PATTERNS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST AND USE IN BEAVER, ALASKA. Valerie A. Sumida. Technical Paper No. 140

Transcription

1 PATTERNS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST AND USE IN BEAVER, ALASKA Valerie A. Sumida Technical Paper No. 140 This research was partially supported by ANILCA Federal Aid Funds, administered through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, SG -1-5 and SG-1-6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Fairbanks, Alaska 1989

2 ABSTRACT This report documents the pattern of fish and wildlife harvest by the community of Beaver, Alaska during the mid-1980s and provides an overview of the integrated subsistence and cash economy which presently exists in the community. The research was conducted during and included surveys with all community households, resource use area mapping, and informal interviews. Beaver is a small community located on the north bank of the Yukon River, amidst the broad, unroaded expanse of the Yukon Flats, approximately 60 miles southwest of the community of Fort Yukon. It is accessible year-round by air, by boat during open water seasons, and snowmachine during winter months. Beaver s population was 78 individuals in 31 households in 1985, 97 percent Alaska Native. The community is composed of individuals of diverse and mixed ethnic origin with residents of Gwich in and Koyukon Athabaskan Indian, Inupiaq Eskimo, Euro-American, and Japanese descent. Like many remote, rural Alaskan communities the local cash economy is fueled directly and indirectly by government monies. Wage employment in the community is limited. Most employment was seasonal and 56 percent of the jobs held during the survey year provided employment for 4 weeks or less. Households averaged 29 weeks of employment. The average taxable income in Beaver was $9,259 in 1985 (Alaska Department of Revenue 1988). Trapping was an important source of cash in the community and the estimated potential income generated through the sale of furbearers was approximately $3,400 per trapping household during Cost of food items available locally were between 18 to 52 percent higher than comparable items in Fairbanks. During the survey year 100 percent of Beaver households harvested some type of local fish, mammal, bird, or plant resource. Residents harvested a total of

3 56,938 pounds edible weight of resources during , with a per capita harvest of 730 pounds. Salmon comprised 56.8 percent of the total weight, big game was 17.7 percent, freshwater fish was 10.7 percent, and the remaining 14.8 percent consisted of small game, edible furbearer species, waterfowl, and berries. Approximately 37 percent of the overall harvest was used to feed dogs. The per capita harvest of resources for human consumption was 459 pounds. A relatively small percentage of households harvested the majority of fish and wildlife resources. On average, households with high production levels were larger, had more members over 16 years of age, owned more equipment, and had more dogs than households with medium and low production levels. Patterns of household harvesting and processing activities varied in the community. Research findings demonstrate the importance of a variety of fish and wildlife resources and the lands which support them to the residents of Beaver. Subsistence production and the distribution of wild resources remain an integral component of life in this remote community, integrated with participation in the cash sector of the local economy.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES vi Vlll ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS X CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study Research Objectives... 2 Methodology... 3 CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY Community Facilities and Services Population and Household Composition Wage Employment and Income Household Equipment Holdings CHAPTER 3. AN OVERVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST PATTERNS The Natural Environment Contemporary Seasonal Round Household Participation in Harvest Activities Harvest Levels and Composition of Harvest Household Harvest Diversity Sharing of Fish and Wildlife Resources Geographic Use Areas CHAPTER 4. HARVEST AND USE PATTERNS,..., Salmon Fishing Freshwater Fish Fishing Moose Hunting Bear Hunting Caribou Hunting Small Game Hunting Waterfowl Hunting Furbearer Trapping and Hunting Plant Resources CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Beaver s Mixed Economy Land Management Issues iv

5 REFERENCES CITED APPENDICES A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT B. EDIBLE WEIGHTS OF SELECTED RESOURCES C. COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF MAJOR RESOURCES USED BY BEAVER RESIDENTS V

6 LIST OF FlGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Map of the Yukon Flats and Surrounding Areas Historical Population Trends, Beaver Alaska Seasonal Round of Subsistence Activities, Beaver Percentage of Households Harvesting by Resource Category, Beaver Figure 5. Household Harvest Levels by Weight, Beaver Figure 6. Cumulative Percentage of Total Harvest by Households, Beaver Figure 7. Relationship of Pounds Harvested to Number of Resources Harvested by Households, Beaver Figure 8. Areas Used for Resource Harvest Activities of Beaver, Alaska (ca to 1986) by Residents....I Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Areas Used for Resource Harvest Activities by Residents of Beaver, Alaska (ca to 1986) Areas Used for Fishing by Residents of Beaver, Alaska (ca to 1986) Mean Household Harvest of King and Chum Salmon, , Beaver Proportion of Household Harvests Used for Dog Food, Beaver Cumulative Household Harvests With and Without Fish Used for Dog Food, Beaver vi

7 Vii

8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Comparative Prices of Selected Food Items in Beaver and Fairbanks, Frequency of Household Sizes in Beaver, Beaver Population Profile, Employment Characteristics, Beaver * 17 Household Equipment Holdings, Beaver Percentage of Households Harvesting by Resource, Beaver Percentage of Households Attempting to and Successfully Harvesting Resources, Beaver *...a. 29 Harvest Levels of All Resources, Beaver Harvest Levels in Pounds for Edible Resources, Beaver Harvest Levels in Pounds by Major Resource Category, Beaver Table 11. Fish Harvests Used for Dog Food, Beaver Table 12. Distribution of Household Harvests by Edible Weight Range, Beaver Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Table 18. Average Harvest in Pounds of Low, Medium, and High Producing Groups, Beaver Comparison of Average Household Characteristics and Equipment Holdings of Low, Medium, and High Producing Groups, Beaver Percentage of Households Receiving and Giving Selected Resources, Beaver Salmon Harvests, , Beaver Mean Salmon Harvests per Fishing Family, , Beaver Estimated Value of Furbearers, Beaver viii

9 ix

10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank the residents of Beaver, Alaska for their cooperation during the course of this study. Nora Billy, Randy Van Dyke, Antoinette Pitka, and Paul Williams are extended a special thanks for their support and assistance. Clarence Alexander of the Division of Subsistence was instrumental in conducting the study and his assistance is greatly appreciated. Cheryl Scott, of the Division s Data Management staff provided invaluable support in working with the data collected from surveys and reviewing the draft report. As always, she was a pleasure to work with and a great source of moral support. Thanks also go to Elizabeth Andrews and Robert Walker for their initial review of the draft report and their comments and suggestions. Robert Wolfe deserves special mention for his valuable contributions to this report. Betsy Sturm and Gary Nichols drafted the maps included in the report. X

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The intent of this report is to describe contemporary patterns of harvest and use of fish and wildlife resources by residents of the community of Beaver, Alaska in order to address a broad range of land management and resource use issues affecting the area. The information is also useful in the context of the economic development planning being undertaken by the community and for the Yukon Flats region as a whole. Among the land management concerns in the area are the policies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987, 1988). Fire management policies for the area are of concern to the community because of the direct impacts on lands and resources that are important in both the subsistence and cash spheres of the local economy. Another issue affecting the area is the possible transfer of lands along the Trans- Alaska Pipeline utility corridor bordering the western edge of the Yukon Flats from federal to state jurisdiction. Future management of these lands may result in increased access, settlement, and development along the corridor (Bureau of Land Management 1987). The proposed construction of the Trans-Alaska Gas System (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 1988), oil exploration in the flats, and potential oil and gas development in both the Yukon Flats and Arctic refuges are additional land uses that may affect the community. Fish and wildlife issues relate to management planning for moose, furbearer, salmon, and waterfowl populations in the area. 1

12 Patterns of land and resource use in neighboring Yukon Flats and upper Yukon-Porcupine River communities have been documented in other Division of Subsistence studies (Caulfield 1983; Caulfield et al. 1983; Sumida and Alexander 1985; Sumida 1988). This report presents background information on the contemporary socioeconomic characteristics of the community of Beaver and a summary of key components of the current pattern of fish and wildlife harvest and use. It includes a description of the current seasonal round, household participation in subsistence activities, fish and wildlife harvest levels, household harvest diversity, the distribution of fish and wildlife resources, and the geographic areas used for resource harvesting. Brief descriptions of harvest and processing methods and other pertinent information is provided for individual species or resource groups. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The project research objectives were: 1. to describe the fish and wildlife resources used by Beaver residents and the primary and occasional periods in which they were taken; 2. to describe methods of harvest and processing of resources; 3. to document community and household participation in hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering, and harvest levels for a recent 12-month period; 4. to document geographic areas used for harvest activities; and 5. to examine the relationship between socioeconomic characteristics of households and diffcrcntial patterns of harvest. 2

13 METHODOLOGY A research design describing the purposes of the study and the methods to be used was presented to the Beaver traditional council in May 1985 and approval for conducting the study in the community was granted the following month. Field research was conducted between July 1985 and June 1986 by a Subsistence Resource Specialist II based in Fairbanks and a Fish and Game Technician III based in Fort Yukon. A number of standard anthropological research techniques were used to gather information including systematic interviews using a survey instrument, individual mapping sessions, limited participant observation of harvest and processing techniques, informal interviews on a variety of topics, and a review of available background literature. Demographic information for the community was collected at the beginning of the study through the compilation of a community census. All households resident in the community year-round were surveyed. Individuals that resided in Beaver only periodically or seasonally were not surveyed, this included one of the teachers and at least three other households. One household that had not been resident in Beaver during the survey year but had moved to the community during the study year was not interviewed and was not included in the community census. Quantitative data on household fish and wildlife harvests during the previous twelve months was collected through systematic interviews with one or more household members using a survey instrument (Appendix A). The survey instrument focused on whether a househoid had attempted to harvest a particular resource, if they were successful the quantity harvested, and whether the resource was given to or received from other households. Data collected through the survey instrument were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Lotus l-2-3 programs. Harvest numbers of the edible resources were 3

14 converted into their edible weight equivalents. Edible weights were converted from estimates of the average size and weight for species which were generally determined through discussions with biologists familiar with the fish and wildlife in the area (Appendix B). The survey instrument listed 37 resources or resource types (i.e. the general category ducks as opposed to mallards and pintails). Three of these, trout, sheep and swans were found to be rarely, if ever, taken and for the purposes of this study are not considered part of the resource base for the community. Separate species of berries were combined for reporting purposes. Caribou, though not readily accessible every year, is hunted when available and was included although none were successfully taken during the survey year. This resulted in a total of 32 resources. A list of the common and scientific names of fish, wildlife, and plant resources used by Beaver residents can be found in Appendix C. For presentation and summary purposes, resources were further grouped into seven categories: salmon (king, chum, and coho), other freshwater fish (whitefish sp., sheefish, pike, burbot, sucker, grayling) big game (moose, bear, caribou), small game (snowshoe hare, porcupine, squirrel sp., muskrat, grouse sp., and ptarmigan sp.), furbearers (marten, mink, lynx, fox, wolverine, wolf, otter, and beaver), waterfowl (duck sp., geese sp., and cranes), and berries (sp.). Harvest quantities in pounds include the edible furbearers of beaver and lynx. The geographic areas used by households for hunting, fishing, and trapping were mapped on individual blueline sheets based on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps at a scale of 1:250,000 that were enlarged to a scale of 1:125,000 to facilitate feature identification. Residents known to be active in subsistence activities, dctcrmined in part by survey interviews as well as recommendations from other community members, wcrc asked to participate in mapping sessions. Most mapping sessions were conducted in the tribal building and members of 15 4

15 Beaver households (48 percent) mapped areas used for various activities during their lifetime. Categories mapped include trapping areas, moose, caribou, bear, and waterfowl hunting areas, fishing areas, and cabin and tent camp sites. A composited map was presented at a community meeting for review in February 1986 and all additions and changes were incorporated in the final version of the maps. A few words on the limitations of the data presented is in order. Household surveys depended on the recall of the harvest of a variety of species over a 12- month period. Although considered to be a reliable method of data collection, it appeared that the harvest levels reported for certain types of resources, such as large mammals and furbearers, were probably recalled with greater accuracy and precision than categories such as fish or bird species which tend to be rounded estimates. However, it is believed that the estimated harvests reported for these types of resources were within an acceptable range of accuracy. The information presented on the amount of freshwater fish used to feed dogs is considered a minimum estimate as processing and use of fish was not reported by all households for all species. For research purposes the unit of inquiry was the household and questions on harvest activity appeared to be adequately addressed at the household level. However, when it came to questions about the sharing of fish and wildlife resources the pattern that emerged revolved around family units. In some cases it appeared that distribution of resources to close kin (immediate family members such as parents, children, and siblings), even those residing in separate dwellings, was not considered in the same way as sharing with more distantly related or unrelated persons. This may have resulted in the under-reporting of fish and wildlife resource sharing.

16 Participation in subsistence pursuits and harvest levels can vary widely from year to year and are affected by environmental conditions, socioeconomic factors, and personal circumstances. In a study such as this which documents harvesting activities for a one year period, the range of variability from one year to the next is unclear. Similarly, there is often variation in the sizes and weights of fish and wildlife species harvested. The sex, age, and condition of a particular fish, mammal, or bird as well as the season in which it is harvested and the processing and preservation methods used produces variations in edible weight. Finally, geographic use area information was collected from a sample of households and may miss certain areas. Although the time period reflected areas used over the lifetime of residents, use areas are also subject to dynamic environmental, socioeconomic, and political influences and change over time, expanding some years, contracting during others. 6

17 CHAPTER 2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY This chapter briefly summarizes the historic background and the salient socioeconomic and political features of the contemporary community. A description of facilities and services in Beaver and information on population, wage employment, income, and equipment holdings is included. Beaver is situated on the north bank of the Yukon River amidst the broad expanse of floodplain known as the Yukon Flats (Fig. 1). The area south of the Yukon River and to the east of the present-day community of Beaver was part of the traditional territory of Deendu or Birch Creek Gwich in. The Dihaii Gwich in are believed to have occupied the hills to the north of the community (Slobodin ; Schneider 1976:106; Andrews 1977:103). The community of Beaver is unique in that from its establishment in 1910 it has had a diverse, multi-ethnic population that included Eskimo families originating from the arctic coastal plain and the Kobuk River areas, Koyukon and Gwich in Athabaskan Indians, individuals of Japanese descent, and Euro-Americans. Ethnographic sources on the Native groups represented in the community include: Burch (1984), Clark (1974, 1975, and 1981), Loyens (1966), Nelson (1973 and 1983), Nelson et al. (1982), Osgood (1970), Slobodin (1981), Spencer (1984), and Sullivan (1936, 1942). Caulfield (1983) provides information on both traditional and contemporary patterns of resource use in neighboring Gwich in Athabaskan communities as does Sumida (1988) for the Koyukon Athabaskan community of Stevens Village, downriver from Beaver. The historic context of the development of Beaver along with life history information illustrating the varied backgrounds of individuals originating from different geographic areas can be found in Schneider (1976) and Cruikshank (1986).

18 8

19 The establishment of Beaver came about with the discovery of gold in the Chandalar River drainage in the early 1900s. The Alaska Road Commission which was formed around that time, proceeded to develop a trail between the mining and trading camp at Caro and the Yukon River (Schneider 1976: ). The settlement at Beaver was the river terminus of this trail and was a supply and freighting point established by a group of Japanese traders, their Eskimo wives, and a few other families from Barrow on the coast of the Arctic Ocean. When mining activity in the Chandalar district diminished the population declined although some Euro-American miners remained in the area and turned to trapping for their livelihood. The community continued to serve as a seasonal base and trading post for both the Native and non-native population (Schneider 1976:159). A post office was established in Beaver in 1913 and by 1928 the federal Office of Indian Affairs opened a school. A marked increase in school attendance by the 1950s reflects the progressive centralization and settlement of the Native population in the community (Schneider 1976:229). Located approximately 60 miles southwest of the community of Fort Yukon, the contemporary community of Beaver is accessible year-round by air, by boat during open water seasons and snowmachine during winter months. The community is surrounded by the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bordering the refuge to the south are the federal Bureau of Land Management s White Mountains National Recreation Area and Steese National Conservation Area, The upper portions of Beaver and Birch creeks are part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The community is within the State designated Game Management Subunit 25(D) and Fisheries Subdistrict Y5-D. Beaver is an unincorporated village governed by a traditional council. The community is a member of the Council o,f Athabascan Tribal Governments 9

20 (CATG), an organization cstablishcd by a coalition of communities in the arca that promotes cooperative efforts in the areas of economic development, social and educational scrviccs, and land managcmcnt. The Beaver Kwitchin Corporation created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; 85 Stat. 706) selected 92,160 acres of land with an enrollment of 191 members. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES At the time of the study, 32 houses were occupied and at least five additional dwellings were used periodically by individuals who did not live in the community year-round. Homes were of log construction and a number of older log buildings and cabins remain standing although not currently in use. Fourteen of these log homes were constructed during by the Alaska Rural Devclopmcnt Board (Gagnon 1959). During the face of the community was again changing as 10 new cabins were under construction. Electricity, provided by a community-operated generator, came to the community in the early 1980s. All homes were heated with wood-burning stoves and a few community buildings such as the clinic, safe water building, and school had oil-fueled heating systems. There was no community-wide water and sewer system and houses lacked indoor plumbing for running water or sewage disposal. A safe water system developed in the 1970s was operated by the village council and provided laundry and shower facilities as well as a central watering point. Phone service was available to households in the community. The original federal Indian school was established in 1928 by the Office of Indian Affairs, which later became the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Administration of the facility was transferred to the Yukon Flats School District in A new school complex was built in 1986 to accommodate the growing 10

21 school-aged population and served grades 1 through 12. The initial work on a new Episcopal Church was underway during the study year to replace the old church which had been brought downriver from Circle during the 1940s. Other facilities included the community hall which housed the tribal council office and was commonly referred to as the tribal building, a community health clinic operated by the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC), a post off ice, a power plant maintained by the tribal council, a bulk fuel storage facility, and an Assembly of God church. At the time of the study an Episcopal minister and his family resided in the Episcopal Church parsonage and the Assembly of God mission house was occupied by a household that was not involved in ministry and had recently moved back to the community. The TCC office in Fort Yukon administered a number of social service programs for the community. A small grocery store provided a variety of canned and packaged goods, frozen meat, and limited amounts of fresh produce. Price comparisons of selected items are presented in Table 1. Prices ranged from 18 to 52 percent higher than comparable goods in Fairbanks, in part reflective of shipping costs to the community (Fairbanks North Star Borough 1985). Gasoline was available through the store and the village corporation. During the study year another small store was established and operated out of the residence of one household. Fairbanks served as the commercial, medical, and social hub for the community and travel between Beaver and Fairbanks was commonly undertaken. Passengers, freight, and mail were accommodated by three Fairbanks-based air service carriers that provided between one to three flights six days a week. During summer months some residents traveled by riverboat to the Yukon River bridge located approximately 112 miles downriver, completing the trip to Fairbanks by road. 11

22 TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE PRICES OF SELECTED FOOD ITEMS IN BEAVER AND FAIRBANKS, 1985 UNIT COST IN COST IN PERCENT ITEM SIZE BEAVER FAIRBANKS* DIFFERENCE Flour Sugar Oats Bread Eggs Butter Dried Kidney Beans Coffee Canned Peaches Canned Pears Canned Corn Potatoes Onions Ground Beef Chicken Pork Chops Soda Pop 10 lbs IO lbs 42 oz 1.5 lbs 1 doz 1 lb 2 lbs 2 lbs 16 oz 16 oz I6 oz 1 lb 1 lb 1 lb 1 lb 1 lb 6-pack $ $ oo * Fairbanks North Star Borough (1985) POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Historical population figures for the community of Beaver are available from 1930 to 1985 (Fig. 2). Sources of population information include Rollins (1978), U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980), Alaska Department of Labor (1987), and the present study. The population appeared relatively stable from 1930 to 1970 but by 1980 a notable decline of one-third of the population had occurred. The population had increased by 20 percent by the study year 5 years later. In 1980 Beaver had a total population of 66 persons in 23 households with an average household size of 2.9 persons per household. The community was in the lowest 20th percentile by size in the state with a rank of 237. The ratio of males 12

23 r- I I I I I I I I I YEAR Fig. 2. Historical Population Trends, Beaver Alaska

24 TABLE 2. FREQUENCY OF HOUSEHOLD SIZES IN BEAVER, 1985 HOUSEHOLD NUMBER OF SIZE HOUSEHOLDS 1 14 (45.2%) 2 3 (9.7%) 3 5 (16.1%) 4 3 (9.7%) 5 5 (16.1%) 6 1 (3.2%) TOTAL 31 ( 100.0%) to females was 2:1 with males comprising 67 percent and females 33 percent of the population. Alaska Natives made up 98 percent of the community (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980). By 1984 the estimated population was 79 and the estimated 1985 population was 80 people (Alaska Department of Labor 1987). For the survey period, the population was 78 people in 31 households. Households ranged in size from 1 to 6 members with an average of 2.5 persons (Table 2). Almost half of the households (45 percent) wcrc comprised of single individuals. The population of 78 consisted of 51 males (65 pcrccnt) and 27 females (35 percent) with the ratio remaining about 2:1 (Table 3). Seventy-four percent of the population were under 40 years of age and 40 percent were under the age of 20. The oldest individual was 83 and the average age was 29. A number of Beaver residents are of mixed ethnic origin and for the purposes of the study individuals with any American Indian or Eskimo ancestry were considered Native. Natives comprised 97.4 percent of the population, again similar to the percentage reported in the 1980 census. Current residents are descendants of families originating from the Yukon Flats communities of Stevens Village, Fort Yukon, Venetic, and Chalkyitsik as well as from Arctic Village, Rampart, Allakaket, Huslia, Ruby, Shungnak, and Barrow. 14

25 TABLE 3. BEAVER POPULATION PROFILE, 1985 AGE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL RANGE MALES FEMALES NUMBER o-9 9 (11.5%) 4 (5.1%) 13 (16.7%) IO (14.1%) 7 (9.0%) 18 (23.1%) (6.4%) 3 (3.8%) 8 (10.3%) (18.0%) 5 (6.4%) 19 (24.4%) (6.4%) 1 (1.3%) 6 (7.7%) (2.6%) 4 (5.1%) 6 (7.7%) (5.1%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (5.1%) (1.3%) 2 (2.6%) 3 (3.8%) (0.0%) 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%) TOTAL 51 (65.4%) 27 (34.6%) 78 (100.0%) WAGE EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Wage-earning jobs were limited in Beaver and most steady, community-based employment was provided through state and federal government monies, most of which was channeled through regional entities such as the Yukon Flats School District or Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. The Yukon Flats School District maintained seven positions, six of which were filled by local residents. Other positions included the community health aide, postmaster, safe water facility manager, utility operations and maintenance personnel, and tribal council secretary. Airport maintenance was provided by the state through a private contractor and during the study year the position was not held by a resident of the community as had been the case in previous years. Private sector employment included local air service agents and store manager. There were no limited entry permit holders for commercial salmon fishing in the community. Temporary jobs were sometimes available through the village council, school district, or store. Community projects such as the construction of the new school provided short-term 15

26 work for heavy equipment operators, carpenters, and laborers. Construction jobs in other locales were taken by some residents when available and firefighting provided seasonal employment during most summers. Many households combined several types of available employment -- temporary, seasonal, year-round, full-time, and part-time positions. There were 39 individuals in 29 households that reported some form of employment during the survey year. Nine households rcportcd two or more employed members. Households held a total of 73 wage-earning jobs with a range of bctwcen I to 6 jobs and an average of 2.5 jobs per household with employed members. Of the 65 jobs held by Beaver residents for which the number of hours per week and number of weeks worked were known, almost 90 percent were temporary or seasonal positions (Table 4). Of these, 38 (58.5 percent) provided employment for 4 weeks or less and there were only 7 year-round jobs. The number of weeks of household employment ranged from 0 to 107 with an average of 28.8 weeks per household. Part-time positions of less than 30 hours per week comprised 30.8 percent of the jobs while full-time jobs of 30 or more hours per week constituted 69.2 percent of the positions (Table 4). Of the 45 full-time positions held during the survey year, only 1 was year-round and this position was not based in the community. The remaining six year-round positions were part-time. The primary sources of cash in Beaver were wage employment, sale of furbearers, and supplemental incomes provided through government social service programs. The median household income for the community was $6,563 in 1979, ranking in the lowest 20 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980). The average taxable income in Beaver for 1983 was $5,644, for 1984 it was $9,469, and for 1985 was $9,259. The 1985 average taxable income for the state was $23,817 and Bcavcr continued to rank in the lowest 20 percent of income lcvcls statcwidc with a rank of 197 out of 237 (Alaska Department of Rcvenuc 1988). 16

27 TABLE 4. EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS, BEAVER PART-TIME FULL-TIME (LESS THAN (30 OR MORE TOTAL 30 HOURS/WEEK) HOURS/WEEK) Seasonal (O-49 Weeks) Year-round (50 or More Weeks) 14 (21.5%) 44 (67.7%) 58 (89.2%) 6 (9.2%) 1 (1.5%) 7 (10.8%) TOTAL 20 (30.8%) 45 (69.2%) 65 (loo.o%)* * Total number of jobs for the community was 73, seasonality and hours per week were variable or not known for 8 positions. The sale of furbearers provides an important source of cash in the community and the estimated total potential cash value derived from trapping during the survey year was about $64,000. Potential cash value of furs represents the income that could have been earned if all furs were sold to outside markets at the average market price in Beaver. Estimates of the contribution of furs to household income ranged from a low of $50 to a high of almost $16,000 with an average of $3,400 per trapping household (see Chapter 4). This amount is approximately 37 percent of the average taxable income for households in Some Beaver households received supplemental incomes through government social service programs such as Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Permanently Disabled, General Relief Assistance, Aid to Families with Dcpcndent Children, and Food Stamps. The average number of food stamp recipients was 6.8 cases and the average monthly allocation of food stamps was approximately $323 per case or $2,198 for the community for the period July through December For the period June through November 1984 there were on average 5.5 cases receiving 17

28 payments from the other programs mentioned above. Monthly payments totaled $1,613 for the community (Alaska Dcpartmcnt of Health and Social Scrviccs and b). HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT HOLDINGS An inventory of selected types of equipment considered advantageous, or in some cases, necessary for subsistence pursuits, was collected through household surveys (Table 5). Snowmachines were the most widely owned type of transportation in the community with 71.0 percent of households reporting ownership of a total of 25 machines. Twenty river boats were reported by 58.1 percent of community households. Fewer households owned 3- or 4-wheelers (19.3 percent) or cars and trucks (6.4 pcrccnt). Thirteen households (41.9 percent) reported ownership of 24 fish nets of varying mesh size and length. Ownership of freezers was reported by 45.2 percent of Beaver households. Overall equipment holdings have increased and a greater percentage of households own such equipment since Schneider s study when he reported that 14 of 37 households (37.8 percent) owned 18 river boats and 23 outboard motors. At that time there were 18 snowmachines owned by 12 households (32.4 percent) and 8 households (21.6 percent) owned a total of 8 fish nets (Schneider 1976:77-83). The lack of electricity in the community accounts for the absence of freezers in Schneider s inventory. Thus, the change in the mean equipment holdings per household between 1974 and 1985 was as follows: riverboats 0.49 to 0.65 per household; outboards from 0.62 to 0.68; snowmachines form 0.49 to 0.71; fish nets from 0.22 to 0.77; and freezers 0 to 0.52, 18

29 TABLE 5. HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT HOLDINGS, BEAVER MEAN PER NUMBER NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT REPORTED HOUSEHOLDS (N=31) Snowmachine River Boat Outboard Motor Freezer Canoe Fish Net 3 or 4-wheeler Car or Truck (7 1.O%) (58.1%) (54.8%) (45.2%) (45.2%) (41.9%) (19.3%) (6.4%)

30 20

31 CHAPTER 3 AN OVERVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST PATTERNS This chapter describes the contemporary pattern of fish and wildlife harvest in the community of Beaver during A brief description of the natural environment is followed by an overview of the contemporary seasonal round of harvest activities. Survey data on household participation and harvest levels for resources is presented along with estimates of the amount of fish used to feed dogs. The variation in household harvest levels is examined in relation to certain socioeconomic characteristics of individual households. Patterns of resource sharing and household cooperation are briefly addressed. A description of geographic areas used for harvest activities concludes the chapter. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Beaver is located in the midst of the vast Yukon Flats in the northeastern portion of interior Alaska (Fig. 1). The flats are a broad flood plain of the Yukon River encompassing approximately 6.5 million acres of land composed of marshes with numerous lakes, braided streams, oxbows, and sloughs. Elevations in the area range from 300 to 900 feet and the flats are bordered on the north by the Porcupine Plateau, by the White Mountains to the south, the Ogilvie Mountains to the cast, and the Kokrinc-Hodzana Highlands to the west (Institute of Social and Economic Research 1978:lO:l; Selkregg 1976:7). The climate in the area is characterized as continental subarctic with extreme seasonal variation in both temperature and daylight. Temperatures recorded in the neighboring community of Fort Yukon have ranged from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to lows of minus 75 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual 21

32 precipitation rate averages bctwccn 7 to 10 inches, most of which is rainfall occurring during late summer and early fall, with approximately 45 inches of snow during winter months. The wetlands and lakes dominating the landscape arc attributed to the low precipitation and evaporation rates combined with the underlying permafrost in the arca (Institute of Social and Economic Research 1978:11-3; Selkregg 1976:16, 20-21; U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1974:27). Vegetation in the area is characteristic of northern boreal forest environments with closed forests of white spruce, balsam poplar, aspen, and birch in lowland areas alternating with open muskeg areas of black spruce with a ground cover of mosses, grasses, and shrubs. Shrubs such as willow and alder border rivers and creeks. The fish and wildlife present are typical of boreal forest environments. Mammals include moose, brown bear, black bear, caribou, porcupine, and a variety of furbearing spccics such as marten, lynx, fox, mink, wolverine, wolf, land otter, beaver, muskrat, and snowshoe hart. Several species of waterfowl are present seasonally and ptarmigan and grouse are present year-round. Three species of salmon migrate through the area and several species of other freshwater fish occur locally. These include various whitefish species, sheefish, northern pike, burbot, suckers, and grayling. CONTEMPORARY SEASONAL ROUND Beaver residents harvest over 30 types of fish and wildlife in a cyclical pattern rcpeatcd each year. The seasonal pattern incorporates knowlcdgc of migratory movcmcnts of different species, environmental conditions, cfficicnt methods of harvest, preferences for certain resource attributes, and more rcccntly, state and fcdcral hunting and fishing regulations. This established seasonal round 22

33 guides when and where each resource is sought and how it is taken. Fig. 3 presents a graphic summary of the primary and occasional periods of harvest of major resources. The migratory patterns of a number of fish and wildlife species is a major determinant of seasons of harvest. The return of waterfowl in the spring signals the shift towards increased hunting and fishing activity and the season is characterized by the harvest of waterfowl and muskrats. White-fronted and Canada geese are usually the first species to appear in the area, followed by a variety of duck species such as canvasbacks, mallards, pintails, and wigeons. Scoters or black ducks are generally the last arrivals, appearing in early June. Once break-up occurs in mid-may, nets are set to harvest whitefish and pike for human consumption and to feed dogs. Fishing for these species often continues until the arrival of king salmon in late June and early July. Early summer is also a preferred time for cutting house logs as high water facilitates their transport to the village from logging sites upriver. The harvest of waterfowl tapers off as birds begin to nest and summer activity focuses on salmon fishing with set gill nets and fish wheels. Sheefish are taken during summer months in fish wheels and nets incidental to salmon fishing. Hooking or rod and reel fishing for pike occurs at this time. Nets are sometimes set to harvest whitefish and other freshwater fish species. Black bears are sometimes taken during this season. Summer is also the time for seasonal wage employment such as firefighting or construction work as well as local house building. The summer run of chum salmon usually appears by the end of July or early August, replacing the run of king salmon. At this time of year, molting waterfowl are occasionally taken during the course of other activities. The fall 23

34 RESOURCE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC King Salmon Summer Chun I I I I I I I MrnI I I I I Fall Chum I I I I I I I I amiss I i i Coho Salmon I I I I I I I I arniza I I Whitefish (sp.) I I I ~i~i~imimimimimimi i Sheefish glmimimi~i@g$ig 1 1 Northern Pike I I I 81 imimimimimtmi i Burbot I I I 81 ID~l~~~~l~~lmlmImI 1 Longnose Sucker I I I I IgglmImImI 1 Grayling Moose Black Bear imimimi i i Caribou imiu I I I I I I imimi Hare imimi I I I I I I imimimi Muskrat I I simimi I I I I I I Porcupine I I I I I IgggglmImI Grout-d Squirrel ImImImIml:gggq Tree Squirrel gilmimi Other Furbearers imimimi I I I I I I imimi Waterfowl (sp.) izzziimirni88z I I I Grouse (sp.) ~lmlmi~~i~~~[ Beaver I I I I I I I I I Ptarmigan (sp.) Berries (sp.) i I I I I I i~aimi~i I i i imi Primary periods of harvest lg$$@l Occasional periods of harvest Fig. 3. Seasonal. Fmund of Subsistence Activities, Beaver

35 chum and coho salmon runs occur in late summer towards the end of August. As fall approaches certain species of waterfowl appear again along river corridors and hunting of ducks and gecsc is again undcrtakcn. Some households continue fishing for fall chum and coho salmon during the fall. Smaller species of whitefish are often harvested in fish wheels while fishing for these late-running salmon. The predominant activity shifts to the hunting of moose and black bear. Black bear are hunted in fall as the accumulation of a thick layer of winter fat makes them especially favored. Grouse hunting also takes place or, like porcupine, grouse are encountered and harvested as people are doing other things. Wood cutting for the initial supply of winter firewood is undertaken at this time of year. Fall fishing with nets or fish traps for whitefish, pike, burbot, longnosc suckers, and arctic grayling occurs, primarily for dog food. Hooking for pike or grayling is sometimes pursued at this time. As lakes and rivers begin to freeze, activity is temporarily halted as travel is thwarted by the changing environment. Later, when the ice thickens and conditions improve, fishing for whitefish, pike, and burbot resumes with nets set under the ice or occasionally by hooking through the ice. Ptarmigan are taken in the flats in late fall and early winter and during mid-winter can be found in the surrounding hills. Snarelines are set for snowshoe hares ( rabbits ), Preparations for the trapping and snaring of furbearers are made during October and November. Hunting of moose and small game occurs in conjunction with running traplines. In years when caribou migrate north of the village they are hunted during early spring (March and April). By March trapping effort is concentrated on the harvest of beaver and muskrat. By this time, the return of the geese are eagerly anticipated and another seasonal round begins. 25

36 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION IN HARVEST ACTIVITIES During the 12-month period from November 1984 through October 1985, all households in Beaver harvested some type of fish, wildlife, or plant resource. Fig. 4 presents the percentage of households that harvested fish and wildlife in the seven resource categories of salmon, freshwater fish, big game, small game, waterfowl, furbearers, and berries. The percentage of households reporting successful harvest was greatest in the resource categories of small game and waterfowl at 83.9 percent each. Freshwater fish other than salmon were harvested by 64.5 percent (20 households), 61.3 percent (19 households) harvested furbearers, berries were harvested by 48.4 percent (15 households), 38.7 percent (12 households) harvested salmon, and 35.5 percent (11 households) harvested big game. Levels of household participation for resources ranged from a high of 77.4 percent for snowshoe hare to a low of 6.4 percent for wolverine and arctic grayling (Table 6). For instance, of principal species, the percentage of households harvesting was 74.2 percent for ducks, 71.0 percent for geese, 58.1 percent for pike, 41.9 percent for whitefish, 32.3 percent for king salmon, and 29.0 percent for moose. The overall participation of households in harvest activities increases if unsuccessful attempts at harvest are considered. Attempts at harvest were unsuccessful for at least one household in over 50 percent of the 32 resource categories (Table 7). The greatest differences between attempted and successful harvest occurred for the large mammal species of moose and black bear. Moose hunting was undertaken by 21 households (67.7 percent) although only 9 households (29.0 percent) successf ully harvested a moose during the survey year. Similarly, 14 households (45.2 percent) hunted black bear with 3 households (9.7 pcrccnt) 26

37 SCllOH3SnOH d0 33V.lNXM3d 27

38 harvesting a bear. For certain furbearer species, between one to four households were unsuccessful at their attempts to harvest these animals. TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS kiarvesting BY RESOURCE, BEAVER NUMBER OF PERCENT OF RESOURCE HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS Snowshoe Hare Duck (sp.) Grouse (sp.) Geese (sp.) Marten Northern Pike Muskrat Berries (sp.) Lynx Red Fox Whitefish (sp.) Mink Ptarmigan (sp.) King Salmon Moose Beaver Sheefish Summer Chum Salmon Squirrel (sp.) Crane Porcupine Fall Chum Salmon Burbot Longnose Sucker Coho Salmon Black Bear Wolverine Arctic Grayling

39 TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS ATTEMPTING TO AND SUCCESSFULLY HARVESTING RESOURCES, BEAVER PERCENT PERCENT SUCCESS RESOURCE ATTEMPTING SUCCESSFUL RATE Moose Black Bear Porcupine Wolverine Wolf Lynx Red Fox Ptarmigan (sp.) Mink Arctic Grayling Snowshoe Hare Grouse (sp.) Marten Squirrel (sp.) Brown Bear Caribou Land Otter Duck (sp.) Geese (sp.) Northern Pike Muskrat 48, Berries (sp.) Whitefish (sp.) King Salmon Beaver Summer Chum Salmon Sheef ish Crane Fall Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Burbot Longnose Sucker

40 HARVEST LEVELS AND COMPOSITION OF HARVEST Harvest levels (in numbers of fish or animals) are presented in Table 8, including the range of household harvests, the total quantity harvested by all households combined, and the mean household harvest. Whitefish and salmon were harvested in the greatest quantity by number. Harvest quantities were converted into pounds for edible species and harvests by weight for these species are presented in Table 9, including the mean household and per capita harvests and percentage of the total harvest. The community of Beaver harvested a total of 56,938.1 pounds of wild food during the survey year. By weight summer chum salmon made up the largest percentage (23.2 percent of the harvest), followed by king salmon (21.4 percent), moose (17.2 percent) and fall chum salmon (11.6 percent). Composition of the harvest by weight for 7 major resource categories is presented in Table 10. Over one-half of the total amount (56.8 percent) was comprised of salmon, mostly king and summer chum salmon. Big game species of moose and black bear accounted for 17.7 percent of the total harvest by weight, freshwater fish species made up 10.7 percent, and the remaining 15 percent included waterfowl, small game, edible furbearers, and berries. The average household harvest of edible resources was 1,836.7 pounds with a per capita harvest of 730 pounds (Table 9). Approximately 37 percent by weight of the overall community harvest was used to feed dogs (Table 11). During the survey year 20 households owned a total of 66 dogs. The number of dogs owned by households ranged from 1 to 17 with an average of 3.3 per household with dogs. A significant proportion of the chum salmon harvest was used for dog food, households reported using 95.8 percent of the summer chum and 97.9 percent of the fall chum harvest for dog food. 30