The 2001-2002 Harvest of , Caribou, and Bear in Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities by David B. Andersen, Caroline Brown, Robert Walker, and Gretchen Jennings

Technical Paper No. 278

Results of the 2002 Big Game Harvest Assessment Project

Division of Subsistence Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska

April 2004

The Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) statement for use in Alaska Department of Fish and Game publications:

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information please write to ADF&G, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfield Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203; or O.E.O., U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240.

For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-2440.

ii

ABSTRACT

This report summarizes the harvest and use of moose, caribou, black bear, and during the 12-month period from April 2001 through March 2002 in selected communities along the middle Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers. This was the fifth year of data collection in the communities of Galena, Kaltag, Nulato and Ruby, and the fourth year of data collection in the Koyukuk River communities of Alatna, Allakaket and Huslia. Information is presented on the number of animals harvested, the sex, location and month of harvests, and the percentage of households hunting, harvesting, and sharing each resource. The research was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through an ANILCA 809 agreement and carried out by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Data were collected through household surveys administered by locally hired research assistants in each community. In 2002, surveys were completed with a total of 392 of 597 households (66 percent) in the seven survey communities. Hunters in these communities took an estimated 364 moose during the study year. An estimated 520 individuals, or one-third of the area population, spent an average of 8.8 hunter days and a total of 4,573 hunter days in pursuit of moose. To provide a context for the 2002 survey year, data from previous years are compared and elements of variability and consistency are briefly discussed.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...... v LIST OF FIGURES...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi INTRODUCTION...... 1 METHODS...... 1 SURVEY FINDINGS ...... 4 Moose...... 4 Caribou...... 11 Black Bear...... 16 Brown Bear ...... 21 SURVEY COMMENTS ...... 25 COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY HARVESTS BETWEEN YEARS...... 25 REFERENCES CITED ...... 33 APPENDIX A. Survey Form ...... 34 APPENDIX B. Survey Comments...... 36

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Survey Design and Sample Sizes Utilized in the 2001-2002 Harvest Survey ...... 3 Table 2. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Moose, April 2001 - March 2002..6 Table 3. The Estimated Moose Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002...... 7 Table 4. The Estimated Harvest of Moose by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002...... 9 Table 5. Estimates of Moose Hunting Effort by Hunters in Surveyed Communities, April 2001 - March 2002...... 10 Table 6. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Caribou, April 2001 - March 2002...... 13 Table 7. Estimated Caribou Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002...... 14 Table 8. The Estimated Harvest of Caribou by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002...... 15 Table 9. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Black Bear, April 2001 - March 2002...... 17 Table 10. Estimated Black Bear Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002...... 18 Table 11. The Estimated Harvest of Black Bear by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002...... 20 Table 12. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Brown Bear, April 2001 - March 2002...... 22 Table 13. Estimated Brown Bear Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002...... 23 Table 14. The Estimated Harvest of Brown Bear by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002...... 24 Table 15. Harvests of Moose, Caribou, Black Bear ,and Brown Bear in Seven Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities, 1996/97 - 2001/02...... 32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Middle Yukon - Koyukuk Survey Area ...... 2 Figure 2. Moose Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002...... 8 Figure 3. Caribou Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002...... 15 Figure 4. Black Bear Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002...... 19 Figure 5. Brown Bear Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002...... 24

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Agreement No. 1448- 70181-0-J-236), Office of Subsistence Management for funding this research. The following tribal councils and offices also deserve thanks for approving this project and recommending candidates for local research assistants: Alatna and Allakaket Tribal Council, Louden Tribal Council of Galena, Huslia Village Council, Kaltag Native Council, Nulato Village Council, and Ruby Tribal Council. Special recognition also goes to the local research assistants who visited more than 480 area homes to carry out the household survey work: Henzie Williams Jr. (Alatna/Allakaket), Susan Esmailka (Galena), CeCe Nollner (Huslia), Charles R. Miller (Kaltag), Pat Madros, Sr. (Nulato), and Marie Dozette (Ruby). The daunting task of data entry and preparation of the survey data for computer analysis was expertly handled by Jessie Mallery, ADF&G Division of Subsistence.

vi INTRODUCTION

Accurate harvest estimates are among the most basic and essential pieces of information needed for the sound management of game populations. In Alaska, game populations are important subsistence food resources and harvest data serve to document and monitor levels of subsistence use as required under the state subsistence statute. This report documents the harvest and use of moose, caribou, black bear and brown bear for the 12-month period from April 2001 - March 2002 by residents of seven interior Alaska communities. Surveyed communities for 2002 included Alatna, Allakaket, Galena, Huslia, Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby. Bettles, Evansville, and Tanana have been included in this research effort in prior years but did not participate in the 2002 survey. Locations of these communities are shown in Figure 1. This was the fifth year of data collection in the middle Yukon River communities of Galena, Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby, and the fourth year of data collection in the Koyukuk River communities of Alatna, Allakaket, and Huslia. Findings from previous surveys were reported in Andersen, et. al. 1998, Andersen et. al. 2000, Andersen et al. 2001 and are compared with 2002 findings in the final section of this report.

METHODS

Community approval for the survey project was obtained from the village or tribal council in each community prior to beginning the research effort. A two-page survey form was used to collect information from hunters and household heads. A copy of the survey form is included as Appendix A. In each community, a local resident recommended by the local Tribal Council was hired and trained as a research assistant to administer the survey using face-to-face interviews. Research assistants for the 2001-2002 survey year are identified in the Acknowledgements. Research assistants compiled current household lists for each community immediately prior to the survey effort. A total of 597 households were identified in the seven communities. Surveys were completed with 392 households (66 percent) as shown in Table 1. Two sampling strategies were used depending on community size. In the relatively large community of Galena, a random sample of 103 households (47 percent) was selected for

1 Figure 1. Map of Middle Yukon - Koyukuk Survey Area

2 survey. Of those, only 44 were successfully surveyed for a contact rate of 20 percent. This small sample size in Galena raises some concerns about how well the data collected represents the total community harvest. For example, the general harvest ticket reporting system documents some winter moose harvests in Galena while the subsistence survey does not. In the six smaller communities, a census of all occupied households was attempted. In the six communities where a census was attempted (Table 1), surveys were completed with 348 of 377 households for a contact rate of 92 percent. Surveys were administered during the month of April 2002. Results from surveyed households were extrapolated to unsurveyed households to derive total harvest estimates for each community. Fractions of animals result from the expansion procedure and are rounded to the nearest tenth in accompanying report tables.

Table 1. Survey Design and Sample Sizes Utilized in the 2001-2002 Harvest Survey Table 1. Survey Design and Sample Sizes Utilized in the 2001 - 2002 Harvest Survey.

Total Household Number of Percent of Sampled Estimated Type of Number of Sample Surveyed Households Unable to Declined Household Community Community Design Households Goal Households Sampled Contact Survey Population Population Alatna Census 11 11 11 100.00% 0 0 26 26 Allakaket Census 61 61 61 100.00% 0 0 172 172 Bettles n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Evansville n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Galena Random 220 103 44 20.00% 44 3 133 665 Huslia Census 85 87 83 97.65% 2 0 254 260 Kaltag Census 66 67 66 100.00% 0 0 223 223 Nulato Census 80 83 70 87.50% 9 1 278 318 Ruby Census 74 84 57 77.03% 11 6 172 223 Tanana n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

All Communities 597 392 65.66% 66 10 1258 1887.13

The data set is consistent with previous survey years with two exceptions. First, previous surveys included ten survey communities and this survey includes only seven. Identification and hiring of local research assistants did not occur in time to meet survey deadlines in three communities and as a result, the 2001-2002 survey does not include information for the communities of Bettles, Evansville, or Tanana. Second, the 2001-2002 data set for Huslia includes moose harvest and use information, but due to a misunderstanding of survey procedures by the local research assistant, no data were collected on the harvest or

3 use of caribou or bear. This is a significant omission because Huslia has consistently ranked among the more active harvesters of both caribou and bears on previous surveys. Multi-year comparisons of caribou, black bear, and brown bear harvests later in this report will exclude Huslia and include only the six communities for which caribou and bear data were collected this year (Alatna, Allakaket, Galena, Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby).

SURVEY FINDINGS

Moose

Moose was the most widely used big game animal in all seven communities. Overall, 93% of all households used moose, 66 percent attempted to harvest moose, and 47 percent of all households harvested one or more moose (Table 2). The percentage of households using moose ranged from 79 percent in Ruby to 100 percent in Allakaket and Huslia. The percentage of households harvesting moose ranged from 38 percent in Kaltag to 59 percent in Allakaket. An estimated 364 moose were taken by hunters in the seven survey communities (Table 2). The total moose harvest consisted of 265 bulls (73 percent), 95 cows (26 percent), and four moose of unreported sex (Table 3). Moose were harvested in all months of the year except for May and June (Fig. 2). September accounted for 281 moose, or 77 percent of the overall harvest, and consisted of mostly (88 percent) bulls. The late winter hunting season in February and March accounted for an additional 49 moose or 14 percent of the overall harvest and consisted of 73 percent cows (Fig 2). Locations of moose harvests for each community are summarized by game management unit (GMU), sub unit, and uniform coding unit (UCU) in Table 4. Of the 364 moose harvested by the seven survey communities, 235 (65 percent) were taken in GMU 21, 128 (35 percent) were taken in GMU 24. Hunters in the seven communities reported harvesting moose in a total of 30 UCUs. The communities of Alatna and Huslia utilized the least number of UCUs for moose hunting during the 2001-2002 survey year, reporting harvests in just 1 and 3 UCUs, respectively. In contrast to this very localized hunting pattern, hunters in the communities of Nulato and Galena reported moose harvests in 10 and 8 UCUs, respectively.

4 In recent years, guiding operations catering to trophy hunters have been based out of Huslia and Galena. These operations have reportedly provided additional moose meat for use by area households that is not accounted for in the harvest reported by local hunters. In 1999- 2000, area guides estimated they had donated the meat of about 25 animals to local communities. It should be noted that the number of moose taken by local hunters would increase somewhat if this source of meat was unavailable. The number of moose provided by guiding operations for local use during the 2001-2002 survey year is uncertain but was probably lower than the 1999-2000 levels reported by guides due to recent restrictions that have limited the number of permits available to trophy hunters. The survey provides a means of measuring moose hunting effort by asking households to estimate the number of days each hunter in that household spent hunting for moose. These data are presented in Table 5. An estimated 520 individuals, or one-third of the area population, spent a total of 4,573 hunter-days in pursuit of moose. To put this number of hunter-days in perspective, it is equivalent to a period of nearly 12.5 years, and is a clear testament to the importance of moose as a food resource in this region. For all the communities, successful hunters spent an average of 8.9 hunter days for each moose harvested. Hunters in Huslia and Kaltag reported the lowest number of hunter days per harvested moose with 5 and 6.3 hunter days respectively. Hunters in Alatna and Ruby had the highest number of hunter days per harvested moose at 14.7 and 22.4 hunter days respectively. While many factors contribute to the duration and success of individual and household moose hunting efforts, these data provide a useful index of relative moose densities throughout the study area when viewed on a community-wide basis.

5 Table 2. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Moose, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 2. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Moose, April 2001- March 2002.

Participation of Households Estimated Harvest Levels Estimated Hunter Information 95% Confidence Limit Use Att Hrv Rec Gav Per of Total Harvest Total Successful Community (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Total Household Person % Low* High Number % of Pop Hvst/Hunter Number Hvst/Hunter All 92.65 66.13 47.21 54.56 29.25 364.2 0.61 0.19 10.22 327.00 401.44 520 27.56 0.70 312 1.17 Alatna 90.91 54.55 45.45 63.64 27.27 6.0 0.55 0.23 6.00 6.00 8 30.77 0.75 6 1.00 Allakaket 100.00 65.57 59.02 77.05 36.07 35.0 0.57 0.20 35.00 35.00 43 25.00 0.81 35 1.00 Galena 93.18 61.36 47.73 47.73 20.45 120.0 0.55 0.18 31.26 82.48 157.52 145 21.80 0.83 120 1.00 Huslia 100.00 69.88 57.83 49.40 43.37 88.1 1.04 0.34 4.02 86.00 91.61 68 25.98 1.30 50 1.76 Kaltag 84.85 56.06 37.88 53.03 33.33 43.0 0.65 0.19 43.00 43.00 60 26.91 0.72 30 1.43 Nulato 97.14 78.57 41.43 70.00 32.86 42.3 0.53 0.13 10.77 37.73 46.84 93 29.14 0.46 41 1.03 Ruby 78.95 73.68 38.60 45.61 26.32 29.9 0.40 0.13 16.70 24.87 34.85 104 46.51 0.29 30 1.00

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

6 Table 3. The Estimated Moose Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 3. The Estimated Moose Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001- March 2002. December November September Unknown February October January August March Total June April May July Community Sex All All 12.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.1 281.0 1.0 2.0 11.3 4.0 29.8 19.4 0.0 364.2 Female 11.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.1 30.4 0.0 1.0 10.2 3.0 19.5 16.4 0.0 95.3 Male 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 247.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.3 2.0 0.0 264.6 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.3 Alatna All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Allakaket All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Galena All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Huslia All 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 1.0 11.3 2.0 2.0 17.4 0.0 88.1 Female 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 10.2 2.0 2.0 16.4 0.0 42.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Kaltag All 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 27.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 43.0 Female 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Male 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 32.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nulato All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 42.3 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 13.7 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 26.3 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Ruby All 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 29.9 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 27.3 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

7 Figure 2. Moose Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002.

Figure 2. Moose Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001-March 2002.

300

247 250 Female Male d 200

150

100 Moose Harveste

50 30 20 16 11 10 10 1 0000001 2 0 11111 3 2 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

8 Table 4. The Estimated Harvest of Moose by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 4. The Estimated Harvest of Moose by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002.

Study Community GMU / UCU Alatna Allakaket Bettles Evansville Galena Huslia Kaltag Nulato Ruby Tanana Total Percent Grand Total 6.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 88.1 43.0 42.3 29.9 0.0 364.2 100.0% Total GMU 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 1.0 43.0 42.3 28.6 0.0 234.9 64.5% Subtotal GMU 21A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.4% 21A 0701 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.4% Subtotal GMU 21B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.5 1.8% 21B 0101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.5 1.8% Subtotal GMU 21D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.0 1.0 42.0 42.3 20.8 0.0 226.1 62.1% 21D 0101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 1.9% 21D 0103 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 2.2% 21D 0104 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 39.9 10.9% 21D 0105 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3% 21D 0106 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 4.8% 21D 0201 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3% 21D 0301 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 16.1 4.4% 21D 0302 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 13.4 3.7% 21D 0303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 19.2% 21D 0304 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 7.6 2.1% 21D 0305 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 11.7 3.2% 21D 0501 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.6% 21D 0701 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.5 1.8% 21D 0801 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 7.3 2.0% 21D 0802 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.2% 21D 0803 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3% 21D 0804 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.4% 21D 0901 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3% 21D 1101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3% Subtotal GMU 21E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3% 21E 0202 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3% Total GMU 24 6.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.0 35.2% Subtotal GMU 24Z 6.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.0 35.2% 24Z 0101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 23.6% 24Z 0501 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3% 24Z 0701 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 4.1% 24Z 0702 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.4% 24Z 0801 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.6% 24Z 0901 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 1.9% 24Z 0903 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5% 24Z 1101 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.6% Outside Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.4%

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2001.

9 Table 5. Estimates of Moose Hunting Effort by Hunters in Surveyed Communities, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 5. Estimates of Moose Hunting Effort by Hunters in Surveyed Communities, April 2001 - March 2002.

All Hunters Successful (Harvesting) Households

Est. Total Number Estimated Hunting Number Estimated Hunting HuntingDays/ Community Harvest of Hunters Days Hunted Days/Hunter of Hunters Days Hunted Days/Hunter Moose Hvstd.

All Communities 364.2 520.0 4572.9 8.8 380.8 3254.1 8.5 8.9 Alatna 6.0 8.0 90.0 11.3 7.0 88.0 12.6 14.7 Allakaket 35.0 43.0 509.0 11.8 38.0 475.0 12.5 13.6 Galena 120.0 145.0 1150.0 7.9 120.0 890.0 7.4 7.4 Huslia 88.1 67.6 571.4 8.5 57.3 444.5 7.8 5.0 Kaltag 43.0 60.0 384.0 6.4 42.0 272.0 6.5 6.3 Nulato 42.3 92.6 819.4 8.9 50.3 416.0 8.3 9.8 Ruby 29.9 103.9 1049.0 10.1 66.2 668.6 10.1 22.4

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2001

10 Caribou

The 2002 survey resulted in an estimated total harvest of just nine caribou—all taken by hunters in the single community of Allakaket (Table 6.). While previous studies have shown that caribou are inaccessible to hunters in the middle Yukon and Koyukuk region in some years, several factors relating to survey methodology need to be examined when considering the 2002 survey data. First, as noted above, caribou data were erroneously omitted from the survey questions in Huslia. Huslia is typically the largest harvester of caribou among all the communities surveyed. It is reasonable to assume that if caribou were available to hunters south and west of Allakaket, as the 2002 data seem to indicate, they were probably available to hunters based out of Huslia as well. Second, we know from previous surveys that a few Galena hunters often travel long distances to harvest caribou. Since the number of caribou hunters in Galena is typically small, the unusually small sample size for Galena in 2002 (20 percent of all households) may have resulted in caribou hunters being missed by the survey. The estimate of almost 5 percent of Galena households using caribou meat suggests that at least some caribou may have been harvested by Galena households that were not among those surveyed. With these factors in mind, the actual number of caribou taken by hunters in the survey region likely exceeded the nine animals estimated by the 2002 survey. In the six communities where caribou data were collected, 6 percent of all households used caribou, while less than 1 percent attempted to harvest or actually harvested one or more caribou (Table 6). The percentage of households using caribou ranged from less than 2 percent in Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby, to 27 percent in Alatna. The percentage of households harvesting caribou ranged from 0 percent in Alatna, Kaltag, Galena, Ruby, and Nulato, to 7 percent in Allakaket (Table 6). Use of caribou by 27 percent of the households in Alatna, even though no caribou were harvested by hunters from that community, is attributed to sharing of resources between households in nearby Allakaket. Figure 3 shows the caribou harvest by sex and month. The 2001-2002 caribou harvest consisted of six bulls (67 percent) and three cows (33 percent) (Table 7), with the majority (89 percent) of those animals being taken during the month of April. The locations of caribou harvests are summarized by GMU, sub unit, and UCU in Table 8. Of the nine caribou harvested by hunters in surveyed communities during the 2001-2002 survey period, six (67

11 percent) were taken in two UCUs located near Allakaket in GMU 24. The three remaining caribou (33 percent) were taken in GMU 23. Caribou harvests were reported in a total of 3 UCUs.

12 Table 6. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Caribou, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 6. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Caribou, April 2001- March 2002.

Participation of Households Estimated Harvest Levels Estimated Hunter Information 95% Confidence Limit Use Att Hrv Rec Gav Per of Total Harvest Total Successful Community (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Total Household Person % Low* High Number % of Pop Hvst/Hunter Number Hvst/Hunter All 5.75 0.78 0.78 4.97 0.64 9.0 0.02 0.01 0.00 9.00 9.00 3 0.18 3.00 3 3.00 Alatna 27.27 0.00 0.00 27.27 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Allakaket 21.31 6.56 6.56 14.75 3.28 9.0 0.15 0.05 9.00 9.00 3 1.74 3.00 3 3.00 Galena 4.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Huslia n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kaltag 1.52 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Nulato 1.43 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Ruby 1.75 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.75 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

13 Table 7. Estimated Caribou Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 7. Estimated Caribou Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001-March 2002. December November September Unknown February October January August March Total June April May July Community Sex All All 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Female 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Male 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alatna All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Allakaket All 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Female 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Male 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Galena All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Huslia All n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Female n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Male n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unknown n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kaltag All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nulato All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ruby All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

14 Figure 3. Caribou Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002.

Figure 3. Caribou Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001-March 2002.

6

5 5 Female Male d 4

3 3

2 Caribou Harveste

1 1

00000000000000000 0000 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

Table 8. The Estimated Harvest of Caribou by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 8. The Estimated Harvest of Caribou by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001-March 2002.

Study Community GMU / UCU Alatna Allakaket Bettles Evansville Galena Huslia Kaltag Nulato Ruby Tanana Total Percent Grand Total 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 100.0% Total GMU 23 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 33.3% Subtotal GMU 23Z 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 33.3% 23Z 1002 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 33.3% Total GMU 24 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 66.7% Subtotal GMU 24Z 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 66.7% 24Z 0104 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 22.2% 24Z 0801 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 44.4%

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2001.

15

Black Bear

As with caribou, the 2002 data set was affected by the lack of black bear data for Huslia and the small sample size in Galena. For 2002, an estimated total of 30 black bears were taken by hunters in the six survey communities where black bear data were collected (Table 9). Of these, Allakaket hunters took 18 bears or 60 percent of the overall harvest. In previous surveys, Huslia and Galena combined have accounted for as much as 80 percent of the total black bear harvested. The problems noted above with the Huslia and Galena data sets suggest that the actual number of black bears harvested in this region probably exceeded the 30 bears estimated by the 2002 survey.

In the six communities where black bear harvest data were collected, 9 percent of all households used black bear, 6 percent attempted to harvest black bear, and 5 percent of all households harvested one or more black bear (Table 9). The percentage of households using black bear ranged from 0 percent in Nulato to 45 percent in Alatna, and the percentage of households harvesting black bear ranged from 0% in Galena and Nulato, to 27 percent in Alatna (Table 9). As with caribou, it is important to note that while few or no black bears were harvested by Ruby, Kaltag, or Galena hunters, these communities reported receiving and using black bear meat, again illustrating the extensive sharing of resources between communities.

Black bear harvests consisted of 20 males (67 percent), eight females (27 percent), and two bears of unreported sex (Table 10). Black bear harvests were reported in June, August, September, and October. The month of September accounted for 76 percent of the black bear harvest (Fig. 4). The locations of black bear harvests for each community are summarized by GMU, sub unit, and UCU in Table 11. Of the 30 black bears harvested, 25 bears (83 percent) were taken in GMU 24, and five bears (17 percent) were taken in GMU 21. With some exceptions, black bear harvest areas for each community generally consist of one or two UCUs near or immediately surrounding the community. Allakaket was the only community reporting black bear harvests in three or more UCUs. Overall, black bear harvests were reported in a total of 11 UCUs by hunters in communities where black bear data were collected.

16 Table 9. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Black Bear, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 9. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Black Bear, April 2001- March 2002.

Participation of Households Estimated Harvest Levels Estimated Hunter Information 95% Confidence Limit Use Att Hrv Rec Gav Per of Total Harvest Total Successful Community (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Total Household Person % Low* High Number % of Pop Hvst/Hunter Number Hvst/Hunter All 9.16 5.98 4.61 5.72 3.69 29.6 0.06 0.02 5.78 29.00 31.31 36 2.19 0.83 27 1.11 Alatna 45.45 27.27 27.27 36.36 18.18 7.0 0.64 0.27 7.00 7.00 5 19.23 1.40 5 1.40 Allakaket 44.26 29.51 26.23 22.95 18.03 18.0 0.30 0.10 18.00 18.00 18 10.47 1.00 17 1.06 Galena 2.27 2.27 0.00 2.27 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.75 0.00 0 0.00 Huslia n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kaltag 9.09 3.03 3.03 7.58 3.03 2.0 0.03 0.01 2.00 2.00 5 2.24 0.40 2 1.00 Nulato 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ruby 5.26 3.51 3.51 1.75 5.26 2.6 0.04 0.01 67.28 2.00 4.34 3 1.16 1.00 3 1.00

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

17 Table 10. Estimated Black Bear Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 10. Estimated Black Bear Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001-March 2002. December November September Unknown February October January August March Total June April May July Community Sex All All 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 22.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Male 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 14.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Alatna All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Allakaket All 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Male 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Galena All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Huslia All n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Female n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Male n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unknown n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kaltag All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Nulato All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ruby All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

18 Figure 4. Black Bear Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002.

Figure 4. Black Bear Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001-March 2002.

16 15

14 Female

12 Male

10

8 7

6

Black Bear Harvested Black 4 2 2 2 1 1 0000000 0 0000000000 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

19 Table 11. The Estimated Harvest of Black Bear by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 11. The Estimated Harvest of Black Bear by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001-March 2002.

Study Community GMU / UCU Alatna Allakaket Bettles Evansville Galena Huslia Kaltag Nulato Ruby Tanana Total Percent Grand Total 7.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 29.6 100.0% Total GMU 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.6 15.5% Subtotal GMU 21A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4% 21A 0301 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4% Subtotal GMU 21B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 4.4% 21B 0401 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 4.4% Subtotal GMU 21D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.3 7.8% 21D 0103 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4% 21D 0302 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 4.4% Total GMU 24 7.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 84.5% Subtotal GMU 24Z 7.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 84.5% 24Z 0105 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4% 24Z 0701 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 23.7% 24Z 0702 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.1% 24Z 0801 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 13.5% 24Z 0901 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 27.0% 24Z 0906 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4% 24Z 1101 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.4%

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2001.

20

Brown Bear

Survey data indicate a total of two brown bear were taken by area hunters in 2001- 2002. One hunter from Allakaket and one hunter from Kaltag reported taking one bear each. These two communities were also the only two that reported receiving or using brown bear (Table 12). Both of the harvested brown bears were males. An Allakaket hunter took a bear in September and the bear harvested in Kaltag was taken in April (Figure 5). The harvests occurred in two UCUs located near the villages of Kaltag and Allakaket (Table 14).

21 Table 12. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Brown Bear, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 12. Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Brown Bear, April 2001- March 2002.

Participation of Households Estimated Harvest Levels Estimated Hunter Information 95% Confidence Limit Use Att Hrv Rec Gav Per of Total Harvest Total Successful Community (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Total Household Person % Low* High Number % of Pop Hvst/Hunter Number Hvst/Hunter All 0.59 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.39 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Alatna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Allakaket 1.64 1.64 1.64 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.02 0.01 1.00 1.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Galena 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Huslia n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kaltag 3.03 1.52 1.52 1.52 3.03 1.0 0.02 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Nulato 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ruby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

22 Table 13. Estimated Brown Bear Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 13. Estimated Brown Bear Harvest by Sex and Month, April 2001-March 2002. December November September Unknown February October January August March Total June April May July Community Sex All All 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alatna All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Allakaket All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Galena All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Huslia All n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Female n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Male n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unknown n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kaltag All 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nulato All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ruby All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2002.

23 Figure 5. Brown Bear Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001 - March 2002.

Figure 5. Brown Bear Harvests by Sex and Month, Ten Middle Yukon/Koyukuk Communities, April 2001-March 2002.

1.2

1 1 1 Female Male

0.8

0.6

0.4 Brown Bear Harvested

0.2

0000000000000000 000000 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

Table 14. The Estimated Harvest of Brown Bear by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001 - March 2002. Table 14. The Estimated Harvest of Brown Bear by GMU and Uniform Coding Unit, April 2001- March 2002.

Study Community GMU / UCU Alatna Allakaket Bettles Evansville Galena Huslia Kaltag Nulato Ruby Tanana Total Percent Grand Total 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% Total GMU 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0% Subtotal GMU 22A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0% 22A 0305 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0% Total GMU 24 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0% Subtotal GMU 24Z 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0% 24Z 0906 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0%

24 SURVEY COMMENTS

The survey form included space for respondents to submit comments on any issues relating to hunting or wildlife resources in their area. Comments were received from 56 households or 14% of the 392 households surveyed. Comments fell generally into the categories of predator issues (16 comments), hunting competition (6 comments), assessments of game populations (21 comments), regulatory suggestions (7 comments), comments regarding increased effort in hunting moose (6 comments), and miscellaneous (5 comments). Many comments dealt with multiple issues and have been included in more than one category. Among those commenting on predators, 14 were specifically directed at wolves and 2 mentioned bears. Among those commenting on hunting competition, concerns were specifically voiced toward “outside hunters” (2), “sport hunters” (1), guides (1), and airplanes (1). Among those making observations on game populations, 18 commented on a local decline or scarcity of moose, while 2 comments suggested that moose were getting thinner and “not as good.” Among the miscellaneous comments, 3 concerned subsistence practices, while 2 referred generally to issues of need. Verbatim comments are listed by community in Appendix B.

COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY HARVESTS BETWEEN YEARS

As previously noted, this was the fifth year of data collection in the middle Yukon River communities of Galena, Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby, and the fourth year of data collection in the Koyukuk River communities of Alatna, Allakaket, and Huslia. One advantage of collecting multiple years of harvest data using a consistent methodology is that year-to-year variability in harvests and harvest patterns can begin to be examined. Community harvests by species for each study year are presented in Table 15 and discussed below.

Moose

Moose harvests in the Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River region are characterized by high participation rates and relatively consistent levels of harvest between years. The four survey communities on the middle Yukon River that have participated in all survey years

25 (Galena, Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby) show great consistency over the five years of data collection. The 2001-2002 harvest of moose by these communities was estimated at 235 animals. This falls neatly within the range of 227 to 266 moose harvested annually by these communities in four previous years of surveying. Likewise, for the three Koyukuk River survey communities that have participated in four years of data collection (Alatna, Allakaket, and Huslia), a remarkable consistency is found in the moose harvest numbers. For those communities, the 2001-2002 harvest of 129 moose compares with a range of 114 to 133 moose taken annually by those communities in three previous years of data collection. In survey year 1999-2000 questions were added to the survey to measure hunter effort. Households were asked how many people in their household participated in moose hunting and how many days each of those participants spent hunting for moose. The data for 2001- 2002 provided the first opportunity for hunter effort to be compared between two survey years. In the 2000 survey, 598 hunters in the seven survey communities spent a total of 3,542 hunter-days in pursuit of moose, and successful hunters averaged 7.8 hunter-days for each moose harvested. In 2002, 520 hunters in the same seven communities spent a total of 4,573 hunter-days in pursuit of moose, and successful hunters averaged 8.9 hunter-days for each moose harvested. Compared to 2000, hunters in 2002 spent an additional 1,031 hunter-days in the field and by doing so managed to harvest almost the same number of moose (369 moose in 2000 and 364 in 2002). To put this increased number of hunter-days in perspective, it is equivalent to a period of approximately 2.8 years of additional hunting time. It is evident from these data that moose in the region are, in general, becoming more difficult to obtain. It is also clear from these data that the very stable community harvest levels described above are achieved by hunters in these communities only through dramatic increases in hunter effort. This is a testament to the prominence of moose as a food resource in this region and the importance local hunters place on meeting subsistence needs with traditional foods. Comparing hunter effort in the individual communities, the number of days that successful moose hunters spent in the field for each moose harvested increased in 2002 compared to 2000 in all communities except for Allakaket and Galena where the average days/moose harvested dropped by .5 and 1.7 days, respectively. While most communities in 2002 showed a one or two day increase in the average number of days/moose harvested compared to 2000, Ruby hunters showed the largest increase in effort. The number of days

26 successful hunters in Ruby spent to obtain a moose increased from 6.3 hunter-days in 2000 to 22.4 hunter-days in 2002 demonstrating both the dedication and difficulty moose hunters in that region are experiencing. To account for variations in the size of communities over time it is useful to examine per capita rates of harvest for moose. These too have held remarkably steady over the period 1997 to 2002. For the 7 communities included in all four years of the survey, the 2001-2002 harvest estimate of 364 moose results in a harvest rate of .61 moose per household and .19 moose per person. These rates are nearly identical to the 1999-2000 harvest rates of .60 per household and .20 per capita, though slightly lower than those reported in preceding years -- .64 moose per household and .21 moose per capita in 1998-99, and .65 moose per household and .21 moose per capita in 1997-98. This small but detectable decline in harvest rate tends to corroborate both the effort data described above, and the survey comments received this year from a number of households across the region professing a general decline in the area moose population. Of the 7 communities included in all years of the survey, Huslia has shown the most consistently high harvest rates for moose, exceeding the harvest averages for all communities (combined) in each of the last four years. Huslia’s moose harvest rate has ranged from .9 to 1.04 moose per household over the course of four surveys. Nulato also showed consistently high rates of harvest until the 2001-2002 survey, when it dropped by almost one-half from 1.01 moose per household in 1999-2000 to .53 moose per household in 2001-2002. The estimated harvest of moose by Nulato hunters in 2002 was 42 moose. This is the lowest harvest estimate for that community in five years of data collection (Table 15.). The reason for this decline in Nulato’s moose harvest is not clear from the survey data. Moose harvests in all other communities, including nearby Kaltag remained very similar to the harvest numbers of previous years and the estimated community population of Nulato has remained stable. While Nulato showed a 12 percent decline in the percent of household attempting to harvest moose in 2002 compared to the 2000 survey, it is difficult to believe that this decline alone could account for the 47 percent drop in Nulato’s harvest of moose over the last two survey years. While bulls make up the large majority of the moose harvest in all survey years, the percentage of cow moose harvested in 2001-2002 (26 percent) remained consistent with the

27 preceding survey year, 1999-2000, when cows made up 27 percent of the harvest. These last two years mark a slight increase compared to the two previous years, when cows represented 22 percent and 23 percent of the annual harvest. An increase in the harvest of cow moose may be another indicator that generally fewer moose were available to hunters. The seasonality of the moose harvest has remained virtually unchanged over the four survey years (over a five-year period) for which we have data on all seven survey communities. For all four survey years, 73 percent to 77 percent of the annual moose harvest has taken place during August and September. The remainder of the moose harvest typically consists of small numbers taken throughout the winter months followed by a more concentrated hunting effort in February and March.

Caribou

Caribou harvest for previous survey years are summarized in Table 15. Caribou harvests in the middle Yukon-Koyukuk River area vary widely depending on the movement of caribou (thought to be mostly from the Western Arctic Caribou Herd) and their proximity to communities. Caribou harvest data were collected from six communities in 2002 and the estimated total harvest of nine caribou by hunters in the single community of Allakaket represents a significant decrease from the estimated 22 caribou harvested in those same communities in 1999-2000 and from the estimated 73 caribou harvested in 1998-99. The relatively low number of caribou harvested in 2002 can probably be attributed to a combination of methodological differences discussed earlier and a caribou distribution pattern that made them generally unavailable to hunters in the middle Yukon River villages. In 1999- 2000, the distribution of caribou in the Koyukuk River drainage made them particularly accessible to hunters in Huslia resulting in a harvest of 264 caribou by Huslia hunters that year. It is important to note that caribou harvest data were not collected from Huslia in 2002. As a result of harvest variability, the per capita and per household harvest rates for caribou have fluctuated more than for any other big game species. In general, Koyukuk River communities tend to have more access to and higher harvest rates of caribou than the middle Yukon River communities. While only Allakaket reported any harvest of caribou for 2001- 2002, small numbers of households in all five of the remaining communities where caribou harvest data were collected reported using and receiving caribou. This may be the result of

28 households using caribou harvested in previous years or it may illustrate the sharing of harvested resources between communities. Regarding harvest timing, caribou hunting in 2001-2002 appears to have been unusually concentrated during the month of April, rather than March as reported in the 1999- 2000 survey and March and February in 1998-1999. In both 1997-98 and 1998-99 caribou were taken much more evenly throughout the fall, winter, and spring months with relatively large harvests reported in November, February, and March. For 1999-2000, no caribou were reported harvested in November and a total of 26 caribou were reported harvested during the five-month period October through February. In contrast, the 2002 data sets shows only one caribou harvested in November by Allakaket hunters and no other caribou harvested during the five-month period October through February. While both male and female caribou make up the harvest for all survey years, there appears to be a slight preference or selection for males. In all four years more bulls were taken than cows during most months and each year. The percentage of bulls in the harvest has ranged from 60 percent to 69 percent over the four years of data collection.

Black Bear

Multiple years of black bear harvest totals are summarized by community and survey year in Table 15. 2000-2001 marked a decline in the relatively small but very consistent number of black bears taken by hunters in the surveyed communities. As with caribou, much of this decline can be attributed to methodological differences discussed earlier. The estimated total number of black bears harvested by hunters in the middle Yukon survey communities (Galena, Kaltag, Nulato, and Ruby) decreased from 17 in 1999-2000 to 5 in 2001-2002. Galena and Nulato reported no harvest of black bears in 2000-2001, despite reporting significant harvests in the preceding three survey years. Harvest levels for black bear in Kaltag and Ruby appear to have remained relatively stable. For survey communities on the Koyukuk River, black bear harvest increased in Allakaket from 11 bears in 2000 to 18 bears in 2002, and in Alatna from 0 bears in 2000 to 7 bears in 2002. During the 1999-2000 survey year, 19 percent of Allakaket households hunted black bears and had a 32 percent success rate. By comparison, in 2001-2002, only 10 percent Allakaket households hunted black bear but those households managed a 94 percent success rate. The lack of black bear

29 data from Huslia in 2002 is significant since that community has consistently reported a harvest of between 27 and 29 annually on previous surveys. If we assume that Huslia hunters had a typical harvest of black bears in 2002, and there is no reason to assume they did not, the harvest total for the three Koyukuk River survey communities may have exceeded 50 bears representing an increase of more than 25 percent from prior survey years. Compared to 1999-2000, the per capita harvest of black bears in Allakaket and Alatna (combined) increased from .04 bears per capita to .19 bears per capita in 2002. Kaltag and Ruby remained stable at .01 bears per capita in both the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 surveys. Previous survey data show that a small number of Galena households typically take between 11 and 19 black bears annually (Table 15). The estimated harvest of 0 black bears by Galena hunters in 2002 is probably due to hunters in that community being missed by the unusually small sample size this year (20 percent of all households surveyed). Perhaps not surprisingly, the timing of black bear harvests appears to be very similar between years. Black bears are considered prime in the fall just prior to and immediately following denning. September accounts for the largest number of bears harvested in each of the last four survey years, contributing 28 percent to 76 percent of the annual harvest. The black bear harvest is comprised of mostly male bears. Among harvested bears for which sex was reported, the percentage of male bears ranged from 66 percent to 82 percent during the four years of data collection.

Brown Bear

Multiple years of harvest data from the middle Yukon and Koyukuk River survey communities show limited hunting and use of brown bears in this region. Typically, only about 1 percent of area households report participating in hunting brown bear. The estimated total harvest of brown bears for the seven survey communities during the past four or five years of study has ranged from 0 to 2 bears and during that time as never exceeded 2 bears for a single community (Table 15). The reported harvest of a brown bear by a Kaltag hunter in 2001-2002 is the first reported brown bear harvest for that community in five years of data collection. Throughout the region as a whole, it is possible that additional brown bears may have been killed in defense of life and property that are not reported by hunters on the survey.

30 It is clear, however, that brown bear are not as actively pursued or utilized for subsistence purposes as the other big game species asked about on the survey.

31 Table 15. Harvests of Moose, Caribou, Black Bear ,and Brown Bear in Seven Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities, 1996/97 - 2001/02 Table 15. Harvests of Moose, Caribou, Black Bear, and Brown Bear in Seven Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities, 1996/97-2001/02.

Communities Moose Caribou Black Bear Brown Bear 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2001-02 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2001-02 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2001-02 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2001-02 Galena 1301318896120403978019171180 20000 Kaltag 3140504643168600 31442 00001 Nulato 4767577942133600 52340 00100 Ruby 252832263000010 92213 00000 Subtotal Middle Yukon River 23326622724723569501990362220175 20101 Alatna N/A9566N/A211100N/A4007N/A0000 Allakaket N/A43373735N/A1143139N/A10111118N/A0021 Huslia N/A 81 72 79 88 N/A 57 264 78 N/A N/A 27 29 27 N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A Subtotal 133 114 122 129 89 318 91 9 4140382500021 Koyukuk River N/A N/A N/A

Total Seven 399 341 369 364 139 337 100 9 63 60 55 30 0122 Communities N/A N/A N/A N/A

32

REFERENCES CITED

Andersen, David B., Charles J. Utermohle, and Louis Brown. 1998. The 1997-98 Harvest of Moose, Caribou, and Bear in Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 245.

Andersen, David B., Charles J. Utermohle, and Louis Brown. 1999. The 1998-99 Harvest of Moose, Caribou, and Bear in Ten Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 251.

Andersen, David B., Charles J. Utermohle, and Gretchen Jennings. 2001. The 1999-2000 Harvest of Moose, Caribou, and Bear in Ten Middle Yukon and Koyukuk River Communities, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 262.

33 APPENDIX A. Survey Form 2002 MIDDLE YUKON / KOYUKUK RIVER LARGE MAMMAL HARVEST SURVEY

HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVED IN THE HOUSEHOLD THIS PAST YEAR? ______ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD ALASKA NATIVE? YES NO

MOOSE 1 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USE OR HUNT MOOSE THIS PAST YEAR (BETWEEN APRIL 2001 AND MARCH 2002?) YES NO IF YES, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.

2 DURING THIS PAST YEAR, DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD:

USE Moose? YES NO HUNT Moose? YES NO HARVEST Moose? YES NO RECEIVE Moose? YES NO GIVE Moose? YES NO

3 HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD HUNTED MOOSE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?______

4 HOW MANY DAYS DID EACH HUNTER SPEND HUNTING MOOSE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS? #1_____days #2_____days #3_____days #4_____days #5_____days

5 HOW MANY MOOSE WERE HARVESTED LAST YEAR BY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD?______(Include any potlatch moose taken by this household)

MOOSE 2001 2002 M LOCATION (UCU) M or F APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1 2 3 4 5

CARIBOU 1 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USE OR HUNT CARIBOU THIS PAST YEAR (BETWEEN APRIL 2001 AND MARCH 2002?) YES NO IF YES, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.

2 DURING THIS PAST YEAR, DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD:

USE Caribou? YES NO HUNT Caribou? YES NO HARVEST Caribou? YES NO RECEIVE Caribou? YES NO GIVE Caribou? YES NO

3 HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD HUNTED CARIBIOU IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?______

4 HOW MANY CARIBOU WERE HARVESTED LAST YEAR BY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD?______

CARIBOU CARIBOU CARIBOU C LOCATION (UCU) M or F Month C LOCATION (UCU) M or F Month C LOCATION (UCU) M or F Month 1611 2712 3813 4914 51015

34 2002 MIDDLE YUKON / KOYUKUK RIVER LARGE MAMMAL HARVEST SURVEY

BLACK BEAR 1 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USE OR HUNT BLACK BEAR THIS PAST YEAR (BETWEEN APRIL 2001 AND MARCH 2002?) YES NO IF YES, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.

2 DURING THIS PAST YEAR, DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD:

USE Black Bear? YES NO HUNT Black Bear? YES NO HARVEST Black Bear? YES NO RECEIVE Black Bear? YES NO GIVE Black Bear? YES NO

3 HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD HUNTED BLACK BEAR IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?______

4 HOW MANY BLACK BEAR WERE HARVESTED LAST YEAR BY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD?______

5 WHAT PARTS OF THE BEAR DID YOU USE? Hide ______Meat ______Fat ______

BLACK BEAR 2001 2002 BL LOCATION (UCU) M or F APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR UNK 1 2 3 4 5

BROWN BEAR 1 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD SHOOT OR USE BROWN BEAR THIS PAST YEAR (BETWEEN APRIL 2001 AND MARCH 2002?) YES NO IF YES, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.

2 DURING THIS PAST YEAR, DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD:

USE Brown Bear? YES NO HUNT Brown Bear? YES NO HARVEST Brown Bear? YES NO RECEIVE Brown Bear? YES NO GIVE Brown Bear? YES NO

3 HOW MANY BROWN BEAR WERE HARVESTED LAST YEAR BY MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSEHOLD?______

4 WHAT, IF ANY, PARTS OF THE BEAR DID YOU USE? Hide ______Meat ______Fat ______

BROWN BEAR 2001 2002 BR LOCATION (UCU) M or F APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR UNK 1 2

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

35 APPENDIX B. Survey Comments

Galena No comments received.

Huslia HH 6- Found 8 moose killed by wolves this winter in our unit. HH 14- This past year we needed to spend nights out to get our moose. It is getting so we needed to go farther inland to lakes to spot them. Hunting nowadays included a lot of stopping and walking. To save on gas it was necessary to camp out. Very concerned about shortage of moose. HH 21- Outside hunters should shorten their days to about 15 days. Doesn’t need 25 days like the people in village. HH 26- Been going out all winter on and off and so far haven’t gotten or seen any moose. HH 30- Hardly seen any moose. It’s getting harder to get. Took quite a few days for the moose I got. HH 31- I had to walk inland through deep snow to get moose in March. The one in September I had to go all the way to Hog River to get one moose. Getting harder and harder to get moose. HH 42- Found 2 dead moose taken by wolves. Salvage the meat for my dogs. HH 52- Moose hunters are making it harder to get moose around here. HH 64- Game has been managed by you guys in the Yukon Flats area and also here. There hasn’t been any moose up there for some time now and the same is happening here. Management needs to be done better than what it was then or it’ll end up same as Yukon Flats. HH 69- Moose hunters that fly in is just about killing off our moose. We need control over our hunting. If one of the licensed guides from here take over we will have the control of moose taken from here. HH 71- Found 8 dead moose in zone killed by wolves--cleaned to bones; no meat left, it looked like the moose was poor. HH 77- Seen 3 moose kill by wolves. Moose killed pretty cleaned up. I helped some people butcher moose. HH 78- Went out but didn’t get a moose. HH 82- Moose gotten in March is almost gone. Got moose a long ways from here. HH 83- Get rid of outside hunters so we could have a chance to see and get a moose. HH 85- A decline in moose in numbers but hardly ever see big moose like I used to when I’m flying around. A big change from previous years. HH 87- Received moose from hunters.

Nulato HH 19- Registered guides and drop-off outfitters were excellent. They were in-tune with resources and environment. Catch and prosecute illegal guides. There were too many out there. Otherwise—weather played against me.

36 HH 66- Most elders buy licenses & tickets to have someone get moose for them. If their ticket is used they sometimes share with whomever went out for them. Because their ticket was used I have put the kill under their household even though they didn’t hunt. Allakaket HH 1- Too many wolves in this area. HH 2- Have moose season open longer in the fall. HH 3- The moose population are going down every year in this area. HH 4- The moose are getting less every year. HH 5- The moose population is going down. HH 6- Moose decline. HH 7- Moose decline. HH 13- Moose decline. HH 14- Moose decline. HH 17- Moose decline. HH 18- The moose were too skinny this year. HH 20- Moose decline due to wolves. HH 22- Hardly any moose in this area. Too many wolves in this area. The moose population is disappearing fast year by year. HH 27- Too many wolves. Need to be knocked down. Would like to know how wolves are in this area. HH 37- Too many hunters up the . HH 46- We should get preference of fish and wildlife. HH 49- Too many wolves killing moose in this area. HH 53- Moose decline due to wolves. HH 55- Not many moose left in this area. Alatna HH 3- Moose decline. HH 4- Moose dropping. HH 5- Moose decline. HH 6- There are not much moose and caribou. HH 7- Too many wolves in this area. Kaltag HH 3- Went hunting with someone else and split it half & half. HH 9- People are having to hunt longer, some didn’t get a moose. Need better wolf & bear control. There would have been moose moose harvested if people could of gotten them. HH 13- We need airplane hunting for wolf. HH 23- Less and less moose. HH 24- Wanted to caribou hunt but too far away. Come help kill our wolves now !!! Passed most of the moose (2) to other people who didn’t get one or any. HH 25- Need subsistence hunting in August for moose. HH 26- Where’s all the moose!!! HH 35- Not as good as in the past. HH 39- Need predator control, non-lethal restrictions. HH 40- Nobody gave me any this year, but I eat it. HH 41- We’re happy with just what we get.

37 HH 47- People (many) doesn’t seem to be getting enough moose meat and most people aren’t commenting about it. HH 52- Too many wolves & bears, need bounty on them. HH 53- didn’t see any. HH 54- Lacking bull moose up Koyukuk River. Brown bear & sport hunters are killing too many. HH 58- 5 moose for potlatches (funerals). HH 61- Encourage moose hunters to do a better job. HH 67- Support subsistence first. Need grant money to put a bounty on the wolves.

Ruby No comments received

38