Fish and Wildlife Harvests in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, Alaska Peninsula, 1986-1987
FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVESTS IN PILOT POINT, UGASHIK, AND PORT HEIDEN, ALASKA PENINSULA, 1986-1987
bY James A. Fall and Judith M. Morris
Technical Paper No. 158
This research was partially supported by ANILCA Federal Aid Funds, adminis- tered through the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Juneau, Alaska
November 1987
ABSTRACT
This report describes the harvest and use of wild fish, game, and plant resources in three communities of the northern Alaska Peninsula -- Pilot
Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden. It is based on research conducted by the
Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, primarily in May
1987. A major purpose of the project was to collect information on local harvests of migratory waterfowl, including those harvests which occur in spring. Using a standardized questionnaire, division researchers interviewed
17 households in Pilot Point (94.4 percent of the year-round households in the community), five households in Ugashik (100 percent), and 37 households in
Port Heiden (100 percent). The results of the interviews which are presented in this report include information on community demography, employment, monetary income, involvement in commercial fishing, percentage of the sampled households using, attempting to harvest, harvesting, receiving, and giving away wild resources, harvest quantities, timing of harvests, and harvest areas. The study period included June 1986 through May 1987.
Pilot Point's population in May 1987 was 64; of the 61 people in the surveyed househoLds, 88.5 percent had Alaska Native ancestry. During the study period, 87.5 percent of the adults in the Pilot Point sample were employed, during an average of 8.5 months. The largest number of jobs (34.6 percent) in the community were in commercial fishing, which provided 74.8 percent of the mean household income. Ugashik had ten residents in May 1987,
80 percent with some Alaska Native ancestry. Like Pilot Point, most of the sources of earned income income in Ugashik were with commercial salmon fishing, providing 79.4 percent of the mean household income. For Port
Heiden, the year-round population was 103 in May 1987; of these, 72.8 percent had Alaska Native ancestry. About 80 percent of the adults in the community had jobs during the study period; they worked for an average of 9.5 months.
As in the other two study communities, commercial fishing for salmon was the major source of cash incomes, contributing 62.1 percent of the household mean.
In all three communities, most other sources of earned income were short term and seasonal.
Residents of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden followed a similar seasonal round of resource harvesting activities. These harvests played prominent roles in the economy and social life of the communities. All of the sampled households in the three villages used wild resources during the study year, and 98.3 percent harvested at least one kind of wild resource. In pounds edible weight, the wild resource harvest was 384 pounds per capita in
Pilot Point, 814 pounds per capita in Ugashik, and 408 pounds per capita in
Port Heiden. Land mammals were the dominant resource category in all three
communities, contributing 62.0 percent of Pilot Point's harvest in pounds
edible weight, 50.6 percent in Ugashik, and 61.5 percent at Port Heiden. Most
of this harvest was caribou. Salmon was the second major resource category,
with removal from commercial catches and subsistence set nets being the source
of most of the salmon taken for home use. As measured in pounds edible
weight, salmon removed from commercial harvests provided 69.5 percent of the
catch at Pilot Point, 54.9 percent at Ugashik, and 55.4 percent at Port
Heiden.
Harvests of birds, including ptarmigan, waterfowl, and eggs, made a
notable contribution to the resource harvests in all three communities. Bird
harvests made up 4.4 percent of the total take of wild resources in Pilot
Point, 3.1 percent at Ugashik, and 3.3 percent at Port Heiden. Overall, the
sampled households took seven types of ducks, five types of geese, four types of eggs, a few swans and snipe, and cranes. Spring harvests accounted for
35.4 percent of the waterfowl take (excluding eggs) in Pilot Point, 34.7 percent in Ugashik, and 27.3 percent in Port Heiden. About 47 percent of the
Pilot Point households participated in spring harvests, as did 60.0 percent in
Ugashik, and 18.9 percent in Port Heiden. The report also includes maps showing, by subarea, areas where hunters from the three communities have ever hunted waterfowl, usually hunt waterfowl, and hunted for waterfowl during the study period.
The report's final chapter includes comparisons of the study communities' harvests during the study period with data for the three villages for 1973, and comparisons with other Alaska Peninsula and Bristol Bay communities: The composition of the 1973 and 1986 - 87 harvests appear similar for all three communities. The size of the harvests also appear stable for Pilot Point and
Ugashik, but may have increased at Port Heiden. The size of the resource harvests and composition of these harvests are very similar in other Alaska
Peninsula communities, including Egegik, South Naknek, Naknek, and King
Salmon. These harvests are much larger than in more densely populated communities along Alaska's road system. The report concludes that the communities of the northern Alaska Peninsula, including the three study communities, make up a subarea within the Bristol Bay region with a distinct pattern of fish and game harvests, with per capita harvests at about 400 pounds per person, game harvests exceeding those of salmon, and spring and fall waterfowl harvests contributing between 2.5 and 4.0 percent of the annual take of wild resources.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES...... ~...... ii i LIST OF FIGURES...... v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... vii i
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Study Background ...... l Purposes and Objectives ...... 3 Research Methods ...... 4
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND Natural Environment and Climate...... 8 Prehistory and History...... O...s...... ~..I.I...* -...... * ::11
CHAPTER THREE: DEMOGRAPHYAND CASH ECONOMY Pilot Point Demography ...... 22 Services and Facilities ...... 26 Employment ...... 27 Monetary Income ...... : ...... 32 Cost of Living ...... 32 Ugashik Demography ...... 35 Services and Facilities ...... 35 Employment ...... 36 Monetary Income ...... 37 Cost of Living ...... 37 Port Heiden Demography ...... 37 Services and Facilities ...... 39 Employment ...... 42 Monetary Income ...... 43 Cost of Living ...... 43 Commercial Fishing Pilot Point and Ugashik ...... 44 Port Heiden...... ; ...... 45
CHAPTER FOUR: RESOURCE HARVEST PATTERNS Species Used and Seasonal Round of Harvesting Activities...... 47 Harvest Areas...... 54 Levels of Participation in the Use and Harvest of Wild Resources.. . . 56 Harvest Quantities...... 69 Sharing and Receiving Wild Resources...... 77 Salmon Species Used and Harvest Quantities...... ,...... 80 Methods of Harvest Removed from Commercial Catches...... 82 Subsistence Set Net Fishing...... 92 Other Harvest Methods...... 99 Processing and Preservation Methods...... lOO
i Non-Salmon Fish Species Used and Harvest Levels...... 10 0 Harvest Methods...... lo 2 Harvest Areas...... lo 2 Marine Invertebrates ...... lO 5 Land Mammals...... ~..lO 6 Caribou...... lO 7 Moose...... *, ...... lll Other Land Mammals...... ,...... lll Furbearers ...... 112 Marine Mammals ...... 113 Birds ...... 116 Ptarmigan ...... 116 Waterfowl and Eggs Hunting Regulations ...... 117 Species Used and Harvest Quantities ...... lE 9 Spring and Fall Harvests...... 12 6 Harvest Areas ...... 13 2 Plants ...... 15 2
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Comparisons of the Study Communities...... 155 Changes in Harvest Patterns: 1973 and 1986-87...... ~ ~ ...... 158 Comparisons with Other Bristol Bay and Alaska Peninsula Communities..168 Conclusions...... o o ~, . . ~ _ ~ s ~ ~...... 174
REFERENCES CITED ...... 17 6 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT...... 18 0 APPENDIX B: CONVERSION FACTORS...... e.190 APPENDIX C: INDUSTRY-EMPLOYER CATEGORIES AND OCCUPATION CATEGORIES...... 19 2
ii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Surveyed Households, Alaska Peninsula Study Communities, May 1987...... 7
Table 2. Significant Historical Events in and Near the Study Communities...... 16
Table 3. Population History of the Study Area...... ?...... 19
Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of Sampled Households, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, May 1987...... 24
Table 5. Employment Characteristics of the Study Communities, June 1986 - May 1987...... 28
Table 6. Percentage of Jobs by Employer Type within the Study Communities, June 1986 - May 1987...... 29
Table 7. Percentage of Jobs by Occupational Type within the Study Communities, June 1986 - May 1987...... 31
Table 8. Monetary Incomes of the Study Communities for 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, and June 1986- May 1987...... 33
Table 9. Average Estimated Monthly Expenses at Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden June 1986 - May 1987...... 34
Table 10. Wild Resources Harvested or Used in the Study Communities, June 1986 - May 1987...... 48
Table 11. Resource Harvest and Use Characteristics of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987...... 50
Table 12. Levels of Household Harvest and Use of Fish, Game, and Plant Resources, Pilot Point, June 1986- May 1987 (N - 17)...... 57
Table 13. Levels of Household Harvest and Use of Fish, Game, and Plant Resources, Ugashik, June 1986 - May 1987 (N = 5)...... 62
Table 14. Levels of Household Harvest and Use of Fish, Game, and Plant Resources, Port Heiden, June 1986 -May 1987 (N - 37)...... 66
Table 15. Composition of Resource Harvest in Pounds by Category, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987...... 71
Table 16. Percentage of Pilot Point Households Harvesting Salmon, by Gear Type and Species, June 1986 - May 1987 (N = 17 households)...... 83
Table 17. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Pilot Point, June 1986 - May 1987...... 84
iii Table 18. Percentage of Ugashik Households Harvesting Salmon, by Gear Type and Species, June 1986 - May 1987 (N - 5 households)...... 86
Table 19. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Ugashik, June 1986 - May 1987.....87
Table 20. Percentage of Port Heiden Households Harvesting Salmon, by Gear Type and Species, June 1986 - May 1987 (N = 37 households)...... "~...... ,...... "~~...... 89
Table 21. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987..:.....'...... ,.....90
Table 22. Ugashik District Subsistence Salmon Harvests, 1971 - 1986...... 94
Table 23. Resources Removed from Commercial Harvests, Study Communities,June 1986 - May 1987...... 103
Table 24. Hunting Regulations for Land Mammals, GMU 9E, July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987...... 109
Table 25. Waterfowl' Hunting Regulations, GMU 9E, July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987...... ~.,...... 118
Table 26. Waterfowl Harvest and Use by Category and By Species, Pilot Point, June 1986 - May 1987...... 120
Table 27. Waterfowl Harvest and Use by Category and by Species, Ugashik, June 1986 - May 1987...... 121
Table 28. Waterfowl Harvest and Use by Category and by Species, Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987...... 122
Table 29. Migratory Waterfowl Harvests by Season, Pilot Point, June 1986 - May 1987...... ~ ~...... m...... L.I ...... 127
Table 30. Migratory Waterfowl Harvests by Season, Ugashik, June 1986 - May 1987...... "...... 128
Table 31. Migratory Waterfowl Harvests by Season, Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987...... ,..~...... 129
Table 32. Frequency'of Use of Areas for Waterfowl Hunting, Pilot Point...... ~..136
Table 33. Waterfowl Resources Harvested within Each Hunting Area, Pilot Point...... ~...... ~...... ,..141
Table 34. Frequency of Use of Areas for Waterfowl Hunting, Ugashik...... l42
Table 35. Waterfowl Resources Harvested within Each Hunting Area, Ugashik...... ,...... ~..147
Table 36. Frequency of Use of Areas for Waterfowl Hunting, Port Heiden...... ~.....,,...... 148
iv Table 37. Waterfowl Resources Harvested within Each Hunting Area, Port Heiden...... 153
Table 38. Resource Harvests, Pilot Point, 1973...... 159
Table 39. Resource Harvests, Ugashik, 1973...... 161
Table 40. Resource Harvests, Port Heiden, 1973...... 163
Table 41. Comparisons of 1973 and 1986-87 Fish and Wildilfe Harvests, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden...... 165
Table 42. Comparison of Per Capita Wild Resource Harvests and the Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Alaska Peninsula and Bristol Bay Communities...... ~ ...... 169 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Alaska Peninsula Region...... ,2
Figure 2. Languages of the Native Peoples of the Bristol Bay and Alaska Peninsula Region...... 14
Figure 3. Pilot Point and Ugashik Area...... :...... 23
Figure 4. Population Profile, Pilot Point, May 1987...... 25
Figure 5. The Port Heiden Area...... 38
Figure 6. Population Profile, Port Heiden, May 1987...... 40
Figure 7. Seasonal Round of Resource Harvesting Activities, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden...... 51
Figure 8. Areas Used to Harvest Wild Resources, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 -1983...... '...... 55
Figure 9. Percentage of Sampled Pilot Point Households Using, Attempting to Harvest, Harvesting, Receiving, and Giving Away Eight Categories of Wild Resources, June 1986- May 1987...... 59
Figure 10. Percentage of Sampled Ugashik Households Using, Attempting to Harvest, Harvesting, Receiving, and Giving Away Eight Categories of Wild Resources, June 1986 - May 1987...... 64
Figure 11. Percentage of Sampled Port Heiden Households Using, Attempting to Harvest, Harvesting, Receiving, and Giving Away Eight Categories of Wild Resources, June 1986 - May 1987...... 68
Figure 12. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Pilot Point, June 1986 - May 1987...... 72
Figure 13. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Ugashik, June 1986 - May 1987...... 74
Figure 14. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests, by Resource Category, Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987...... 76
Figure 15. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Pilot Point, June 1986 - May 1987...... 85
Figure 16. Salmon Harvests by Gear.Type, Ugashik, June 1986 - May 1987.....88
Figure 17. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987...... 91
vi Figure 18. Harvest Areas, Non-Salmon Fish, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 - 1983...... 104
Figure 19. Harvest Areas, Caribou, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 - 1983...... 110
Figure 20. Furbearer Harvest Areas, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 - 1983...... 114
Figure 21. Waterfowl Harvest Areas, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 -1983...... ,.,..133
Figure 22. Areas Used to Collect Waterfowl Hunting Area Data, Pilot Point and Ugashik...... 134
Figure 23. Areas Used to Collect Waterfowl Hunting Area Data, Port Heiden...... 135
Figure 24. Percent of Pilot Point Households Which Ever Used an Area for Waterfowl Hunting...... ,...... 137
Figure 25. Percent of Pilot Point Households Which "Regularly Use" an Area for Waterfowl Hunting...... 138
Figure 26. Percent of Pilot Point Households Which Used an Area in 1986 - 1987 for Waterfowl Hunting...... 139
Figure 27. Percent of Ugashik Households Which Ever Used an Area for Waterfowl Hunting...... 143
Figure 28. Percent of Ugashik Households Which "Regularly Use" an Area for Waterfowl Hunting...... 145
Figure 29. Percent of Ugashik Households Which Used an Area in 1986 - 1987 for Waterfowl Hunting...... 146
Figure 30. Percent of Port Heiden Households Which Ever Used an Area for Waterfowl Hunting...... 149
Figure 31. Percent of Port Heiden Households Which "Regularly Use" an Area for Waterfowl Hunting...... 150
Figure 32. Percent of Port Heiden Households Which Use an Area in 1986 - 1987 for Waterfowl Hunting...... 151
Figure 33. Comparison of Per Capita Wild Resource Harvests in 1973 and 1986 - 1987 by Residents of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden...... ~...... 166
Figure 34. Per Capita Wild Resource Harvests of Northern Alaska Peninsula Communities...... 170
Figure 35. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Northern Alaska Peninsula Communities...... 171
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank all the people of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and
Port Heiden for taking the time to participate in this study. In Pilot Point, we especially acknowledge the assistance of Bobbie Jo Kramer. We are also very grateful to Terre11 and Arla Tracy of Pilot Point for their kind hospitality. At Port Heiden, Annie Christensen's help greatly facilitated our work. We also thank Orville Lind for his review of the survey form, and
Elliot Reid for his advice and assistance.
Several Division of Subsistence personnel helped tremendously with the preparation of this report. Bob Walker, the division's biometrician,
conducted the computer data analysis, and research director Bob Wolfe provided
a thorough review of an early draft of the report. Dan Foster designed the
figures and drew the maps, and Ana Hill typed most of the tables.
Also, we would like to acknowledge the support to the project provided by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We especially thank Bill Eldridge of the
USFWS for his interest in the study and for facilitating the cooperative
agreement and review -of the study design and draft report. Finally, we thank
Dick Sellers of the Department of Fish and Game's Division of Game and Dick
Russell of the Division of Commercial Fisheries for their advice and their
input into the study design.
viii CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
STUDY BACKGROUND
This report describes contemporary patterns of wild renewable resource use in three communities of the Alaska Peninsula, southwest Alaska. The study communities were Pilot Point (population 79 in 1985), Ugashik (13 in
1980), and Port Heiden (108 in 1985) (Fig. 1). All three villages are on the coast of Bristol Bay, and the population of each is predominantly
Alaska Native. The research was conducted by the Division of Subsistence,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, mostly in May 1987. Support for the project was also provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) .
A major goal of the project was to obtain information about subsistence migratory waterfowl harvests by residents of the study communities, especially harvests which occur in spring. Although good documentation of spring subsistence waterfowl harvests was available for some other western Alaska communities, there was no comparable information for Pilot Point, Ugashik, or Port Heiden. These data were particularly important in 1987 as the USFWS developed subsistence regulations as part of a management plan for migratory waterfowl in Alaska. (Because of a US.
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in October 1987, the outcome of this process was uncertain as this report was being prepared.) Lack of information about spring harvests might be interpreted as lack of use of ducks, geese, and other waterfowl in spring. Consequently, communities without documented contemporary use could be omitted from the regulatory
1 -- 1 BRIsTOl BAY
MILES
Fiyure 1. The Alaska Peninsula Region. process. In addition, if spring harvests were occurring, managers required reliable harvest data for the development of management plans.
Additionally, the researchers recognized that waterfowl harvest data had to be understood within the broader context of fish and wildlife use patterns in the communities. Therefore, the research design called for the collection of information about all wild resource harvests that oc.cur.red within a 12 month study period from June 1986 through May 1987.
Demographic data and information about participation in commercial fishing and other sources of monetary income were also gathered. It is hoped that the results of this study will be useful to local residents and resource managers alike in a range of resource management issues.
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES
The research had two primary purposes. The first was the collection of data on spring harvests of migratory waterfowl by the residents of Pilot
Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, including estimates of harvest quantities and identification of harvest areas. The second purpose was to collect baseline information on other fish, game, and plant harvests by residents of the three study communities.
Research objectives included:
1. Estimates of the percentage of households in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden using, attempting to harvest, harvesting, receiving, and
sharing each type of wild resource during a 12 month study period;
2. Estimates of harvest quantities of wild resources during a 12 month study period for each village in numbers of animals, birds, or fish
3 (or other suitable units) and in pounds usable weight per household and per capita;
3. For waterfowl, estimates of harvest quantities for spring harvests and for fall harvests by species of geese, ducks, cranes, and swans, plus data on the approximate timing of harvests and location of hunting activities;
4. An overview of involvement in cash-producing activities in each village; and,
5. An estimate of the population and demographic structure of each community.
RESEARCH METHODS
Before field work began, the researchers prepared an overview of the proposed research and distributed copies to members of the village councils
in Pilot Point and Port Heiden. Members of each organization also reviewed
the draft questionnaire. In April, a division researcher met with the
Pilot Point Village Council and the president of the Port Heiden Village
Council and obtained their support for the project. Staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also commented on the draft research design and
questionnaire.
The primary method of data collection in the three communities was an
interview with village households using a standardized questionnaire
(Appendix 1). The survey instrument was modeled after forms administered
successfully during similar studies in Dillingham, Manokotak, Talkeetna,
Cordova, and elsewhere, with modifications to collect more detailed data on
waterfowl harves ts. Responden ts were asked to recall their harvests of
4 wild fish, game, and wild plant resources for a 12 month period from June
1986 through May 1987. This period included the previous subsistence
salmon season and game harvests, plus the most recent spring waterfowl
harvests.
Besides quantified waterfowl harvest data, the questionnaire also
elicited waterfowl harvest area information from active hunters. Key
respondents and ADF&G personnel divided the area near each community into
several sub-areas based upon their knowledge of waterfowl distribution and
hunting patterns in the region. Respondents then indicated for each sub-
area whether they had hunted waterfowl in that area during the study year,
as well as their frequency of use of the area in the past. Maps of
resource harvest areas used by residents of each community during a 20 year
period from 1963 to 1983 had been prepared during an earlier research
effort connected with the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and the
Southwest Alaska volume of the Department of Fish and Game's Habitat
Management Guide (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1985c; Wright et al.
1985).
Other sources of data included more lengthy interviews with active
waterfowl hunters and other knowledgeable individuals. In addition, -the
researchers examined published and unpublished written sources for resource
harvest, demographic, and other socioeconomic information. Sources
included Department of Fish and Game subsistence salmon permit records for
harvest data, and federal and state censuses for demographic and
socioeconomic data. An important source for historical harvest data is
Gasbarro and Utermohle (1974), which reports the results of a resource
harvest survey conducted with a sample of households in Pilot Point,
Ugashik, and Port Heiden pertaining to 1973.
5 The survey questionnaires were administered by the authors in May
1987. The researchers first obtained lists of year-round households from village officials. Because of the small size of the three communities, the goal was to achieve a 100 percent sample of these households. At the end of the field work, the researchers had interviewed 94.4 percent of the households in Pilot Point (17 households), 100 percent of the households in
Ugashik (five households), and 100 percent of the households in Port Heiden
(37 households) (Table 1). In summary, of the 60 year-round households in the three communities, interviews were successfully completed with 59, a success rate of 98.3 percent.
Following the completion of the interviews, the survey data were coded for computer analysis using the SPSS program (Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences). Resource harvests reported in numbers, buckets, or gallons were converted into pounds edible weight using standard conversion factors (Appendix 2). Jobs held by community residents were classified according to employer and occupation categories defined in Appendix 3. TABLE 1. SURVEYEDHOUSEHOLDS, ALASKA PENINSULA STUDY COMMUNITIES, MAY 1987
Percent Population Percent Total Numbera Number of Households Total of Surveyed Population Community of Households Households Surveyed Surveyed Population Households Surveyed
Pilot Point 18 17b 94.4% 64 61 95.3%
Port Heiden 37 37 100.0% 103 103 100.0%
Ugashik 5 5 100.0% 10 10 100.0%
TOTAL 60 59 98.3% 177 174 98.3%
a As reported by community officials to researchers in May 1987. Includes one teacher household in Pilot Point and three teacher households in Port Heiden. Excludes households that are not resident in the communities year-round. b All members of one household were absent from the village during the fieldwork and therefore were unavailable for interviewing. CHAPTER TWO
BACKGROUND
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE
The study communities are located on the north side of the Alaska
Peninsula, which stretches about 475 miles southwest from Iliamna Lake to
Unimak Island in the Aleutian Chain. The Aleutian Range separates that portion of the peninsula which drains into the Pacific Ocean to the southeast from the remainder which is within the Bristol Bay watershed.
This north side of the peninsula is a broad flat plain that slopes gently
to the sea. Unlike the south shore, which is characterized by rugged cliffs, many large bays, and protected coves, the northern coastline is
relatively unbroken except for the bays at the mouths of the large rivers.
These include the Ugashik River and the Meshik River within the territory used by the three study communities. The broad plain of the northern
Alaska Peninsula is dotted with many small lakes as well as several large water bodies, including Upper Ugashik Lake and Lower Ugashik Lake within
the study area.
The Aleutian Range acts as a barrier to weather systems; consequently
there are different climate conditions on each side of the mountains. The
study communities lie with a zone of climate transitional between maritime
and continental. There is protracted cloud cover, fog, and drizzle, with
frequently strong winds blowing from the north or southeast. in winter and
from the southeast in summer. Precipitation averages about 25 inches a
year. At King Salmon, further north on the peninsula from the study
communities, summer temperatures range from 42 degrees F to 63 degrees F,
8 while winter temperatures range from -29 degrees to 40 degrees F. In contrast, the Pacific side of the peninsula experiences stronger winds, more moderate temperatures, and much heavier precipitation (Morris 1987).
The north side of the Alaska Peninsula near the three study communities is characterized predominantly by treeless tundra vegetation.
This plant community supports hardy vegetation such as lichens, lupines, mosses, and sedges. In addition, patches of dwarfed willows, alders, and cottonwoods are found along streambanks. Also, a strand plant community occurs along well drained coasts. This vegetative type includes beach rye grass.
Bristol Bay supports large runs of five species of Pacific salmon.
These include kings (chinook), the first to arrive in the spring, sockeyes
(reds), generally the most abundant, chums (dogs), pinks (humpies), and silvers (cohos), which are the last to arrive and run into September.
Within the study area, in the mid 198Os, the Ugashik system supported a strong sockeye run, but smaller runs of kings and silvers. The Meshik system produced kings and silvers, but few sockeyes. The Cinder River system supported a strong silver salmon return. Another anadromous fish within the study area were sme.lt, which returned to the Ugashik system in
September or October. Freshwater fish species available to local residents included northern pike, rainbow trout, lake trout, grayling, whitefish, and
Dolly Varden. Other than salmon, fish resources declined in availability further south on the peninsula, with residents of Port Heiden generally having limited access to freshwater fish resources other than Dolly Varden and lake trout.
The Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd ranges from the Naknek
River to Port Moller. The herd moves slowly in late winter to the south
9 west towards calving areas on the coastal plain where most cows and calves
remain in spring and summer. Most calving occurs between Port Heiden and
the Sandy River and near the Cinder River, but there are smaller calving
areas scattered elsewhere as well. Most cows reach the calving areas by
mid May, but some appear near the Cinder River by March and south of Port
Heiden by mid April. In spring and summer, bulls and yearlings scatter and
are found throughout the mountains and along the entire coast. In late
summer and continuing into the fall, the herd begins a slow shift to the
northeast to winter ranges between the Ugashik and Naknek rivers. Some
caribou reach Becharof Lake by August, but others remain south of Port
Heiden until late October. Scattered bands of caribou can be found
throughout the herd's range in winter. Movements to the south to calving
areas begin again in February and March. The Northern Alaska Peninsula
Caribou Herd contained approximately 20,000 animals in 1983 (ADF&G
1985a:lll-119).
Moose did not inhabit the Alaska Peninsula in substantial numbers
before 1900. Their population increased steadily in this century, peaking
in the late 1960s. Since that time, the moose population in Game
Management Unit 9E has declined by about half (ADF&G 1985a:134-135).
Other game animals which inhabit the general area near the study
communities included snowshoe hare, Arctic hare, porcupine, and several
species of fur bearers, including wolf, wolverine, lynx, red fox, river
otter, mink, weasels, and beaver. Except for fox, however, the remainder
of these furbearers were reportedly rare to absent near Port Heiden.
Several species of marine mammals inhabit the waters of Bristol Bay
near the study communities. Those of significance to residents of the
study area include harbor seals, walrus, and sea otters.
10 Common upland birds in the general study area included rock and willow ptarmigan. Numerous species of migratory waterfowl use the Alaska
Peninsula as a staging area during spring and fall migrations. Tundra swans nest along the peninsula's lakes. Seabirds of importance to local residents include gulls and terns, and shorebirds include snipes.
PREHISTORY AND HISTORY
In 1987, most of the inhabitants of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port
Heiden considered themselves to be Alaska Natives, and most called
themselves "Aleuts." However, the Alaska Native language spoken historically in these communities, and still spoken by some of the older
residents, is Pacific Yupik, also called Sugpiaq, Alutiiq, or Sugcestun
(Krauss 1982). This language is also spoken in five communities on the.
Pacific side of the peninsula (Chignik Lake, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik,
Ivanof Bay, and Perryville), as well as Kodiak Island, English Bay and Port
Graham on lower Cook Inlet, and in several Prince William Sound
communities. It is closely related to, but not mutually intelligible with,
Central Yupik, spoken in Naknek, the Iliamna Lake region, the Yukon-
Kuskokwim Delta, and parts of Norton Sound. Although Pacific Yupik and
Aleut belong to the same language family, they are separated by thousands
of years of independent developments (Woodbury 1984).
A major reason for the uncertainty about the precise ethnic
affiliation of residents of the study area over time is that archaeological
and historical evidence suggest that the Bering Sea side of the Alaska
Peninsula has long been along the borders of cultural traditions and has
been the site of the blending of socioeconomic adaptations. The earliest
11 evidence of human habitation on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska
Peninsula dates to approximately 7000 B.C., at Ugashik, and is part of the
Paleoarctic Tradition (Dumond 1977:40). These people were hunters of land mammals, especially caribou. This was followed by the Northern Archaic
Tradition, again with an interior orientation focused on big game hunting
(Dumond 1977:47-54). Around 2000. B.C., at the Hot Springs Site near Port
Moller, just to the southwest of the study a-rea, appeared a coast-adapted people from elsewhere in the Bering Sea region, possibly Asia, with a
Norton-like chipped stone industry. Dumond (1987:47-49, 51) has recently suggested that this group was ancestral to the historic speakers of the
Aleut language who occupied the Alaska Peninsula southwest of Port Moller and the Aleutian Islands at the time of arrival of the Russians in the mid
1700s. The Aleuts underwent a relatively independent cultural development until Europeans intervened after 1741 (Dumond 1987:51).
Meanwhile, the areas of the Alaska Peninsula south and north of the
Aleutian Range and east of Port Moller were undergoing two separate lines of cultural change. By 4000 B.C. and persisting until about A.D. 1100, the archaeological traditions of the Pacific drainage side of the Alaska
Peninsula shared traits with cultures of Kodiak Island. These people were oriented towards the open water hunting of sea mammals and specialized in ground slate artifacts (Workman 1980). There is very little evidence of the exchange of materials and ideas across the Aleutian Range during this
5,000 year period (Oswalt 1967:239). On the other hand, archaeological data and data from physical anthropology suggest links between Kodiak
Island and the associated southern Alaska Peninsula with peoples of the
Northwest Coast of North America (Dumond 1974:1-2; Dumond 1987:49).
12 In contrast, the Bering Sea drainage area of the Alaska Peninsula, including the area near the three study communities, shared in the cultural changes taking place to the north along the Bering Sea. From there, the
Arctic Small Tool tradition spread across northern North America as far as
Greenland to the east and to the northern Alaska Peninsula in the south, but ended abruptly about 200 km east of Port Moller (Dumond 1987:48). Many scholars suggest that the spread of this sea mammal and caribou hunting way of life represents the first movement of Eskimo-speaking peoples across the
Arctic (Oswalt 1967:41-43). The Arctic Small Tool Tradition developed into and was replaced by the pottery-making Norton Culture. This had occurred on the northern Alaska Peninsula by around 400 B.C. Norton peoples had an economy oriented around the open water hunting of sea mammals and riverine
fishing for salmon (Oswalt 1967144-45).
Around A.D. 1, Eskimo-speaking peoples of the Bering Strait region had
developed effective methods for ice hunting of sea mammals as well, The
consequent tradition, called the Thule, began expanding to the east and the
south. By about A.D. 1000, Thule cultures had replaced or blended with
earlier traditions across an immense territory from the Alaska Peninsula to
Greenland. About A.D. 1100, the Thule Tradition expanded to the Pacific
Coast, crossing the Aleutian Range, and then reaching and blending with the
earlier traditions of Kodiak Island. Dumond (1987:46) hypothesizes that
the spread of the Thule culture is responsible for the introduction of the
Inupiaq and Yupik Eskimo languages within their present range in Alaska,
Canada, and Greenland (Fig. 2). He postulates a replacement of former
languages and populations by proto-Inupiaq speakers in the north, but
suggests that because of the denser populations in the present-day Yupik-
speaking areas of southwest and southern Alaska, bearers of Thule culture
13 CENTRAL YUPIK
CHUGACH
GULF OF ALASKA
BRISTOL BAY
b 43 AC IIQ i
0 50 100 - ---- 'I Miles I
Figure 2. Languages of the Native Peoples of the Alaska Peninsula. mixed with established populations. On the Pacific side of the Alaska
Peninsula and Kodiak Island, the language which evolved into modern Pacific
Yupik was introduced by Thule culture bearers to a much larger population, who had spoken a now unknown language, by "language capture" (Dumond
1987:46).
There is very little information about the Native population of the
study area at the time of European arrival in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. According to Oswalt (1967:8; cf. Woodbury 1984:53), the
inhabitants were "Peninsular Eskimos" speaking an unknown dialect of Yupik.
These people probably shared with other inhabitants of the Bering Sea coast
a diversified foraging economy based on marine mammal hunting, caribou
hunting, and salmon fishing (Oswalt 1967:102, VanStone 1984b:228-233).
According to Oswalt (1967:4-5), in the early 19th century the Central
Yupik-speaking Aglegmiut from the.Nushagak Bay area occupied the northern
Alaska Peninsula and may have assimilated the Peninsular Eskimos. However,
it now appears unlikely that this movement extended much beyond the Naknek
River (VanStone 1984b:224). Present linguistic affiliations, linking the
study communities with the southern Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island,
also support the view that the peninsula population remained distinct from
the Aglegmiut. Thus, while subsistence adaptations link the native
population with other Bristol Bay people, linguistically they are related
to the Pacific Eskimos. This suggests that intermarriage and movements of
people across the Aleutian Range have occurred at least during the last
several hundred years.
The Russians arrived in the Aleutian Islands and lower Alaska
Peninsula in the mid 18th century (Table 2), establishing the fur trade
among the native Aleut population. As the Russians continued to explore
15 TABLE 2. SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS IN AND NEAR THE STUDY COMMUNITIES
1741 The Russians under Bering and Chirikov reach Alaska from Siberia and begin establishing the fur trade in the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula.
1‘778 Captain James Cook leads first European exploration of Bristol Bay.
1790 A Russian expedition under the command of Dimitri Bocharov explores the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula as far as the Kvichak River, and then portages across the peninsula to the Pacific Ocean.
1818 The Russian-American Company founds its first trading station on Bristol Bay, called Aleksandrovskiy Redoubt (Nushagak) near the mouth of the Nushagak River.
1827 Captains Fedor Lutke and M. Staniukovich survey the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula
1841 The Russian Orthodox Church establishes a mission at Alexandrovskiy Redoubt
1867 The United States purchases Alaska from Russia.
1.883 A salmon saltery established on Ugashik River.
1884 The Bering Sea Packing Company builds a cannery at Ugashik
1889 "Pilot Station" saltery established at present site of Pilot Point.
1893 Cannery established by Alaska Packers Association near Pilot Point.
Late 19th century Establishment of cod fishery brings Scandinavian fishermen to Port Heiden
Early 20th century Port Heiden Packing Company builds saltery at Port Heiden; closed in 1930s.
1909 School opened at Pilot Point
1918 Influenza epidemic severely depletes the Native population of the study area. Unangashik village abandoned. Population centralizes at Pilot Point and Port Heiden.
1923 Inupiaq Eskimos from Teller settled at Pilot Point to establish reindeer herd.
1933 Post office established at Pilot Point; present name of the community established.
1940s During World War II, army airbase built near Port Heiden; construction of air strip
16 TABLE 2, continued.
Early 1950s Last residents leave Ilnik.
1958 The last cannery operating on the Ugashik River, at Ugashik, closes.
1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
1972 - 1978 Little commercial sockeye salmon fishing allowed in the Ugashik District due to depressed stocks. Stocks rebuilt by 1979.
1984 New housing development in Port Heiden.
Sources: Pilot Point Journal 1979; Van Stone 1984a; Nebesky et al 1983; Langdon 1982; Tuttle 1983
17 the southern Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, they extended the name
"Aleut" to these Pacific Eskimos as well. This name became preferred by
Pacific Eskimos as a means to distinguish themselves from more northern
Eskimo peoples, and it persists today (Clark 1984:195-196; cf. Tuten 1977).
The English Captain James Cook led the first known European exploration of Bristol Bay in 1778. In 1790, a Russian, Dimitri Bocharov, explored the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula from Unimak Island to the
Kvichak River, and then portaged across the mid Alaska Peninsula to the
Pacific Ocean. Following this, the Russians established the fur trade in
the Bristol Bay and northern Alaska Peninsula area. They founded a post at
Nushagak Bay called Aleksandrovskiy in 1818, where a Russian Orthodox mission began in 1841. Most native people in the area were thereby drawn
into the fur trade and most were converted to the Russian Orthodox faith.
In 1827, two Russian captains, Lutke and Staniukovich, conducted a survey
of the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula (Tuttle 1983:13).
Alaska passed from Russian to American ownership in 1867. The first
census of Alaska conducted during the American period occurred in 1880. In
that year, three villages in the present study area were identified:
Mashikh (present day Port Heiden), with 40 people; Oogashik (Ugashik), with
177 people; and Oonangashik (Unangashik), with 37 people. There were
probably at least two other settlements whose descendants now live in the
study communities, Ilnik and Bear River (Table 3).
The next major change in the study area came with the development of
the commercial salmon fishing industry in Bristol Bay. In 1883, a salmon
saltery was built on the Ugashik River, followed in the next year by a
cannery at Ugashik. Facilities at Pilot Point date to 1889 with the
18 TABLE 3. POPULATION HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA
--1880 1890 -1900 -1910 1920 ---1930 1940 1950 ---1960 1970 1980 --1985 1987 Bear Rivera
Ilnika
Pilot Point 120f NA NA 114 67 61 68 66 79 64
Port Heiden 4ob 74e NA NA 30 51 NA NA 74 66 92 108 103
Port Moller 45 33
Ugashik 177c 154 348 MA NA 84 55 48 36 NA 13 NA 10
Unangashik 37d 190 a Bear River and Ilnik were occupied settlements which do not appear in the census records. b "Mashikh"
C "Oogashik" d "Oonangashik" e "Meshik" f Approximate population prior to the 1918 flu epidemic. "One family" survived the epidemic (Orth 1967:756). The village does not appear in the 1910 census report. ,
Sources: Rollins 1978; Alaska Department of Labor 1987. Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, May 1987. establishment of a saltery near the site of the present village, called
"Pilot Station" in 1900 for the Ugashik River pilots stationed there. At
Port Heiden, a cod fishery developed. It attracted Scandinavian fishermen who settled the community (Langdon 1982:272, 312-313).
In 1918, an influenza epidemic severely depleted the Native population
of the study area's villages. Of 120 "Aleut" residents of Pilot Point, one
family survived (Orth 1967:756). Ugashik's decline as the major village in
the area dates to this time, when survivors of the epidemic began moving to
Pilot Point. According to respondents in Port Heiden, the village of
Unangashik was abandoned at this time, and P.ort Heiden's population
eventually increased as remnants of other villages concentrated there.
In 1923, Pilot Point's population grew with the arrival of Inupiaq
Eskimos from Teller, who attempted to establish a reindeer herd nearby. It
is reported that these Eskimos lived in a distinct part of the village,
called "Eskimo Town," and did not intermarry with the resident "Aleuts."
The last person connected with this population died in 1977 (Pilot Point
Journal 1979:2).
World War II brought the development of a military air base near Port
Heiden and the construction of an airstrip which is still used today. In
1958, the last cannery operating in the Ugashik River Drainage, at Ugashik,
closed. Since that time, fishermen in the district have sold their catches
to floating processors or to the canneries in Egegik, -Naknek, South Naknek,
and Dillingham.
In 1971, with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
Native residents of the three study communities became members of the
Bristol Bay Native Corporation and three village corporations. Beginning
in 1972, poor sockeye salmon runs led to the closure the commercial fishery
20 for this spec‘ies in the Ugashik District. Local fishermen fished the
Egegik sockeye runs until the Ugashik sockeye fishery reopened in 1979
(Langdon 1982:313). ~
21 CHAPTER THREE
DEMOGRAPHYAND CASH ECONOMY
PILOT POINT
Demography
Pilot Point is located on the east shore of Ugashik Bay on the Alaska
Peninsula, about 80 miles southwest of King Salmon (Fig. 3). Pilot Point's population has been relatively stable at around 65 people since 1950 (Table
3). In May 1987 there were 18 households in the community with 64 year-round
residents.- The 17 sampled households in May 1987 had 61 year-round
residents, for an average household size of 3.6 people (Table 4). Figure 4
presents the age and sex composition of the population of Pilot Point. This
population was about equally divided between males and females and was
relatively young, with an average age of 26.7 years. There were only three
individuals over 65 years of age (4.9 percent), while 21 (34.4 percent) were
19 years old or younger.
As shown in Table 4, all but one household in the sample had an Alaska
Native head or spouse. In total, 88.5 percent of the population had Alaska
Native ancestry. Most residents had been born in the study communities (63.9
percent) or in other Bristol Bay or Alaska Peninsula communities (19.7
percent). The rest were originally from other parts of Alaska (6.6 percent)
or outside the state (9.8 percent).
22 BRISTOL
BAY
Figure 3. Pilot Point and Ugashik Area.
23 TABLE 4. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLED HOUSEHOLDS, PILOT POINT, UGASHIK, AND PORT HEIDEN, MAY 1987
Pilot Point Ugashik Port Heiden
Number of sampled households 17 5 37
% of total households 94.4% 100.0% 100.0%
Average household size 3.6 2.0 2.8
Total sample population 61 10 103
% male 49.2% 90.0% 59.2%
% female 50.8% 10.0% 40.8%
% of household heads or spouse, AK Native 94.1% 80.0% 78.4%
% of hh's population AK Native ancestry 88.5% 80.0% 72.8%
% of hh's with head zr spouse born in study communities 88.3% 80.0% 59.5%
% of hh's with head or spouse born other Bristol Bay/AK Peninsula communities 5.9% 0 16.2%
% of hh's with head or spouse born in other Alaska communities 5.9% 0 8.1%
% of hh's with head and spouse born outside Alaska 0 20.0% 16.2%
% of total populagion born in study communities 63.9% 80.0% 52.4%
% of the total population born in other Bristol Bay/AK Peninsula 19.7% 0 15.5%
% of total population born other Alaska communities 6.6% 0 10.7%
% of total population born 9.8% 20.0% 21.4% outside Alaska
a People who had been born in hospitals (for example, in Anchorage or Dillingham) while their parents were permanent residents of one of the study communities were classified as being "born in" the study communities.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987.
24 PILOT POINT MALE 49.2% FEMALE 50.8%
75-79 (1.6%) 1
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9 .:...‘.... 22% 4 (6.6%) o-4 “r,I.,,I.:.:.:. ~~ 15 10 5 0 5 10 15
N= 6 1 Persons NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Fiqure 4. Population Profile, Pilot Point, Xav 1987.
25 Services and Facilities
In May 1987, the village of Point Point consisted of about 20 single
family homes, a combined village center/health clinic, a store, a Russian
Orthodox church, a post office, a cold storage building, the school, several
airplane hangers, and the Alaska Packers Association (APA) cannery. The
cannery was owned by the village council, but was not in operation in 1986.
Pilot Point is an unincorporated community. A seven member village
council is the community's governing body, During the study period, the
village council operated the community hall/health clinic and the village
electric generator. The council was also responsible for providing fire
protection.
Health care was provided at the clinic by a health aid funded by the
Alaska Area Native Health Service through the Bristol Bay Area Health
Corporation. Village residents traveled to Dillingham or Anchorage for
hospitalization or specialized medical care. Also, a physician, nurse, and
dentist regularly visited the community.
The school was operated by the Lake and Peninsula School District. In
1987, there were nine students, including two from Ugashik, and one teacher.
Three of these students were in high school grades, although parents of other
children of high school age sent them to Anchorage.
Pilot Point is not connected by road to any other community. Access to
the village is by air or water. During the study period, several air taxi
companies provided service between Pilot Point and King Salmon. Mail was
delivered from King Salmon six times a week. There was also barge service,
usually four to six times a year from April through September. Pilot Point
26 does not have a state maintained dock or harbor, although during the summer of 1987 a bulkhead was installed at Dago Creek.
Most households in the community had phones, although families also used
CB radios for communication. Fuel oil was the primary heating source for all homes. The fuel was delivered once or twice a year by barge. Some families supplemented oil heat with wood burning stoves. Village residents also used wood to fuel steam baths. Private wells supplied water.
Employment
As shown in Table 5, 87.5 percent of the adults in the Pilot Point sample were employed for at least one month during the study year. On average, these adults worked at 2.3 different jobs during this period and were employed during an average of 8.5 months. Only 34.3 percent of the 35 employed adults worked year-round.
Of the 81 jobs held by Pilot Point residents during the study period,-
54.4 percent were connected with natural resource employment such as commercial fishing or trapping (Table 6); most all of these (63.6 percent) were commercial fishermen or crew members. The rest of the jobs in this category involved trapping furbearers, another source of income for .Pilot
Point residents.
Other than commercial fishing, employment opportunities in Pilot Point in 1987 were quite limited. The next most significant employer type was local government, with 23.5 percent of the jobs (Table 6). Many of these jobs were with the village council, which occasionally hired individuals on a short term basis for maintenance of village facilities. Other, more steady wage employment opportunities in this category included two positions with
27 TABLE 5. EMPLOYMENTCHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY COMMUNITIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
PILOT POINT UGASHIK PORT HEIDEN
NUMBER OF ADULTS EMPLOYED DURING PART 35 9 57 OF STUDY YEARa
PERCENT OF TOTAL ADULTS EMPLOYED 87.5% 100.0% 80.3% DURING STUDY YEAR
NUMBER OF JOBS HELD 81 19 108 BY EMPLOYED ADULTS
AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS HELD PER 2.3 2.1 1.9 EMPLOYED ADULT
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS DURING WHICH 8.5 7.9 9.5 EMPLOYED ADULTS WERE EMPLOYEDb
PERCENT OF EMPLOYED ADULTS THAT WERE 34.3% 11.1% 54.4% EMPLOYED YEAR-ROUND e AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS EMPLOYED, 8.8 8.4 9.7 ALL HOUSEHOLDHEADS a Excluding those classed as disabled, homemakers, students, or retired for the entire 12 month period. Includes any adult working for at least one month during the study period. An adult was defined as any person 18 years of age or older. b Respondents indicated the months during which they were employed. In some cases, they were employed for only portions of these months.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADFGG, Survey 1987.
28 TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF JOBS BY EMPLOYER TYPE WITHIN THE STUDY COMMUNITIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
PILOT POINT UGASHIK PORT HEIDEN N= 81 jobs N= 19 jobs N= 108 jobs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES, FORESTRY 54.3% 78.9% 40.7%
CONSTRUCTION 2.5% 5.3% 1.9%
MANUFACTURING 0 10.5% 0
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES 8.6% 0 4.6%
RETAIL TRADE 1.2% 0 3.7%
SERVICES 2.5% 0 5.6%
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2.5% 0 .9%
STATE GOVERNMENT 0 5.3% 2.8%
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 23.5% 0 34.3%
SELF: CRAFTS 3.7% 0 2.8%.
NATIVE CORPORATION 1.2% 0 .9%
GUIDES 0 0 1.9%
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987.
29 the school -- a janitor and a teacher's aid -- in addition to the teacher, who was from outside the community. The school also occasionally hired village residents on a temporary basis to assist in the instruction of subjects such as traditional crafts or furbearer trapping.
The next most common employer type in Pilot Point during the study period was the transportation, communications, and utilities category, which accounted for another 8.6 percent of the jobs (Table 6). Two year-round residents were pilots for local air taxi services, and one person served as an agent for a King Salmon-based service. Also, several people in the community were self-employed as craftspeople (3.7 percent). There were also a few jobs in the services (2.5 percent), such as the health aid and alternate. There were a few jobs with construction companies (2.5 percent) and the federal government at the post office (2.5 percent). The retail trades category accounted for a single position at the family-owned store, although this facility usually hired two seasonal clerks in the summer when business increases with the commercial fishing activity.
Table 7 reports the percentage of the jobs held by Pilot Point residents during the study year by occupational category. Not surprisingly, the agriculture, fisheries, and forestry category, which contained the commercial fishermen and trappers, accounted for most of the jobs, 54.3 percent. The professional and manager category, with the .pilots and teacher, among others, was the next most significant, with 17.3 percent of the positions.
Occupations such as machine trades (6.2 percent), clerical and sales (7.4 percent), and miscellaneous labor (2.5 percent), many of which were in demand by the village council on a part-time basis, made up most of the rest of the jobs in 1986-1987.
30 TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF JOBS BY OCCUPATIONAL TYPE WITHIN STUDY COMMUNITIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
PILOT POINT UGASHIK PORT HEIDEN N= 81 jobs N= 19 jobs N= 108 jobs
PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL, MANAGER 17.3% 0 17.6%
CLERICAL & SALES 7.4% 0 5.6%
SERVICES WORKER 4.9% 0 8.3%
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES, FORESTRY 54.3% 78.9% 40.7%
Commerciai Fishing a 34.6% 47.4% 33.3% Trapping 19.8% 31.6% 7.4%
PROCESSING 0 10.5% 0
MACHINE TRADES 6.2% 5.3% 4.6%
STRUCTURAL 1.2% 5.3% 2.8%
MOTOR FREIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION 2.5% 2.8% . PACKAGING & MATERIALS HANDLING 0 1.9%
MISCELLANEOUS LABOR 2.5 13.0%
CRAFTS, ARTIST 3.7 2.8% a Commercial fishing and .. trapping are sub-categories of "agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry."
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987.
3.1 Monetarv Income
Table 8 reports monetary incomes for Pilot Point from several sources.
The average earned household income for the community for June 1986 through
May 1987, as estimated by surveyed households, was $33,569. About 74.8 percent of this earned income derived from commercial fishing, and 20.8
percent was from wage employment. In addition, furbearers trapped by Pilot
Point residents during the study year had a value of $25,405, about 4.5 percent of the community's earned income. Other sources of income, such as pensions and transfer payments, averaged $1,688 per household. In sum, the
average household income from all sources in Pilot Point during the study
period was $35,257.
Cost of Living
During the research in May 1987, respondents in the study communities
estimated their monthly costs for home heating, transportation fuel,
electricity, housing, and food. Table 9 reports the results. On average,
Pilot Point households estimated that they spent $146 a month for heating
their homes, $113 a month for fuel for transportation, and $42 for
electricity. Only two households rented their homes; this expense averaged
$44 for the entire sample, but $375 a month for the two renters. In general,
respondents had difficulty estimating their expenses for food. Their best
guesses averaged $380 a month.
32 TABLE 8. MONETARY INCOMES OF THE STUDY COMMUNITIES FOR 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, AND JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
PILOT POINT UGASHIK PORT HEIDEN
INCOME, 1978a $13,737 NA $ 9,304
INCOME, 197gb $31,517 NA $28,917
INCOME, 1981a $22,569 NA $20,686
INCOME, 1982a $17,865 NA $15,830
INCOME, 1983' NA NA $ 8,287
HOUSEHOLD INCOME, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987d Earned Income Commercial Fishing $25,100 $21,000 $16,345 Trapping $ 1,494 $ 3,511 $ 162 Other Earned Income $ 6,975 $ 1,925 $ 9,813 Total Earned Income $33,569 $26,436 $26,320
Other Incomee $ 1,688 $ 0 $ 2,181
Total, All Income $35,257 $26,436 $28,501
Average taxable income per return. Source: Alaska Department of Revenue 1985.
Mean household income. Source: United States Bureau of the Census 1980.
Per capita income estimate. Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1986: 17.
Source: Division of Subsistence Survey, May 1987. These represent minimum cash incomes for those surveyed households that supplied income data. Sample size: Pilot Point, 17; Ugashik, 4; Port Heiden, 37.
Includes social security, pensions, longevity bonus, energy assistance, public assistance, aid to families with dependent children, food stamps, and disability benefits.
33 TABLE 9. AVERAGE ESTIMATED MONTHLY EXPENSES AT PILOT POINT, UGASHIK, AND PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Pilot Port Point Ugashik Heiden Expense N=17a N=5a N=36a
Heating Fuel $146 $390 $135
Transportation Fuel $113 $100(4) $ 97
Housing $ 44 0 $ 83(37)
Food $380(16) $417(3) $390(32)
Electricity $42(15) -- $ 70(34)
TOTAL $725 $907 $77.5
a Sample size except where noted.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF& G, Survey 1987. UGASHIK
Demography
Ugashik is located on the east bank of the Ugashik River, nine miles upriver from Ugashik Bay (Fig. 3). During this century, Ugashik's permanent population has declined steadily (Table 3). In May 1987, the five year-round households had a total of ten members, nine males and one female. Only two of the residents were under 20 years of age. Eighty percent of the population had Alaska Native ancestry and all but two people had been born in
one of the study communities. Two residents estimated that an additional
nine households and 40 people were seasonal residents of Ugashik during
summer commercial fishing.
Facilities and Services
In 1987, the village of Ugashik consisted of about 14 single family
homes, the facilities of a small salmon processing company, and the abandoned
APA cannery.
Ugashik is an unincorporated community. A four member village council
is the only governing body. During the study period, services and community
facilities in Ugashik were extremely limited. There was -no school or clinic.
School age children boarded with a family in Pilot Point or attended school
in Anchorage. Community residents traveled to Pilot Point or Dillingham for
health care needs. There was no store; residents obtained supplies from
Pilot Point or barged them in from outside the region. Private generators
35 supplied electricity and families relied on private wells for water. Homes were heated with fuel oil barged in from Egegik (Nebesky et al 1983:252).
Ugashik is not connected by road to any other community, although a
trail utilized by snowmachines or ATV's links Ugashik with Pilot Point in the winter. The village is accessible by air and water. In 1986-1987, several
air taxis provided regular service to Pilot Point and King Salmon. The
community's gravel air strip is large enough to accommodate cargo planes.
Employment
All of the adults in Ugashik held jobs for a least one month during the
study year, but only one was employed year round (Table 5). The average
length of employment for the nine employed adults was 7.9 months. Of the 19
jobs held by Ugashik residents, almost all were related to commercial fishing
or furbearer trapping (78.9 percent) (Table 6). There were few other cash
earning opportunities in Ugashik. Of the four other jobs, one was with the
state, one with a construction company, and two with the local family-owned
salmon processing company. The two summer positions with this processing
operation were usually filled by people from outside the community.
By occupational type, 78.9 percent of the jobs were natural resource-
related occupations, mostly commercial fishermen and some trappers. Two
occupations were related to salmon processing. (manufacturing), and one each
in the machine trades and structural categories (Table 7).
36 Monetary Income
As shown in Table 8, the only recent source on monetary incomes of
Ugashik households is the information collected during the Division of
Subsistence research in 1987. The average household income for the community of $26,436 was lower than that of Pilot Point, but similar to estimated incomes for Port Heiden. As in the other two communities, commercial fishing provided most of the monetary incomes for Ugashik residents, 79.4. percent.
Sales of trapped furbearers accounted for 13.3 percent of the average household income, and other jobs provided the remaining 7.3,percent.
Cost of Living
According to the estimates of Ugashik households (Table 9), the average monthly cost of heating homes was $390 during the study period. Other costs per month were $100 for transportation fuel and $417 for food.
PORT HEIDEN
Demography
Port Heiden is located near the mouth of the Meshik River along Port Heiden
Bay and Bristol Bay, about 60 air miles south of Pilot Point and 140 air
miles southwest of King Salmon (Fig. 5). Port Heiden's population has
undergone a gradual growth during most of the twentieth century (Table 3).
From a total of 30 people in 1920, the population had increased to 108 by
1985. In May 1987, the 37 households in Port Heiden had a year-round
37 BRISTOL BAY
Strogonof Pt.
PORT
...... , _,,.. . .. \;:: I /A
Figure 5. The Port Heiden Area.
38 population of 103. As shown in Figure 6, about 60 percent of the community's population was male. Like Pilot Point, the population was young, with an average age of 27.8 years. Three residents (2.9 percent of the 102 people for which data are available) were 65 years old or above, while 35 (34.3 percent) were less than 20 years of age.
In May 1987, most of the household heads or their spouses in Port Heiden
(78.4 percent) were Alaska Native (Table 4). Of the total population, 72.8 percent had Alaska Native ancestry, the lowest of the three study communities. About half (52.4 percent) of the residents had been born in one of the study communities, while 15.5 percent were born in other Bristol Bay or Alaska Peninsula communities, and 10.7 percent were from other parts of
the state. The rest, 21.4 percent, were originally from outside Alaska, the
largest percentage of the three study villages,
Facilities and Services
In May 1987, the community of Port Heiden had two distinct sections.
The older village, formerly known as Meshik, contained ten occupied homes.
Connected by a 2.5 mile gravel road to this site was a development of 14 HUD
houses completed in 1984. Also in this section of the community were the
Russian Orthodox church, the public safety building, village council and city
offices, and the health clinic. The privately owned store was near by. The
public safety building, known locally as the "fire hall," housed a fire truck
and emergency vehicle, as well as the office of the village public safety
officer (VPSO), a meeting room, guest facilities, and the village power
plant. Another 1.8 miles along the road'was the airstrip, completed as a
military White Alice station during World War II. Here also was a lodge run
39 PORT HEIDEN
MALE FEMALE 59.2% 40.8%
75-79
70-74
65-69 (2.0%) 2
60-64 (2.0%) 2 1 (1.0%) I...... ,.a:.... $$.;;i 2 ( 2 . 0 % ) 55-59 (2.9%) 3 . . . . . I...... :.: ?i 1 (1.0%) 50-54 (2.9%) 3 $i:
(2.0%) 2” g 1 (1.0%) 45-49 :.:. .-:.:... 3. 2 (2.0%) 40-44 (2.9%) 3 [- ...... & .-: . ..’ . ..’ 35-39 . ..’
30-34
25-29 (8.
20-24 (2.9%) 3
15-19 (3.9%) 4
10-14. (3.9%) 4
5-9
o-4
15 10 5 0 5 10 15 N = 103 Persons Note: one female has NUMBER OF PEOPLE age missing
Ficwre 6. Population Profile, Port Heiden, May 1987.
40 by Reeve Aleutian Airlines, which serviced visiting hunters, construction workers, and others. The school, constructed in 1979, was located along the road between the old village and the new subdivision. Other community facilities included a small privately owned restaurant. The remainder of the homes were located along the road system between the old village and the airstrip.
Port Heiden was incorporated as a second class city in 1972. An elected city council is the governing body. In 1987, the city operated the public safety building and provided electrical power, fuel oil delivery, and road maintenance. The city had several part time employees, including the mayor, a clerk, a light plant maintenance person, and fuel delivery person.
Frequently, other village residents were hired on a short term basis by the city for minor maintenance and construction jobs. The VPSO was hired by the
Bristol Bay Native Association and supervised by the Alaska State Troopers. .
There is also a Port Heiden Village Council which serves as the tribal governing body for the community's Alaska Native residents.
Health care was provided at a clinic operated by the Bristol Bay Area
Health Corporation. The clinic was staffed by a health aid and alternate.
Villagers traveled to Dillingham or Anchorage for more specialized treatment.
The Port Heiden school was operated by the Lake and Peninsula School
District. In May 1987 there were 30 students enrolled in pre-school through
12th grade. Three teachers were employed by the school district in Port
Heiden. In addition, other positions associated with the school included a cook, a janitor, and bus driver.
Port Heiden is not connected by road to any other community. Primary transportation to the community is by air from King Salmon by one of several air taxi services, or from Anchorage, through Cold Bay, on Reeve Aleutian
41 Airways. Fuel is delivered by barge each fall. In some years, families charter barges to deliver other supplies; there were no charter barges during the study year. There is no harbor at Port Heiden.
Most homes in the community had electricity, running water from private wells, and were heated by fuel oil. Many had telephones, although communication with CB radios was common as well.
Emplovment
As *shown in Table 5, 57 adults in Port Heiden (80.3 percent of all persons 18 years of age and older) were employed for at least a portion of the study year. These adults held 108 jobs, 1.9 per person, and worked an average of 9.5 months, the longest period of the three study communities.
Over half (54.4 percent) were employed year-round, again more than in.Pilot
Point or Ugashik.
By employer type, the greatest number of jobs in Port Heiden (40.7 percent) were in the agriculture, fisheries, and forestry category (Table 6).
Most of these jobs were connected with commercial fishing (81.8 percent) and
the rest with trapping. Next, 34.3 percent of the employment opportunities was with the local government. These were mostly the short-term jobs provided by the city, but also included employment with the school. Services
(5.6 percent), including the clinic, was the third major employer type. jobs with transportation, communications, and utilities accounted for 4.6 percent
of the jobs. There were smaller numbers of jobs with retail trades (3.7
percent), state government (2.8 percent), crafts (2.8 percent), big game
guides (1.9 percent), construction (1.9 percent), federal government at the
post office (.9 percent), and the native corporation (.9 percent).
42 By occupational type, commercial fishermen and other resource-related occupations were the largest category at Port Heiden during the study year
(40.7 percent) (Table 7). The professional, techniGa1, and manager category of occupations was second (17.6 percent), with occupations such as teachers and pilots. Miscellaneous labor accounted for 13.0 percent of the jobs by occupational type, while services workers, such as health aides, made up 8.3 percent. Clerical and sales (5.6 percent) and machine trades (4.6 percent) were next. There were a few crafts people in the community (2.8 percent of the jobs), and a few occupations in the remaining categories.
Monetarv Income
Table 8 reports monetary incomes for Port Heiden from several sources.
Interviewed households in 1987 averaged earned incomes of $26,320 for the 12 month study period, 62.1 percent of which derived from commercial fishing
activities, 37.3 from other employment, and 0.6 percent from trapping.
Income from other sources averaged $2,181 per household, for a total average household income during the study year of $28,501.
Cost of Living
Interviewed households estimated their monthly bills for several
categories of expenditures. According to these estimates, Port Heiden
households spent on average $135 on home heating fuel, $70 on electricity,
$97 on transportation fuel, $83 on housing, and $390 on food during the study
year (Table 9).
43 COMMERCIAL FISHING
Pilot Point and Uaashik
In the 1970s and 198Os, including the study year, households in Ugashik and Pilot Point used either drift gill nets or set gill nets to fish commercially for salmon. In 1986, 82.4 percent of the sampled households in
Pilot Point, and 100 percent of the households in Ugashik, contained members who were involved in commercial salmon fishing. Ten Pilot Point households
(58.8 percent) held limited entry permits, as did three (60.0 percent) in
Ugashik.
Most of the commercial fishing effort by residents of the two villages took place in the Ugashik District of the Bristol Bay Area. The Ugashik
River has a small king salmon run; while a few boats from Pilot Point fished for kings locally or traveled to Port-Heiden to fish, most commercial fishing effort began in mid June with the arrival of sockeye salmon. This run peaks in mid July. Fishermen from Pilot Point and Ugashik were joined by boats from Port Heiden, and in some years by fishermen who first fished the earlier sockeye runs in the Egegik, Naknek/Kvichak, or Nushagak districts. In 1986, an unusually high number of boats from these districts fished the Ugashik sockeye run because of the low return to the Kvichak River and the favorable forecast for the Ugashik District.
Following the sockeye run, about one quarter of the Pilot Point boats usually ceased fishing. The others traveled to the Cinder River to fish for silvers. This run ends in mid September.
Pilot Point and Ugashik drift net fishermen used 32 foot wooden or fiberglass boats. In 1981, about half of the crew on these boats are non-
44 local residents, but most were friends of the permit holders (Langdon
1982:331).
Set net fishermen from Pilot Point used sites on a three mile stretch of sandy beach in front of the village. At Ugashik, set netting took place on the pebble beach in front of the village. At both locations, set net fishing was a family operation. Most nets were picked from skiffs.
In the 198Os, there were three types of commercial processors operating
in the Ugashik district. These were small scale freezing and fly-out
operations, floating processors in Ugashik Bay, and a cottage industry glass pack cannery at Ugashik. In addition, canneries sent tenders to Ugashik Bay
to purchase fish. Most local commercial fishermen continued to sell most of
their catch to cannery tenders, especially to the Diamond E cannery in Egegik
that was partly owned by the Pilot Point Village Corporation. This pattern was changing, however, as more fishermen were selling to floating processors
or fly-out operations that are targeted on the fresh-frozen market. Almost
all of the processors employed a non-local labor force (Langdon 1982:3f7-
343).
Few fishermen in Pilot Point or Ugashik participated in other commercial
fisheries in or near Bristol Bay. In 1986, four households from Pilot Point
(23.5 percent) had members who were crew members in the Togiak herring
fishery. Because of the small size of their boats, no residents of these two
communities fish for crab or bottomfish (cf. Langdon 1982:320).
Port Heiden
Residents of Port Heiden fish for salmon for commercial sale with drift
gill nets and set gill nets. Of the 37 surveyed households, 75.7 percent had
45 members who participated in commercial salmon fishing in 1986. Members of 16 households (43.2 percent) owned limited entry permits for salmon fishing.
During the 1970s and 198Os, Port Heiden's drift net fishermen began
their commercial harvests in late May when king salmon began returning to the
Meshik River, in the Port Heiden Section of the Alaska Peninsula Area.
Because the Meshik River does not support a commercial run of sockeye salmon,
in mid June, Port Heiden's drift net fleet traveled to the Ugashik District
to fish for sockeye and chum salmon. When the Ugashik sockeye run tapered
off towards the end of July, the Port Heiden fleet returned home. About a
quarter of the boats were pulled out of the water at this time, with the
remainder waiting to fish the return of silver salmon to the Meshik River,
beginning in mid August (Langdon 1982:278).
The set net fishermen of Port Heiden also fished the return of kings to
Bristol Bay and the Meshik River. Most set their nets along the beach in
front of the village itself. A few traveled by skiff to the mouth of the
Meshik River and fished there. Because there is no return of sockeyes to the
Meshik, the set net fishermen at Port Heiden attempted to intercept sockeyes
moving towards the Bristol Bay districts from sites along the beach in front
of the village. In August, the set net fishermen caught Meshik River silvers
in a pattern similar to that of fishing for kings (Langdon,1982:278).
There has been little participation by Port Heiden fishermen in
commercial fisheries other than salmon. A few fishermen (13.5 percent of the
sampled households in 1986) fish for herring in the Togiak district. Largely
because of the small size of their boats, no Port Heiden residents fish
commercially for bottomfish or crab (Langdon 1982:278).
46 CHAPTER FOUR
. RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE PATTERNS
SPECIES USED AND SEASONAL ROUND OF HARVESTING ACTIVITIES
Table 10 summarizes the variety of wild resources harvested or used by
Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden residents during the 12 month study period from June 1986 to May 1987. The total of approximately 56 fauna1 resources includes 17 species of fish, four species of marine invertebrates, 14 species of land mammals and furbearers, three species of marine mammals, and 18 species of birds. On average, the 17 sampled households in Pilot Point used 19.2 different resources and harvested a mean of 16.7 kinds (Table 11). At Ugashik, the five households used a mean of 18.0 resources and harvested an average of 17.4 types. Diet breadth was somewhat less diverse at Port Heiden, where the 37 households used a mean of 13.0 kinds of wild foods, and harvested a mean of 8.8 kind.s.
In the 198Os, the residents of all three Alaska Peninsula communities followed a similar seasonal pattern of wild resource harvests which is illustrated in Figure 7 (cf. Wright et al. 1985:66-69). The harvest year began with the break up of ice in the rivers and bays in March or April.
Hunting of migratory waterfowl such as ducks, geese, and cranes occurred in
April and May. Digging for clams and cockles was a popular activity during the low tides of spring. Also, households searched for the nests of gulls and terns to collect eggs. A few households hunted seals in spring, and some, especially at Port Heiden, combed the shore for beached marine mammals such as walrus. A few hunters took caribou before turning their
47 TABLE 10. WILD RESOURCES HARVESTED OR USED IN THE STUDY COMMUNITIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Used and/or Harvested in 1986-87 Pilot Port Point Ugashik Heiden Resource Scientific Name
SALMON King Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha X X X Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka X X X Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta X X X Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha x. Silver Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch X X X Landlocked ------X X X Spawning Sockeye ------X X
OTHER FISH Herring Clupea harengus pallasi X X Roe-on-kelp -D----- X X Cod Gadus macrocephalus X X Halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis X X Starry Flounder Platichthys stellatus X X X Smelt Osmerus mordax X X X Whitefish Coregonus spp. X X Rainbow Trout Salmo gairdneri X X Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush X X Grayling Thymallus arcticus . X Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma X X X Pike Esox lucius X X
MARINE INVERTEBRATES Butter Clams Saxidomus giganteus X X Razor Clams Siliqua patula X X Cockles Clinocardium spp. X X Tanner Crab Chionoecetes bairdi X X
MARINE MAMMALS Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina richardsi X X Walrus Odobenus rosmarus divergens X Sea Otter Enhydra lutris X X
LAND MAMMALS Caribou Rangifer tarandus X X Moose Alces alces gigas X X Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum X X Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus X Arctic Hare Lepus othus X Brown Bear Ursus arctos X
48 TABLE 10. (continued) WIILD RESOURCESHARVESTED OR USED IN THE STUDY COMMUNITIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Used and/or Harvested in 1986-87 Pilot Port Point Ugashik Heiden Resource Scientific Name
FURBEARERS Beaver Castor canadensis X X X Mink Mustela vison X X Red Fox Vulpes vulpes X X X Wolf Canis lupus X Wolverine Gulo gulo X X X Land Otter Lutra canadensis X X X Muskrat Ondontra zibethica Lynx Lynx canadensis X X Ground Squirrel Spermophilus parryii X X
BIRDS Ptarmigan Lagopus spp. X X X Emperor Goose Chen canagica X X X Canada Goose Branta canadensis minima X X X White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons X X X Black Brant Branta bernicla nigricans X X Snow Goose Chen caerulescens X Tundra Swan Odor columbianus X X Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis X X X Mallard &as platyrhynches X X X Pintail Anas acuta X X X Gadwall Anas strepera X X Wigeon Anas americana X X X Teal Anas crecca carolinensis X X X Eiders Somateria mollissima v-nigra X X Scoters Melanitta nigra X Shorebirds (e.g., Common Snipe) Capella gallinago X X X Gull Eggs Larus spp. X X X Duck Eggs __-___- X X X Swan Eggs ___-_m- X Tern Eggs Sterna paradisaea X
PLANTS Berries X X X Other Plants X X X
49 TABLE 11. RESOURCEHARVEST AND USE CHARACTERISTICS OF PILOT POINT, UGASHIK, AND PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 ,'MAY 1987
PILOT POINT UGASHIK PORT HEIDEN N=17 HH's N-5 HH's N=37 HH's MEAN NUMBER OF RESOURCESUSED PER 19.2 18.0 13.0 HOUSEHOLD
MEAN NUMBER OF RESOURCESATTEMPED TO 18.7 18.0 9.4 HARVEST PER HOUSEHOLD
MEAN NUMBER OF RESOURCESHARVESTED 16.7 17.4 8.8 PER HOUSEHOLD
MEAN NUMBER OF RESOURCESRECEIVED 4.2 .8 6.3
MEAN NUMBER OF RESOURCESGIVEN AWAY 4.5 5.8 5.0
MEAN HOUSEHOLD HARVEST, POUNDS 1,376.a lbs 1,628.a lbs. 1,134.7 lbs.
COMMUNITY PER CAPITA HARVEST IN POUNDSa 383.7 lbs. 814.4 lbs. 407.6 lbs.
HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA - HARVEST IN POUNDSa 394.7 lbs. 1,089.l lbs. 425.0 lbs.
PERCENT USING ANY RESOURCE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
PERCENT ATTEMPTING HARVEST OF ANY 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% RESOURCE
PERCENT HARVESTING ANY RESOURCE 100.0% 100.0% 97.3%
PERCENT RECEIVING ANY RESOURCE 94.1% 60.0% 91.9%
PERCENT GIVING AWAY ANY RESOURCE 88.2%. 100.0% 78.4% a Community per capita harvest equals the total resource harvest in pounds edible weight divided by the number of people in each sample. Household per capita harvest is computed by dividing each household's harvest by its size, and then averaging across households for each sample.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987.
50 KING SALMON
RED SALMON
CHUM SALMON
PINK SALMON
SILVER SALMON
-ANDLOCKED SAL.
BOTTOM FISH
IOLLY VARDEN
LAKE TROUT
SMELT
PIKE
CLAMS
HARBOR SEAL
CARIBOU
MOOSE
PORCUPINE
BEAVER
LAND OTTER
RED FOX
IUCKS & GEESE
PTARMIGAN
BIRD EGGS
BERRIES
USUAL HARVEST PERIOD
Figure 7. Seasonal Round of Resource Harvesting Activities, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden.
51 attention to commercial salmon fishing. Fishing for Dolly Varden also occurred in spring.
In May, with the anticipated return of salmon to Bristol Bay drainages, including the Ugashik and Meshik river systems, households in all three communities focused on preparations for the approaching subsistence and commercial fishing seasons. King salmon were the first to arrive, usually in June. These were taken with set and drift gill nets by
commercial fishermen and with subsistence set nets near all three
communities. Commercial fishermen commonly retained some king salmon from
their catches for home use. Commercial and subsistence fishing continued
through July,. concentrating on sockeyes with incidental harvests of king,
chum, and pink salmon. Commercial fishermen from Port Heiden traveled
north in their boats to fish for sockeyes in the Ugashik District. A few
families from this community set subsistence nets in Bristol Bay to
intercept the sockeye salmon which pass by the village towards spawning
streams to the northeast.
Starting about late August, a smaller number of commercial fishermen
took silver (coho) salmon in the Cinder River District or near Port Heiden.
This activity continued into September, and was a major source of salmon
for home use as well as for commercial sale. Silvers were also taken in
subsistence set nets. Several resources were harvested incidentally during
commercial salmon fishing, including Dolly Varden, flounder, cod, halibut,
and harbor seal.
By mid July, households began to pick the first of the year's ripening
berries. These were harvested in large quantities by whole families, by
groups of women, or by individual women. In addition, waterfowl hunting
and caribou hunting resumed in August. Caribou were desirable at this time
52 of the year because they provided a change from a fish diet, the bulls were fat, and it was possible to use a skiff for transportation. A disadvantage was the difficulty of preserving the meat in warm weather. Therefore, sharing of caribou at this time of year was very common.
In September, caribou hunting continued along with fishing for silver salmon. A few men hunted moose during the "early" regulatory season in
September. Waterfowl hunting was very popular at this time of year as ducks, geese, and cranes passed through the region. Porcupine and ptarmigan were also hunted in the fall. Several families fished from late
September into October for spawning sockeye salmon, locally referred to as
"fall" or "red" fish (and sometimes called "spawned-outs").
As the weather turned colder and lakes and rivers began to freeze, hunters again harvested caribou. Caribou hunting occurred throughout the winter and into spring, especially when the Northern Alaska Peninsula Herd passed by each community. Also during winter, households at Pilot Point and Ugashik jigged through the ice for smelt and landlocked salmon. Some hunters searched for moose during the December open season, while small
game such as porcupine, hare, and ptarmigan were also taken. In addition,
trapping of furbearers such as fox, land otter, beaver, lynx, and wolverine
occurred, most commonly among households in Pilot Point and Ugashik. These winter activities continued until the warmer weather and lengthening days
of spring brought a new round of resource harvesting activities to these
Alaska Peninsula communities.
53 HARVEST AREAS
All three communities harvested wild resources exclusively on the
Alaska Peninsula in areas adjacent to each village. Figure 8 depicts the ' areas used by members of each community for resource harvesting-over a 20 year period from 1963 to 1983. (The reader should consult the Alaska
Habitat Management Guide's reference maps [ADF&G 1985cj for more detailed mapped data on community harvest areas for various resource categories.)
As shown in Figure 8, the harvest areas for Pilot Point and Ugashik were virtually identical and were confined to the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska
Peninsula. These areas included most of the drainages of streams emptying into Ugashik Bay such as Dago Creek, the Ugashik River, the Dog Salmon
River, and the King Salmon River. Also used by Pilot Point and Ugashik were portions of the Cinder River drainage to the south of the communities and the stretch of coast line from about 25 miles north of Ugashik Bay to about 40 miles south of the bay towards Port Heiden.
The area used by Port Heiden residents to harvest wild resources from
1963 to 1983 stretched from the lower Cinder River in the north to the
Ocean River drainage to the south of the community (Fig. 8) This area included portions of the King Salmon River drainage and the lower Cinder
River drainage that overlapped with the harvest areas of Pilot Point and
Ugashik. For the most part, however, Port Heiden residents hunted, fished, and gathered resources in areas distinct from those of other Alaska
Peninsula communities. Also, the largest portion of this harvest area was in the Bristol Bay watershed, including most of the drainage areas of streams flowing into Port Heiden and into Bristol Bay near the Seal Islands and Ilnik to the south. A few exceptions were Aniakchak Bay on the Pacific
54 I 1oc3 t- n n =, c :A.:.‘.I:.. :. a .,::: .:j ,*. 43 .,:,.. . :; .’: ax. 001:,,.:.:.:,.:: . . I
55 Ocean side of the peninsula where a few Port Heiden residents dug clams, and upper portions of the Chignik River drainage including Black Lake.
Also, most Port Heiden drift gill net commercial fishermen fished for sockeye salmon in the Ugashik District with fishermen from Pilot Point and
Ugashik. During the study period; this harvest was almost exclusively for commercial sale; very few of the salmon taken by Port Heiden fishermen in the Ugashik District were retained for home use.
LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE USE AND HARVEST OF WILD RESOURCES
The use of wild fish and game resources was universal among households in all three study communities, with 100 percent of the 69 sampled households in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden using at least one kind of wild food during the 12 month study period in 1986-1987 (Table 11).
Participation in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities was also very
common. All of the sampled households in the three communities had members who attempted to harvest wild foods in 1986-1987. Furthermore, 100 percent
of the 17 interviewed households in Pilot Point harvested a least one kind
of wild fish, game, or plant resource during the-. study year, as did 100
percent of the five households in Ugashik, and 97.3 percent of‘ the 37 Port
Heiden households (Table 11).
In Pilot Point, the most commonly used resource categories during the
study period were salmon and land mammals, both used by 100 percent of the
sampled households (Table 12, Fig. 9). In addition, 94.1 percent used at
least one species. of bird, 94.1 percent used fish other than salmon, 82.4
percent used furbearers, 76.5 percent used plants, 64.7 percent used marine
invertebrates, and 52.9 percent used marine mammal products. The ten most
56 TABLE 12. LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDHARVEST AND USE OF FISH, GAME, AND PLANT RESOURCES, PILOT POINT, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N-17)
total % % mean hh sample % attempt % %. gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers*
SALMON 100.0 100.0 100.0 17.6 64.7 340.7 -- King Salmon 94.1 94.1 94.1 0 41.2 80.4 105 Sockeye Salmon 88.2 76.5 70.6 17.6 29.4 86.3 341 Chum Salmon 23.5 23.5 23.5 0 5.9 8.2 30 Pink Salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Silver Salmon 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 17.6 146.2 503 Landlocked 70.6 76.5 64.7 5.9 23.5 15.0 170 Spawning Sockeye 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 4.7 40 Salmon, unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER FISH 94.1 94.1 94.1 35.3 58.8 55.8 -- Herring 5.9 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 Roe-on-Kelp 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 2.9 2b Cod 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 5.9 .7 11 Halibut 29.4 23.5 23.5 5.9 5.9 12.5 NA Flounder 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 .3 5 Smelt 76.5 70.6 64.7 23.5 47.1 28.4 1,931 Whitefish 5.9 5.9 0 5.9 0 0 0 Rainbow Trout 11.8 23.5 11.8 0 0 .9 10 Lake Trout 17.6 23.5 17.6 0 0 1.8 11 Grayling 17.6 23.5 17.6 0 0 .7 18 Dolly Varden 41.2 41.2 41.2 0 0 4.5 55 Pike 29.4 70.6 23.5 5.9 5.9 3.1 19
MARINE INVERTE- BRATES 64.7 58.8 58.8 29.4 29.4 22.3 -- Butter Clams 35.3 35.3 35.3 5.9 23.5 4.1 23g Razor Clams 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 2.7 15g Cockles 47.1 41.2 41.2 11.8 17.6 14.1 8% Tanner Crab 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 1.5 NA
MARINE MAMMALS 52.9 23.5 23.5 35.3 11.8 16.5 -- Harbor Se.al 47.1 17.6 17.6 35.3 11.8 16.5 5 Walrus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sea Otter 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 0 0 7
LAND MAMMALS 100.0 82.4 82.4 76.5 58.8 860.4 -- Caribou 94.1 82.4 76.5 58.8 52.9 820.6 93 Moose 47.1 5.9 5.9 47.1 5.9 31.8 1 Porcupine 35.3 29.4 29.4 5.9 5.9 4.7 10 Hare 29.4 29.4 29.4 0 0 3.3 28 Brown Bear 11.8 0 0 11.8 0 0 0
57 TABLE 12. (Continued) LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDHARVEST AND USE OF FISH, GAME AND PLANT RESOURCES, PILOT POINT, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N=17)
total % % mean hh sample". % attempt ? % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers*
FURBEARERS 82.4 88.2 82.4 11.8 5.9 0 -- Beaver 35.3 35.3 35.3 0 5.9 0 23 Mink 11.8 17.6 11.8 0 0 0 3 Red Fox 70.6 82.4 70.6 11.8 0 0 133 Wolf 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 0 0 2 Wolverine 23.5 23.5 17.6 5.9 0 0 4 Land Otter 58.8 58.8 58.8 0 0 0 91 Muskrat 0 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 Lynx 29.4 41.2 23.5 5.9 0 0 25 Parka Squirrel 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 0 7
BI :RDs 94.1 88.2 88.2 23.5 35.3 60.9 -- Ptarmigan 70.6 70.6 70.6 11.8 17.6 5.5 133 Emperor Geese 52.9 58.8 47.1 11.8 11.8 9.0 61 Canada Geese 41.2 35.3 29.4 17.6 0 1.8 26 White-fronted 23.5 17.6 17.6 11.8 5.9 3.0 21 Black Brant 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 1 1 Snow Geese 5.9 11.8 5.9 5.9 0 18 6 Tundra Swan 11.8 17.6 11.8 5.9 0 4.6 13 Sandhill Crane 41.2 41.2 35.3 5.9 5.9 13.8 39 Mallard 64.7 70.6 58.8 11.8 11.8 5.5 93 Pintail 52.9 52.9 47.1 11.8 11.8 3.7 78 Gadwall 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 11.8 1.2 25 Wigeon 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 ** 1 Teal 52.9 47.1 47.1 11.8 11.8 2.1 117 Eiders 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 .4 4 Scoters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ducks, Unknown 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 . 1 2 Geese, Unknown 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 5.9 1.1 10 Shorebirds 11.8 11.8 11.8 5.9 0 .2 42 Gull Eggs 52.9 47.1 47.1 5.9 17.6 7.7 873 Duck Eggs 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 0 .5 60 Swan Eggs 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 ** 2 Tern Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PLANTS 76.5 76.5 76.5 11.8 23.5 20.2 -- Berries 76.5 76.5 76.5 5.9 23.5 19.8 336q.t Other Plants 23.5 23.5 23.5 5.9 5.9 .5 8qt
ALL RESOURCES 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.1 88.2 1,376.a --
* Harvests are reported .n numbers of fish or animals, except resources marked by "b" (five gallon bucket), "g" (gallons), or "qt" (quarts).
** Less than 0.1 lbs.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADFdG, Survey 1987
5.8 . .
a w > ii 0 i _~,~,~.~,~,~,~.~.~..‘.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘_‘.‘.,~.~.~.~.~,~.~.I~, E.‘.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘,‘.‘.
c OOL z 0 e c 0 4 e commonly used wild resources at Pilot Point were silver (coho) salmon (100 percent used), king salmon (94.1 percent), caribou (94.1 percent), sockeye salmon (88.2 percent), smelt (76.5 percent), berries (76.5 percent), red fox (70.6 percent), landlocked salmon (70.6 percent), ptarmigan (70.6 percent), and mallards (64.7 percent) (Table 12).
All of the 17 households in the Pilot Point sample fished for salmon
during the study year. Also, 94.1 percent fished for non-salmon fish, 88.2 percent hunted birds, 88.2 percent attempted to harvest furbearers, 82.4 percent hunted land mammals, 76.5 percent searched for wild plants, 58.8
percent sought marine invertebrates, and 23.5 percent attempted to harvest
marine mammals. The most commonly hunted or fished species at Pilot Point
during the study year were silver salmon (100 percent fished for this
resource), king salmon (94.1 percent), caribou (82.4 percent), red fox
(82.4 percent), sockeye salmon (76.5 percent), landlocked salmon (.76.5
percent), berries (76.5 percent), smelt (70.6 percent), pike (70.6
percent), ptarmigan (70.6 percent), and mallards (70.6 percent) (Table 12).
One hundred percent of the Pilot Point households harvested salmon
during the 1986-1987 study year. The next most commonly harvested resource
category was fish other than salmon; 94.1 percent of the households
successfully fished for at least one species of non-salmon fish from June
1986 through May 1987. In addition, 88.2 percent of the households took
birds, 82.4 percent of the households harvested land mammals, 82.4 percent
trapped furbearers, 76.5 percent picked plants, 58.8 percent harvested
marine invertebrates, and 23.5 percent took marine mammals. The most
commonly harvested species was silver salmon, with all the households
fishing successfully for this resource, followed by king salmon (94.1
percent harvesting), caribou (76.5 percent), berries (76.5 percent),
60 sockeye salmon (70.6 percent), red fox (70.6 percent), ptarmigan (70.6 percent), smelt (64.7 percent), landlocked salmon (64.7 percent), mallards
(58.8 percent), and land otter (58.8 percent) (?able 12).
All of the five sampled households at Ugashik used at least one species of salmon, non-salmon fish, land mammal, and bird during the 1986-
1987 study year (Table 13, Fig. 10). In addition, 80 percent used furbearers, and 40 percent used plants. None of the Ugashik households used marine mammal products or marine invertebrates during this 12 month period. In terms of specific resources, all of the households used king salmon, silver salmon, and pintails, while 80 percent used sockeye salmon, caribou, red fox, ptarmigan, gull eggs, and duck eggs (Table 13).
Like the households at Pilot Point, all five Ugashik households hunted, fished, or gathered wild foods during the study year. Members of households from the entire sample fished for salmon and for non-salmon fish. Also, 80 percent of the households hunted land mammals, attempted to harvest furbearers, and hunted birds, while 40 percent sought wild plants.
No Ugashik households attempted to procure marine mammals or marine invertebrates in 1986-1987. All of the households contained members who fished for king salmon and silver salmon during the study year. Also, 80 percent of the households attempted to harvest sockeye salmon, caribou, red fox, ptarmigan, cranes, pintails, gull eggs, and duck eggs (Table 13).
All five Ugashik households were successful harvesters of salmon and non-salmon fish during the study year, while 80 percent took land mammals, birds, and furbearers, and 40 percent gathered wild plants. There were no harvesters of marine mammals or marine invertebrates in the Ugashik sample.
More specifically, 100 percent of the sample harvested silver salmon and
61 TABLE 13. LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDHARVEST AND USE OF FISH, GAME, AND PLANT RESOURCES, UGASHIK, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N=5)
total 1 % % mean hh sample
. % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers*
SALMON 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 80.0 640.3 -- King Salmon 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 40.0 130.2 50 Sockeye Salmon 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 40.0 266.6 310 Chum Salmon 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 o** 0** Pink Salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Silver Salmon 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 60.0 223.3 226 Landlocked 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 3.0 10 Spawning Sockeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salmon, unknown 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 17.2 20
OTHER FISH 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 40.0 72.2 -- Herring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roe-on-Kelp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Halibut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flounder 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 .2 1 Smelt 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 40.0 65.0 1,300 Whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Trout 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 Grayling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dolly Varden 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 0 2.5 5 Pike 20.0 40.0 20.0 0 .O 4.5 8
MARINE INVERTE- BRATES 0 -- Butter Clams 0 0 Razor Clams 0 0 Cockles 0 0 Tanner Crab 0 0
MARINE MAMMALS 0 -- Harbor Seal 0 0 Walrus 0 0 Sea Otter 0 0
LAND MAMMALS 100.0 80.0 80.0 40.0 80.0 824.0 -- Caribou 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 80.0 600.0 20 Moose 60.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 216.0 2 Porcupine 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 1.6 1 Hare 40.0 40.0 40.0 0 0 6.4 16 Brown Bear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
62 TABLE 13. (Continued) LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDHARVEST AND USE OF FISH, GAME, AND PLANT RESOURCES,UGASHIK, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N-5) total % % mean hh sample % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers*
FURBEARERS 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 3.5 -- Beaver 40.0 40.0 40.0 0 0 3.5 5 Mink 40.0 60.0 40.0 0 0 0 5 Red Fox 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 0 84 Wolf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wolverine 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 0 0 4 Land Otter 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 0 0 8 Muskrat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lynx 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 0 0 18 Parka Squirrel 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 0 1
BIRDS 100.0 80.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 51.0 -- Ptarmigan 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 9.2 66 Emperor Geese 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 20.0 5.0 10 Canada Geese 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 20.0 1.4 6 White-fronted 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 0 2.4 5 Black Brant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snow Geese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tundra Swan 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 1.2 1 Sandhill Crane 60.0 80.0 60.0 0 40.0 10.8 9 Mallard 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 40.0 4.6 23 Pintail 100.0 80.0 80.0 20.0 40.0 4.8 30 Gadwall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wigeon 40.0 40.0 40.0 0 20.0 1.5 11 Teal 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 40.0 2.9 48 Eiders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scoters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ducks, Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geese, Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shorebirds 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 1 5 Gull Eggs 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 4:o 134 Duck Eggs 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 3.0 100 Swan Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tern Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PLANTS 40.0 40.0 40.0 0 0 37.8 -- Berries 40.0 40.0 40.0 0 0 37.6 188 qt Other Plants 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 .2 1 9t ALL RESOURCES 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 1,628.8 --
* Harvests are reported in numbers of fish or animals, except resources marked by "b" (five gallon bucket), "g" (gallons) or "qt" (quarts).
** One household harvested chum salmon for home use, but could not recall the amount harvested.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
Aj UCASHIK N = 5 HOUSEHOLDS
SALMON OTHER MARINE MARINE LAND FURBEARERS BIRDS PLANTS FISH INVERT. MAMMALS MAMMALS
ATTEMPTED HARVESTED GAVE AWAY TO HARVEST
Figure 10. Percentage of Sampled Ugashik Households Using, Attempting to Harvest, liarvesting, Receiving, and Giving Away Eight Categories of Wild Resources, June 1986 - May 1987. king salmon. In addition, 80 percent took sockeye salmon, caribou, red fox, ptarmigan, pintails, gull eggs, and duck eggs (Table 13).
For the 37 households sampled at Port Heiden, land mammals was the most commonly used resource category. All 37 households used at least one kind of land mammal in the 12 month study period in 1986-1987 (Table 14,
Fig. 11). Salmon, along with fish other than salmon, were the next most, widely used resource categories, with 91.9 percent of the households using
at least one species from these groups, followed by marine invertebrates
(86.5 percent), birds (86.5 percent), plants (75.7 percent), marine mammals
(32.4 percent), and furbearers (24.3 percent).' Caribou was the wild
resource most widely used by Port Heiden households in 1986-.1987. All 37
households used caribou meat during this 12 month study period. Other
commonly used resources included cockles (used by 86.5 percent of the
sample), silver salmon (83.8 percent), Dolly Varden (75.7 percent), berries
(75.7 percent), sockeye salmon (73 percent), ptarmigan (73 percent), gull
eggs (59.5 percent), smelt (48.6 percent), and mallards (48.6 percent)
(Table 14).
More households in Port Heiden attempted to harvest marine
invertebrates (83.8 percent) than any other resource category. Fishing for
salmon was the next most popular harvesting activity from June 1986 through
May 1987, with 81.1 percent of the sample attempting to harvest at least
one salmon species for home use. In addition, 75.7 percent of the
households hunted birds, 70.3 percent searched for wild plants, 70.3
percent hunted land mammals, 62.2 percent fished for species other than
salmon, 29.7 percent tried to harvest furbearers, and 13.5 percent
attempted to harvest marine mammals. The most commonly sought resource was
cockles, with 83.8 percent of the households attempting to harvest this
65 TABLE 14. LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDHARVEST AND USE OF FISH, GAME, AND PLANT RESOURCES, PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 - MAY 198 (N=37)
total % % mean hh sample % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers*
SALMON 91.9 81.1 81.1 64.9 56.8 236.9 -- King Salmon 70.3 51.4 51.4 32.4 29.7 65.5 186 Sockeye Salmon 73.0 35.1 35.1 48.6 18.9 61.3 527 Chum Salmon 10.8 2.7 0 10.8 2.7 0 0 Pink Salmon 8.1 8.1 5.4 2.7 0 .3 4 Silver Salmon 83.8 73.0 70.3 32.4 45.9 93.7 702 Landlocked 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 0 .2 6 Spawning 24.3 24.3 24.3 5.4 16.2 16.0 296 Salmon, unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER FISH 91.9 62.2 62.2 70.3 45.9 32.6 -- Herring 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 Roe-on-Kelp 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 0 1.4 2b Cod 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 Halibut 21.6 8.1 8.1 13.5 2.7 4.0 NA Flounder 10.8 10.8 10.8 0 0 .8 30 Smelt 48.6 2.7 2.7 45.9 8.1 .3 50 Whitefish 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 Rainbow Trout 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 Lake Trdut 10.8 8.1 8.1 2.7 8.1 6.9 94 Grayling 0 0 .O 0 0 0 0 Dolly Varden 75.7 51.4 48.6 35.1 29.7 19.2 507 Pike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MARINE INVERTE- BRATES 86.5 83.8 81.1 37.8 51.4 49.3 -- Butter Clams 5.4 0 0 5.4 0 0 0 Razor Clams 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cockles 86.5 83.8 81.1 37.8 51.4 49.3 608g Tanner Crab 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 0 0
MARINE MAMMALS 32.4 13.5 13.5 29.7 8.1 41.7 -- Harbor Seal 32.4 8.1 8.1 29.7 5.4 4.5 3 Walrus 5.4 5.4 5.4 0 5.4 37.2 Sea Otter 5.4 5.4 5.4 0 0 0 i
LAND MAMMALS 100.0 70.3 67.6 67.6 51.4 698.2 -- Caribou 100.0 70.3 67.6 62.2 51.4 681.1 168 Moose 21.6 5.4 2.7 18.9 10.8 14.6 1 Porcupine 13.5 10.8 10.8 2.7 5.4 2.4 11 Hare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown Bear 5.4 0 0 5.4 0 0 0
66 TABLE 14. (Continued) LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDHARVEST AND USE OF FISH, GAME AND PLANT RESOURCES, PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N-37)
total % . % mean hh sample % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away Ibs numbers*
FURBEARERS 24.3 29.7 24.3 2.7 0 .5 -- Beaver 5.4 5.4 2.7 2.7 0 .5 2 Mink 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Red Fox 21.6 27.0 21.6 0 0 0 101 Wolf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wolverine 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 0 0 2 Land Otter 5.4 8.1 5.4 0 0 0 4 Muskrat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lynx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parka Squirrel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BI :RDS 86.5 75.7 75.7 56.8 45.9 37.1 a- Ptarmigan 73.0 59.5 59.5 27.0 32.4 7.0 370 Emperor Geese 37.8 27.0 21.6 18.9 10.8 9.1 134 Canada Geese 16.2 10.8 10.8 8.1 5.4 .7 21 White-fronted 2.7 . 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 .6 9 Black Brant 18.9 18.9 8.1 10.8 5.4 .8 25 Snow Geese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tundra Swan 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sandhill Crane 13.5 10.8 8.1 5.4 2.7 1.0 6 Mallard 48.6 24 ..3 24.3 35.1 10.8 3.2 120 Pintail 40.5 21.6 21.6 27.0 10.8 2.0 90 Gadwall 2.7 '0 0 2.7 0 0 0 Wigeon 10.8 5.4 5.4 8.1 5.4 .5 25 Teal 37.8 21.6 21.6 24.3 13.5 .7 90 Eiders 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.7 2.7 .9 20 Scoters 18.9 10.8 10.8 8.1 5.4 1.2 48 Ducks, Unknown 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 .l 4 Geese, Unknown 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 2.7 .l 2 Shorebirds 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 0 ** 15 Gull Eggs 59.5 62.2 59.5 5.4 32.4 8.2 2,020 Duck Eggs 8.1 8.1 8.1 2.7 8.1 .2 46 Swan Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tern Eggs 29.7 29.7 29.7 5.4 13.5 1.0 378
PLANTS 75.7 70.3 70.3 24.3 40.5 38.6 -- Berries 75.7 70.3 70.3 24.3 40.5 38.0 1,407.5 qts Other Plants 24.3 24.3 24.3 2.7 0 .5 20.0 qts
ALL RESOURCES 100.0 100.0 97.3 91.9 78.4 1,134.7 -a
* Harvests are reported in numbers of fish or animals, except resources marked by “b” (five gallon bucket), “g” (gallons), or “qt” (quarts).
** Less than 0.1 lbs
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987 6.7 cn w” a a w
z LL
OOb z w
68 marine invertebrate. Other resources which many Port Heiden households attempted to harvest during the study period included silver salmon (73.0 percent), caribou (70.3 percent), berries (70.3 percent),, gull eggs (62.2 percent), ptarmigan (59.5 percent), king salmon (51.4 percent), Dolly
Varden (51.4 percent), sockeye salmon (35.1 percent), and tern eggs (29.7 percent) (Table 14).
The most commonly harvested resource categories in Port Heiden were marine invertebrates and salmon, with 81.1 percent of the households successfully harvesting a least one species from these groups. Also, 75.7 percent of the households harvested birds, 70.3 harvested wild plants, 67.6 percent took land mammals, 62.2 percent caught non-salmon fish, 24.3 percent harvested f&bearers, and 13.5 percent successfully sought marine mammals. At the specific resource level, the most widely harvested wild food was cockles, with 81.1 percent of all households digging this resource for home use. Next came silver salmon and berries, which 70.3 percent of the Port Heiden sample harvested, followed by caribou (67.6 percent), ptarmigan (59.5 percent), gull eggs (59.5 percent), king salmon (51.4 percent), Dolly Varden (48.6 percent), sockeye salmon (35.1 percent), and tern eggs (29.7 percent) (Table 14).
HARVEST QUANTITIES
As reported in Table 11, the mean household harvest of fish, game, and wild plants in Pilot Point for the 12 month study period was 1,376.8 pounds edible weight. The community per capita harvest was 383.7 pounds. For the small sample of five households living year-round at Ugashik, the mean household harvest was 1,628.8 pounds edible weight, and the community per
69 capita harvest was 814.4 pounds. The 37 households sampled at Port Heiden averaged a harvest of 1,134.7 pounds edible weight. The community per capita harvest for the Port Heiden sample was 407.6 pounds.
In all three communities, land mammals contributed, by far, the
largest portion of the wild resource harvest by weight from June 1986
through May 1987. Salmon was the second-most significant contributor to
the harvest of all three samples. Together, land mammals and salmon
composed at least 82.3 percent of the community harvest total in pounds
edible weight (Table 15).
The 17 sampled households at Pilot Point harvested an average of 860.4
pounds of land mammals during the study year, or 239.8 pounds per capita
(Table 15). Land mammals made up 62.5 percent of the total community
harvest (Fig. 12). The harvest of salmon at Pilot Point averaged 340.7
pounds per household and 94.9 pounds per person, thus representing 24.7 .
percent of the total. The other resource categories contributed much lower
proportions to Pilot Point's harvest. With a mean household take of 60.9
pounds (17.0 pounds per person), birds composed 4.4 percent of the total,
followed by fish other than salmon at 4.1 percent of the total (55.8 pounds
per household, 15.6 pounds per capita), marine invertebrates at 1.6 percent
(22.3 pounds per household, 6.2 pounds per capita), wild plants and berries
at 1.5 percent (20.2 pounds per household, 5.6 pounds per person), and
marine mammals at 1.2 percent (16.5 pounds per household, 4.6 pounds per
person). Although 82.4 percent of the households in Pilot Point harvested
furbearers, none of this harvest was used for food.
With a mean household harvest of 820.4 pounds, caribou made up a
larger portion of the total harvest at Pilot Point than any other resource
(Table 12). This caribou harvest represented 95.4 percent of the land
70 TABLE 15. COMPOSITION OF RESOURCEHARVEST IN POUNDS BY CATEGORY, PILOT POINT, UGASHIK, AND PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Pilot Point Ugashik Port Heiden 17 households 5 households 37 households 61 people 10 people 103 people
Mean Per % Mean Per % Mean Per % hh capita of hh capita of hh capita of harvest, harvest, total harvest, harvest, total harvest, harvest, total lbs lbs harvest lbs lbs harvest lbs lbs harvest
Salmon 340.7 94.9 24.7% 640.3 320.2 39.3% 236.9 85.1 20.9% Other Fish 55.8 15.6 4.1% 72.2 36.1 4.4% 32;6 11.7 2.9% Marine Invertebrates 22.3 6.2 1.6% 0 0 0 49;3 17.7 4.3% Marine 4 Mammals 16.5 4.6 1.2% 0 0 0 41.7 15.0 3.7% P Land Mammals 860.4 239.8 62.5% 824.0 412.0 50.6% 698.2 250.8 61.5% Furbearers 0 0 0 3.5 1.8 .2% .5 .2 * Birds 60.9 17.0 4.4% 51.0 25.5 3.1% 37.1 13.3 3.3% Plants 20.2 5.6 1.5% 37.8 18.9 2.3% 38.6 13.9 3.4%
TOTAL 1,376.8 383.7 100.0% 1,628.8 814.4 100.0% 1,134.7 407.6 100.0%
* Less than .l%.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADG&G, Survey 1987 PILOT POINT
PLANTS 1.5%
SALMON 24.7%
LAN MAMMALS 62.
MARINE MAMMALS 1.2% Sum = 1376.8 Ibs. MARINE INVERTEBRATES 1.6% per householc
Figure 12. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Pilot Point, June 1986 - May 1987.
72 mammal take in Pilot Point during the study year, and 59.6 percent of the total resource harvest. Three species of salmon made the next largest contributions to the supply of wild foods. These were silver salmon (146.2 pounds per household), sockeye salmon (86.3 pounds), and king salmon (80.4 pounds). A single moose was taken by the Pilot Point sample during the study'period, contributing 31.8 pounds to the community's mean household harvest. Overall, these five resources accounted for 84.6 percent of Pilot
Point's wild resource harvest as measured in pounds edible weight during the 12 month study period from June 1986 through May 1987.
The five year-round households at Ugashik harvested an average of
824.0 pounds of land mammals, 412.0 pounds per capita. This resource
category contributed 50.6 percent to the total community harvest in pounds
edible weight (Table 15, Fig. 13). Salmon represented 39.3 percent of
Ugashik's total harvest, with a mean household take of 640.3 pounds and a
community per capita harvest of 320.2 pounds. Fish other than salmon made
up 4.4 percent of the mean household harvest at Ugashik, with an average of *
72.2 pounds per household and 36.1 pounds per capita. Households averaged
a harvest of 51.0 pounds of birds, 25.5 pounds per capita, for 3.1 percent
of the total take. Harvests of plants averaged 37.8 pounds per household
at Ugashik, 18.9 pounds per capita, for 2.3 percent of the total. Finally,
edible furbearers provided a household mean of 3.5 pounds, 1.8 per capita,
representing .2 percent of the entire harvest. Most of the furbearer harvest was not used for food at Ugashik. Also, no Ugashik households harvested marine mammals or marine invertebrates during the study year.
As with Pilot Point, caribou made the single greatest contribution to
the wild food supply at Ugashik during the study year. With an average
household harvest of 600.0 pounds, caribou represented 36.8 percent of the
73 UGASHIK FURBEARERS 0.2%
SALMON 39.3%
LAND MAMMALS 50.6%
Sum = 1628.8 Ibs. per household
Figure 13. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests bv Resource Cateqorv, Uqashik, June 1986 - Mav 1987.
74 total harvest in 1986 - 1987. Sockeye salmon provided 266.6 pounds per household, the mean household harvest of silver salmon was 223.3 pounds, and the sample averaged a harvest of king salmon of 130.2 pounds. Two moose were harvested by Ugashik households, representing an average of 216 pounds of meat per household (Table 13). Together, these five species, the same top five as in Pilot Point, contributed 88.2 percent of the wild food harvest at Ugashik as measured in pounds edible weight.
At Port Heiden, the 37 sampled households harvested a mean of 698.2 pounds of land mammals during the study year, contributing 61.5 percent of the community total (Table 15, Fig. 14). The community per capita harvest of land mammals was 250.8 pounds. Salmon provided 20.9 percent of the harvest, with an average of 236.9 pounds per household, 85.1 per capita.
Next, marine invertebrates provided 49.3 pounds per household and 17.7 pounds per capita, for 4.3 percent of the harvest total. Marine mammals composed 3.7 percent of Port Heiden's total harvest, with an average household harvest of 41.7 pounds and a per capita take of 15.0 pounds.
Port Heiden households averaged a harvest of 38.6 pounds of wild plants,
13.9 pounds per capita, for 3.4 percent of the total, and 37.1 pounds of birds per household, 13.3 pounds per person, for 3.3 percent of the total.
Like the other two communities, trappers in Port Heiden rarely used portions of their furbearer catch for food. Thus, furbearers contributed only ,5 pounds to the mean household harvest, and .2 pounds per capita, for
less than . 1 percent of the community's harvest of wild foods in 1986-1987.
Similar to the other two study communities, the dominant resource in
Port Heiden's over all harvest was caribou. The mean household harvest of
681.1 pounds was 97.6 percent of Port Heiden's take of land mammals, and
60.0 percent of the total harvest of all species. As in Pilot Point and
75 PORT HEIDEN
Sum = 1134.7 Ibs. per househol
Fiqure 14. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests, Port Heiden, June 1986 - May 1987.
76 Ugashik, three species of salmon were also among the five resources contributing the greatest number of pounds to the harvest of wild foods at
Port Heiden. Households averaged a harvest of 93.7 pounds of silver salmon, 65.5 pounds of king salmon, and 61.3 pounds of sockeye salmon.
Cockles added another 49.3 pounds to the mean household harvest (Table 14).
Together, these five resources made up 83.8 percent of the total harvest by the 37 sampled households in Port Heiden during the 12 month study period.
GIVING AND RECEIVING WILD RESOURCES
The sharing of wild resources was very common in all three communities during the study period. At Pilot Point, 94.1 percent of the sample of 17 households received fish, game, or wild plants from harvesters in other households, while 88.2 percent of these households shared their harvests with others (Table 11). Pilot Point households received a mean of 4.2 kinds of wild foods, and gave away-a mean of 4.5 kinds. Land mammals was
the resource category received by the most households in Pilot Point, 76.5
percent (Table 12, Fig. 9). The next two most widely received resource
categories in this community were fish other than salmon and marine mammal
products, with 35.3 percent of the sample obtaining at least one resource
from each of these categories from other households. In addition, 29.4
received marine invertebrates, 23.5 percent received birds, 17.6 percent
received salmon, 11.8 percent received furbearers, and 11.8 percent
received plants. The most commonly received resource‘was caribou (58.8
percent), followed by moose (47.1 percent), harbor seal (35.3 percent), and
smelt (23.5 percent). More households gave away salmon (64.7 percent of
the sample) than any other resource category at Pilot Point. This was
77 followed by fish other than salmon (58.8 percent), game (58.8 percent), birds (35.3 percent), marine invertebrates (29.4 percent), plants (23.5 percent), and furbearers (5.9 percent), In 1986-1987, 52.9 percent of the sampled households in Pilot Point gave away caribou, more than any other resource. Other frequently shared resources were smelt (47.1 percent giving to other households), king salmon (41.2 percent), and sockeye salmon
(29.4 percent).
At Ugashik, 60.0 percent of the small sample of year-round households received wild foods from other households during the study year (Table 11).
The mean number of resources received was .8, probably reflecting the
finding that all five households were high harvesters and therefore more
frequently gave their own harvests to others, usually in other communities
such as Pilot Point, than were given wild foods. This explanation is
consistent with the finding that 100 percent of the Ugashik sample gave
away portions of their wild resource harvests to other households. These
five households gave away a mean of 5.8 kinds of wild foods, the most of
the three study communities. The only two resource categories received by
Ugashik households were land mammals (40.0 percent) and birds (40.0 percent), with moose the only specific resource received by more than one household (40.0 percent) (Table 13, Fig. 10). On the other hand, 80.0
percent of the Ugashik sample gave away salmon and land mammals, and 40.0
percent gave away non-salmon fish and birds. One household (20.0 percent)
gave away a furbearer product. The most commonly shared resource was
caribou, with 80.0 percent of the sample (ail the successful harvesters)
giving away caribou meat, followed by silver salmon (60.0 percent).
Receiving and sharing wild foods was also very common in Port Heiden
during the study period. Of the sample of 37 households, 91.9 percent
78 received at least one type of wild food in 1986-1987, while 78.4 percent gave away fish, game, or wild plants to other households (Table 11). Port
Heiden households received a mean of 6.3 types of wild resources, more than the other two study communities, and gave away 5.0 kinds. The most widely received resource category at Port Heiden was non-salmon fish (70.3 percent receiving), followed by land mammals (67.6 percent), salmon (64.9 percent), birds (56.8 percent), marine invertebrates (37.8 percent), marine mammals
(29.1 percent), plants (24.3 percent), and furbearers (2.7 percent) (Table
14, Fig. 11). More households received gifts of caribou meat (62.2 percent) than any other resource. Other commonly received wild resources were sockeye salmon (48.6 percent), smelt (45.9 percent), cockles (37.8 percent), Dolly Varden (35.1 percent), and mallards (35.1 percent). Within
this group, the receiving of smelt is particularly noteworthy as these were
not available locally and few Port Heiden households harvested this
resource (only 2.7 percent). Port Heiden households received smelt from harvesters living further north on the Alaska Peninsula, most frequently
Pilot Point, Egegik, Naknek, and South Naknek. The most frequently shared
resource category at Port Heiden during the study period was salmon (56.8 percent), followed by land mammals (51.4 ,percent), marine invertebrates
(51.4 percent), fish other than salmon (45.9 percent), birds (45.9 percent), plants (40.5 percent), and marine mammals (8.1 percent). No Port
Heiden households gave away furbearers in 1986-1987. Over half the households (51.4 percent) gave away caribou meat and harvests of cockles,
more than any other resource. Other commonly shared wild foods were silver
salmon (45.9 percent giving away), berries (40.5 percent), ptarmigan (32.4
percent), and gull eggs (32.4 percent).
79 SALMON
Snecies Used and Harvest Quantities
As noted above, salmon was second only to land mammals as a source of wild food in all three study communities. For example, the per capita harvest of 94.9 pounds of salmon in Pilot Point was 24.7 percent of that community's total take. With a per capita harvest of 320.2 pounds, salmon made up an even larger portion of Ugashik's total, 39.3 percent. For Port
Heiden, the per capita salmon harvest of 85.1 pounds was 20.9 percent of
the community's wild food supply in 1986-1987. All of the households in
Pilot Point and Ugashik used salmon during the study year, as did 91.9
percent of the Port Heiden sample. Furthermore, 100 percent of the sampled
households in Pilot Point and Ugashik harvested at least one species of
salmon. In Port Heiden, 81.1 percent of the households harvested salmon
for home use.
Silver salmon was the most widely used salmon species at Pilot Point,
with all the households using and harvesting this species. By weight,
silver salmon represented about 42.9 percent of the total salmon harvest by
the 17 sampled households. King salmon were also very significant, with
94.1 percent of the households using and harvesting them, for 23.6 percent
of the salmon catch. Sockeye salmon accounted for about 25.3 percent of
the salmon harvest, with 88.2 percent of the households using reds and 70.6
percent harvesting reds for home use. Fishing for landlocked salmon was
also a popular activity at Pilot Point, with 76.5 percent of the households
engaged in this activity, 64.7 percent harvesting landlocked salmon, and
70.6 percent using this resource. By edible weight, landlocked salmon
80 accounted for 4.4 percent of the salmon harvest. Chum salmon made up 2.4
percent of the mean household harvest of salmon. They were used and
harvested by 23.5 percent of the Pilot Point sample. Households in Pilot
Point also take spawning ("spawned-out") sockeye salmon. Only one
household (5.9 percent) reported using and harvesting them in 1986-1987,
but perhaps this is an underestimate, because the interviewers did not
systematically inquire about the use of this resource at Pilot Point. No
Pilot Point households used or harvested pink salmon during the study year.
As in Pilot Point, kings, sockeyes, and silvers were the major salmon
species used and harvested by Ugashik residents, although their relative
contributions were somewhat different. All five households used and
harvested silvers, which made up 34.9 percent of the salmon catch by
weight, and kings, which provided 20.3 percent of the catch. Sockeye
salmon provided 'the largest portion of Ugashik's salmon harvest, 41.6
percent, and were used and harvested by 80.0 percent of the households. s Smaller portions of the sample used and harvested chum salmon and
landlocked salmon, while none of the households reported any use or harvest
of pinks or spawning sockeyes.
Silver salmon made up the largest portion of the salmon harvest by
Port Heiden households, 39.6 percent of the total food weight. More Port
Heiden households used (83.8 percent) and harvested (70.3 percent) silvers
than any other salmon species. Kings were second to silvers, representing
27.6 percent of the total salmon catch by weight. Over half the households
(51.4 percent)' harvested kings and 70.3 percent used them. Sockeye salmon
were used by 73.0 percent of the households, harvested by 35.1 percent, and
provided 25.9 percent of the catch by weight. Spawning sockeye salmon were
a notable resource at Port Heiden, used and harvested by 24.3 percent of
81 the households for 6.8 percent of the salmon by weight. Fewer households used or harvested pinks, chums, or landlocked salmon during the study year.
, Methods of Harvest
Removed from Commercial Catches
The major source of salmon for home use in all three study communities was fish removed from households' commercial catches. In Pilot Point, 82.4 percent of the households obtained salmon in this manner, accounting for
59.0 percent of the total number of salmon taken for home use, and 69.5 percent of the edible weight of these salmon (Tables 16 and 17; Fig. 15).
Commercial catches provided 83.8 percent of the king salmon, 66.3 percent of thd sockeye salmon, and 73.2 percent of the silver salmon that Pilot
Point households caught for home use during the study period. Often, these were fish that had been damaged by seals and therefore could not be sold.
In Ugashik, all of the households removed salmon from their commercial catches for home use for 52.1 percent of all the salmon taken for use at home and 54.9 percent of the total weight (Tables 18 and 19; Fig. 16). The majority of Ugashik's harvest of king salmon (60.0 percent) and silver salmon (80.1 percent) was removed from commercial catches. This source also provided 35.5 percent of the community's sockeye salmon. Again, much of this salmon had been damaged in the nets by seals.
The pattern was slightly different at Port Heiden (Tables 20 and 21;
Fig. 17). As noted above, Port Heiden drift net fishermen traveled to the
Ugashik District to fish for sockeye salmon. Because of the distances
involved, these fishermen rarely removed salmon from their commercial
82 TABLE 16. PERCENTAGE OF PILOT POINT HOUSEHOLDSHARVESTING SALMON, BY GEAR TYPE AND SPECIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N=17 households)
Percentage of households harvesting
Removed from Subsistence Ice Rod and Any Commercial Catch Net Fishing Reel Method
Kings 82.4% 17.6% 0 0 94.1%
Sockeyes 64.7% 17.6% 0 5.9% 70.6%
Chums 11.8% 17.6% 0 0 23.5%
Pinks 0 0 0 0 0
Silvers 76.5% 23.5% 0 29.4% 100.0%
Landlocked 0 0 64.7% 5.. 9% 64.7%
Spawning 0 5.9% 0 0 5.9%
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0
ANY SALMON 82.4% 29.4% 64.7% 29.5% 100.0%
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADFGG, Survey 1987
83 TABLE 17. SALMON HARVESTS BY GEAR TYPE, PILOT POINT, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Removed f ram Subsistence Ice Rod and Any Commercial Catch Net Fishing Reel Method
--2No -Lbs -P --No. Lbs ” A---No Lbs -%a y& Lbs Xa --No. %b -Lbs -Xb
Kings 88 1.145.8 83.8% 17 221.3 16.2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 8.8% 1,367.l 23.6%
Sockeyes 226 971.8 66.3% 85 365.5 24.9% 0 0 0 30 129.0 8.8% 341 28.7% 1.466.3 25.3%
Chums 20 92.6 66.7% 10 46.3 33.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 2.5% 138.9 2.4%
Pinks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Silvers 368 1,817.g 73.2% 108 533.5 21.5% 0 0 0 27 133.4 5.4% 503 42.3% 2.484.8 42.4%
Landlocked 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225.0 88.2% 20 30.0 11.8% 170 14.3% 255.0 4.4%
0 0 0 40 3.4% 80.0 1.4% or, spawning 0 40 80.0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 J=- Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 702 4.028.1 -- 260 1.246.6 -- 150 225.0 -- 77 292.4 -- 1.189 100.0% 5.792.1 100%
59.of 69.5%’ 21.9%’ 21.5%’ 12.6%’ 3.9xc 6.5%’ 5.0%c I
a Percent of species total taken by gear type. b Percent of total catch made up of each species. c Percent of total catch of all salmon by gear type (see Fig. 15).
Source : Division of Subsistence, ADFhG. Survey 1987 NUMBERS OF SALMON REMOVED FROM ii$$$$ii COMMERCIAL El‘*-“” CATCH
. ‘ . . SU6SISTENCE L El SET NET
OTHER METHODS m (ROD 81 REEL . x . . . AN0 ICE FISHING] .a..**. . . . . * . . * . . . I (Sum = 1189 fish)
9.0%
POUNDS OF SALMON REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL CATCH ...... , ...... , ...... , . . . , . . . .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘,~.~...... SUBSISTENCE .~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.,.,..,.‘,.,...,...... ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~.~,~.~,~.~.’.~...... ~.~.‘.‘.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~. . . SET NET ..~.~.~.‘.~.~,~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~ ...... :~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~.‘.‘.~.~.‘.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.~.~.~.~.~..~.‘.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘,~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.. .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.OTHER METHODS CR00 & REEL AND ICE FISHING:
(Sum=5792.1 Ibd
Figure 15. Salmon Harvests by Gear TvDe, Pilot Point, June 1336 - May 1987.
85 TABLE 18. PERCENTAGE OF UGASHIK HOUSEHOLDSHARVESTING SALMON BY, GEAR TYPE. AND SPECIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N=5 households)
. Percentage of households harvesting
Removed from Subsistence Ice Rod and Any Commercial Catch Net Fishing Reel Method
Kings 100% 40% -0 0 100% Sockeyes 60% 20% 0 0 80%
Chums 20% 0 0 0 20%
Pinks 0 0 0 0 0
Silvers 100% 40% 0 40% 100%
Landlocked 0 0 0 20% 20%
Spawning 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 20% 0 0 20%
ANY SALMON 100% 60% 0 60% 100%
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
86 TABLE 19. SALMON HARVESTS BY GEAR TYPE, UGASHIK. JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Removed from Subsistence Ice Rod and &Y Commercial Catch Net Fishing Reel Method
%a No Lbs No. Lbs Za NO Lbs -2.No -Lbs -Xa L-No Lbs - I- -Za - - -1 -Zb - -%b Kings 30 390.6 60.0% 20 260.4 40.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 8.1% 651 .O 20.3%
Sockeyes 110 473.0 35.5% 200 860.0 64.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 50.3% 1.333.0 41.6% d d d d d d d Chums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silvers 181 894.1 80.1% 40 197.6 17.7% 0 0 0 5 24.7 2.2% 226 36.7% 1.116.4 34.9%
Landlocked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 100.0% 10 1.6% 15.0 .5x -CD -4 Spawning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 2u 86.0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3.3% 86.0 2.7%
TOTAL 321 1.757.7 -- 280 1.404.0 -- 0 0 0 15 39.7 -- 616 100.0% 3.201.4 100.0%
52.1%' 54. 9xc 45.5%c 43.9xc 0 0 0 2.4%' 1. 2xc
a Percent of species total taken by gear type. b Percent of to&al catch made up of each species.
C Percent of total catch of all salmon by gear type (see Fig. 16). d An unknown number of chums was removed by one household Erom a commercial catch.
Source: Uivision of Subsistence, ADFCG. Survey 1987 NUMBERS OF SALMON REMOVED FROM -.-.*.*.*...*::::::y::::COMMERCIAL n...... CATCH
, . SUBSISTENCE fz3. * SET NET
OTHER METHODS (ROD & REEL AND ICE FISHING (S urn=616 fish)
2. 1%
POUNDS OF SALMON REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL CATCH ’
SUBSISTENCE SET NET
OTHER METHODS (ROD & REEL AND ICE FISHING1
(Sum=3201.4 Ibs)
9%
Fiqure 16. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Uqashik, June 1986 - Mav 1987.
88 TABLE 20. PERCENTAGEOF PORT HEIDEN HOUSEHOLDSHARVESTING SALMON, BY GEAR TYPE AND SPECIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987 (N=37 households)
Percentage of householdharvesting . Removed from Subsistence Ice Rod and Any Commercial Catch Net Fishing Reel Method
Kings 51.4% 8.1% 0 2.7% 51.4%
Sockeyes 21.6% 8.1% 0 5.4% 35.1%
Chums 0 0 0 0 0
Pinks 0 0 0 5.4% 5.4%
Silvers 51.4% 13.5% 0 24.3% 70.3%
Landlocked 0 0 2.7% 0 2.7%
Spawning 0 13.5% 0 10.8% 24.3%
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0
ANY SALMON 62.2% 24.3% 2.7% 29.7% 81.1%
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
89 TABLE 2 I , SALMON HARVESTS BY GEAR TYPE, PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
Removed from Subsistence Ice Rod and Any Commercial Catch Net Fishing Reel Method b LNO -Lbs -%a 2NO -Lbs -%a NO2-.- Lbs -%a LNO -Lbs -Xa L-No P ILbs h
Kings 174 2,265.5 93.5% 10 130.2 514% 0 0 0 2 26.0 1.1% 186 10.8% 2,421.7 27.6%
Sockeyes 107 460.1 20.3% 394 1.694.2 74.0% 0 0 0 26 111.8 4.9% 527 30.6% 2.266.1 25.0%
Chums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9.6 100.0% 4 .2% 9.6 .l%
Silvers 432 2.134.1 61.5% 145 716.3 20.7% 0 0 0 125 617.5 17.8% 702 40.8% 3,467.g 39.6%
Landlocked 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9.0 100.0% 0 0 0 6 .4% 9.0 .I%
Spawning 0 0 0 220 440.0 74.3% 0 0 0 76 152.0 25.7% 296 17.2% 592.0 .6.8% \D 0 ’ i Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 713 4,059.7 -Y- 769 2,980.7 -- 6 9.0 -- 233 916.9 -- 1,721 100.0% 8.766.3 100.0%
41.4%c 55.4XC 44. 7zzc 34.0xc .4%c .lxc 13.5xc 10. 51C
a Percent of species total taken by gear type. b Percent of total catch made up of each species.
C Percent of total catch of all salmon by gear type (see Fig. 17).
Source : Division of Subsistence, ADFLG, Survey 1987 NUMBERS OF SALMON REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL CATCH
SUBSISTENCE SET NET
OTHER METHODS (ROD & REEL AND ICE FISHING1
(S urn=1721 fish)
1.4%
REMOVED FROM POUNDS OF SALMON ...... COMMERCIAL ...... III CATCH
. . . . SUBSISTENCE I3 SET NET -
OTHER METHODS m (ROD & REEL AND ICE FISHING1
(Su m=8766.3 Ibs.)
5. 4%
Fiqure 17. Salmon Harvests by Gear Type, Port Heiden, June 1986- May 1987.
91 catches for transport back to Port Heiden to use at home. However, commercial fishermen fishing closer to home in the Port Heiden Section of the Alaska Peninsula Area did commonly remove fish from their commercial harvests for home use. Thus, in terms of numbers of fish, removal from commercial catches, with 41.4 percent of the salmon take, was second to subsistence nets (44.7 percent) as a source for salmon in Port Heiden.
However, salmon from commercial catches provided most of the food weight of
Port Heiden's catch for home use (55.4 percent), primarily because of the large number of kings and silvers removed from commercial nets while households were fishing near the village. Overall, 62.2 percent of Port
Heiden's households obtained salmon for home use from commercial catches during the study period. Removal of fish from commercial catches accounted for 93.5 percent of Port Heiden's king salmon harvest and 61.5 percent of the silvers, as well as.20.3 percent of the sockeyes. Subsistence nets were the major source of sockeyes for Port Heiden (74.8 percent). Also,
Port Heiden households reported taking larger numbers of-spawning sockeye salmon in subsistence nets in 1986 than did the other two communities.
Subsistence Set Net Fishing
In Pilot Point and Ugashik, subsistence set netting was the second major source of salmon harvests, following removal from commercial catches.
Residents of both communities set their nets in the Ugashik District of the
Bristol Bay Area. Subsistence fishing in this district required a permit obtained without charge from the Department of Fish and Game in King
Salmon. During the study period, any Alaska resident could obtain a permit for this district. Permits were limited to one per household. In that
92 portion of the Ugashik District open to commercial fishing, salmon for subsistence use could be taken only during open commercial salmon fishing periods. Up to 25 fathoms of gill net could be used for subsistence fishing in this area. In the remainder of the district, subsistence salmon fishing was open seven days a week, except that during the period from June
23 until 9 a.m. July 17, subsistence permit holders could fish only during two open periods each week, one from 9:00 a.m. on Tuesdays unti.1 9:00 a.m.
Wednesdays and the other from 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays until 9:00 a.m.
Sundays. Subsistence fishermen could use up to ten fathoms of set net gear in the area closed to commercial fishing. Regulations adopted by the Board of Fisheries did not set any season or bag limits -on the number of salmon
that subsistence permit holders could take (ADF&G 1986a:12-14). When
issuing permits, Department of Fish and Game personnel set limits of 10
kings, 300 sockeyes, 10 silvers, 50-75 chums, and 50-75 pinks per permit.
Table 22 reports the subsistence salmon harvests for the Ugashik Dis-
trict from 1971 through 1986 based on permits returned to ADF&G. Harvest
numbers, expanded from returned permit totals, averaged 43.5 kings, 359.9
sockeyes, 52.7 chums, 9.7 pinks, and 369.1 silvers during that period. It
should be noted that in some years, non-local residents took a large por-
tion of the subsistence harvest in the Ugashik District. For example, 13
permit holders in the Ugashik District had non-Ugashik drainage mailing ad-
dresses in 1986, 50 percent of the total number of permit holders, and took
53.6 percent of the salmon catch. The number of Ugashik households obtain-
ing permits for this fishery has averaged about 4.6, with a high of 8 in
1971, 1972, and 1975, and a low of 2 in several years, most recently 1985.
Permit holders with Ugashik mailing addresses have averaged total annual
subsistence salmon harvests of 23.3 kings, 181.3 sockeyes, 14.4 chums,
93 TABLE 22. UGASHIK DISTRICT SUBSISTENCE SALMON HARVESTS, 1971 - 1986
Permits Issued (Returned) Sockeyes Kings --Chums Pinks --Cohos Total
1971 Pilot Point 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 Ugashik 8 (7) 335 14 0 79 443 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 9 (8) 335 14 0 79 443
1972 Pilot Point 3 (2) 30 0 60 0 75 165 Ugashik 8 (7) 142 70 61 39 181 493 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 12 (9) 172 70 121 39 256 658
1973 Pilot Point 10 (8) 231 23 138 1 505 898 Ugashik 4 (2) 8 30 10 0 60 108 Other BB 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 15 (10) 239 53 148 1 5651,006
1974 Pilot Point 1 (1) 11 0 0 14 28 Ugashik 6 (5) 113 46 31 434 698 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 8 (6) 124 46 31 448 726
1975 Pilot Point 6 (6) 348 30 0 255 634 Ugashik 8 (8) 216 0 0 910 1,126 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 2 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 16 (15) 564 30 0 1,165 1,760
1976 NO DATA
1977 Pilot Point 11 (9) 753 73 233 33 213 1,305 Ugashik 6 (5) 169 32 I 13 12 234 460 Other BB 2 (2) 25 7 0 0 30 62 Other AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 19 (16) 947 112 246 45 477 1,827
1978 Pilot Point 9 (5) 32 45 5 0 149 231 Ugashik 4 (4) 305 8 58 5 580 956 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 13 (9) 337 53 63 5 ?-% 1,187
94 TABLE 22. (Continued) UGASHIK DISTRICT SUBSISTENCE SALMON HARVESTS, 1971 - 1986
. Permits Issued (Returned) Sockeyes Kings Chums Pinks --Cohos Total
1979 Pilot Point 2 (2) 4 10 24 Ugashik 5 (5) 143 103 279 Other BB 0 0 0 0 Other AK 1 (1) 0 0 0 TOTAL 8 (8) 187 223 373
1980 Pilot Point 7 (6) 159 28 40 102 330 Ugashik 2 (1) 0 4 0 106 110 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 1 (1) 45 10 0 15 70 TOTAL 10 (8) 204 42 40 223 510
1981 Pilot Point 6 (4) 165 18 0 120 312 Ugashik 5 (4) 399 18 0 90 507 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 2 (1) 2 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 13 (9) 566 36 0 210 821
1982 Pilot Point 6 (6) 216 27 10 10 215 478 Ugashik 2 (1) 130 20 0 0 20 170 Other BB 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 2 ‘(0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 11 (8) 346 47 10 10 235 648
1983 Pilot Point 4 (4) 244 20. 24 5 99 392 Ugashik 2 (1) 162 20 0 0 0 182 Other BB 1 (1) 25 0 0 0 10 35 Other AK 1 (1) 10 1 2 0 0 13 TOTAL 8 (7) 441 41 26 5 109 622
1984 Pilot Point 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 Ugashik 4 (3) 263 21 0 601 888 Other BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 5 (3) 263 21 0 601 888
1985 Pilot Point 3 (2) 5 0 0 38 84 Ugashik 2 (2) 0 0 0 52 222 Other BB 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 10 Other AK 1 (1) 0 0 0 10 10 TOTAL 7 (6) 5 0 0 100 326
1986 Pilot Point 10 (2) 0 0 0 100 100 Ugashik 3 (2) 164 12 3 59 238 Other BB 4 (1) 6 0 0 20 26 Other AK 9 (3) 283 22 23 28 364 TOTAL 26 (8) 453 34 26 207 728 95 TABLE 22. (Continued) UGASHIK DISTRICT SUBSISTENCE SALMON HARVESTS, 1971 - 1986
Permits Issued (Returned) Sockeyes Kings Chums Pinks --Cohos Total
TOTALS, Pilot Point 80 (58) 2,234 253 549 50 1,895 4,981 1971-86 Ugashik 69 (57) 2,719 349 216 87 3,509 6,880 Other BB 10 (6) 66 7 0 0 60 133 Other AK 21 (9) 380 43 2.5 8 73 529 TOTAL 180 (130) 5,399 652 790 145 5,537 12,623
ANNUAL Pilot Point 5.3 (3.9) 148.9 16.9 36.6 3.3 126.3 332.1 AVERAGE Ugashik 4.6 (3.8) 181.3 23.3 14.4 5.8 233.9 458.7 1971-86 Other BB .7 (.4) 4.4 .5 0 0 4.0 8.9 Other AK 1.4 (.6) 25.3 2.9 1.7 .5 -- 4.9 35.3 TOTAL 12.0 (8.7) 359.9 43.5 52.7 9.7 369.1 841.5
96 5.8 pinks, and 233.9 silvers. People with Pilot Point mailing addresses have averaged total annual harvests of 16.9 kings, 148.9 sockeyes, 36.6 chums, 3.3 pinks, and 126.3 silvers. An average of about 5.3 permits has been issued to Pilot Point residents since 1971.
According to the results of the survey conducted by the Division of
Subsistence, during the study period five of the 17 sampled households in
Pilot Point (29.4 percent) caught salmon with subsistence set nets. Four sampled households reported that they had obtained permits. The nets were set along the beach in front of the community. Three households (17.6 percent) harvested kings, sockeyes, and chums, while four households (23.5 percent) took silvers and one (5.9 percent) harvested spawning salmon with this gear type (Table 16). Overall, subsistence nets took 21.9 percent of the salmon that Pilot Point residents harvested for home use during the study period. These salmon provided 21.5 percent of the edible weight of the community's salmon harvest. The most common species taken in subsistence nets were silver salmon (21.5 percent of all silvers were taken by this method) and sockeye salmon (24.9 percent). Subsistence nets were also the usual method for taking spawning sockeye salmon in the Pilot Point area (Table 17).
Three households in Ugashik (60.0 percent) harvested salmon in subsistence nets during the study period according to survey results (Table
18). This harvest method accounted for 45.5 percent of the total take for home use by the five year-round households in the community, including 64.5 percent of the sockeyes, 40.0 percent of the kings, and 17.7 percent of the silvers. Salmon taken in subsistence nets provided 43.9 percent of edible weight of Ugashik's salmon harvest for home use in 1986-1987 (Table.19).
Ugashik households set their subsistence nets in the Ugashik River along
97 the beach below the community. Three of the five households reported that they had obtained a subsistence fishing permit in 1986.
As noted above, Port Heiden households harvested more salmon in subsistence set nets (44.7 percent of all salmon taken for home use) than by any other method. About one third (34.0 percent) of the edible 'weight of Port Heiden's salmon harvest came' from subsistence nets, second only to the 55.4 percent removed from commercial catches (Tables 20 and 21).
Port Heiden residents set nets for subsistence salmon fishing within the Northern District of the Alaska Peninsula Area, mostly along the beach near the community. A subsistence fishing permit, available from the
Department of Fish and Game at Cold Bay, was required. During the study period, any Alaska resident could obtain a permit. Set nets could not
exceed 100 fathoms in length, and, unless otherwise specified on the permit, no more than 250 salmon could be taken for subsistence purposes.
Subsistence salmon fishing was open at all times within this district
except for 24 hours before and within 12 hours following each open weekly
commercial salmon fishing period (ADF&G 1986a:16).
According to survey results, 24.3 percent of the 37 Port Heiden households (nine households) fished for salmon with subsistence nets (Table
20). Six households reported that they had obtained a subsistence permit
for the 1986 season. Most of the sockeye salmon taken for home use at Port
Heiden (74.8 percent) were harvested in subsistence nets, as were 74.3
percent of the spawning salmon, 20.7 percent of the silver salmon, and 5.4
percent of the kings (Table 21). Three households (8.1 percent) set nets
for red salmon, five (13.5 percent) for silvers, and five (13.5 percent)
for spawning sockeyes (Table 20).
98 Other Harvest Methods
In all three study communities, harvest methods other than subsistence or commercial nets made a small contribution to the salmon harvest. At
Pilot Point, 29.5 percent of the sample harvested salmon in openwater using rod and reel gear, mostly for silvers and landlocked salmon. This fishing method accounted for 6.5 percent of the salmon take and 5.0 percent of the edible weight of this harvest. A more common activity was fishing through the ice with hook and line for landlocked salmon. Almost two thirds (64.7 percent) of the households engaged in this activity, providing
12.6 percent of the salmon taken at Pilot Point in 1986-1987, and 3.9 percent of the edible weight of the harvest (Tables 16 and 17; Fig. 15).
At Ugashik, three households fished for salmon with sport fishing gear. Ihey took a few silvers and landlocked salmon for 2.4 percent of the total salmon catch and 1.2 percent of the edible weight of this harvest
(Tables 18 and 19; Fig. 16).
Overall, 11 households in Port Heiden (29.7 percent) took salmon with rod and reel gear. The major target was silver salmon. About one quarter of the households (24.3 percent) harvested silvers with this gear type I contributing 17.8 percent of the silver salmon harvest. A few households also took kings, sockeyes, pinks, and spawning salmon with rod and reel.
In total, 13.5 percent of Port Heiden's salmon harvest was taken by this method, providing 10.5 percent of the total edible weight of this harvest
(Tables 20 and 21; Fig.17).
99 Processing and Preservation Methods.
Residents of the three study communities used similar methods to . process and preserve their salmon harvests. These included salting some of the catch in buckets or freezing a small portion of the harvest. Much of the catch was smoked in smokehouses that were shared among several families, while portions were also canned. Also, drying was a preferred method of preserving the fall harvest of spawning sockeyes.
NON-SALMON FISH
Species Used and Harvest Levels
A variety of non-salmon marine and freshwater fish was used in the study communities. At Pilot Point, the mean household harvest of 55.8 pounds of these fish was 4.1 percent of the total harvest during the study year (Table 15). Almost all of Pilot Point's households (94.1 percent) used this resource category, while the same number also fished for and harvested fish other than salmon (Table 12, 'Pig. 9). In addition, 35.3 percent of the Pilot Point sample received at least one species of these
fish from harvesters living in other households, and 58.8 percent gave
these fish away. Smelt was the ,variety of non-salmon fish used (76.5 percent) and harvested (64.7 percent) by the most households at Pilot
Point. By weight, the mean household harvest of smelt of 28.4 pounds made up 50.9 percent of the non-salmon fish harvest. Smelt were one of the most widely shared resources in the community, received by 23.5 percent of the households and given away by 47.1 percent. Other fish resources used by at
100 least a quarter of the households during the study year included Dolly
Varden (41.2 percent used and harvested), pike (29.4 percent used, 23.5
percent harvested), and halibut (29.4 percent used, 23.5 percent harvested).
Ugashik households harvested a mean of 72.2 pounds of fish other than
salmon during the study year. This was 4.4 percent. of the community's
total take of wild resources (Table 15). All of the Ugashik households
used, fished for, and harvested at least one species from this resource
category (Table 13, Fig. 10). By far, the major non-salmon fish resource
at Ugashik was smelt, the mean household harvest of which (65.0 pounds) was
90 percent of the total for the category. Sixty percent of the households
used and harvested smelt. Ugashik households also harvested and used Dolly
Varden, pike, and flounder.
The mean household harvest of fish other than salmon at Port Heiden,
32.6 pounds (2.9 percent of the total harvest) was notably lower than those
of Pilot Point or Ugashik (Table 15). Nevertheless, most Port Heiden
households used (91.9 percent) and harvested (62.2 percent) these fish
(Table 14, Fig. 11). Notably, more households received fish from this
category from other households (70.3 percent) than harvested them
themselves. This was largely a consequence of the many households (45.9
percent) that received smelt from households living outside the community.
Dolly Varden were the major non-salmon fish used .(75.7 percent) and
harvested (48.6 percent) at Port Heiden, accounting for 58.9 percent of the
harvest of this category of resources. The only other fish used by more
than one household during the study period were flounder (10.8 percent used
and harvested) and lake trout (10.8 percent used, 8.1 percent harvested).
101 Harvest Methods
Several non-salmon fish species were taken incidentally during commercial salmon fishing by residents of the three communities. As shown
in Table 23, commercial fishing activities accounted for all of the harvests of roe-on-kelp, cod, flounder, and tanner crab at Pilot Point, and most of the Dolly Varden and halibut. At Ugashik, only a flounder and a
few Dolly Varden were brought home as incidental catches during commercial
fishing, while at Port Heiden, commercial fishermen removed small amounts
of herring roe-on-kelp, halibut, and flounders. Overall, most of the small
numbers of marine fish were incidental harvests during commercial salmon
fishing.
Most of the rest of the harvest of non-salmon fish took place with rod
and reel or hook and line gear. Trout were harvested in rivers and lakes
during periods of open water, Pilot Point and Ugashik households took
large numbers of smelt in winter by jigging through the frozen Ugashik
River or the Dog Salmon River. Households at Pilot Point also jigged
through the ice at several local lakes for pike. In addition, pike were
also taken with set nets in lakes during periods of open water.
Harvest Areas
Figure 18 depicts the areas that study community residents used to
fish for non-salmon fish species in fresh water from 1963 to 1983. These
harvest areas were generally close to the communities and confined to
nearby streams and lakes.
102 TABLE 23. RESOURCESREMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL HARVESTS, STUDY COMMUNITIES, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987
. Pilot Point Ugashik Port Heiden N=17 Households) (N=5 Households) (N=37 Households) % of % of % of Total Total Total Number lbs Species Number lbs Species Number lbs Species Resource Removed Removed Harvest Removed Removed Harvest Removed Removed Harvest
King Salmon 88 1,145.8 83.8% 30 390.6 60.0% 174 2,265.5 93.5% Sockeye Salmon 226 971.8 66.3% 110 473.0 35.5% 107 460.1 20.3% Chum Salmon 20 92.6 66.7% d d d 0 0 0 Pink Salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Silver Salmon 368 1,817.g 73.2% 181 894.1 80.1% 432 2,134.l 61.5%
Roe-on-Kelpb 2b 50.0 100.0% 0 0 0 2b 50.0 100.0% Coda 11 11.0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 t-J Halibuta 10 162.0 76.4% 0 0 0 9.2 148.6 100.0% 0 100.0% W Floundera 5 5.0 100.0% 1 1.0 100.0% 30 30.0 Rainbow Trouta 1 1.4 10.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dolly Vardena 34 47.6 61.8% 4 5.6 44.4% 0 0 0
Tanner Crab NA 25.0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL -- 4,330-l 18.5%' -- 1,764.3 21.7%' -- 5,088.3 12.1%c
a Incidental catches while fishing commercially for salmon. b Harvest reported in buckets.
' Percentage of total of all resources. d An unknown number of chums were removed by one household from a commercial catch.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987 FRESHWATER FISH HARVEST AREAS
cl. PILOT POINT UGASHIK umml
Note: Specific mapped data unavailable for Port Heiden: freshwater fishing occurs near the community.
BRISTOL BAY .PORT ---- HEIDFN
0 'p MILES ’ ’
Figure 18. Harvest Areas, Non-Salmon Fish, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 - 1983. MARINE INVERTEBRATES
Residents of Pilot Point and Port Heiden harvested notable quantities of marine invertebrates during the 1986-1987 study year. No Ugashik house- holds reported using or harvesting this resource category during that time period, however. At Pilot Point, the mean household harvest of 22.3 pounds of marine invertebrates made up 1.6 percent of the total wild resource har- vest. Nevertheless, 64.7 percent of the households used marine inverte- brates, and participation in the harvest was also high, 58.8 percent. By weight, cockles made up about two-thirds of Pilot Point's marine
invertebrate .harvest. Almost half the households (47.1 percent) used
cockles, and 41.2 percent harvested them. Other resources contributing to
the take of marine invertebrates at Pilot Point included butter clams (35.3
percent used, 35.3 percent harvested), razor clams (1118 percent using, 5.9
percent harvesting), and tanner crab (11.8 percent using, 5.9 percent
harvesting). Pilot Point residents harvested these resources along local
beaches, although occasionally people traveled by plane to Wide Bay on the
Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula for clams (Wright et al. 1985: Map 7).
Port Heiden households used larger quantities of marine invertebrates
than did Pilot Point residents. The mean household harvest of this
resource category, 49.3 pounds (Table 15), was 4.3 percent of the total
harvest, the third largest category after the large amounts of salmon and
land mammals harvested in Port Heiden. Notably, 86.5 percent of the Port
Heiden households used marine invertebrates, and a larger percentage of the
sample, 83.8 percent, attempted to harvest them than any other resource
category (Table 14). Also, along with salmon, marine invertebrates was the
resource category which the most households harvested, 81.1 percent. All
105 of Port Heiden's harvest of marine invertebrates was comprised of cockles.
A few households also used butter clams (5.4 percent) and tanner crab (2.7 percent) which they received from households in other communities. More households harvested cockles (81.1 percent) than any other resource, and only caribou (used by every household) was used by a larger percentage of the Port Heiden sample than were cockles (86.5 percent used). Port Heiden residents reached beds of cockles by traveling along beaches with all
terrain vehicles. Popular areas for digging cockles included beaches along
the Bristol Bay coast north of the community. Occasionally, Port Heiden
residents flew to Aniakchak Bay on the Pacific, side of the peninsula to dig
clams (Wright et al. 1985: Map 7).
LANDMAMMALS
As shown in Table 15 and Figures 12, 13, and 14, land mammals made the
greatest contribution to the wild resource harvests of each study
community. At Pilot Point, 62.5 percent of the food weight of the total
harvest was land mammals. This resource category made up 50.6 percent of
the Ugashik households' harvests, and 61.5 percent of the harvest at Port
Heiden. All of the households in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden
used land mammals (Figs. 9, 10, and 11). In addition, at least one species
of land mammal was harvested by 82.4 percent of the Pilot Point households,
80.0 percent of the Ugashik households, and 67.6 percent of the Port Heiden
households. This resource category was also widely shared, with 58.8
percent of the Pilot Point sample, 80.0 percent of the Ugashik households,
and 51.4 percent of those in Port Heiden giving away portions of their game
harvests to others,
106 Caribou
As noted above (Tables 12, 13, and 14), every household in Port
Heiden, and all but one household in Pilot Point (94.1 percent) and Ugashik
(80 percent) used caribou meat during the study year. In Pilot Point, 82.4 percent of the households hunted caribou and 76.5 percent harvested them.
Eighty percent of the Ugashik sample hunted and harvested caribou. Of the
37 Port Heiden households, 70.3 percent hunted caribou and 67.6 percent were successful harvesters. Caribou meat was one of the most widely shared resources in all three communities, with 58.8 percent of the Pilot Point
sample and 62.2 percent of the Port Heiden sample receiving caribou meat
from people living outside their households. At Ugashik, 80.0 percent of
the households gave caribou meat to others, while at Pilot Point 52.9
percent gave caribou meat away and at Port Heiden, 51.4 shared their
caribou harvests. With a mean household harvest of 820.6 pounds in Pilot
Point, 600.0 pounds in Ugashik, and 681.1 in Port Heiden, caribou made by
far the largest contribution to the wild food supply in all three villages.
The total harvest of caribou during the study year was 93 animals at Pilot
Point, 20 at Ugashik, and 168 at Port Heiden.
Residents of all three communities hunted the Northern Alaska
Peninsula Caribou Herd in Game Management Unit (GMU) 9E. During the 1986-
1987 study year, regulations adopted by the Alaska Board of Game permitted
the hunting of caribou in this unit from August 10 through March 31. All
Alaska residents were allowed a seasonal limit of four caribou. However,
not more than two caribou could be taken from August 10 to August 31 and
107 not more than one from September 1 to October 31 (ADF&G 1986b:26) (Table
24).
Figure 19 depicts therareas used by residents of Pilot Point and
Ugashik to hunt caribou in the 196Os, 197Os, and 1980s. In the early part of the season, hunting areas along streams such as Dago Creek and the
Ugashik River were reached by skiff. Before December, hunters used three wheelers to access areas between Pilot Point and Upper Ugashik Lake along the Oil Company Road. After the herd moved further to the north, the community hunting areas expanded as some hunters used planes to reach the animals. The herd passed by the villages on its way south to calving grounds in March.
Although both men and women in these communities participated in caribou hunting, the typical hunting party consisted of groups of men.
Hunters harvested caribou throughout the season, rather than all at once,
in order to maintain a supply fresh meat and to prevent spoilage, especially in the earlier part of the season. These hunting strategies
also encouraged sharing between households.
As shown in Figure 19, the area used for hunting caribou by Port
Heiden residents included most of the area draining into Bristol Bay from
Cape Seniavin south of the village to Cape Menshikof to the north. Hunting
patterns were similar to those of Pilot Point, with groups of young men
making multiple hunting trips throughout the year and sharing their harvest
widely within the community. These hunters maintained a cabin on the
"North River" (Reindeer Creek) that was a popular base from which to search
for caribou.
108 TABLE 24. HUNTING REGULATIONS FOR LAND MAMMALS, GMU 9E, JULY 1, 1986 - JUNE 30, 1987.
Resource Open Seasons Bag Limits
Caribou Aug. 10 - Mar. 31 4 caribou; however, not more than 2 could be taken from Aug. lo-Aug 31, and not more than 1 could be taken from Sept. l-Oct.31.
Moose Sept. 10 - Sept. 20 One antlered moose; Dec. 1 - Dec. 15. however, moose taken from Sept. 10 - Sept. 20 must have an antler spread of at least 50 inches or have at least 3 brow tines on at least one of the antlers,
Brown Bear No open season
Hare No closed season No bag limit
Porcupine No closed season No bag limit
Source: ADF&G 1986b
109 _ . , ,, ,.
SUBSISTENCE CARIBOU HARVEST AREAS
$$$ PILOT POINT n.::::.. . . ;.
PORT HEIDEN 1UGASHIK
BRIM-OL PORT HEIDEN d
Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 - 1983. Figure 19. Harvest Areas, Caribou, Pilot Point, Moose
. According to survey results, only one household each in the three
communities harvested a moose during the study period. Nevertheless, moose
meat was widely shared. As a result, 47.1 percent of the households in
Pilot Point, 60.0 percent of the households in Ugashik, and 21.6 percent of
Port Heiden households used moose, with most of these receiving moose meat
from successful harvesters living outside their households (Tables 12, 13,
and 14).
As with caribou, residents of the three communities hunted moose in
GMU 9E. During the study year, there were two moose hunting seasons in
this GMU. The first was open from September 10 to September 20. Hunters
were allowed one antlered moose with an antler spread of at least 50 inches
or with at least three brow'tines on at least one of the antlers. During
the late season from December 1 through December 15, hunters could take one
antlered moose (ADF&G 1986b:31) (Table 24).
Most hunters in the study communities did not make special trips for
moose. Rather, they hunted them in the same areas and at the same times as
caribou (see Figure 19).
Other Land Mammals
Three other land mammals were harvested or used by households in Pilot
Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden. Particularly noteworthy at Pilot Point
were porcupines, used by 35.3 percent of the households and harvested by
29.4 percent. One household in Ugashik (20.0 percent) used and harvested
111 porcupines, while in Port Heiden, 13.5 percent of the households used this resource and 10.8 percent harvested them.
Hares were a second species of small game used and harvested in Pilot
Point by 29.4 percent of the sample. Two households in Ugashik (40.0 percent) used and harvested hares, but no households in Port Heiden used or harvested this resource Both porcupines and hares. were mostly taken
incidentally while people were focusing on other resource activities.
There were no closed seasons or bag limits for these species in GMU 9E in
1986-1987 (Table 24).
Although no households in the three study communities hunted brown
bears during 1986-1987, two households in Pilot Point (11.8 percent) and
one household in Port Heiden (5.4 percent) used gifts of brown bear oil
during the study period. This oil was used in small quantities throughout
the Bristol Bay region as a condiment to accompany dried fish,
E'URBEARERS
During the 12 month study period in 1986 and 1987, 88.2 percent of the
sampled Pilot Point households attempted to trap furbearers, and 82.4
percent were successful. These households reported harvesting eight kinds
of furbearers. Red fox, which were shot or trapped, were the most commonly
harvested furbearer, with 70.6 percent of the households taking 133 red
fox. Land otter were trapped by 58.8 percent of the sample for a catch of
91 animals, while 35.2 percent of the sample took a total of 23 beaver and
23.5 percent caught a total of 25 lynx. Other furbearers trapped in
smaller numbers by Pilot Point residents were wolverine, mink, wolf, and
arctic ground squirrel (Table 12). The estimated income from this catch
112 was $1,693 per trapping household. None of this catch was used for food.
A few residents explained that beaver are not eaten because they are a
recent arrival in the area and people are not familiar with the meat.
Figure 20 depicts areas used by Pilot Point and Ugashik trappers in the
196Os, 197Os, and 1980s.
In Ugashik, 80.0 percent of the households harvested furbearers during
the study period. These trappers took seven species, with red fox
providing the largest catch, 84 animals, by four households (80.0 percent).
Sixty percent of the households took lynx, for a total of 18 animals.
Species taken in lower numbers were land otter, beaver, mink, wolverine,
and arctic ground squirrel (Table 13). The average income from this catch
for the four trapping households was $3,511.
Participation in the harvest of furbearers was lower in Port Heiden,
with 29.7 percent of the 37 households attempting to trap these species,
and 24.3 percent being successful. Red fox, with a catch of 101 animals by
21.6 percent of the households, was by far the most commonly taken species.
Fox were either shot or trapped. Port Heiden trappers also took a few land
otters, wolverines, and beavers (Table 14)., The average income from the
catch of furbearers for trapping households was $667. Figure 20 shows the
areas used for trapping furbearers by Port Heiden residents from 1963 to
1983.
MARINE MAMMALS
About half the households in Pilot Point (52.9 percent) and about a
third of the Port Heiden households (32.4 percent) used marine mammal
products during the 1986-1987 study period. Fewer households harvested
113 SUBSISTENCE FURBEARER
...... ;$$$ PILOT POINT 0...... PORT HEIDEN
UGASHIK
Note: in 1987, Ugashik residents were also trapping in the area east of the village to Lower Ugashik Lake.
BRISTOL BAY PORT HEIDEN
MILES
Figure 20. F'urbearer Harvest Areas, Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, 1963 - 1983. marine mammals, 23.5 percent at Pilot Point and 13.5 percent at Port
Heiden. No Ugashik households used or harvested species within this
resource category, however. Notably, 35.3 percent of the Pilot Point
households and 29.7 percent of those in Port Heiden received gifts of
marine mammal products which they used during the study period (Figs. 9,and
11). Most commonly, these gifts consisted of small amounts of seal oil,
which some h.ouseholds used as a condiment with dry fish. For most
households that reported using marine mammals, seal oil was the only marine
mammal product they used during the study year. Residents of the
communities generally took a few harbor seals each year while commercial
fishing for salmon. Five were taken by Pilot Point residents in 1986-1987
and three were harvested at Port Heiden.
Two households in Pilot Point (11.8 percent) and one in Port Heiden
used the furs of sea otters that they salvaged along beaches near the
communities. The meat was not consumed. In addition, several Port Heiden
households regularly combed the beaches in search of walrus which have
washed ashore. These households salvaged the meat of three walrus in 1986-
1987. Typically, the flippers and multiple 50 pound slabs of fat were
recovered, along with the tusks. There are several walrus ivory carvers at
Port Heiden.
The mean household harvest of marine mammals at Pilot Point during the
study year was 16.5 pounds, 1.2 percent of the community total. Port
Heiden households averaged a harvest of 41.7 pounds, 3.7 percent of all the
wild foods taken in 1986-1987 (Table 15).
115 BIRDS
Overall, residents of the study communities used or harvested 20 kinds of bird resources, including ptarmigan, five species of geese, cranes, swans, seven kinds of ducks, shorebirds, and four kinds of tiaterfowl eggs.
Households in Pilot Point harvested an average of of 60.9 pounds of these resources, 4.4 percent of the community's total food harvest (Table 15).
Almost all the households (94.1 percent) used birds during the study period, and 88.2 percent hunted and harvested them. These species were often shared in Pilot Point, with 23.5 percent of the sample receiving birds from other households, and 35.3 percent giving birds away (Fig. 9).
At Ugashik, all the households used at least one species of bird during the study period, while 80.0 percent hunted and harvested them and
40.0 percent received birds or gave them away (Fig. 10). The mean household harvest of 51.0 pounds was 3.1 percent of the community total
(Table 15).
As in the other communities, most Port Heiden households used (86.5 percent), hunted (75.7 percent), and harvested (75.7 percent) birds. Over half these households (56.8 percent) received birds from other households, and 45.9 percent gave birds away (Fig. 11). At Port Heiden, the average household took 37.1 pounds of birds, 3.3 percent of the community's total harvest during the study period (Table 15).
Ptarmirran
During the study year, ptarmigan were common within the harvest areas
of the three communities. In 1986-1987, hunting regulations allowed
116 ptarmigan hunting in GMU 9 from August 10 through April 30. The bag limit was 20 a day and 40 in possession (ADF&G 1986b:41).
Ptarmigan were a popular resource in all three study communities. At
Pilot Point, 70.6 percent of the sample used, hunted, and harvested
ptarmigan (Table 11). The mean household harvest of 5.5 pounds was nine
percent of the bird harvest at Pilot Point. At Ugashik, 80.0 percent of
the households used, hunted, and harvested ptarmigan for an average take of
9.2 pounds, 18.0 percent of the total bird harvest (Table 12). Similarly,
73.0 percent of the Port Heiden households used ptarmigan and 59.5 percent
hunted and harvested them (Table 13). The mean household harvest of seven
pounds of ptarmigan was 18.9 percent of the edible weight of all the birds
taken by Port Heiden residents in 1986-1987. A total of 133 ptarmigan were
taken by Pilot Point households, 66 ptarmigan .by Ugashik households, and
370 ptarmigan by Port Heiden households in 1986 - 1987.
Waterfowl and Eggs
Hunting Regulations
Table 25 displays the state regulations governing waterfowl hunting in
GMU 9E. There was no open season for emperor geese, swans, or Canada geese
during the study period. For the remaining waterfowl species, the hunting
season began on September 1 and extended to December 16. Hunting of
migratory birds is prohibited between March 10 and September 1 by the 1916
Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada and the 1918 federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. However, traditional spring hunting has continued in some
rural areas of Alaska, such as the Yukon - Kuskokwirn area and parts of the
117 TABLE 25. WATERFOWLHUNTING REGULATIONS, GMU 9E, JULY I, 1986 - JUNE 30, 1987
open seasons bag limits
2 Ducks (except sea ducks) Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 8 a day, 24 in possession
Sea ducks3 Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 15 a day, 30 in possession
Canada geese4 No open season
White - fronted geese5 Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 2 a day, 4 in possession
Snow geese5 Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 6 a day, 12 in possession
Brant Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 2 a day, 4 in possession
Emperor geese No open season
Snipe Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 8 a day, 16 in possession
Cranes Sept. 1 - Dec. 16 2 a day, 4 in possession
Swans No open season
1 All persons 16 years of age or older were required to carry a federal migratory bird hunting stamp ("duck stamp") when hunting all waterfowl except snipe and cranes. Also, a state waterfowl tag (stamp) was required of most persons taking waterfowl in Alaska. 2 Provided that not more than 3 per day, or 9 in possession, could be pintal ducks. 3 Sea ducks include eiders, scoters, old squaw, harlequin, and mergansers. 4 Including cackling Canada geese. 5 The combined bag limit of white-fronted and snow geese was 6 a day, 12 in possession.
Source: ADF&G 1986b : 42-43
118 Alaska Peninsula (see below). In 1985, the Yukon - Kuskokwim Delta Goose
Management Plan (successor to the 1984 Hooper Bay Agreement) was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, the Association of Village Council Presidents (representing the
communities of the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers), and two California
sportsmen's groups. The plan called for no .hunting of cackling Canada
geese, and reduced hunting of white-fronted geese, black brants, and
emperor geese. (As amended in 1987, the plan closed emperor goose hunting
as well.) A system for monitoring the spring subsistence harvesting of
migratory waterfowl in the delta was also adopted by the groups responsible
for the plan. In 1986, the U.S District Court for Alaska found that spring
harvests of migratory waterfowl by Alaska Natives for subsistence were
permitted under the Alaska Game Act of 1925, A ruling by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1987 reversed this decision, affirming
the closure established by the 1916 treaty with Canada. However, the court
also ruled that the Treaty Act delegated discretionary enforcement powers
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . The federal district court
remanded the case to the district court to decide on the legality of the
management plan.
Species Used and Harvest Quantities
Tables 26, 27, and 28 summarize the waterfowl use and harvest data for
the three study communities by category of waterfowl and by individual
resource. At Pilot Point (Table 26), 88.2 percent of the sample of 17
households used at least one species of waterfowl during the 12 month study
period from June 1986 through May 1987, while 76.5 percent hunted and
119 TABLE 26. WATERFOWLHARVEST AND USE BY CATEGORY AND BY SPECIES, PILOT POINT, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987. (N=17 households)
total % %. mean hh sample % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers
GEESE 76.5 70.6 58.8 23.5 17.6 15.7 125 Emperor 52.9 58.8 47.1 11.8 11.8 9.0 61 Canada 41.2 35.3 29.4 17.6 0 1.8 26 White-Fronted 23.5 17.6 17.6 11.8 5.9 3.0 21 Black Brant 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 1 1 Snow 5.9 11.8 5.9 5.9 0 18 6 Geese, Unk. 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 5.9 1.1 10
TUNDRA SWANS 11.8 17.6 11.8 5.9 0 4.6 13
SANDHILL CRANES 41.2 41.2 35.3 5.9 5.9 13.8 39
DUCKS 82.4 76.5 70.6 17.6 23.5 12.9 320 Other Ducks 82.4 76.5 70,6 17.6 23.5 12.5 316 Mallards 64.7 70.6 58.8 11.8 11.8 5.5 93 Pintails 52.9 52.9 47.1 11.8 11.8 3.7 78 Gadwalls 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 11.8 1.2 25 Wigeons 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 * 1' Teals 52.9 47.1 47.1 11.8 11.8 2.1 r17 Ducks, Unk. 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 . 1. 2 Sea Ducks 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 .4 4 Eiders 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 .4 4 Scoters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SHORE BIRDS 11.8 11.8 11.8 5'. 9 0 .2 42
EGGS 52.9 47.1 47.1 5.9 17.6 8.3 935 Seabird Eggs 52.9 47.1 47.1 5.9 17.6 7,7 873 Gull Eggs 52.9 47.1 47.1 5.9 17.6 7.7 873 Tern Eggs 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Waterfowl Eggs 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 0 .6 62 Duck Eggs 11.8 11.8 11.8 0 0 .5 60 Swan Eggs 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 0 * 2
ALL WATERFOWL 88.2 76.5 76.5 23.5 23.5 55.5 --
* Less than 0.1 lbs.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
120 TABLE 27. WATERFOWLHARVEST AND USE BY CATEGORY AND BY SPECIES, UGASHIK, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987. (N=5 households)
total % % mean hh sample % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers
GEESE 60.0 60.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 8.8 21 Emperor 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 20.0 5.0 10 Canada 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 20.0 1.4 6 White-Fronted 40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 0 2.4 5 Black Brant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geese, Unk. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TUNDRA SWANS 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 1.2 1
SANDHILL CRANES 60.0 80.0 60.0 0 40.0 10.8 5
DUCKS 100.0 80.0 80.0 20.0 40.0 13.8 112 Other Ducks 100.0 80.0 80.0 - 20.0 40.0 13.8 112 Mallards 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 40.0 4.6 23 Pintails 100.0 80.0 80.0 20.0 40.0 4.8 30 Gadwalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wigeons 40.0 40.0 40.0 0 20.0 1.5 11 Teals 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 40.0 2.9 48 Ducks, Unk. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sea Ducks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eiders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scoters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SHORE BIRDS 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 0 . 1 5
EGGS 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 7.0 234 Seabird Eggs 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 4.0 134 Gull Eggs 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 3.0 134 Tern Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waterfowl Eggs 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 3.0 100 Duck Eggs 80.0 80.0 80.0 0 20.0 3.0 100 Swan Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALL WATERFOWL 100.0 80.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 41.8 --
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADFGG, Survey 1987
121 TABLE 28. WATERFOWLHARVEST AND USE BY CATEGORY AND'BY SPECIES, PORT HEIDEN, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987. (N=37 households)
total % % mean hh sample % attempt % % gave harvest, harvest, Resource used harvest harvested received away lbs numbers
GEESE 43.2 35.1 24.3 21.6 16.2 11.2 191 Emperor 37.8 27.0 21.6 18.9 10.8 9.1 134 Canada 16.2 10.8 10.8 8.1 5.4 .7 21 White-Fronted 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 .6 9 Black Brant 18.9 18.9 8.1 10.8 5.4 .8 25 Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geese, Unk. 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 2.7 . 1 15
TUNDRA SWANS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SANDHILL CRANES 13.5 10.8 8.1 5.4 2.7 1.0 6
DUCKS 73.0 43.2 43.2 45.9 24.3 8.5 397 Other Ducks 64.9 37.8 37.8 43.2 18.9 6.5 329 Mallards 48.6 24.3 24.3 35.1 10.8 3.2 120 Pintails 40.5 21.6 21.6 27.0 10.8 2.0 90 Gadwalls 2.7 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 Wigeons 10.8 5.4 5.4 8.1 5.4 .5 25 Teals 37.8 21.6 21.6 24.3 13.5 . 7 90 Ducks, Unk. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 . 1 4 Sea Ducks 24.3 16.2 16.2 10.8 8.1 2.0 68 Eiders 5.4 5.4 5.4 2. 7 2.7 .9 20 Scoters 18.9 10.8 10.8 8.1 5.4 1.2 48
SHORE BIRDS 2.7 2.7 2.7 0 0 * 15
EGGS 59.5 62.2 59.5 5.4 32.4 9.4 2,444 Seabird Eggs 59.5 62.2 59.5 5.4 32.4 9.2 2,398 Gull Eggs 59.5 62.2 59.5 5.4 32.4 8.2 2,020 Tern Eggs 29.7 29.7 29.7 5.4 13.5 1.0 378 Waterfowl Eggs 8.1 8.1 8.1 2.7 8.1 .2 46 Duck Eggs 8.1 8.1 8.1 2.7 8.1 .2 46 Swan Eggs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALL WATERFOWL 81.1 75.7 70.3 51.4 37.8 30.1 --
* Less than 0.1 lbs.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
1,2 2 harvested waterfowl. The mean household harvest of waterfowl at Pilot
Point was 55.5 pounds, comprising 91.1 percent of all birds harvested and four percent of all resources harvested as measured by edible weight.
About 28 percent of the harvest weight of waterfowl was geese, 25 percent was cranes, 23 percent was ducks, and 15 percent was eggs, with the rest of the harvest being swans and shorebirds.
Pilot Point households reported harvesting 125 geese during the study year. About half of these (61 birds, 48.8 percent of all geese) were emperor geese (locally known as "beach geese"), and most of the rest were either Canada geese (26 birds, 20.8 percent) or white-fronted geese (21 birds-, 16.8 percent). By weight, emperors made up 57.3 percent of the harvest of geese. Combining all species, 76.5 percent of the Pilot Point households used geese, 70.6 hunted geese, and 58.8 were successful harvesters of these waterfowl.
The harvest of six kinds of ducks by residents of Pilot Point totaled
320 birds, for a mean of 12.9 pounds per household. Teals (117 birds, 36.6 percent of all ducks), mallards (93 birds, 29.1 percent), and pintails (78 birds, 24.4 percent) were the major species taken, along with smaller numhers of gadwalls, wigeons, and eiders. By edible weight, mallards (5.5 pounds per household, 42.6 percent of the total weight of all ducks), pintails (3.7 pounds per household, 28.7 percent), and teals (2.1 pounds,
16.3 percent) were the most significant contributors to the duck harvest at
Pilot Point. Overall, 82.4 percent of the Pilot Point sample used at least
one species of duck during the study year. Also, 76.5 percent hunted ducks
and 70.6 percent harvested ducks.
Egg gathering provided an average of 8.3 pounds per household to Pilot
Point's wild resource harvest. Almost all of this take was gull eggs (873
123 eggs1 93.4 percent of all eggs harvested). Over half (52.9 percent) of the households used waterfowl eggs and 47.1 percent gathered this resource.
The sample took 60 duck eggs (6.4 percent of the egg harvest) and two swan eggs.
Pilot Point residents reported harvesting 39 cranes, contributing 13.8 pounds to the community's mean househo&d harvest. Of the 17 households in
the sample, 41.2 percent used cranes during the study year, and 35.3 percent harvested cranes. A few Pilot Point households also used or harvested swans and shorebirds.
As shown in Table 27, all the Ugashik households used waterfowl during
the study year, and 80.0 percent hunted and harvested waterfowl. The mean
household waterfowl harvest was 41.8 pounds, comprising 82.0 percent of all
birds by edible weight and 2.6 percent of the total harvest of all
resources. By weight, about 33 percent of the waterfowl harvest at Ugashik
was ducks, 26 percent bf the harvest weight was cranes, 21 percent was
geese, and 17 percent was waterfowl eggs.
The five Ugashik households harvested 21 geese during the 12 month
study period. This harvest included ten emperor geese (47.6 percent o.f all
geese), six Canada geese (28.6 percent) and five white-fronted geese (23.8
percent). Sixty percent of the sample used geese, and sixty percent also
harvested geese for a mean household take of 8.8 pounds.
A total of 112 ducks were harvested by 80.0 percent of the Ugashik
households, including 48 teals (42.9 percent of all ducks), 30 pintails
(26.8 percent), 23 mallards (20.5 percent), and 11 wigeons (9.8 percent),
for a mean household harvest of 13.8 pounds. All the Ugashik households
used ducks during the study period.
124 Eighty percent of the Ugashik households used and harvested waterfowl eggs. The sample harvested both gull and duck eggs. The mean household harvest of 7.0 pounds was made up of 134 gull eggs (57.3 percent of all eggs) and 100 duck eggs (42.7 percent).
Three households in Ugashik (60.0 percent) harvested a total of five cranes, for a mean household take of 10.8 pounds. One household harvested shorebirds (probably snipe) and one household took a swan.
According to the survey results, 81.1 percent of the 37 Port Heiden household used waterfowl during the study year, 75.7 percent hunted waterfowl, and 70.3 percent harvested waterfowl (Table 28). The mean household waterfowl harvest of 30.1 pounds edible weight was 81.1 percent of the bird harvest and 2.7 percent of the total resource harvest in the community. By edible weight, this waterfowl harvest was made up of about equal quantities of geese (37.2 percent), bird eggs (31.2 percent), and ducks (28.2 percent), along with very small numbers of cranes and
.shorebirds.
Port Heiden households reported a harvest of 191 geese during the study period. Most of these (134 birds, 70.2 percent of all geese) were emperors, with smaller numbers of black brants (25 birds), Canada geese (21 birds), and white-fronted geese (nine birds) (Table 28). Geese were used by 43.2 percent of the Port Heiden sample, with 35.1 percent hunting geese and 24.3 percent harvesting them.
More Port Heiden households used ducks (73.0 percent) than any other waterfowl resource. Also, 43.2 percent hunted and harvested at least one species of duck during 1986-1987. Of the 397 ducks taken, the largest number (120 birds, 30.2 percent of all ducks) were mallards, followed by pintails (90 birds, 22.7 percent), teals (90 birds, 22.7 percent), and
125 scoters (48 birds, 12.1 percent). In addition, Port Heiden households used or harvested gadwalls, wigeons, and eiders. By weight, mallards made up
37.7 percent of the duck harvest, with pintails (23.5 percent) ranked second (Table 28).
A relatively large percentage of households in Port Heiden harvested bird eggs (59.5 percent), with 59.5 percent also using eggs. Gull eggs (a
total of about 2,020 eggs) contributed the most to this harvest, 87.2 percent of the mean household egg harvest of 9.4 pounds. Quite a few households (29.4 percent) also used and harvested tern eggs (378 eggs), while 8.1 percent harvested and used duck eggs (46 eggs) as well.
The Port Heiden sample (8.1 percent of the households) reported a
harvest of six cranes. One household (2.7 percent) harvested shorebirds.
There was no harvest of swans at Port Heiden during the study period.
Spring and Fall Harvests
In all three communities, there were two distinct periods of waterfowl
hunting during the seasonal round of harvest activities. The first
occurred as the birds passed through the area in April and May, most
enroute to northern nesting areas. Spring and early summer were the period
for collecting eggs of gulls, terns, and ducks, predominantly in May and
June. The second waterfowl harvest period occurred when the birds again
passed through the region, this time on their way to wintering areas to the
south. September and October were the predominant months of this harvest,
although birds could be present in late August as well.
Tables 29, 30 and 31 report the spring and fall harvests of each type
of migratory waterfowl for each community. As shown in Table 29, Pilot
126 TABLE 29. MIGRATORY WATERFOWL HARVESTS BY SEASON, PILOT POINT, JUNE’1986 - MAY 1987. (N-17 households)
SPRING FALL
I X x Mean hh of X Mean hh of I attempt % # harvest, Annual x attempt I I harvest, Annual using harvest -harvest -harvest lbs Total using harvest harvest___ ~harvest lbs Total
GEESE 35.3 23.5 23.5 20 2.8 17.8% 70.6 70.6 58.8 105 12.9 b2.2% Emperor 17.6 11.8 11.8 8 1.2 13.1% 41.2 52.9 35.3 53 7.8 86.9% Canada 11.8 5.9 5.9 1 .I 3.9% 35.3 35.3 29.4 25 1.8 96.1% Whitefront 23.5 17.6 17.6 11 1.6 52.4% 5.9 5.9 5.9 10 1.4 47.6% Black Brant 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 .I 100.0% Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 11.8 5.9 6 .8 100.0% Geese, Unk. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 5.9 5.9 10 1.1 100.0% P iu -I SWANS 11.8 17.6 11.8 7 2.5 53.9% 5.9 11.8 5.9 6 2.1 46.1%
CRANES 41.2 41.2 35.3 21 7.4 53.9% 17.6 23.5 67.6 18 6.4 46.1%
DUCKS 35.5 35.5 29.4 90 3.8 30.4% 82.4 76.5 70.6 226 8.7 69.6% Mallards 29.4 29.4 23.5 31 1.8 33.3% 58.8 64.7 58.8 62 3.7 66.7% Plntails 23.5 17.6 17.6 32 1.5 41.0% 41.2 52.9 41.2 46 2.2 59.0% Gadwalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.8 11.8 11.8 25 1.2 100.0% Wigeons 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 5.9 5.9 I * 100.0% Teals 17.6 17.6 17.6 27 .5 23.1% 52.9 47.1 47.1 90 1.6 76.7% Ducke, Unk. 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 11.8 5.9 5.9 - 2 -z- 1 100.0%
TOTAL 58.8 47.1 47.1 138 16.5 35.4% 88.2 76.5 76.5 355 30.1 64.6%
* Less than 0.1 lbs.
Source : Division of Subsistence, ADFLG 1987 TABLE 30. MIGRATORY WATERFOWL HARVESTS BY SEASON, UGASHIK, JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987. (N= 5 households)
SPRING FALL % x x Mean hh of % Mean hh of % attempt II; # harvest, Annual x attempt x d harvest, Annual using harvest harvest harvest lbs Total using harvest harvest harvest lbs Total
GEESE 40.0 40.0 40.0 5 2.4 21.3% 20.0 20.0 20.0 16 6.4 72.7% Emperor 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10 5.0 100.0% Canada 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 20.0 20.0 6 1.4 100.0% Whitefront 40.0 40.0 40.0 5 2.4 100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black Brant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geese. Unk. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SWANS 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 20.0 20.0 1 1.2 100.0%
CRANES 40.0 40.0 40.0 5 6.0 55.6% 20.0 40.0 20.0 4 4.8 44.4%
DUCKS 60.0 60.0 60.0 24 3.6 26.1% 60.0 40.0 40.0 88 10.2 73.9% Mallards 20.0 20.0 20.0 3 .6 13.0% 40.0 40.0 40.0 20 4.0 87.0% Pintails 60.0 60.0 60.0 16 2.6 53.3% 60.0 40.0 40.0 14 2.2 46.7% Gadwalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wigeons 20.0 20.0 20.0 2 .3 18.2% 20.0 20.0 20.0 9 1.3 81.8% Teals 40.0 40.0 40.0 3 .2 6.3% 40.0 40.0 40.0 45 2.1 93.7% Ducks, Unk. 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 60.0 60.0 60.0 34 12.0 34.7% 60.0 40.0 40.0 109 22.6 65.3%
Source; Division of Subsistence, ADF&C, Survey 1987 TABLE 31. MIGRATORY WATERFOWL HARVESTS BY SEASON, PORT HEIDEN. JUNE 1986 - MAY 1987. (N= 37 households)
SPRING FALL % X X Mean hh of % Mean hh of % attempt 41 I harvest, Annual I attempt X # harvest , Annual using harvest harvest harvest lbs Total using harvest harvest harvest lbs Total
GEESE 18.9 18.9 16.2 60 4.0 35.7% 43.2 35.1 24.3 131 7.2 64.3% Emperor 18.9 18.9 16.2 56 3.8 41.8% 35.1 21.6 18.9 78 5.3 58.2% Canada 0 2.1 0 0 0 0 16.2 10.8 10.8 21 .7 100.0% Whitefront 2.7 2.7 2.7 4 .3 44.4% 2.1 2.7 2.7 5 .3 55.6% Black Brant 2.7 2.1 0 0 0 0 18.9 18.9 8.1 25 .8 100.0% Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geese, Unk. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2 . 1 100.0% P SWANS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jo W CRANES 8.1 5.4 5.4 3 .5 50.0% 8.1 8.1 5.4 3 .5 50.0%
DUCKS 16.2 8.1 8.1 29 .6 8.8% 59.5 37.8 37.8 300 il.9 91.2% Mallards 8.1 5.4 5.4 12 .3 10.0% 45.9 24.3 24.3 108 2.9 90.0% Pintails 8.1 2.7 2.7 4 1 4.4% 35.1 21.6 21.6 86 1.9 95.6% Gadwalls 0 0 0 0 0’ 0 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 Wigeons 2.7 2.7 2.7 5 .l 20.0% 8.1 2.7 2.7 20 .4 80.0% Teals 5.4 2.7 2.7 8 .1 8.9% 35.1 21.6 21.6 82 . 7 91.1% Ducks, Unk. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 2.7 2.7 - 4 .l 100.0%
TOTAL 24.3 18.9 16.2 92 5.1 27.3% 73.0 48.6 43.2 434 13.67 72.7%
Source : Division of Subsistence, ADFCG, Survey 1987 Point hunters took 138 migratory waterfowl of eight types during the spring months of the study year, primarily April and May of 1987. This harvest included emperor geese,. Canada geese, white-fronted geese, swans, cranes, mallards, pintails, and teals.' By weight, the spring harvest of waterfowl at Pilot Point, with a mean of 16.5 pounds per household, accounted for
35.4 percent of the annual harvest of waterfowl (other than sea ducks) at
Pilot Point. Of -the 17 surveyed households in the community, 58.8 percent used migratory waterfowl that had been taken in the spring, and 47.1 percent hunted and harvested waterfowl in the spring. Most of the community's harvest of cranes, swans, and white-fronted geese occurred in this season. It should also be noted that Pilot Point households also harvested an average of 8.3 pounds of bird eggs in the spring months.
Conversely, the 355 birds (30.1 pounds per household) taken in the fall were 64.6 percent of Pilot Point's annual migratory waterfowl harvest.
A larger variety of kinds of waterfowl, 12 species, was used in the fall.
As shown in Table 29, 88.2 percent of the households used waterfowl taken in the fall months, and 76.5 percent hunted and harvested migratory waterfowl at this time of the year.
Ugashik hunters took 34 birds of six types in the spring months of the study year, representing 34.7 percent by weight of the annual waterfowl harvest. The only geese taken in the spring were five whiteyfronts. Two households harvested cranes. Three households (60.0 percent) harvested ducks, taking 26.1 percent of the annual duck harvest. Small numbers of mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals were taken. All together, 60 percent of the Ugashik households used, hunted, and harvested spring waterfowl during the study year (Table 30).
130 Like Pilot Point, most of Ugashik's migratory waterfowl harvest occurred in the fall. By weight, fall harvests (22.6 pounds per household) accounted for 65.3 percent of the annual harvest total. In the fall, 40 percent of the households took ducks, including mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals, and one household took emperor and Canada geese. In total, 60.0 percent of Ugashik's households used migratory waterfowl taken in the fall, and 40.0 percent hunted and harvested these species in the fall months.
Spring waterfowl harvests made up a smaller portion of Port Heiden's migratory waterfowl take than in Pilot Point or Ugashik. As shown in Table
31, Port Heiden hunters harvested 92 birds during the spring months of the study year, comprising 27.3 percent by weight of the community's annual take of geese, swans, cranes, and migratory ducks. Emperor geese made up
60.8 percent of this spring harvest in numbers of birds and 74.5 percent by weight of the spring harvest. Other waterfowl taken in the spring at Port
Heiden included white-fronted geese, cranes, mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals. Including all these species, 24.3 percent of the Port Heiden households used waterfowl taken in the spring, while 18.9 percent hunted in the spring, and 16.2 percent harvested waterfowl at that time of year. The substantial harvest of wild fowl eggs by Port Heiden households occurred in the spring months of May and June.
Residents of Port Heiden hunting waterfowl in the fall took 434 birds; by edible weight, this was 72.7 percent of the annual waterfowl harvest by
Port Heiden residents. Eleven kinds of migratory waterfowl were harvested, with mallards, pintails, teals, and emperor geese taken in the greatest numbers. In total, 73.0 percent of the households used waterfowl harvested
131 in the fall months, 48.6 percent hunted at that time of the year, and 43.2 percent were successful harvesters.
Harvest Areas
Figure 21 depicts areas where residents of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and
Port Heiden hunted waterfowl during the 20 year period from 1962 to 1982.
During the interviews in May 1987, households in the three study
communities indicated which subareas within this general area they had used
to hunt waterfowl during the study year. They also reported on their
historic use of these subareas for waterfowl hunting. Figure 22 shows the
subareas for which data are reported for Pilot Point and Ugashik, while
Figure 23 depicts these subareas for Port Heiden.
Table 32 reports the percentage of the 13 waterfowl-hunting households
in Pilot Point that ever used each subarea as well as the percentage of
these households that hunted waterfowl in these areas during the study
period in 1986 - 1987. During the lifetimes of these hunters in Pilot
Point, the most popular waterfowl hunting areas have been Dago Creek (used
at least once by all the households), Muddy Point (92.3 percent), the
Cinder River (76.9 percent), the Dog Salmon Flats (61.5 percent), South
Spit (53.8 percent), and the Dog Salmon Peninsula (30.8 percent) (Fig. 24).
Areas that have been used regularly by Pilot Point waterfowl hunters
include Dago Creek (84.6 percent), Muddy Point (69.2 percent), and the
Cinder River (53.8 percent) (Fig. 25). From June 1986 through May 1987,
61.5 percent of the waterfowl hunters used the Dago Creek area (Fig. 26).
Other important waterfowl hunting areas during the study period included
the Cinder River (used by 46.2 percent), Muddy Point (46.2 percent), and
132 SUBSISTENCE WATERFOWL HARVEST AREAS
...... $$$‘:i PILOT POINT cl......
f-l+: PORT HEIDEN
P w w
IUIWL “ITI PORT HEIOEN
\ ‘l I BLACK
MILES
Figure 21. Waterfowl Harvest Areas, Pilot point, Ugashik, and port Heiden, 1963 -1983. BRISTOLBAY
I - - NI
Figure 22. Areas Used to Collect Waterfowl Hunting Area Data, Pilot Point and Ugashik. .ril(/cHIGNIK LAGOON _.’ h.I _;;,,:- CHIGNIK \ N-
Figure 23. Areas Used to Collect Waterfowl Hunting Area Data, Port Heiden. TABLE 32. FREQUENCY OF USE OF AREAS FOR WATERFOWLHUNTING, PILOT POINT
% % % % % % Used Used Used sprin Ever Use Use fall %I Area Used regularly occasionally 198:"87 1986a 1987
A. North Coast 7.7% 0 7.7% 0 0 0
B. Dago Creek 100.0% 84.6% 15.4% 61.5% 61.5% 30.8%
C. Pilot Pt. Village 15.4% 15.4% 0 7.7% 0 0
D. Muddy Point 92.3% 69.2% 15.4% 46.2% 30.8% 7.7%
E. Ugashik 7.7% 0 7.7% 7.7% NA NA
F. Dog Salmon Pen. 30.8% 30.8% 0 23.1% 15.4% 0
G. Dog Salmon Flats 61.5% 23.1% 38.5% 23.1% NA NA
H. South Spit 53.8% 23.1% 23.1% 38.5% 0 0
I. Cape Menshikof 30.8% 23.1% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 0
J. Cinder River 76.9% 53.8% 23.1% 46.2% 38.5% 7.7%
K. Hook Lagoon 23.1% 0 23.1% 7.7% NA NA
L. Pumice Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
M. Painter Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
N. King Salmon River 7.7% NA NA 7.7% 7.7% 7.7%
0. Mother Goose Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
P. Ugashik Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q. Wide Bay 7.7% 0 7.7% 0 0 0
N= 13 households which hunted waterfowl during the study period, June 1986 - May 1987.
a Not every hunter reported use areas by season; therefore, seasonal data represent minimum number of users.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987.
136 N = 13 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, June 1986 - May 1987
BRISTOLBAY
5 IGASHlti 1 n I :. ..I. .,i.. . ,.;:.*.! -N - . . : .,: ,.L
LAKE i 30
-, MILES
Figure 24. Percent of Pilot Point Households Which Ever Used an Area for Waterfowl Hunting. :.:.:.:.:.:.::::::. . cl.:..:..::..::::...... => 20% N = 13 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, June 1986 - May 1987
* = Unknown
BRISTOLB,Af
:- ._,. ) *,i. . .;:.* ‘: ., . .i 4 #‘. ‘.. -_ . . : .-_
;i:&.; o .r 20 -_‘p . \ \\‘ .:. .‘i MILES
Figure 25. Percent of Pilot Point Households Which "Regularly Use" an Area for Waterfowl Hunting. :::..:...... aI.:.:.:.:.:.:::::...... => 20% N = 13 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, June 1986 - Mav 1987
BRISTOliBL u
p 1
) O% .I.,. - N- 3.,: I
PORT HEIDEN .O’p . .‘. ‘..; MILES -
Figure 26. Percent of Pilot Point Households Which Used an Area in 1986- 1987 for Waterfowl Hunting. South Spit (38.5 percent). Major hunting areas .in the fall of 1986 were
Dago Creek (61.5 percent), Cinder River (at least 38.5 percent), and Muddy
Point (at least 30.8 percent). In the spring of 1987, Waterfowl hunting areas for Pilot'Point included Dago Creek (30.8 percent), Muddy Point (7.7 percent), Cape Menshikof (7.7 percent), and King Salmon River (7.7 percent).
Table 33 presents the available data for Pilot Point hunters on use areas by species or category of waterfowl. In the fall of 1986, hunters at
Dago Creek, the most commonly used waterfowl hunting area, took emperor geese, Canada geese, swans, .cranes, mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals.
In this area in the spring of 1987, Pilot Point hunters took emperor geese,
Canada geese, white-fronted geese, swans, cranes, mallards, pintails, and teals. Another major hunting area, Muddy Point, was used in the fall of
1986 for emperor geese, Canada geese, snow geese, mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals, and in the spring of 1987 for emperor geese, Canada geese I mallards, pintails, and teals.. The Cinder River area produced emperor geese, Canada geese, and brants in the fall of 1986, and white-
fronted geese in the spring of 1987.
For Ugashik, Table 34 shows that the four waterfowl-hunting households have used seven subareas. These include Muddy Point (100 percent have used
this area), the Ugashik Village area (75.0 percent), the Dog Salmon
Peninsula (50.0 percent), Cape Menshikof (50.0 percent), South Spit (25.0
percent), Dog Salmon Flats (25.0 percent), and Hook Lagoon (25.0 percent)
(Fig. 27). Notably, Ugashik waterfowl hunters have not used Dago. Creek.
Several reported that they avoid this area because of its heavy use by
Pilot Point hunters. Respondents in Ugashik reported that they regularly
use the Ugashik village area (75 percent) and Muddy Point (50 percent) for
140 TABLE 33. WATERFOWLRESOURCES HARVESTED WITHIN EACH HUNTING AREA, PILOT POINT
ua Fall 1986 Spring 1987 Generallv
A. North Coast Ducks
B. Dago Creek Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Canadas, Ducks, Geese, Swans, Cranes, Whitefronts, Swans, Cranes Mallards, Pintails Cranes, Mallards, Wigeons, Teals Pintails, Teals
C. Pilot Pt. Village Ducks, Geese
D. Muddy Point Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Canadas, Ducks, Geese Snow, Mallards, Mallards, Pintails, Pintails, Wigeons, Teals Teals
E. Ugashik Village Ducks, Geese
F. Dog Salmon Pen. Emperors, Canadas Ducks, Geese
G. Dog Salmon Flats Ducks, Geese
H. South Spit Ducks, Geese
I. Cape Menshikof Canadas, Mallards, Ducks, Geese Pintails
J. Cinder River Emperors, Canadas, Whitefronts Ducks, Geese Brants
K. Hook Lagoon Ducks, Geese
N. King Salmon River Mallards, Gadwalls Mallards Teals
Q. Wide Bay Ducks, Geese
aOnly those areas with documented use by those Pilot Point households who hunted waterfowl in 1986-1987 are listed.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADFGG, Survey 1987
141 TABLE 34. FREQUENCY OF USE OF AREAS FOR WATERFOWLHUNTING, UGASHIK
% % % % % % Used Used Used fall sprin Ever Use Use 5 Area Used regularly occasionally 1982187 1986a 1987
A. North Coast 0 0 0 0 0 0
B. Dago Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. Pilot Pt. Village 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. Muddy Point 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 25.0%
E. Ugashik 75.0% 75.0% 0 75.0% 50.0% 50.0%
F. Dog Salmon Pen. 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0 0 0
G. Dog Salmon Flats 25.0% 25.0% 0 0 0 0
H. South Spit 25.0% 25.0% 0 25.0% 0 25.0%
I. Cape Menshikof 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0 0 0
J. Cinder River 25.0% 0 25.0% 0 0 0
K. Hook Lagoon 0 0 0 0 0 0
L. Pumice Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 "
M. Painter Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
N. King Salmon River 0 0 0 0 0
0. Mother Goose Lake 0 0 0 0 0
P. Ugashik Bay 0 0 0 0 0
Q. Wide Bay 0 0 0 0 0
N= 4 households which hunted waterfowl during the study period, June 1986 - May 1987
a Not every hunter reported use areas by season; therefore, seasonal data represent minimum number of users.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADFGG, Survey 1987.
142 N = 4 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, June 1986 - May 1987
. . .:.:*;,.. ‘a.-. , .. . . A’ .. , 1.2. ._.: .a -;. I ,:..I* ST()L BAY _v, ‘-. BRI -Tr :.a .: ,.: .I ‘ *..r.4.:. ,-.: i.- .,, *.J
PORT HEIDEN MILES
Figure 27. Percent of Ugashik Households Which Ever Used an Area for Waterfowl Hunting. waterfowl hunting (Fig. 28). During the study period, Ugashik residents hunted for waterfowl in three areas, Ugashik Village (75.0 percent), Muddy
Point (50.0 percent), and South Spit (25.0 percent) (Fig. 29). Half the hunters used the village area and Muddy Point in the fall of 1986. All three areas were used in 1987 during the spring.
As shown in Table 35, Ugashik hunters took mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals at Muddy. Point in the fall of 1986, and hunted pintails.
there in the spring of 1987. At South Spit in the fall of 1986, these hunters harvested emperor geese, Canada geese, swans, cranes, mallards, and
pintails. In the spring of 1987 at South Spit, Ugashik residents hunted
white-fronted geese, cranes, mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals.
As shown in Table 36, 18 households in the Port Heiden sample
harvested waterfowl during the study period. These households have used 11
subareas for waterfowl hunting. The most popular areas included the Port
Heiden Village area (used at least once by 100 percent of the households),
Highland Creek (77.8 percent),, Stroganof Point (77.8 percent), Birthday
Creek (50.0 percent), and the Seal Islands (22.2 percent) (Fig. 30). Major
areas that have been regularly used include the Port Heiden Village area
(66.7 percent), Highland Creek (61.1 percent), Stroganof Point (61.1
percent), and Birthday Creek (38.9 percent) (Fig. 31). During the study
period, nine of the areas that were "ever used" were hunted, with the
village area (66.7 percent), Highland Creek (55.6 percent), Stroganof Point
(38.9 percent), and Birthday Creek (27.8 percent), having the most reported
use (Fig. 32). Major areas used in the fall of 1986 included Highland
Creek (50.0 percent), Stroganof Creek (38.9 percent) Birthday Creek (27.8
percent), and the village area (at least 27.8 percent). Stroganof Point is
hunted while commercial fishermen are nearby fishing for silver salmon in
144 :::::. ,_...... =P- 20% I..,....:::...... N = 4 Households Which BECHAROF LAKE Hunted Waterfowl, June 1986 - May 1987 1 :*...: ,.a:. . : .: ‘e.I .: : . BRISTOLBAY fL
MILES
II an Area for Waterfowl Hunting. Figure 28. Percent of Ugashik Households Which "Regularly Use I.:.:.:::::::... . . ,..~.~.~.‘_’... ,. => 20% El::::::::.:: N = 4 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, BECHAROF LAKE June 1986 - May 1987
:. ,,:,.I.‘. . 1.:1.; ._.-. 2 c BRISTOL ,_‘. .. ,.:‘l.-. ‘i‘.,“,.. -
!- .,, , ::... Al
Figure 29. Percent of Ugashik Households Which IJsed an Area in 1986-87 for Waterfowl Hunting. TABLE 35. WATERFOWLRESOURCES HARVESTED WITHIN EACH HUNTING AREA, UGASHIK
Areaa Fall 1986 Spring 1987 Generallv
D. Muddy Point Mallards, Pintails Pintails Ducks, Geese Wigeons, Teals
E. Ugashik Village Ducks, Geese
F. Dog Salmon Pen. Ducks, Geese
G. Dog Salmon Flats Ducks, Geese
H. South Spit Emperors, Canadas, Whitefronts, Cranes, Ducks, Geese, Swans, Cranes, Mallards, Pintails, Cranes Mallards, Pintails Wigeons, Teals
I. Cape Menshikof Ducks, Geese
J. Cinder River Geese
aOnly those areas with documented use by Ugashik households who hunted waterfowl in 1986-1987 are listed.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
147 TABLE 36. FREQUENCY OF USE OF AREAS FOR WATERFOWLHUNTING, PORT HEIDEN
% % % % % % Used Used Used fall sprin Ever Use Use in is Area Used regularly occasionally 1986-87 1986a 1987
A. Cinder River 11.1% 0 11.1% 0 0 0
B. Hook Lagoon li.l% 11.1% 0 11.1% NA NA
C. Wrong Hook Lagoon 5.6% O- 5.6% 0 0 0
D. Reindeer Creekb 16.7% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%
E. Port Heiden Village 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 66.7% 27.8% 27.8%
F. Birthday Creek 50.0% 38.9% 11.1% 27.8% 27.8% 11.1%
G. Highland Creek 77.8% 61.1% 5.6% 55.6% 50.0% 22.2%
H. Charles Creek 11.1% 5.6% 0 5.6% 5.6% 0
I. Stroganof Point 77.8% 61.1% 5.6% 38.9% 38.9% 16.7%
J. Seal Islands 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 0
K. Ilnik 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%
L. Wildman Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
M. Unangashak River 0 0 0 0 0 0
N. "Chignik" 0 0 0 0 0 0
N= 18 households which hunted waterfowl during the study period, June 1986 - May 1987; this is 48.6 percent of the 37 year-round households in the community. a Not every hunter reported use areas by season; therefore, seasonal data represent minimum number of users. b Locally known as "North River."
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987.
148 ‘,‘c*r-;:.;-, .. a” .‘A: ’ .. ( 1:. BRISTOLBAY 5
PORT HElDEN
N = 18 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, I June 1986 - May 1987 _ N_
0
- PERRYVILLE MILES
Figure 30. Percent of Port Heiden Households Which Ever Used an Area for Waterfowl Hunting. = 18 Households Which
Figure 31. Percent of Port Heiden Households Which "Regularly Use" an Area for Waterfowl Hunting. BRISTO’L .r)nr Bnv
.. :. .. .. ‘.b :. . :. ‘:...; N”
N = 18 Households Which Hunted Waterfowl, June 1986 - May 1987
0 IVANOF ‘p BAY&, . :, MILES
Figure 32. Percent of Port Heiden Households Which Used an Area in 1986-87 for Waterfowl Hunting. September. In the spring of 1987, Port Heiden hunters harvested waterfowl in at least six of the subareas, with the village area (at least 27.8 percent), Highland Creek (22.2 percent), and Stroganof Point (16.7 percent) being the most popular.
Table 37 reports the available data on hunting areas for particular species and categories of waterfowl. No information is available "for two of the most popular waterfowl hunting areas, the village area and Stroganof
Point. Another important hunting area, Highland Creek, produced emperor
geese, Canada geese, brants, cranes, mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals
in the fall of 1986, and emperor geese, cranes, and wigeons in the spring
of 1987. At Birthday Creek, Port Heiden hunters took emperor geese, Canada
geese, brants, cranes, mallards, pintails, and teals in the fall. of 1986,
and emperor geese, cranes, mallards, pintails, wigeons, and teals in the
spring of 1987.
PLANTS
Most households in the study communities used wild plants during the
study period, including 76.5 percent of the households at Pilot Point, 40.0
percent at Ugashik, and 75.7 percent at Port Heiden (Figs. 9, 10, and 11).
Also, 76.5 percent of the Pilot Point households, 40.0 percent at Ugashik,
and 70.3 percent of the Port Heiden sample harvested these resources. The
mean household harvest of wild plants at Pilot Point was 20.2 pounds, 1.5
percent of the total harvest. At Ugashik, the average household harvest of
37.8 pounds of wild plants made ,up 2.3 percent of the community's total,
while at Port Heiden, households took. an average of 38.6 pounds, 3.4
percent of the total harvest (Table 15).
152 TABLE 37. WATERFOWLRESOURCES HARVESTED WITHIN EACH HUNTING AREA, PORT HEIDEN
Areaa Fall 1986 Sprint 1987 Generally
A. Cinder River "Waterfowl"
B. Hook Lagoon Ducks, Geese
C. Wrong Hook Lagoon Geese
D. Reindeer Creek Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Cranes, Ducks, Geese Brants, Cranes, Wigeons Pintails, Teals
E. Port Heiden Ducks, Geese, Cranes, Swans, Eggs
F. Birthday Creek Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Cranes, Ducks,, Geese Brants, Cranes, Mallards, Pintails, Mallards, Pintails, Wigeons, Teals Teals
G. Highland Creek Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Cranes, Ducks, Geese Brants, Cranes, Wigeons Mallards, Pintails, Wigeons, Teals, Ducks (species ukn.)
H. Charles Creek Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Cranes, Ducks, Geese Brants, Cranes, Mallards, Pintails Mallards, Pintails, Wigeons, Teals Teals
I. Stroganof Pt. Ducks, Geese
J. Seal Islands Mallards, Pintails, Emperors, Cranes, Ducks, Geese Teals Wigeons
K. Ilnik Emperors, Canadas, Emperors, Canadas, Geese Whitefronts, Brants Whitefronts, Brants a Only those areas with documented use by Port Heiden households who hunted waterfowl in 1986-1987 are listed.
Source: Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987
153 At Pilot Point, berries made up almost all of the wild plant harvest
(336 quarts, or 98.0 percent of the plant harvest). Several households also picked beach greens, however. This pattern held for the other two . study communities. At Ugashik, all but one quart of the wild plant harvest consisted of berries, and at Port Heiden, 98.5 percent of all the wild plants collected were various species of berries. Types of berries picked by residents of the study communities included cranberries, blueberries, and yellow salmonberries. Harvests occurred locally, beginning with the ripening of the berries in mid to late July and August. Harvesters preserved their harvests by making jams or preparing agutak, .a mixture of berries and oil.
154 CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
COMPARISONS OF THE STUDY COMMUNITIES
The study communities of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden all occupy the northern portion of the Alaska Peninsula that faces Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea. They thus share a common environment and natural resource base. For the most part; the three villages also have very similar histories, with an Alaska Native heritage that has been influenced by successive arrivals of non-Native people and the development of a cash sector within the local economy. In the 198Os, commercial fishing for salmon dominated the cash economies of the entire Bristol Bay region, providing by far the largest portion of monetary incomes and serving as the focus of much of the activity in the study communities. Other employment opportunities were relatively scarce, part time, and seasonal,
Correspondingly, during the study period‘in 1986-1987 the communities of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden displayed very similar patterns of wild resource use. Residents of the three communities followed a similar seasonal round of harvest activities. In spring, the communities participated in waterfowl hunting, egg gathering, and marine invertebrate harvesting, followed by commercial and subsistence salmon fishing from June into August and September. Late summer and fall were times for berry picking, caribou hunting, and waterfowl hunting. Caribou hunting continued throughout the winter, along with furbearer trapping.
Furthermore, virtually every household in the three villages was involved in resource harvest and use. All 59 sampled households used wild
155 foods. All the households in Pilot Point and Ugashik, and all but one in
Port Heiden, harvested fish, game, or plants during the study year. Most households received wild foods as gifts from relatives and friends, or shared their own harvests with others.
Diversity was characteristic of the resource harvests of all three communities. Households in Port Heiden used, on average, 13 kinds of-wild foods, while Ugashik households used about 18 kinds and Pilot Point households about 19 kinds. The inventory of wild foods harvested and used in the three villages was also very similar. The slightly lower mean for
Port Heiden is the result of the scarcity in the community's harvest area of some fish species, s'uch as pike and landlocked salmon, and some furbearers, such as beaver, land otter, and lynx, that were more common further up the peninsula.
The three communities reported relatively high levels of harvests as measured in pounds edible weight. The per capita harvest of wild foods during the study period for the Pilot Point sample was 384 pounds.. Port
Heiden's harvest was 408 pounds per person. The small community of Ugashik had a much higher per capita harvest, 814 pounds. However, the five households at Ugashik wer,e in many respects functionally part of the Pilot
Point community. If Ugashik and Pilot Point are combined, the per capita harvest of the combined sample was 445 pounds, about the same as that of
Port Heiden. These harvests are substantial when compared with standards of food production and use in the United States overall. For example, in
1983, American and foreign food industries produced about 255 pounds per
person of meat, fish, and poultry for U.S. consumption (U.S. Department of
Commerce 1984). In 1978, households in the western United States purchased
222 pounds per person of meat, fish, and poultry for home consumption (U.S.
156 Department of Agriculture 1983). The harvests of the.Port Heiden, Ugashik, and Pilot Point households are also substantially higher than those reported for communities along Alaska's road system, such &s Kenai (37 pounds per capita in 1982-3), Homer (104 pounds in 1982-3), and Talkeetna
(55 pounds in 1985-6) (Reed 1985, Fall and Foster 1987). They are lower than harvests in some other remote areas of Alaska, such as Iliamna Lake or the Nushagak River. A comparison with other Alaska Peninsula communities is discussed later.
The composition of the resource harvests in the three samples was very similar. Land mammals, mostly caribou, provided the largest portion of the harvests in all three communities, 62.5 percent in Pilot Point, 50.6 percent in Ugashik, and 61.5 percent in Port Heiden. This is a relatively unusual resource mix in Alaska. For most rural Alaska communities, game comprises from 25 to 35 percent of the subsistence output, with fish contributing 55 to 70 percent of the output (Wolfe and Walker 1987).
For the three study communities,. salmon was the second most significant category in terms of harvest weight, with 24.7 percent of the harvest in Pilot Point, 39.3 percent in Ugashik, and 20.9 percent at Port
Heiden. In all three communities, salmon removed from commercial catches represented the largest segment of the salmon harvest in terms of pounds, with subsistence nets second, and rod and reel gear a distant third.
Harvests of birds, including ptarmigan, waterfowl, and eggs, contributed between three to four percent of the total harvests. Hunters in all three communities took waterfowl during spring and fall seasons. Spring harvests accounted for 35.4 percent of the waterfowl harvested by Pilot Point hunters, 34.7 percent at Ugashik, and 27.3 percent at Port Heiden.
157 These results show that wild resource. harvests played a similar role in the economy and social life of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden in the 1980s. The three communities display such similarities that they can . be said to form a single unit with the same mixed subsistence and cash economy. This socioeconomic pattern can be compared with the patterns of the same communities in the past and with other Alaskan communities today.
CHANGES IN HARVEST PATTERNS: 1973 AND 1986-87
Tables 38, 39, and 40 report the results of a resource harvest survey conducted in 1974 with a sample of households in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and
Port Heiden (Gasbarro and Utermohle 1974). The data refer to 1973 harvests. Table 41 compares the 1973 data. regarding participation in harvests and harvest levels with the results of the Division of Subsistence
survey of 1987.
For Pilot Point and Ugashik, comparison of the two data sets suggest a
continuity in resource harvest levels and the composition of the resource harvest. The per capita harvest of the 1973 Pilot Point sample was 320 pounds; in 1987, it was 372 pounds (deleting plants and marine invertebrate harvests, for which 1973 data are unavailable) (Fig. 33). The 1973 harvest was composed of 45.7 percent land mammals, compared to 64.5 percent in
1986-7. For Ugashik, the per capita harvest of 922.0 pounds in 1973
compares with 796.0 pounds in 1986-87. Land mammals made up 82.5 percent
of the 1973 harvest, compared to 51.8 percent in 1986-7. The 1973 Ugashik
sample reported a surprisingly low salmon harvest, with only 40 percent of
the sample taking salmon, compared to 100 percent in 1986-87. Possibly,
households in the 1974 sample did not report salmon removed from commercial
158 TABLE 38. RESOURCEHARVESTS, PILOT POINT, 1973
Mean Total household sample % harvegt, harvest, Resourcea Harvesting lbs Numbers
SALMON= 90.0 576.2 1,150
OTHER FISH 40.0. 52.5 Herring 0 0 0 Smelt NA 26.3 1,050 Whitefish 0 0 0 Rainbow Trout NA 3.1 22 Lake Trout NA 2.7 10 Grayling NA 2.9 42 Dolly Varden NA 2.1 15 Pike NA 15.4 55
MARINE INTERTEBRATESd 50.0 NA NA
MARINE MAMMALS 10.0 11.2 -- Harbor Seal 10.0 11.2 2 Walrus 0 0 0
LANDMAMMALS 70.0 585.0 Caribou 70.0 585.0 39 Moose 0 0 0 Porcupine 0 0 0 Hare 0 0 0 Brown Bear 0 0 0
FURBEARERS NA 0 -- Beaver 0 0 0. Fox NA 0 50
"BIRDS NA 55.2 Ptarmigan NA 18.6 265 Waterfowl 80.0 36.7 Duckse NA 7.4 108 Geesee NA 29.3 137 Swans NA 0 0
PLANTSf 90.0 NA NA
ALL RESOURCES NA 1,280.l --
PER CAPITA HARVEST: 320.0 pounds
N= 10 households with 40 people.
159 TABLE 38. RESOURCEHARVESTS, PILOT POINT, 1973 (Continued) a Only those resources for which data were collected during the survey are ,listed. b Factors used to convert numbers of animals or fish into pounds edible weight are, except where noted, the same as those used to convert the 1986-87 data. See Appendix B.
C Reported as "salmon." In order to calculate edible weight, this catch was divided among types of salmon proportional to the salmon catch reported by survey respondents in Pilot Point in 1986-87 (see Table 16). Because average round weights of salmon harvested in Bristol Bay in 1973 are not available, the same conversion factors were used as for the 1986-87 data (see Appendix B). d Reported as "clams." e Harvest by species not reported. Conversion factors are the average edible weight per bird of all geese (2.137 lbs) and ducks (.684 lbs) taken by the 1986-87 Pilot Point sample. f Berries only.
Source: Gasbarro and Utermohle 1974.
1.60 TABLE 39. RESOURCEHARVESTS, UGASHIK, 1973
. Mean Total household sample % harvegt, harvest, Resourcea Harvesting lbs Numbers
SALMONC 40.0 100.9 95
OTHER FISH 60.0 144.9 -- Herring 0 0 0 Smelt NA 85.6 1,712 Whitefish NA 0 0 Rainbow Trout NA 2.8 10 Lake Trout NA 17.8 33 Grayling NA .8 6 Dolly Varden NA 15.4 55 Pike NA 22.4 40
MARINE INTERTEBRATESd 40.0 NA NA
MARINE MAMMALS 20.0 44.8 -- Harbor Seal 20.0 44.8 4 Walrus 0 0 0
LAND MAMMALS NA 1,674.g' -- Caribou 60.0 1,230.O 41 Moose 40.0 432.0 4 Porcupine NA 9.6 ' 6 Hare NA 3.2 8 Brown Bear 0 0 0
FURBEARERS NA 0 -- Beaver 60.0 0 19 Fox NA 0 44
BIRDS NA 62.9 -- Ptarmigan NA 29.7 212 Waterfowl 80.0 33.2 -- Duckse NA 6.7 54 Geesee NA 26.5 63 Swans 0 0 0
PLANTSf 80.0 NA NA
ALL RESOURCES NA 2,028.3
PER CAPITA HARVEST: 921.9 pounds.
N= 5 households with 11 people.
1.61 TABLE 39. RESOURCEHARVESTS, UGASHIK, 1973 (Continued)
Only those resources for which data were collected during the survey are listed.
Factors used to convert numbers of animals or fish into pounds edible weight are, except where noted, the same as those used to convert the 1986-87 data. See Appendix B.
Reported as "salmon". In order to calculate edible weight, this catch was divided among types of salmon proportional to the salmon. catch reported by survey respondents in Ugashik in 1986-87 (see Table 17). Because average round weights of salmon harvested in Bristol Bay in 1973 are not available, the same conversion factors were used as for the 1986-87 data (see Appendix B).
Reported as "clams."
Harvest by species not reported. Conversion factors are the average edible weight per bird of all geese (2.105 lbs) and ducks (.617 lbs) taken by the 1986-87 Ugashik sample.
Berries only.
Source: Gasbarro and Utermohle 1974.
162 TABLE 40. RESOURCEHARVESTS, PORT HEIDEN, 1973
Mean Total household sample % harvezt, harvest, Resourcea Harvesting lbs Numbers
SALMONC 40.0 116.5 220
OTHER FISH 20.0 15.2 -- Herring NA 1.0 20 Smelt NA 6.0 240 Whitefish 0 0 0 Rainbow Trout 0 0 0 Lake Trout NA 5.4 20 Grayling 0 0 0 Dolly Varden NA 2.8 20 Pike 0 0 0
MARINE INTERTEBRATESd 80.0 NA NA
MARINE MAMMALS 0 0 -- Harbor Seal 0 0 0 Walrus 0 0 0
LANDMAMMALS NA 384.4 -- Caribou 30 330.0 22 Moose 10 54.0 1 Porcupine 0 0 0 Hare NA .4 2 Brown Bear 0 0 0
FURBEARERS NA 0 -- Beaver 0 0 0 Fox NA 0 20
BIRDS NA 15.6 -- Ptarmigan NA 6.0 86 Waterfowl 40.0 9.5 Duckse NA 1.3 16 Geesee NA 8.3 38 Swans 0 0 0
PLANTSf 60.0 NA NA
ALL RESOURCES NA 531.7
PER CAPITA HARVEST: 126.6 pounds.
N= 10 households with 42 people.
163 TABLE 40. (Continued) RESOURCEHARVESTS, PORT HEIDEN, 1973 a Only those resources for which data were collected during the survey are listed. b Factors used to convert numbers of animals or fish into pounds edible weight are, except where noted, the same as those used to convert the 1986-87 data. See Appendix B.
C Reported as "salmon." In order to calculate edible weight, this catch was divided among types of salmon proportional to the salmon catch reported by survey respondents in Port Heiden in 1986-87 (see Table 16). Because average round weights of salmon harvested in Bristol Bay in 1973 are not available, the same conversion factors were used as for the 1986-87 data (see Appendix B). d Reported as "clams." e Harvest by species not reported. Conversion factors are the average edible weight per bird of all geese (2.175 lbs) and ducks (.792 lbs) taken by the 1986-87 Port Heiden sample. f Berries only.
Source: Gasbarro and Utennohle 1974. TABLE 41. COMPARISONSOF 1973 AND 1986-87 FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVESTS, PILOT POINT, UGASHIK, AND PORT HEIDEN
Pilot Point Ugashik Port Heiden % % of % % of % % of a harvesting total harvesta harvesting total harvest harvesting total harvesta 1973 1986-7 1973 1986-7 1973 l986-7 1973 1986-7 -1973 --1986-7 1973 1986-7 Salmon 90.0 100.0 45.0 25.5 40.0 100.0 5.0 40.3 40.0 81.1 21.9 22.6 Other Fish 40.0 94.1 4.1 4.2 60.0 100.0 7.1 4.5 20.0 62.2 2.9 3.1 Marine Invertebrates 50.0 58.8 NA -- 40.0 0 NA '-- 80.0 81.1 NA -- Marine Mammals 10.0 23.5 .9 1.2 20.0 0 2.2 0 0 13.5 0 4.0 Land Mammals 70.0b 76.5b 45.7 64.5 60.0b 80.0b 82.6 51.8 30.0b 67.6b 72.3b 66.7 Furbearers NA 82.4d 0 0 .NA 80.0d 0 .2 NA 24.3d 0 C Birds 80.0d 76.5 4.3 4.6 80.0d 80.0 3 ..l 3.2 40.0d 70.3 2.9 3.6 i--J -- a Plants 90.0 76.5 NA 80.0 40.0 NA -- 60.0 70.3 NA -- ul a Excludes marine invertebrates and plants for comparative purposes. b Caribou only.
C Less than .l percent.
a Waterfowl only.
Sources: Gasbarro and Utermohle 1974; Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, Survey 1987 PER CAPITA HARVEST IN POUNDS
co 0 N w P ul cn -.J 03 ;; 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 I 1 1 I I I L 1
:.:.:.:.: . 7i u.:::::.:_:.:.:::::.:,:.:.:.::;::..... catches for home use. Also, the portions of the samples in both communities which harvested each resource category in 1986-87 were about
the same or higher than in 1973.
The compositions of the 1973 and 1986-87 harvests for Port Heiden were also quite similar. For instance, 72.3 percent of the harvest was land mammals in 1973, compared to 66.7 percent in 1986-7. The portion of the harvest composed of salmon also remained about the same, 21.9 percent in
1973 and 22.6 percent in 1986-87. The sizes of the reported harvests for each year were very different, however, with the harvest of 126.6 pounds per person in 1973 only one third of the 1986-87 per capita harvest of 376 pounds (Fig. 33). The mostly likely explanation for this discrepancy is differences in the sizes of the two samples. All the community's households were interviewed in 1987, so harvest estimates for that study year represent the entire village. The 1973 estimates derive from only a
sample of the village's households. It is possible, therefore, that the
1974 survey missed many of the major resource harvesters in the community.
With a larger and more diverse population than either Pilot Point or
Ugashik, Port Heiden would have been more susceptible to sampling error. A
second explanation is that there was indeed a lower harvest in 1973,
perhaps related to unavailability of caribou due to poor weather conditions
or different migration patterns.
Relative to the harvests of other resources, bird harvests in all
three communities were about the same in the two harvest years. For 1973,
4.3 percent of the total harvest in Pilot Point was birds, compared to 4.6
percent in 1986-87. About the same portion of the sample harvested
waterfowl during each year, 80.0 percent in 1973 and 76.5 percent in 1986-
87. For Ugashik, in 1973 birds made up 3.1 percent of the harvest,
167 virtually the same as the 3.2 percent share in 1986-87. In 1973, 80.0 percent of the sample Ugashik households harvested waterfowl, the same as
in 1986-87. For Port Heiden, birds were 2.9 percent of the total harvest
in pounds edible weight in 1973, while in 1986-87 they made up 3.6 percent.
The two Port Heiden samples differed in levels of participation in waterfowl harvesting, however, with 40 percent of the 1973 sample taking waterfowl compared to 70.3 percent in 1986-87.
In conclusion, comparisons of data collected on fish and wildlife harvests for 1973 with data for 1986-87 suggest that the same patterns which existed in the study communities in 1973 have persisted into the
1980s. A similar mix of resource categories occurred in both years, harvest levels have remained about the same (or perhaps increased in Port
Heiden), and levels of participation in harvesting activities have remained high.
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER BRISTOL BAY AND ALASKA PENINSULA COMMUNITIES
Table 42 presents recent estimates of wild resource harvests for
Alaska Peninsula and Bristol Bay communities, grouped by subregion.
Figures 34 and 35 compare data for seven communities on the Bristol Bay
side of the Alaska Peninsula. Except for Ugashik's 814 pound per capita
harvest, which is the result of the small community size with five actively
harvesting households, the harvest quantities for north Alaska Peninsula
communities range between about 200 and 400 pounds per person (Fig. 34).
Port Heiden, Pilot Point, and Egegik are virtually identical; the slightly
lower harvests in South Naknek, and, especially, Naknek and King Salmon
probably result from those communities' serving as a regional center for
168 TABLE 42. COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA WILD RESOURCEHARVESTS AND THE COMPOSITION OF WILD RESOURCEHARVESTS BY RESOURCECATEGORY, ALASKA PENINSULA AND BRISTOL BAY COMMUNITIES
% of harvest composed of: Per capita Birds harvest, Other Marine Land Marine and 'b lbsa Salmon Fish Invert. Mammals Mammals E&s Plants Egegik 385 24.4 4.1 3.5 63.8 0 4.2 NA King Salmon 227 46.6 7.3 NA 46.1 0 NA NA Naknek 212 54.4 9.9 NA 35.6 .1 NA NA Pilot Point 384 24.7 4.1 1.6 62.5 1.2 4.4 1.5 Port Heiden 408 20.8 2.9 4.3 61.5 3.7 3.3 3.4 South Naknek 278 31.2 6.4 NA 62.2 0 NA NA Ugashik 814 39.3 4.5 0 50.6 0 3.1 2.3
Chignik 194 74.4 10.5 3.8 7.3 2.7 1.4 NA Chignik Lagoon 229 55.3 8.2 6.5 25.9 1.0 3.2 NA Chignik Lake 282 52.1 5.1 1.2 38.8 1.2 1.7 NA Ivanof Bay 445 61.6 3.4 5.9 21.6 4.8 2 . 7. NA King Cove 412 36.0 8.8 6.2 37.2 5.3 6.5 NA Perryville 391 58.5 10.8 2.8 21.7 4.6 1.6 NA
Igiugig 618 71.5 13.1 0 10.1 .4 1.1 3.8 Iliamna 416 79.6 7.4 C 8.0 .5 .6 3.9 Kokhanok 697 72.7 14.3 NA 9.8 0 .8 2.4 Lake Clark 361 65.0 4.6 .3 26.8 0 1.2 2.1 Newhalen 767 88.1 4.0 0 5.1 .7 . 7 1.3 Nondalton 1,175 65.3 15.0 0 17.0 0 .7 2.0 Pedro Bay 862 82.8 8.6 .4 6.3 0 .5 1.4
Dillingham 242 58.4 7.2 .5 27.2 1.2 2.2 3.3 Manokotak 413 35.3 20.9 1.2 23.1 12.2 4.4 2.9 New Stuyahok 896 50.0 10.0 NA 32.0 0 8.Od. NA a The harvest year for the communities included in this report (Pilot Point, Port Heiden, and Ugashik) was June 1986 - May 1987. Harvests for Egegik, Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Ivanof Bay, and Perryville pertain to 1984 (Morris 1987). For King Salmon, Naknek, and South Naknek, the harvest year was 1983 (Morris 1985), and for King Cove it was a 12 month period in 1984 - 1985 (Braund et al. 1986:7-19). The harvest year for the Iliamna Lake communities was 1983 (Morris 1986), for Dillingham, 1984 (Fall et al. 1986), for Manokotak, 1985 (Schichnes and Chythlook n.d.), and for New Stuyahok, 1983 (Wolfe et al. 1984). b Includes edible furbearers.
C Less than .l%. d "Other," including small game, birds, and brown bear.
169 814
408 ...... 385 384 ...... ~.~.‘_‘.~.~.‘.‘.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘,~...... 278 ...... 227 ...... 212 ...... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ...... :.:.:.:.::.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:,: ...... UGASHIK PORT EGEGIK PILOT SOUTH KING NAKNEK HEIDEN POINT NAKNEK SALMON
Figure 34. Per Capita Wild Resource Harvests of Northerr, Alaska Peninsula Communities...... ~,‘.‘.‘.~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.’.’.’.’.~.~.‘.~.‘.‘.’.~.’.~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.‘.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~.~ ,~,~,~.~,~.~.~,~,‘.~.~.~.~.~.‘.‘,’.’.’.’.’,’,’,~.‘.‘.‘.‘.’,’.’.’.‘.‘.‘,‘.~.~.~.~.‘,~.~.‘.‘.~.~.’.‘,~.‘.~.~ ......
...... ‘.‘.‘.‘.~.~.‘.‘.~.~.‘.‘.~.~.‘.~.~.~.’.~.~.’.’.‘.‘.~.‘.~,’.~.’,’.‘.‘.‘.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘;.‘.~.~.~.’.’.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ ......
......
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6) a b (0 m w c9 N 7
iS3AtlVH A0 lN33t13d the Alaska Peninsula and Iliamna Lake. Regional centers generate more employment opportunities and attract more diverse populations, both of which are related to resource harvest levels (Wolfe and Walker 1987). Wild resource harvests make substantial contributions to the economies of these communities, but they display lower levels of resource harvests than other rural communities in their region (Wolfe, et al. 1987; Fall et al. 1986).
In terms of harvest composition, communities within this subregion display remarkable similarities (Fig. 35). Land mammals, mostly caribou, provided about 60 percent of the usable weight of resource harvests in Port
Heiden, Pilot Point, Egegik, and South Naknek, and provide over half of the resource harvest in Ugashik. Salmon was the second largest contributor to the harvests in these five communities. In King Salmon, land mammals and salmon each contributed about 46 percent of the total weight. Only in
Naknek did salmon harvests (54.4 percent) provide a, substantially higher portion of the resource harvest than land mammals (35.6 percent). This may be attributed to the more diverse population in Naknek than in South
Naknek, Egegik, Pilot Point, or Port Heiden. The relatively lower hunting
effort in Naknek is perhaps related to the presence of a subpopulation of
short term residents who are not familiar with harvest areas or hunting methods. In contrast, subsistence salmon fishing areas are readily
accessible to Naknek families and harvest techniques can be learned through
observation or association with long term residents (Morris 1985:179).
The subregion with which the study communities share the greatest
similarities is the lower (southern )Alaska Peninsula (Table 42). Harvest
levels in this area are within the same range as the northern peninsula,
from about 194 pounds per capita (Chignik) to about 445 pounds (Ivanof
Bay). In contrast with the Northern Alaska Peninsula, salmon is the
172 resource category that provides the most usable pounds in all Southern
Alaska Peninsula communities but one, King Cove, where land mammals, mostly caribou, was the largest portion of the harvest. In most communities, land mammals, again mostly caribou, was the second largest category, providing over 20 percent of the harvest in all communities except Chignik. With the lowest per capita harvest and the most aberrant harvest composition.,
Chignik stands in relation to this subregion as Naknek does to the northern peninsula, and perhaps for the same reasons (Morris 1987). Overall, other categories of wild foods such as other fish, marine invertebrates, and marine mammals, made up a relatively larger portion of the harvests on the south side of the peninsula, perhaps reflecting the more diverse resource base found there. Generally, Chignik Lake had the harvest pattern most similar to that of Port Heiden, Pilot Point, and Ugashik.
There is more contrast between the study communities and the villages
of the Kvichak River-Iliamna Lake and Nushagak River subregions.
Communities in the latter area generally have larger resource harvests,
although there is some overlap with the study area. Manokotak (413 pounds
per person), Dillingham (242 pounds), Iliamna (416 pounds) and Lake Clark
(361 pounds) fall in the northern Alaska Peninsula range, while New
Stuyahok (896 pounds), Igiugig (618 pounds), Nondalton (1,175 pounds), and
others exceeded study community harvests by 50 percent or more. Large
subsistence salmon harvests account for much of this difference. Another
difference is that salmon clearly predominates over land mammals in the
harvest composition in most of these communities. Nevertheless, the
portion of the harvest composed of game in some communities in this
subregion,such as New Stuyahok (32.0 percent), Dillingham (27.2 percent),
and Lake Clark (26.8 percent) was substantial. Generally, freshwater fish
173 provided a larger portion of the harvests in the Kvichak River - Lake Clark
and Nushagak River subregions, but bird and marine invertebrate harvests
were relatively larger on the Alaska Peninsula.
These comparisons suggest that the three study communities of Port
Heiden, Pilot Point, and Ugashik form, along with Egegik, South Naknek,
Naknek, and King Salmon, a distinct subregion within the overall Bristol
Bay-Alaska Peninsula pattern of resource use (cf. Wright et al. 1985:64-
72). Throughout the entire Bristol Bay/Alaska Peninsula region, fish and
wildlife harvests are relatively high, although those of regional centers
are lower than those of the more remote villages. A variety of fish, game,
and plant species are harvested, but land mammals and salmon provide the
bulk of the harvest in terms of pounds edible weight. Salmon predominates
over game in all the subregions except the northern Alaska Peninsula, where
caribou provide up to 60 percent of the wild food harvests.. Harvests of
non-salmon marine resources become more prominent on the Pacific side of
the Alaska Peninsula, while freshwater fish species provide a larger share
of the overall harvests in the Kvichak River/Iliamna Lake and Nushagak
River subregions. Waterfowl harvests occur throughout the region, although
harvests by Alaska Peninsula communities are larger relative to other
resource categories than elsewhere in the region (Table 42).
CONCLUSIONS
The economies of Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden during the
study period, as well as for most of the 20th century, were based on
commercial and subsistence wild resource harvesting, combined with seasonal
and often part time wage employment. Wild resource harvesting structured
174 community activities throughout the year, and a the focus of the
communities' social organization as well. Harvests of wild resources for home use provided about 400 pounds of food per person in these communities.
Harvest levels were similar to those reported for many other Alaska
Peninsula and Bristol Bay communities. These harvests substantially exceed
those of more densely populated, urban areas of Alaska. Wild resource use
patterns in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden appear to have been quite
stable throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Within this pattern, waterfowl harvesting played a notable role. Five
kinds of geese, seven kinds of ducks, swans, cranes, and eggs were taken.
Residents of the three communities harvested waterfowl in local areas in
both spring and fall. Spring hunting occurred after caribou harvests had
ceased and before salmon fishing began. In fall, waterfowl hunting
sometimes took place .in connection with commercial fishing and caribou
hunting. About two thirds of the birds were taken in the fall months.
Waterfowl harvests during the study year provided about 55 pounds of meat
per household in Pilot Point, 42 pounds in Ugashik, and 30 pounds in Port
Heiden. Spring and fall harvests of waterfowl represented between 2.5 and
4.0 percent of the total wild resource harvests in the three villages, thus
contributing variety to the diets of most of the households in these
communities.
175 REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1985a Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Southwest Region, Volume 1: Fish and Wildlife. Division of Habitat. Juneau.
1985b Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Southwest Region, Volume II: Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. Division of Habitat. Juneau.
1985c Alaska Habitat Management Guide Reference Maps,. Southwest Region Volume IV: Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. -Division of Habitat. Juneau.
1986a Subsistence Finfish Fishing Regulations for 1986. Alaska Board of Fisheries. Juneau.
1986b Alaska Game Regulations No. 27. Alaska Board of Game. Juneau,
1987 Annual Management Report -- 1986 -- Bristol Bay Area. Division of Commercial Fisheries. Anchorage.
Alaska Department of Labor 1986 Alaska Cost and Income Measures. Division of Administrative Services. Juneau.
1987 .Alaska Population Overview: 1985 Estimates. Division of Administrative Services. Juneau.
Alaska Department of Revenue 1985 Federal Income Taxpayer Profile 1978, 1981, 1982 by Alaska Community and Income Level and Filing Status. Juneau.
Bellrose, Frank C. 1978 Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Second edition, revised. Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books.
Braund, Stephen, R., David C. Burnham, Lisa Moorehead, and Lynne Hale 1986 Effects of Renewable Resource Harvest Disruptions on Community Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Systems: King Cove. US Minerals Management Service, Social and Economic Studies Program, Technical Report Number 123. Anchorage.
Clark, Donald 1984 Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5: Arctic. David Damas, editor, pp. 185- 197. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Dumond, Don E. 1974 Prehistoric Ethnic Boundaries on the Alaska Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16(1):1-7.
1977 The Eskimos and Aleuts. London: Thames and Hudson.
176 1987 A Reexamination of Eskimo-Aleut Prehistory. American Anthropologist 89(1):32-56.
Fall, James A. and Dan J. Foster 1987 Fish and Game Harvest and Use in the Middle Susitna Basin: The Results of a Survey of Residents of the Road-Connected Areas of Game Management Units 14B and 16A, 1986. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 143. Juneau.
Fall, James A., Janet C. Schichnes, Molly Chythlook, and Robert J. Walker 1986 Patterns of Wild Resource Use in Dillingham: Hunting and Fishing in an Alaskan Regional Center. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 135. Juneau.
Gasbarro, Anthony G. and George Utermohle 1974 Unpublished field data, Bristol Bay subsistence survey. Files, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Dillingham.
Krauss, Michael E. 1982 Native Peoples and Languages of Alaska (Map). Alaska Native Language Center. University of Alaska. Fairbanks.
Langdon, Steven J. 1982 Alaska Peninsula Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Systems Analysis. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Technical Report 71. Bureau of.Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. Anchorage.
Morris, Judith M. 1985 The Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources by Residents of the Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 123. Juneau.
1986 Subsistence Production and Exchange in the Iliamna Lake Region, Southwest Alaska, 1982-1983. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 136. Juneau.
1987 Fish and Wildlife Uses in Six Alaska Peninsula Communities: Egegik, Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Perryville, and Ivanof Bay. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 151. Juneau.
Nebesky, Will, Steve Langdon, and Teresa Hull 1983 Economic, Subsistence, and Sociocultural Projections in the Bristol Bay Region, Volume II: Village Descriptions. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage.
Orth, Donald J. 1967 Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Geological Survey Professional Paper 567. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
177 Oswalt, Wendell H. 1967 Alaskan Eskimos. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
Pilot Point Journal 1979 The 1979 Pilot Point Journal. Pilot Point School. Pilot Point, Alaska.
Reed, Carolyn E. 1985 The Role of Wild Resource Use in Communities of the Central Kenai Peninsula and Kachemak Bay, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,. Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No, 106. Juneau.
Rollins, Alden M. 1978 Census Alaska: Numbers of Inhabitants, 1792-1970. Anchorage: University of Alaska Library.
Schichnes, Janet C. and Molly B. Chythlook n.d. Wild Resource Uses in Manokotak, Southwest Alaska (Draft, November 1987). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 152. Juneau.
Tuten, Merry Allyn 1977 A Preliminary Study of Subsistence Activities on the Pacific Coast of the Proposed Aniakchak Caldera National Monument. Occasional Paper Number 4, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska. Fairbanks.
Tuttle,' Dwight W. 1983 Alaska's Kodiak Island - Shelikof Strait Region: A History. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage.
United States Bureau of the Census 1980 Census of Population and Housing, 1980 -- ,Summary Tape File 3A.
United States Department of Agriculture 1983 Food Consumption: Households in the West, Seasons and Year 1977-78. NFCS 1977-78 Report No. H-10. Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Commerce 1984 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1985, 105th Edition. Table No. 196. Washington, D.C.
VanStone, James W. 1984a Exploration and Contact History of Western Alaska. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5: Arctic. David Damas, ed., pp. 149-160. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
1984b Mainland Southwest Alaska Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5: Arctic. David Damas, ed., pp. 224- 242. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
178 Wolfe, Robert J., James A. Fall, Virginia Fay, Susan Georgette, James Magdanz, Sverre Pedersen, Mary Pete, and Janet Schichnes (contributors) 1986 The Role of Fish and Wildlife in the Economies of Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham, Kotzebue, and Nome. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 154. Juneau.
Wolfe, Robert J., Joseph J. Gross, Steven J. Langdon, John M. Wright, George K. Sherrod, Linda J. Ellanna, Valerie Sumida, and Peter J. Usher 1984 Subsistence-Based Economies in Coastal Communities of Southwest Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 89. Juneau.
Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert Walker 1987 Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology.
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1984 Eskimo and Aleut Languages. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5: Arctic. David Damas, editor, pp. 49-63. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Workman, William B. 1980 Continuity and Change in the Prehistoric Record from South Alaska. In Alaska Native Culture and History, Yoshinobu Kotani and William B. Workman, eds., pp. 49-101. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 4. National Museum of Ethnology. Osaka, Japan.
Wright, John M., Judith M. Morris, and Robert Schroeder 1985 Bristol Bay Regional Subsistence Profile. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technica. Paper No. 114. Juneau.
179 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT 3. COMMEKCIAL FISHING Did members of your household participate in commercial fishing during 1986? YES - NO If YES, please complete the following table: ______-_- -- ______-_--- ______------______-_--- NUMBER REMOVED I.D.#'S OF FISHED GEAR FOR OWN GAVE FISHERMEN SPECIES YES NO INCIDTL. LOCATION TYPE HOME USE AWAY Permit HI. Cre ______- _____- _____-_.__-- ____ _-_- _____--_----- .__- ___--- ______- - _____- KING ______-e-e-- ___-_____--. _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ______------_-_--- ____-- RED ______------______. - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - ______-__---- ._-- ____-_ ___-_--- _-_-mm CHUM -__---- _____- ______--- --. ___- ___--- ___-_--- ____-- PINK ______- - ___--_-- ______-_- ______- --. _____-- - ____-- SILVER ______-_--- ____- --. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ___- .__- ___--. _ _ _ - _ _ - . ____-- HERRING ____ -_- ___- -. _.___ -_- _.-. _ _ - ______- - - _____----. _ _ _ - _ _ - . .___--- ROE ON KELP xxx bkts bkt: __.______.- -1 ______-_-- -. _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - ______- --. ___--- -. ._----- KING CRAB xxx bkt: bkt: _ _ _ _ - _ - _-_--. ___--- -. ______- - - ______--. .___-_- -. ____--- DUNGENESS xxx ______- -. .______- _--. _ _ _ _ - _ - ___-__, ---. .___--- -. . _ _ _ - - - TANNER xxx ______--- __- ______--_ __ _ _ - _ _ - ______---- __-_- _-_- ___--- COD xxx _____-___.--- ____-_.-..-. ______---- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _____--- ___--- HALIBUT xxx ______.--- _____- --- _____--- ___--- GROUND FISH xxx _____-_.__--- ______-_-_- __------______---- ___-__---- _____--_ __---- SHRIMP xxx ______--- __-___-_---- _ _ _ _ - _ - - ______-_-- __-___---- ____---- ___--- CAPELIN xxx ______-_---- _-_-_.-_---- ______- ______.._____- _ _,__ - - - - - _-___--- ___--- FLOUNDER __-____-.---- ..__-______- ,_____- --- _____--- SHARK ______--.- ___ ._..-___--_- ______---- ______- - OTHER ._.._-_--.-. ___.--__.-_. ______- ______._----- 4. NON-COMMERCIAL FISHING A. Did your household have a subsistence salmon fishing permit in 1986? YES NO ID# OF Permitholder B. Did your household try to harvest or use any type of fish or marine invertebrate in 1986-1987? YES NO
5. Did your household try to harvest or use salmon in 1986? YES NO If YES, please complete the following table: _____-__--- ______- - - ___. _-_- ______-_____--- ______-_--. -_-_-- -- ____-__ TRIED TO NO. HARVESTED BY GEAR TYPE GAVE USED HARVEST SUBS. ICE ROD & REC. AWAY SPECIES YES NO YES NO NET FISH REEL OTHER YES NO YES N ______-_--_ ___ _-_--- -- ______------. --_ a KING ______-_-. ______-_--_ -_- -_--. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _-_ RED ___-___-_--- _____-_--- __-_-- __ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ ____ - _ CHUM ____-_------__-____--- __---- ___-_- -- _____------.-_ PINK ______--- _____-_--- _----- ______- - ______-_- .__ SILVER ______-. _____-_--- __-_-- __ - - _ - _ - .____-_---- _ - - LANDLOCKED _-_--_------______-- __-__- . _ _ - - - - - _____-_------SIM (unk) ____-____--- .__-_------_ _ _ _ - - __-- _-______-_- ---
6. Did your households try to harvest or use any other fish in 1986? YES __ NO - - If YES, please complete the following table: _____------______-______-__-______------_----. TRIED TO I NO. HARVESTED BY GEAR TYPE GAVE USED HARVEST SUBS. ICE ROD & REC. AWAY SPECIES YES NO YES NO NET FISH REEL OTHER YE2 NO YES I I ______- - ______.-_- - __-_--- _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _____-_---- _-__ __-. -I SMELT ______- ______.-__------_____-_ __-_--- - _____-_---- HERRING bkts. ___.__-_.-.------_ _ - _ - - - - .___--_- --- HHRNGROE bkts. ______-_.--- ______.____-______- __-_. ______- JHITEFISH _-_---- __._---- 1tiiNB0W I.e-s-e..e.e _ _ _ _ - - _.--.-.-
8. MARINE MAMMALS Did your household try to harvest or use marine mammals or marine mammal products during 1986-1987? YES NO If YES, please complete the table below: ______---- __-_-- ______.-_---- _ _ _ _‘_ - _ ------___- ______-----__------__AMOUNT_---- _---- OR ____-___---- GAVE TRIED TO USED HARVEST NUMBER PORTIONS RECEIVED AWAY SPECIES NO YES NO HARVESTED USED* YES NO YES Na ______-__-s-m-- ____- ._-_-- ______---- .______------______---- _------HARBOR SEAL ____-__-_--e-m-- ._-__- _____------1.______I_------_-_-- OTHER SEAL specify 1 ______-_--m--s- __-__- ______--_-- ______--_-- i WALRUS ______--_-- ______-__- ______-s-s-----
SEA LION 1 ______-_-- _____- ______----- ______---- _-_-- BELUKHA ______._.------___-______----- ___---- - ______----- SEA OTTER -_-__- ___----- ______---- __-_-- OTHER ._-______.----- ______----- ______- __..------* Which parts were used for foe ,d' ?
9. LAND MAMMALS Did your household try to harvest or use game in 1986-1987? YES __ NO---e If YES, please complete the following table ______------______.-. ___._-___-______- __----__-----______-- ______-_-- ______-- USED TRIED TO HARVEST NUMBER RECEIVED GAVE AWAY SPECIES NO YES NO HARVESTED 1 YES NO YES NO ______.-_.-- __--- CARIBOU ______-_.------MOOSE ______--_--- PORCUPINE -____-__-__-__-- RABBIT/HARE ______-_-__-_.-- BR. BEAR (Food)
(Fur) ._-___-__-__-__- OTHER 10. FURBEARERS Did anvone, in .your household try to harvest or use furbearers during 1986-1987? YES NO If YES, please complete the folloking table: ____-_-- - ___-_------_--__ __-- ____-__---_----. TRIED TO RECEIVED GAVE AWAY 1’USED HARVEST ‘I # USED FOR YES NO YES NO SPECIES NO NO HARV. FOOD FUR FOOD FUR FOOD FUR .___-___----- __-- ___-- ______---- ____-_ ------BEAVER _ _ _ _ _ - _ __-_-- ___-__ _----- ___-__ _ _ _ - - _ - - - --_-- _-- MINK xx xx xx -___-__------______--_- __---_ ----- _ _ _ - - _ - - - --_-- --- FOX xx xx xx ______-_-- _-____ _----- ___--- ______------WOLF xx xx xx ______--_-- ______------i-- _ ------_-- --- WOLVERINE xx xx xx ______- -_-- _--__. ______--_ --__- ______- - _-___ --- LAND OTTER xx xx xx ______- - ___- ______---- _ _ _ - - - _ ------__- _ ------_-_ __- MUSKRAT ______----- __--_- __--_- ___-__ --_-- _ _ _ - _ _ ------LYNX ______--__- __-______-__ ------_-- _------_-- --- PARKA SQUIRRE ______--_-- ______----- _----- _ - - - _ ------__- OTHER ______-_-- -______---_- _----- _ - - - _ _ - - - _-_-_ ---
11. PLANTS Did your household harvest or use wild plants in 1986-1987? YES NO If YES, please complete the table below: ______---_----______------______-_---.----_- _____-__----- I USED 1 TRIED TO HARVEST AMOUNT HARVESTED I RECEIVED GAVE AWAY YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO ____._____-__-______-____------__- ______-- ______----_-_____------BERRIES gal. _____--_-______.-_.------.. _____--_--______1----_- .___--___-_- PLANTS qts. -______-______I . _.------I______-__- .-- ___------_- ______-______- 1----______- 1___-_- 12.BIRDS Did your household try to harvest or use birds during 1986-1987? YES NO If YES, please complete the table below: ______------. ______. _ _ _ - - ______-______. . ______----______-- - - - _ - - - - - USED TRIED TO HARVESlr NUMBER RECEIVED GAVE AWA SPECIES IES NO MAP YES NO I SEASON HARVESTED YES NO YES N ______---. _ _ _ __-_ - ______. ______--____-_ ------_-__- _-_-- PTARMIGAN _____------. ._-- ---_ - - - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . - - _ _ _ _ _ . __---_---- _-___ EMPEROR A M ______--. -_- ---______- ______- - _ - - _ _ __---_-_-- ---_. (beach)* ASON ______.--. ------______- - - _ - _ _ __--__---- _---. CANADA A M ______-----. ------. ______------_ . -_-_---_-_ ----_ (honkers)* ASON __--__------__-_ . _ - _ _ _ . ______. ------_____ JHITEFRONT A H ______.__--- __- _--- .----__ _ - _ - - - - - ______---_ (specklebelly) ASON ______- ______-. -__-______- SLACK BRANT A M ______---- ______. ______. - - ______-_ (sea geese)* ASON .__-______._ --- ____ - _ - - - - ______---______i_ 14. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Please complete the following information for all jobs held by the employed households members listed in question 1 between commercial salmon fishing in 1986 and commercial salmon fishing in 1987. Please include commerical fishing activities. _ _ _ _ - _ - - - __--- ______---_-e-s-- ____-______e_-- __- _-e-e--- ID I# FROM # OF MONTHS HOURS WORKED AMOUNT 2UESTION 1 JOB TITLE EMPLOYER WORKEDP/YEAR PER WEEK EARNED _____-_.-_ ..__-______-_--- _ _ _ _.______-__----e-w- ______- JJASONDJFMAM ______-______-_----- __------__-_--- __-_--__--_- ______--_ JJASONDJFHAM --_--- __-- ______--- _ _ - _ - - - - JJASONDJFMAM ___-______-_--- ______-___-_------JJASONDJFMAM _-_------______-___-- _____-__--- __-__- ______- JJASONDJFMAM ____-----______-___-______- - - - _ - _ - - _ - ______..---_____-_--- _____--_--- JJASONDJFMAM _-__------___-______.__-- ______------__---- - ______-__-- JJASONDJFMAM ______-____-_------. ______-______- JJASONDJFMAM ____-_.--______--_-- .__-______------ 15. Other Income Sources (Check all that apply and indicate amount) Social Security Income $ Pension $ Longevity Bonus $ Energy Assistance $ Adult Public Assistance $ Other (Specify) $ Aid to Families with Dependent Children $- 16. Please estimate your monthly expenses: Heating fuel Transportation fuel water housing Food Electricity I I , , APPENDIX B: CONVERSION FACTORS Resource Conversion Source Factora King Salmon 13.02 ADF&G 1987~146~ Sockeye Salmon 4.30 Chum Salmon 4.63 Pink Salmon 2.39 Silver Salmon 4.94 Landlocked Salmon 1.50 R. Russell, Pers. Comm. Spawning Sockeye Salmon 2.00 Researcher est>mate Salmon, Unknown 4.30 ADF&G 1987:146D Herring 30 per bkt/0.5 per fish Fall et al 1986 Roe-on-Kelp 25 per bkt Researcher estimate Cod 1.0 Researcher estimate Halibut 16.2 II Flounder 1.0 II Smelt 30 per bkt/.25 per fish Fall et al 1986 Whitefish 1.0 Wright et al 1985 Rainbow Trout 1.4 Lake Trout 2.7 Grayling 0.7 Dolly Varden 1.4 Pike 2.8 Butter Clams 3.0 per gallon Researcher estimate Razor Clams 3.0 per gallon II Cockles 3.0 per gallon II Tanner Crab 1.6 ,t Harbor Seal 56.0 Wright et al 1985 Walrus C Caribou 150 Wright et al 1985 Moose 540 11 Porcupine 8 11 Hare 2 II Beaver a.75 Ptarmigan 7 Wright et al 1985 Emperor Geese 2:5 Bellrose 197ad Canada Geese 1.2 11 White-fronted Geese 2.4 11 Black Brant 1.2 II Snow Geese 2.3 II Tundra Swans 6.0 8, Sandhill Cranes 6.0 Wright et al 1985 Mallard 1.0 Bellrose 197ad Pintail .8 !# Gadwall .8 190 APPENDIX B, continued. Conversion Resource Factora Source Wigeon .7 Teal .3 11 Eiders 1.6 II . Scoters .9 Ducks, Unk. 11872 Geese, Unk. 11 Shorebirds .l Researcher estimate Gull Eggs .15 per egg Researcher estimate Duck Eggs .15 per egg Swan Eggs .30 per egg Tern Eggs .lO per egg Berries 1 per quart Researcher estimate Other Plants 1 per quart Researcher estimate. a Pounds edible weight Eor each animal or fish, unless othe~rwise specified. b Based upon mean round weights of the commercially taken salmon in the Ugashik District in 1986, multiplied by a standard factor of .7. The mean round weights were: kings, 18.60 pounds; reds, 6.14 pounds; chums, 6.62 pounds; pinks, 3.41 pounds; silvers, 7.06 pounds. "Unknown" salmon were assumed to be reds. ' Harvest data collected in pounds. d Based upon the average of the mean live weights of the male and female of each species as reported in Bellrose (1978), multiplied by a standard factor of .4. "Unknown' ducks and geese were converted to pounds using the average weight of the known ducks and geese in the harvest. 191 APPENDIX C. INDUSTRY - EMPLOYER CATEGORIES AND OCCUPATION CATEGORIES INDUSTRY - EMPLOYER CATEGORIES 1. Agriculture, Forestry, and Commercial Fishing. (loggers, farm implement and fertilizer sales, 'farmers and ag. laborers, trappers) 2. Mining (metal mining, oil and gas extraction, nonmetallic minerals) 3. Construction (carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, plumbers) 4. Manufacturing (forest and wood products, seafood processors, chemical and allied products, paper and paper products) 5. Transportation, Communications, Utilities, *excluding government utilities. (telephone company, air transportation, electric, gas and sanitary services, and trucking and warehousing) 6. Wholesale Trade. (establishments that sell goods to retail outlets and not directly to consumers such as distributors of furniture, alcoholic beverage,s, automotive parts, construction machinery) 7. Retail Trade. (establishments that sell goods directly to consumers such as clothing, hardware, and food stores, gasoline stations, eating and drinking establishments, automotive dealers) a. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (banks, realty offices, insurance companies, credit agencies, and investment companies) 9. Services, other than wholesale and retail trade. (hotels, legal services, auto repair shops, and business services) 10. Federal Government 11. State Government (including education) 12. Local Government (including education and utilities) OCCUPATION CATEGORIES 1. Professional, Technical, and Managers. (teachers, engineers, accountants, lawyers, medical and dental technicians, airplane pilots) 2. Clerical Workers and Sales Persons. (bookkeepers, secretaries, shipping and receiving clerks, telephone operators, and clothing sales people) 192 3. Service Workers. (hospital, hotel, restaurant workers, private household workers, police officers, firefighters) 4. Agriculture, Fishery, and Forestgy-Related Workers. (loggers, I commercial fishers, trappers, farmers, and landscapers) 5. Processing. (food, metal processing, ore refining) 6. Machine Trades. (Machinists, Mechanics, Printers, Cabinetmakers) 7. Benchwork. (fabricators, assemblers, repairers of metal, jewelry, and photo. equipment, textiles, tailors, sewing machine operators) a. Structural. (welders, electrical workers, carpenters, painters) 9. Armed Forces 10. Recreation-based Occupations. (guiding, mountain-climbing) 11. Motor Freight and Transportation. (truck drivers, air transportation, railroad, parking lot) 12. Packing and Materials Handling. (packagers, movers, stevedores) 13. Mining. (borers, drillers, cutters, and blasting specialists) 14. Miscellaneous. (electrical utility, water-and water treatment, graphic arts workers) 193