sustainability

Article Kelp-Fed Beef, Swimming Caribou, Feral Reindeer, and Their Hunters: Island Mammals in a Marine Economy

Katherine Reedy

Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Ave, Stop 8005, ID 83209-8005, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-208-282-2629; Fax: +1-208-282-4944

Academic Editor: Werner T. Flueck Received: 8 December 2015; Accepted: 19 January 2016; Published: 26 January 2016

Abstract: Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula residents have selectively introduced land mammals to their primarily marine based economy over the past two centuries. This paper describes these many introductions, contexts, and the longer term roles of these cattle, sheep, reindeer, and other land mammals in discrete island settings and the regional food economy based upon interviews in ten communities and comprehensive household surveys in eight of these. Caribou are indigenous and traditionally hunted in other parts of the state but are legally “invasive” in island contexts now managed by the federal government. Access to land and natural resources by Alaska Natives and rural peoples is regulated by state and federal agencies, but Aleutian residents have shaped their environment and engineered food sources to support their communities. This paper demonstrates that hardline approaches to removing invasive land mammal species will have human consequences and an integrated management policy emphasizing food security and conservation that includes reducing the density of these introduced species is most appropriate.

Keywords: aleutians; introduced species; invasive species; subsistence; conservation; food security

1. Introduction In March 2010, former graduate student Crystal Callahan and I were staying in a Port Heiden, Alaska, bed and breakfast working on a subsistence project when the telephone rang. The owner’s sister answered the phone and let out a shriek and a wail. News that a special education teacher was killed by wolves outside the small village of Chignik Lake while out running earlier that evening some 50 miles away on the Pacific side had reached across the Alaska Peninsula. People in Port Heiden knew the young woman, an avid runner, who had traveled to their community to assist their students as a Lake and Peninsula Borough School District employee. This tragedy was not a total surprise to residents. In ongoing interviews for our project, Port Heiden residents had reported being chased by wolves, stalked, losing their dogs, fear of losing children, caribou deaths, few caribou calves surviving, the burden of closed caribou seasons, and the difficulties in hunting wolves. At the time, caribou hunting had been closed to the local communities for several years because of low numbers and weak calf recruitment considered to be the result of wolf predation. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF and G) response following the teacher’s death was to conduct an aerial hunt and remove several wolves near Chignik Lake (Figure1). ADF and G had also conducted limited wolf-control culling operations on the Alaska Peninsula to help the caribou population rebound. Locals reported killing every wolf they could (the legal limit is 10 wolves per day between 10 August and 30 June within the predator control area). They also applied for ceremonial permits through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which allowed them to hunt a caribou bull for a potluck only following a death in the village. They supplemented the loss of food with extra moose hunts (competing with sport hunters)

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113; doi:10.3390/su8020113 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 8 Sustainability2016, 2016, 113, 8, 113 2 of 252 of 25

with extra moose hunts (competing with sport hunters) and flying in beef from Anchorage. More and flyingrecently in in beef 2015, from as the Anchorage. caribou population More recentlycontinued in to2015, struggle, as thethey caribou purchased population and shipped continued in live to struggle,reindeer they and purchased other animals and shippedto raise for in food. live reindeer and other animals to raise for food.

FigureFigure 1. Regional1. Regional Map Map ofof AlaskaAlaska sh showingowing relevant relevant locations. locations.

In 2014, a year after conducting a subsistence survey of Adak, Alaska, as part of a second Insubsistence 2014, a year project after in conducting which locals a reported subsistence difficulty survey hunting of Adak, the Alaska,island’s ascaribou part ofbecause a second they subsistence were projecthard in whichto find, locals the reportedAlaska Maritime difficulty National hunting theWildlife island’s Refuge caribou issued because a Draft they Environmental were hard to find, the AlaskaAssessment Maritime for Caribou National Control Wildlife on Kagalaska Refuge issued Island a Draft[1], the Environmental island next to Adak Assessment (Figure for1), and Caribou Controlsubsequently on Kagalaska killed Island the few [ 1caribou], the island they could next find to Adak on the (Figure island in1), 2015. and Caribou subsequently had swum killed to this the few caribouisland they and could refuge find staff on was the concer islandned in they 2015. would Caribou become had established swum toas invasive this island species, and damage refuge staff lichens, and “harm the wilderness character of the island”. Refuge staff also began a scoping process was concerned they would become established as invasive species, damage lichens, and “harm the for removal of cattle from refuge lands on Wosnesenski Island in 2014, a former Aleut village, wilderness character of the island”. Refuge staff also began a scoping process for removal of cattle homestead, and ranch near the current community of Sand Point in the eastern part of the Aleutian fromregion refuge [2]. lands The on animals Wosnesenski are believed Island to indamage 2014, wild a formerlife, habitat, Aleut village,and historical homestead, and cultural and ranch sites. near the currentThese plans community and their of execution Sand Point were in cause the eastern for alarm part amongst of the island Aleutian residents region who [2]. depend The animals upon are believedthe animal to damage resources wildlife, of their habitat, region. and Land historical mammals and ranging cultural from sites. beef Theseand dairy plans cattle and to their buffalo execution to werecaribou cause for have alarm been amongst introduced island to key residents island sites who fo dependr the purposes upon theof supporting animal resources the islands’ of theirpeople region. Landand mammals those living ranging throughout from beef the andregion. dairy Some cattle of these to buffalo ventures to caribouhad commercial have been intent introduced and mixed to key islandsuccess sites forand the others purposes are ofpurely supporting to provide the islands’food in peoplea volatile and marine those living economy. throughout All of thethese region. Somecommunities of these ventures experience had commercial extremely high intent shipping and mixed costs successfor groceries. and others are purely to provide food in Land mammals are thus subject to locally unwanted removal both by wolves and federal a volatile marine economy. All of these communities experience extremely high shipping costs for groceries. managers in the region. The local response in the Port Heiden case was to attempt to maintain Landhunting mammals traditions are using thus subjecta legal toexception locally unwanted available removalto them both(ceremonial by wolves hunts) and federaland later managers to in theintroduce region. The new local species response to alleviate in the food Port shortages Heiden caseand create was to a attemptreliable supply to maintain for the hunting community. traditions usingThe a legal response exception in the Adak available case was to themto protest (ceremonial the culling hunts) of caribou and until later it towas introduce scheduled new by federal species to alleviatemanagers, food shortages and then accept and create the meat a reliable donated supply to them. for the community. The response in the Adak case was to protestEvery theremote culling Aleutian of caribou and untilwestern it was Alaska scheduled Peninsula by federal community managers, has introduced and then acceptland the meatmammals donated toon them.their peninsula landscapes, home islands, or on nearby accessible islands, and uses Everythese introduced remote Aleutian species and for western food. These Alaska Aleut Peninsula and communityAlutiiq are hashistorically introduced and landcurrently mammals on theirmarine-oriented, peninsula landscapes, hunting seabirds home islands, and marine or on mammals, nearby accessible gathering islands, on the andbeaches uses and these in introducedberry species for food. These Aleut and Alutiiq are historically and currently marine-oriented, hunting seabirds and marine mammals, gathering on the beaches and in berry patches, and fishing both commercially and for personal use. They harvest salmon and other marine fish, sea mammals, shellfish, and seabirds. The primary land mammal, caribou, is only found naturally on the Alaska Peninsula and Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 3 of 25

Unimak Island, the easternmost island in the Aleutians, colonized likely through swimming across False Pass (Figure1). Calculated and expensive decisions to introduce land mammals to other locations have supported local people for two centuries. This paper considers the role of introduced land mammals in the region by examining their introduction and development, their local management, local uses and values, and the legal structure around introduced species. The purpose is to demonstrate the contribution of these animals in a predominately marine environment to community sustainability and to evaluate the vulnerable places and potential risks to communities due to their removal from islands partially or entirely within the national wildlife refuge. Historically, Aleut and Alutiiq peoples were foragers, directly harvesting from their environment and not producing their own food. Engineering their food sources by introducing species generally goes against the dominant foraging model of hunter-gatherers [3]. In some of these Aleutian cases, indigenous peoples are becoming pastoralists and herders, providing their animals with water, food, and protection from predators. In most other cases, the people have created a feral, wild land mammal hunting opportunity in which the foraging lifestyle is maintained. They have also created sport hunting opportunities to support their local economies. I argue that by generating new and consistent food sources, the people have greater food security, a healthier and more varied diet, valuable hunting habits and food sharing, and strong human-animal relationships. These relationships are passively supported by state government but challenged by conservation and preservation models of wilderness and federal policy initiatives that conflict with local realities.

2. Problem and Methods The few cases of land mammals in the Aleutians currently targeted by federal managers for removal are a subset of conditions in a broader region that contends with subsistence access issues, environmental risk to foods, and high shipping and travel costs to obtain food [4–7] but generally enjoys a variety of abundant wild foods [8] for those with time, skills, equipment, health status, and income sufficient to support a hunting and fishing lifestyle. Introduced land mammals are significant components of the abundance and diversity available. The clash of development and conservation, the mosaics of land ownership and interests, the uneven access to seafood, and the goal of food security variously impact the roles of these animals in regards to their hunters and users.

2.1. Development and Conservation The removal of animals as a conservation concern is part of an ideology that disallows developing resources for near- and long-term uses for humans. This ideology focuses on protection of habitat and the environment that expressly rejects human involvement [9]. Anthropological critiques of the conservation community frequently intersect in protected areas over particular species and peoples [10–13]. Indigenous groups also perform conservation; maintaining proper relationships with the spiritual and animal worlds is one way humans may participate in conservation [9,14–16]. Ideas of nature are very different around the globe; the dominant concept of nature as singular perhaps needs replacing with “natures” with their own identities and the multiple “sciences” we construct to explain them [17]. Political ecology captures societal connections to ecological systems, and specifically power relations in ownership, access, and control over land and resources [18]. Political ecology theories explore the role of competing interests in ecological contexts and demonstrate that political relations of hierarchy, access, and power are always involved in environmental perceptions [19,20]. Sheridan’s analyses of cattle ranching in the contested American West fragmented by urban sprawl and extractive industries, for example, highlight the complex nature of economics, ecosystem management, development, and government regulation [21,22]. He critiques environmental organizations and federal managers who bring “ecological morality plays with pristine ‘befores’ and degraded ‘afters’” into discussions of habitat conservation and land management. He concludes that, with advances in range ecology, “ranching is one of the few industries with the potential to be truly sustainable, and compatible, with other land uses” [21]. The essentialisms deployed in the creation of Wilderness and the philosophical Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 4 of 25 differences between urban and rural users about Nature find both environmental conservationists and ranchers perceiving humans as external or above Nature [22]. People living in the Aleutians find it perfectly rational to increase their food supply and diversity on their local lands. Their sense of the islands are as places to develop to support their communities where possible. Still “Federal agencies now have to recognize that native plants and animals have an inherent right to exist”, the “bureaucratic and symbolic capital of wildlife increased” [22]. These agencies are also interested in supporting consumers of wild landscapes, such as birders and wildlife viewers, which are a specialized, seasonal group in the Aleutians, and are infrequent enough to be considered significant contributors to the local economy. They do not contend with food shortages or extreme costs for basic supplies. People on the islands are left wondering who benefits from these actions at all.

2.2. Land Ownership and Management The mosaic of land ownership of these islands is complex. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 carved up sections of the islands for municipalities, regional and village corporations, state and federal lands. The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) was created in 1980 by Congress to combine eleven previously existing refuges and add additional acreage to form its current 3.5 million acres of wilderness. Most Aleutian Islands had been part of a refuge since 1913. A purpose of the refuge is to provide opportunity for subsistence uses by local residents that are consistent with conservation of the fish and wildlife, including managing and monitoring subsistence harvests. Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act defines subsistence uses as,

“the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for personal family consumption; and for customary trade.”

Federal managers have mandates to control invasive species on federal lands and restore native species. AMNWR personnel have taken a hardline approach to removing feral livestock as “the most destructive biological force against natural biodiversity on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge islands” especially on islands that are “entirely refuge owned and have uncontrolled feral, abandoned cattle grazing without any federal permit, grazing lease or collection of grazing fees” (Ebbert 2013). On lands that are completely within the refuge, the goal is for invasive species elimination and managers have the legal authority to remove them. From the Code of Federal Regulations,

50 CFR Ch. 1 Part 30—Range and Feral Animal Management, Subpart B—Feral Animals § 30.11 Control of feral animals. (a) Feral animals, including horses, burros, cattle, swine, sheep, goats, reindeer, dogs, and cats, without ownership that have reverted to the wild from a domestic state may be taken by authorized Federal or State personnel or by private persons operating under permit in accordance with applicable provisions of Federal or State law or regulation.

On islands with mixed ownership, the role of the refuge is more complex. At the time of the creation of the AMNWR, permitted cattle grazing occurred on refuge land on Caton, Wosnesenski, Umnak, Unalaska, and Akun Islands. Reindeer grazing occurred on Atka, Umnak, St. Paul, and St. George Islands. Only the Atka reindeer were “feral” at the time. Over time, fences were not maintained and the animals were not branded and the refuge managers were concerned about the herds depleting the range. Grazing rights and permits are seen as no longer compatible with federal management of these islands and are no longer issued. Cattle were removed from several uninhabited islands but wander between Native selected islands and a refuge island at low tide in the Sanak group. Cattle are “free roaming” on seven islands and designated “abandoned” as such by refuge managers Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 5 of 25 because of the absence of fences and regular attendance, the absence of herding and husbandry. They are destructive of natural vegetation and habitat and “unauthorized”, according the managers but their eradication is at odds with local communities.

2.3. Food Security This analysis emphasizes food security in this political ecology context. Food security is a critical area of investigation in the arctic where climate change and socioeconomic pressures are affecting rural people’s ability to obtain traditional, locally available, wild foods as well as store-bought options [23,24]. Food security in remote locations varying in accessibility must be at least partly place-based in which the food is produced near to where it is consumed to improve health, connect people to the land, and offset the challenges of transporting food. The Aleut people historically had food sovereignty, independently providing their own food by directly harvesting the lands and waters. The modern political and environmental landscape has commercialized many wild fish species and constrained access to local resources. A “food desert” is defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as an urban neighborhood or rural town without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food [25]. Aleutian communities have access to fresh and healthy food if they harvest it themselves. The affordability of harvesting many fish and marine mammals is constrained by a host of factors involving management and industrialization, among many [7]. The affordability of store-bought foods is low, and the items that are available are typically foods that store a long time in cans and freezers. Unpredictable weather, expensive and limited air service (two flights/week in most communities in ideal conditions) further limits food availability. In the absence of foods harvested themselves, the Aleutians are a food desert. As shown below, the costs of groceries overshadowed most other household expenses. Food security is having access to sufficient, safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate food at all times to support a healthy life [24,26]. Loring and Gerlach [24] identified governance and policy challenges as drivers of food insecurity that prevent people from pursuing food security on their own terms and controlling their own lands and resources. An integrated food policy that respects rural Alaska Native people’s complete subsistence economy is long overdue.

2.4. Methods and Data Data presented here are from two federally funded research projects addressing the current role of subsistence harvesting for Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands Area residents, the social map of food harvesting and distribution, and how subsistence activities are shaped by other socioeconomic circumstances in eight Aleut/Unangan and Alutiiq communities. These studies assessed this relationship, consequences of changing access, and the networks that facilitate sharing. Methods used were comprehensive household surveys and interviews in eight communities of all harvesting and sharing activities, income and expenses, crews and other social networks, and observed environmental and species changes to reveal community concerns (Figure2). Questions on the introduction and use of land mammals formed a distinct part of the surveys and interviews, asking about all species available, harvest quantities and methods, and whether users give or receive meat. The first project is a Subsistence Study for the North Aleutian Basin contracted by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (2009–2012). It was a comprehensive subsistence study of four communities (Port Heiden, Nelson Lagoon, False Pass, and Akutan) in advance of potential oil and gas exploration in Bristol Bay. The development was canceled partway through the project, but the data collection was allowed to continue. The second project was funded by the Office of Subsistence Management of the Department of Interior and focused on similar data collection, absent the oil and gas development component, in Unalaska, Nikolski, Atka, and Adak) (2012–2016). The research addressed the priority information need for harvest data of salmon and all other species for subsistence use by Aleutian Islands Area residents, methods and means by species, and traditional use and distribution practices. Current detailed information on all subsistence harvests was needed for management of these species. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 6 of 25 addressed the priority information need for harvest data of salmon and all other species for subsistence use by Aleutian Islands Area residents, methods and means by species, and traditional useSustainability and distribution2016, 8, 113 practices. Current detailed information on all subsistence harvests was needed6 of 25 for management of these species.

FigureFigure 2. 2. SurveyedSurveyed portions portions of of each each of of the the study study communities. communities.

Both studies involved interviews with key informants and comprehensive household surveys Both studies involved interviews with key informants and comprehensive household surveys with with all available households in each community. Using household and community level data, the all available households in each community. Using household and community level data, the studies studies documented subsistence harvests, distribution practices and levels, social dynamics that documented subsistence harvests, distribution practices and levels, social dynamics that contribute to contribute to those practices, mapped harvest areas using GIS, and described household and those practices, mapped harvest areas using GIS, and described household and community economics. community economics. The studies also investigated the role of wild foods and products in The studies also investigated the role of wild foods and products in household distribution networks, household distribution networks, access to subsistence foods (regulatory, obtainability, access to subsistence foods (regulatory, obtainability, socioeconomic and logistical), costs incurred, and socioeconomic and logistical), costs incurred, and resources (e.g., equipment, crews) needed in order resources (e.g., equipment, crews) needed in order to harvest. Surveys gathered ecological observation to harvest. Surveys gathered ecological observation data in conjunction with species observations to data in conjunction with species observations to evaluate climate change impacts on subsistence evaluate climate change impacts on subsistence fish and other species. Interview data are also from fish and other species. Interview data are also from two others communities not recently surveyed two others communities not recently surveyed (King Cove and Sand Point) but extensively (King Cove and Sand Point) but extensively interviewed over the past 15 years. interviewed over the past 15 years. Individual island cases are described using ethnohistorical documents and interviews with Individual island cases are described using ethnohistorical documents and interviews with hunters and community members. Aleutian residents described engineering their food sources hunters and community members. Aleutian residents described engineering their food sources with with culturally appropriate sources so they have a food safety net. The historical importance of these culturally appropriate sources so they have a food safety net. The historical importance of these developments provides a nuanced appreciation of modern subsistence traditional food and “customary developments provides a nuanced appreciation of modern subsistence traditional food and and traditional” use of wild natural resources in Alaska. “customary and traditional” use of wild natural resources in Alaska. Land mammal meat sharing was also analyzed for its strength within and between communities. Land mammal meat sharing was also analyzed for its strength within and between These data were mapped onto an inventory of land mammals that currently inhabit the islands communities. These data were mapped onto an inventory of land mammals that currently inhabit throughout the region. The overall relative contributions of land mammals were then weighed against the islands throughout the region. The overall relative contributions of land mammals were then the broader subsistence data in eight surveyed communities in order to assess their relative importance. weighed against the broader subsistence data in eight surveyed communities in order to assess their The replacement value was considered, along with general access and the costs of sharing. Finally the relative importance. The replacement value was considered, along with general access and the costs federal laws on grazing rights, permits, invasive species, are considered along with the impacts of of sharing. Finally the federal laws on grazing rights, permits, invasive species, are considered along federal actions. Federal managers and conservations were not interviewed for this project as that was with the impacts of federal actions. Federal managers and conservations were not interviewed for this not part of the funding, although phone and letter exchanges were made between the author and project as that was not part of the funding, although phone and letter exchanges were made between federal managers on the Adak/Kagalaska and Wosnesenski cases discussed below. the author and federal managers on the Adak/Kagalaska and Wosnesenski cases discussed below. 3. Results: Aleutian Pastoralists, Ranchers, and Hunters 3. Results: Aleutian Pastoralists, Ranchers, and Hunters Domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) were introduced in several Alaskan sites in the Domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) were introduced in several Alaskan sites in the late 1800s by Sheldon Jackson, the Commissioner of Education in Alaska, as development initiatives late 1800s by Sheldon Jackson, the Commissioner of Education in Alaska, as development initiatives and to prevent famine after low caribou populations and overexploitation by commercial whalers and to prevent famine after low caribou populations and overexploitation by commercial whalers left many villages destitute. The plan was also to assist Eskimo communities in transitioning from hunter-gatherers to become more industrialized, cash based, and economically secure [27,28].

Many other arctic societies were using domestic or semi-domesticated reindeer, which became cultural foundations in Siberia and Scandinavia amongst the Saami, Nenets, Koryak, Chukchi, for example [29–34], Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 7 of 25 but are not native to North America. Jackson brought reindeer from Siberia and indigenous Saami people from Scandinavia to Alaska to assist in the development of the Seward Peninsula herding project and teach the Alaska Natives to be nomadic herders [35]. Soon more Scandinavians than Alaska Natives owned reindeer, prompting the Reindeer Act restricting ownership to Alaska Natives in 1937. The Reindeer Service arm of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was created and managed grazing permits, herding activities, and range conditions [35,36]. More recently, the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, maintains a research program dedicated to the development and promotion of reindeer husbandry on the Seward Peninsula. The current 21 herders and 20,000 reindeer on the Seward Peninsula are members of the Reindeer Herders Association of Kawerak, Inc., the regional non-profit Native Corporation of the Seward Peninsula communities (http://www.kawerak.org/reindeer.html). These reindeer compete with the native Western Arctic Caribou Herd (Rangifer tarandus granti) for pasture and are defended and protected by their owners. The Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association has assisted with logistics and advocacy in the development of reindeer herds in several Alaskan sites, including the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and Umnak Island, and more recently in Port Heiden. In the Aleutians, the introduction of non-Native land mammals was first carried out by Russian colonizers. The Russians traveled with their own food on the hoof. Russian Orthodox Priest Ivan Veniaminov wrote of several communities and islands supporting cattle in the 1830s (Unalaska, Belkofski, Unga, and Kashega) and swine (Unalaska, Makushin, Kashega, and Cherni) and others’ potential in supporting cattle breeding and horses because of the terrain, low snowfall, abundance of greenery for feed, and fresh water sources [37]. Chickens, ducks, and goats were also brought in for food. He did not believe the Aleut people would have the interest to learn husbandry and labor to be successful, however. Sheldon Jackson’s early experiments in reindeer husbandry began in the Aleutians. He campaigned for support for his reindeer plan and raised funds to travel to Siberia in 1891. Jackson and Healy traded guns, ammunition, cloth, and tobacco for 16 reindeer and had them sent to Unalaska in the Aleutians. The animals barely survived the journey and were left on Amaknak Island to see if they could tolerate a winter. The next summer they had increased by two. Jackson and Healy then made more trips to Siberia to purchase reindeer for communities on the Seward Peninsula [35]. Most of the early introductions of species to Aleutian communities were as domestic animals for the purposes of furnishing people with meat and milk, income, and entertainment. Several of these sites were later abandoned because economic opportunities were appearing in other locations. In these cases, people were not moved off the land but consciously relocated around fish processors for employment, but the islands and the animals left behind remain in use. Local management of the animals varies from fencing them in in a few cases to free roaming in most other cases, and they are no longer considered domesticated. They are monitored for health and culled when too many. They are left to elements in most cases, a management of natural selection by the harsh climate. Faunal resources play significant roles in Aleutian life in diet and culture. The ethnonym of the tribe in Unalaska, Qawalangin, for example, means “People of the Sea Lion”. Analyses of the knowledge people have accumulated, the economics, and social and traditional activities involving fauna have not been carried out comprehensively, but studies often focus on the central roles of marine species of fish and sea mammals primarily because of their the traditional marine diet and because the federal and state governments closely manage and regulate their harvest (e.g., via the Marine Mammal Protection Act). The current inventory of land mammals shows a large range and quantity of introduced species (Table1, Figure3). The communities on the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island also hunt native brown bear, wolves, fox, and wolverine, but these are not eaten, except for one portion of brown bear. There are no other predators besides people on all other islands except for Unimak. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 8 of 25

Table 1. Inventory of introduced land mammals on the islands (not comprehensive).

Introduced Current Island Species Year Introduced Land Owners Livestock Population Notes Population (2016) Sanak Cattle 19th century, 1930s, 1950s Sanak Corporation, Sand Point, AK, USA 40 Horses 1950s Sanak Corp. Caton Cattle 1950s AMNWR, Homer, AK, USA 80 0 USFWS removals 1980s Long Cattle 1950s AMNWR Varies Clifford Cattle 1950s AMNWR Varies Chernabura Cattle 1950s AMNWR 90 0 USFWS removals 1980s Unga Cattle 1985 Shumagin Corporation, Sand Point, AK, USA 0 100 Simeonof Cattle 1880s, 1940s AMNWR/Native Selected 235 0 USFWS killed 110 bulls, moved 115 to Unga in 1985 Popof Bison 1951 Shumagin Corp. 180 Wosnesenski Cattle 1938 AMNWR/Native Selected 129 Akun Cattle 1965 Akutan Corporation, Akutan, AK, USA 16 1000 Sheep 1965 Akutan Corp. 400 0 Unalaska Cattle 1920s Ounalashka Corporation, Unalaska, AK, USA 50 100s Horses 1920s Ounalashka Corp. 1000 Sheep 1920s Ounalashka Corp. 400 Umnak Cattle 1790s, 1950s Chaluka Corporation, Nikolski, AK, USA 7000 Horses Chaluka Corp. 150 Bison 2009 Chaluka Corp. 12 Reindeer 1923 Chaluka Corp. 15,000 Sheep 1923 Chaluka Corp. 3300 Atka Reindeer 1914 Axtam Corporation, Atka, AK, USA 40 2500 Kagalaska Caribou 2010s AMNWR >16 >8 USFWS removals 2014 Adak Caribou 1950s AMNWR/Aleut Corporation, Anchorage, AK, USA 400 2600–2800 Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 9 of 25 Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 9 of 25

Figure 3. Locations of island and peninsula land mammals harvested by local residents. Figure 3. Locations of island and peninsula land mammals harvested by local residents. 3.1. Island Ranching 3.1. Island Ranching Cattle ranching have been tried in several sites (Sanak, Caton, Clifford, Chernabura, Simeonof, Cattle ranching have been tried in several sites (Sanak, Caton, Clifford, Chernabura, Simeonof, Wosnesenski, Akun, Unalaska, and Umnak Islands). Many of these islands continue to have cattle Wosnesenski, Akun, Unalaska, and Umnak Islands). Many of these islands continue to have cattle and there is currently one commercial operation remaining at the Bering Pacific Ranches at the and there is currently one commercial operation remaining at the Bering Pacific Ranches at the former former Fort Glenn on Umnak and Unalaska Islands. Fort Glenn was decommissioned in 1950 after a Fort Glenn on Umnak and Unalaska Islands. Fort Glenn was decommissioned in 1950 after a brief brief eight years as a U.S. airbase during World War II. Bering Pacific has leased the grazing range eight years as a U.S. airbase during World War II. Bering Pacific has leased the grazing range until until 2031. It is also the state’s largest cattle operation with an estimated 7000 animals. These cattle 2031.are free It isroaming, also the but state’s herded largest by cattlehelicopters operation between with breaks an estimated in the weather 7000 animals. and with These cowboys cattle are on freethe roaming,ground. In but October herded 2015, by helicopters about 2000 between bulls were breaks roun inded the up weather and taken and by with landing cowboys craft on to theChernofski ground. InHarbor October on 2015,Unalaska about Island, 2000 bulls then were loaded rounded onto up a andlarge taken livestock by landing carrier. craft They to Chernofski have been Harbor certified on Unalaskaorganic, free-range Island, then and loaded were ontoheaded a large to a livestock slaughterhouse carrier. Theyin British have Columbia been certified and organic, a foreign free-range market. andThey were are looking headed for to aways slaughterhouse to enter the in Alaska British organi Columbiac beef and market a foreign (just market.like the TheySitkinak are Ranch looking near for waysKodiak to has enter done). the Alaska organic beef market (just like the Sitkinak Ranch near Kodiak has done). The islands islands form form natural natural fences fences and and the the animals animals feed feed on ongrasses, grasses, lichens, lichens, kelp kelp and andseaweed. seaweed. The Theanimals animals are not are nottreated treated with with hormones hormones or orinocul inoculations.ations. The The harsh harsh environment environment and and rough rough winters naturally cull the weaker animals. Only the strong can survive the weather and the result is a large frame, robust animal with heavy muscling. Ranchers assume some risk in the operation. A pilot was killed in 2010 during a crash trying to free a bull from plasticplastic wrap using his helicopter.helicopter. They have also been evacuated during volcanic eruptionseruptions and cattlecattle havehave dieddied fromfrom volcanicvolcanic ash.ash. On SanakSanak Island,Island, aa rancher rancher from from Idaho Idaho was was hired hired in thein the 1950s 1950s to developto develop an exportan export industry industry [38]. He[38]. added He added different different breeds breeds of cattle of to cattle the island to the and island horses and for horses herding for and herding livestock and husbandry. livestock Informantshusbandry. nowInformants living in now Sand living Point in who Sand were Point children who onwere Sanak children recall hangingon Sanak a quarterrecall hanging or side ofa beefquarter in theiror side house of beef corridors in their in house winter, corridors and chopping in winter, off pieces and chopping as needed. off They pieces also as preservedneeded. They the meatalso preserved by salting the it in meat barrels. by Today,salting theit in island barrels. and Today, the cattle the are island owned and by the the cattle Sanak are Corporation, owned by the NativeSanak Corporation, village corporation the Native based village in Sand corporation Point. Hunters based from in Sand Sand Point. Point, KingHunters Cove, from False Sand Pass, Point, and NelsonKing Cove, Lagoon False request Pass, and permission Nelson fromLagoon the request corporation permission president from before the corporation going to the president island. Users before of thegoing island to the often island. include Users non-corporation of the island memberoften include Aleuts non-corporation from the region. member Meat hunts Aleuts on Sanakfrom the are conductedregion. Meat in groupshunts usingon Sanak fishing ar vessels.e conducted They willin groups take 4-wheelers using fishing and swing vessels. them They onto thewill beach take using4-wheelers the power and swing block them on the onto seine the gear. beach They using typically the power take 20block head on each the time,seine splittinggear. They and typically gutting themtake 20 on head the island,each time, but butcheringsplitting and back gutting at the them home on village. the island, They but distribute butchering the back meat at to the multiple home households,village. They especially distribute elders. the meat The to beef multiple is used ho inuseholds, a variety especially of standard elders. American The beef dishes. is used One thatin a variety of standard American dishes. One that is more customary to the region is called chicudax,

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 10 of 25 is more customary to the region is called chicudax, which are small cuts of meat that are served with gravy over rice. Poachers from the transient fishing fleet have been a small threat to this resource. The Akun Island ranch began in 1965 by a couple from New Mexico working in Dutch Harbor and a German immigrant friend they met there [39]. They applied to lease land through the Bureau of Land Management and took 400 sheep, 15 heifers, one bull, 6 goats, two horses, laying hens and a rooster by stock barge from Washington with another couple who had a leased grazing land on Unalaska Island. They lived and worked on the island for 5 years, adding pigs and other animals, but eventually gave up the business due to financial hardship. The Akun ranch is now run by a cowboy, also from Idaho, employed by the Akutan Corporation. The island has the runway and helicopter pad for accessing the nearby village of Akutan in which there are no flat places large enough to build a runway. Fences cut cross the island to keep cattle from wandering onto the runway but also for pasture rotation and letting the grasses grow back. The federal government has commented on the operation and “threatened to shut it down”, according to locals. “Archaeologists went out there” with federal money. “Anytime you take it (the money), there are guidelines”, one man said,“SHPO (the State Historic Preservation Office) threatened to shut us down. We need to fence off archaeological sites”. The rancher built a house in Trident Bay on Akun Island and moves between the island and Akutan. He employs men from the village to help conduct harvests and distribute meat to Akutan residents. There are 1000 cattle on the island, but it fluctuates between 500 and 1500 animals because of the conditions. “They’ll walk off cliff in whiteouts. Fishermen get them in their drags. We see them floating”, said one Akutan man. Another said, “When it’s blowing in one direction, cattle stack up against the fence”. They are seeking USDA certification of the animals to sell meat to other communities but so far the operation is for local use only, including cow bones for dogs in Akutan and Unalaska. The rancher attended a Sustainable Livestock Conference sponsored by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, in Anchorage in the late 2000s. Dubbed the “red meat conference” by local Akutaners, the topics focused on the production of healthy meat and a healthy ecosystem, barriers to success, marketing, processing, jobs, among many. The Akun ranch is described by villagers as “the #2 cattle outfit in the state”. An interesting side note is that the Akutan fish processing plant near Akun employs a number of immigrant North African peoples from the Sudan and Chad, including many Nuer and Dinka peoples, which are the classic ethnographic cattle herdsmen studied and described in the 1930s [40,41]. Plans for introducing elk onto Akun were being made between Community Development Quota (CDQ) group Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA) and the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, Alaska, in 2013 but has been abandoned for now. The intent was to manage the elk as subsistence animals and create diversity and economic opportunity for the people of Akutan. The Chernofski Sheep ranch at the western end of Unalaska Island has been in operation since the 1920s. It has had several owners and managers, most well-known are Milton and Cora Holmes (also from Idaho) who operated the ranch through the 1980s. Milton also brought 50 cattle from Kodiak and several saddle horses as riding stock (never consumed).The horses were poor as work animals on the hummocky tundra and helicopters were added for herding. Both of these populations have increased to about 1000 wild horses and hundreds of cattle near the sheep ranch of approximately 400 animals. The sheep ranch remains in operation for fleece and meat. They graze on wild grasses, lichens, mosses and seaweed. Its proximity to Fort Glenn means there is significant coordination of effort, including herding by helicopter and sharing resources. When Akun was operating, communication between the three ranches helped support one another [39]. Most of the cattle operations used federal wildlife refuge land and grazing permits were intially issued. In the 1980s, the caretakers of cattle on Caton Island, Chernabura Island, and Simeonof Island stopped paying the grazing permit fees. Fish and Wildlife deemed this a “conflict of regulations” because grazing has to be managed. The cattle were designated abandoned and killed, first by open hunting, then by helicopter where they were shot, moved to beaches, and hauled away on boats. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 11 of 25

“Corporation cattle” on Sanak Island walk over to Long Island and several smaller islands owned by the refuge at low tide (and referred to then as “trespass cattle” by the refuge) and may be a target soon. Cattle on Wosnesenski became the new target of refuge removal of its estimated 200 animals in 2013. The rationale explained by the refuge manager is that the grazing permit had expired and it was time to remove them. Refuge personnel held a scoping meeting in Sand Point to explain the “conflict of regulations” and met with former Wosnesenski Island residents, descendants of residents, and current users of the island to investigate the value of the animals to the community. The animals are simply “not permitted” from the standpoint of the refuge and they are financially benefitting only one Sand Point Aleut man who sells the right to hunt. However, the local tribes and village corporations support the case to leave the animals as is and allow the community member to manage their use. Refuge personnel stated that the local people “see this as subsistence, but this is not as Alaskans should see it” [42]. Uninhabited does not mean unused or unmanaged. A project focusing on the long-term history and use of Sanak Island proposed the concept of a land trust to explain the modern usage of the uninhabited Native Corporation owned land [43]. The island was abandoned in the 1970s when residents moved to new village sites where fish processing plants were established, but Sanak remains firmly with the contemporary local subsistence economy and as a heritage site with a distinct tribe and village corporation located in nearby Sand Point managing and using the island.

3.2. Food Security and the Diversity on Umnak Nikolski is the smallest community in the Aleutians (population about 25) and the only village on Umnak Island but has the most diverse land mammals and active programs to expand their choices. The island’s Bering Pacific Ranches to the east are a separate operation from the village of Nikolski, although beef occasionally is shared in the community. Instead, Nikolski’s Chaluka Corporation owns 15,000 reindeer, several hundred sheep, 150 horses, and a small herd of bison on the west end of the island (Figure4). Wild sheep, cattle and reindeer are harvested by locals for consumption. The majority of cattle are at the eastern end of the island near Fort Glenn and are fairly inaccessible to residents because of the terrain. In 1926, a sheep ranch was established in Nikolski by the Aleutian Lifestock Company with 3300 rambouillet and delaine sheep from Montana by way of Chernofski. The operation employed a Basque sheepherder and members of the local Aleut community as shearers and butchers. The meat industry was not profitable, given the island’s distance from markets, but the wool fleece market was more lucrative. Umnak was briefly nicknamed “The Wooly Island”. Umnak bison ranching began in 2008 when three disease- and parasite-free calves were flown from the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, Alaska, to Umnak Island in wooden crates. The main intention of the Chaluka Corporation and the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA) Joint Ventures was to add new opportunities for sport hunters coming to their Ugludax Lodge for reindeer hunting, wildlife viewing, and fishing adventures. They had their island grasses inspected to make sure there was sufficient feed to support the large animals, and they constructed a barbed electric fence to keep them enclosed on the south end of the island seven miles from the village. The main purpose is to create a trophy sport hunting opportunity and bring in clients who will pay for the opportunity. The goal, however, is for the meat to stay in the village. When interviewed in 2013, Nikolski leaders described how they need to build up the herd, since it is not big enough to hunt yet. The Shumagin Corporation in Sand Point owns and manages the bison herd on Popof Island that was introduced in 1951. This plains bison population also comes from the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, Alaska, and islanders occasionally bring in new females by ferry to diversify the gene pool. There are about 180 animals now. Interested hunters from the communities pay $250 for a chance to hunt. The Corporation will draw 13–15 names from the pool in a lottery system. Nikolski leaders are considering a similar model among options moving forward. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 12 of 25

Currently, partnerships between APICDA, the Chaluka Corporation, and a sport guiding outfitter Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 12 of 25 offers guided hunts for trophy sized reindeer to sport hunters paying around $12,500 per animal and $4500islands to is observe often the the biggest hunt (transportation challenge to these costs nothunts). included—travel This guide coordinates to and from sport the islandshunts on is oftenboth theUmnak biggest and challenge Atka. No to hunting these hunts). license This is guideneeded coordinates because the sport animals hunts are on bothprivately Umnak owned. and Atka. The Nomajority hunting of licensethe meat is neededoften stays because in the the village. animals Th aree privatelyluxury lodge owned. at Nikolski The majority relies of on the introduced meat often staysspecies in theand village.indigenous The luxuryfish for lodge its clients. at Nikolski Ther reliese is no on introduced“tourism”; speciesthese are and specialized indigenous hunters fish for itsseeking clients. a particular There is no experience. “tourism”; these are specialized hunters seeking a particular experience. USDA lawslaws preventprevent thethe sale sale of of the the meat meat so so the the store store keeps keeps meat meat in thein the freezers freezers for peoplefor people to take to astake needed as needed (including (including the anthropologists). the anthropologists). Local Local men working men working for “the for IRA”, “the whichIRA”, standswhich stands for Indian for ReorganizationIndian Reorganization Act and Act refers and to refers the tribe, to the hunt tribe, and hunt butcher and butcher reindeer reindeer and cattle and in cattle the fall in the and fall spring. and Inspring. 2013, In they 2013, took they six took beef six cattle beef and cattle five and reindeer. five reindeer. They chop They it up chop for stewit up meat,for stew grind meat, it, andgrind then it, takeand then it to take the store it to tothe put store in to the put freezer in the so freezer people so can people take can it as take needed. it as needed. There is There no charge is no forcharge this villagefor this service.village service. Mutton isMutton used less is used in Nikolski less in Niko becauselski thebecause sheep the are sheep at the are far southat the endfar south of the end island of andthe island hard to and get hard to. to get to. Nikolski has no commercial fishing,fishing, harbor or dock.dock. They They find find it harder to catch fish fish such as halibut and they are smaller when they do catch them because of the commercialcommercial fishermenfishermen coming “too“too close”close” toto theirtheir community.community. TheseThese landland animalsanimals areare anan importantimportantpart part of of the the local local economy. economy.

Figure 4. Nikolski horse in Nikolski villa village,ge, 2013. Photo by K. Reedy.

3.3. Adak and Kagalaska Caribou 3.3. Adak and Kagalaska Caribou As referenced at the start of this article, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge removed As referenced at the start of this article, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge removed caribou from Kagalaska Island in the western Aleutians in the summer of 2015 following an caribou from Kagalaska Island in the western Aleutians in the summer of 2015 following an Environmental Environmental Assessment process and public comment period. The caribou were believed to have Assessment process and public comment period. The caribou were believed to have swum across swum across a narrow strait from Adak Island [44]. An extermination team took the Tiglax, the a narrow strait from Adak Island [44]. An extermination team took the Tiglax, the USFWS vessel, to USFWS vessel, to the island where they recruited one local to help butcher and distribute the meat. the island where they recruited one local to help butcher and distribute the meat. They found and They found and killed nine male caribou and distributed 1208 pounds of meat to Adak residents for killed nine male caribou and distributed 1208 pounds of meat to Adak residents for an operational an operational cost of $71,000. The community was grateful for the meat but most residents were cost of $71,000. The community was grateful for the meat but most residents were opposed to the opposed to the rationale for the hunt in the first place, which was to prevent damage to lichens and rationale for the hunt in the first place, which was to prevent damage to lichens and other vegetation other vegetation and the establishment of a herd. Caribou grazing could diminish migratory bird and the establishment of a herd. Caribou grazing could diminish migratory bird use of the island by use of the island by changing the vegetation structure. Federal wilderness stewards are required to changing the vegetation structure. Federal wilderness stewards are required to manage for biological manage for biological diversity and health of refuge lands and waters. ANMWR managers fear a diversity and health of refuge lands and waters. ANMWR managers fear a step-wise invasion to step-wise invasion to additional nearby islands, analogous to the fear of the Japanese invasion of additional nearby islands, analogous to the fear of the Japanese invasion of western Aleutian Islands western Aleutian Islands during World War II. Alaska Senator Murkowski responded on the waste during World War II. Alaska Senator Murkowski responded on the waste of tax dollars and federal of tax dollars and federal overreach following the hunt. In September 2015, Alaska Volcano overreach following the hunt. In September 2015, Alaska Volcano Observers offered their helicopter to Observers offered their helicopter to do a flyover of Kagalaska. A local resident was aboard and they do a flyover of Kagalaska. A local resident was aboard and they spotted eight more caribou on the spotted eight more caribou on the island. This could be the total or a minimum number since it was island. This could be the total or a minimum number since it was not a coordinated survey covering not a coordinated survey covering the whole island. It is unclear how long these animals have been there [45]. The refuge will periodically return to control the caribou on Kagalaska. A small herd of caribou were transferred to Adak Island from the mainland in 1958 by the U.S. Navy for recreational hunting by base personnel and for an alternate food supply in case food

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 13 of 25 the whole island. It is unclear how long these animals have been there [45]. The refuge will periodically return to control the caribou on Kagalaska. A small herd of caribou were transferred to Adak Island from the mainland in 1958 by the U.S. Navy for recreational hunting by base personnel and for an alternate food supply in case food transport was interrupted due to storms, rationing, war time, or unforeseeable circumstances. The herd was managed at about 400 animals by Navy personnel. Since the closure of the Adak Naval Air Station in the 1990s, a small civilian community has formed and islanders continue to see the animals as a source of everyday food but also in case barges or flight service are interrupted. Adak supports local subsistence and sport hunters, Aleutian Islands subsistence hunters, Alaska subsistence hunters, and fly-in sport hunters from around Alaska and Outside. Other Aleut hunters travel there from communities throughout the Chain and the Alaska Peninsula to get their caribou for themselves and their families (Figure5). For example, several hunters surveyed in Unalaska are also hunters on Adak, and they make annual trips to get caribou for their families. They are also fishing for halibut, salmon and other marine fish, and think of Adak as a broader subsistence source for all regional villages. Subsistence regulations for Unit 10 allow rural residents to harvest with no limit. The small Aleut population on Adak moved there from Unalaska, Atka, King Cove, Sand Point, and Anchorage. Caribou from Adak gets spread around to other Aleutian communities and shared with family, friends, and elders. Other Adak residents include Iñupiaq families, Latinos, Samoans, Eastern Europeans, African Americans, and Whites, several of who were formerly stationed on the island with the Navy. The island has split ownership between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and The Aleut Corporation (TAC). The USFWS treats the caribou on Adak as invasive and does not actively manage them. Hunters still must follow current regulations for the Game Management Unit 10. Resident and nonresident sport hunters have no limit on cow caribou, but a daily bag limit of one per day, no more than two bulls can be taken in a year, and no bulls may be taken between 1 January and 9 August. The state sells bull tags to Nonresidents for about $350 each and the City of Adak is a vendor. The Aleut Corporation also issues land use permits. Guide services are not required. Hunters from Alaska and Outside help support the jet service to Adak, pay for unofficial guide services, spend money on hotels and rental homes, rent vehicles, patron the restaurants, shop in the stores, and occasionally leave meat behind. This activity represents a significant part of the local economy. Sport hunting opportunities initially brought fame and interest to the island. The island supported large caribou bulls that were reaching the Boone and Crockett point classification and the largest on record was taken on Adak. Boone and Crockett classified the caribou as “reindeer” until they had been on the island 50 years, and then reclassified them as indigenous caribou. Hunts after the 50 year mark could be eligible for their point system. Sport hunting has been in decline, however, because of no management of the herd. The “trophy” sized bulls have been hunted out recently by those seeking the biggest bulls (often supported by guides), leaving nothing large to breed. The population is overrun with smaller animals. Several Adak Islanders reported that the herd is not reproducing like it would if it were healthy, they have smaller or deformed antlers, they are not achieving the size that they used to, and are lighter in color than they should be. One man reported a green slime inside an animal he hunted, indicating an unknown health issue. They also noted double counting in the surveys because they move so much. One resident mentioned he would like to see a full time State Trooper on the island to better monitor the hunters. Locals reported having to put down animals that other hunters had wounded because they did not know what they were doing. Caribou are migratory by nature. When bounded on an island, it is reasonable to see why they would cross to other islands. In interviews, islanders joked that they should catch them in their subsistence nets as they swim across. These animals that “migrated” are likely the strongest bulls in the herd, according to interviews with islanders. “Don’t shoot the wrong ones,” said one local hunter. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 14 of 25

He noted that good herd bulls are better managers than any humans. Mature bulls would keep the

lesserSustainability bulls 2016 from, 8, breeding113 by fighting them off and establishing dominance. 14 of 25

Figure 5.5. JakeJake Jacobsen,Jacobsen, who who was was formerly formerly stationed stationed on on Adak Adak in thein the Navy, Navy, packs packs caribou caribou quarters quarters and rackand rack for his for sport his sport hunter hunter son Cole son in Cole 2002. in Cole2002. was Cole born was on born the islandon the in island the early in the 1990s early and 1990s returned and withreturned hisdad with to his hunt. dad Photo to hunt. provided Photo provided by J. Jacobsen. by J. Jacobsen.

The majority of animals are on USFWS land in the southern part of the island and are difficult to The majority of animals are on USFWS land in the southern part of the island and are difficult access without a boat. “By the time the out of towners are done, the caribou are so spooked,” said to access without a boat. “By the time the out of towners are done, the caribou are so spooked,” said one Adak local resident in an interview. “They have learned to stay at the south end of the island one Adak local resident in an interview. “They have learned to stay at the south end of the island because of hunters.” All the households that use caribou reported not getting enough for their because of hunters.” All the households that use caribou reported not getting enough for their needs. needs. “Not even an appetizer,” according to one Adak woman. When asked if she got enough “Not even an appetizer,” according to one Adak woman. When asked if she got enough caribou for caribou for her needs, another woman stated, “If we had gotten more, we would have needed it.” her needs, another woman stated, “If we had gotten more, we would have needed it.” Because the Because the animals are so difficult to hunt, Adak subsistence hunters wanted to get a permit for animals are so difficult to hunt, Adak subsistence hunters wanted to get a permit for reindeer on reindeer on the island, potentially compounding the impacts to the island.If the USFWS treated the the island, potentially compounding the impacts to the island.If the USFWS treated the animals like animals like they belonged there, they would likely develop a management plan for hunters to keep they belonged there, they would likely develop a management plan for hunters to keep the overall the overall population small and reduce the overall impact to the island. By treating the animals with population small and reduce the overall impact to the island. By treating the animals with a blanket a blanket policy of “invasive” they have neglected smarter policies that could meet many of their policy of “invasive” they have neglected smarter policies that could meet many of their wilderness wilderness goals. Their neglect has contributed to the current overpopulated and unhealthy goals. Their neglect has contributed to the current overpopulated and unhealthy situation. situation. 3.4. Feral Reindeer and Economic Development in Atka 3.4. Feral Reindeer and Economic Development in Atka On Atka Island, 40 reindeer were introduced in 1914 to create a cash economy once sea otter On Atka Island, 40 reindeer were introduced in 1914 to create a cash economy once sea otter hunting was banned. The business had mixed success until Atka was evacuated during World War II hunting was banned. The business had mixed success until Atka was evacuated during World War and the village was burned down by the American military to prevent the Japanese from using the II and the village was burned down by the American military to prevent the Japanese from using the village if they advanced east. The community was rebuilt by the Navy after the war and residents village if they advanced east. The community was rebuilt by the Navy after the war and residents returned but the reindeer were turned loose (Figure6) and now over 2500 head provide a source of meat. returned but the reindeer were turned loose (Figure 6) and now over 2500 head provide a source of The reindeer are hunted as needed. “When we want ‘em, we go get ‘em”, said one hunter. meat. They hunt by 4-wheeler and on foot and try to take two to three animals each. In harsh weather, “we’ll The reindeer are hunted as needed. “When we want ‘em, we go get ‘em”, said one hunter. They get the whole herd here rubbing up against the houses”. Meat goes to fill the elders’ freezers first, then hunt by 4-wheeler and on foot and try to take two to three animals each. In harsh weather, “we’ll get everyone else. Men who have day jobs will also receive meat from these hunts because they do not the whole herd here rubbing up against the houses”. Meat goes to fill the elders’ freezers first, then have extra time. “Every subsistence trip costs $500 in fuel and ammunition (for a group). We don’t everyone else. Men who have day jobs will also receive meat from these hunts because they do not go just to go. We have fun but we go because we have to. If we come home with nothing, it’s hard”. have extra time. “Every subsistence trip costs $500 in fuel and ammunition (for a group). We don’t They are also developing sport hunting on the island and have hosted “gametarians”, those who only go just to go. We have fun but we go because we have to. If we come home with nothing, it’s hard”. eat wild game, nothing domestic or farm raised. They are also developing sport hunting on the island and have hosted “gametarians”, those who only eat wild game, nothing domestic or farm raised.

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 15 of 25 Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 15 of 25

Figure 6. Old reindeer fences on Atka Island, 2013. Photo by K. Reedy. Figure 6. Old reindeer fences on Atka Island, 2013. Photo by K. Reedy.

3.5. From Ceremonial Hunts to Reindeer Husbandry 3.5. From Ceremonial Hunts to Reindeer Husbandry Port Heiden (population 100) has struggled with the closure of caribou since 2006. It is a dietary Port Heiden (population 100) has struggled with the closure of caribou since 2006. It is a dietary staple that “has become a delicacy” on the Alaska Peninsula because of closures to hunting and low staple that “has become a delicacy” on the Alaska Peninsula because of closures to hunting and low abundance, according to one local hunter. “Our subsistence life has changed a lot since the caribou abundance, according to one local hunter. “Our subsistence life has changed a lot since the caribou are are gone”, he said,“You can’t make stew out of caribou tracks”. Caribou and moose meat formerly gone”, he said,“You can’t make stew out of caribou tracks”. Caribou and moose meat formerly formed formed 62 percent of the diet in 1987 [46] and only 23 percent of the diet in 2009 [47]. Port Heiden 62 percent of the diet in 1987 [46] and only 23 percent of the diet in 2009 [47]. Port Heiden residents residents reported buying more store bought food since caribou hunting closed. “I’ve never seen so reported buying more store bought food since caribou hunting closed. “I’ve never seen so much beef much beef come into this town before”, said one hunter. “I used to buy zero. Now it’s about $4000 a come into this town before”, said one hunter. “I used to buy zero. Now it’s about $4,000 a year in beef”. year in beef”. He added, “I don’t even like it. We’re getting used to it”. Another woman mentioned He added, “I don’t even like it. We’re getting used to it”. Another woman mentioned her beef costs her beef costs as $600 for a box but $1000 for freight costs to get it to Port Heiden. She said it was as $600 for a box but $1,000 for freight costs to get it to Port Heiden. She said it was hard to digest hard to digest because she is not used to it. because she is not used to it. For the first time in ten years, Port Heiden was given the opportunity to apply for Tier II For the first time in ten years, Port Heiden was given the opportunity to apply for Tier II permits permits for a Spring 2016 hunt for caribou. The Native Village of Port Heiden’s November 2015 for a Spring 2016 hunt for caribou. The Native Village of Port Heiden’s November 2015 Facebook page Facebook page showed their excitement to “once again taste the traditional game of our people”. In showed their excitement to “once again taste the traditional game of our people”. In the interim years, the interim years, however, they applied for and received ceremonial hunting permits from the however, they applied for and received ceremonial hunting permits from the Alaska Department of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These permits allow the residents to honor a death in the Fish and Game. These permits allow the residents to honor a death in the community with a caribou community with a caribou hunt and subsequent feast. Hunters said they will wait for a few deaths hunt and subsequent feast. Hunters said they will wait for a few deaths and pool the permits, then and pool the permits, then take teens and children out on the land to teach them to hunt. It is both take teens and children out on the land to teach them to hunt. It is both poignant and disheartening to poignant and disheartening to have to wait for deaths in the community in order to participate in a have to wait for deaths in the community in order to participate in a traditional activity. traditional activity. In these non-hunting years, the Native Village of Port Heiden also began creating the Meshik In these non-hunting years, the Native Village of Port Heiden also began creating the Meshik Reindeer Farm. They received 29 reindeer by airplane from St. Michael, Alaska, in the Kawerak region Reindeer Farm. They received 29 reindeer by airplane from St. Michael, Alaska, in the Kawerak in early 2015. St. Michael has been herding for over a century and recently seeking new markets for region in early 2015. St. Michael has been herding for over a century and recently seeking new its animals and meat. Port Heiden had previously been a site of reindeer herding in the early 20th markets for its animals and meat. Port Heiden had previously been a site of reindeer herding in the century and residents wanted to bring it back to expand economic development for its community. early 20th century and residents wanted to bring it back to expand economic development for its A few herders from St. Michael and Shishmaref accompanied the shipment to train residents in Port community. A few herders from St. Michael and Shishmaref accompanied the shipment to train Heiden. They are raising herder dogs, building corrals and shelters, and training young men and residents in Port Heiden. They are raising herder dogs, building corrals and shelters, and training women to manage the operation (Figure7). Their intent is to keep the meat in the community, sell it young men and women to manage the operation (Figure 7). Their intent is to keep the meat in the inexpensively to nearby villages, and incorporate it into the school lunch program. community, sell it inexpensively to nearby villages, and incorporate it into the school lunch There have been setbacks. In July 2015, a grizzly bear broke inside the fence and killed 15 of program. the 29 animals. The cost of feeding them is high and they advertise via their website and Facebook There have been setbacks. In July 2015, a grizzly bear broke inside the fence and killed 15 of the information for sponsoring a reindeer at different levels. 29 animals. The cost of feeding them is high and they advertise via their website and Facebook information for sponsoring a reindeer at different levels.

Sustainability 2016,, 8,, 113113 1616 ofof 2525

This reindeer herding effort is a reintroduction from the early 1920s [48,49]. The U.S. Reindeer ServiceThis established reindeer herding herds on effort the is Alaska a reintroduction Peninsula from in the the early early 1900s 1920s [to48 ,help49]. Thethe U.S.communities Reindeer Servicedevastated established by the 1918 herds Influenza on the Alaska Epidemic Peninsula [49,50]. in the The early government 1900s to help established the communities a reindeer devastated herd in bythe thearea 1918 and Influenza employed Epidemic Inuit and [49 Athapaskan,50]. The government herders. The established animals suffered a reindeer from herd unreliable in the area range and employedconditions Inuitand volcanic and Athapaskan ash dumps. herders. Some Theof this animals herd was suffered moved from to unreliablethe south end range of conditionsKodiak in 1921 and volcanicto establish ash there. dumps. The Some Port ofHeiden this herd herd was was moved absorbed to the by south 1945 endinto ofwild Kodiak caribou in 1921herds to sweeping establish there.them Theup during Port Heiden rutting herd season. was absorbed The Alaska by 1945 Pe intoninsula wild caribouNational herds Wildlife sweeping Refuge them manager up during is ruttingconcerned season. for the The wild Alaska herds Peninsula and range National conditions Wildlife to support Refuge them, manager and has is concerned stated that for no the grazing wild herdspermit and will range be granted. conditions to support them, and has stated that no grazing permit will be granted. The goal of the village now is to create a “sustainable food source” that is cultural, natural, renewable, and healthy in a volatilevolatile environment. Port Heiden villagers are making themselves into farmers and cowboys and want to expand their operationoperation into other species like sheep and chickens.

Figure 7. Reindeer House, near Port Heiden, October 2015. Photo by Jaclyn Christensen. Figure 7. Reindeer House, near Port Heiden, October 2015. Photo by Jaclyn Christensen.

4. Discussion 4. Discussion

4.1. Human-Animal Relationships Despite refuge managers’ call to shift “how Alaskans should think” about these animals, non-native species are conceived of locallylocally asas NativeNative food.food. They They have been fixtures fixtures for several generations of Aleut users, the animals are eating an andd drinking the resources of the Aleutian lands to take on Aleutian flavors,flavors, and they areare supportingsupporting families.families. These animals are used for trainingtraining youngyoung hunters.hunters. At the times when caribou hunting was closed forfor KingKing Cove, Cove, Nelson Nelson Lagoon, Lagoon, Cold Cold Bay, Bay, and and False False Pass, Pass, those those residents residents could could take their take young their peopleyoung people out to Sanakout to Island Sanak to Island give themto give hunting them traininghunting andtraining experience. and experience. At the Niigugin At the TanasxaaNiigugin CultureTanasxaa Camp Culture on AtkaCamp Island, on Atka reindeer Island, hunting reindeer and hunting butchering and is butcheri taught asng ais traditional taught as practicea traditional to be preserved.practice to be Campers preserved. eat the Campers meat. eat the meat. The feralferal wildness wildness of of the the animals animals means means that theythat havethey tohave be hunted, to be hunted, not just killednot just and killed butchered. and Thisbutchered. is an important This is an partimportant of the relationship.part of the relationship. The release The of many release of of the many animals of the was animals not part was of not the initialpart of plans, the initial but people plans, learnedbut people that learned the animals that survivethe animals and survive even thrive and without even thrive human without involvement, human andinvolvement, turning them and looseturning would them not loose lead would to catastrophic not lead to die catastrophic off. Instead die the off. herds Instead have the plenty herds of have food andplenty water of food and returnand water to a feraland wildreturn state. to a Aleut feral hunterswild state. expressed Aleut hunters their love expressed of hunting, their not love just toof killhunting, for food, not andjust to subscribe kill for tofood, the and fair chasesubscribe principles to the fair expected chase ofprinciples most hunters expected in the of Lower most hunters 48. in theThere Lower are 48. many examples of introduced species taking on a greater cultural and nutritional significanceThere are over many generations. examples A classicof introduced case is foundspecies in Hawaiitaking on where a greater the most cultural dangerous and nutritional hunting is significance over generations. A classic case is found in Hawaii where the most dangerous hunting is on the Big Island for the wild Hawaiian cow. At the end of the 18th century, British navy captain

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 17 of 25 on the Big Island for the wild Hawaiian cow. At the end of the 18th century, British navy captain George Vancouver gifted the Hawaiian king Kamehameha four male and eight female Herefords from Mexico, who placed the cows under a decade long hunting taboo called kapu. Hawaiians had domestic pigs on the island but were not comfortable with cattle. The animals bred, broke out of their enclosures, and fled to the mountains where they thrived. The kapu was lifted in 1830 but the cows were established, and numbered 25,000 wild cattle by the 1840s. Mexican vaqueros were brought in the 1830s to teach the Hawaiians to be cowboys (paniolos), but there were too many cows to manage. They have since become large and feral, with 2000 pound bulls managing herds. Sport hunting operations with teams of several hunters with high powered rifles are needed to take them down. The Hawaiian Department of Land and Natural Resources considers them invasive species and wants them eradicated because they are damaging the delicate island environment. They shoot from helicopters to keep the numbers low. Local hunters see them as a traditional resource, producing up to 800 pounds of meat per animal, and want to maintain the ability to hunt them [51]. From a regional perspective, the Aleutian residents see all their land mammals as traditional resources, whether introduced or indigenous. Unimak Island (and the village of False Pass) was suspended to caribou hunting 2009 for conservation reasons after a rapid decline in animals, from thousands to hundreds in a short period of time. It is the only island with naturally occurring caribou but also brown bears and wolves. Most of the island is part of the Alaska Maritime NWR but managed by the nearby Izembek NWR. False Pass residents were concerned they were not able to subsistence hunt the caribou, since the small community has federally-qualified subsistence users who depend upon the animals. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game worked to develop plans to recover “indigenous” caribou populations that dropped to below 300 animals and only 15 bulls and low calf recruitment in 2010. ADF and G proposed to remove a wolf pack since predators were believed to be the cause of calf mortality and overall decline. The aerial hunts were controversial, and blocked by a federal judge. At the opposite end of the island chain on Adak Island, federal managers have worked to remove “invasive” caribou that are colonizing nearby islands by swimming there. But these animals are conceived of in the same ways by the local harvesters: they are a healthy, wild, harvestable food choice for their communities. One False Pass resident took an Aleutian wide approach in evaluating these cases. “The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing”. The Aleutian environment is a working landscape for the people who live there. Island residents describe other ways of engineering their own landscapes and waters. They might drop juvenile crab in their bays to seed them. They grind up morel mushrooms and spread them around so more will grow. They moved salmonberry bushes further out the chain where they are not yet established. The introduction of land mammals is a natural extension of practices they have been employing for generations.

4.2. Food Security Food security is a stated goal of every extant land mammal project in the Aleutian region. On Unga Island, for example, cattle were moved there from Simeonof Island for food, not business. The Alaska Food Policy Council focuses on food security in Alaska and emphasizes nutritional, social, biophysical, ecological, psychosocial, and safety dimensions [26]. In particular, they stress that, “In rural, predominately Alaska Native communities, for example, wild fish and game are important for food security, not just because they are readily available, but also because they are important to the preservation and transmission of traditions and cultural practices, for the maintenance of social networks and interpersonal relationships, and for supporting individuals’ sense of self-worth and identity” [26,52–54]. The Council promotes self-sufficiency and infrastructure to support local wild foods, agriculture and gardening. Introduced land mammals are not a specific part of their recommendations, instead fostering a forager and horticultural model of sustainability, but this could be an integral part of their policies going forward. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 18 of 25

SustainabilityIn our 2016 interviews, 8, 113 and surveys, wild seafood and marine mammal access was declining or shifting18 of 25 for every community. Several households throughout the region reported not receiving enough for availabilitytheir needs. because The reasons of commercial were many fishery and varied.bycatch. Islanders They reported reported purchasing declines incrab halibut from availabilityprocessors morebecause frequently of commercial than harvesting fishery bycatch. it themselves They reported [7]. Many purchasing described crab their from dire processors financial more circumstances frequently Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 18 of 25 fromthan harvestingthe decline itin themselves community-based [7]. Many commercial described theirfishing, dire whether financial as circumstances fishermen, business from the owners, decline orin community-basedmunicipalavailability leaders, because commercial which of commercial negatively fishing, fishery whetherimpacts bycatch. asthe fishermen,They ability reported to business harvest. purchasing owners, Recovering crab or from municipal processorswild seafood leaders, accesswhichmore negativelyfor manyfrequently species impacts than is theharvesting difficult. ability to itThey themselves harvest. also Recoveringdescribed [7]. Many wildlegaldescribed seafooduncertainties their access dire financial forsurrounding many circumstances species the is harvest difficult . ofThey endangeredfrom also describedthe decline Steller legalin sea community-based lion. uncertainties surrounding commercial fishing, the harvest whether of endangeredas fishermen, Steller business sea owners, lion. FiguresFiguresor municipal 88 and and 9leaders, show9 show thewhich amountsthe negativelyamounts of land impactsof mammalsland the mammals ability harvested to harvestedharvest. relative Recovering torelative other species towild other seafood categories species categoriesand otheraccess species andfor many other by species community. species is difficult.byThese community. They species also formdescribedThese a substantialspecies legal uncertainties form part a of substantial the surrounding local subsistence part the of harvest the economy local subsistenceand areof endangered particularly economy Steller significant and sea are lion. particularly in Atka, Nikolski, significant and in Adak, Atka, where Nikolski, they and form Adak, the largest where portionsthey form of Figures 8 and 9 show the amounts of land mammals harvested relative to other species thethe largest diet. portions of the diet. categories and other species by community. These species form a substantial part of the local subsistence economy and are particularly significant in Atka, Nikolski, and Adak, where they form the largest portions of the diet.

FigureFigure 8. 8. PoundsPounds usable weightweight reportedreported harvested harvested by by surveyed surveyed households households by by species species category category in thein the studyFigure years. 8. Pounds usable weight reported harvested by surveyed households by species category in studythe years. study years.

Figure 9. Total Annual Pounds Harvested by major land mammal species, introduced and native, in Figure 9. Total Annual Pounds Harvested by major land mammal species, introduced and native, in the study years. Figurethe study 9. Total years. Annual Pounds Harvested by major land mammal species, introduced and native, in the study years. In the eight communities surveyed, the project recorded 283 transactions of land mammal meat, 52 of which were shared between communities, involving 154 households and 17 communities. InIn the the eight eight communities communities surveyed, surveyed, the the project project re recordedcorded 283 283 transactions transactions of of land land mammal mammal meat, meat, Caribou, reindeer, and beef are the dominant types of meat shared between people. 49 of the total 5252 of of which which were were shared shared between between communities, communities, involving involving 154 154 households households and and 17 17 communities. communities. Caribou,transactions reindeer, recorded and beefwere areof moose the dominant and all occurr typesed within of meat Port shared Heiden betweenor between people. sport hunters 49 of the Caribou,and reindeer,Port Heiden and and beef Nelson are the Lagoon dominant residents type s(F ofigure meat 10). shared Figure between 11 shows people. relative 49 sharingof the total transactions recorded were of moose and all occurred within Port Heiden or between sport hunters and Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon residents (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows relative sharing

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 19 of 25

totalSustainability transactions 2016, 8, 113 recorded were of moose and all occurred within Port Heiden or between19 sport of 25 Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 19 of 25 hunters and Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon residents (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows relative sharing frequenciesfrequencies and and abundances abundances between between communities communities for forfor the the major major land land mammalsmammals harvested harvested on on thethe islands.islands. This This demonstrates demonstrates their their importance importance toto thethe greatergreater regionregion andandand beyond.beyond.beyond.

FigureFigure 10.10. FrequencyFrequency ofof landland mammalmammal exchangesexchanges recordedrecorded inin oneone yearyear inin thethe eighteight studystudy Figure 10. Frequency of land mammal exchanges recorded in one year in the eight study communities. communities.communities.

Figure 11. Movement of land mammal products in a single year between communities. The thickness FigureFigure 11.11. MovementMovement ofof landland mammalmammal productsproducts inin aa singlesingle yearyear betweenbetween communities.communities. TheThe thicknessthickness of the lines indicates the relative frequency and abundance of shared meat. ofof thethe lineslines indicatesindicates thethe relativerelative frequencyfrequency andand abundanceabundance ofof sharedshared meat.meat.

PurchasingPurchasing groceries groceries is is not not aa straightforwardstraightforward prpr processocessocess either.either. either. NelsonNelson Nelson LagoonLagoon Lagoon doesdoes does notnot not havehave have aa groceryagrocery grocery storestore store andand and allall all foodfood food isis is flownflown flown inin in fromfrom from ColdCold Cold BayBay Bay oror or KingKing King CoveCove Cove oror or receivedreceived received onon semi-annualsemi-annual barges barges thatthat deliver deliver to to Port Port Moller,Moller, aboutabout 2525 milesmilesmiles awayawayaway andandand ferriedferried overover toto thethethe village.village.village. Stores Stores in in the the other other villagesvillages (except(except Unalaska, Unalaska, which which has has several several large large grocery grocery stores)stores) areare small,small, containingcontaining primarilyprimarily canned,canned, dried,dried, andand frozenfrozen processedprocessed foodfood thatthat cancancan bebebe shippedshippedshipped andandand storedstoredstored easily. easily.easily. CostsCosts toto harvestharvestharvest are areare high highhigh and andand costs costscosts to toto get getget basic basicbasic supplies suppliessupplies are areare high highhigh (Table (Table(Table2). In 2).2). Unalaska, InIn Unalaska,Unalaska, which whichwhich has hasseveralhas severalseveral large, large,large, well-stocked well-stockedwell-stocked grocery grocerygrocery stores, stores,stores, a survey aa susu respondentrveyrvey respondentrespondent described describeddescribed some of somesome his costs ofof hishis for costscosts the year forfor thethe yearyear forfor hishis youngyoung family.family. “I“I burnburn 1010 oror 1212 gallonsgallons goinggoing toto WislowWislow (that’s(that’s $50$50 eacheach trip),trip), $25$25 toto BroadBroad BayBay forfor salmonsalmon andand maybemaybe $300$300 aa yearyear onon boatboat fuel.fuel. $600$600 onon crabcrab pots.pots. $2500$2500 forfor aa boatboat trailer.trailer. $16,000$16,000 onon anan outboardoutboard engineengine butbut it’sit’s alsoalso usedused onon commercialcommercial charterscharters forfor halibut.halibut. II shopshop

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 20 of 25 for his young family. “I burn 10 or 12 gallons going to Wislow (that’s $50 each trip), $25 to Broad Bay for salmon and maybe $300 a year on boat fuel. $600 on crab pots. $2,500 for a boat trailer. $16,000 on an outboard engine but it’s also used on commercial charters for halibut. I shop when off island at Costco for beef, coffee, butter and diapers, with three free bags on the airplane $500 at a time and two or three times a year”. In interviews and surveys, several Unalaska families reported that they did not receive enough reindeer from Umnak or Chernofski beef or lamb for their needs. Chernofski beef, lamb, and mutton can be purchased by people in Unalaska. Sometimes families will jointly pay for a side of beef. Users of the animals consider them a healthy option in a region with high rates of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. They talk about how natural it is, “as organic as you can get”, and healthy. Some villagers reported dislike the taste of beef because they grew up on fish, sea mammal, and reindeer. One Unalaska woman said, “I’m not sure about the taste. I need to get used to it.” Others tmentioned that the “kelp-fed beef is really tasty”.

Table 2. Income and Grocery Expenses in the study communities.

False Nelson Port Adak Atka Nikolski Unalaska Akutan Pass Lagoon Heiden Average Annual Household Grocery 6623 11,226 3206 10,247 8217 9647 12,357 10,409 Expenses ($) Average Annual Household Earned 76,449 53,123 40,753 108,924 53,957 72,175 76,884 84,605 and Other Income ($) Percent of Income Spent on Groceries 9% 21% 8% 9% 15% 13% 16% 12%

Subsistence Division personnel have given dollar values to subsistence uses, recognizing that it is not a direct value, “as subsistence products generally do not circulate in markets. However, if families did not have subsistence foods, substitutes would have to be imported and purchased” [55]. They typically estimate replacement costs at a conservative $5 per pound. Table3 shows estimates for replacing land mammal meat harvested in a single study year in each community.

Table 3. Estimated Replacement Costs for land mammal meat harvested in the study years.

False Nelson Port Adak Atka Nikolski Unalaska Akutan Pass Lagoon Heiden (2012) (2014) (2012) (2013) (2009) (2009) (2009) (2009) Land Mammals (Lbs Harvested) 4950 20,100 8954 850 1700 6810 1325 5238.6 Replacement Costs ($5/lb) 24,750 10,0500 44,770 4250 8500 34,050 6625 26,193 Lbs Harvested per capita 58 428 407 7 26 213 25 76 Replacement Costs ($ per capita) 287 2138 2035 35 129 1064 123 380

4.3. Habitat and Impacts Communities are aware of the effect these animals have on the islands in high concentrations. In Unalaska, people reported erosion and other impacts by land mammals. “Cattle and horses are hard on the island. We gelded the stallions so they don’t make babies. We can't drink out of streams by Summer’s Bay because of the horses. They wreck habitat. The more cattle we eat the better.” Unalaska received a USFWS grant to geld the stallions in the small wild horse herd near town because they do not want the problem of the western end’s wild horses, where there are several hundred, near the community. Conservation and management goals of the federal bodies see environmental impacts above all else. The AMNWR staff considers the use of introduced land mammals on refuge lands eating greens, drinking water, and tromping around to be “stealing” [2]. In this instance, the injured party is a vague, ill-defined victim in minds of Aleut residents. Valorization of the native fauna, flora, and fish, for Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 21 of 25 ecotourism, birders, and the “national interest” of “public lands” is a tough sell to people trying to make ends meet in a challenging environment.

5. Conclusions In an otherwise marine oriented economy, land mammals have been introduced to complement, not replace, marine fish and sea mammals, and to contribute to the diversity of food options for Aleutian residents. This food is now traditional, an important part of the seasonal round, and a critical offset to expensive food bills. Hunting the animals is an important part of the process. The classification of meat is blurred in some instances. Caribou and reindeer are treated together in the new Unangan traditional food guide. They are hunted and butchered in a similar manner wherever they are found and recipes are interchangeable [8]. People use grinders for beef and reindeer meat to make it easier for the elders to consume. The “cheap” food in the Aleutians is still overpriced processed frozen products with a host of nutritional consequences. Some see land mammals as healthier than sea mammals because heavy metals and contaminants are not magnifying in their livers, although comparative studies have not been carried out. The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) recommends land mammal foods as healthier choices over store-bought processed foods. Loring and Gerlach’s discussion of gardening in north Alaska poses relevant questions about the rural development bias for Aleutian land mammals. Regulations and management of rural Alaskan subsistence economies narrowly defines “customary and traditional” harvest and uses of specific species. They state, “ ... the etic definitions of Alaska Native culture have come to provide a source of power and legitimacy for these communities, but their static nature betrays the reality: that it is the strategy of flexibility, and special and temporal patterns of land use, that is most traditional to these peoples, far more so than the specific harvest technologies and even the particular harvested animals” [56]. The land mammal development has a similar result to fisheries in that there are no real production costs, except for the newest venture in Port Heiden. The animals are wild and free, supporting themselves and subject to the elements. Management still occurs in some locations, such as maintaining fences to keep the animals out of certain streams or off certain beaches and in hiring cowboys from the Lower 48 to improve and develop the herds. In most locations, they have been through a long process of learning from their mistakes and getting fairly good at managing animals. The genetic value of these cattle varieties in isolated and disease-free environments to the greater cattle industry could be explored. On Chirikof Island, for example, after persisting for more than a century with no apparent husbandry in recent decades, these cattle have become a naturalized species with a genetic structure differentiated from common existing breeds that may be important for conservation [57]. This unique genetic resource would lost through their destruction or removal. The federal public lands system has protected millions of acres of forest, wildlife habitat, and open spaces from development. Federal managers have acknowledged that they cannot take a top-down approach but must instead honor the federal laws by pragmatically enforcing them though the inclusion of the needs of islanders, their heritage, food resources, and economics. Charnley, Sheridan, and Nabhan [58] recommend a type of “collaborative conservation” in which the montage of land ownership and multiple visions for use and management are recognized and respected, and stakeholders are engaged in discussions to reach common ground. For many Aleutian residents, conservation is a vague justification for the removal of so much quality protein. Many residents who were living in the communities during those initial restoration kills by the USFWS in the 1980s and the relocations of land mammals recall a sudden shift in management. “All of a sudden these animals were hurting the environment. They didn’t have a problem before as long as they were getting their (permit) money”. It was an ideological shift at odds with the previous management and at odds with the local social systems and use of the animals to produce their own food and lessen their dependence upon consumer goods. The Western conservation model observes ecological impacts but is not tracking the social or Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 22 of 25 economic impacts to people relying on them. The federal managers are choosing the era in which to “restore” islands to. These existing animals and new introductions may demonstrate environmental consequences of poverty and food insecurity. If the invasive species are so detrimental to the islands, then environmentalists and federal managers should have a strong interest in improved local access to fisheries, marine mammals, and localized economic growth. These would be good for the landscape and their goal of “restoration”. They would target non-food species like horses for removal. The local interest in adding more animals and new variety indicates that the introduced species are desired and are having a positive impact alleviating food shortages and providing alternatives to local communities. Without these animals and the food they provide, there will be greater “distancing” of people from their own food and the sources of food, making them consumers [59]. The result will be greater subsidies to support human life in a challenging Aleutian environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would like to eradicate livestock on the islands that are entirely or partially owned by the federal government, but the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process has resulted in public and agency comments that have thus far kept the Service from removing cattle from a few locations. Local empowerment in this federal process would help account for the social and economic realities of the affected human populations and consider alternatives that allow access to the food sources they helped create. The State of Alaska has also expressed support for rural food security and island cattle and caribou. Community members might benefit from petitioning the Alaska Food Policy Council to explicitly evaluate the feral livestock situation in the greater Aleutian region. A compromise of reducing livestock density would address the legitimate concerns of the USFWS for erosion and vegetation damage caused by grazing and trampling while retaining a population from which a sustainable yield could still be harvested and genetic stock retained in the islands. Many Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge islands have already seen a benefit to seabird and waterfowl nesting through the eradication of foxes. The benefit of removing cattle on the few remaining federal islands with livestock would likely be relatively small, at potentially great taxpayer expense, and a reduction of local food security. Federal management policy that compartmentalizes animals as invasive and requires extermination or removal solves few problems. These marginal communities instead need an integrated food policy that places land mammals in a prominent position.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially funded by a study contract from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Contract #M08PC20053), a grant from the Office of Subsistence Management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (#12-450), and the National Science Foundation. The author wishes to thank the people of the Aleutians and Alaska Peninsula for their interest in the projects in the communities of Adak, Atka, Nikolski, Unalaska, Akutan, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, King Cove, Sand Point, and Port Heiden. The author also wishes to thank Crystal Callahan, Andrea Kayser, Liza Mack, Jake Jacobsen, Jaclyn Christensen, and three anonymous reviewers for their generous contributions to the ideas in this paper. Author Contributions: Katherine Reedy is the sole author of all drafts of this paper. The author is grateful to anonymous reviewers for suggestions to improve the manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had a role in the design of the study, but had no role in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

1. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Environmental Assessment of Caribou Control on Kagalaska Island, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge; U.F.W. Service: Homer, AK, USA, 2014. 2. Ebbert, S. Feral Abandoned Cattle Grazing on Two National Wildlife Refuge Islands in Alaska. In Proceedings of the Alaska Invasive Species Conference, Fairbanks, AK, USA, 5–7 November 2013. 3. Kelly, R.L. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 23 of 25

4. Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Jeitner, C.; Burke, S.; Stamm, T.; Snigaroff, R.; Snigaroff, D.; Patrick, R.; Weston, J. Mercury levels and potential risk from subsistence foods from the Aleutians. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 384, 93–105. [CrossRef][PubMed] 5. Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Pletnikoff, K.; Snigaroff, R.; Snigaroff, D.; Stamm, T. Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation in Terms of Ecological Goods and Services Versus Subsistence and Tribal Values. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 1261–1272. [CrossRef][PubMed] 6. Hardell, S.; Tilander, H.; Welfinger-Smith, G.; Burger, J.; Carpenter, D.O. Levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Three Organochlorine Pesticides in Fish from the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12396. [CrossRef][PubMed] 7. Reedy, K.; Maschner, H. Traditional foods, corporate controls: Networks of household access to key marine species in southern Bering Sea villages. Polar Rec. 2014, 50, 364–378. [CrossRef] 8. Unger, S. Qaqamiigux: Traditional Foods and Recipes from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands; Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2014. 9. Igoe, J. Conservation and Globalization: A Study of the National Parks and Indigenous Communities from East Africa to South Dakota; Case Studies on Contemporary Social Issues; Thomson/Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 2004. 10. Brosius, J.P. Common Ground between Anthropology and Conservation Biology. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 683–685. [CrossRef][PubMed] 11. Haenn, N. The Power of Environmental Knowledge: Ethnoecology and Environmental Conflicts in Mexican Conservation; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; p. 477. 12. Orlove, B.S.; Brush, S.B. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1996, 25, 329–352. [CrossRef] 13. Stevens, S. (Ed.) Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. 14. Dowie, M. Conservation Refugees : The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. 15. Hensel, C. Co-management and co-optation: Alaska Native participation in regulatory processes. Cult. Surviv. Q. 1998, 22, 69–71. 16. Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2012. 17. Latour, B.; Porter, C. Politics of Nature: How the Bring the Sciences into Democracy; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. 18. Wolf, E. Ownership and Political Ecology. Anthropol. Q. 1972, 45, 201–205. [CrossRef] 19. Nazarea, V.D. Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1999. 20. Robbins, P. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction; Critical Introductions to Geography; Blackwell Pub.: Malden, MA, USA, 2004. 21. Sheridan, T.E. Cows, Condos, and the Contested Commons: The Political Ecology of Ranching on the Arizona-Sonora. Hum. Organ. 2001, 60, 141–152. [CrossRef] 22. Sheridan, T.E. Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl: The Political Ecology of the New American West. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007, 36, 121–138. [CrossRef] 23. Gerlach, S.C.; Loring, P.A. Rebuilding northern foodsheds, sustainable food systems, community well-being, and food security. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013.[CrossRef][PubMed] 24. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C. Searching for Progress on Food Security in the North American North: A Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. ARCTIC 2015, 68, 380–392. [CrossRef] 25. U.S. Department of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Services. Available online: https://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/fooddeserts.aspx (accessed on 2 December 2015). 26. Meter, K.; Goldenberg, M.P. Building Food Security in Alaska; Crossroads Resource Center: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2014; p. 16. 27. Burch, E.S.; Krupnik, I.; Dau, J. Caribou Herds of Northwest Alaska 1850–2000; University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks, AK, USA, 2012. 28. Ellanna, L.; Sherrod, G. From Hunters to Herders: The Transformation of Earth, Society, and Heaven among the Inupiat of Beringia; U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2004. 29. Anderson, D.G. Identity and Ecology in Arctic Siberia; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 24 of 25

30. Vitebsky, P. The Reindeer People : Living with Animals and Spirits in Siberia; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. 31. Ziker, J. Raw and cooked in Arctic Siberia: Diet and consumption strategies in socio-ecological perspective. Nutr. Anthropol. 2002, 25, 20–33. [CrossRef] 32. Kerttula, A.M. Antler on the Sea: The Yup'ik and Chukchi of the Russian Far East; Anthropology of Contemporary Issues (Anthropology of Contemporary Issues); Cornell UP: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000; p. 180. 33. Krupnik, I. Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia; University Press of New England: Hanover, NH, USA, 1993. 34. Beach, H. Reindeer-Herd Management in Transition: The Case Of Tuorpon Saameby in Northern Sweden. In Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology; Distributed by Almqvist & Wiskell International: Uppsala, Sweden; Uppsala Universitet: Uppsala, Sweden, 1981; p. 542. 35. Willis, R. A New Game in the North: Alaska Native Reindeer Herding, 1890–1940; Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA, 2006; p. 277. 36. Simon, J.J.K. Twentieth-Century Iñupiaq Eskimo Reindeer Herding on Northern Seward Peninsula, Alaska; University of Alaska Fairbanks: Fairbanks, AK, USA, 1999; pp. 2585–2586. 37. Veniaminov, I. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District; Pierce, R.A., Ed.; Alaska History, No. 27; Limestone Press: Kingston, ON, Canada, 1984. 38. Maschner, K.L.R.; Russell, R.; Tews, A.; Wood, S.; Benson, B. Sanak Island, Alaska: A Natural and Cultural History: Presented to the Sanak Corporation, the Pauloff Harbor Tribe, and the Descendants of the People of Sanak Island, 1st ed.; Idaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State University: Pocatello, ID, USA, 2012. 39. Dodd, J.B. Cow Woman of Akutan; Publication Consultants: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2014. 40. Aradanas, C.; Sepez, J. Accommodating Cultural Diversity in the Alaska Seafood Processing Industry: The Transformation to a More “Welcoming Workplace”. In Quarterly Report; Alaska Fisheries Science Center: Seattle, WA, USA, 2009; pp. 5–8. 41. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1940. 42. Ebbert, S. Personal Communication with the Author on Adak and Wosnesenski Invasive Species; Reedy, K., Ed.; Notes: Pocatello, ID, USA, 2014. 43. Reedy-Maschner, K.L.; Maschner, H.D.G. Sustaining Sanak Island, Alaska: A Cultural Land Trust. Sustainability 2013, 5, 4406–4427. [CrossRef] 44. Ricca, M.; Weckerly, F.; Duarte, A.; Williams, J. Range expansion of nonindigenous caribou in the Aleutian archipelago of Alaska. Biol. Invasions 2012, 14, 1779–1784. [CrossRef] 45. Sharrah, D. More Caribou on Kagalaska. In Adak Eagle's Call; Adak: City of Adak, AK, USA, 2015. 46. Fall, J.A.; Morris, J.M. Fish and Wildlife Harvests in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, Alaska Peninsula, 1986–1987; Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Subsistence Division: Juneau, AK, USA, 1987. 47. Reedy-Maschner, K.L.; Maschner, H.D.G. Subsistence Study for the North Aleutian Basin; OCS Study: BOEM 2012-109; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Region: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2012. 48. Plattet, P.; Lincoln, A. Introduction to Reindeer Herding on the Alaska Peninsula. Alask. J. Anthropol. 2014, 12, 4–22. 49. Lincoln, A. The History of Reindeer Herding on the Alaska Peninsula, 1905–1950. Alask. J. Anthropol. 2014, 12, 23–45. 50. Partnow, P. Making History: Alutiiq/Sugpiaq Life on the Alaska Peninsula; University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks, AK, USA, 2001. 51. Ikagawa, M. Invasive ungulate policy and conservation in Hawaii. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 19, 270–283. 52. Fienup-Riordan, A. Hunting Tradition in a Changing World: Yup1ik Lives in Alaska Today; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2000. 53. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C. Food, culture, and human health in Alaska: An integrative health approach to food security. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 466–478. [CrossRef] 54. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, C.; Harrison, H.L. Seafood as Local Food: Food Security and the Role of Salmon Fisheries on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2013, 3, 13–30. [CrossRef] 55. Wolfe, R.J.; Bosworth, R.G. Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 Update; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence: Juneau, AK, USA, 1994. Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 25 of 25

56. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C. Outpost Gardening in Interior Alaska: Food System Innovation and the Alaska Native Gardens of the 1930s through the 1970s. Ethnohistory 2010, 57, 183–199. [CrossRef] 57. MacNeil, M.D.; Cronin, M.A.; Blackburn, H.D.; Richards, C.M.; Lockwood, D.R.; Alexander, L.J. Genetic relationships between feral cattle from Chirikof Island, Alaska and other breeds. Anim. Genet. 2007, 38, 193–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 58. Charnley, S., Sheridan, T., Nabham, G., Eds.; Stitiching the West back together: Conservation of Working Landscapes; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. 59. Kneen, B. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1989.

© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).