DOCSLIB.ORG

Nesting Biology and Local Movements of Female Greater White-Fronted Geese in West-Central Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nesting Biology and Local Movements of Female Greater White-Fronted Geese in West-Central Alaska Nesting Biology and Local Movements of female Greater White-fronted Geese in west-central Alaska Final Report FY05-01 April 2005 MICHAEL A. SPINDLER and MELANIE R. HANS, Koyukuk/Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO Box 287, Galena, AK 99741 NESTING BIOLOGY AND LOCAL MOVEMENTS OF FEMALE GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GEESE IN WEST-CENTRAL ALASKA MICHAEL A. SPINDLER and MELANIE R. HANS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO Box 287, Galena, AK 99741 USA ABSTRACT During the 1990’s abundance of Greater White-fronted Geese (Anser albifrons) that nest in west-central Alaska declined. This segment of the Mid-continent population is unique because it nests in the boreal forest and taiga, and has an earlier breeding and migration chronology than its more abundant tundra-nesting counterpart. We initiated a study in 1994 to determine nesting and brood-rearing habitat, evaluate potential effects of flooding on productivity, and provide preliminary information on predation. Molting females (n=92) that were likely to have bred near their molting area (as indicated by brood-patch) were fitted with VHF radio transmitter collars at three study areas along the Koyukuk, Kanuti and Innoko Rivers in west-central Alaska. Locations of marked geese were determined by aircraft searches during the summers of 1995-98 and 2002-04. Of the 92 radio-marked females, 41 returned to the study area in subsequent years; 25 attempted nesting, and 14 reared broods. Four of these geese returned to nest close to the site of the previous year’s nest; two nested within 41 m. Eight of the 92 radioed females died of predation on the breeding grounds. Thirty-three nests were located, 22 by radio, 11 from nest searches. Nest initiation averaged 11 May, while hatching averaged 13 June. A third of the nests were in uplands not susceptible to flooding. Most nests (55%) were in Open Low Scrub habitats; 35% were in Needleleaf Forest and Woodland habitats, and 10% were in Graminoid-Herbaceous Meadows. Nests were often equidistant from large waterbodies and were usually on a small hummock or near the base of a shrub or tree. Nests averaged 273 m from the nearest waterbody, and 4.6 km from nearest river. Brood-rearing habitat included a greater proportion of Water, Graminoid and Low Scrub land cover classes than other available habitat. Riparian wetlands were important to brood-rearing. The nest site was always located on the periphery of the brood-rearing home range. Distance from nest site to the center of the brood-rearing home range averaged 4.3 km (SE=0.7). Brood-rearing area averaged 21 km2 (SE=7). Geese that nested in uplands tended to move their broods a longer distance from the nest to the brood-rearing area. Departure from the brood-rearing area to the pre- migratory staging area occurred in early August. Interior Alaska white-fronts marked along the lower Koyukuk River made a northwesterly pre-migratory staging movement to estuaries of the Kotzebue Sound coastline before migrating southeastward to Canada. White-fronts marked along the upper Koyukuk, Kanuti, and Innoko Rivers migrated directly to the southeast. Fall departure from west-central Alaska was usually complete by the end of August. Keywords: Anser albifrons frontalis, Greater White-fronted Goose, nesting, brood- rearing, staging, predation, Koyukuk River, Kanuti River, Nowitna River, Innoko River, Selawik River, Kotzebue Sound INTRODUCTION The Mid-continent population of Greater White-fronted Geese breeds throughout tundra habitats from Hudson Bay in Canada to the North Slope of Alaska, and south into boreal forest and taiga of interior and northwest Alaska (Bellrose 1980, Ely and Dzubin 1994, Nieman et al. in prep.). Greater White-fronted Geese from interior and northwest Alaska differ from geese in other portions of the mid-continent population by their nesting habitat, which is mainly within the boreal forest and taiga or forest-edge, and by an earlier nesting phenology, relative to their tundra-nesting counterparts (Spindler et al. 1999, Ely and Schmutz 1999). Greater White-fronted Geese breeding in interior and northwest Alaska migrate earlier in spring and fall and use a more southerly and westerly wintering area that extends into the highlands of northern Mexico, compared to tundra- nesting White-fronted Geese (Ely and Schmutz 1999, Nieman et al. in prep). Declining abundance of Greater White-fronted Geese in parts of interior Alaska, in the 1990’s (Spindler et al. 1999) prompted a study of survival rates using band recovery analysis. From that work, Ely and Schmutz (1999) reported lower annual survival of interior and northwest Alaska-banded White-fronted Geese relative to North Slope Alaska and Canadian segments of the Mid-continent population. Reasons for the regional decline in abundance and reduced survival in the 1990’s were unknown, but Spindler et al. (1999) and Ely and Schmutz (1999) hypothesized it could be a result of earlier nesting and migration of the interior and northwest Alaska White-fronted Geese, relative to the tundra-nesting segments of the population. Possible factors influencing abundance on the breeding grounds include flooding of riparian areas (suppresses productivity) or subsistence hunting and predation (reduces recruitment and survival). Therefore, we sought to describe Greater White-fronted Goose breeding ground characteristics and conditions in west-central Alaska. Objectives of this study were to identify the preferred nesting and brood-rearing habitats; determine breeding chronology and susceptibility of nests to flooding; describe movements of female Greater White- fronted Geese and their broods; and evaluate return rates, mortality, and predation on the breeding grounds. STUDY AREA AND METHODS Study area The study area included portions of the Innoko, Nowitna, Kanuti, and Koyukuk river drainages in west central Alaska (Figure 1). These river valleys include a diverse mosaic of boreal forest and scrubland vegetation types interspersed with numerous riparian floodplain and non-riparian bog wetlands. The study area was expanded to include the coastal estuaries of Kotzebue Sound in northwest Alaska once it was determined that some geese moved to the coast for pre-migratory staging. River floodplains draining into these estuaries include the Kiwalik, Buckland, Selawik, Kobuk and Noatak Rivers. More detailed descriptions of habitats using satellite-derived imagery are given for the west-central Alaska areas by Talbot and Markon (1986, 1988) and for Kotzebue Sound by Craighead et al. (1988). 2 Capture and relocation Geese were captured during the molt in July 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2002. Capture methods included drive trapping, assisted by a minimum of three float-equipped airplanes as described by Lobpries (1980). Ground crews assisted by a boat and a dog captured molting geese along the Kanuti River in 1996 (Martin 1999). To increase the likelihood that relocation efforts might lead to a nest in the subsequent spring, we only marked female geese with a brood patch. A 50-gram VHF radio transmitter (ATS Model number 3630) was affixed with epoxy to a 42-mm inside diameter plastic neck collar (Hines at al. 1999). Transmitters included a duty cycle timer programmed to transmit only during months that geese were expected to be on the breeding grounds, which extended battery life up to three nesting seasons. Geese were relocated following capture using aircraft radio-telemetry techniques (Samuel and Fuller 1994). Relocation flights generally occurred weekly between late April and mid-August. At each relocation, coordinates were determined by GPS. Flock size, brood size, and molting status were recorded whenever possible. An aerial determination was made for wetland habitat type (mud bar, sand bar, recently vegetated mud bank, older vegetated mud bank, river channel, slough channel, oxbow connected to river, oxbow not connected to river, wetland complex connected to river, and wetland complex not connected to river) estuary). Special efforts were made to search for missing radioed birds in areas well beyond the capture locations. Intensive aerial searches were conducted within 100 km of all capture locations. Additional intensive searches were conducted in the Selawik, Kobuk, and Noatak River drainages; Northern Seward Peninsula; North Slope from Prudhoe Bay west to Barrow and south to Umiat; Yukon Flats; upper Tanana River basin; Yukon River floodplain from Tanana to St. Mary’s; all of Nowitna NWR and surroundings; Melozitna River drainage; the entire Innoko River basin; and the upper Kuskokwim River drainage (see Figure 1). While conducting the extensive statewide aerial transects for the Alaska-Yukon Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey, crews of the USFWS Division of Migratory Birds scanned for missing birds across Alaska and Yukon during 1995, 1996 and 1997. When relocation flights had determined that most radioed females were stationary, an indication that nesting was in progress, a ground telemetry search was conducted to locate incubating females on nests. Nest visits were timed late in the incubation period to minimize possible abandonment. In an effort to find additional nests, ground crews (up to four individuals and a dog), searched the vicinity near known nest sites. Nest site characteristics were recorded following the techniques described by Densmore et al. (in prep). Field description of vegetation near and surrounding the nest followed the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992). Nest initiation dates were estimated by floating eggs and backdating (Westerkov 1950, Barry 1967). Analysis For each year post-marking, apparent return rates (the ratio of birds returning to the study area each year to the total in the radio-marked sample) were determined by methods described by Marshall et al. (1999). Brood rearing ranges were delineated by including all location points that occurred within the nesting and brooding-molting 3 periods as determined from aerial and ground observation. Minimum convex polygon (MCP; Mohr and Stumpf 1966, Samuel and Fuller 1994) home ranges were determined during the brood-rearing period.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mapping Traditional Place Names Along the Koyukuk River—Koyukuk
    Mapping Traditional Place Names along the Koyukuk River— Koyukuk, Huslia, and Hughes, Western Interior Alaska Introduction Koyukon Athabascan peoples have settled along the Koyukuk River in Western Interior Alaska for thousands of years using the surrounding landscape for subsistence and cultural resources. However, recent changes in climate, technology, resource availability, and way of life have affected land-use patterns in the region, as well as use of the Denaakk'e (Koyukon) language. The current Koyukon population is about 2,300, and about 150 still speak the language (the youngest of whom are in their fifties). In addition, Elders, important keepers of both language and traditional subsistence-use areas, are aging, and opportunities to record their knowledge are diminishing. “If place names are left undocumented then the owners and history of those places remain invisible. Place names provide clear evidence of land use and demonstrate Native presence in an area” Study area map representing the 366 spatially verified place names along the Koyukuk River from Koyukuk to Hughes. Gary Holton, Director of the Alaska Native Language Archive, Alaska Native Language Center Project Goals The goals of the place names project are to collect, preserve, cultivate, and pass on the rich knowledge and culture of the Koyukon people with regards to traditional place names and subsistence-use areas along the Koyukuk River in the villages of Koyukuk, Huslia, and Hughes. Place names provide important information regarding navigation, resource availability, cultural history, land ownership, and changes in land use. Archiving information of this nature assists in passing local and traditional knowledge to subsequent generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Land Use Processes in Alaska's Koyukuk River Area
    ARCTIC VOL. 42. NO. 2 (JUNE 1989) P. 148-162 Historic Land Use Processes in Alaska’s Koyukuk River Area WENDY H. ARUNDALE‘ and ELIZA JONES’ (Received 9 February 1988; accepted in revised form 21 September 1988) ABSTRACT. Northern Athabaskans with extensive knowledge of their traditional history and culture are increasingly interested in preserving their heritage. The authors areworking with Allakaket area Koyukon people in Alaska to record data on importanthistoric sites and events, but they are also using ethnoarchaeological approaches, particularly Binford’s models of settlement systems and site mobility, to help make the information they gather more valuable to both local Native people and archaeologists. Drawing on their preliminary data, as well as existing research, they describe changes in the late winter part of the seasonal round, showing how, over time, the Koyukon become more logistically organized as they become more sedentary. These changes have interesting archaeological implications, including effects on site mobility patterns. The Koyukon belief system, withan intricate set of traditional beliefs and practices, has significant, though largely unexplored potential for influencing archaeological variability. Key words: Alaska, Athabaskans, archaeology, belief systems, boreal forest, ethnoarchaeology, historic archaeology, historic sites, Koyukon, Koyukuk River, landscape use, settlement patterns, Subarctic RÉSUMÉ. Les Athabaskans du Nord qui possèdent une connaissance approfondie de leur histoire et de leur culture traditionnelles, sont de plus en plus intéressés à préserver leur patrimoine. Les auteurs travaillent actuellement avec des gens de la tribu Koyukon de la région d’Allakaket en Alaska, à consigner des données sur d’importants sites et événements historiques, mais ils utilisent aussi des approches ethnoarchéologiques, en particulier les modèles de Binford se rapportant aux systèmes de peuplement et de migration d’un site à l’autre, pour rendre l’information recueille plus utile, àla fois à la population autochtoneet aux archéologues.
    [Show full text]
  • Spanning the Bering Strait
    National Park service shared beringian heritage Program U.s. Department of the interior Spanning the Bering Strait 20 years of collaborative research s U b s i s t e N c e h UN t e r i N c h UK o t K a , r U s s i a i N t r o DU c t i o N cean Arctic O N O R T H E L A Chu a e S T kchi Se n R A LASKA a SIBERIA er U C h v u B R i k R S otk S a e i a P v I A en r e m in i n USA r y s M l u l g o a a S K S ew la c ard Peninsu r k t e e r Riv n a n z uko i i Y e t R i v e r ering Sea la B u s n i CANADA n e P la u a ns k ni t Pe a ka N h las c A lf of Alaska m u a G K W E 0 250 500 Pacific Ocean miles S USA The Shared Beringian Heritage Program has been fortunate enough to have had a sustained source of funds to support 3 community based projects and research since its creation in 1991. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev expanded their cooperation in the field of environmental protection and the study of global change to create the Shared Beringian Heritage Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Tad Ful ª«Mp 109
    ! ! ! ! Middle Fork Koyukuk River !S H !S ª«MP 157 i k Malamute Fork M Alaska-Other d a e la d m M Doyon, Limited e e u S r t m e u n F a C o d l G Doyon, Limited ly C r g k C ª«MP 156 r C a r r n e e n i r k e e i t e k t e e a !S k e e e r C k !S C r K !S e k Ninemile k River R e e ku k re oyu n C Lake Alaska-Other K h le H o i a J B !S m !S r e ne r !S D ar i ie a ª«MP 154 N !S C t v r Central i e C s e r k Evansville, Incorporated C r e Yukon Field e e r ! P k ! e v i o e p k R e Office C d r ª«MP 153 l e i e k k MP 152 W e ª« Goose e r H Slough C yling u MP 151 ra Cr d e G e Alaska-Other l ª« e s k H g Horseshoe o a a c n Doyon, Limited k E e Eld B Grayling Lake tt or C ad a MP 150ª« Lake r o y e !S e C C FUL k r Doyon, Limited e r ! e e Jac e k W k hit k W Jane Creek J e C e o re ª«MP 149 s h ek t n k F e o R e r i r k v C H e e r MOD ª«MP 148 m n o s t h t a Hill Lake o w !S !S b !S Birch y C ª«MP 147 !S Squaw Creek k r !!S !S !S! c e !! !!S!!!!!S e Evansville! !! !S o !!!!! !S!!S k !! !!S !!S!! R !S ! "!S ! ! !S! !!! Bettles!S!!!!! Airport !!!S! ª«MP 146 CRI !!S!!!! !S !!!S !!S Alaska-Other !S!!!!! ! ! ! p !S ª«MP 145 Bettles LIM " ª«MP 144 !S Doyon, Limited Vor Lake Waterlane Seaplane Base ek re C ª«MP 143 s !Sp la g u E o a D s MOD t F Kanuti ª«MP 142 o r k National Evansville, Incorporated H e n Wildlife Refuge Central Yukon Field Office s ª«MP 141 h a w C ! ª«MP 140 r e FUL e Prospect k ª«MP 139 Creek MOD !S !S ª« MP 138 Prospect Creek Airport Doyon, Limited !S p k ª«MP 137 ree Fickett Creek k C la FUL ya Doyon, Limited Kanuti
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum (W&SRS)
    OI'TIONAL FORM NO. 10 MAY 1M2 O:DITION GSA FPMR (~1 Cl'l<) 101•11.1 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum (W&SRS) TO Assistant Director Eastman DATE: May 30, 1973 FROM Alaska Task Force Leader ./ su~EcT: Tinayguk Wild and Scenic River Report. Enclo~ed are two copies of a ·prelimi ary draft of Chapters IV and V of the subj~ct report. opy of this report has been provided to NWRO and BLM, · SF&W NPS and FS planriirig t~ams in Anchorage. Chapter IV w1 1 be distributed to study team participants. ~ · ·It is emphasized that the conclusions and recommendations are based upon a single ·aerial examination of June 14, 1972, and upon office review of available information. On-site field examination is scheduled for this summer. Following field work, the preliminary draft will be revised as appropriate and the remaining portions of the report completed. Tileston / 2 Enclosures cc: WASO/Fred Strack ARLIS Alaska Resources .,.ft.~- . Library & Information SerVices · Anchorage Alaska Buy U.S. SfWings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan IOIO•lot ,JINAYGUK RIVER, ALASKA --- A Wild and Scenic Rj.ver Analysis • THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 90-542, THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT. PUBLICATION OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOM- MENDATIONS HEREIN SHOULD NOT, -BE CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTING EITHER THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND ALTERNA­ TIVES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES. Bureau of Outdoor Recreati6n Alaska Task Force PRELIMINARY DRAFT--­ NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRI~ BUTION DR PUBLIC USE ---SUBJECT TO REVISION v.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Salmon in Three Tributaries of the Koyukuk River, Alaska, 2002
    Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2003-7, August 2005 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Salmon in Three Tributaries of the Koyukuk River, Alaska, 2002 Gareth K. VanHatten Abstract During 2002, resistance board weirs were used to record escapement information from Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and summer chum O. keta salmon in three tributaries within the Koyukuk River drainage, Alaska: Gisasa River; Kateel River; and Henshaw Creek. Annual escapement counts were 2,025 Chinook and 33,481 chum salmon for Gisasa River, 73 Chinook and 2,853 chum salmon for Kateel River, and 649 Chinook and 25,249 chum salmon for Henshaw Creek. Additional biological information was collected on age, sex, and length of each spawning population. Passage information was also recorded for longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus, northern pike Esox lucius, Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus, and whitefish (Coregoninae). Chinook and summer chum salmon escapement counts from these three tributaries assist fisheries managers in making in-season decisions during the Yukon River commercial and subsistence fishing season, provide post-season evaluation of various management practices, and assist in developing future run projections. Due to the complexity of the mixed- stock Yukon River fishery and the difficulty in managing specific stocks, it is essential to continue collecting information from individual salmon populations, including stocks from the Koyukuk River drainage. It is recommended that the Gisasa River (lower Koyukuk River) and Henshaw Creek projects (upper Koyukuk River) be continued for the long term, so population trends can be analyzed over an extended time-series. Tributary streams containing small salmon stocks, like the Kateel River, should be monitored on a periodic basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Et Fish Creek Lake Minnkokut Lake
    153°0'0"W 152°0'0"W 151°0'0"W 150°0'0"W Malamute Fork Malamute Fork Smally Creek Harriet Creek Ninemile Lake Mud Creek Pope Creek Ninemile Cabin Bear Creek 67°0'0"N 67°0'0"N Ninemile Creek Hackett Creek East Fork Henshaw Creek Davis Creek Goose Slough Eagle Creek John R Creek Ironsides Bar Mine Gold Bench Placer Mine Horseshoe Lake Hudson Bay Creek Rockybottom Creek Jack White Creek IPS Jack White Range IPS Grayling Lake Helpmejack Creek Wild River WLM Birch Hill IPS Eldorado Creek Pitchuk Lake Pope Creek Dome Alatna Hills Birch Hill Lake Evansville IPS Evansville Squaw Creek Grayling Creek John River ALM WLM BeWttlLeMseWLtM tleALsM WID ALM IPS IPS IPS IPS WLM Lookout Mountain FLO IPS Jane Creek IPS WLM IPS SPB Douglas Creek IPS WLM IPS WLM IPS IPS SPB Lake No IPS IPS rutak Four Corners IPS West Fork Henshaw Creek IPS Prospect Creek Camp Prospect Creek Jim River IPS IPS Chebanika Creek IPS West Fork Henshaw Creek IPB East Fork Henshaw Creek IPS Fickett Creek Henshaw Cabin IPS Sinyalak Creek Siruk Creek West Fork Henshaw (Sozhekla) CreekEast Fork Henshaw (Sozhekla) Hawzerah Lake IPSHawzerah Creek IPS Oscars Cabin Double Point Mountain ALM North Fork Bonanza CreekSouth Fork Bonanza Creek Black Jack Cabin IPS IPS IPS WLM Buzodoc Slough Fish IPS Peavey CreekIPS IPS IPS Dosennaughten Lake IPS Kanuti Flats IPS IPS IPS IPS WLM Fish Creek Cree k IPS Alatna IPS IPS WLM Holdeyeit Lake IPS Fish Creek Lake IPSBonanza Creek IPSIPSIPS Minotocloga Lake Tabeascot Lake IPS ALM IPS IPS WLMSouth Fork Koyukuk River IPS IPS WLM IPSIPS WLM WLM Hulgothen Bluffs
    [Show full text]
  • Caribou Trails 2005
    Tuttut tumai (Inupiaq) bedzeyh tene Caribou Trails (Koyukon Athabaskan) tuntut tumait (Yup’ik) Photo by Sue Steinacher issue 7 spring 2005 News from The Western Arctic Caribou Herd working group Your 2005 Being a caribou hunter Caribou Working Group in the 21st century Representatives: Being a good hunter is no longer just about keeping your rifle, boat Wainwright and snowmachine in good working order, and watching the weather and Vacant signs of wildlife. If there is to be game to hunt in the future we also have to pay attention to developments planned for the land our wildlife depends on. Point Hope Earl ‘Natchiq’ Kingik, Pt. Hope Being a good hunter now also means reading, listening and Nuiqsut & Anaktuvuk talking about things we never used Isaac Kaigelak, Nuiqsut to have to think about. Sometimes Noatak & Kivalina it means going to meetings instead Raymond Hawley, Kivalina of hunting, and speaking before a group of people even when it feels Kotzebue Attamuk Shiedt, Sr., Kotzebue uncomfortable. Lower Kobuk River The world is changing Raymond Stoney, Kiana rapidly. Some of these changes Billy Adams on the trail. Photo by Craig George. have improved the quality of our life Upper Kobuk River in the North, like advanced communications, transportation and health care. Sally Custer, Shungnak But it’s important to recognize that development can affect important wildlife Koyukuk River habitat and populations - the game we depend upon. Pollock Simon, Sr., Allakaket Knowledge and Middle Yukon River involvement are now critical Benedict Jones, Koyukuk hunting tools. We need to learn to Buckland, Deering, Selawik use them wisely in order to protect Ron Moto, Deering the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Aerial Moose Survey in Upper Game Management Unit 24, Alaska
    AERIAL MOOSE SURVEY IN UPPER GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 24, ALASKA, FALL 2004, INCLUDING STATE LAND, AND LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, GATES OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, AND KANUTI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Project Report: NPS/AR/NR/TR-2006-55 Prepared by: James P. Lawler, National Park Service Lisa Saperstein, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tim Craig, Bureau of Land Management Glenn Stout, Alaska Department of Fish and Game April 2006 Photo: G. Stout The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation's mission is to conserve and enhance Alaska's wildlife and habitats and provide for a wide range of public uses and benefits. The Division of Wildlife Conservation recognizes wildlife as a public trust belonging to all Alaskans. We respect the diversity of public values associated with wildlife and support uses that reflect public support and sound principles of conservation. We are an organization of individuals committed to interacting professionally with one another and the public and to using scientific data and public input to conserve Alaska's wildlife. The Bureau of Land Management is directed by Congress in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to manage public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological values; that where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition, that will provide food and habitat of fish and wildlife and domestic animals, and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use;” (Sec.101.[43 us.s.c.1701] (a) (8)).
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk River Drainage, Alaska
    Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk River Drainage, Alaska by David B. Andersen1, Caroline L. Brown2, Robert J. Walker2 and Kimberly Elkin3 Technical Paper No. 282 1Research North° 2Alaska Department of Fish and Game 3Tanana Chiefs Conference Fairbanks, Alaska Division of Subsistence Fairbanks, Alaska May 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................. 7 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Collection of TEK ........................................................................................................................ 8 Collection of Harvest Data........................................................................................................ 13 Sampling Goals ...................................................................................................................... 14 Pre-fieldwork Training Session.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Yukon Hunting / Unit 21
    Middle Yukon Hunting / Unit 21 Hughes Candle Buckland Huslia Tanana Koyuk Koyukuk Nulato Galena Ruby Shaktoolik Kaltag Poorman Unalakleet Telida Ophir Medfra Nikolai Takotna Grayling McGrath Anvik Shageluk Iditarod Paradise Holy Cross Paimiut Georgetow n Crooked Creek Stony River Red Devil Sleetmute Kalskag Chuathbaluk Lower Kalskag Aniak Napaimiut Federal Public Lands Open to Subsistence Use 2014/2016 Federal Subsistence Wildlife Regulations 95 Unit 21 / Hunting (See Unit 21 Middle Yukon map) Unit 21 consists of drainages into the Yukon River and Arhymot Lake upstream from a (STRAIGHT) line starting at the down river boundary of Paimiut on the north bank of the Yukon River then south across the Yukon River to the northern terminus of the Paimiut Portage, then south along the Portage to its intersection with Arbymot Lake, then south along the northern and western bank of Arhymot Lake to the outlet at Crooked Creek (locally known as Johnson River) drainage, [PAIMIUT] to but not including the Tozitna River drainage on the north bank, and to but not including the Tanana River drainage on the south bank, and excluding the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from the Dulbi River drainage. Unit 21A consists of the Innoko River drainage upstream excluding the Koyukuk River drainage upstream from from (and including) the Iditarod River drainage. the Dulbi River drainage; and excluding the Dulbi River drainage upstream from Cottonwood Creek. Unit 21B consists of the Yukon River drainage upstream from Ruby and east of the Ruby-Poorman Road; Unit 21E consists of that portion of Unit 21 in the Yukon downstream from (but excluding) the Tozitna River and River and Arhymot Lake drainage~ from a line starting at Tanana River drainages; and excluding the Melozitna River the down river boundary of Paimiut on the north bank of drainage upstream from Grayling Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • KOYUKUK RIVER MOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2000–2005 Unit 24 and the Northern Portion of Unit 21D
    KOYUKUK RIVER MOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2000–2005 Unit 24 and the northern portion of Unit 21D Photo by Larry B Jennings Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation In cooperation with the Koyukuk River Moose Hunters’ Working Group MARCH 2001 STATE OF ALASKA Tony Knowles, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Frank Rue, Commissioner DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Wayne L Regelin, Director Free copies of this report and other Division of Wildlife Conservation publications are available to the public. Please direct requests to: Laura A McCarthy Publications Technician ADF&G, Wildlife Conservation 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599 (907) 459-7241 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information please write to ADF&G, PO Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526; US Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N Fairfield Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203 or OEO, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240. For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-2440.
    [Show full text]