 of the items were skulls, theconservation impact of this trade would be considered
to be lower than if the majority of items were skulls,
which can be attributed to a finite number of animals.
It is important to note that trends in the numbers and/or types of items in trade do not necessarily reflect
harvest levels.

5.3.1 Recent international
trade (sum of 2005 to2009 export data)

A fossil walrus tooth that has been carved into a figurine of an eagle

5.3 Analysis of export data
Sections 2 Methods and 5.2 Accuracy of CITES trade
data of this report provide detailed explanations ofwhat data were used for analysis, why some data were
included and excluded, and the limitations to the useof the data.
The international trade in walrus parts andderivatives involves a variety of items (e.g. skulls,
tusks, teeth, bones, carvings). It is impossible to68

Approximately 7,181 walrus parts and derivatives werereported in the export data in a five-year period (2005
to 2009). Eight main items made up this trade. Carvings
comprised the highest volume of items recorded,followed by tusks, teeth, bones/parts, specimens, skulls,
ivory parts and other items. The purpose of export foreach type of item, according to each walrus range State,is summarized in Table 5.1.
During a five-year timeframe, Greenland exported
the highest number of items, followed by Canada,
the United States and Russia in that order. Figure
5.1 provides a visual representation of international
trade globally, while Figures 5.2 to 5.5 are illustrated
according to each range State (except Norway which
exported no items). The types of items and the
purpose of export for each item are summarized inthese figures.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable 5.1

Walrus items reported in export data during a five-year period (2005 to 2009 inclusive)

COUNTRY OF EXPORTCOMMODITY(PURPOSE OF EXPORT)CANADA

GREENLAND1

RUSSIA

UNITED STATESTOTALCarvings

165 (93)4837 (1)

158 (155)

161 (1)5321 (267)

Educational

6 (5)

5

Personal

30 (20)4789

Travel exhibitions

116 (64)

3

ScientificCommercial trade101

4920 (20)121 (64)

2

8 (1)

8 (1)
13 (4)

32

unknown

60 (1)

562 (1)

Hunting trophies

5

Personal

250 (1)54 (1)9 (1)105 (22)156 (155)

156 (155)

Tusks

12

637 (3)5

53 (1)

Travel exhibitions

812323 (2)
1 (1)

1 (1)

Commercial trade

307

1

Teeth

164

129

Personal

67

129

Commercial trade

97

Bones and parts

173

Hunting trophies3

Personal

63

308

0

293

0

196
97

68

1 (1)

11 (2)

253 (3)
3

57

Travel exhibitions

10 (1)

130 (1)
1 (1)

1 (1)

Commercial trade

107

11

Specimens

0

20

Scientific

11 (5)

0

20

1 (1)

119 (1)

206

226

206

226

table continued on next page
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the proportion of items recorded as pre-Convention items. Remaining items were wild, unknown or not recorded.
1. Some country codes in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database refer to political entities that issue permits, but are not actually sovereign
nations (e.g. Hong Kong or Greenland).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

69

Table 5.1

Walrus items reported in export data during a five-year period (2005 to 2009 inclusive) continued

COUNTRY OF EXPORTCOMMODITY(PURPOSE OF EXPORT)CANADA

GREENLAND1

RUSSIA

UNITED STATESTOTALSkulls

52

113

0

1(1)

166 (1)

Educational

1

1

Hunting trophies

6

Personal

30

Travel exhibitions

6
108

138

1

1
1 (1)

20 (1)

80 (13)80 (13)

Educational

23 (4)

23 (4)

Personal

27 (1)

27 (1)

Travel exhibitions

30 (8)

30 (8)

15 (2)

205 (7)

6

6

Commercial trade

16

3

Ivory parts00

Other items

59

0

123

8 (5)

Educational
Hunting trophies77Personal

20

Travel exhibitions
ScientificCommercial trade103
52

unknown

70

3

23

2 (2)

2 (2)

3

106

1

53
8 (5)

8 (5)

TOTAL

1175 (94)5344 (2)176 (162)

486 (36)7181 (294)

Educational

6 (5)

6

0

29 (4)

41 (9)

Hunting trophies

21 (20)00021 (20)

Personal

440 (65)5156 (1)8153 (2)5757 (68)

Scientific0131 (1)0209

340 (1)

Travel exhibitions

116

4

4 (2)

32 (10)156 (12)

Commercial trade592 (4)47

063 (20)702 (24)

unknown00

164 (160)0164 (160)

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusFigure 5.1

Walrus items recorded by range State export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009)

Carvings

92% nPersonal
exhibition
2% Traveln<1% nScientiﬁc
2% nCommercial trade
3% nunknown

Skulls83%
Travel exhibitionn <1%Commercial trade12%n
Educationaln <1%
Hunting trophies
4%nPersonal

n =138

=4920

TOTAL
n =5,321

=121

TOTAL
n =166

=8

=1

=20

=105

=1

Tra
v

<1%

Co

Per

n =11

Hu
ntin

Educational

=156

Sc
ien
tifi
c

=6

icS
ne

e
hx
bi

Ivory parts

rT
va
le

Tusks

eP

sr

Hunting trophies

51% n

Personal=323

exhibition<1% Traveln
48% nCommercial tradeTOTAL
n = 63 4

Travel exhibition

n =5

n =30

<1%

38%

28%
Personal
34%
n

Educational

TOTAL
n = 80

n =23

=1

=27

=308

n =7,181

Teeth

67% nPersonal
33% nCommercial trade=196

Specimens

TOTAL
n =226TOTAL
n =293

Scientiﬁcn =226=97

Other items

Bones and parts

100%

Travel exhibition<1%
Personal
11%nHunting trophies3%nEducationaln 3%
unknown
4%nCommercial trade
26%
n
n =2

51% nPersonal
exhibition<1% Travel
n

=23

=130

=1

47% nCommercial trade

TOTAL
n =253

Hunting trophies

n =3

<1%

TOTAL
n =205=119

Scientiﬁc

n =106

52%

=7

=6

=8

=53

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

71Figure 5.2

Walrus items from Greenland and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009)

Carvings

99% nPersonal
exhibition<1% Traveln<1% nScientiﬁc<1% nCommercial trade<1% nEducational

Skulls96%
Travel exhibitionn <1%Commercial trade3%nEducationaln <1%
Personal=4789

n =108TOTAL
n = 4,837

=3

TOTAL
n =113

=8

=1

=3

=32

cS

=5

lan

arT
lev
xe

os

P
re

=1

Tusks
Specimens

98% nPersonal=53

2% nCommercial trade
=1

TOTAL
n =54
TOTAL
n =20

TOTAL
n =129

=129

n =20

Other items

16%
Scientiﬁc84%n
Personal

n =20

Bones and parts

84% nPersonal
16% nCommercial trade
=57

TOTAL
n =123TOTAL
n = 68=11

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

72

100%

n =5,344

Teeth

100% nPersonal

Scientiﬁc

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus=103Figure 5.3

Walrus items from the United States and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data(2005 to 2009)

63% nPersonal
37% nCommercial trade=101

Carvings

SkullsTOTALn =161TOTAL
n =1Commercial trade

n =1

100%

=60

Ivory parts
Travel exhibition

Tusks

n =30

38%

28%
Personal
34%
n

Educational

TOTAL
n = 80

n =23

TOTAL
n =12

100% nPersonal
=12

=27

n =486TOTAL
n =206

Bones and parts

91% nPersonal
9% nCommercial trade=10

Specimens

TOTAL
n =11

Other items

Scientiﬁc

n =206100%

20%
Travel exhibitionn 13%
Scientiﬁcn 23%
Commercial traden <1%Personal

n =3

=9

=2

TOTAL
n =15

=3

=1

Educational

n=6

40%
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

73Figure 5.4

Walrus items from Canada and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009)

Carvings

18% nPersonal<1% nEducational<1% nCommercial trade
exhibition
70% Traveln

Skulls58%
Hunting trophiesn 11%
Commercial trade31%nPersonal

=30

=6

=13

n =30

TOTAL
n =165

TOTAL
n =52

=6

=16

=116

Bones and parts

Tusks

37%
Hunting trophies<1%nCommercial trade62%nPersonal

44% nPersonaln = 63=250<1% nHunting trophies
55% nCommercial trade
=5

TOTAL
n =562=307

TOTAL
n =173=67

59% nCommercial trade=107

n =1,175

Teeth

41% nPersonal

=3

TOTAL
n =16 4

Other items

12%
Commercial trade88%nHunting trophies

TOTAL
n =59

n =7

=97

=52

Co
c
tifi
ien
Sc

r
Pe

74

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

xh
le
ve
Tra

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

Figure 5.5

exhibitions<1% Traveln
99% nunknown=2

Walrus items from Russia and their purpose of export, sum of five-year data (2005 to 2009)

Carvings

Bones and parts

TOTAL
n =158TOTAL
n =1

Travel exhibitions

n =1

100%

=156

n =176

89% nPersonal
=8

11% n

Travel exhibitions

Tusks

Other items

TOTAL
n =9

TOTAL
n=8

unknown

n =8

100%

=1

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

755.3.2 Trends in Items(1987 to 2009 export
data, per year)
The CITES Guidelines on submitting annual reports
provides explanations for wildlife terms; however, theseare only guidelines and recommendations. Hence, CITES
Parties can ultimately interpret and record data in themanner most appropriate for their reporting structure21.
Given the inconsistent use of terms, the authors groupedsimilar and related items together for greater clarity inanalysis. These groups are defined as follows:rr

Bones, ivory and carvings. This includes the UNEPWCMC CITES Trade Database terms for skeletons,
bones (e.g. baculum), bone products, bone pieces, bonecarvings, ivory carvings, ivory pieces and carvings;
Other items. This includes the UNEP-WCMC
CITES Trade Database terms for claws, trophies,
bodies, skins, skin pieces, leather items, leather
products, garments, plates, scraps, hair, meat,
genitalia and unspecified items.

According to the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade
Database, approximately 15,282 kg of walrus partsand derivatives were reported in the export datafrom 1987 to 2009 (Table 5.2). Since these items arerecorded by weight, it is impossible to determine thenumber of walrus represented by this trade.
The majority of items in the export data recorded
by weight were reported by the United States(approximately 15,114 kg). Approximately 12,289 kg ofthese items were reported by the United States as being
exported to Indonesia; however, there were no entries
recorded in Indonesia import data. Since the UnitedStates reported data on items exported, it is probablethat Indonesia did not record the imports of the items.
According to the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database,approximately 29,523 walrus parts and derivatives werereported in the export data from 1987 to 2009. The types
of items reported are summarized in Table 5.3 (below). It
is possible to see variations in the trends of items tradedover the years and how they influenced the overall trade(Figures 5.6, 5.11 and 5.12). The data show increases (peaks)in the total numbers of items recorded in 1988, 1989, 1992,
1994, 1997, 2002, 2005 and 2008. The trade appears to bevariable over time, which a noticeable shift from tusks tobones, ivory and carvings after 1998. The increases were
influenced by specific items traded, as follows:r

1988: increased numbers of bones, ivory and carvings;r1992, 1994 and 1997: increased numbers of tusks;r

2002: increased numbers of specimens and teeth;r2005 and 2008: increased numbers of tusks. For
2005, it is possible that the tusks recorded by the
USFWS were fossil but incorrectly reported as wild.

The data show decreases (troughs) in the total numbersof items recorded in 1990, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2007
and 2009. The decreases were influenced by specificitems traded as follows:r

1990, 1993 and 1996: decreased numbers of tusks;r

2000: decreased numbers of bones, ivory and carvings;r

2003: decreased numbers of specimens and, to alesser extent, bones, ivory and carvings;r2007: decreased numbers of bones, ivory and carvings(possibly due to missing Greenland export data);r

2009: decreased numbers of bones, ivory andcarvings; and tusks.

20
The explanations for description of tooth, tusks and carvings are: tooth, “teeth – e.g. of whale, lion, hippopotamus, crocodile, etc”; tusks, “substantiallywhole tusks, whether or not worked. Includes tusks of elephant, hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, but not other teeth”; and carvings as “carvings(including wood, and including finished wood products such as furniture, musical instruments and handicrafts). NB: there are some species fromwhich more than one type of product may be carved (e.g. horn and bone); where necessary, the description should therefore indicate the type of
product (e.g. horn carving)”. Some of the walrus range States have specified items as “bone carvings” or “ivory carvings” while other entries only
indicate “carvings” which is reflected in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database76

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable 5.2

Walrus items reported by weight (kg) in export data, per year, 1987 to 2009YEAR

BONES, IVORY
AND CARVINGS

TUSKS

1987

0

2

1988

0

158

1989

0

225

225

1990

0

1241 (45)1241 (45)822 (822)

TEETH

SPECIMENS

MEAT

TOTAL
2

10

168

1991

27 (27)1992

139 (139)

683 (683)

27 (27)

1993

77 (77)552 (552)

68 (68)

1994

220

191

32

1995

344

901 (45)291274 (45)

1996

84

302 (36)33

419 (36)1997

38

463 (83)1998

215 (158)

461 (461)

92 (92)1999

104

478 (61)

282

2000

4450 (23)514 (40)58 (18)2001

706 (133)

7 (7)

2002

179 (171)

17

2003

212 (136)27

697 (697)
1

7

444

508 (83)768 (711)30

2896 (61)5022 (81)713 (140)2

198 (171)239 (136)2004

204 (61)2005

255 (44)204 (61)2006

230 (18)2007

417 (198)

417 (198)2008

331 (331)

331 (331)

2009

39 (39)39 (39)

TOTAL
Items

8271

6246

597

(1554)(2013)

(178)

3

117

375 (44)24

254 (18)

149

20

15283
(3746 )

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the proportion of items recorded as pre-Convention items. There remaining items were recorded
as wild or unknown.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

77

Table 5.3

Wallrus items reported in export data, per year, 1987 to 2009YEAR

BONES, IVORY
AND CARVINGS

TUSKS

TEETH

1987

269

14

1988

1360

1989
1990

SPECIMENSSKULLS

OTHER ITEMS

TOTAL

112

14

15

424

11

75

6

31

1483

220

862

30

19

21

1308

536 (2)

126

10

20

10

702 (2)156

1991

543 (28)

295

1

38

21

130

1028 (28)1992

449 (197)

1233 (1155)

12

2

31

34 (2)

1761 (1354)1993

722 (147)

29

69

4

80

10

914 (147)1994

452 (3)1180 (2)

115

1

41

2

1791 (5)1995

338 (7)880 (7)

119

51

2

1390 (14)1996

509 (5)

9

528

1

48

12

1107 (5)1997

471 (62)830 (1)7336

71417 (63)1998

1142 (619)

80 (8)40

1

19

29 (4)

1311 (631)1999

846 (45)65 (1)

94 (40)28

39 (1)

211 (2)1283 (89)2000

548 (26)

211 (46)

15

33

4

8 (1)

819 (73)

2001

1038 (445)

51 (6)

15

250

15

7

1376 (451)2002

987 (41)

97 (1)

114 (1)430

44 (1)

13

1685 (44)2003

1095 (196)66 (11)

204

39

37

9

1450 (207)2004

1482 (164)137

139 (39)

162

2005

1712 (7)96 (1)

172

2006

1401 (60)

125

98

2007

74 (16)178 (1)

2008

1007 (160)

130

2009

791 (31)

94

TOTAL
Items

17,992 (2098)

6799 (1240)

52

91981 (203)35102025 (8)

20

37

9

1690 (60)

99

14

53

418 (17)39

91185 (160)

16

42

24

8

975 (31)2051 (80)1306

726 (2)649 (9)29523 (3592)

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the proportion of items recorded as pre-Convention items. There remaining items were recorded
as wild or unknown.

78

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Items that could represent an
individual walrus
A walrus skull is not usually traded without thetusks, so it is reasonable to assume that a skull canbe sourced from one walrus and two tusks could besourced from either one walrus or from two different
walrus. Only these two items can provide an estimateof walrus represented in international trade. Since thewalrus must be dead for a skull or tusk to be traded,this can also provide insight to the potential impactof trade on the conservation of the species. Purposeof export and destination countries can also provide
insight on the dynamics of the trade (e.g. purposeof trade, where markets are located), which is notnecessarily the same for skulls and tusks. Thus the

Figure 5.6

data are examined as separate items (tusks areanalysed separate from skulls). The term “bodies” isanother item which could be used to represent an
individual animal. However, since this term is open
to interpretation, it is not possible to know whether abody would also include the skull (or tusks). Bodies
accounted for less than 50 items in total during 1987
to 2009 and were not included.
Tusks account for 6,799 of the items reported from1987 to 2009. Figure 5.6 illustrates increases (peaks)in the number of tusks recorded in 1989, 1992, 1994,
1997 and 2000. The data do not indicate whether
tusks were carved or uncarved. These increases in
numbers of tusks were primarily for commercial
purposes, the majority of which were exported byTrends in reported exports of skulls and tusks per year, 1987 to 2009

2500

All Items
Skulls2000
QUANTITY

Tusks

1500
1000
500

19
8
19 7
8
19 8
89
19
9
19 0
9
19 1
92
19
9
19 3
94
19
95
19
96
19
9
19 7
98
19
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
02
20
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
0
20 6
0
20 7
08
20
09

0
YEAR
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

79the United States. In 1992 the majority of these items
were recorded by the United States as pre-Convention.
For the years 1989, 1994 and 1997, the United States’
export data were recorded as wild-sourced tusks in
the UNEP-CITES Trade Database. However, theUnited States’ CITES permits (which provide data for

Table 5.4

submission of its CITES annual report) record datain the “Description” block (Block 9 of the permit)
on whether the item was pre-Convention and in the“Source” block (Block 10 of the permit) on whether
the item was from unknown or wild origin. However,since the United States’ CITES annual report database

Number of walrus tusks and purpose of reported exports, per year, 2005 to 2009YEAR

COUNTRY OF EXPORT(PURPOSE OF EXPORT)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TOTAL

Canada75124

178 (1)10184

562 (1)

3

5

Hunting trophies2

Personal

1973

52 (1)

7432

250 (1)

Commercial trade

56

51

124

27

49

307

Greenland1

12

1

0

17

10

40

Personal

11

1

17

10

39

Commercial trade1

Russia9 (1)Personal

8

8Travel exhibitions

1 (1)

1 (1)

United States

0

1

0

0

0

0

Personal

0

12

0

0

9 (1)

12
12

12

TOTAL

96 (1)

125

178 (1)13094623 (2)

Hunting trophies

0

0

2

0

3

5

Personal

38

74

52 (1)

10342

309 (1)

Travel exhibitions

1 (1)

0

0

0

0

1

Commercial trade

57

51

124

27

49

308 (1)

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the proportion of items recorded as pre-Convention items. Remaining items were wild, unknown
or not recorded.
1. Some country codes in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database refer to political entities that issue permits, but are not actually sovereign
nations (e.g. Hong Kong or Greenland).

80

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusonly allows the entry of one source code and because
the United States pre-Convention certificates record
two sources (pre-Convention source in Block 9 andwild or unknown source in Block 10), in some cases
the source from Block 10 has been recorded in theelectronic data and their pre-Convention status(reflected in Block 9) was inadvertently not reflectedin the data (C. Hoover, Division of Management
Authority, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, December 17, 2012).
Therefore, it appears most likely that the tusks
exported by the United States in 1989, 1994 and 1997
were in fact pre-Convention. In addition, the vast
majority of these were not recorded by the importing
countries, suggesting that the importing country did
not report the imports (e.g. Indonesia did not reportany imports even though United States reported
export there). It is also important to note that UnitedStates prohibits the commercial export of uncarved,
non-fossil tusks; furthermore, raw pre-Convention

Figure 5.7

tusks must be also be considered fossils before
they can be exported out of the United States forcommercial purposes (USFWS in litt to T. Shadbolt,
March 25, 2013).
The number of tusks in international trade increased
gradually from 2005 to 2007, and then declined from2008 to 2009; with the 2009 levels falling almost to2005 levels. However, the recorded purpose of export
fluctuated (Table 5.4 and Figure 5.7). An increasein the number of tusks exported for commercial
trade was observed in 2007 (influenced by Canadian
exports), followed by a decrease in 2008. An increasein the numbers of tusks exported for personal
purposes was observed in both 2006 and 2008, again
the result of Canadian exports. The reason for thefluctuations in the purpose of export is unclear, but
could be a result of changes in market dynamics or
result of inconsistent reporting of the data.

Purpose of walrus tusk reported exports, per year, 2005 to 2009

QUANTITY OF TUSKS

140
120

Commercial trade100

Personal

80

Hunting trophies

60

Travel exhibitions

40
20
0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

YEAR
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

81

The 2005 to 2009 export data contained 24 different
destination countries for walrus tusks. The number oftusks exported to key destination countries fluctuatedFigure 5.8

with no apparent trends (Table 5.5 and Figure 5.8).
The majority of the tusks were exported to Japan,
Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Spain.

Key destination countries for walrus tusks, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year

QUANTITY OF TUSKS

100
80

2005

60

2006
2007

40

2008

20
0

2009

Japan

Germany

Switzerland

Denmark

Spain

Remaining
19 Countries

COUNTRY© ERNIE COOPER 2013

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

A small walrus tusk that has been sectioned longitudinally and polished (left) and a seal figurine carved from walrus tusk ivory (right)

82

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable 5.5

Key destination countries for walrus tusks, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year

YEAR

DESTINATION COUNTRY(PURPOSE OF EXPORT)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TOTAL

Japan

8

83

51

8

44

194

8

42

14

Commercial trade

Personal
841

37

Germany

57

41

15

Hunting trophies

41

15

79

29

115

22

176
2

2

Personal

12

31

Commercial trade45

10

Switzerland

40

Personal

4

4

4

11

1

18

85

64

26

4

98

4

10

2

Commercial trade

91

40

62

26

88

Denmark

9

1

12

15

9

46

Personal

8

1

12

15

9

45

0

4

15

4

23

1

1

Commercial trade

1

Spain

0

1

Hunting trophies
Personal

0

0

4

15

3

22

Remaining 19 countries*

18 (1)

030 (1)

25

11

84 (2)

Travel exhibitions

1 (1)

1 (1)
2

2

7

62 (1)

2

19

130

94

623 (2)

2

0

3

5

52 (1)

10342

309 (1)

Hunting trophies
Personal

14

16 (1)

25

Commercial trade

3

14

TOTAL

96 (1)

125

178 (1)

Hunting trophies00Personal

38

74

Travel exhibitions

1 (1)

0

0

0

0

1

Commercial trade

57

51

124

27

49

308 (1)

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the proportion of items recorded as pre-Convention items. Remaining items were wild, unknown
or not recorded.
1. Some country codes in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database refer to political entities that issue permits, but are not actually sovereign
nations (e.g. Hong Kong or Greenland).
* Less than 17 tusks were exported to an individual country over the five-year period

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

83Skulls account for 726 of the items reported ininternational trade from 1987 to 2009. Figure 5.6(above) illustrates the trends in the quantity recorded
which appear to be relatively stable. In most years
less than 50 skulls were recorded, with the exceptionof 1993 when 80 skulls were Greenland exports for
personal and scientific purposes.
From 2005 to 2009, the quantity of skulls remained
relatively stable with slight declines in 2007 and 2009.
The recorded purpose of export was primarily for
personal purposes (Table 5.6 and Figure 5.9).

Table 5.6

The 2005 to 2009 export data recorded 18 different
destination countries for walrus skulls (Table 5.7 andFigure 5.10). The majority of the skulls were exported
to Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
The number of skulls exported to key destination
countries did not fluctuate significantly, except in2007 when skulls were not exported to Denmark.
However, this is likely a gap in the available data asGreenland did not report its exports that year.

Number of walrus skulls and purpose of reported exports, per year, 2005 to 2009YEAR

COUNTRY OF EXPORT(PURPOSE OF EXPORT)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TOTAL

Canada

13

12

14

6

7

52

Hunting trophies

4

1

1

6

Personal

4

4

11

5

30

Commercial trade

5

7

3

1

16

Greenland1

22

25

0

33

17

97

Personal

21

22

33

17

93

Travel exhibitions

6

1

1
3

Commercial trade

1

2

TOTAL

35

37

14

39

24

149

Hunting trophies

4

1

0

0

1

6

Personal

25

26

11

39

22

123

Travel exhibitions

0

1

0

0

0

1

Commercial trade

6

9

3

0

1

19

Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
1. Some country codes in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database refer to political entities that issue permits, but are not actually sovereign
nations (e.g. Hong Kong or Greenland).

84

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusFigure 5.9

Purpose of walrus skull reported exports, per year, 2005 to 2009

QUANTITY OF SKULLS

45
40
35

Commercial trade30

Personal

25

Hunting trophies

20

Travel exhibitions

15
10
5
0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

YEAR
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

Figure 5.10

Key destination countries for walrus skulls, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year

QUANTITY OF SKULLS

30
25
2005

20

2006

15

2007

10

2008

5

2009

0

Denmark

Netherlands

Germany

Belgium

Remaining
14 countries

COUNTRY
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

85

Table 5.7

Key destination countries for walrus skulls, according to 2005 to 2009 export data, per year

YEAR

DESTINATION COUNTRY(PURPOSE OF EXPORT)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TOTAL

Denmark

21

19

0

25

15

80

Personal

20

17

25

15

77

Travel exhibitions1

1
2

Commercial trade1

1

Netherlands

4

5

5

2

1

17

1

2

2

1

6

Personal

11

Commercial trade

4

4

3

Germany

0

3

1

5

Personal

1

15Commercial trade

2

9
7
2

Belgium

3

2

1

Personal

3

11

Commercial trade

0

0

1

7

8

1

6

1

2

6

35

1

6

5

27

Remaining 14 countries*

7

8

Hunting trophies41

Personal

2

6

Commercial trade

1

1

TOTAL

35

37

14

39

24

149

Hunting trophies

4

1

0

0

1

6

Personal

25

26

11

39

22

123

Travel exhibitions

0

1

0

0

0

1

Commercial trade

6

9

3

0

1

19

7

7

2

7

2

Source: Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.
1. Some country codes in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database refer to political entities that issue permits, but are not actually sovereign
nations (e.g. Hong Kong or Greenland).
* Less than 6 skulls were exported to an individual country over the five-year period.

86

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Items that cannot represent an
individual animal
It is not possible to determine the number of walrus
represented by the remaining items recorded in trade.
For many of the items described such as carvings
and ivory carvings, there is no way to determine
how many animals represent the trade. A “carving”
could be a small ivory figurine or it could be a fully
carved tusk. Likewise, “teeth” could be interpreted
as molars or a tusk. Furthermore, “specimens” is notwell defined and could refer to items such as blood ortissue samples resulting from research activities.
Bones, ivory and carvings (skeletons, bones, bone
products, bone pieces, bone carvings, ivory carvings,

Figure 5.11

ivory pieces and carvings) account for 17,992 of
the items reported from 1987 to 2009. Figure 5.11
illustrates increases (peaks) in the numbers recorded
in 1988, 1990/1991, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2008.
These increases are summarized as follows.
r1988 and 1993: increases were primarily forcommercial trade;r

1990/1991: primarily for commercial trade and toa lesser extent personal trade;r

1993: primarily for commercial trade;r

1998: primarily for travel exhibitions and to a lesser
extent commercial trade and personal trade;r

2001: primarily for travel exhibitions and to alesser extent personal trade;

Trends in reported exports of bones/ivory/carvings and teeth, per year, 1987 to 2009

2100

All Items

1800

Bones, ivory
and carvings

QUANTITY

1500

Teeth

1200
900
600
300

19
87
19
8
19 8
8
19 9
90
19
9
19 1
92
19
9
19 3
94
19
9
19 5
96
19
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
02
20
0
20 3
0
20 4
05
20
0
20 6
0
20 7
08
20
09

0

YEAR
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus87r2005: primarily for personalr

2008: primarily for personal trade and to a lesser
extent unspecified purposes.

A large decrease in number of bones, ivory andcarvings was observed in 2007, likely due to themissing 2007 Greenland data. Greenland was theprimary exporter of these items in other years.
Teeth account for 2,051 of the items reported from1987 to 2009. Figure 5.11 illustrates increases (peaks)in the number of teeth recorded in 1996, 2003 and2005. In 1996 and 2005 this was due to increased
numbers of items traded for commercial purposes,
while in 2003 this was due to increased numbers of
items exported for scientific purposes.

Figure 5.12

Other items (claws, trophies, bodies, skins, skinpieces, leather items, leather products, garments,
plates, scraps, hair, meat, genitalia [which could be
penis bones] and unspecified items) account for 649
of the items reported from 1987 to 2009. Figure 5.12
illustrates increases (peaks) in the quantity of items
recorded in trade in 1991, 1999 and 2007. The increasein 1991 was the result of greater numbers of leather
items which had an unknown purpose. The increasein 1999 consisted of claws for commercial trade
and the increase in 2007 consisted of genitalia forcommercial trade.
Specimens (e.g. blood or tissue samples) account for
1,306 of the items reported from 1987 to 2009. Figure5.12 illustrates increases (peaks) in the quantity ofTrends in reported exports of specimens and other items, per year, 1987 to 2009

2100

All Items

1800

Specimens

QUANTITY

1500

Other items

1200
900
600
300

19
8
19 7
8
19 8
89
19
90
19
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
96
19
9
19 7
9
19 8
99
20
0
20 0
0
20 1
02
20
0
20 3
0
20 4
05
20
0
20 6
0
20 7
08
20
09

0
YEAR
Source: Comparative tabulation of export data extracted from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

88

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrusspecimens recorded in 1989, 2002, 2004 and 2007.
These increases were mostly the result of increased
numbers of specimens traded for scientific purposes.

to all item types, and therefore international trade
could be higher than indicated in the UNEP-WCMC
CITES Trade Database.

5.4 Impact of international
trade on walrus

A rough estimate of the number of walrus represented
in international trade can be made by examining thenumbers of skulls and tusks in export data. Since
there is no way to determine whether two tusks
represent one walrus or two walrus, a minimum
and maximum estimate is provided. The minimum
estimate (assuming that two tusks represent one
walrus) indicates that 461 walrus (149 skulls +623tusks/2) were represented in international tradefrom 2005 to 2009, an average of 92 walrus per year.
The maximum estimate (assuming that two tusks
represent two walrus) indicates that 772 walrus (149skulls + 623 tusks) were represented in international
trade from 2005 to 2009, an average of 154 walrus
per year. The majority of these skulls and tusks werefrom Atlantic walrus. These figures could be theresult of countries such as Canada reporting trade
data based on permits issued, not on permits actuallyused. Furthermore, these data do not record the year
the walrus was killed, only the year it was traded.
There is no direct link between harvest and trade data,so some of these tusks and skulls could have comefrom walrus killed in previous years; for instance, it
is possible that an animal was killed in 1990 but nottraded until 2006. The data could also underestimate
the number of walrus in international trade, since
walrus products exported as personal and household
effects (which include souvenirs) may not require
permits/certificates. Thus, they are not contained in
the international trade data.

As previously mentioned, the commercial exploitationof walrus for oil, blubber and tusks from the 18th tothe 20th century greatly reduced the global populationof both the Pacific and Atlantic subspecies. However,
the alleviation of this exploitation allowed the species
to increase to their current size in latter half of the20th century. Today, walrus parts and derivatives ininternational trade are sourced from walrus killedduring the subsistence hunt, or from the historicalcommercial harvest (i.e. pre-Convention items).
The total number of items reported in the export data
fluctuated, and increases from 1987 to 1997 increases
were influenced mainly by increases in trade in tusks.
The data could mistakenly be interpreted to indicatethat the number of walrus hunted for trade was also
increasing. However it is important to note thatduring these years, a significant number of the tusks
were recorded as pre-Convention tusks by the UnitedStates. Since 1998, the quantity of items exported
has varied, primarily the result of greater numbersof bones, ivory and carvings entering international
trade. It is impossible to determine how many walrus
are represented by trade in these items. However, thenumbers of tusks and skulls (which can be used toestimate the number of walrus involved) remained
relatively constant throughout that time period. It isalso important to note that exports of personal items
and household effects (including tourist souvenirs)
may not require certificates or permits for export,
depending on the range State’s laws (e.g. a permit forthis purpose is not required by the United States or
Canada). This means that international trade in these
items may not be recorded and will not be containedin the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade data. This applies

All the skulls (149) and 602 (out of 623) of the tusks
recorded in the export data from 2005 to 2009 werefrom Canada or Greenland, and thus were from
Atlantic walrus. This could mean that almost all of
the walrus products in international trade are from
Atlantic walrus; or it could mean that products from
Pacific walrus are mostly personal and household

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

89effects and are without CITES certificates or
permits. In the United States, trade in walrus partsand derivatives for personal and household effects
does not require documentation. This means theinformation is not recorded and not submitted in
the United States annual reports or reported in the
UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database (USFWS,CITES Division of Management Authority, in litt. to
T. Shadbolt, April 8, 2013). According to CITES World(2003) there is insufficient awareness of Appendix III
and how it contributes to the work of the Convention.
Doubts about the effectiveness of Appendix III anddifficulties in its implementation have made someParties being unwilling to take on the administrative
burden of implementing Appendix III. An exampleof this was the Appendix III listing of big-leaf
mahogany, which initially did not result in effective
implementation because of lack of understanding ofAppendix III requirements (CITES World, 2003).
Although import data were not analyzed for this report,
it appears that not all import data are being reported.
For example, Indonesia did not report imports of
walrus products from the United States, although theUnited States reported exports to Indonesia (whichis also the case for many other Appendix III species
exported to Indonesia). This suggests that not all of thedata on international trade is being reported.
There can be challenges in accurately differentiating
fossil ivory from modern ivory, especially if thefossil ivory is well preserved (E. Cooper, pers. obs.).
The Arctic’s frozen ground serves to preserve andprotect ivory from the elements very well. Like
modern ivory, some well-preserved fossil ivory
lacks mineralization, cracks, fissures and a darker
appearance, characteristics which help to identify it as
fossil or antique ivory.
There are also methods which can be used to alter
the physical appearance of modern ivory to resemble
antique or fossil ivory. It is possible that some of90

these methods have been exploited to circumvent
regulations (E. Espinoza, National Fish and Wildlife
Forensic Lab USFWS, pers. comm. to T. Shadbolt,
February 13, 2013).
Due to the uncertainties and data limitations
discussed above, combined with the fact that NDFs
are not required to for issuance of CITES export
permits for walrus parts and derivatives, it is difficult
to determine the total impact of international trade.
However, the available information does not suggestthat international trade currently poses a threat towalrus conservation.
Research regarding the current and projected effects
of climate change on walrus is lacking and theimpacts for Pacific walrus may differ than those forAtlantic walrus. However, there has been growinginterest and more research in recent years which will
likely improve the understanding of the impacts ofclimate change on both walrus subspecies. Loss of
sea ice may also open up areas in the Arctic that werepreviously inaccessible to humans, while an expected
and concurrent increase in the number of walrus
hauling out onshore may result in easier humanaccess to walrus. Changes in sea ice timing andoccurrence will also disrupt traditional hunting as
walrus either shift distributions or conditions makesubsistence hunting more difficult in some years.
Given the potential impacts of climate change, it will
be important to ensure that international trade does
not pose a threat to the species.

5.5 Socioeconomic
importance and valueof walrus parts andderivatives
Many Arctic communities are characterized by amixed economy, which combines both a market
economy and a subsistence economy (Environment

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Canada, 2011). This includes the commercial
harvesting of fish and wildlife, mineral extraction,
tourism, forestry and harvesting renewable resourcesfrom the land and sea (Nuttall et al., 2005). Hunting
activities are not only intended to meet cultural,social and nutritional needs, but also financial needsof families and households. Hunters use money
earned from the sale of animal products to purchaseequipment for harvesting activities (including rifles,
boats, snow machines, and fuel) and to meet demand
for modern standards of living (Nuttall et al., 2005).
In some Arctic regions, use of snowmobiles has
decreased the need for sled dogs. As a result, there isless demand for walrus meat to be used for dog food
(USFWS, 1994). Although Pacific walrus meat is still
eaten by indigenous people in some communities, its
importance may have decreased compared to that oftusks, since ivory carvings provide cash income forhunters (USFWS, 1994; 2007b).
The value of a subsistence hunt cannot be determinedsolely by the monetary value of the animal parts
because this does not take into account other aspectsof the hunt, such as providing food to the community
and the cultural importance of the hunt itself. The
monetary value of the international trade in walrus
and its parts and derivatives is not known. In 1994,
the dollar value of the walrus harvest for Alaskan
Natives was estimated to be in the millions (USFWS,
1994). A socioeconomic report in 1992 and 1993 on
summer walrus hunts in Canada’s northern Foxe
Basin (Anderson and Garlich-Miller, 1994) estimatedthe value of the hunt at CAD160,000, CAD386,000 or
CAD659,000 (estimates varied depending on the typeof substitution costs: import substitution, alternative
market, or country food substitute) (Anderson andGarlich-Miller, 1994). No other reports highlighting
the socioeconomic importance and value of walrus
have been identified.

Value of walrus parts derived fromsubsistence harvest
The value of walrus products varies depending on thetype of item; however, their value is also a functionof artistry. Although raw tusks or fully carved tusks
may be sought after, the value of other products, suchas carvings, varies (Grønlands Naturinstitut, 2011).
Walrus carvings can be found in souvenir shops in
Russian international airports and in hotels in the
country’s eastern regions, but foreign tourists are
not numerous in these areas so demand is limited.
Russians reportedly do not purchase walrus carvings
often because they are expensive and not consideredfashionable (A. Vaisman, TRAFFIC-Russia in litt. to
T. Shadbolt, March 10, 2009). However, in recent years
a new limited market for walrus tusks, specificallya small-scale trade in pieces of walrus ivory, has
emerged in Russia,. These pieces are used in themaking of objects such as knife handles, which isoften a hobby for knife collectors (Vaisman in litt. to
T. Shadbolt, July 30, 2013; Knifewood, 2013).
The value of walrus tusks varies depending on thetusks’ size and quality. In Canada in 1993, tusks
weighing between 1.4 kg and 2.7 kg could be sold for
CAD55/kg and the baculum for CAD10 (Anderson
and Garlich-Miller, 1994). In Greenland, a skull withgood tusks could be sold for USD1,600 (DKK10,000)
and USD500 to USD835 (DKK3,000 to DKK5,000) in
tourist shops (Born, 2005b; Hjarsen, 2004). In Russia,
walrus tusks and bones range in price from a few
hundred dollars to USD4,000 depending on the item
and artistic value (A. Vaisman, TRAFFIC-Russia inlitt. to T. Shadbolt, March 10, 2009).
In 2008/2009, online stores and auction houses
advertised a variety of walrus products for sale. Table
5.8 provides a summary of the walrus parts/productswith their advertised values.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

91

Table 5.8

Walrus products advertised on the internet

ITEM

COUNTRY

ADVERTISED PRICE(FOREIGN CURRENCY)

ADVERTISED PRICE(USD)

Tusks1

Canada-USD275-550 per tusk

Pair of tusks2

CanadaCAD485-885

USD458-835

Carved tusks3

RussiaRUB75,000 -138,000

USD2,230-4,102

Skull with tusks2

CanadaCAD695-1,995

USD656-1882

Skull and tusk mount4

USA-

USD1,875

Scrimshawed skull with tusks4

USA-

USD3,550-4,875

Engraved and carved skull with tusks3

RussiaRUB120,000

USD3,587

Small figurines4, 5

USA-

USD171-800

Small figurines6

RussiaRUB4,400

USD 131

Large figurines4

USA-

USD2,950

Large figurines6

RussiaRUB46,300

USD1,376

Bacula (Oosiks)2

CanadaCAD175-199

USD165-188

Bacula (Oosik) and ivory4

USA-

USD 901

Fossil bacula (Oosik) and ivory4

USA-

USD 651

Bacula3

RussiaRUB35,000-39,000

USD1,040-1,165

USA-

USD1,650

USA-

USD450-1,050

USA

-

USD25

USA

-

USD37

Ivory knife handle7
Scrimshawed ivory knife handle
Whisker toothpick
Whisker earrings

8,9

4

4, 10

Whisker necklace

USA

Ivory earrings

USA-

USD22-150

13, 14

Ivory bracelet

USA-

USD150-200

Ivory necklace13

USA-

USD20011

12, 13

Source:92

USD90

1. The Chichester Group, 2008

6. Kostorez, 2009

11. Alaska Native Arts, 2009

2. Arctic Art Sales, 2008

7. Tiensvold Custom Knives, 2009

12. Village Trading Post, 2009

3. Nord Kompleks Studio, 2009

8. Karam Handmade Knives, 2006

13. Alaskan Native Treasures. 2009

4. EBay Private Sale, 2008

9. Hoffman Knives Collection, 2001

14. Kellers Trading Company, 2009

5. The Raven’s Journey, 2009

10. Fort Green Museum and Alaskan Gifts, 2009

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Sport hunting

In 2007, a guided sport hunt for walrus cost
USD6,000 to USD6,500 for a six-day trip (AmeriCana Expeditions Inc. 2007). In 2012, depending on
the company, a guided sport hunt for walrus cost
USD7,000 for a six-day trip (Andrew Lake Lodge,2012) to USD9,000 for a five-day trip (Ameri-Cana
Expeditions Inc., 2012). This does not include airfare
or accommodation before or after the trip. Afterthe outfitter takes out booking fees, a hunt costing
USD6,000 could bring USD3,500 to USD4,100 to
the community, while guides receive USD1,200 to
USD1,750 and assistant guides receive USD300 to
USD500 (Chivers, 2002).

© ERNIE COOPER 2013

Sport hunting of walrus is currently only legal in
Canada. Similar to sport hunting for polar bears,
sport hunting for walrus also provides local guides anopportunity to work on the land and use traditional
skills (Foote and Wenzel, 2009). These skills are notutilized in typical employment opportunities in theircommunities. Local hunting guides also have a senseof pride in what they do and in the opportunity todemonstrate their skills to visiting hunters (Foote andWenzel, 2009). Guiding provides Arctic communities
with an additional source of income. Sport hunting of
walrus by non-Native residents has been allowed in
Canada since 1995 (COSEWIC, 2006). International
sport hunters are allowed to take non-edible trophy
parts (e.g. tusks, bacula, skulls) home, providing theircountry allows the import of such items. Edible partsof the walrus, such as the meat, must remain with thecommunity (Anon., 1993a; COSEWIC, 2006).

A pendant made from a fossil walrus tooth

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

93

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© KEVIN SCHAFER / WWF-CANON

94

6.0
CONCLUSIONS
Walrus range across a vast and diverse Arctic ecosystem and they are geneticallyisolated into two distinct subspecies, Atlantic and Pacific walrus. As such, walrus
will be subjected to many stressors (threats) that vary from region to region, affecting
each subspecies in different ways and over differing time scales. The impacts of thesestressors on walrus conservation will be dependent on the health of the population/
stock and the resilience of each region’s ecosystem.

T

he impacts of climate change on walrus and theirhabitat are not well understood, but the loss ofsummer sea ice and the effects this could have on
walrus warrant legitimate concern. Lack of long-term
data and precise population estimates make it difficult
to determine sustainable harvest levels and whether
resulting trade is from sustainable sources. New andimproved information gathering and reporting can help
to assess various threats, including climate change, andultimately can be used in adaptive management.

There are substantial limitations to analysing walrus
CITES trade data as they are currently reported. It

is difficult to assess current levels of international
trade and whether regulations are adequate toensure sustainability of walrus populations. Someof the main findings, uncertainties and concerns areprovided below.

Managementr

From 2006/2007 to 2010/2011 on average, 3,215 to
5,406 walrus were killed each year from a global
population of approximately 150,000 to 160,000
walrus. This is less than four per cent of the global
population.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

95

r

▶

For Atlantic walrus, on average 401 to 555 walrus
were killed each year from an estimated populationof 20,000 to 27,000 animals. This is less than three
per cent of the global Atlantic walrus population.

▶

For Pacific walrus, on average 2,814 to 4,851 walrus
were killed each year from a minimum estimatedpopulation of 129,000 animals. This is less than four
per cent of the global Pacific walrus population.

As sea ice melts, greater opportunities fordevelopment and transport routes will likely emerge,potentially increasing disturbances to walrus.
Changes in weather and sea ice conditions could
also make walrus hunting easier or more difficult.
Response to loss of sea ice and increasing pressure
from human development will vary between
subspecies, by region and over time. The predicted
overall impact on walrus is not well understood.
However, given their reliance on sea ice habitat,
there is conjecture that loss of sea ice due to climatechange may negatively impact walrus populations
unless they are able to adapt to ice-free conditions.
One concern over walrus’ increased use of land haulouts is higher mortality associated with disturbance
events, which occur when animals flee to the waterand some animals are crushed by others.

r

If walrus from some stocks begin to show signs of
decline due to the impact of climate change, adaptive
management can help to minimize additional
stresses or pressures on the species. This may be more
applicable to Pacific walrus, which are anticipated tobe more negatively impacted by climate change.

r

Scientific estimates of population size and/or population
trend metrics are poor and local residents’ impressionsof abundance do not always align with scientific survey
results. This poses a challenge for wildlife professionals
and policy-makers, since the range States aim to manage
walrus in accordance with sound conservation practices
based on the best available scientific data. Without
accurate population information, it is difficult todetermine whether exploitation is sustainable.

96r

The number of struck and lost animals associatedwith hunting is a concern for walrus management.
There are few studies on struck and lost rates, andmost are 20 to 40 years old. These studies havefocused on particular regions during particular times.
Since struck and lost rates vary by region, hunting
method, experience of the hunter, and season,
applying the same correction factor to the national
harvest is likely to result in bias and inaccurate
estimates of the number of animals killed. However,from a precautionary perspective this is the best
available information to provide insight to the total
number of walrus killed by hunting (i.e. the numberof walrus harvested plus struck and lost animals).

r

Policies, legislation and regulations are only
effective if there are adequate measures or means
to implement and enforce them. Monitoring andenforcement activities are hampered across range
States due to the remote nature and sheer size ofthe habitat, limited infrastructure and insufficientfunding. As such, co-management systems may beeffective and economic solutions to this challenge.

r

Walrus range States have made efforts to improvethe management and conservation of walrus,
including the introduction of quotas in someregions (e.g. Greenland). The Walrus International
Technical and Scientific committee (WITS) wasestablished in the 1990 at the first International
Workshop on the Ecology and Management of
Walrus Populations. A second workshop was heldin 1993 to continue to strengthen the coordination,communication and cooperation among managers
and resource users. However, there have not been
recent meetings and the group is no longer active.

International trader

Analysis of CITES trade data could not provide a
precise estimate of number of walrus represented ininternational trade. Only two items, tusks and skulls,
can be used to make inferences for the number ofanimals in international trade. On average, between

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus92 (minimum) to 154 (maximum) walrus were
believed to be represented in international trade
in a given year, with the majority being Atlantic
walrus. All the skulls (149) and 602 (out of 623) of
the tusks recorded in the export data from 2005 to2009 were from Atlantic walrus. Carvings represent
the highest number of items in international trade;however, there is no way to determine how many
animals these items represent.
r

r

r

r

Available data may underestimate the number of
walrus represented in international trade since thetrade consists of many different types of items which
may be sourced from an unknown number of walrus
in addition to those animals represented by tusks
and skulls. Furthermore, products (including tusks
and skulls) exported as personal and household
effects (including souvenirs) may not require
issuance of permits/certificates and are unaccounted
for in the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade data.
Export of Appendix III specimens does not
require an NDF. Since NDFs are not required,countries do not have to prove that international
trade is not detrimental to walrus in the wild
before issuing permits. This makes it very difficult
to determine the impact of international tradeon walrus or if items in international trade aresustainably sourced. As such, the current CITES
listing of walrus does not provide an indication
on whether international trade is detrimental tothe conservation of the species.
Although range States are required to reportinternational trade in all species listed under theConvention, some range States may have problems
with implementing provisions for Appendix III
species. As such, the reporting of international
trade may not be as accurate as for those species
listed in CITES Appendices I or II.
It is difficult to accurately distinguish the various
sources of ivory from one another: fossil ivory,
antique ivory, beach ivory and modern ivory.

Furthermore, whether the items are raw or processed
can further complicate matters. This could result insome modern ivory (from walrus hunted post-1975)
to be declared to be from other sources (e.g. fossil
ivory) in an attempt to circumvent regulations.
r

Where permissible by law, walrus hunting
provides economic benefits to Arctic peoples
through the sale of goods from the hunt (e.g.
tusks, skulls and bones). The walrus sport hunt
also provides a source of income through guiding.
Income from these activities is used to meet basic
living needs and to help fund future subsistence
activities. Thus, the financial return from guiding
and from the sale of items provides an incentive
to encourage and maintain sustainable walrus
populations/stocks.

r

'FX DBTFT PG JMMFHBM USBEF IBWF CFFO SFDPSEFE 
making it difficult to assess the extent of the
problem or to determine where to allocate
resources to address the issue. However, there does
appear to be illegal domestic trade occurring in the
United States as indicated by the many charges andconvictions that have been reported.

r

*OTJHIU JOUP DFSUBJO BTQFDUT PG JOUFSOBUJPOBM USBEF
dynamics were not possible given how the data are
currently recorded in the UNEP-WCMC CITES
Trade Database. For instance, the data do notdifferentiate between raw or processed ivory, or
sources of ivory (i.e. antique, fossil, beach-foundor modern ivory), nor can they indicate who is
involved in the kind of trade transactions (e.g. tourist
souvenirs purchased from stores or from local people,
commercial manufacturers who process the ivory,
cultural exchanges between indigenous people, etc).

r

6ODFSUBJOUZ XJUI SFHBSE UP JNQMFNFOUBUJPO PG
CITES within the CU make it unclear on how
trade in CITES-listed species such as walrus
is being monitored and regulated and what
enforcement actions are in place to address
violations of CITES provisions.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

97

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© MIKHAIL CHERKASOV / WWF-RUSSIA

98

7.0
RECOMMENDATIONSManagers, enforcement authorities, biologists, Arctic communities and a spectrumof concerned conservation organizations may have differing opinions on particular
topics or have different methods for achieving and measuring success or failure.
However, they do share a common goal: to conserve wildlife.

New information and more precise dataon both Atlantic and Pacific walrus isneeded to ensure stocks don’t decline to low
unsustainable numbers. This information and data canhelp inform management decisions to ensure harvest
levels are sustainable and are tied to specific and logicalmanagement targets. This will help to ensure resulting
international trade will not be detrimental to walrus
conservation. Given the uncertainties in regard to theimpacts of climate change on walrus and limitations
in available trade data, interested parties will need
to work together and pool resources to have a greater
impact on conservation of the species. Cooperation,communication and commitment are needed by all tohelp fill in the gaps. Successful management will resultin subspecies that are healthy, stable, resilient to threats
and a resource to local communities for the longest
possible time.
Given the uncertainty with regard to international
trade (whether it poses a threat to walrus conservation)and the relatively low to moderate levels of reported
international trade, it may be more appropriate
to direct efforts at monitoring trade levels in the
short term and acquiring more information before
considering more costly and lengthy solutions which
may not yet be needed for walrus conservation. It may
not be realistic, practical or financially possible in the

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

99

short term to consider activities and actions that requirea significant amount of resources or changes in current
management practices. However, if new informationsuggests that more extensive actions are needed, theyshould be explored and management should be adapted
to ensure conservation of the species. Since some Arctic
people and villages are highly dependent on the income
acquired from selling Native authentic handicrafts, any
action taken should also bear in mind local needs in aneffort to prevent any unnecessary local hardships.

International Traderr

The inconsistencies in CITES trade reportingare not specific to walrus; they apply to all taxa
listed under CITES. Therefore, any changes
and improvements to the reporting of data
would require the agreement, participation andcommitment of the signatory Parties. This could
be facilitated by development and agreement on
definitions for the purpose of transaction codes,
reporting trade data for the actual items tradedrather than on permits issued (as recommended
by CITES Res Con 11.17), improved reportingof Appendix III species (which includes walrus),
reporting seizure data and by following theguidelines for the preparations and submission of
CITES annual reports. This would provide moreconsistent reporting of data and improve theanalysis and monitoring of trade in the species.
If lack of consensus among Parties impedes
such changes, the range States could take aproactive stance as a signal to the CITES Parties
by improving their monitoring and reporting of
CITES trade data.
Countries that trade in walrus parts andderivatives could be more explicit whensubmitting information in their CITES annual
reports. Improved reporting of trade in walrus
parts and derivatives could help to facilitate better
analysis of trade activities. This could include:100▶

proper use of terminology codes (e.g. the term
“carvings” should not be used for any ivory orbone product as there are existing codes forivory carvings, ivory pieces, ivory scraps andbone carvings);▶

improvement in recording units ofmeasurement (e.g. using number of items fortusks, but using weight for smaller items suchas carvings, ivory pieces), or use of multiple
measurements (e.g. recording both number of
items and total weight);r

The reporting of items exported as personal andhousehold effects (including tourist souvenirs)
would vastly improve the understanding of tradedynamics. It would provide a more accurate
estimate of the number of walrus represented ininternational trade and whether international
trade poses a threat to the conservation of thespecies. One way to facilitate such reporting
could be through forms (e.g. declaring wildlife
products) or issuance of special permits. This
could be specific to trade in walrus or applicableto other CITES-listed species.

r

A range State workshop on international trade in
Arctic species could help to facilitate information
sharing and discussion on issues related to trade,potential problems and recommended solutions.

r

An updated and circumpolar socioeconomic
study on the importance of trade in Arctic
species (including walrus) would provide useful
information to facilitate dialogue and insight into
the potential effects of restricting hunting and trade.

r

A review of existing management regimes should
be conducted to ensure effective methods arebeing used to validate and ensure modern ivory is
not being recorded and traded as pre-Convention,
pre-Act or fossil ivory in an attempt to bypass
regulations regarding commercial export of walrus
parts. Clear definitions on what constitutes fossil
ivory may help to prevent such attempts.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

© SYLVIA RUBLI / WWF-CANONManagementr

Walrus range States should ensure that
population and harvest monitoring is adequate
to adaptively manage harvest in accordance withsound conservation practices based on the best
available scientific data. Updated population
estimates and improved harvest reporting will
help ensure that harvest of the species remains
within sustainable limits despite the impact ofclimate change on the Arctic environment.

r

The effects that climate change may have on
walrus are not well understood. Although there
have been studies on Pacific walrus, there is little
more than speculation as to the impacts of climatechange on Atlantic walrus. More information isneeded for both subspecies to ensure adequate
measures are taken for the conservation andmanagement, and that trade will not pose a threat
to the conservation of the species.

r

Mitigating disturbance to known land haul-out
sites could help minimize the number of animals
killed during stampede events. This could include
protection and restriction of access to known
haul-out sites during certain times of the year.

rRange States should review existing domestic
and international policies, laws and agreements
to ensure that adequate penalties and means toprosecute violations exist.

r

Range States should improve dialogue andcollaboration on law enforcement pertaining tohunting and trade of Arctic species, including
walrus. Regular information exchange between
enforcement agencies would help to identify andaddress enforcement challenges in the Arctic.

rRange States need to establish more precise struck
and lost rates for multiple regions and during
different seasons over a multi-year timeframe.
Since struck and lost rates vary substantially, it
would be preferable to have established estimatesfor specific regions rather than applying the samerate to every region. For instance, some locals saythat loss rates are as low as five per cent, but therates often used by managers are much higher as
they use historical rates from previous studies
completed 20 to 40 years ago. Management
authorities and Arctic communities in each range
State should consider implementing programs
that promote reporting of struck and lost animals.
Incentive-based programs could also be explored.
Alternatively, trained observers could be used
to record the information so hunters do not
lose opportunities to hunt. The development ofcommunity outreach and/or awareness programs
focused on improved reporting could help
underscore the benefits of reporting. This could
include workshops to discuss harvest methods
and techniques that can help to reduce losses.
r

Gaps in current understanding with regard to
walrus and climate change, harvest and trade could
be reduced by incorporating Traditional Ecological
Knowledge. Aboriginal peoples have coexisted withwalrus for centuries and their knowledge may help
to fill existing gaps. A comprehensive report on
this would complement and supplement current
knowledge, which could be facilitated throughworkshops, interviews and discussions with local
hunters, elders and communities.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

101

Future considerationsrr

Improvements to the reporting of the walrus data
in annual reports could help to facilitate better
analysis of trade activities. This could include:▶

creation of new codes (e.g. raw tusks,
carved tusks, ivory jewellery, small ivory
carving, and large ivory carving [withsize defined in guidelines]).

▶

information on year of harvest andpossible region (e.g. addition of aseparate code as supplementary
information which could be included on
the online query option. The code would
allow tracking of products coming fromindividual walrus stocks).

Range States could consider the developmentof a modern tracking system or documentation
scheme to track and identify trade of walrus parts.
Programs for tagging walrus skulls and tusks
after the hunt (e.g. inserting pit tags, microchips,
or metal tags in skulls or tusks) could help tocollect information on the size and weight oftusks and skulls and items could be marked witha unique tagging number, similar to a systemalready in use in the United States). Alternatively,
range States could consider developing a
documentation scheme to help identify and track
the source of walrus ivory in international trade.
Ivory carvings could be traded with certificatesor holographic stickers, where hunters andcarvers report the weight of the carvings andtusk tag number to local authorities and receivea certificate or holographic sticker. This would
associate carvings with tagging numbers andany instance where the total weight of carvings
was greater than the original weight of thetusk would indicate use of an unreported (andpossibly illegal) tusk. Branding strategies orcertifying programs using holographic stickers or102

certificates could also be used as a marketing tool
(similar to the branding strategy for seafood thathas been certified as sustainable by the Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC)).
r

A study on domestic trade patterns and dynamics
could help to provide insight into market dynamics
and international trade. A centralized system forrecording and monitoring domestic trade could
provide useful information to assist in such a study.

r

Stakeholders and/or range States could consider
developing a study on the supply chain andconsumer demand dynamics for walrus partsand derivatives which could provide more insight
into the types of items in international trade (e.g.
raw vs. processed, carvings vs. tusks). Analysis ofimport data, export data and re-export data canhelp determine patterns of trade and countries(or regions) of interest. Such a study could help
determine market drivers whether there isevidence of illegal trade or indications of poachingactivities. If markets are better understood andmonitored, then measures can be taken to better
manage trade activities and inform range Statesof emerging demand trends that could impact
management efforts. Attention could be directed
towards countries which have not reported importdata, even though export data indicate they aredestination countries for walrus ivory.

r

Development of a policy which outlines theprocedures and regulations for addressing
provision of CITES, highlighting coordinatedmonitoring and enforcement of such trade within
the CU and enforcement actions in place toaddress violation of CITES provisions.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

REFERENCES
ACIA [Arctic Climate Impact Assessment]. (2004). Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
ACIA. (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1042 pp.
ADF&G. (2010). About Us > Management & Research > Wildlife Management > Marine Mammal
Program. Juneau, Alaska, USA. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammalprogr
am.arcticprogram. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Alaska Native Arts. (2009). Walrus Whisker Necklace. http://www.alaskanativearts.org/ArtistPortal/
ArtistDetails.aspx?ArtistID=395. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Alaskan Native Treasures. (2009). Products. Ivory Twist. Earrings. http://www.alaskannativetreasures. com/
Products.html. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Ameri-Cana Expeditions Inc. (2007). North American Hunts. Atlantic Walrus. http://www.ameri-cana.com/
content.asp?pageid=na_hunt8. Viewed June 9, 2009.
Ameri-Cana Expeditions Inc. (2012). North American Hunts. Atlantic Walrus. http://www.ameri-cana.com/
content.asp?pageid=na_hunt8. Viewed 22 January 2012.
Andrew Lake Lodge. (2012). Atlantic Walrus Sport Hunt. http://andrewlakelodge.com/walrus.htm. Viewed 22
January 2012.
Andersen, L.W., Born, E.W., Doidge, D.W., Gjertz, I., Wiig, Ø. and Waples, R.S. (2009). Genetic signals of historicand recent migration between sub-populations of Atlantic walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus west andeast of Greenland. Endangered Species Research. 9:197-211.
Anderson, L.E. and Garlich-Miller, G. (1994). Economic analysis of the 1992 and 1993 summer walrus hunts innorthern Foxe Basin, Northwest Territories. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
2011: iv + 20 pp.
Anon. (1867). Constitution Act, 1867: Part VI: Distribution of Legislative Powers. Government of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada.
Anon. (1900). Lacey Act (Game) of May 25, 1900. ch. 553, 31 Stat. 187. Washington, DC, USA.
Anon. (1920). Treaty between Norway, the United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, theNetherlands, Great Britain and Ireland and the British overseas Dominions and Sweden concerning
Spitsbergen. Signed in Paris, February 9, 1920.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus103Anon. (1925). Act of 17 July 1925 related to Svalbard [The Svalbard Act].
Anon. (1928). Walrus Protection Regulations. Order in Council P.C. 1928-1036 dated 20 June 1928 under the
Canadian Fisheries Act of 1927 (R.S.C 1927).
Anon. (1952). Fredning av hvalross. Kongelig Resolusjon av 20. Juni 1952. (Protection of walrus. Royal Decree 20
June 1952). Oslo, Norway. Available from Fiskeridepartementet, 0vre Slottsg. 2, P.B. 8118 Dep., 0032 Oslo,
Norway.
Anon. (1956a). Vedtægt om regulering af hvalrosfangst i Davisstrædet og Baffins Bugt den 16. november 1956
(Landsråd Rules regulating walrus catch in the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, 16 November 1956). Ministeriet
for Grønland.
Anon. (1956b). Decree No. 738 of 21 November 1956 of the RSFSR Council of Ministers On Arctic wildlife
conservation measures. Russian Federation.
Anon. (1960). Alaska Statutes 16.20.092. Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary.
Anon. (1967). Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967. Aug. 27, 1954, ch. 1018, 68 Stat. 883 (22 U.S.C. 1971 et seq.). Short
title, see 22 U.S.C. 1971 note. Washington, DC, USA.
Anon. (1970). Export and Import Permits Act, R.S., c. E-17, s. 1., as amended. Government of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada.
Anon. (1972). Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Pub. L. 92-522, Oct. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 1027 (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) Short title, see 16 U.S.C. 1361 note. Washington, DC, USA.
Anon. (1973a). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (amended
1979). CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
Anon. (1973b). Endangered Species Act of 1973. Pub. L. 93-205, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 884 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Short title, see 16 U.S.C. 1531 note. Washington, DC, USA.
Anon. (1975). James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement of 1975. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1978). The Greenland Home Rule Act, No. 577 of 29 November 1978. The Kingdom of Denmark,Namminersornerullutik Oqartussat/Greenland Home Rule Government.
Anon. (1979). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Bern, 19.IX.1979.
Council of Europe, Bern, Switzerland.
Anon. (1979b). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS), Bonne, Germany.
Anon. (1981). Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. Pub. L. 97-79, Nov. 16, 1981, 95 Stat. 1073 (16 U.S. C. 3371 et seq.).
Short title, see 16 U.S.C. 3371 note. Washington, DC, USA.

104

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Anon. (1982a). Decree No. 500 of the RSFSR Council of Ministers of 9 September 1982. Russian Federation.
Anon. (1982b). The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11.
Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1985). Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c F-14). Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1987). Consideration of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II. Proposal 18. Sixth meeting of
the Conference of the Parties, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1992). Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act(S.C. 1992, c. 52). Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1993a). Marine Mammal Regulations (SOR/93-56). Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1993b). Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (1994). Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 19 af 11. maj 1994 om fangst af hvalros ved Grønland (Home
Rule Executive Order no. 19 of 11 May 1994 on walrus hunting in Greenland). Offentliggørelse af
Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse, Grønlands Hjemmestyre, Nuuk.
Anon. (1996). Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals in
the North Atlantic Signed at Nuuk on 9 April 1992. United Nations — Treaty Series. Vol. 1945, 1-33321.
Anon. (1997). Act relating to the regulation of imports and exports, No. 32 of 6 June 1997. Translated Norwegian
legislation collected by the Faculty of Law Library, University of Oslo. http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/
lov-19970606-032-eng.html. Viewed 23 December 2008.
Anon. (1998). Royal Decree, Delegation of authority pursuant to the Act regulating importation and exportation of
goods (No. 618 of 1998). Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway.
Anon. (2001). Lov om miljøvern på Svalbard (svalbardmiljøloven). (Act of 15 June 2001 No.79 Relating to theProtection of the Environment in Svalbard). Kingdom of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Anon. (2002a). Regulation no 1276 of 15 Nov 2002 on the CITES Convention. Norway.
Anon. (2002b). Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29). Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Anon. (2004). Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 12 af 13. september 2004 om eksport og import af vilde dyr og
planter mv. omfattet af konventionen af 3. marts 1973 om international handel med udryddelsestruede
vilde dyr og planter (Washingtonkonventionen/CITES) (Home Rule Order No. 12 of 13 September 2004 on
export and import of wild animals and plants, etc. covering the Convention of 3 March 1973 on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington Convention/CITES). Greenland Home
Rule Government, Nuuk, Greenland.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

105

Anon. (2006a). Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 20 af 27 Oktober 2006 om beskyttelse og fangst af hvalros.
Grønlands Hjemmestyre, Nuuk (Greenland Home Rule Executive Order No. 20 of 27 October 2006 on
protection and harvest of walrus. Greenland Home Rule Government, Nuuk, Greenland.
Anon. (2006b). Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. Ottawa, Canada. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/
collection_2007/inac-ainc/R2-454-2006E.pdf. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Anon. (2008a). Checklist of CITES 2008. Note 2008-1. Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, Norway.
Anon. (2008b). Commission Regulation (EC) No 811/2008 of 13 August 2008. Suspending the introduction
into the Community of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the EU.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:219:0017: 0039:EN:PDF. Viewed 26
September 2008.
Anon. (2009a). Act on Greenland and Self-Government (No. 473 of 12 June 2009). Government of Denmark,Copenhagen. http://uk.nanoq.gl/Emner/~/media/6CF403B6DD954B77BC2C33E9F02E 3947.ashx.
Viewed 19 May 2011.
Anon. (2009b). Trampling Likely Cause of Icy Cape Walrus Deaths. http://alaska.fws.gov/index_walrus .pdf.
Viewed 19 May 2011.
Anon. (2011). Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act. Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement.
Canada Gazette Part I. Vol. 145. No 27 pp 2144.
Anon. (2013). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2013 of 17 June 2013 suspending the introduction
into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the EU.
Arctic Art Sales. (2008). Walrus Tusks. http://www.arcticartsales.com/walrus_tusk.html. Viewed 26 September 2008.
Arseniev, V.K. (1927). Pacific walrus. Khabarovsk, Vladivostok. Knizhnoe delo. 40 p.
Associated Press. (2007). Global warming to blame for Alaskan walrus influx. http://www.ctvnews.ca/ globalwarming-to-blame-for-alaskan-walrus-influx-1.259243. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Associated Press. (2004). 5 charged with walrus poaching. http://juneauempire.com/stories/080804/sta_
poaching.shtml. Viewed 14 December 2010.
BBNA [Bristol Bay Native Association]. (2009). Qayassiq Walrus Commission. Available at: http://www.bbna.
com/website/NaturalMarine-BelWal.html#Walrus. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Bockstoce, J, R. and Botkin, D.B. (1982). The Harvest of Pacific Walrus by the Pelagic Whaling Industry, 1848 to1914 . Arctic and Alpine Research. 14(3): 183-188.
Boertmann, D. (2007). Gronlands Rodliste 2007. Greenland red list. Danmarks Miljoundersogelser og Gronlands
Hjemmestyre. Gronlands Hjemmestyre, Direktoratet for Miljo og Natur.

106

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Boltunov, A., Nikiforov, V., Kavry, V. and Semenova, V. (2008). Walrus Believed to People. http://belyemedvedi.
ru/monitoring/mon_24092008.html. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Born, E.W., Gjertz, I. and Reeves, R.R. (1995). Population assessment of Atlantic walrus. Meddelelser No.138. Oslo,
Norway.
Born, E.W. (2005a). An assessment of the effects of hunting and climate on walrus in Greenland. Dr. philos.
Thesis, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo. 84 pp.
Born, E.W. (2005b). The walrus in Greenland. Ilinniusiorfik Undervisningsmiddelforlag. Nuuk, Greenland, 128 pp.
Born, E.W., Acquarone, M., Knutsen, L.Ø. and Toudal, L. (2005). Homing Behaviour in an Atlantic Walrus(Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus). Aquatic Mammals. 31(1): 23-33.
Burek, K.A., Gulland, F.M.D. and O’Hara, T.M. (2008). Effects of climate change on Arctic marine mammal
health. Ecological Applications, XVIII (Supplement): S126–S134.
Carlton, J. (2013). Alaska Village Grapples With Collapse in Walrus Harvest. Residents rush to find alternate
sources of food before winter. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702
304795804579101440469640728. Viewed 29 October.
CBC News. (2010). Trichinella found in Nunavut walrus meat. CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/
2010/09/09/nunavut-trichinella-sanikiluaq-walrus.html. Viewed 14 January 2012.
Chapsky, K.K. (1934). Tactics and techniques of the Soviet harvesting for marine mammals in the Arctic. AllUSSR Arctic Institute. Leningrad: Arctic Institute Press. Materials of the Arctic Research. No.5.
Chapsky, K.K. (1939). The brief historical analysis of stock of walrus in the Barents and Kara Seas. Arctic Problems.
3: 62-69.
Chivers, C.J. (2002). A Big Game. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/magazine/a-big-game.
html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Viewed 14 January 2012.
Chichester Group. (2008). Walrus Tusks. http://www.chichestercanada.com/WalrusTusks.htm. Viewed 26
September 2008.
CITES. (2008a). CITES Glossary. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.cites.org/eng/ resources/
terms/glossary.shtml. Viewed 9 June 2009.
CITES. (2008b). CITES-listed species database. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www. cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html. Viewed 23 September 2008.
CITES. (2010). National Contacts and Information. CITES Secretariat, Geneva. http://www.cites.org/ cms/index.
php/lang-en/component/ncd/. Viewed 15 February 2010.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

107

CITES. (2012a). List of Contracting Parties. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.cites. org/eng/
disc/parties. Viewed 9 September 2012.
CITES. (2012b). Non-detriment Findings. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.cites. org/eng/
prog/ndf/index.shtml. Viewed 10 September 2012.
CITES World (2003). Convention on Iternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Official Newsletter of the Parties. Issue Number 11.
Clinton, W.J. (1997). Report to the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC, USA.
CoE [Council of Europe]. (2011). Culture, heritage and nature. Bern Convention on the Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural Habitats. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/ default_en.asp.
Viewed 14 April 2011.
Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (2009). Projects. Hunting. CAMPFIRE
Association Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe. http://www.campfirezimbabwe.org/ index.php/projects/
hunting. Viewed 14 December 2010.
COSEWIC. (2006). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on Walrus Odobenus rosmarus in Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 50 pp.
Cooper, E.W.T. and Chalifour, N. (2004). CITES, Eh? A Review of Canada’s Implementation of CITES Under
WAPPRIITA. TRAFFIC North America and World Wildlife Fund, Vancouver, Canada.
Cooper, L.W., Ashjian, C.J., Smith, S.L., Codispoti, L.A., Grebmeier, J.M., Campbell, R.G. and Sherr, E.B. (2006).
Rapid seasonal sea-ice retreat in the Arctic could be affecting Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) recruitment. Aquatic Mammals 32(1): 98-102.
Crimeblog. (2008). Man convicted of dealing in walrus parts. Anchorage Daily News (USA). http://community.
adn.com/node/136067. Viewed 8 January 2009.
Cummings, V., Hewitt. J., Van Rooyen, A., Currie, K., Beard, S., Thrust, S., Norkko, J., Barr, N., Heath, P., Halliday,
N.J., Sedcole, R., Gomez, A., McGraw, C. and Metcalf, V. (2011) Ocean Acidification at High Latitudes:
Potential Effects on Functioning of the Antarctic Bivalve Laternula elliptica. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16069.
Danilov-Danilian, V.I. (Ed.) (2001). Red Data Book of the Russian Federation: Animals. AST and Astrel Publishers,
Moscow, Russia. 864 pp.
DFO. (2000). Atlantic Walrus. DFO Science Stock Status Report. E5-21 (2002).
DFO. (2003). Proceedings of the RAP meeting on the Atlantic walrus, January 29-30, 2002. Canadian Science
Advisory Secretariat Proceedings Series. 2002/24. 20p. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
DFO. (2007). Atlantic Walrus: A Species at Risk in the Arctic. Fact Sheet. DFO/2007-1363. http://www.dfo-mpo.
gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/pdf/walrus-morse-eng.pdf. Viewed 31 May 2012.

108

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

DFO. (2008). Recovery strategy for the Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus), Northwest Atlantic
population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Ottawa. x + 11pp.
DFO (2010). Working Near Water. Our Role. Legislations and Policies. Fisheries Act. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/
habitat/role/141/1415/14151-eng.htm. Viewed 21 April 2011.
DFO (2011). A practical guide to the Fisheries Act and to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Departmental of
Legal Services - Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ Library/282791.pdf.
Viewed 21 April 2011.
DFO. (2013a). Proceedings of the Pre-COSEWIC Peer Review Meeting for Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
rosmarus); February 28 to March 1, 2012. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings Series.
2012/041. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
DFO. (2013b). Estimates of Abundance and Total Allowable Removals for Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
rosmarus) in the Canadian Arctic. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/034.
DFO. (2013c). Landed Catch of Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) from subsistence harvests and licenced sport hunts
conducted between 1997/98 and 2011/12. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Central Arctic Region.
DFO. (2013d). Landed Catch of Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) from subsistence harvests conducted between 1994
and 2012. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).
DFO (2013e), Science and Research Science Scientific Advice http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/advice-avis/
index-eng.html. Viewed 21 November 2013.
D’oro, R. (2013). Two Native villages report very low walrus harvest. Associated Press. http://juneauempire.
com/state/2013-08-05/two-native-villages-report-very-low-walrus-harvest#.Um_Tt_msiM4. Viewed 29
October 2013.
Eggers, D.M. and Carroll, A.M. (2011). Run forecasts and harvest projections for 2011 Alaska salmon fisheries
and review of the 2010 season. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 11-03,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Environment Canada (2009). Polar Bears in Canada: Conservation, Management and Research. Presentation at
the Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Tromsø, Norway, 17-19
March 2009. http://www.polarbearmeeting.org/attachment.ap?id=9781. Viewed 17 January 2010.
Environment Canada (2010). Information Document submitted to the CITES Secretariat by Canada. Fifteenthmeeting of the Conference of the Parties, Doha (Qatar), 13-25 March 2010. Management and International
Trade of Polar Bear from Canada. Information Documents. CoP15 Inf.11. CITES Secretariat, Geneva,
Switzerland. http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/inf/E15i-11.pdf. Viewed 10 February 2010.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

109Environment Canada. (2011). Evidence of the socio-economic importance of polar bears for Canada. Prepared by
EcoRessources Consultants. PWGSC. Ottawa, Canada.
European Commission. (2006). CITES > Scientific Review Group: Meeting Agendas and Summaries. 38th
Meeting, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/srg_en.htm. Viewed 29 January 2009.
European Commission. (2012). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES). Gaborone Amendment to the Convention. Information pack for Parties. http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/cites/pdf/gabarone/gabarone_info_pack_en.pdf Viewed 8 November 2013.
European Commission, (2013). EU Wildlife Trade Legislation. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/legislation_en.htm. Viewed 15 September 2013.
European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe (2013). Reference Guide to the European Community Wildlife
Trade Regulations. Brussels, Belgium.Eurasian Economic Commission, 2013. About Eurasian Economic
Commission. http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/pages/about.aspx. Viewed 19 September 2013.
EWC [Eskimo Walrus Committee]. 1997. A co-management vision for the sustainable use of sea otter, polar bear andwalrus in Alaska, 1997-2000. http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/pdf/vision.pdf. Viewed 29 January 2012.
Fall, J.A., Chythlook, M., Schichnes, J. and Sinnott, R. (1991). Walrus hunting at Togiak, Bristol Bay, Southwest
Alaska. Technical Paper No. 212. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Fay, F.H. (1982). Ecology and biology of the Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. US Fish andWildlife Service, North American Fauna No. 74, Washington, D.C.
Fay, F.H. (1985). Odobenus rosmarus. The American Society of Mammalogists (238):1-7.
Fay, F.H., Kelly, B.P. and Sease, J.L. (1989). Managing the exploitation of Pacific walrus: a tragedy of delayed
response and poor communication. Marine Mammal Science. 5(1):1-16.
Fay, F.H., Burns, J.J., Stoker, S.W. and Grundy, J.S. (1994). The struck-and-lost factor in Alaskan walrus harvests,
1952-1972. Arctic. 47(4): 368-373.
Fay, F.H., Eberhardt, L.L., Kelly, B.P., Burns, J.J. and Quakenbush, L.T. (1997). Status of the Pacific walrus
population, 1950-1989. Marine Mammal Science. 13(4): 537-565.
Federation News. (2008a). Carcass of one of the victims on the coast of Chukotka walrus sent for analysis.
Туша одного из погибших на побережье Чукотки моржей отправлена на анализ. http://regions.ru/
news/2159905/. Viewed 9 June 2009.
Federation News. (2008b). Ministry of Natural Resources is investigating the deaths of more than 800 walrus on
the eastern coast of Chukotka. Federation News. http://regions.ru/news/2159793/. Viewed 9 June 2009.
First National Bank-International Trade Services. (2006). Glossary > International Trade. Omaha, Nebraska,
USA. http://www.firsttradenet.com/its/glossary/index.jsp?area2=gloss&letter=I. Viewed 9 June 2009.

110

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Fort Green Museum and Alaskan Gifts. (2009). Earrings-Walrus Whisker. http://www.fortgreen.com/ jewelry.
htm. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Freeman, M.M.R., Wein, E.E. and Keith, D.E. (1992). Recovering Rights: Bowhead Whales and Inuvialuit
Subsistence in the Western Canadian Arctic. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Foote, L. and Wenzel, G.W. (2009). Polar Bear Conservation Hunting in Canada: Economics, Culture andUnintended Consequences. In: Freeman, M.M.R. and Foote, L. (Eds), Inuit, Polar Bears, and Sustainable
Use: Local, National and International Perspectives. CCI Press, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
13 pp.
Garlich-Miller, J.L. and D.M. Burn. (1999). Estimating the harvest of Pacific walrus, Odobenus odobenus
divergens, in Alaska. Fisheries Bulletin 97(4): 1043-1046.
Garlich-Miller, J.L., Quakenbush, L.T. and Bromaghin, J.F. (2006). Trends in age structure and productivity ofPacific walrus harvested in the Bering Strait Region of Alaska, 1952-2002. Marine Mammal Science. 22(4):880-896.
Garlich-Miller, J., MacCracken, J.G., Snyder, J., Meehan, R., Myers, M., Wilder, J.M., Lance, E. and Matz, A.
(2011). Status review of the Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Gislason, E. (2010). A Brief History of Alaska Statehood. Alaska, USA. http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ ASCC/pdf/
HistoryofAlaska.pdf. Viewed 2 December 2010.
Government of Canada. (2009). Species at Risk. Listing. Listing Process. http://www.sararegistry.gc. ca/sar/listing/default_e.cfm. Viewed 17 February 2010.
Government of Canada. (2010). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). http://
www.cosewic.gc.ca. Viewed 17 August 2010.
Government of Greenland. (2009). About Greenland. Politics in Greenland. Government of Greenland, Nuuk.
http://eu.nanoq.gl/Emner/About%20Greenland/Politics%20in%20Greenland.aspx. Viewed 19 May 2011.
Government of Nunavut. (2009). New Vision. http://www.gov.nu.ca/hr/site/faq/faqbaffin.pdf. Viewed 17
February 2010.
Governor of Svalbard. (2008a). Legislation. The Svalbard Act. Longyearbyen, Norway. http://www. sysselmannen.
no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45302. Viewed 8 January 2009.
Governor of Svalbard. (2008b). Legislation. The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act. Longyearbyen, Norway.
http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45303. Viewed 8 January 2009.
Governor of Svalbard. (2008c). Legislation. The Svalbard Treaty. Longyearbyen, Norway. http://www.
sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45301. Viewed 8 January 2009.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

111

Governor of Svalbard. (2008d). The Governor. The Governor’s Tasks. Longyearbyen, Norway. http://www.
sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45990. Viewed 8 January 2009.
Grachev, A.I. (2004). The harvest of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug,
Russia. In: Collection of Scientific Papers from the Marine Mammals of the Holarctic III conference.
Koktebel, Crimea, Ukraine, September 11-17, 2004.
Greanias, T. (1998). A Tool of Persuasion - International Wildlife Conservation. In: Endangered Species Bulletin,
July 1998. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ASV/is_/ai_54023109. Viewed 26 September 2008.
Greenland Home Rule. (2008). CITES rules for tourists. Fact sheet. Ministry of Environment and Nature. http://
www.greenland.com/en/media/129594/rules%20for%20export.pdf. Viewed 15 September 2010.
Greenland Home Rule Government. (2008). The EU and Greenland. The Greenland Treaty of 1985. http://
eu.nanoq.gl/Emner/EuGl/The%20Greenland%20Treaty.aspx. Viewed 23 September 2008.
Grønlands Statistik. (2011). Table 4. Catches of Walrus and Polar Bear by Region. http://www.stat.gl/ dialog/
main.asp?lang=en&version=2010&link=FJ&subthemecode=t4&colcode=t. Viewed 26 September 2012.
Grønlands Hjemmestyre. (2007). Fordeling af hvalroskvoten for 2007. Direktoratet for Fiskeri, Fangst og
Landbrug. http://www.kanukoka.gl/da-dk/media/2076/den%20endelige%20kommunevise%20forde ling.
pdf. Viewed 26 September 2012.
Grønlands Naturinstitut. (2011). Standing Non-Detriment Findings for Exports from Greenland of Products
derived from Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus). http://www.natur.gl/ fileadmin/user_files/
Dokumenter/Raadgivning/2011_Walrus_NDF-2011_Final.pdf. Viewed 26 September 2012.
Grønlands Selvstyre. (2009a). Fordeling af hvalroskvoten for 2009 (Distribution of walrus quota for 2009). http://
dk.nanoq.gl/emner/landsstyre/departementer/departement_for_fiskeri/nyhedsforside/ nyheder_fra_dep_
fiskeri/2009/02/hvalroskvote_09.aspx. Viewed 26 September 2012.
Grønlands Selvstyre. (2009b). Referat fra Naalakkersuisut møde Fastsættelse af kvote for fangst af hvalros for
kvoteåret 1. oktober - 31. december 2006 (Minutes from the Meeting. Determination of quotas for catchesof walrus-quota year 1 October - 31 December 2006. http://dk.nanoq.gl/Emner/ Landsstyre/Referat_fra_
landsstyret/Referat_fra_Landsstyret/2007/10/14_sep_2006.aspx. Viewed 26 September 2012.
Grønlands Selvstyre. (2011). Hvalroskvoter for 2012. Hvalroskvoter fordelt per bestand for 2010-2012 (Walrus
quotas allocated per population for 2010-2012). http://dk.nanoq.gl/Emner/Landsstyre/ Departementer/
Departement_for_fiskeri/Nyhedsforside/Nyheder_fra_dep_fiskeri/2011/12/Hvalroskvoter%20for%20
2012.aspx.
HFTCC [Hunting Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee]. (2010). Origin. Montreal, Québec, Canada.
http://www.cccpp-hftcc.com/eng/n-origin.htm. Viewed 12 February 2010. Hall, P. (2003). CITES and theconservation of the Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus). CITES World: Official newsletter of
the Parties, Issue 11 - July 2003.

112

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusHeide-Jørgensen, M.P., Laidre, K.L., Fossette, S., Rasmussen, M., Nielsen, N.H. and Hansen, R.G. (2013a). In
press. Abundance of walruses in Eastern Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. NAMMCO Scientific Publications.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7557.3.2606.
Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Burt, L.M., Hansen, R.G., Nielsen, N.H., Rasmussen, M., Fossette, S. and Stern, H. (2013b).
In press. The Significance of the North Water Polynya to Arctic Top Predators. AMBIO. 42:5. pp 596-610.
Highbeam Research. (1992). US Newswire: Press release from the U.S. Department of Justice. Fivedefendants sentenced in Alaska ivory poaching case. Highbeam Research http://www.highbeam.com/
doc/1P2-18770682.html. Viewed 8 January 2009.
Hjarsen, T. (2004). CITES in Greenland. TRAFFIC Bulletin. Vol. 20 No. 1. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Hoffman Knives Collection. (2001). Available Knives. Ron Gaston Custom Fighter. http://www. hoffmanknives.
com/hk_1mainframe.htm?hk_gallery_knife-wh-6-4.htm~main. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Hollowell, J. (2006). St. Lawrence Island’s Legal Market in Archaeological Goods. In Archaeology Cultural
Heritage and the Antiquities Trade. Brodie, N., Kersel, M., Luke, C., and Tubb, K.W. (Eds), pp. 98-132.
University Press of Florida. Tallahassee.
Huntington, H., Weller, G., Bush, E., Callaghan, T.V., Kattsov, V.M. and Nuttall, M. (2005b). An Introduction to
the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Scientific Report. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 1-20.
Huntington, H., Fox, S., Berkes, F. and Krupnik, I. (2005a). Changing Arctic: Indigenous Perspectives. In: Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment Scientific Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 61-98.
IAND [Indian Affairs and Northern Development]. (1999). Annual Report on the Implementation of the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030992/ 1100100030995.
Viewed 28 August 2009.
IAND. (2000). Annual Report of the Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement 1999–2000. http://
www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030987/ 1100100030990. Viewed 28 August 2009.
INAC. (2008). About INAC. Media Room. 2007 News Releases. Backgrounder: The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims
Agreement. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/j-a2007/2-2855-bk-eng.asp. Viewed 14 December 2010.
INAC. (2009). Acts, Agreements & Land Claims. Land Claims: Comprehensive Claims. http://www.ainc-inac.
gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/index-eng.asp. Viewed 14 December 2010.
INAC. (2010). Fact Sheet: Comprehensive Land Claims. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/lnd-clms-eng.asp.
Viewed 14 December 2010.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

113

IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Paltikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E.
(Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 976 pp.
IUCN. (2008) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2001 Categories & Criteria (version 3.1). http://www.
iucnredlist.org. Viewed 7 October 2008.
Jay, C. V. and Fischbach, A. S. (2008). Pacific Walrus Response to Arctic Sea Ice Losses. Publications. U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3041.
Jay, C.V., Farley, S.D. and Garner, G.W. (2001). Summer diving behavior of male walrus in Bristol Bay, Alaska.
Marine Mammal Science. 17:617-631.
Jay, C.V., Udevitz, M.S., Kwok, R., Fischbach, A.S. and Douglas, D.C. (2010a). Divergent movements of walrus
and sea ice in the northern Bering Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 407:293-302.
Jay, C.V., Marcot, B.G. and Douglas, D.C. (2010b). Projected status of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) in the 21st century. Administrative report. U.S. Geological Survey. Alaska Science Center.
Alaska, United States.
Jay, C.V., Marcot, B.G. and Douglas, D.C. (2011). Projected status of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) in the twenty-first century. Polar Biology. 34(7):1065-1084.
Jay, C.V., Fischbach, A.S. and Kochnev, A.A. (2012). Walrus areas of use in the Chukchi Sea during sparse sea ice
cover. Marine Ecology Progress Series 468:1-13.
Joling, D. (2009a). Scores of walrus carcasses found on Arctic coast. Associated Press. http://www.adn. com/news/
alaska/wildlife/story/938656.html. Viewed 7 October 2011.
Joling, D. (2009b). Walrus congregate on Alaska shore as ice melts. Associated Press. http://www. physorg.com/
news171743169.html. Viewed 7 October 2011.
JCNB. (2009). JCNB (Joint Commission on the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga). 2009.
Report of the eleventh meeting of the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on conservation andmanagement of narwhal and beluga, 26–28 May 2009, Nuuk, Greenland. 101 p.
Juneau Empire. (2008). Man sentenced for smuggling walrus parts. News Article. http://www. juneauempire.com/
stories/100808/reg_341630258.shtml. Viewed 8 January, 2009.
Kålås, J.A., Viken, Å., Henriksen, S. and Skjelseth, S. (Eds.) (2010). The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species.
Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Norway.
Kannan, P. (2009). Faculty Overview: United States Laws and Policies Protecting Wildlife. In: Hecox, W.E., Kolbe,
E.L. and Reuer, M.K. (Eds.), The 2009 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card. The Colorado
College State of the Rockies Project, Colorado Springs, USA.

114

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Kapsch, M.L., Eicken, H. and Robards, M. (2010). Sea ice distribution and ice use by indigenous walrus hunters
on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. In: SIKU – Knowing our ice - Documenting Inuit sea ice knowledge anduse.Krupnik, I., Aporta, C., Gearheard, S., Kielsen Holm, L., and Laidler. G. (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New
York, pp. 115-144.
Kasser, J.J.W. and Wiedmer, J.E. (2012). The circumpolar walrus population in a changing world. A BSc thesis
assignment commissioned by WWF-Netherlands. University of Applied Sciences Van Hall Larenstein.
Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Kavry, V.I., Boltunov, A.N. and Nikiforov, V.V. (2008). New coastal haulouts of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) –response to the climate changes. Pages 248-251, In Collection of Scientific Papers from the Marine
Mammals of the Holarctic V conference, Odessa, Ukraine, 14-18 October 2008.
Kavry, V.I., Kochnev, A.I., Nikiforov, V.V. and Boltunov, A.N. (2006). Cape Vankarem- nature ethnic complex at
the Arctic coast of Chukotka (northeastern Russia). In: Collection of Scientific Papers from the Marine
Mammals of the Holarctic IV conference, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, September 10-14, 2006.
Karam Handmade Knives. (2006). Walrus Ivory Folder. Custom # 88. http://www.karamhandmadeknives. com/knives/99/WalrusIvoryFolder99.htm. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Kellers Trading Company. (2009). Walrus Ivory Bracelet. http://www.kellerstrading.com/alaska-gifts/search.
php?mode=search&page=2. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Klein, D.R., Baskin, L.M., Bogoslovskaya, L.S., Danell, K., Gunn, A., Irons, D.B., Kofinas, G.P., Kovacs, K.M.,
Magomedova, M., Meehan, R.H., Russell, D.E. and Valkenburg, P. (2005). Management and Conservationof Wildlife in a Changing Arctic Environment. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 597-648.
Knifewood. (2013). Bone, tusk, horn. http://www.knifewood.ru/catalogue/?id=151. Viewed 19 September 2013.
Knudtson, P. (1998). The nature of walrus: white-tusked wanderers of the sea. Douglas & McIntyre Ltd.
Vancouver/Toronto.
Kochnev, A.A. (2004). Warming of eastern Arctic and present status of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) population. In: Collection of Scientific Papers from the Marine Mammals of the Holarctic III
conference. Koktebel, Crimea, Ukraine, September 11-17, 2004.
Kochnev, A.A. (2006). Coastal haulout of Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) on Kolyuchin Island, theChukchi Sea. In: Collection of Scientific Papers from the Marine Mammals of the Holarctic IV conference,Saint-Petersburg, Russia, September 10-14, 2006.
Kostorez. (2009). Резьба по кости. Магаданская мастерская. Каталог изделий. http://www.kostorez. ru/
works.php?page=0&mat=2. Viewed 24 March 2009.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

115

Kovacs, K.M. and Lydersen, C. (2008). Climate change impacts on seals and whales in the North Atlantic Arctic
and adjacent shelf seas. Science Progress 91(2): 117–150.
Krupnik, I. and Ray, G.C. (2007). Pacific walrus, indigenous hunters, and climate change: Bridging scientific andindigenous knowledge. Deep-Sea Research II. 54: 2946–2957.
Laidre, K.L., Stirling, I., Lowry, L.F., Wiig, Ø., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. and Ferguson, S.H. (2008). Quantifying
the sensitivity of arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecological Applications 18(2)Supplement: S97-S125.
Lindqvist, C., Bachmann, L., Andersen, L.W., Born, E.W., Arnason, U., Kovacs, K.M., Lydersen, C., Abramov, A.V.
and Wiig, Ø. (2009). The Laptev Sea walrus Odobenus rosmarus laptevi: An enigma revisited. Zoologica
Scripta 38:113-127.
Loeng, H., Brander, K., Carmack, E., Denisenko, S., Drinkwater, K., Hansen, B., Kovacs, K., Livingston, P.,
McLaughlin, F. and Sakshaug, E. (2005). Marine Systems. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Scientific
Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 453-538.
Lowry, L., Kovacs, K. and Burkanov, V. (2008). Odobenus rosmarus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2011.2.
Lunn, N. J., Schliebe, S., and Born, E. W. (Comps. and Eds.). 2002. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 13th Working
Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Nuuk, Greenland. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. vii + 153 pp.
Lyapustin, S.N., Vaisman, A.L. and Fomenko, P.V. (2007). Wildlife Trade in the Russian Far East: An Overview.
TRAFFIC Europe-Russia, Moscow, Russia.Lydersen, C., Aars, J. and Kovacs, K.M. (2008). Estimating thenumber of walruses in Svalbard based on aerial surveys and behavioural data from satellite telemetry.
Arctic 61(2):119-128.
Lydersen, C., Chernook, V. I., Glazov, D. M., Trukhanova, I. S. and Kovacs, K. M. (2012). Aerial survey of Atlantic
walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in the Pechora Sea, August 2011. Polar Biol. 35: 1555-1562.
MacCracken, J.G. (2012). Pacific Walrus and climate change: observations and predictions. Ecology and Evolution
2(8): 2072–2090.
Makivik Corporation. (2010). Nunavik Inuit and the Nunavik Region Past, Present and Future. Presentation
at The Inuit and the Aboriginal World 17th Inuit Studies Conference, Université deQuébec en AbitibiTémiscamingue, October 28-30, 2010.
MMC. (2003). Annual report to Congress 2002. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland. 274pp.
http://www.mmc.gov/reports/annual/pdf/2002annualreport.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2010.
MMC. (2010a). About the Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda, Maryland, USA. http://mmc.gov/about/.
Viewed 28 January 2012.

116

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

MMC. (2010b). Annual report to Congress 2009. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland. 274pp.
http://www.mmc.gov/reports/annual/pdf/2009annualreport.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2012.
McBean, G., Alekseev, G., Chen, D., Førland, E., Fyfe, J., Groisman, P.Y., King, R., Melling, H., Vose, R. andWhitfield, P.H. (2005). Arctic Climate: Past and Present. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 21-60.
Meek, C.L., Lovecraft, A.L., Robards, M.D. and Kofinas, G.P. (2008). Building resilience through interlocal relations:
Case studies of polar bear and walrus management in the Bering Strait. Marine Policy. 32: 1080-1089.
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. (2011). Annual Report on the Implementationof the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) 2006-2008. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/
1351088262568/1351088316627. Viewed 28 January 2012.
Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. (2008). Odobenus rosmarus. http://zapoved.ru/?act=oopt_rb_more&id=262. Viewed 28 January 2012.
Mymrin, N.M. (2007). Emelen settlement. Biological resources, harvesting and economics. Chukotka
autonomous region. Materials of the scientific-and-practical conference. Kirov: VNIIOZ. pp. 310.
North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission [NAMMCO]. (1995). Report of the third meeting of the ScientificCommittee. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 1995, Tromsø, Norway, pp. 67-171.
NAMMCO. (2004a). Status of marine mammals of the North Atlantic: the Atlantic walrus. Tromsø, Norway.
NAMMCO. (2004b). Report of the NAMMCO workshop on hunting methods for seals and walrus. 7-9
September 2004. Copenhagen, Denmark.
NAMMCO. (2006a). Report of the NAMMCO Workshop to address the problems of “Struck and Lost” in seal,
walrus and whale hunting. 14-16 November, 2006. Copenhagen, Denmark.
NAMMCO. (2006b) Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report2005. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 161-308.
NAMMCO Annual Report (2010). North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Tromsø, Norway, 501 pp.
NAMMCO Annual Report (2011). North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report 2011, Tromsø,
Norway, 523 pp.
NAMMCO (2011). About NAMMCO. Tromsø, Norway. http://www.nammco.no/Nammco/Mainpage/
AboutNammco/. Viewed 13 April 2011.
Nunatsiaq News. (2012). Cook walrus before eating, Nunavut health officials warn Igloolik. http://www.
nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674cook_walrus_before_eating_nunavut_health_officials_warn_
igloolik/. Viewed 12 December 2012.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

117

NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] (2008). The Endangered Species Act – Protecting
Marine Resources. NOAA Fisheries Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/ esa_factsheet.pdf. Viewed
26 September 2008.
NOAA (2009). Office of Protected Resources and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NOAA Fisheries Service.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/mmpa_factsheet.pdf. Viewed 15 November 2009.
NOAA (2011). The Endangered Species Act – Protecting Marine Resources. NOAA Fisheries Service. http://www.
nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/esa_factsheet.pdf. Viewed 10 July 2011.
Nord Kompleks Studio (2009). Каталог. http://nk-studio.ru/catalog.php?id=7. Viewed 24 March 2009.
NMRWB [Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board]. (2010). Our mandate. Inukjuak, Québec, Canada. http://
nmrwb.ca. Viewed 14 December 2010.
NWMB [Nunavut Wildlife Management Board] (2008a). About NMWB. Iqaluit, Canada. http://www. nwmb.
com/english/about_nwmb/ about_nwmb.php. Viewed 23 September 2009.
NWMB (2008b). About NWMB. Responsibilities. Iqaluit, Canada. http://www.nwmb.com/english/ about_nwmb/
responsibilities.php. Viewed 23 September 2009.
NWMB (2013a). About NWMB. Working Groups & Committees. Walrus Working Groups. http://w w w.nwmb.com/index.php?option=com_content& view=article&id=88%3Awalrus-work inggroups&catid=133%3Aworking-groups-a-committees&Itemid=114&lang=en. Viewed 2 February 2013.
NWMB (2013b). Interim NWMB Policy for Walrus Sport Hunts. Submission to the Nunavut Wildlife Management
Board for Walrus Sport Hunt Applications for 2013. http://www.nwmb. com/index.php?option=com_
docman&task=doc_download&gid=2727&Itemid=80&lang=en. Viewed 2 February 2013.
NSB. [North Slope Borough] (2010). Department of Wildlife Management. Barrow, Alaska, USA. http://www.
co.north-slope.ak.us/departments/wildlife/. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Nuttall, M., Berkes, F., Forbes, B., Kofinas, G., Vlassova, T. and Wenzel, G. (2005). Hunting, herding, fishingand gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the Arctic. In: Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment Scientific Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 650–690.
Oakley, K., Whalen, M., Douglas, D., Udevitz, M., Atwood, T. and Jay, C. (2012). Changing Arctic Ecosystems
Polar Bear and Walrus Response to the Rapid Decline in Arctic Sea Ice. US Geological Survey. Fact Sheet
2012-3131.
Okonek, D.C. and M.Snively. (2005). Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary annual report 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Division of Wildlife Conservation. 50 pp.
Oliver, J.S., Slattery, P.N., O’Conner, E.F. and Lowery, L.F. (1983). Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus feeding in the
Bering Sea: a benthic perspective. Fishery Bulletin 81:501-512.

118

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Outridge, P.M., Davis, W.J., Stewart, R.E.A. and Born, E.W. (2003). Investigation of the stock structure of Atlantic
walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in Canada and Greenland using dental Pb isotopes derived fromlocal geochemical environments. Arctic 56:82–90.
Pankratov, A.S. (Ed.) (1972). Guide on legislation for prosecutors and court officials. Vol. III. pp. 523-524.
Moscow, 1972. [in Russian].
Polar Bear Patrol. (2008). Mass killing of walrus in Chukotka in July 2008: was it real? [Был ли факт массовой
браконьерской добычи моржей на Чукотке в июле 2008 г.?]. http://belyemedvedi. ru/news_arch/150808.html. Viewed 2 February 2009.
Polar Bear Patrol. (2007). What is going on with walrus in the Chukchi Sea? [Что происходит с моржом вЧукотском море?]. http://belyemedvedi.ru/materials/materials%20131207.htm. Viewed 2 February 2009.
PWGSC. (2009). The James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement and the Northeastern Québec Agreement,
2005-2006, 2006-2007, Annual Report. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal
Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/
ldc/ccl/fagr/que/jb0507/jb0507-eng.pdf. Viewed 14 December 2010.
Rausch, R.L., George, J.C. and Brower, H.K. (2007). Effect of climatic warming on the Pacific walrus, andpotential modification of its helminth fauna. Journal of Parasitology 93(5):1247-1251.
Ray, G.C., McCormick-Ray, J., Berg, P. and Epstein, H.E. (2006). Pacific walrus: benthic bioturbator of Beringia.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology (330):403-419.
Reeves, R.R. (1978). Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus): a literature survey and status report. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 10: 41 pp.
Reijnders, P., Brasseur, S., van der Toorn, J., van der Wolf, P., Boyd, I., Harwood, J., Lavigne, D. and Lowry, L.
(1993). Seals, Fur Seals, Sea Lions, and Walrus. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Seal
Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Richard, P.R. and Campbell, R.R. (1988). Status of the Atlantic walrus, Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus, in Canada.
Canadian Field-Naturalist. 102: 337-350.
Riedman, M. (1990). The Pinnipeds; Seals, Sea Lions and Walrus. University of California Press. 439 pp.
Robbins, L. (2012). Studying ocean acidification in the Arctic Ocean: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 20123058, 2 pp.
Rodeheffer, L. 2013. Armenia in the Custom Union. New Eastern Europe Online Edition: ISSN 2084-400X. http://
www.neweasterneurope.eu/node/939. Viewed 19 September 2013.
Rosenblatt, N.M. (1979). The Federal Trust Responsibility and Eskimo Whaling. Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review. Vol 7, Issue 3, Article 5.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

119Sandford, D. (2013). Russia’s Arctic: Mission to protect wildlife. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldeurope-23794232. Viewed 19 September 2013.
Speckman, S.G., Chernook, V.I., Burn, D.M., Udevitz, M.S., Kochnev, A.A., Vasilev, A., Jay, C.V., Lisovsky, A.,
Fischbach, A.S. and Benter, R.B. (2011). Results and evaluation of a survey to estimate Pacific walrus
population size, 2006. Marine Mammal Science. 27(3):514-553.
Stewart, R.E.A. (2008). Redefining Walrus Stocks in Canada. Arctic. 61(3): 292-308.
Stewart, R.E.A., and Hamilton, J.W. (2013). Estimating total allowable removals for walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
rosmarus) in Nunavut using the potential biological removal approach. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res.
Doc. 2013/031. iv + 13 pp.
Stewart, R.E.A., Richard, P.R. and Stewart, B.E. (Eds.). (1993). Report of the 2nd Walrus International Technicaland Scientific (WITS) Workshop, 11-15 January 1993, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish.
Aquat. ScL 1940: viii + 91 pp.
Stewart, R.E.A., Born, E.W., Dietz, R, Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Rigét, F.F., Laidre, K., Villum Jensen, M., Knutsen,
L.Ø., Fossette, S. and Dunn, J.B. (2013a). In press. Abundance of Atlantic walrus in western Nares Strait,
Baffin Bay stock, during summer. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/3.2611.
Stewart, R.E.A., Born, E.W., Dietz, R. and Ryan, A.K. (2013b). In press. Estimates of Minimum Population
Size for Walrus around Southeast Baffin Island, Nunavut. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.7557/3.2615.
Stewart, R.E.A., Hamilton, J.W. and Dunn, J.B. (2013c). Results of Foxe Basin walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
rosmarus) surveys: 2010-2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/017. iv + 12 pp.
Stewart, R.E.A., Born, EW., Dunn, J., Blair, K., William, R. and Ryan, A.K. (2013d). In press. Use of Multiple
Methods to Estimate Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) Abundance in the Penny Strait-LancasterSound and West Jones Sound Stocks, Canada. NAMMCO Scientific Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.7557/3.2608.
Taylor, V., Kecse-Nagy, K., Vaisman, A. and Melisch, R. (2012). The customs union of Belarus, Kazakhstan andRussia: Implications for wildlife trade. TRAFFIC Bulletin, Vol. 24. No. 2.
Timoshenko, Y.K. (1984). About the conservation and restoration of the West-Atlantic population of walrus.
Marine mammals. Moscow. Nauka. pp. 100-103.
The Raven’s Journey. (2009). Walrus Ivory Carvings. www.ravensjourneygallery.com/walrus_gallery. htm.
Viewed 28 August 2009.
Tiensvold Custom Knives. (2009). Tiensvold Custom Fixed Blade Knives. Fixed Blade #5. www.
jasontiensvoldknives.com/fixedbladeknives.html. Viewed 28 August 2009.

120

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Tynan, C.T. and DeMaster, D.P. (1997). Observations and predictions of Arctic climate change potential effects ofmarine mammals. Arctic. 50: 308-322.
.Udevitz, M.S., Jay, C.V., Fischbach, A.S. and Garlich-Miller, J.L. (2009). Modeling haul-out behavior of walrus in
Bering Sea-ice. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:1111-1128.
UNEP-WCMC [United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre] (2011). EU
Wildlife Trade Regulation Database. Cambridge, UK. http://www.unep-wcmc. org/eu/ Taxonomy/. Viewed
7 October 2011.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). A Guide to Using the CITES Trade Database. Version 7. UNEP-WCWC, Cambridge, UK.
USAID [United States Agency for International Development] (2009). Telling Our Story > Case Study: USAID
program helps increase incomes of the Bushmen > The Business of Preserving Wildlife in Namibia. http://
www.usaid.gov/stories/namibia/cs_namibia_bushmen.pdf. Viewed 14 December 2010.
US Department of Justice (2007). Juneau men receive jail time for illegally selling walrus ivory. News Release #07134. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/708341/Reynolds-Frederick-Sentencing-for-Illegal ly-Selling-WalrusIvory. Vewed 8 January 2009.
US Department of Justice (2009). Oregon man sentenced in federal court for selling walrus ivory. News Release
09-001. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ak/press/2009/January%202009/Schneider_James_01-08-09.pdf.
Viewed 8 January 2009.
US Department of Justice (2011a). Glenallen Residents And Anchorage Resident Indicted By Federal Grand JuryFor Illegal Wildlife Trafficking And Firearms Violations. http://www.justice. gov/usao/ak/news/2011/
April_2011/Leboeuf_Jesse_04-28-11.html. Viewed 17 September 2012.
US Department of Justice (2011b). Two Glennallen residents and one Anchorage resident sentenced for illegal
wildlife trafficking and firearms violations. News Release. http://alaska.fws.gov/pdf/ walrus_news_release.
pdf. Viewed 17 September 2012.
USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. (1992). Federal agents crack down on walrus headhunters, drugs-forivory dealers. Department of the Interior: News Release. http://www.fws.gov/news/ historic/1992/19920213.
pdf. Viewed 26 September 2008.
USFWS. (1994). Conservation Plan for the Pacific Walrus in Alaska. Marine Mammals Management, FWS,
Anchorage, AK. 79 pp.
USFWS. (2001). Fact sheet regulations for marine mammal parts beach found by non-natives. USFWS Factsheet
January 2001. http://alaska.fws.gov/law/pdf/beachfound.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2013.
USFWS (2004). Annual Report FY 2003. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement. http://www.fws.
gov/le/pdf/final-annual-report-fy-2003.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2013.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

121

USFWS (2005). Annual Report FY 2004. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement. http://www.fws.
gov/le/pdf/final-annual-report-fy-2004.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2013.
USFWS (2006). Annual Report FY 2005. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement http://www.fws.
gov/le/pdf/final-annual-report-fy-2005.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2013.
USFWS (2007a). Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the US Fish and Wildlife Service > Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/Lacey.html. Viewed 26 September 2008.
USFWS. (2007b). Fact Sheet: Hunting And Use Of Walrus By Alaska Native. US Department of the Interior.
USFWS (2008a). Annual Report FY 2007. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement. http://www.
fws.gov/le/pdf/final-annual-report-fy-2007.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2013.
USFWS. (2008b). Marine Mammals Management: Walrus. http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/
nhistory.htm. Viewed 28 January 2009.
USFWS (2009a). Annual Report FY 2008. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement http://www.
fws.gov/le/pdf/final-annual-report-fy-2008.pdf. Viewed 28 January 2013.
USFWS. (2009b). Pacific Walrus Odobenus rosemarus divergens. USFWS Factsheet. August 2009. http://alaska.
fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/Walrus_FS.pdf. Viewed 14 January 2012.
USFWS (2010a). Management and Scientific Authorities. CITES in the United States. http://www.fws. gov/
international/DMA_DSA/CITES/CITES_home.html. Viewed 27 January 2010.
USFWS. (2010b). Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens): Alaska Stock. Stock Assessment Reports. http://
alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_pacific_walrus_sar.pdf. Viewed 27 March 2012.
USFWS. (2011). Pacific Walrus 12-month Finding. Questions and Answers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://
alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/faq_2011.pdf. Viewed 11 December 2012.
USFWS. (2012). A Customs Guide to Alaska Native Arts. http://www.eed.state.ak.us/aksca/ pdf/customs_guide_
to_ak_native_arts.pdf. Viewed 11 December 2012.
USFWS. (2013). Pacific Walrus Harvest Data 1997-2011. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished data.
US Federal Register. (2008a). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Special Rule for the Polar Bear.
Federal Register 73(242):76249-76269.
US Federal Register. (2008b). Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions. Federal Register 73 (196): 58925-58927.
US Federal Register. (2011). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to
List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register 76 (28): 7634-7679.
USGS. (2011). Pacific Walrus Studied as Sea Ice Melts. USGS Newsroom. http://www.usgs.gov/ newsroom/article.
asp?ID=2882#.UQGLbR3O0UU. Viewed 11 December 2012.

122

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Vaisman, A., Minkov, S. and Boltunov, A. (2009). Impact of Trade on Arctic Species: Polar Bear, Walrus andNarwhal – Russia Component. Internal TRAFFIC Report.
Vaisman, A., Mundy-Taylor, V. and Kecse-Nagy, K.(in prep.). Wildlife trade in the Eurasian Customs Union and inselected Central Asian countries. TRAFFIC report for the CITES Secretariat.
Village Trading Post. (2009). Ivory Earrings and Walrus Tooth Necklaces. www.villagetradingpostonline. com/ivory%20earrings.html. Viewed 28 August 2009.
Williams, M. (2006). People, Polar Bears and Walrus. WWF Arctic Bulletin. No. 2.06. WWF International Arctic
Programme.
Witting, L. and Born, E. W. (2005). An assessment of Greenland walrus populations. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 62 (2): 266-284.
Witting, L. and Born, E.W. (2013) In press. Population dynamics of walrus in Greenland. NAMMCO Scientific
Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/3.2612.
WWF and Nature Conservancy. (2004). Bering Sea Ecoregion Strategic Action Plan Part II. Bering Sea Plan,First Iteration 12/23/04.
WWF-Denmark (2005). The big four - a WWF update on Greenland’s efforts with regard to species conservationand nature protection. 72 pp.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

123

APPENDIX AWALRUS POPULATION ESTIMATES124

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable A1

Walrus population estimates

ATLANTIC WALRUS

COUNTRY

STOCK/MANAGEMENT
UNIT

RECENT
ESTIMATE(YEAR)

Northwest
Atlantic

ExtirpatedNorthern Foxe
Basin

Central Foxe
Basin

CanadaSouth and East
Hudson Bay

West JonesSound

NATIONAL
STATUSCOMMENTS
Also referred to as the Maritime Stock Source: DFO, (2008).

* This is estimate used by DFO to calculate TAR in November
Between2013 (DFO, 2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013).
8,153 (CV= 0.07) to
13,452 (CV = These two stocks were previously classified as the Foxe Basin0.43) walrus* stock. The Foxe Basin area was last surveyed in August/
September 2010 and 2011. Although they are now separate(2011)
Canada:stocks, the methods used to identify them (i.e. isotopic andNorthwest
morphological differences) were not possible from the air.
Atlanticstock
Results of the survey estimated between 10,379 animals (CV:[previously
0.42) to 13,452 animals (CV: 0.43). Data from 2010 estimated amaritime
minimum counted population of 3,861 animals or adjusted using
population]
Includedcorrection factors to 6,480 animals. Data from 2011 estimatedis designatedin abovea minimum counted population of 8,153 animals or adjusted
as extirpatedestimateusing correction factors to 10,379 animals. However, since theunder SARA
coverage area was incomplete and the number of haul-outs(DFO, 2008).
were reduced to avoid double counting, it is possible that there
All other
may have been 13,452 walrus (CV = 0.43) in 2011. This would
stocks are
be assuming that the tagging data from a single haul-out wereconsidered
representative of other haul-outs (Stewart et al., 2013c).
SpecialConcernThis stock has not been surveyed in recent years. The estimate
underis based on unpublished third-party data from only one haul-out
COSEWIC
site. Approximately 270 walrus were seen at Cape Henrietta
270 to 300(COSEWIC,Maria, at the northwestern corner of James Bay in 20062006), and(COSEWIC, 2006; DFO; 2013a).
are not listed
under SARA.
*This is estimate used by DFO to calculate TAR in November 2013
COSEWIC is(DFO, 2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013).
conservation
status andThis stock was last surveyed in August 2008 and 2009. The
SARA
adjusted minimum counted population was estimated at 503
is legalanimals in 2008 (95% CI 473 to 534) and 470 animals in 2009
designation
503 walrus* (95% CI 297 to 1,732) (Stewart et al., 2013d). An adjustedof status.
estimate of the 2008 data (higher estimate) was also provided(95% CI:
473 to 534) to NAMMCO walrus working group in November 2009 using a
different correction factor to account for walrus not present at(2008)
the haul-out sites. Using this method an estimate of 1,450 walrus(95% CI: 997-2,008) was presented to the NAMMCO working
group (NAMMCO Annual Report, 2010).
This stock was previously classified as part of the Baffin Bay/
North Water stock.

table continued on next page

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

125Table A1

Walrus population estimates continued

ATLANTIC WALRUS

COUNTRY

STOCK/MANAGEMENT
UNIT

RECENT
ESTIMATE(YEAR)NATIONAL
STATUSCOMMENTS*This is estimate used by DFO to calculate TAR in November
2013 (DFO, 2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013). The estimate of
661 differs slightly from the 672 estimate below resulting from adifferent method of adjustment.

Penny StraitLancaster
Sound

CanadaBetween 661(CV =2.08) and727 (CV =0.07) walrus*(2009)

This stock was last surveyed in August 2007 and 2009. The
adjusted minimum counted population was estimated at
672 animals in 2007 (95% CI 575 to 768) and 727 animals in2009 (95% CI 623 to 831) (Stewart et al., 2013d). An adjusted
estimate of the 2009 data (higher estimate) was also provided
to the NAMMCO walrus working group in November 2009 using
a different correction factor to account for walrus not present
at the haul-out sites. Using this method an estimate of 2,010
walrus (95% CI: 1,416 to 2,852) was presented to the NAMMCO
working group (NAMMCO Annual Report, 2010).
This stock was previously classified as part of the Baffin Bay/
North Water stock.
This stock was last surveyed in May 2009 and 2010 by Greenland,
and in a joint survey with Canada and Greenland in August 2009.
The results were presented to the NAMMCO walrus working group;
however, it was requested that all the survey data be re-assessed
to include corrections for instantaneous availability bias (NAMMCO
Annual Report, 2010). However, the re-adjusted estimates have notyet been presented to or accepted by the NAMMCO walrus working
group. The next meeting is being held in November 2013.
Canada/GreenlandBaffin Bay/
North West
Greenland andthe North Water

Canada uses
an estimate
of 1,249
walrus*(95% CI:
1,370) (2009)


7KH RULJLQDO HVWLPDWHV SURYLGHG WR WKH 1$00&2 ZDOUXV
working group in November 2009 was 2,676 animals(95% CI: 1,140 to 4,920) for the May 2009 survey and 1,616
animals (95% CI: 876 to 2,980) for the August 2009 survey(NAMMCO Annual Report, 2010).
7KHUHDGMXVWHGHVWLPDWHVRIWKH*UHHQODQGVXUYH\UHVXOWHG
in an estimate of 1,499 animals (95% CI: 1,077 to 2,087). This
included the re-adjustment of the May 2009 survey (1,238
animals; CV 0.19) and new data from a May 2010 survey(1,759 animals; CV 0.29) (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2013b).
7KHUHDGMXVWHGHVWLPDWHRIWKHMRLQW&DQDGDDQG*UHHQODQG
survey in August 2009 resulted in an estimate of 1,249
animals (CV=1.12, 95% CI = 1,370) (Stewart et. al., 2013a).

In 2013, Witting and Born, (2013) used modelling to provide a 2012
abundance estimate using data from the 2009 and 2010 Greenland
surveys. However, the model did not incorporate data from the
Canada/Greenland survey in August 2009. Results of the model
estimated a 2012 abundance of 1,400 animals (95% CI: 1,000 to 2,000).
This stock was previously classified as part of the Baffin Bay/
North Water stock.

Greenland:
criticallyendangered forthe northwater
stock (nowclassified asbaffin bay/north west
greenland
and thenorth water);endangered
for the west
greenland
stock (nowhudsonbay-davis
strait /west
greenland andsouth east
baffin island);and nearthreatenedfor the east
greenland
stock under
the greenland
red list 2007
(boertmann,2007).

table continued on next page126

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable A1

Walrus population estimates continued

ATLANTIC WALRUS

COUNTRY

STOCK/MANAGEMENT
UNIT

RECENT
ESTIMATE(YEAR)NATIONAL
STATUSCOMMENTS*This is estimate used by DFO to calculate TAR in November 2013
(DFO, 2013b; Stewart and Hamilton, 2013). The estimate of 1,420
and 2,533 differ slightly from the 2,502 estimate below resulting
from a different method of adjustment.
This stock was surveyed in May 2006, 2008 and 2012 by
Greenland; and partially by Canada in September 2007. The
results were presented to the NAMMCO walrus working group;
however, it was requested that all the survey data be reviewed
and revised to include corrections for instantaneous availability
bias (NAMMCO Annual Report, 2010).

Canada/Greenland

Hudson BayDavis Strait /West Greenlandand South East
Baffin Island

Canada uses
an estimate ̽of between
1,420 (CV =0.07) and
2,533 (CV =0.17) walrus*(2007)

Greenland
surveyestimatein 2012was 1,408
walrus (95%
CI: 922 to2,150) (2012).
Lower thanthe estimateof 2,533 in
2007.



The original Greenland estimates provided to the NAMMCO
walrus working group in November 2009 was 2,791
animals (95% CI: 1,036 to 7,522) for the May 2006 survey
and 3,240 animals (95% CI: 863 to 12,170) for the May
2008 survey (NAMMCO Annual Report, 2010). The readjustment of the 2006 data was 1,105 animals (95% CI
610 to 2,002), 2008 data were 1,137 animals (95% CI: 468
to 2,758) and new data from a May 2012 survey estimated1,408 animals (95% CI: 922 to 2,150) (Heide-Jørgensen etal., 2013a).
7KH RULJLQDO HVWLPDWH SURYLGHG IRU WKH  &DQDGLDQ
survey in September was 1,056; however, to accountfor animals not hauled out, the working group felt that acorrected estimate of 3,030 animals (CV=0.20) could be
used for modelling purposes (NAMMCO Annual Report,
2010). The re-adjusted estimate of the joint Canada andGreenland September survey resulted in an estimate of
2,502 animals (95% CI: 1,160 to 3,345) (Stewart et. al.,2013bb). However, the re-adjusted estimates and the new2012 survey results have not yet been presented to or
accepted by the NAMMCO walrus working group. The next
meeting is being held in November 2013.
,Q  :LWWLQJ DQG %RUQ   XVHG PRGHOOLQJ WR
provide a 2012 abundance estimate of 3,900 animals(95% CI: 2,500 to 5,300) using data from the 2006,
2008 Greenland surveys and the 2007 Canadian survey.
However, the model did not incorporate the newest datafrom the recent 2012 Greenland survey, nor did it include
the re-adjustments for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 estimates(Witting and Born, 2013).

table continued on next page

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

127

Table A1

Walrus population estimates continued

ATLANTIC WALRUS

COUNTRY

Greenland

STOCK/MANAGEMENT
UNIT

East Greenland

RECENT
ESTIMATE(YEAR)NATIONAL
STATUSCOMMENTS

Svalbard(Norway):
1,429 (95% This stock was surveyed in August 2009. The results estimated Vulnerable
approximately 1,429 animals (95% CI: 616-3,316) (NAMMCO under
CI: 616the 2010
3,316) (2009) Annual Report, 2010; Witting and Born, 2013).
Norwegian
Red List forSpecies (Kålås
et al., 2010).
Russia:Atlantic walrus
is listed as
Decreasing
Numbers(category 2) inthe 2001 Red
Data Book of
the RussianFederation
whichThis stock was surveyed in August 2011. Results of thisestablishes
joint Norwegian/Russian survey of the Pechora Sea regionboth theestimated 3,943 animals (95% CI: 3,605-4,325) (Lydersen et al.,conservation2012).
and legal
status (DanilovDanilian, 2001).

Greenland

East Greenland

1,429 (95% This stock was surveyed in August 2009. The results estimatedapproximately 1,429 animals (95% CI: 616-3,316) (NAMMCO Annual
CI: 6163,316) (2009) Report, 2010; Witting and Born, 2013).

RussiaKara Sea Southern
Barents Sea Novaya Zamlya

3,943(95% CI:3,605-4,325)(2011)PACIFIC WALRUS

COUNTRY

Russia/UnitedStatesSTOCK/MANAGEMENT
UNIT

Pacific(subspecies
comprises one
population)

RECENT
ESTIMATE(YEAR)COMMENTSNATIONAL
STATUS

US: No listing
status under theThis population was surveyed in 2006 by a joint United States/ United States
Russia project. This is considered a minimum estimate. Due Endangered
to poor weather conditions, it was not possible to survey all Species Act.
regions. Results of the survey estimated a minimum populationof 129,000 animals (95% CI: 55,000-507,000) (Speckman et al., Russia: The
1,429 (95%
Pacific walrus
2011; USFWS, 2010b).
CI: 616is not listed in
3,316) (2009)
It has been suggested that the Laptev Sea is actually the the 2001 Red
westernmost population of the Pacific walrus (Lindqvist et al., Data Book of
the Russian2009).
Federation(DanilovDanilian, 2001).

table continued on next page128

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable A1

Walrus population estimates continued

LAPTEV WALRUS
NOTE: STATUS AS DISTINCT SUBSPECIES IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE, AND IS OFTEN CONSIDERED BELONGING TO PACIFIC WALRUS

COUNTRY

RussiaSTOCK/MANAGEMENT
UNIT

Laptev

RECENT
ESTIMATE(YEAR)

Unknown;
estimated
between
2,000
to 3000
animals in
2013.

COMMENTSNATIONAL
STATUS

Russia: laptev
walrus islisted as rare
Russia, walrus from the Laptev Sea are managed as a separate(category 3)
subspecies.
in the 2001
red data book
It has been suggested that the Laptev Sea is the westernmost of the russian
population of the Pacific walrus (Lindqvist et al., 2009). federation
However, the samples from Laptev walrus were very limited so which
the sample size used for the anaysis was very small. In 2013, a establishes
reasearch team with the WWF Canon Expedition took samples both thefrom walrus in the Laptev sea to be used for scientific analysis. conservation
During the expeditions, 2,000 to 3,000 walrus were estimated and legal
statusin the area (Sandford, 2013).
(DanilovDanilian,2001).

NOTE: Not all estimates provided have been accepted and may be re-adjusted pending on advice from scientific and management bodies. As such, theestimates provided in the table could change and cautious should be used when referencing these estimates. In addition, some of the estimates usedhave negative biases in animal counts due to incomplete coverage and detection.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

129

130

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

APPENDIX B
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS, AND INTERNATIONAL
COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
1 CITESCITES is an international agreement between
governments created to ensure that the international
trade22 in wild animals and plants does not threaten
the survival of those species (Anon., 1973a; Cooper
and Chalifour, 2004). CITES came into force on July 1,
1975, with 18 countries implementing the Convention
in that same year. As of May 2013, 178 countries
implement CITES (CITES, 2013). CITES Resolution
Conf. 11.17 (Rev. CoP14) requires that all signatory

countries submit annual reports on their international
trade of CITES-listed species to the CITES Secretariat(UNEP-WCMC, 2010). This information is thencompiled into the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade
Database. Species covered by the Convention arelisted in one of three Appendices depending on thelevel of protection needed and permits are issued by
the CITES Management Authority (MA)23 undercertain conditions which vary for each level ofprotection (Cooper and Chalifour, 2004).

22
Article I(c) of CITES defines trade as “export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea.” Article I(d) defines re-export as the “export of any
specimen that has previously been imported” and Article I(e) defines introduction from the sea as “transportation into a State of specimens of any
species which were taken in the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State” (Anon., 1973a).

A CITES Management Authority (MA) is responsible for implementing the convention in its country, and for issuing permits and certificates on behalfof their country. A CITES Scientific Authority (SA) is responsible for providing technical and scientific advice to its MA including advice on whether theexport of a specimen will be detrimental to the survival in the wild of the species involved (CITES, 2008a).
23

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus131Species listed in Appendix I are those threatenedwith extinction. Both an import permit from theimporting country and an export permit or re-export
certificate from the country of export are required forinternational trade in Appendix I specimens (Anon.,
1973a). Permits may be issued only under specificconditions, including the following:r

trade in a species must not be detrimental to theconservation of that species;ran Appendix I specimen may not be used forprimarily commercial purposes;r

an import permit must be issued for an Appendix
I specimen before an export or re-export permit
may be issued;rspecimens must be legally acquired;rlive animals will receive humane treatment.

Species that are not currently threatened with extinction
but could become so if their trade is not regulated arelisted in CITES Appendix II. Species may also be listed inAppendix II because they cannot easily be distinguishedfrom other species listed on Appendix I or II. Trade in
Appendix II specimens requires a CITES export permit
issued by the exporting country. Re-exports require
CITES re-export certificates (Anon., 1973a). Export
permits and re-export certificates may be issued only
under specific conditions, including the following:r

trade in a species must not be detrimental to theconservation of that species;r

specimens must be legally acquired;rlive animals will receive humane treatment.

Individual countries may list species in Appendix III
when those countries wish to regulate the export ofcertain native species. If an Appendix III specimen
originates from the listing country, a CITES export
permit from that country is required for export. If thespecimen originates from another country, the shipment
requires issuance of a certificate of origin. In the case of reexport, a certificate must be granted by the CITES MA24of the state of re-export (Anon., 1973a). The issuance ofexport permits for Appendix III species does not require
the exporting country to show that international trade in
the species is not detrimental to the conservation of thatspecies. However, the exporting country must determinethat the specimens were legally acquired before issuingexport permits. Permits may be issued only under specificconditions, including the following:r

specimens must be legally acquired;rlive animals will receive humane treatment.

NDFs
Completion of scientifically supportable NDFs
is critical to securing the conservation goals andobjectives of CITES. The term NDF is not useddirectly in the Convention text but it arises from thefollowing legally binding provisions in that text:r

Article III states that an export permit or an
Introduction from the Sea certificate for an Appendix I
species shall be granted only when a Scientific Authorityof the state of export has advised that this action will“not be detrimental to the survival of that species”;

r

Article III also states that an import permit for
an Appendix I species shall be granted only whena Scientific Authority of the state of import has
advised that the import will “be for purposes
which are not detrimental to the survival of thespecies involved”25;

24
A CITES Management Authority (MA) is responsible for implementing the convention in its country, and for issuing permits and certificates on behalfof its country. A CITES Scientific Authority (SA) is responsible for providing technical and scientific advice to its MA including advice on whether theexport of a specimen will be detrimental to the survival in the wild of the species involved (CITES, 2008a).
25
The exporting country must determine that an export will not be detrimental; the importing country determines if the import will be for purposes (i.e.
what will be done with the wildlife in the importing country) that are not detrimental.

132

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

rArticle IV states that an export permit or an
introduction from the sea certificate for an Appendix II
species shall be granted only when a Scientific Authorityof the state of export has advised that this action will “notbe detrimental to the survival of that species”.

The Convention text does not elaborate further onwhat is entailed in completing an NDF. Consequently,
CITES Parties have come to see this as an area where
they have sovereignty and have been reluctant to accept
binding provisions on the matter. Nevertheless, there
is ample guidance available on how NDFs should be
made, the essentials of which are summarized on
the CITES Web site (CITES, 2012b). Also, at the 16th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES(CoP16) in March 2013, the Parties adopted a new
resolution providing non-binding guiding principles
for Scientific Authorities to take into account in making
NDFs. In addition, Parties have adopted a measure
known as the review of significant trade in Appendix
II species (Resolution Conf. 12.8 [Rev. CoP13] Reviewof Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species)
which allows the CITES Scientific Committees toscrutinize trade patterns, identify species where there
are concerns and examine whether or not exporting
countries are complying with the requirement tomake NDFs. Those Committees can refer cases of noncompliance to the Standing Committee, which may
decide to recommend that Parties cease trading in therelevant species with the country in question.
Despite all of these provisions, implementation of NDFs is
not consistent between Parties or for different taxa. Since
the review of significant trade can only look at a small subset of cases of most concern, it is not possible to ascertain
the scientific credibility of NDFs made for many taxa.

Exemptions to CITES
There are several exemptions to the provisions of
the Convention; however, the most commonly used
are reservations, pre-convention 26 specimens andpersonal and household effects.
r

As per Article XXIII, a reservation can be taken on
any specimen included in the Appendices or any
part or derivative specified in relation to a species
included in the Appendices. However, reservations
can only be taken under the following conditions:once a State becomes a Party to CITES; within 90
days of an amendment to Appendices I or II; or any
time with regard to species listed in Appendix III.
A reservation is a statement made by a Party to theeffect that it does not consider itself a Party to theConvention with regard to trade in specimens of
the species on which it entered the reservation (i.e.
it does not recognize the listing and reserves theright not to issue CITES documents with respect totrade in the species).

r

As per Article VII:2 of the Convention, theprovisions of CITES (Articles III, IV and V) do not
apply to any specimen27 that was acquired prior to
the listing of the species under CITES, providing
the MA is satisfied the specimen was acquired
prior to the CITES listing and the MA can issue
a certificate to that effect. Resolution Conf. 13.6
Implementation of Article VII, paragraph 2,
concerning ‘pre-Convention’ specimens provides
further clarification and recommends that Parties
use the date the species was first included in the
Appendices and the date on which a specimen
was acquired (i.e. removed from the wild, born in

26
Pre-Convention specimens are any specimens acquired prior to the provisions of CITES. If a certificate is issued by an MA for such specimens, thenno other certificate or permit is required by CITES to authorize the export, import or re-export of such items (CITES, 2008a).

Article I, paragraph (b) of the Convention defines Specimen as ”(i) any animal or plant, whether alive or dead; (ii) in the case of an animal: for species
included in Appendices I and II, any readily recognizable part or derivative thereof; and for species included in Appendix III, any readily recognizable
part or derivative thereof specified in Appendix III in relation to the species; and (iii) in the case of a plant: for species included in Appendix I, any readily
recognizable part or derivative thereof; and for species included in Appendices II and III, any readily recognizable part or derivative thereof specified inAppendices II and III in relation to the species”.
27

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

133captivity or artificially propagated in a controlledenvironment) and, if the date is unknown, to use
the date on which it was first possessed by a person.
r

As per Article VII:2 of the Convention, specimens
considered personal and household effects may
be exempt from CITES provisions under certain
conditions. Resolution Conf. 13.7 (Rev. CoP14)
Control of trade in personal and household effects
provides further clarification on what qualifies as apersonal and household effect: it must be personallyowned or possessed for non-commercial purposes,
be legally acquired, and at the time of import, export
or re-export it must be worn, carried or included inpersonal baggage, or be part of a household move.

Although there are exemptions to some provisionsof CITES, it is ultimately the Parties’ decision onwhether they will permit trade in specimens underthese exemptions. This will depend on their internal
legislation and policies and how they implement theprovisions of CITES in their countries, and this canvary greatly from one country to another.

CITES and climate change
At CITES CoP15, concerns about climate change werebrought to the attention of the CITES Secretariat and
the Parties (CoP15 Doc. 10.1). The Secretariat felt that
other agreements were more suitable and equipped toaddress the causes of climate change or the overarching
mitigation and adaptation measures required to deal with
it. However, the Secretariat did feel that the Parties should
recognize these impacts and the implications they could
have on the implementation of CITES, and work withsister organizations to address some of the wider impactsof climate change. A working group was established at
CoP15 to address the issue of the implications of climatechange on CITES and, as a result of the work of this group,
the Parties adopted three decisions related to CITES andclimate change, as follows:r

Decision 15.15 directed to the Animals and Plants
Committees: “Given the implications of climatechange for science-based decision-making, theAnimals and Plants Committees shall identify
the scientific aspects of the provisions of theConvention and of Resolutions of the Conferenceof the Parties that are actually or likely to beaffected by climate change, report their findings,
and make recommendations for further action
in relation to the Convention and to Resolutionsof the Conference of the Parties as appropriate, atthe 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee”;r

Decision 15.16 directed to the Secretariat: “The
Secretariat shall request from the secretariats of othermultilateral environmental agreements informationon their activities that may be linked to climatechange and CITES, and report to the Animals andPlants Committees and the Standing Committee”;r

Decision 15.17 directed to the Standing
Committee: “The Standing Committee shallconsider the reports of the Animals and Plants
Committees and the Secretariat and report at the
16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties”.

Meeting of the Conference of theParties (CoP)The Convention requires the Secretariat to call a CoP every
two to three years. CoPs are attended by Party delegations
and other interested stakeholders. At these meetings, theParties may amend Appendices I or II (by a two-thirds
majority of the Parties present and voting) and makerecommendations to improve the implementation of theConvention (Anon., 1973a). These recommendations takethe form of Decisions and Resolutions which are defined
as follows (Cooper and Chalifour, 2004).
rdecisions are generally short-term instructions tocommittees, working groups, the Secretariat or Parties;r

resolutions are long-term acts, terms of reference,
recommendations or interpretations of theConvention that are put into practice to improve
the implementation of the Convention.

134

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

A Joint Animals and Plants Committee Intercessional
Working Group on Climate Change was convened
to produce draft findings and recommendations incompliance with Decision 15.15. The working groupreport (AC26/PC20 Doc. 6) indicated that there
were six CITES decision-making processes alreadyin place which provided the scope to accommodate
climate change considerations. The Animals andPlants Committee agreed with the findings andindicated that current provisions of the Convention
and resolutions were sufficiently comprehensive andflexible to take into account the implications of climatechange for science-based decision-making. A report
was submitted at the 62nd meeting of the Standing
Committee (SC 62. Doc18), where it was accepted andthe Standing Committee agreed to report the findings
at CoP16. At CoP16 in March 2013, the report of theStanding Committee was noted by the Parties andDecisions 15.15, 15.16, and 15.17 were repealed.

The European Union (EU) is a unique political andeconomic partnership between 28 European countries.
Denmark is a member of the EU, but Greenland is not, as
it chose to leave the EU in 1985 (see Appendix A). Walrus
are found in Greenland, but do not range into any EU
member states; however, walrus products are tradedfrom Greenland to Denmark (and other EU member
states). Although Greenland has its own wildlife tradelegislation and is not bound by the EU WTR, any EU
member state (including Denmark) choosing to trade
this species with Greenland must treat Greenland as
a non-member state for the purposes of the EU WTR
and issue the appropriate export, import or re-export
documents (C. O’Criodain, WWF International, in litt.
to T. Shadbolt, December 12, 2008).

On January 1, 1984, two regulations came into force toimplement CITES in all EU member states, including
those not signatories to CITES. All taxa listed in CITES
were made subject to these regulations, and additional
restrictions were placed on trade in certain taxa
listed in the Annexes of these regulations (European
Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013). This included
Council Regulation European Economic Community(EEC) No. 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on theimplementation in the Community of the Convention
on international trade in endangered species of wild
fauna and flora (the basic regulation) and; Commission
Regulation (EEC) No. 3418/83 of 28 November 1983
laying down provisions for the uniform issue and useof documents required for the implementation in theCommunity of the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (theimplementing regulation, which essentially addresses
practical aspects of implementation). However, withthe abolition of internal customs controls in 1993, theseRegulations were no longer considered adequate andit was agreed that more detailed uniform rules wereneeded. Consequently, after several years of negotiation,in 1997 both regulations were replaced, respectively,
with Council Regulation European Community (EC)No. 338/97 on the Protection of the Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein, and;Commission Regulation (EC) No. 939/97, laying down
detailed rules for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 on the protection of speciesof wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein,
which was replaced again in 2001 and then 2006 by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down
detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 338/97. This last Regulation has
subsequently been amended on a number of occasions
but a consolidated text can be viewed on the eur-lex.
europa.eu website.

Prior to 1984, only a handful of EU member states weresignatories to CITES and the absence of systematicborder controls made implementation of CITES difficult.

The basic regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No
338/97, can be amended in two ways: by amending
the text of the regulation or by updating the Annexes

2 EU Wildlife Trade
Regulations

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

135

of the regulation. The former requires approval by
the EU Council of Ministers, and has not happened
to date. The latter can be done by the European
Commission, working with Committee comprising
Member States Authorities28. To account for changes
to the Appendices adopted at CoPs, this regulation has
been amended many times, with the most recent being
Commission Regulation (EU) No 750/2013 of 29 July
2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97
on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by
regulating trade therein. This essentially updated theAnnexes to reflect the most recent changes adopted at
CoP16 (European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe,
2013; European Commission, 2013).
The implementing regulations, Commission
Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, can be amended by theEuropean Commission working in consultation with
the CITES Committee mentioned above. Amendments
are undertaken for various reasons, but primarily to
implement various provisions adopted at CoPs, otherthan amendments to the CITES Appendices (i.e.
Resolutions, changes to personal and household effects,
changes to rules for sample collections and for thedesign of documents, etc.). As a result, this regulation
has been amended by several other regulations asfollows (European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe,
2013; European Commission, 2013):r

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 100/2008 of 4
February 2008 amending, as regards sample collections
and certain formalities relating to the trade in speciesof wild fauna and flora, Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006
laying down detailed rules for the implementation ofCouncil Regulation (EC) No. 338/97;

rCommission Regulation (EU) No 791/2012 of
23 August 2012 amending, as regards certain
provisions relating to the trade in species of wild

fauna and flora, Regulation (EC) No 865/2006
laying down detailed rules for the implementationof Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97; andrCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No
792/2012 of 23 August 2012 laying down rules for thedesign of permits, certificates and other documents
provided for in Council Regulation (EC)No 338/97
on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by
regulating trade therein and amending Commission
Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.

In addition to these regulations, the Commission,
with the CITES Committee, also regularly adopts
suspensions regulations, (the most recent being
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2013
of 17 June 2013 suspending the introduction into the Unionof specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora) is
also used in some instances to suspend the introduction
into the EU of particular species from certain countries(European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013;
European Commission, 2013).
Together, these regulations (basic, implementing andsuspension regulations) form the legal basis for CITES
implementation in the EU (European Commission
and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013; European Commission,2013). There are also additional non-binding
recommendations for commission regulations which
set out a number of actions member states could take formore effective enforcement of the regulations referred
to as Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/
EC identifying a set of actions for the enforcement ofRegulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of speciesof wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013;
European Commission, 2013).
The Council Regulation and Commission Regulations
govern both internal and international trade, and28
Except for amendments to Annex A other than those that are necessary to ensure alignment with amendments to Appendix I arising from a CITES
CoP – see elsewhere in the above text.

136

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

provide additional provisions for the import, export
and re-export of specimens listed in Annexes A, B,
C, and D of the regulations (see section 4.2.1). The
Annexes correspond to the CITES Appendices,
although they may provide stricter provisions thanthe CITES Appendices and may also include species
not listed under CITES. For consistency, any species
that were listed on Annex IV of the EU’s Habitat
Directive29 (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) in 1997,
when the Regulations were first adopted, and thatare also listed on any of the CITES Appendices, arelisted in Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No.
338/97 (C. O’Criodain, WWF International, in litt.
to T. Shadbolt, December 15, 2008). Although theregulations are applicable to all EU member countries,
national legislation supplemented by administrative
measures are required in order to set up the requisite
MAs and SAs and to provide for criminal sanctions
against a range of specific breaches of the regulations(European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).

Regulation Annexes
Annex A includes all CITES Appendix I species. Species(CITES-listed or not CITES-listed) that are or may
be in international or community demand which areconsidered threatened with extinction, or are thought tobe so rare that trade would imperil their survival in thewild, may also be listed in Annex A. Therefore, this may
also include those species in CITES Appendices II or III, orother species not listed under CITES, especially if they areprotected by other EU legislation. A species that does not
qualify for listing in Annex A on conservation grounds
can still be listed if most of the species in the same genus
are already listed in Annex A, and if its listing is essential

for the effective protection of the previously listed species30.
Commercial trade of Annex A wild species to, from andwithin the EU is prohibited and trade in the species isregulated by provisions comparable to CITES Appendix I.
Some provisions allow for trade in Annex A species, butthey require issuance of import permits, export permits
and re-export certificates (European Commission and
TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).
Annex B includes all CITES Appendix II species thatare not already listed in Annex A. These are generally
species (CITES-listed or not CITES-listed) tradedinternationally at levels that, if unregulated, could
affect the survival of the species or the survival of
populations in certain countries. It can also include
any CITES Appendix I species that are subject to an
EU member state’s reservation31, should that arise (ithas not arisen to date) and CITES Appendix III and
non-CITES species. Species may be listed in Annex B if
they do not qualify for Annex A or B for conservation
reasons, but if it is judged that trade controls arenecessary in order to render other listings on Annexes
A or B effective. Trade of Annex B species into and outof the EU is regulated by provisions comparable to
CITES Appendix II (requiring export permits and reexport certificates), but these provisions go further inthat import permits are required for import into the
EU that can only be issued when it has been establishedthat the import would not have a detrimental effecton the survival of the species or the extent of territory
occupied by the relevant population (European
Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).
Annex C includes all CITES Appendix III species
that are not already listed in Annex A or B, and can

29
In 1992, the EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna andflora) was introduced, which prohibited the commercial use of a species listed in its Annex IV (C. O’Criodain, WWF International, in litt. to T. Shadbolt,
December 15, 2008).
30

For example, if a non-threatened species resembles another threatened species to the extent that distinguishing between them is unlikely.

31

The member states have to agree to the reservation.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

137

include any CITES Appendix II species that are subject
to an EU member state’s reservation (there were none
as of November 2013). Trade of Annex C species intoand out of the EU is regulated through the issuance ofexport permits, re-export certificates and, for the case ofimport, import notifications32 (European Commission
and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013). These requirements arestricter than CITES, which does not require any import
documentation for trade in Appendix III species.
Annex D includes CITES Appendix III species that are
subject to EU member states’ reservations33. However,Annex D mainly includes non-CITES species that are notalready listed in Annex A, B or C, and which are imported
into the EU in numbers that are thought to warrant
monitoring. Trade of Annex D species into the EU isregulated through a requirement for import notifications(European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013). As
such, it is primarily a trade monitoring tool.

Exceptions for personal andhousehold effectsr

IVOUJOH USPQIJFT JNQPSUFE GPS OPODPNNFSDJBM
purposes.

Tourist souvenirs made of dead specimens listed in
the Annexes fall within the scope of the definition
for personal and household effects (European
Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).
For EU residents, an import and export permit isrequired for trade in such specimens listed in Annex A.
Trade in such specimens listed in Annex B requires anexport permit issued by a third country, or an importpermit if the third country does not issue such permits(European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).
For non-EU residents, an import permit is not required
for trade in specimens listed in Annexes A and B aslong as they are not used for commercial purposesor to be given away as gifts, and are contained in the
personal luggage of the traveller. However, an export
permit may be required if the national legislation of thecountry where the person resides requires such permits(European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).
Items that are not considered personal and household
effects are (European Commission and TRAFFIC
Europe, 2013) as follows:

Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 provides lessstrict permit requirements for trade in specimens ofspecies in its Annexes that are considered personaland household effects (European Commission and
TRAFFIC Europe, 2013). However, this only applies
to specimens made of dead animals or plants that are:r

goods purchased over the Internet, by phone or by
mail, even if for personal use;rlive animals and plants;rr

specimens made of dead animals or plants that are to begiven away as a gift, or used for commercial purposes.

rcontained in the personal luggage of travellers, or
carried on the person who is going to or comingfrom a third country;
in the personal property of a person transferring
her or his normal place of residence to or from theEU (house removal containers can be transported
separately from the importer);

SRG opinions on imports
The introduction of Council Regulation (EC) No.
338/97 provided the EU with the legal authority tosuspend imports of certain species from certain

An import notification does not require any prior permission from the MA; it is simply a form that must be completed by the importer before thespecimen clears customs.
32

33

Reservations have been entered in respect of certain fox and mustelid species.

34

Exceptions are referred to as derogations in EU legislation.

138

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walruscountries into the EU. The Regulation establisheda Scientific Review Group (SRG) to examine allscientific questions related to the application of the
EU WTR. The SRG can form opinions regarding
the imports of a particular species from a particularcountry of origin and whether they comply with theregulations. Opinions are often formed when the
CITES SA of one or more member states concludes
that the import would have a detrimental effect on
the survival of the species or the extent of territory
occupied by the relevant population, in whichcase the relevant CITES SA consults the European
Commission, which consults the SRG35. A case canalso be examined directly by the SRG if the European
Commission considers it warranted (European
Commission and TRAFFIC Europe, 2013).
If the SRG feels that the import would have a
detrimental effect on the survival of the species or theextent of territory occupied by the relevant population,a negative opinion is formed. This requires all EU
member states to reject all import permit applications
for the species or country of concern until the negative
opinion is removed. The European Commission
consults with the range States affected and the negative
opinion may be lifted if the SRG is satisfied with therange States’ response. If it is not satisfied or if no reply
is received, the European Commission can impose aformal import suspension. The so-called Suspensions
Regulations, which list the import suspensions, arepublished in the EU Official Journal once or twice
each year (European Commission and TRAFFIC
Europe, 2013). If the SRG feels that trade will not havea harmful effect on the conservation of the species
a positive opinion may be formed, and the trade isallowed. A “no opinion” may also be formed if the
SRG concludes that trade levels were insignificant andlikely to remain that way. In the case of no opinion,
should trade subsequently arise, the decision regardingwhether such trade is sustainable is made in the first
instance by the SA of the member state in question in
the normal way (European Commission and TRAFFIC
Europe, 2013; European Commission, 2009).

3 NAMMCO Agreement
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
cooperation between countries bordering theNorth Atlantic Ocean in research, conservation andmanagement of marine mammals was signed on
April 19, 1990 in Tromso, Norway. The objectives laid
down under the MOU were then adopted under the
Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservationand Management of Marine Mammals in the North
Atlantic (NAMMCO Agreement) which was signed
by Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands
on April 9, 1992 in Nuuk, Greenland (Anon., 1996;
NAMMCO, 2011). The signatory parties desired toenhance cooperation in research on marine mammals
and their role in the ecosystem including the effective ofhuman activities (e.g. marine pollution) (Anon., 1996).
The NAMMCO Agreement established an internationalorganization known as the North Atlantic Marine
Mammal Commission (NAMMCO). The objectiveof NAMMCO is to contribute to the conservation,
rational management and study of marine mammals
in the North Atlantic through regional consultationand cooperation (Anon., 1996). NAMMCO provides
a forum where member countries can exchange
information on matters relating to marine mammalconservation and management (including topics suchas hunting methods) (NAMMCO, 2011). NAMMCO
consists of a council, management committees, ascientific committee and a secretariat. The decision-

35
If the SA concludes that there will be no detrimental effect – and assuming that the species is not already subject to a negative opinion or is not
one of the small number of cases where the SRG has agreed that any applications should be subject to prior consideration by the SRG – then an
import permit can be issued and trade will proceed. In other words, the default position is that an import permit is issued unless negative concerns
are flagged.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus139making body of the Commission is the council, whichmeets annually to review advice from the ScientificCommittee, review hunting methods and coordinate
recommendations for further research (NAMMCO,2011). The function of the council is to (Anon., 1996):r

provide a forum for the study, analysis and exchange
of information among the Parties on mattersconcerning marine mammals in the North Atlantic;restablish appropriate Management Committees
and coordinate their activities;restablish guidelines and objectives for the work of
the Management Committees;restablish working arrangements with theInternational Council for the Exploration of the
Sea and other appropriate organizations;rcoordinate requests for scientific advice;r

establish cooperation with States not Parties to thisAgreement in order to further the objective set out
in Article 2.

The function of the management committees are to“propose to their members measures for conservation andmanagement…[and]…make recommendations to theCouncil concerning scientific research” and the functionof the scientific committee is to “scientific advice in
response to requests from the Council, utilizing, to theextent possible, existing scientific information”, while
the secretariat performs any functions that the Council
decides (Anon., 1996). Working Groups can also beestablished for specific topics (NAMMCO, 2011).
Walrus are one of the species covered by the
NAMMCO Agreement. Both Norway and Greenland
are signatory to the Agreement; however, walrus are
not as abundant in Norway and they are also fully
protected from hunting in Norway. Although Canada
is not a signatory Party, it does attend meetings as anobserver and provides updates and information on
stocks. In 1995, an Ad Hoc Working Group on the
Atlantic Walrus was established (NAMMCO, 1995).

140

4 Convention on
the Conservation ofEuropean Wildlife andNatural Habitats (BernConvention)
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife
and Natural Habitats, also known as the Bern Convention,
was signed on September 19, 1979 in Bern, Switzerlandand came into force on June 6, 1982 (Anon., 1979; CoE,2011). Walrus is listed in Appendix II (Anon., 1979). The
Convention aims to conserve wild flora and fauna andtheir natural habitats with emphasis on endangered andvulnerable species including those which are a migratory
species. Signatory parties are to take measures to maintainthe populations of listed species to a level that corresponds
to a scientific, ecological and cultural requirement.
Signatory parties are expected promote national policy,
national planning and development, education andcoordinated research in regard to the conservation ofwild flora, wild fauna and their natural habitats, withparticular attention to endangered and vulnerable species.
Furthermore, signatory parties must take appropriate
legislative and administrative measures to conserve thehabitat of wild flora and fauna, especially those listed inAppendices I (flora) and II (fauna) (Anon., 1979).
The Convention provides exceptions to the provisions if
there is no other satisfactory solution and it will not be
detrimental to the survival of the population concerned,
as written under Chapter III(9) (Anon., 1979):r

for the protection of flora and fauna;r

to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests,
fisheries, water and other forms of property;rin the interests of public health and safety, airsafety or other overriding public interests;r

for the purposes of research and education, of
repopulation, of reintroduction and for thenecessary breeding;

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

r

to permit, under strictly supervised conditions, on
a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking,keeping or other judicious exploitation of certain
wild animals and plants in small numbers.

At annual meetings, a Standing Committee monitors
implementation of the Convention by reviewing
various types of Party reports, processing case-files
and adopting recommendations. Any Parties thatmake exceptions to the provisions must submit adetailed report on the matter. A Group of Experts
monitors implementation of the Standing Committee
recommendations concerning species or habitats.
These Groups of Experts meet every two or three years
to address specific conservation problems and propose
recommendations to the committee (CoE, 2011).

Appendices of the Bern Convention
Species covered by the Convention are listed in one ofthree Appendices depending on the level of protectionthat is needed for the species, in addition to therestrictions on the methods of killing, capture andother forms of exploitation as dictated in Appendix IV.
Species listed in Appendix I, II and III have varying
levels of protection as follows (Anon., 1979):r

Appendix I lists species of wild flora that may not
be deliberately picked, collected, cut, uprooted,
possessed or sold,r

Appendix II lists species of wild fauna protectedby the following:▶

all forms of deliberate capture and keeping anddeliberate killing;▶

the deliberate damage to or destruction ofbreeding or resting sites;▶

the deliberate disturbance of wild fauna,particularly during the period of breeding,rearing and hibernation, insofar as
disturbance would be significant in relation tothe objectives of this Convention;r▶

the deliberate destruction or taking of eggs fromthe wild or keeping these eggs even if empty;▶

the possession of and internal trade in theseanimals, alive or dead, including stuffed animals
and any readily recognisable part or derivative
thereof, where this would contribute to theeffectiveness of the provisions of this article.

Appendix III lists species of wild fauna which are
regulated to keep the population out of danger.

5 Walrus International
Technical and Scientiﬁc
committee (WITS)In 1987, a proposal to list walrus in CITES Appendix II
was submitted by the Netherlands. The proposal waswithdrawn before being put to a vote; however, the ranges
States agreed to exchange scientific research on a regularbasis. A workshop on walrus was organized, originally as
an extension of an Agreement Between the USA and the
USSR in the Areas of Environmental Protections; however,participation was extended to include participation from all
walrus range States. This workshop, called the International
Workshop on the Ecology and Management of Walrus
Populations, was convened in Seattle, Washington (USA)from March 26-30, 1990, and included representatives from
Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia, the USA,and the Netherlands. During the workshop it was agreed
that a group should be formed to continue communication
among the range States; thus the WITS committee wascreated in as an informal international forum to share
information among walrus managers, researchers andresource users. A second workshop, the 2nd WalrusInternational Technical and Scientific (WITS) workshop,
was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada) from January
11-15, 1993, to continue to strengthen the coordination,communication and cooperation among managers,
resource users and managers of walrus. The second meeting
included representatives from Canada, Greenland, Norway,
the USA, and the Netherlands; representatives from Russia
were not present (Stewart et al., 1993).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

141

142

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

APPENDIX CRANGE STATE LEGISLATION

1 Canadian legislation
Under the Constitution of Canada, the conservationand management of wildlife are a shared responsibilityof the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
Section 35(1) gives constitutional protection to therights of Aboriginal people in Canada—Inuit, Indianand Métis people. This section dictates that existingtreaty and Aboriginal rights are recognized andaffirmed (Anon., 1982b). The provinces and territories
have jurisdiction over wildlife within their borders,
while the federal government has jurisdiction overcoastal and inland fisheries (including marine
mammals), migratory birds and wildlife on federal
land (e.g. national parks). The federal government also
has jurisdiction over international and interprovincial
trade (Anon., 1867). Management is also subject toland claims agreements (e.g. Nunavut Land Claims

Agreement, Inuvialuit Final Agreement, etc.) or
agreements with other nations (MOUs, bilateralagreements, etc.).Chalifour, 2004).

Federal legislation
Species at Risk Act
The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed inJune 2003. SARA’s purpose is to prevent Canadianindigenous species, subspecies and distinct
populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, toprovide for the recovery of extirpated, endangered or
threatened species as a result of human activity, andto manage species of concern to prevent them frombecoming endangered or threatened (Anon., 2002b).
The Act established an official list of statuses for
species at risk (Schedule 1): extirpated, endangered,

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus143threatened or of special concern36 (Anon., 2002b;
Government of Canada, 2009). However, before a
species can be listed under SARA, the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada(COSEWIC), the scientific advisory body for SARA,
must perform a species assessment assessing theconservation status of wildlife species that may be atrisk in Canada (Government of Canada, 2010). The best
available scientific information along with communityand Aboriginal knowledge is evaluated to determine
the risk of extinction. After its assessment, COSEWIC
recommends the appropriate status to the Governor inCouncil (Government of Canada, 2009). COSEWIC is
also required to reassess the species at least once every
10 years, or at any time if there is reason to believe thatthe status may have changed substantially (Governmentof Canada, 2010). If the assessment is adopted by SARA,
measures to protect and recover a listed species are
implemented (Government of Canada, 2009).
When the Atlantic walrus was assessed by COSEWIC
in 1987, the maritime population, now known as theNorthwest Atlantic population, was designated as
extirpated (COSEWIC, 2006; DFO, 2008). When
SARA was established, this population was listed
on Schedule 1 of SARA as an extirpated species(COSEWIC, 2006; DFO, 2008). No other populations
are listed by SARA; however, the species is currently
being considered for listing under SARA (DFO, 2007).

Fisheries Act
Prior to 1987, the legislative authority for the protection
and conservation of sea coast and inland fisheries in
Canada was bestowed to the Parliament of Canada as per
the Constitution Act of 1867 (previously known as the
British North America Act of 1967) (DFO, 2011b). The
Fisheries Act of 1868 (31V. C60) was then enacted to carryout this responsibility. Exclusive legislative authority toregulate, protect and conserve all of Canada’s fisheries
resources was granted to the federal government (DFO,
2010). The Fisheries Act has been revised many times
with the most recent being the Fisheries Act of 1985
(R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14) and was last amended on June 29,
2012(Anon, 1985; DFO, 2011b).The current Fisheries
Act does not define its purpose in the legislation;
however, it mainly deals with matters that include theprotection of fish habitat and prevention of pollution,
the proper management and control of fisheries, and theconservation and protection of fish (DFO, 2011).
In 1928, the Canadian federal government introduced
the Walrus Protection Regulations, which were madeby Order in Council P.C. 1928-1036 dated 20 June 1928
under the Canadian Fisheries Act of 1927 (R.S.C 1927)(Anon., 1928). This regulation prohibited commercial
hunting and limited the harvest for local consumption
purposes only (Anon., 1928). This regulation wasamended many times providing varying degrees
of protection and regulations on walrus hunting. It
was revoked and replaced in 1993 by the most recent
regulations, the Marine Mammals Regulations (SOR/9356) under the Canadian Fisheries Act (R.S., 1985, c. F-14)(Anon., 1985; Anon., 1993a). As per the MMR, thetransport of any Canadian marine mammals between
provincial or territorial boundaries requires a marine
mammal transportation licence (MMTL), which applies
to marine mammals and their parts (Anon., 1993a).

Wild Animal and Plant Protection
and Regulation of International andInterprovincial Trade Act
In 1975, Canada ratified CITES and implemented it
through the Export and Import Permits Act. This Act

36
SARA defines extirpated species as “a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild”; endangered
species as “a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction”; threatened species as “a wildlife species that is likely to become an
endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction”; and species at risk as “an extirpated, endangered or
threatened species or a species of special concern” (Anon., 2002b).

144

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walruswas replaced by Wild Animal and Plant Protection andRegulation of International and Interprovincial Trade
Act (WAPPRIITA), which received royal assent in1992 but it did not come into force until May 14, 1996,
when the enabling regulations – the Wild Animal
and Plant Trade Regulations (WAPTR) – were passed(Anon., 1970; Anon., 1992; Cooper and Chalifour,2004). WAPPRIITA incorporates the animals andplants included on the CITES Appendices into
Canadian law by listing them on Schedule I of the
WAPTR. Interprovincial trade within Canada is also
regulated by WAPPRIITA and WAPTR. The CITES
MA and CITES SA for Canada is the Canadian
Wildlife Service (CWS) (CITES, 2010).

Land claims agreements
Land claims agreements are essentially modernday treaties that are negotiated in areas of Canada
where Aboriginal rights and/or titles have not beenaddressed by existing treaties. These agreements
are negotiated between Aboriginal groups, theGovernment of Canada and the relevant provinceor territory. Although they may differ, most include
topics such as wildlife harvesting rights, landownership, financial settlement, participation inland, resource, water, wildlife and environmental
management and measures to protect Aboriginal
culture and promote economic development. Someagreements also include provisions for Aboriginal
self-government (INAC, 2009).
Twenty-two comprehensive land claims and two
stand-alone self-government agreements havebeen concluded and implemented in Canada since1973. The settlements have provided protection
for traditional ways of life respect for Aboriginalland rights (approximately 40% of Canada’s landmass), Aboriginal ownership of 600,000 km2 of land,participation in land and resource management
decisions, access to future resource management
decisions, capital transfers of over CAD2.8 billion(USD2.7 billion at 2010 rates) and associated selfgovernment rights and political recognition. These
agreements have taken an average of 20 to 25 years to
be finalized (INAC, 2010). Five of these agreements
which involve Inuit and Inuvialuit peoples of Canada
are summarized below.

James Bay and Northern Québec
Agreement (JBNQA)
The Nunavik Inuit and Cree peoples of Québec, theGovernment of Canada, the Government of Québec,the James Bay Energy Corporation, Hydro-Québec
and the James Bay Development Corporation signed
the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement on
November 11, 1975 (Anon., 1975; PWGSC, 2009).
During negotiations, the main goal of Nunavik Inuit
was to secure their land base and traditional waysof life. They also wanted to improve their qualityof life including educational and health services,
community infrastructure and services and police
and justice services (Makivik Corporation, 2010).
The James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement
provided Nunavik Inuit with ownership of 8,152 km2
of land, exclusive harvesting rights over 81,596 km2
of land and a financial settlement of CAD91 million(USD88 million at 2010 rates) which is a total of
CAD225 million (USD218 million at 2010 rates) for
both Cree and Nunavik Inuit (PWGSC, 2009). The
Agreement established non-ethnic governance andinfluenced the decision to transfer responsibility
for services from the Government of Canada to theGovernment of Québec (Makivik Corporation, 2010).
The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating
Committee (HFTCC) was established under the James
Bay and Northern Québec Agreement to study, manageand on occasion monitor and/or regulate the hunting,trapping and fishing regime (HFTCC, 2010; PWGSC,
2009). The HFTCC’s role is outlined in Table B.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

145

Nunavik Inuit Land Claims
Agreement
The Government of Canada, Government of Nunavut
and the Makivik Corporation (representing Nunavik
Inuit) signed the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims
Agreement on December 1, 2006. The Nunavik Inuit
Settlement Area encompasses the Nunavik Marine
Region (Nunavut offshore islands adjacent to Québec)and the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area portion of the
Nunavik Inuit/Labrador Inuit overlap area (Anon.,
2006b; INAC, 2008). The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims
Agreement reflects a successful overlap agreementwith three other Aboriginal groups in the region – theCrees of Eeyou Istchee, Labrador Inuit and Nunavut
Inuit. (INAC, 2008). It also provides the Nunavik
Inuit with the right to harvest any species of wildlife
in the Nunavik Marine Region for social, economic,
and cultural needs (INAC, 2008). The main objectives
or goals of the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement
are as follows (Anon., 2006b):rrr“to provide for the continuation of harvesting by
the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the Nunavik Inuit in
the Cree/Inuit Offshore Overlapping Interests Area,
regardless of land claims agreement boundaries;

▶

r

r

to identify the Cree/Inuit Offshore Overlapping
Interests Area and the three (3) zones comprised
within this Overlap Area;

to identify an Inuit Zone within this Overlap
Area and with respect to such zone, to provide for:▶

the ownership of lands by the Nunavik Inuitand other interests, benefits and revenues of
the Nunavik Inuit;▶

the sharing of wildlife between the Crees of Eeyou
Istchee and the Nunavik Inuit in accordance withthe harvesting interests of both groups;▶

the participation of the Crees of Eeyou
Istchee in the management of wildlife,
including participation in the regime forwildlife management to be provided for in
the Nunavik Inuit Final Agreement;

to identify a Cree Zone within this Overlap Area
and with respect to such zone, to provide for:▶

the ownership of lands by the Crees of Eeyou
Istchee (save those islands described inschedule 6) and other interests, benefits andrevenues of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee;▶

the sharing of wildlife between the Creesof Eeyou Istchee and the Nunavik Inuit inaccordance with the harvesting interests ofboth groups;▶

the participation of the Nunavik Inuit in
the management of wildlife, including
participation in the regime for wildlife
management provided for in the Crees of
Eeyou Istchee Final Agreement;

to identify a Joint Inuit/Cree Zone within thisOverlap Area, and with respect to such Joint Zone
to provide for:▶

the joint and equal ownership of lands andthe joint and equal sharing of other interests,
benefits and revenues by the Crees of Eeyou
Istchee and the Nunavik Inuit;▶

the sharing of wildlife between the Creesof Eeyou Istchee and the Nunavik Inuit inaccordance with the harvesting interests ofboth groups;

146r

the joint and equal participation of the Creesof Eeyou Istchee and the Nunavik Inuit in
the management of the lands, resources andwildlife, including joint and equal participationin regimes for wildlife management, planning,land and water management and development
impact assessment in such zone;

to promote cooperation and good relations
between the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the
Nunavik Inuit and with third parties.”

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement gave
Nunavik Inuit ownership of 5,100 km2 of land(including surface and subsurface rights), an
additional 400 km2 of land to be shared with the
Québec Cree in a joint zone, a financial settlement of
CAD54.8 million (USD53.2 million at 2010 rates) paid
over nine years, CAD57.6 million (USD55.9 million
at 2010 rates) for implementation of the Nunavik Inuit
Land Claims Agreement paid over 10 years, royalties
on resource development in the Nunavik Marine
Region, rights to harvest wildlife in the Nunavik
Marine Region to fulfill their social, economic andcultural needs, and national park status for theTorngat Mountains National Park Reserve of Canada(INAC, 2008).
The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement
established the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife
Board (NMRWB) for matters regarding wildlife
management (INAC, 2008). Although thegovernment retains ultimate responsibility forwildlife management, the NMRWB is considered
the main instrument for wildlife management andmain regulator of access to wildlife in the NMR(Anon., 2006b; NMRWB, 2010). The NMRWB’s role isdescribed in more detail in Table B.

The Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement 37
The Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area (asNunavut was known prior to its formation) and theGovernment of Canada signed the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement was signed on May 25, 1993 (Anon.,
1993b). Covering a fifth of Canada’s land mass, theNunavut Land Claims Agreement is the largest landclaims agreement in Canadian history (NWMB,
2008a). Its main objectives or goals are as follows(Anon., 1993b):r“to provide for certainty and clarity of rights toownership and use of lands and resources, and ofrights for Inuit to participate in decision-making
concerning the use, management and conservationof land, water and resources, including the offshore;r

to provide Inuit with wildlife harvesting rights
and rights to participate in decision-making
concerning wildlife harvesting;r

to provide Inuit with financial compensation andmeans of participating in economic opportunities;r

to encourage self-reliance and the cultural andsocial well-being of Inuit.”

The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement provided
Nunavut Inuit with ownership of approximately
352,00 km 2 of land (18% of Nunavut), a cash
settlement of CAD1.14 billion (USD1.11 billion at2010 rates) paid over 14 years, a share of royalties fromdevelopment of Crown natural resources and land,
rights to harvest wildlife throughout the Nunavut
Settlement Area, exclusive rights to use water on Inuitowned lands (including water flowing in and throughInuit-owned lands), input into wildlife management
through participation in the NWMB (NTI, 2009) andthe right to self-determination and self-government(Government of Nunavut, 2009).
Although Nunavut has the same status and power as
the other territories in Canada, it is unique in that it
incorporates Inuit beliefs and values into the systemof government. Rather than using an Inuit-specificself-government model, the Inuit pursued their selfdetermination through a public government structure.
Nunavut is governed through a public government
framework which represents all residents, Inuit andnon-Inuit alike. The public government structure
includes an elected legislative assembly consistingof a premier, speaker, seven-member cabinet and37
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is also known as the Nunavut Final Agreement. For more information on this Agreement please refer toAnon. (1993b).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

147

Table B
BOARD/COUNCIL/
COMMITTEE/ORGANIZATION

Co-management boards, councils, committees and organizations in Canada

REGIONMEMBERSHIP

Regional Wildlife
Organization
Section 5.7.4 of
the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement
Hunters andTrappers
Organization

Nunavut

Membership-based

ROLES

5HJXODWHKDUYHVWWHFKQLTXHVDQGSUDFWLFHVDPRQJPHPEHUVRIWKH
HTOs (including the use of non-quota limitations), and managing
harvesting among HTOs in the region.
$OORFDWHDQGHQIRUFHFRPPXQLW\EDVLFQHHGVOHYHOVDQGDGMXVWHGEDVLF
needs levels among HTOs in the region.

Nunavut

Membership-based

5HJXODWHKDUYHVWLQJWHFKQLTXHVDQGSUDFWLFHVDPRQJPHPEHUV
(including the use of non-quota limitations) and manage harvesting
among members
$OORFDWHDQGHQIRUFHFRPPXQLW\EDVLFQHHGVOHYHOVDQGDGMXVWHGEDVLF
needs levels among members.

Section 5.7.2 of
the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement
Nunavut Wildlife
Management Board

Eight representatives and a chair:
IRXUIURP'HVLJQDWHG,QXLW$VVRFLDWLRQV3DUWLFLSDWHLQUHVHDUFKDFWLYLWLHVLGHQWLI\ZLOGOLIHPDQDJHPHQWUHVHDUFK
requirements and conduct the Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study.

Section 5.2.1 of
the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement

WKUHHIURPWKH*RYHUQRULQ&RXQFLORQ
advice of ministers responsible for fishand marine mammals, the Canadian
Wildlife Service and Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development Canada(previously called Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada)

(VWDEOLVKPRGLI\RUUHPRYHOHYHOVRIWRWDODOORZDEOHKDUYHVWDQGQRQ
quota limitations, allocate resources to other residents and operatorsand establish qualifications respecting guides and setting trophy fees.

Nunavut

RQHIURPWKH&RPPLVVLRQHULQ
Executive Council

$SSURYHSODQVIRUWKHPDQDJHPHQWDQGSURWHFWLRQRISDUWLFXODUZLOGOLIH
or wildlife habitats, approve the designation of rare, threatened
and endangered species and approve changes to boundaries ofConservation Areas which relate to the protection and management of
wildlife and their habitat.

RQHLQGHSHQGHQWFKDLUSHUVRQ
Hunting, Fishing
and Trapping
Coordinating
Committee (HFTCC)
Section 24.4.1 of theJames Bay andNorthern Québec
Agreement
Nunavik Marine
Regional Wildlife
Board (NMRWB)
Section 5.7.1 of the
Nunavik Inuit Land
Claims Agreement

Parts ofQuebec12members/representatives:
VL[IURPSDUWLHV WKUHHIURPWKH&UHH
Native party, three from the Inuit Native
party)
VL[IURPJRYHUQPHQW WKUHHIURPWKH
Government of Québec and three fromthe federal government).
A chair and six representatives:
WKUHHIURPWKH0DNLYLN&RUSRUDWLRQ

Northern WKUHHIURPJRYHUQPHQWV )LVKHULHVDQG
Oceans Canada, Environment Canada,
Québecand the Government of Nunavut.
(Nunavik)5HYLHZPDQDJHDQGLQVRPHFDVHVVXSHUYLVHDQGUHJXODWHWKH
established Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime.
3URYLGHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRUDGYLFHWRWKHDSSURSULDWHPLQLVWHUVRQ
harvest guidelines, enforcement of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
Regime, protection of species, conservation and management of
wildlife, etc.

3DUWLFLSDWHLQUHVHDUFKDFWLYLWLHV(VWDEOLVKPRGLI\RUUHPRYHOHYHOVRIWRWDODOORZDEOHWDNHIRUDVSHFLHVor population of wildlife, and establish non-quota limitations.
&RRSHUDWHZLWKZLOGOLIHPDQDJHPHQWLQVWLWXWLRQVWKDWGHDOZLWK
species harvest in the Nunavik Marine Region and provide advice torelevant management institutions on matters relating to the protection,conservation, management and regulation of wildlife and wildlife
habitat as required.

Source: Anon., 1993b; 2006b; NWMB, 2008b.

148

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

table continued on next page

10 regular members. The system also includes the
Nunavut Court of Justice and the Nunavut PublicService (Government of Nunavut, 2009).
The NWMB was established as a result of the Nunavut
Land Claims Agreement for matters regarding wildlife
management. Although the government retains
ultimate responsibility for wildlife management, the
NWMB is considered the main instrument for wildlife
management in Nunavut (NWMB, 2008b). The
NWMB’s role is described in more detail in Table B.

Self-Government Act, Greenland has sovereignty
on matters regarding health, education, fisheries,
hunting, mineral and hydrocarbon resources,
conservation, environment and climate. Greenland
can also take jurisdiction in other areas such as justiceaffairs (Anon., 2009a; Government of Greenland,2009). The Self-Government Act further establishes
the economic relationship between Greenland andthe Kingdom of Denmark and principles for possible
future independence (M. Frost, WWF-Denmark inlitt. to T. Shadbolt, May 15, 2012).

2 Greenland Legislation

Implementation of CITESIn 1953, Greenland became an autonomous countyof Denmark (Government of Greenland, 2009). In
subsequent opposition to Danish administration,
under the Home Rule Act No. 577 of 29 November
1978, Greenland became a distinct community in theKingdom of Denmark (Anon., 1978). On May 1, 1979
the Greenland Home Rule Government was formallyestablished (Government of Greenland, 2009).
Denmark joined the European Economic Community(EEC), now the European Union, in 1973. However,in 1979 Greenland held a referendum on its EU
membership and decided to leave the EU in 1985. As
such, it does not abide by EU regulations (GreenlandHome Rule Government, 2008). However, Greenland
is a member of Overseas Countries and Territories of
the European Union Association (OCTA). On June21, 2009 Greenland was granted self-determination
under Greenland Self-Government Act No. 473 of
12 June 2009, an extension of powers enacted in theGreenland Home Rule Act No. 577 of 29 November
1978 (Anon., 2009a; Government of Greenland2009). As a result, the people of Greenland wererecognized as a people pursuant to international law
with the right to self-determination, and Kalaalisut
was established as the official language of Greenland(M. Frost, WWF-Denmark in litt. to T. Shadbolt,
May 15, 2012). These two acts allowed Greenland toelect its own government and parliament. Under the

Denmark (including dependent territories suchas Greenland) ratified CITES in 1977. In 1985, theGreenland CITES MA obtained the authority toissue CITES permits. In 2004, Greenland introduced
its own legislation to implement CITES under Home
Rule Order No. 12 of 13 September 2004 on export
and import of wild animals and plants, etc. covering
the Convention of 3 March 1973 on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(Washington Convention/CITES) (Anon., 2004). The
Ministry of Nature and Environment (previously
the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, Nature andEnvironment) the CITES MA in Greenland and theGreenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR) is
designated as the CITES SA (CITES, 2010).
Even though Greenland is part of the Kingdom ofDenmark, items may not be freely traded between
the two. Permits are required to import Annex A
and B species into Denmark (C. O’Criodain, WWF
International, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, December 12, 2008).

Regulations speciﬁc to walrus
Efforts to regulate the hunting of Atlantic walrus inareas of Greenland began in the late 1920s beginningin the Avanersuaq area (Northwest Greenland), in
1938 for Danish trappers in Northeast Greenland, in

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus149

1949 in the West Ice area (the area of the Greenland
Sea covered with pack ice in winter, between
Greenland and Jan Mayen Island and north of
Iceland) and in 1956 for East Greenland north of the
Scoresby Sound area (Born et al., 1995).
In 1956, limited regulations on walrus hunting were
provided under the Ministerial Order No. 301 on
the catch of walrus in Greenland, 16 November 1956
and Landsråd Rules regulating walrus catch in theDavis Strait and Baffin Bay, 16 November 195638(Anon., 1994). These regulations were amended and/or replaced many times. The current regulations,Greenland Home Rule Executive Order No. 20 of 27
October 2006 on protection and harvest of walrus, also
introduced quotas for walrus hunting in Greenland(Anon., 2006a).

3 Norwegian Legislation
Walrus are found in the Svalbard archipelago, locatednorth of mainland Norway in the Arctic Ocean. The
archipelago’s largest three islands are Spitsbergen,
Nordaustlandet (North East Island) and Edgeøya(Edge Island). Discovered in 1596, people of different
nationalities were active in the archipelago at a time
when no laws or courts were in place. However, at the
beginning of the 20th century, interest in mining andconcern over ownership of land and mineral deposits
created a need for legislation and courts (Governor of
Svalbard, 2008c).
The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, was
one of the treaties that ended World War I and allowed
for the creation of the Spitsbergen Treaty, now known
as the Svalbard Treaty. It was signed on February
9, 1920, but did not come into force until August 14,
1925 (Anon., 1920; Governor of Svalbard, 2008c).
Approximately 40 countries signed the treaty, but

38

Norway alone was given sovereignty over the Svalbard
archipelago. However, citizens from signatory
countries were given equal rights to residence,
property, research activities and commercial activities
such as mining, hunting, fishing, etc. (Governorof Svalbard, 2008c). The Directorate of Fisheries(Norway) is responsible for the overall policy orpolitical matters regarding walrus management (S.T.
Stub, Advisor for the Directorate of Fisheries, in litt.
to T. Shadbolt, March 31, 2009).

Svalbard legislation
Svalbard Act
As mentioned, the Svalbard Act of 17 July 1925 cameinto effect in 1925, and established Svalbard as a partof the Kingdom of Norway. This made all Norwegiancivil laws, procedural laws and criminal laws
applicable to Svalbard unless otherwise stipulated(Anon., 1925; Governor of Svalbard, 2008a).

Svalbard Environmental
Protection Act
The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act, Actof 15 June 2001 No.79 Relating to the Protection of
the Environment in Svalbard, came into effect on
July 1, 2002. This Act is essentially a collection ofenvironmental legislation, the main purpose ofwhich is to protect untouched areas of Svalbard(Anon., 2001; Governor of Svalbard, 2008b). Under
this Act, the environmental protection authorities
for Svalbard include the Norwegian government, theMinistry of the Environment, directorates as decided
by the ministry and the Governor of Svalbard (Anon.,2001). The Governor of Svalbard is the supreme
environmental authority and is responsible formatters regarding wildlife and its management in
Svalbard (Governor of Svalbard, 2008d).

Translated from Danish text “Landsrådsvedtægt om regulering af hvalrosfangst i Davisstrædet og Baffins Bugt af 16 november 1956 og”.

150

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Legislation andregulations applicable to
Svalbard
Implementation of CITESIn 1976, Norway ratified CITES under Act No. 29 of
13 December 1946 relating to the provisional ban on
imports and Act No. 30 of 13 December 1946 relating to
the provisional ban on exports (om innførselsreguleringog utførselsregulering) (Anon., 1997). These acts were
replaced by Act No. 32 of 6 June 1997 relating to theregulation of imports and exports (Lov om innførsleog utførsleregulering) (Anon., 1997) and delegation of
authority pursuant to the Act regulating importationand exportation of goods (No. 618 of 1998) (Anon., 1998).
A new regulation for CITES was adopted by Royal
Decree, Regulation no. 1276 of 15 November 2002 forthe implementation of the Convention of 3 March 1973
on CITES, which came into effect in 2003 (Anon., 2008a;
Anon., 2002a). The Directorate of Nature Managementin Norway is responsible for the management of CITES
and is the CITES MA and SA for Norway (CITES, 2010).

Council of Norway, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, March 4, 2013).
This Act is only applicable to land territory of Svalbard andits surrounding 22.2 km (12 nautical miles) of ocean waters
but not to mainland Norway or any other Norwegian
territory (I. Gjertz, Research Council of Norway, in litt. to
T. Shadbolt, March 4, 2013). Norwegian law applies beyond
22.2 km (12 nautical miles) from the coast of Svalbard.
On mainland Norway, laws regarding walrus areadministed by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal
Affairs. In 1983, walrus on mainland Norway
were managed under an Act relating to sea-water
fisheries of June ,3 1983 (Lov av 3. Juni 1983 nr. 40
Saltvannsfiskeloven). This Act was replaced in 2008
by an Act relating to the management of wild marine
resources of June 6, 2008 (Lov av 6. Juni 2008 nr. 37 Lov
om forvaltning av viltlevende marine ressurser) (I. Gjertz,
Research Council of Norway, in litt. to T. Shadbolt,
March 4, 2013). In the Norway Exclusive Economic Zone,
laws and regulations are administered by appropriate
ministries and enforced by mainland police supportedby the Norwegian Coast Guard (I. Gjertz, ResearchCouncil of Norway, in litt. to T. Shadbolt, March 4, 2013).

4 Russian Legislation

Protection of walrus
In 1952, regulations on walrus hunting in Norway andits territories (including Svalbard) were provided under
Royal Decree, Fredning av hvalross Kongelig Resolusjon 20
Juni 1952 (Protection of Walrus Royal Decree of 20 June
1952) which also prohibited Norwegian citizens fromhunting walrus in other places (Anon., 1952; Born et al.,1995). Protection for walrus in Svalbard is now facilitatedunder present legislation Environmental Protection Act,Act of 15 June 2001 No.79 relating to the protection of theenvironment in Svalbard (T. Punsvik, Environmental
Advisor for the Governor of Svalbard, in litt. to T. Shadbolt,
March 9, 2009; I. Gjertz, Research Council of Norway, inlitt. to T. Shadbolt, March 4, 2013). Under this Act, walrus
are not only protected from harvest but their haul-out sites
are protected against disturbances (I. Gjertz, Research

Red Data Book of the RussianFederation
The Red Data Book of the Russian Federation is an
official document that lists species considered rare andendangered (Vaisman et al., 2009). Listed species areclassified into one of six categories (Vaisman et al., 2009):
Category 0: probably extinct
Category 1: endangered
Category 2: decreasing
Category 3: rare
Category 4: uncertain status
Category 5: rehabilitated and rehabilitating

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

151

The first edition of the Red Data Book for the former
USSR was published in 1978 and the first edition of
the Red Data Book for the Russian Federation in 1983
(Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers No. 313
of April 12, 1983 On the Red Data Book of the USSR;
Decree of the Government of Russian Federation No.
158 of February 19, 1996 On the Red Data Book of theRussian Federation). The Red Data Book has beenrevised many times, most recently in 2001 (Vaisman
et al., 2009) and is the responsibility of the federal
government. The species listed are subject to special
protection and are managed by the Department of State
Policy and Management of Hunting and Wildlife of
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of theRussian Federation (Vaisman et al., 2009; A. Vaisman,
TRAFFIC-Russia in litt. to G. York, September 7,2011). Legislative recognition for the Red Data Bookis provided by the federal law On Wildlife (No. 52FZ of 1995) and by the federal law On Environmental
Protection (No. 7-FZ of 2002) (Vaisman et al., 2009).
Atlantic and Laptev walrus were first included in the
Red Data Book of the RSFSR in 1982 (Decree No. 500of the RSFSR Council of Ministers of September 9,1982) which was extended to the Red Data Book of
the Russian Federation (Decree of the USSR Councilof Ministers No. 313 of April 12, 1983 On the Red
Data Book of the USSR; Decree of the Government of
the Russian Federation No. 158 of February 19, 1996
On the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation)(Vaisman et al., 2009). Atlantic walrus are currently
listed under category 2 (Decreasing numbers), andLaptev walrus are currently listed under category 3(Rare) in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federationof 2001 (Ministry of Natural Resources of the RussianFederation, 2008; Danilov-Danilian, 2001). Therefore,
hunting of Atlantic and Laptev walrus is strictly
prohibited (Vaisman et al., 2009). Pacific walrus are
not listed in the Red Data Book (Vaisman et al., 2009).
Hunting and commercial use of species listed in
the Red Data Book are generally prohibited. The

152

exceptions are cases that are specified throughvarious pieces of legislation, primarily through thefederal law On Wildlife (Vaisman et al., 2009). The
harvest of species included in the Red Data Book wasadministered by Soviet-era regulations until 1997,
when the Government of the Russian Federation
issued Decree No. 13 of 6 January 1997 On Approvalof the Rules for the Taking of Animals Belonging to
the Species Included in the Red Book of the RussianFederation, except for Aquatic Biological Resources”(Vaisman et al., 2009).

On Environmental Protection
The federal law On Environmental Protection (No.
7-FZ of 2002) is the legal Act regulating nature
protection and natural resources use. It is basedon the Constitution of the Russian Federation andits jurisdiction, which includes the territory of theRussian Federation, the Exclusive Economic Zone,
territorial waters and the continental shelf of theRussian Federation. Article 60 of the Act states: “…
animals and other organisms that are listed in the Red
Data Books are subject to a ban on any economic use
throughout the entire territory” (Vaisman et al., 2009).

On Wildlife
The federal law On Wildlife (No. 52-FZ of 1995)
regulates all aspects related to the conservation,
protection and use of wild animals and their habitats(Vaisman et al., 2009). The law has been changed
many times; the current version is based on theConstitution of the Russian Federation and thefederal law On Environmental Protection (Vaisman etal., 2009). Exceptions for hunting and commercial useof species listed in the Red Data Book of the RussianFederation are not generally permitted. However,exceptions may be granted for cultural, scientific andother purposes, but require the issuance of a special
permit by the Federal Supervisory Natural Resources
Management Services (Rosprirodnadzor) (Article

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus24) (A. Vaisman, TRAFFIC-Russia in litt. to G. York,
September 7, 2011). This article states that “…actions
that might lead to mortality, population declines, oralteration of habitats of species listed in the Red Data
Books are not allowed” (Vaisman et al., 2009).

Legislation for the implementationof CITESThe Russian Federation has been a CITES Party
since the Convention came into force under theformer USSR in 1976. Under the Constitution of theRussian Federation, all international agreements areautomatically considered a part of national legislation
once they come into force. The Convention’s text is
considered a legal document in Russia and additional
pieces of legislation relate to implementation of CITESin Russia (Lyapustin et al., 2007; Vaisman et al., 2009).
These laws regulate import and export of CITESlisted species. However, no legislation regulates tradein CITES-listed species within its borders (Lyapustin
et al., 2007; Vaisman et al., 2009). The Federal
Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service(Rosprirodnadzor) is the CITES MA for the RussianFederation (A. Vaisman, TRAFFIC-Russia in litt. to G.
York, September 7, 2011) and the All Russian Instituteof Nature Protection is one of the CITES SAs for theRussian Federation (CITES, 2010).

Regulations concerning walrus
Efforts to regulate and reduce hunting of Atlantic
walrus in Russia began in 1921 (Born et al., 1995).
Hunting from sealing vessels ceased in 1935, andkilling of walrus by the sealing and fishing industries
was prohibited in 1949 (Born et al., 1995).
Commercial hunting of walrus in Arctic waters andislands and shore lands bordering the Arctic Ocean wasbanned on November 21, 1956 by the Russian Soviet
Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) Council of Ministers
when they adopted Decree No. 738 On Protection of
Arctic Animals. This Decree banned hunting of all walrus
subspecies with the exception of hunting for subsistence
purposes in certain regions on the basis of annual quotas
and licences issued by the executive authorities of therespective regions and the Yakutia ASSR Council of
Ministers39 (Pankratov, 1972; Vaisman et al., 2009).
Hunting of Atlantic walrus and Laptev walrus for
subsistence purposes was prohibited when they werelisted in the Red Data Book in 1982 (Vaisman et al., 2009).
However, because Pacific walrus are not listed in the Red
Data book, they are not afforded the same protection.
Conservation and harvesting of marine mammals
was regulated by Order No. 300 of the USSR
Ministry of Fisheries in 1975, which was renewedin 1986 through Order No. 340 of June 30, 1986
Validating the regulation on conservation andcatch of marine mammal. This applied to all USSR
territory including internal waters and the USSR
economic zone (Vaisman et al., 2009). Quotas are now
regulated under Federal Law No. 166 On Fishery andconservation of Aquatic Biological Resources, which
also protects walrus on their rookeries (haul-out
sites) and prohibits access to those areas. It does thisby banning vessels from passing within three to fivekilometres, banning aircraft from passing lower than
two kilometres and prohibiting hunting with 500
metres of rookeries (Vaisman et al., 2009).
Pacific walrus are considered a fisheries target in
Order No. 131 of the Federal Agency of Fisheries of
September 1, 2008 On approval of the list of aquatic
biological resources which are considered to befisheries targets; however, they may only be hunted forsubsistence purposes. (Vaisman et al., 2009).

39
Subsistence hunting was approved for collective enterprises (kolkhozes) in the Chukotka and Koryak autonomous regions and in the northernareas of Yakutia Autonomous Republic (Vaisman et al., 2009).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

1535 United States Legislation
Under the United States Constitution, theconservation and management of wildlife is a shared
responsibility of the state and federal governments(Kannan, 2009). The State of Alaska was purchasedfrom the Russian Federation on March 30, 1867and officially became a state of the United States on
January 3, 1959 (Gislason, 2010). The State of Alaska
managed walrus until the passing of the MMPA in
1972, when authority over the species was transferredto the USFWS (USFWS, 1994).
The commercial harvest of walrus was banned in
1901, but resumed on a smaller scale after the FirstWorld War. In 1937, the United States Departmentof Commerce regulation was introduced, and
the Walrus Act was passed by Congress in 1941
prohibited the hunting of walrus except by Native
hunters (USFWS, 1994). In 1972, the Walrus Act
was replaced by the Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA) (Anon., 1972; USFWS, 1994). The following
are federal laws and Acts for the protection andmanagement of walrus in the United States.

Endangered Species Act
The United States enacted the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA) on December 28, 1973, replacing
the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969
(Anon., 1973b). The ESA’s purpose was to ensure
the conservation of species that are endangered or
threatened throughout all or a significant portionof their range, and to ensure the conservation of theecosystems on which they depend (NOAA, 2011).
More than 1,900 species are listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA (NOAA, 2011). A species is
considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,

while a threatened species is one that is likely to
become endangered in the future (NOAA, 2011).
The ESA is implemented through regulations foundin the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). According
to section 9 of the ESA once a species is listed as
endangered, certain actions are prohibited. These
actions are specified in §17.21 of title 50 of the CFR(50 CFR) which refers to (among other things) the
take, import, export and interstate shipment (forcommercial activities) of endangered species. Thisdiffers from species listed as threatened under the
ESA, where specific prohibitions and exceptions
to them are not specified. Instead the Secretary of
the Interior is given discretion under section 4(d) of
the ESA to specify prohibitions and any exceptions
to them which are necessary to provide for theconservation of the species. Using this discretion,
general prohibitions were developed under section
50 CFR 17.31 and exceptions to them as stated in 50
CFR 17.32, which apply to most threatened species.
For other threatened species, a special rule under
section 4(d) of the ESA can be developed which
details prohibitions and exceptions to them which
are tailored to the particular conservation needof the species. This special rule can include someprohibitions and authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31
and 17.32, or additional ones which may be more orless restrictive than those dictated in 50 CFR 17.31(US Federal Register, 2008a). Once a marine mammal
is listed under the ESA, the species automatically has
a depleted40 status under the MMPA (US Federal
Register, 2008a).
The United States signed CITES on March 3, 1973
and was the first country to ratify the Convention on
January 14, 1974. It came into force on July 1, 1975
and is implemented in the United States via section
8 of the ESA (Anon., 1973b). The Secretary of theSection 3 (1) of the MMPA defines the term “depleted” or “depletion” as “…a species or population stock is below its optimum sustainable population…
[or]…a species or population stock is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act” (Anon., 1972).

40

154

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

Interior delegated responsibility to the Director of the
USFWS, and the USFWS is the CITES MA and SA for
the United States (USFWS, 2010a).

Fisherman’s Protective Act
Section 8 of the Fisherman’s Protective Act of 1967 (22U.S.C. 1978, as amended)—better known as the Pelly
Amendment—was enacted as a means of influencing
international species conservation (Anon., 1967).
The United States Congress originally enacted the
Pelly Amendment of 1971 in response to unsuccessful
efforts to persuade other countries to comply withthe ban on high-seas salmon fishing that waspromulgated by the International Commission for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (Greanias, 1998). In 1978,
Congress amended the Pelly Amendment to authorize
the President to impose trade sanctions against
a country for engaging in trade that diminishes
the effectiveness of any international programfor endangered or threatened species—including
CITES—even if the trade is legal under the laws of theoffending country (Greanias, 1998). The United States
government has used the Pelly Amendment several
times in recent years to promote the conservationof CITES-listed species. For example, on December
18, 1996, the United States Secretary of Commerce
certified Canada under the Pelly Amendment for
its hunt of two bowhead whales in 1995. President
Clinton opted not to impose trade sanctions, but did
take other actions including the decision to withhold
consideration of Canadian requests for waivers to an
existing moratorium on the importation of seals and/or seal products into the United States (Clinton, 1997).

Lacey ActThe Lacey Act was signed on May 25, 1900 (Anon.,1900). It originally focused on the conservationof native game and wild birds and preventing the
introduction of non-native or exotic species into
native ecosystems (USFWS, 2007a). The Lacey Act has

been amended several times (Anon., 1981), including
amendments in May 2008 that provide further
protection to a broader range of plants (US Federal
Register, 2008b). Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful toimport, export, sell, acquire or purchase fish, wildlife
or plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in
violation of United States or Indian law; or in violationof state or foreign law (USFWS, 2007a). The law covers
all fish and wildlife and their parts and products, aswell as all plants and their parts and products, withcertain exceptions (USFWS, 2007a).

Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA)The MMPA (Public Law 92-522) was enacted by theUnited States in 1972 in response to concerns among
the public and scientists about significant declines
in some marine mammal populations due to humanactivities (NOAA, 2009). The MMPA protects all
marine mammals, including walrus, and establishes
a national policy to prevent stocks and species ofmarine mammals from declining to the point where
they are no longer significant functioning elements ofthe ecosystem they inhabit (NOAA, 2009). The main
goal of the MMPA is to maintain or return marine
mammals to their optimum sustainable populations(US Federal Register, 2008a). The MMPA establisheda moratorium on the taking and importation ofmarine mammals (including products derived fromthem) unless exempted or authorized under the
MMPA for certain specified purposes (US Federal
Register, 2008a). The moratorium does not apply
to coastal-dwelling Alaskan Natives if the taking
of marine mammals is for subsistence purposes orfor the purpose of creating and selling authentic
Native handicrafts and clothing, provided this is
not accomplished in a wasteful manner (Anon.,1972). Authentic handicrafts and clothing can besold in interstate commerce, but edible portions of
the marine mammals can only be sold in Alaskan
Native villages and towns (Anon., 1972). However, if a

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus155marine mammal is considered depleted, the Secretaryof the Interior may impose regulations upon thetaking of such species by coastal-dwelling Alaskan
Natives (Anon., 1972).
The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) is anindependent agency of the United States government
created under Title II of the MMPA to provide
independent oversight of policies and programs
pertaining to marine mammals carried out by thefederal regulatory agencies (MMC, 2010a). The
primary focus is the protection and conservation ofmarine mammals. Their duties include the following(Anon., 1972):r“undertake a review and study of the activitiesof the United States pursuant to existing laws
and international conventions relating to marine
mammals, including, but not limited to, theInternational Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling, the Whaling Convention Act of 1949,
the Interim Convention on the Conservation of
North Pacific Fur Seals, and the Fur Seal Act of
1966;

r

conduct a continuing review of the condition of
the stocks of marine mammals, of methods fortheir protection and conservation, of humanemeans of taking marine mammals, of research
programs conducted or proposed to be conductedunder the authority of this Act, and of all
applications for permits for scientific research,
public display, or enhancing the survival orrecovery of a species or stock;r

undertake or cause to be undertaken such otherstudies as it deems necessary or desirable inconnection with its assigned duties as to theprotection and conservation of marine mammals;rrecommend to the Secretary and to other federal
officials such steps as it deems necessary or
desirable for the protection and conservation ofmarine mammals;

156

rrecommend to the Secretary of State appropriate
policies regarding existing internationalarrangements for the protection and conservationof marine mammals, and suggest appropriate
international arrangements for the protection
and conservation of marine mammals;rrecommend to the Secretary such revisions of theendangered species list and threatened species list
published pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the ESA
of 1973, as may be appropriate with regard tomarine mammals; andr

recommend to the Secretary, other appropriate
Federal officials, and Congress such additional
measures as it deems necessary or desirable
to further the policies of this Act, including
provisions for the protection of the Indians,
Eskimos, and Aleuts whose livelihood may be
adversely affected by actions taken pursuant tothis Act.”

The MMPA has provisions under Section 119 forcooperative management agreements with Alaskan
Native organizations to conserve marine mammals
and provide co-management of subsistence use by
Alaskan Natives. The Eskimo Walrus Commission(EWC), established in 1978, represents coastal walrushunting communities throughout Alaska and isrecognized as addressing issues of State-wide interests(NAMMCO, 2004b). A co-management agreement
was signed by the USFWS and the EWC in 1997 (EWC
1997). The EWC also has co-operative agreementswith Russia (NAMMCO, 2004b).

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

APPENDIX DDETAILED HARVEST STATISTICS AND QUOTASHAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

157

Table D1

Canadian Atlantic Walrus subsistence hunt in Nunavut, 1998/1999-2011/2012

1997/
1998

1998/
1999

1999/
2000

2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Baffin Region

236

263

47

354

138

86

241

92

216

358

112

117

184

255

165

Arctic Bay(quota of 10)

0

3

1

2

2

0

0

1

nd

0

1

nd

0

1

0

Qikiqtarjuaq

3

0

0

0

1

33

1

0

nd

9

6

nd

nd

6e

5e

Clyde River(quota of 20)

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

nd

1

0

nd

nd

nd

0

Resolute Bay/
Creswell Bay

0

nd

1

0

nd

1

6

4

1

0

1

nd

2

3

2

Grise Fiord

12

11

5

4

2

3

7

5

2

5

4

nd

7

2

4

Hall Beach

109

80

0*

88

40

5

88

66

78

104

35

33

70

75 e

35 e

Igloolik

84

133

10*

174

52

10*

111

10*

112

186

54**

74 m

89 m

141

101

Pond Inlet

0

0

1

1

0

0

nd

nd

3

0

Cape Dorset

8

Iqaluit0

Kimmirut

5

3

0

1

0

4

10

e

46

11

5

1

nd

6

25

nd

nd

nd

1

2

27

15 e

19

7

1

1

nd

10

9

11

nd

14

14

14

nd

nd

nd

0

0

4

7

4

6

2

nd

nd

nd

7

0

Pangnirtung

16

4

3

15

19

9

15

nd

nd

15

nd

10

nd

nd

nd

Sanikiluaq(quota of 10)

4

nd

1

1

0

15

3

nd

nd

2

nd

0

2

2

2

Kivalliq Region

5

21

12

14

2

66

21

11

30

37

30

7

25

10

22

Arviat

nd

0

2

1

nd

3

5

nd

1

0

0

nd

nd

0

0

Chesterfeild In.

nd

0

nd

4

nd

nd

4

3

3

0

2

0

nd

nd

7

Coral Harbour(quota of 60)

5*

9

8

1

2*

30 e

10

nd

17

18

4**

4*

15 e

8*

11

Rankin Inlet

nd

12

nd

7

nd

12

2

2

3

13

6

3**

6

2

4

Whale Cove

nd

0

0

0

nd

1

nd

nd

nd

0

0

nd

nd

0

0

Repulse Bay

0

0

2

1

nd

20

nd

3

6

6

12

nd

4

nd

0

Kugaaruk(Pelly Bay)

0

0

0

0

nd

0

nd

3

nd

0

6

nd

nd

nd

0

Total

241

284

59

368

140

152

262

103

246

395

142

124

209

265

187

e

Source: DFO (2013c).
Note: Figures do not include animals struck and lost. Figures include sport hunts.
* Only data for sport hunts were provided. Data on subsistence harvests were not available.
** Only data for subsistence harvests were provided. Data on sport hunts were not available.
nd: Data were not reported to DFO.
m: The Igloolik HTA implemented a moratorium on sport hunting.
e: Value was originally reported with an associated error and has been replaced with an average value to provide a more precise annual estimate of landings:
Qikiqtarjuaq: subsistence harvest in 2010 was originally reported as 5-6, value was replaced with average of 6; subsistence harvest in 2011 was originally reported as 4-5, value was replaced with average of 5.
Hall Beach: subsistence harvest in 2010 was originally reported as 70-80, value was replaced with average of 75; subsistence harvest in 2011 was originally reported as 30-35, value was replaced with average of 33.
Cape Dorset: subsistence harvest was originally reported as 10 +/- 2, value was replaced with average of 10.
Iqaluit: subsistence harvest was originally reported as 15 +/- 2, value was replaced with average of 15.
Pangnirtung: subsistence harvest was originally reported as 19 +/- 1, value was replaced with average of 19.
Coral Harbour: subsistence harvest in 2002 was originally reported as 25-30, value was replaced with average of 28; subsistence harvest in 2009 was originally reported as 5-6, value was replaced with average of 6.

158

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable D2

Canadian Atlantic Walrus subsistence hunt in Nunavik, 1998/1999-2011/2012

1997/
1998

1998/
1999

1999/
2000

2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Eastern
Hudson Bay

22

18

1

0

0

14

24

12

15

18

26

30

20

14

17

Kuujjuarapik

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Umiujaq

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Inukjuak

5

8

0

0

0

0

4

0

3

0

0

8

0

0

0

Puvirnituk

6

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

8

9

21

13

17

9

12

Akulivik

9

10

1

0

0

14

11

12

4

9

5

9

3

5

5

Hudson Strait

51

24

10

0

5

0

18

30

30

31

40

31

16

26

21

Ivujivik

23

1

7

0

0

0

9

0

8

11

13

8

0

5

5

Salluit

20

7

0

0

1

0

2

10

17

14

24

17

7

14

11

Kangiqsujuaq

0

5

1

0

4

0

1

9

0

4

0

0

2

1

3

Quaqtaq

8

11

2

0

0

0

6

11

5

2

3

6

7

6

2

Ungava Bay

3

4

6

3

1

7

0

0

2

8

1

0

0

2

4

Kangirsuk

0

4

0

3

0

7

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Aupaluk

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tasiujaq

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

0

0

0

1

0

Kuujjuaq

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

1

0

Kangiqsualujjuaq

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Total

76

46

17

3

6

21

42

42

47

57

67

61

36

42

42

Source: DFO (2013d).
Note: Figures do not include animals struck and lost. Figures include sport hunts.
. * Numbers provided by the Makivik Corporation in part under Trichinellosis Prevention Program.
** For 2011/2013, there were two sources of reporting information: a report from the Makivik Corporation under Trichinellosis Prevention
Program and reports by Uumajuit wardens and technicians from the Kativik regional government. Where there was a discrepancy, the higher
reported number was provided in this table.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

159

Table D3
REGIONS

Detailed Quotas for the Atlantic walrus hunt in Greenland, 2006-2012

2006(OCTOBER TO DECEMBER ONLY)

North Water-

Qaanaq-Upernavik

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

99

80

75

64 (-16)*64 (-12)*

64

80

70

70

64 (-16)*64 (-12)*

64

19

10

5 (-2)*---

West Greenland

60

71

65

38

61

61 (-1)

61

Upernavik

-

-

-

-

8 (-1)*

8

8

23

12

19

19

19

Uummannaq

11

Qeqertarsuaq

5

Ilulissat

5

Qasigiannguit

60

2

Aasiaat2

Kangaatsiaq

14

13

7

8

8

8

Sisimuit

29

27

17

22

22 (-1)*

22

Maniitsoq

3

2

2

4

4

4

30

30

23

18

18

18

15

15

13

11

11

11

15

15

10

7

7

7

200

175

136

143 (-17)

143 (-13)

143

East Greenland
Ittoqqortoormiit

15
15

Ammassalik
Total

75

Source: Quotas for 2006 (Grønlands Selvstyre, 2009b), quota for 2007 (Grønlands Hjemmestyre, 2007), quota for 2008 and 2009 (Grønlands
Selvstyre, 2009a), quota for 2010-2012 (Grønlands Selvstyre, 2011).
*Exceeded quota in the previous year.

160

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of WalrusTable D4

Landed walrus in Greenland prior to the introduction of quotas, by region, 1998-2005

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

North Water

89

128

43

194

171

181

99

137

Qaanaq

72

101

126

171

147

160

90

78

Upernavik

17

27

17

23

24

21

9

59

West Greenland

109

146

264

93

91

77

76

95

Uummannaq

2

3

8

12

23

16

10

23

Diskco Bay*

15

32

56

20

20

16

17

11

Kangaatsiaq

30

41

20

28

16

13

20

6

Sisimuit

62

70

80

33

32

32

29

55

East Greenland

7

26

7

10

34

11

4

16

Ittoqqortoormiit

6

26

5

10

5

11

3

2

Tasiilaq (Ammassalik)

1

-

2

0

29

0

1

14

Other regions

13

11

15

46

35

15

15

4

Total

218

311

329

343

331

284

194

252

Source: Catch data are provided by (Greenland Statbank, 2011).
Note: Figures do not include animals struck and lost.
*Disko Bay includes the communities of Ilulissat, Qeqertarsuaq, Aasiaat and Qasigiannguit.

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus161

Table D5

Landed Atlantic walrus in Greenland and quotas by region, 2006-2009

2006

REGIONS

2007

2008

2009

2010

QUOTA

HARVESTQUOTA

HARVESTQUOTA

HARVESTQUOTA

HARVESTQUOTA

HARVEST

North Water

-

72

99

80

80

66

75

91

48*

60

Qaanaq

-

67

80

67

70

54

70

86

Upernavik

-

5

19

13

10

12

5 (-2)*

4

Not identified

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

48

60

West Greenland

60

60

71

43

65

28

38

33

61

62

4

11

0

Uummannaq
Qeqertarsuaq

0

7

5

Ilulissat

3

5

Qasigiannguit

2

Aasiaat

2

5

23

3

12

7

Kangaatsiaq

4

14

13

13

2

7

2

Sisimuit

49

29

25

27

22

17

15

Maniitsoq

32

2

Not identified

60

-

-

-

-

1

-

2

61

62

East Greenland

15

5

30

10

30

9

23

4

18

6

1

15

10

15

9

13

3

4

15

0

15

0

10

1
18

6

Ittoqqortoormiit

15

Tasiilaq (Ammassalik)

Other regions

-

8

-

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

75

145

200

133

175

103

136

128

127

128

Source: Quotas for 2006 started in October (Grønlands Selvstyre, 2009b), quota for 2007 (Grønlands Hjemmestyre, 2007), quota for 2008 and2009 (Grønlands Selvstyre, 2009a; NAMMCO Annual Report, 2011). Catch data are provided by (Grønlands Statistik, 2011; NAMMCO Annual
Report, 2011).
Note: Figures do not include animals struck and lost (except in last row).
*Exceeded quota in the previous year.

162

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus© PAUL NICKLEN / NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC STOCK / WWF-CANADAHAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

163

164

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

HAULING OUT: International Trade and Management of Walrus

165

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works
to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not athreat to the conservation of nature.

For further information contact:
The Regional Director North America
TRAFFIC
c/o World Wildlife Fund-US
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
USA
Phone: (202) 293-4800
Fax: (202) 775-8287
E-mail: tna@wwfus.org
Website: www.traffic.org
The Executive Director
TRAFFIC
219a Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 0DL
United Kingdom
Phone: (44) 1223 277427
Fax: (44) 1223 277237
E-mail: traffic@traffic.org
Website: www.traffic.org