Qimmiit means “many dogs” in Inuktitut and refers to Inuit sled dogs. Dogs and humans have shared special relationships throughout history, meaning that dogs are well woven into human culture in many ways (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2018). Qimmiit are said to be descended from dogs used by Thule approximately 1000 years ago and archeological evidence shows that the dogs were harnessed to sleds allowing for transportation and travel in the Arctic (Michelin, 2019). Before Inuit were forcefully settled into permanent communities, the mass introduction of snowmobiles and slaughter of qimmiit in the 50s to 70s, dogs were essential for survival, hunting (food) and transportation (Aenishaenslin, 2019; Gjerstad & Sanguya, 2010). Dogs fulfilled many functions but they were more than just a working object, “their place within Inuit life was also social and cultural” (Lightbody, 2015). Maintaining healthy dogs and a relationship with their team was an integral part of hunters’ social identities and signified maturity and adulthood (Lightbody, 2015). Individual names given to dogs are significant in naming practices of Inuit cosmology and spirituality and they can also be considered non-human persons in an Inuit cultural context (Shannon, 1997). They played a spiritual role, with some individuals having dogs as helping tuurngait (spirits) and unnguq (‘spirit dog’) could help find animals in a hunt, help direct the way home in a blizzard, or find and chase away kiglurittuq (‘bad spirits’) to help angukkuq (‘shaman’) (Tester, 2010). Dogs are a part of some Inuit creation stories such as one recounted by Knud Rasmussen where dogs were created not long after humans and together humans and dogs explored Nuna (the land) (Penprase, 2017). In addition, qimmiit were and continue to be thought of as part of the family and companions. Peter Audlaluk interviewed in the documentary Qimmit: A Clash of Two Truths describes how “when the dogs were killed it was like my father or brother being killed. They were our companions'' (Gjerstad & Sanguya, 2010). Peter also describes the dogs as intelligent sentient beings that partook in reciprocal and symbiotic relations with humans, they not only learned from humans but taught him about the land as they knew it so well and when hunting it is the dogs that would find the animals (Gjerstad & Sanguya, 2010). After relocating to settlements, qimmiit took on additional importance, as a way for families and hunters to maintain their cultural identity, support their family and maintain freedom in the ability to leave the settlement (Lightbody, 2015). In the 20th century agroecology was ‘revitalized’ to a larger audience through ideas and methods of American and European academics (Hecht, 2018). I say ‘revitalized’ because agroecological methods never truly disappeared. Yes, agroecological practices declined and reduced globally due to colonization, the Green Revolution and neoliberal policies, but many Indigenous people, rural people and small scale farmers continued practicing ecological farming methods. The term and practice of agroecology was and continues to be revitalized by academics through literature and research that exposes it to a broader audience. Scientific research in agricultural sciences, ecology and the development of agronomy from the late 1920s to 1970s is credited for the initial development of agroecology in the formal sciences (Hecht, 2018). As far back as 1928, Klages has aided in developing agricultural ecology through the study of crop ecology which is when farmers seek to understand plant behavior, use crop management strategies based in systems thinking and consider environmental issues (Connor, Loomis & Cassman, 2011). Klages also considered the study and production of crops in a social environment, to better understand complex relationships between agriculture and its social and physical environment (Klages, 1928).

Qimmiijaqtainiq describes the 1950-1970 slaughter of Inuit sled dogs by the RCMP. In the early 1900s, the first Hudson’s Bay trading post opened in the east Arctic at Kimmirut and Inuit economy was redirected from whaling to the fox fur trade, which required dog teams (Tester, 2010). In the mid 1940s the desire and consumption of fur declined in Europe, crashing the fur-dependent Inuit economy and the dog teams no longer provided financial gain or benefit to European traders or the Canadian government (Tester, 2010). Starting in the 1950s Inuit, who were semi-nomadic, began to be relocated to static lives in settlements by the RCMP and Canadian government. The relocation of Inuit and qimmiit to settlements, resulted in a need from the RCMP to regulate qimmiit as they began to be seen as a threat to health and safety (Tester, 2010). A dog ordinance was developed in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut with no input from Inuit communities and was never properly translated or explained (Tester, 2010). The legislation prohibited owners from letting their dogs run around free and mandated qimmiit to be tied. It overall, gave the RCMP a large amount of power over Inuit communities and qimmiit. RCMP officers had permission to seize loose dogs and sell them if they were not collected by their owners in 5 days and also had permission to kill dogs if they were injured or posed a threat to health and safety (Tester, 2010). Eventually the legislation gave RCMP officers authority to shoot any loose dogs in settlements. The RCMP claim that in the 1950s to 1970s any qimmiit that were killed were done so legally under the ordinance and due to disease and danger they presented. In 2006 they conducted an internal investigation based on RCMP files and oral histories of previous officers and released a report claiming that there was no deliberate mass slaughter of sled dogs to force Inuit from their land (Lightbody, 2015; Royal Canadian Mounted Police). Some Inuit believe that qimmiijaqtainiq– the slaughter of qimmiit, was part of a government conspiracy to force them into a sedentary lifestyle and many others believe through personal experiences, that even if there wasn’t a government conspiracy, many dogs were slaughtered for no justified reason which directly impacted their culture and lifestyle (Gjerstad & Sanguya, 2010; Lightbody, 2015; Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2014).

The exact reason for the massacre of qimmiit remains a contested issue between the RCMP and Inuit communities, but there is no denial that deaths of dogs took place at the hands of the RCMP and the massacre was an act of colonialism, which is defined as a structure of domination of one population over a subjugated population and often involves the suppression of the subjugated’s culture and practices through assimilation into the dominant’s (Paradies, 2016). By examining how qimmiit were defined by the RCMP at the time of the massacre, we can further examine the impacts of RCMP officers on Inuit communities. Between 1950 and 1970 in Nunavut, sled dogs were defined by the RCMP as objects and untamed. The use of the word “destruction” and “destroy” (Lévesque, 2011; Northwest Territories Statutes Dog Act, 1988; Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2014) are used through verbal recollections of RCMP officers and in the dog ordinance to describe the purposeful killing of qimmiit. Dogs are described as being ‘destroyed’ by RCMP officers if they posed a health or safety risk, instead of using language such as ‘killed’, thereby objectifying them (Lévesque, 2011). Qimmiit are reduced to being defined as objects with their survival determined by a human law and enforced by the police. Liability of killing a sentient being is taken away from the RCMP, even if that is what they were doing, because through law they were simply doing their job and destroying an object that was a threat to people's safety. In addition, qimmiit, were often defined by the RCMP as threats, untamed, wild and feral (Lévesque, 2011; McHugh, 2013), which were all used as power words to justify their treatment and slaughter (Hill et al., 2022). The labels given to qimmiit propose that they were out of place, unwelcome and out of control (Hill et al., 2022) in their environment, and their removal (slaughter) is justified because they no longer fit in and benefit the human world they were forced into. Qimmiit went from living remotely with the same group of no more than 30 people, where they were often active throughout the day and roamed around freely when they weren’t pulling a sled (McHugh, 2013). Along with Inuit, they were forced into a completely different lifestyle when moved to settlements. Qimmiit were mandated to be tied up and when they reacted to this completely new way of life they were branded terms like threat, untamed and feral, with many killed because they were not domestic in the way that the RCMP needed them to be in order to assimilate to life in a settlement.

Overall, the definitions that were placed on qimmiit by the RCMP allowed for their continual slaughter to occur and was a factor in profound colonial change in an attempt to make Nunavut more like the South, Inuit more like Canadians and give the Canadian government greater sovereignty over the North. Through the definitions and objectification that was placed on qimmiit by the RCMP, their loss of value and worth in a new forming society and way of life in the North is evident. By devaluing the dogs, through definitions backed by legislations, they were exterminated like pests resulting in a further change so Inuit culture and society. Individuals and families that lost their dogs and could not find jobs became dependent on social assistance and expensive non nutritional foods (McHugh, 2013). Qimmiijaqtainiq represents a point in Inuit memories of extreme changes forced on them by outsiders, a challenge to their independence and identity, and a contribution to lasting hardships within communities including increased suicide rates and food insecurity (Aenishaenslin et al., 2019; Affleck et al., 2022; Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2014).

Under the perception of the RCMP qimmiit had no value in a developing Nunavut and the RCMP did not recognize their social relations, legal rights and importance as individuals in Inuit society and culture. The Canadian government attempted to force both qimmiit and Inuit into a western way of life dominated by anthropocentrism, similar to the rest of settler colonial Canada in the South through policies, increased police presence, movement into year round settlements, development of schools and encouragement of economic development (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2014). How qimmiit were defined and their slaughter by the RCMP overall contributed to the lasting colonial impact on Inuit communities but it can also be argued that qimmiit faced their own unique impacts of colonization and were colonized. In the 1950s qimmiit were forced into settlements and a new way of life, they were suppressed and dominated by the Canadian Government’s policies including the dog ordinance, policed by the RCMP, and faced violence. Similar to how humans face violence and othering in colonial and post colonial states (Jones & Lucinda Manda, 2006), nonhuman animals are othered, oppressed and subjected to violence. There’s no historical record of RCMP dogs being killed, targeted and deemed a threat, yet the number of qimmiit drastically declined due to increased illness from being forced onto settlements and being killed by the RCMP (Lévesque, 2011). The act of examining the impacts of colonization on nonhuman animals is not an effort to disregard or minimize the experiences of humans but can help us better understand histories that impact both humans and nonhumans. Nonhuman animals that share close relationships and cultures with those that are colonized also experience impacts of colonization and can also be used as colonial tools. In many ways nonhuman animals are subjected to the same violence that is forced on humans.

Through examining how qimmiit were defined by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we can better understand how their slaughter in the 1950s to 1970s was an act of colonialism in Nunavut. Whether or not the Canadian government purposefully sought for the murder of sled dogs to gain greater control over northern Canada and force Inuit into settlements, the event still had a lasting impact on Inuit communities and qimmiit. By examining the objectification and impact of colonial violence of nonhuman animals we can better understand colonialism as a structure of power that centers one way of being as dominant over another.