Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast Alaska Communities: Tenakee Springs, Alaska
by Ken Leghorn and Matt Kookesh Technical Paper No. 138
This research was partially supported by ANILCA Federal Aid Funds, administered through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Division of Subsistence Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska September, 1987
Becausethe Alaskawent of Fish and Gamerec+%s federalfundlng, ail of Its public programsand aWltieS are operatedfree from discrlmlnationon the basis of race, cr.:;!. natiohalorigin, age, or handicap. Any person who b:i,.:m:’ tv or she has been dlscrlmlnatedagainst should writerto: O.E.O. U.S. Departmentof the lnterlor Washington,0-C. 20240 .‘:’
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables ...... V Acknowledgements ...... vi
CHAPTER 1. Study Background ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Objectives ...... 3 Methodology ...... 4 Literature Review ...... 5 Key Respondent Interview and Mapping ...... 6 Resource Use Random Survey ...... 8 Verification and Limitations of Findings ...... 9 CHAPTER 2. Tenakee Springs and Environment ...... 12
Physical Setting ...... 12 Historical Overview ...... 14 Land Status ...... 16 Demography ...... ~...... 19 CHAPTER 3. The Tenakee Springs Economy: Cash Sector ...... 28 Employment and Income ...... 28 History of the Timber Industry in Tenakee Inlet ...... 33 Pre-1970 Activity ...... 33 1970 to Present ...... 35
CHAPTER 4. The Tenakee Springs Economy: Subsistence Sector ...... 41
Seasonal Round of Harvesting Activity ...... 41 Resource Use and Harvest ...... 44 Overview of all Resources ...... 44' Key Respondent Compared with Random Survey Harvests...... 56 Deer Hunting ...... 60 Fishing ...... 64 Shellfish ...... 70 Trapping ...... 71 Transportation and Access to Harvest Sites ...... 71 Geography of Harvest Activities ...... 73 Distribution and Exchange of Resources ...... 80 Use of Tenakee Inlet by Residents of Other Communities...... 83 CHAPTER 5. Case Studies of Changing Subsistence Activities ...... 86 Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit ...... 86 Indian River ...... 93 Corner Bay ...... 101
i CHAPTER 6. Discussion and Conclusions ...... 105
Tenakee’s Economic Base...... 106 Hunting and Fishing Areas ...... 109 Harvest of Deer ...... 110 Timber Management and Fish ...... 111 Effects of Habitat Alteration ...... 112 Effects of Road Construction ...... 113 Longer Term Changes ...... 114
Literature Cited ...... 118 Appendix I - Study Site Selection Criteria ...... 122 Appendix II - Conversion Factors for Determining Useable Weights ...... 124
Appendix III - Random Survey Questionnaire ...... 126
ii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map of Southeastern Alaska and Study Communities ...... 2
Figure 2 Resource use areas in examined in 1985 survey of Tenakee households ...... 11
Figure 3 Land ownership, City of Tenakee Springs ...... 17 Figure 4 US Forest Service Land Use Designations for Tenakee Inlet ...... 18
Figure 5 Population profile, Tenakee, 1920-1984 ...... - 20
Figure 6 Age profile, Tenakee 1985 survey ...... 22 Figure 7 Age by 10 Year Increments, Tenakee, 1985 survey ...... *...... 23 Figure 8 Household size, 1985 Tenakee Survey (N= 24 households, 48 people; mean household size= 2.0) ...... 25 Figure 9 Years Residency in Tenakee by the Oldest Residing Member of each Household, 1985 survey (N= 24 households) ...... 26 Figure 10 Household Gross Income, Tenakee 1985 survey (based on 19 households) ...... 29 Figure 11 Household Income by Income Source, Tenakee 1985 survey ...... 30
Figure 12 Tenakee Inlet Timber Harvest History ...... 36 Figure 13 Seasonal Round of Resource Harvests by Residents of Tenakee ...... 42 Figure 14 Household Participation in Using and Harvesting 8 Resource Categories, Tenakee, 1984 (N- 24 households)...... 48 Figure 15 Household Participation in Using and Harvesting the 10 Most Used Resource Types, Tenakee, 1984 (N= 24 households) ...... *...... 50 Figure 16 Percent of Households Harvesting Multiple Resource Types (breadth of resource harvest), Tenakee, 1984...... 51 Figure 17 Mean Household Harvest (lbs. per household) for 8 Resource Categories, Tenakee, 1984...... 53 Figure 18 HouseholdHarvest Compositionby Weight,Tenakee, 1984...... 54
iii Figure 19 Household harvest Contribution by Land and Marine Resources, Tenakee, 1984 ...... *...... 55
Figure 20 Percent of Deer Harvested by Habitat Type in 1983 and 1984 (1983 N= 55, 1984 N= 39) ...... s...... 61
Figure 21 Number of Deer Harvested per Household, 1983 and 1984, Tenakee ...... 63
Figure 22 Household Salmon Harvest (mean pounds per household), by Species and Gear Type, Tenakee, 1984...... 66
Figure 23 Mode of Transportation Owned and Used for Resource Harvesting by Tenakee Households, 1984 (N= 24) ...... 72
Figure 24 Areas Used for Intertidal Harvesting During the Lifetimes of Tenakee Key Respondents ...... 75 Figure 25 Areas Used for Salmon Fishing During the Lifetimes of Tenakee Key Respondents ...... *...... 76
Figure 26 Areas Used for Deer Hunting During the Lifetimes of Tenakee Key Respondents ...... 77
Figure 27 Areas Used for Trapping During the Lifetimes of Tenakee Key Respondents ...... 78 Figure 28 Areas used for Waterfowl Hunting During the Lifetimes of Tenakee Key Respondents ...... 79 Figure 29 Household Participation in Receiving and Giving Eight Resource Categories (N= 24) ...... 81
Figure 30 Percent of Active Tenakee Hunters Using Case Study Areas by Years, 1960-1984 ...... ~ 87 Figure 31 Percent of Active Tenakee Deer Hunters Using the Beach Fringe and Roaded Areas in Indian River, Corner Bay and South Passage Point in the 196Os, 197Os, and 1980s...... 88 Figure 32 Mean, Minimum and Maximum Age of Users of Case Study areas, 1960- 1984...... 101
iv LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Sample Characteristics, 1985 Tenakee Random Survey ...... 24 Table 2 Household Use, Harvest, Giving and Receiving of Fish and Wildlife Resources by Random Survey Households, Tenakee 1984...... 45
Table 3 Resource Harvests of Nine Key Respondent Households, Tenakee 1984...... 57
Table 4 Total Household Harvest of Wild Resources (Ibs per HH) by Sampled and Key Respondent Households, Tenakee 1984...... 59 Table 5 1983 and 1984 Deer Harvest by Tenakee Households (Based on a 1984 Survey of 24 Households) ...... 62
Table 6 1984 Basket Bay Subsistence Salmon Permits by Residence of Applicant ...... 68
Table 7 Deer Harvests in Tenakee Inlet by Residency of Hunter, 1980, 1982, 1983...... 84 Table 8 Percent of Active Hunters Using Indian River, Corner Bay, S. Passage Point, from 196Os-1980s...... 94 Table 9 Percent of Households Using 10 Resource Categories in 1984 in Four Southeast Alaska Communities ...... 108
Table 10 Timber Harvest Summary and Predicted Decline in Deer Population for Tenakee Inlet VCUs ...... 115
V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to express our appreciation to the residents of Tenakee Springs who contributed their time and knowledge to make this report possible. In particular, Neil Carter, Diane Ziel, Don See, Ray Paddock, and Dermott O’Toole gave most generously of their time.
Our thanks are also extended to Rob Bosworth and Matt Kirchhoff of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game for their aid in the preparation of the report. Partial funding for this project, and technical review of the draft report, were provided by the U.S. Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, in Juneau,
Alaska. Dr. Robert Muth, of the USFSL, was particularly helpful in the design and administration of the project.
vi STUDY BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This report is part of an on-going project entitled Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast Alaska Communities, conducted by the Southeast Region, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. The aim of this project is to obtain baseline information on subsistence harvest and use of fish and wildlife resources, and to investigate the effects of timber harvesting on the uses of these resources in a sample of southeast Alaska communities. Major research questions concern the nature of the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions created by logging activities that may affect fish and wildlife uses in local communities, and the kinds of changes in community resource use patterns that may result from these conditions. Study communities. in the first phase of research are Klawock, Yakutat, Angoon, and Tenakee Springs (see Figure 1). These communities have been chosen because of their contrasting histories of involvement with the timber industry and because they represent examples of the kinds of small and medium sized settlements existing in southeast Alaska today.
Tenakee Springs (hereafter referred to as “Tenakee”) on Chichagof Island was selected as an example of a small, rural community with a predominantly non-
Native population which has experienced a moderate level of timber harvesting activity in its resource use area. Criteria for study site selection are found in
Appendix I, which is taken from the original research design for the project.
Originally a Tlingit winter village, Tenakee became settled by miners seeking respite from the harsh northern winters during the Alaska and Yukon
1 I I
d Yakutatl ‘1 c
c
Fig. 1. Map of southeast Alaska and study communities
2 processing businesses operated out of the area and the population grew to
approximately 400. Sporadic highgrade timber harvesting occurred along the
shores of Tenakee Inlet from about 1910 until the 196Os, when Alaska Pulp Company began large-scale timber harvesting in several drainages adjacent to or near the town. Today, Tenakee is a quiet community of about 140 residents, many of whom are retired. Younger families are also moving in, attracted by the slower pace of life and opportunities for “living off the land.” As documented in this report, natural resource harvesting currently plays a significant role in the overall Tenakee economy, and is engaged in throughout the year by a majority of residents.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
This report has two major purposes: 1. Present descriptive information on contemporary fish and wildlife use patterns by Tenakee residents, useful for land use planning and resource allocation decisions.
2. Analyze the relationships between the patterns of fish and wildlife uses in Tenakee and the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions created by the development of the timber industry.
Specific objectives accomplished by the research include:
1. Descriptions of current patterns of resource use in Tenakee, including: a. Seasonal rounds of harvest activities (timing and species); b. Estimates of levels of household participation in resource harvesting activities; c. Estimates of levels of harvest quantities of fish and game resources; d. Types of equipment and methods used in resource harvesting; e. Maps of geographic areas used for resource harvesting, by species or resource categories;
3 f. Relationships between commercial-wage activities and wild resource uses.
2. A compilation of data on current demographic and socioeconomic conditions in Tenakee, including population, household size, employment, age, gender, ethnicity, and length of residency. 3. Descriptions of past and contemporary development of the timber industry.
4. An evaluation of relationships between conditions created by timber harvesting and community hunting, fishing, and gathering patterns.
METHODOLOGY
This report is based on fieldwork .conducted in Tenakee between December
1984 to March 1985. The research project was conducted by one Fish and Game
Technician III with assistance from a graduate student intern. In December, 1984, contact was made with the city clerk and chairman of the local Fish and Game Advisory Committee who arranged a public meeting to discuss the possibility of Subsistence Division research being conducted in Tenakee. The community was receptive and supportive of the project. The basic methodology, described below, consisted of a literature review followed by interviews and resource use area mapping sessions with selected active harvesters in the community, followed by administration of a detailed survey to a random sample of 50 percent of the year-round households. This combination of methods provided a means of cross-checking the results. Also, both researchers spent significant amounts of time in Tenakee both before and during actual fieldwork and came to know the community quite well. Informal contacts and participant observation helped researchers understand both community dynamics and fish and game harvesting patterns.
4 Literature Review This project began with a review of the literature that is relevant to the
subject of aboriginal occupation and settlement of the Pacific Northwest, especially
southeast Alaska, and the economics of hunter-gatherer societies generally.
Important sources included Dimitrov (1984), Krieger (1927), Krause (1956), Niblack
(1980), Oberg (1973), Olson (1967), Petroff (1884), Sahlins (1972), Salisbury (1962),
and Swanton (1908). This was followed by a review of information more directly related to the history and settlement of Tenakee Springs, described below. The
issues related to timber harvest economics, assessment of timber harvest-related
impacts, and the socioeconomic implications of timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest were explored with the aid of literature from both the U. S. and Canada, including Harris and. Farr (1974), Schoen et al. (1981), Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau (1984), B.C. Forest Service (1983), Bunnell (1981), Bunnell et
al. (1984), Doyle et al. (1984), Gates (1962), Herbert (n.d.), McNay et al. (1984), Willms (197 1).
Although the community of Tenakee has not been as extensively studied as some others in southeast Alaska, several documents provided useful background information. Both DeLaguna (1960) and Goldschmidt and Haas (1946) mention past use and occupancy of Tenakee Inlet by several Tlingit groups, and these sources
provided background material for the history section of Chapter 2. In 1975 the
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs published a study titled
The Socio-Economic Imnlications of Loanina Ooerations on Tenakee Sorinas. and
Tenakee Inlet. Alaska. This report was the first to document subsistence use of Tenakee Inlet by residents of Tenakee, and to address the potential conflicts between these activities, commercial fishing, recreational fishing and hunting, and the development of logging activities. Portions of that study are referenced in this
5 report, including sections on community history, timber harvest history, deer harvest statistics, fishing and crabbing activities, and background information on the Hoonah-Tenakee road connection issue. The Department of Community and
Regional Affairs’ 1984 publication, Tenakee Springs Communitv Plan, presents information on the recent history, demography, and economy of the community.
Kev Resnondent Interview and hhDDinR Initial visits to Tenakee during December 1984 led to the identification of 11 particularly active resource harvesters in the community. While the ages of the respondents varied, all but one had lived in Tenakee for over ten years, with several having hunting and fishing experience dating back to the 1930s. On the average, about 10 hours were spent with each key respondent, conducting semi- structured interviews. It is important to note that key respondents were not chosen solely on the basis of current resource harvesting activities. An active harvesting history spanning at least 10 years of residency in Tenakee was a more important selection criterion than current levels of harvest. Thus several of the key respondents were older residents who were not currently as active in resource harvesting as they had been in past years (see Chapter 4).
The key respondent interview utilized an open ended questionnaire which included three parts: 1) an auto-biographical or personal history of the individual;
2) employment history; and 3) a history of resource harvest in the region. The lengthy key respondent interview sessions were conducted to provide both 1) non- parametric data and 2) some estimates of quantitative data not availabIe from other sources. Non-parametric data include information about specific events in Tenakee’s recent history, personal accounts of subsistence harvesting activity, descriptions of areas used for subsistence harvesting, accounts of harvest methods
6 used, descriptions of seasonal rounds of harvesting activity, and similar types of data. Key respondent interviews are a primary method for gathering this type of information, which may not be available from other sources.
Key respondents also provided important quantitative estimates on diachronic changes in harvest success, harvest levels, subsistence harvest composition, seasonal rounds, relative abundance of harvestable species, and similar data.
Mapping of resource harvest areas used by key respondents over their lifetimes was conducted as part of the interview sessions.. InitiaHy, mapping was accomplished at a scale of 1:63,360. These detailed maps were later converted to a scale of 1:250,000 for the purpose of illustrating community-wide harvest patterns and for comparison with other maps showing the timber management history of the area.
Mapping each key respondent’s lifetime resource use areas was performed according to the methodology first used by Freeman in Canada’s Northwest Territories (Freeman 1976). Each key respondent was asked to record on a map the areas used during their lifetime for the harvest of deer, salmon, furbearers, intertidal species, waterfowl, and seal. Each resource category received a different colored marking. Time series information was recorded in notes during each mapping session. The result of each session was a “map biography” of the lifetime use areas for resource harvesting of each key respondent. The use areas for each resource category were then aggregated for all eleven individuals, both to protect the confidentiality of individual use areas, and to provide a community-wide picture of harvest geography. During a two-day open house, and subsequent City
Council contacts, community members were encouraged via public notice and word of mouth to stop in and review the composite maps for completeness. No new use areas were identified during the public review.
7 The final maps (Figures 24-28) represent an estimate of the area1 extent of land and water used for resource harvesting by Tenakee residents. A major assumption of this mapping methodology is that information on the geography of resource harvesting by the community’s most active resource harvesters can be generalized to the community level. In this study, the 11 key respondents represented 8 percent of all individuals in Tenakee. The process of community validation of the maps provides the best assurance possible that they accurately depict community harvest areas.
R1 Based on key respondent information from Tenakee and the other study communities, a survey instrument was developed with technical assistance from the
USFS Forestry Sciences Laboratory (Appendix III). The survey was designed to collect information from households in Tenakee on the 1984 harvest, use, distribution and exchange of resources; the area1 extent of harvest activities over time; household demography; and household economic characteristics. The Tenakee city clerk identified and confirmed 47 permanent households in Tenakee as of January, 1985, and a total Tenakee population of 100. Several households that had previously been considered as part of the community’s population were absent from town during the winter for a variety of reasons. Structures not considered permanent households were vacation homes, vacated buildings, community buildings and private businesses.. The survey was administered to a random sample of 24 households, or 50 percent of the total households residing at that time in Tenakee. The sampled households contained 48 people, or 48 percent of the population, equally divided between males and females. Seven alternate households were later included in the
8 sample when some of those initially selected were found to be unavailable. Included in this random selection were 6 of the 11 key respondent households. During the random household surveys, information on deer harvests was gathered for two years, 1983 and 1984. This was because the 1984 hunting season was severely restricted in Tenakee due to major damage incurred to boats and
property during the Thanksgiving Day storm that year. Community members
stated that the 1983 deer harvests were more representative of the community’s normal patterns. In this report, these deer harvest data as well as those gathered with annual harvest ticket surveys are clearly identified by year and source.
The survey asked questions on 19 individual geographic areas used for
resource harvesting, shown in Figure 2. These areas were delineated based on key
respondent information and from informal personal contact with community members. Respondents were asked to indicate the years when they had used each area for hunting, fishing and gathering. These questions about specific geographic units enabled collection of information on changes in resource use areas over time.
Additional detailed information was collected on four of these areas: Indian Riv.er,
Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit, Corner Bay, and South Passage Point. These areas were chosen to represent a spectrum of timber harvest histories in places traditionally and currently used for subsistence by Tenakee residents.
Verification and Limitations of Findings
Composite maps of resource use areas from the key respondent mapping
sessions were verified for accuracy during a two-day review period held in
Tenakee in July of 1985. During the review period, many Tenakee residents who had not participated in the original mapping sessions had the opportunity to
determine whether the maps were consistent with their own experience and
knowledge. Although some minor boundary adjustments were made at this time, no
9 new areas for resource harvesting within Tenakee Inlet were identified. This suggests that the area1 extent of use maps derived from key respondents may be relatively complete.
A draft copy of this report was circulated to the local Fish and Game
Advisory Committee, the local Natural Resource Committee, the City Council, U.S.
Forest Service and interested individuals. The U.S. Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, coordinated an external technical review of the draft report, which resulted in many helpful comments and suggestions that were incorporated into the final report.
It is not intended that information gathered on one half of the Tenakee households for a one year period can be used to generalize all subsistence activities for the entire community over time. Participation levels and quantities harvested may vary each year. In general, it is likely that the harvest quantities and household participation rates listed in this report are conservative estimates of community averages. For instance, use of pink and chum salmon was not reported by any surveyed households, but is known to occur by some households, in the community. In addition, deer hunting and winter crabbing activities were sharply curtailed in 1984 due to the Thanksgiving Day storm in Tenakee, which destroyed many boats and homes. For example, the 1984 harvest of 39 deer for the 24 households surveyed was 41 percent lower than the 1983 harvest of 55 deer. Thus, if there is a systematic bias in the 1984 data, it is probably toward an underestimate of the community’s resource use patterns. . (u
11 CHAPTER 2
TENAKEE SPRINGS AND ENVIRONMENT
PHYSICAL SETTING
Tenakee is located on the north shore of Tenakee Inlet on east Chichagof
Island (Figure 1). Tenakee is one of three incorporated communities on the island, the others being Hoonah and Pelican. It is the only community on Tenakee Inlet. Tenakee is 52 air miles from Juneau to the northeast, 24 air miles from Hoonah to the north, and 34 air miles from Angoon to the east. Chichagof Island is the second largest island (after Prince of Wales Island) in the Alexander Archipelago, the 66 island chain extending 280 miles through southeast Alaska. Chichagof has 742 miles of coastline, and covers 2,104 square miles (Alaska Geographic, 1978).
Tenakee Inlet provides the main focus of resource gathering activity for both residents and visitors to Tenakee. The Inlet is 35 miles long and between three to four miles wide, with the community of Tenakee situated 10 miles from the entrance of the Inlet at Chatham Strait. The north shore is fairly straight and backed by steep forested slopes rising to a 3,000-4,000 foot high ridge of mountains. Indian River, the largest watershed on this side of the Inlet, drains a long and low valley behind town, and empties into the Inlet about one mile east of town. By contrast, the south shore of the Inlet contains 10 major bays and several smaller ones. Each of these bays is headed by a river or creek of varying size, with associated tidal flats, estuaries and meadows (Figure 2).
Both shores of Tenakee Inlet are characterized by mature western hemlock and Sitka spruce forests up to timberline at about 1,500 feet. The area’s old growth forests provide habitat for a number of bird and animal species, including deer, brown bear, bald eagles, marten and other furbearers. Similarly, the
12 intertidal estuaries and offshore waters of the Inlet sustain abundant populations of waterfowl, marine invertebrates and fish, of which dungeness crab, various shellfish, halibut and salmon figure most importantly as food resources. Streams in the Inlet are spawning grounds for pink, chum, and coho salmon. The pink salmon run at Kadashan Creek is considered one of the most important such runs in the northern Panhandle. King salmon are occasionally taken in the Inlet, but do not spawn in local rivers. Sockeye salmon are also fished outside of the Inlet in Basket Bay and Freshwater Bay, where they are the focus of a substantial subsistence fishery.
As. in other island-based communities in the northern Panhandle, Tenakee’s climate is characterized by cool summers, mild winters, and substantial rain and snow. From 1969 to 1979 annual precipitation averaged 66 inches, and snowfall averaged 124 inches per year. Winds are usually from the southeast, and are generally mild inside Tenakee Inlet. However, the town is exposed to strong winter storms which regularly restrict small boat activity in the Inlet. A major storm damaged the boat .harbor in 1976. The “Thanksgiving Day Storm” of 1984 destroyed over 15 homes and buildings on Tenakee’s waterfront, and resulted in the loss of 30 boats. Although major storms of this magnitude are infrequent, strong southerly prevailing winds combined with a long fetch in Chatham Strait greatly restrict small boat movement outside of Tenakee Inlet throughout the year.
The community of Tenakee is situated along a single trail that parallels the shore for approximately ten miles. While most homes are concentrated along the two-mile stretch of trail in the center of town, other homes are situated along the full length of the trail. Most homes are built on pilings over the beach, although in recent years the inland side of the trail has been developed for homes and other buildings. Since the town is backed by a steeply-sloping hillside, expansion is
13 occurring through extension of the trail in both directions. Due to this geography, Tenakee remains a strictly shoreside community.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Tenakee Inlet has long been used by the Tlingit people. “Tenakee” is derived from the Tlingit language, and has been interpreted to mean either “twin cities” or “bay on the other side.” The original winter village site was located in the vicinity of the present day boat harbor, with a summer village site across the
Inlet at Kadashan Bay. Tenakee Inlet was originally owned by the Decitan tribe, who ceded the region to the Woosh Ki Taan in settlement for a murder (Goldschmidt and Haas, 1946). The hot springs at Tenakee was called “Daay Axa” and the name for Indian River was “Klaa Gu Woo Aan Heen.”
The site of the present day 100 yard portage between the head of Tenakee
Inlet and Port Frederick was frequently traveled by the Tlingit. The name and legends surrounding the portage, called Kitgunt or “killer whale crossing,” indicates this thin neck of land may have been almost submerged in earlier times. The Basket Bay area was also heavily used by the Tlingit, being owned by an Angoon branch of the Decitan. A village site, the remains of several smokehouses, and numerous legends are testimony to the rich historic use of Basket Bay, a use which continues today. In the early 18OOs,prospectors and miners in the region came to the village to wait out the cold winter months and take advantage of the hot springs. Local legend attributes Tenakee’s first non-Native resident to be an injured Finnish sailor, left behind by his shipmates to rest for the winter. Healed by the hot springs, this Finn reportedly chose not to leave when this ship returned for him the following spring. The hot springs attracted further growth until the community.
14 became a winter resort town for miners throughout Alaska and the Yukon, complete with pool hall and card rooms. Life in the frontier town of Tenakee was at times rough and unlawful, with the community at one point earning the nickname of “Robber’s Roost” (DCRA 1984). In 1895, the springs were enlarged by blasting the rock to form a large tub, and today remain a public bathhouse, a community attraction for visitors, and an important part of the town’s social life.
Various salmon and crab canneries operated in the Tenakee region from as early as 1916 until 1974. Today all that remain are empty buildings and stories of the large population that once served these canneries. Following closure of the Columbia Salmon Company cannery in 1929, the population declined from a high of about 400 residents to an estimated 300. With the closing of the Superior
Cannery in 1953, the last major wage employer in Tenakee disappeared. The community became known as a pleasant retirement community for the core of older residents who remained. Continued population decline resulted in a 1980 census population of 138. Recently, however, the retirement community image may be changing somewhat, as younger families have moved to Tenakee attracted to its quiet pace of life and opportunities for a lifestyle based on subsistence, gardening, and cottage crafts. Tenakee’s municipal services are largely undeveloped. There is no community water or sewer system. Most residents draw their own water from nearby streams. Outhouses are positioned on pilings over the beach, where strong tidal action removes all wastes. Cans are gathered for recycling, and other garbage is burned and then left on the beach to be disposed of by the next high tide. Some aspects of the community infrastructure are, however, becoming increasingly modernized. Telephone lines are now available to homes in the city center, and the 2 generator diesel powerhouse built in 1981 now provides electric power to the core of the community. Although firewood is available in the inlet, substantial effort is
15 required to get the wood to a residence and so oil stoves predominate as the winter heat source. The community is serviced by a floatplane dock, helicopter pad, and by the State of Alaska Marine Highway system. Ferries arrive once or twice a week in Tenakee, and are an important means of bringing supplies into the town. Since there is still no road in Tenakee outside of the central trail, the ferry dock is limited to the unloading of supplies and foot passengers only, not vehicles. Heavy supplies are usually then loaded into skiffs, hand carts or onto small trailers hauled behind 3-wheeled all-terrain vehicles. Barge service from Seattle, several
times a year, also accommodates a large volume of freight.
LAND STATUS
Figure 3 shows the approximate land ownership boundaries and status of
the municipality of Tenakee and surrounding lands in Tenakee Inlet. The municipality consists of 7,280 acres of uplands, of which 41 percent are owned by the City of Tenakee Springs, 40 percent by the federal government as Tongass
National Forest LUD III lands, 14 percent by the State of Alaska, and 5 percent in
private ownership (DCRA 1984).
Lands outside the municipality in Tenakee Inlet are part of the Tongass National Forest, and are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. The Tongass Land Management Plan of 1979 set the general
management objective for all Tongass lands for the next decade. The “Land Use
Designations,” or LUDs, for Tenakee Inlet are shown in Figure 4. The four
categories of land use are wilderness (LUD I), roadless (LUD II), multiple use, including roads, timber harvest and recreational development (LUD III), and intensive timber harvest (LUD IV). With the exception of Long and Seal Bays, all of the shore and associated uplands of Tenakee Inlet have received LUD III-IV
16 (~86~ vma) s6uWs aaypua& 30 ~57~3 'd-gsraumo pue~ -E -6r~
NOIlXl3S ...... 31VlS LL6L -11-11MVQNfI08 AlI3 I iv243033 m 31VlS All3
31VAlIld 18 designations and are to be managed for eventual timber harvest. More specifically, areas receiving the most intensive focus on timber harvest (LUD IV) are Trap, Corner, Crab, and Saltery bays and much of the northern shoreline of the Inlet. Areas receiving the multiple use designation (LUD III) are the Kadashan River drainage, the three Goose Flats and northwestern corner of the Inlet, and the shoreline east and west of Tenakee including the Indian River drainage behind town. The Tongass Land Management Plan is due to be revised in 1989 for the next ten year period. In 1983 the Alaska Department of Fish and Game classified all lands on the
Tongass National Forest according to their value for fish and wildlife habitat.
Two areas in Tenakee Inlet received the Class 1 highest valuation: the Kadashan
River drainage and estuary, and the Indian River drainage plus associated shorelands on each side of town.
DEMOGRAPHY
The population of Tenakee has gone through large fluctuations in its 100 year history as a non-Tlingit community. Figure 5 shows a 1920 population of about 400 residents shrank with the decline of the commercial fish processing plants to a 1970 low of only 86 residents. Growth during the next decade resulted in a 1980 Census population of 138 (DCRA 1984).
The age structure of Tenakee changed significantly during the past decade as measured by the U.S. Census. Between 1970 and 1980 the median age for men fell from 59.6 years to 31.5 years, and for women from 54 years to 38.3 (DCRA 1984). The population 19 years and younger grew by 169 percent in that period, whereas the over 55 cohort declined by 4 percent. Thus the 1970 age structure, characterized by half. the population being over the age of 50 and very few
19 20 children or women in child-bearing years, changed to a more stable structure in
1980 in which there were proportionately more children, more couples in their 20s
and 3Os, and fewer retirement-aged people. The July, 1984 census conducted by the City of Tenakee Springs reported a population of 144, with an average of 1.9 persons occupying a total of 77
households. Six months later, during the Division of Subsistence research in January, 1985, the City Clerk helped identify 47 currently-occupied households,
with a total population of 100. There are several reasons for the apparent decline
in population. The City Clerk of Tenakee Springs states that the population, as in many southeast Alaska communities, regularly undergoes wide fluctuations. This occurs primarily between winter and summer months due to changing economic opportunities and a variety of miscellaneous factors. The Thanksgiving Day storm
of 1984, just two months before the Division of Subsistence conducted its
population survey, destroyed many homes and resulted in several families
temporarily relocating outside of Tenakee. Tenakee’s year-round population may also be in actual decline again. Local employment opportunities in logging have become non-existent, and several logging families have moved out of town. The
Tenakee commercial fishing fleet has also declined, and even those commercial fishermen remaining conduct most of their fishing away from Tenakee Inlet. Once
again it appears that older residents remain the core of Tenakee’s population base. However, given the high degree of variability in Tenakee’s population from one season and year to the next, no firm conclusions can be made about recent population trends,
Demographic information on the sample population participating in the
1985 random survey is summarized in Table 1. A total of 48 persons, or 48 percent of the 100 resident population at that time, were included in the survey of 24 randomly selected households which had an average of 2.0 people per household.
21 22 4 .
23 Of these 48 people, 4 (8 percent) were Tlingit, 41 (85 percent) were Caucasian, and
3 (6 percent) were Filipino. Males and females were equally represented with 24 each. Ages ranged from 2 to 93 years, with a median age of 60 (Figures 6 and 7).
Table 1. Sample Characteristics, 1985 Tenakee Random Survey.
For all individuals: Number Number Mean Mean Median Numbr Households Household Household Residency Age Native Surveyed Members Size (Years) Hshlds 24 48 2.0 13.6 60 4
Compared to the 1980 U.S. Census, the 1985 sample population (extrapolated to 100 residents) had 24 fewer males and 18 fewer females, 22 ‘of whom were in the 25-34 age cohort. Nineteen fewer people were in the under 24 age cohort, while 9 more people were in the over 65 bracket. Thus the 1985 population was both significantly smaller and older than that recorded in the 1980 census.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of people among the 24 households sampled in 1985. There were 9 single-occupant households, 12 households with 2 people each, and one household each with 4, 5, and 6 people. The lack of households with children is suggested by these figures. The average length of residency for the longest residing member of each household is sixteen years (Figure 9). Twenty-seven percent of household members previously resided in the lower 48 states, 29 percent in Juneau, and the remaining
44 percent previously resided elsewhere in Alaska. Seventy-one percent of all household members were born in the lower 48, 8 percent were born in Tenakee, and 19 percent were born elsewhere in southeast Alaska.
24 N
w 0
b
. .
m b--
ol CL
h, . 0 V .
25 30
25
20
Percent of Households l5
I 10
5
0 -r 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50 and over Years in Residence
Figure 9. Years Residency in Tenakee by the Oldest Residing Member of Each Household, 1985 Survey (N = 24 households). Tenakee Springs displays an unusual demographic pattern for Alaska communities. It is characterized by a large elderly segment of the community (52 percent of the 1985 population 60 years of age or older), and a more recently-
arriving younger segment (25 percent between ages 20-39) with children (18 percent
under age 20). The middle age ranges are almost entirely lacking (4 percent
between ages 40-59). Mean household size is 2.0, compared to the average for the
region of 3.0 people per household. Differences between the 1970 and 1980 federal census figures, the 1984 City census, and the 1985 Division of Subsistence survey suggest that the population profile of Tenakee is dynamic and subject to rapid change. However, the predominant characteristic of Tenakee Springs as an
isolated, rural retirement community has not changed over the last few decades.
27 CHAPTER 3
THE TENAKEE SPRINGS ECONOMY: CASH SECTOR
Tenakee’s economy is based on a combination of cash income and the harvest of wild resources for home use. This chapter presents information on household earnings from commercial employment and transfer payments, from the 1985 household survey. Chapter 4 describes the subsistence portion of the community’s economy.
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
The 1980 census reported a mean household income in Tenakee of $13,243 for 1979, and a median household income of $9,583. For survey. respondents, the
1984 median income was $10,000 and the mean was $14,999, indicating a slight increase over 1980 levels. Household income ranges are shown in Figure 10. These estimates are based on a sample of 19 households (not all survey respondents answered this question).
Household income by income source is shown in Figure 11 (also based on a sample of 19 households). The largest proportion of income in 1984 came from transfer payments (42 percent), followed by government employment (24 percent), fishing (12 percent), construction (11 percent), logging (6 percent) and “other” (largely various types of small-scale private enterprise). Transfer payments include money received from retirement and unemployment benefits, social security, food stamps, and aid to families with dependent children. Government employment includes federal, state and city government, and the school district. Sixty-three percent of the sampled households received income from transfer payments in 1984, while 53 percent of households received income from government
28 *(spIoyasnoy 6~: uo paseq) llanms 936~: aayeua;L 'auo3uI ~~0x3 pIoyasnoH -07: am6-cd
[s~e~~op 40 spuesnoqi) aUo3uI ssoJg 09 JaAOW-9 PP-OP6E-SE WOE 6%Pi? PZ-02 61-G I+01 6-G P-O
01 sploqasnoH ~0 quawad t 70- 63 r q Percent of 60I- Households Deriving Income 50I- q Percent of Total HousehoId Income 40 Percent of Households 30 0" 26
20
10
0 -I- T Transfer Government Fishing Construction Logging Other IncomeSource
Figure 11. Household Income by Income Source, Tenakee 1985 Survey. employment. Fishing, construction, and logging provided income to 21 percent, 21 percent and 11 percent of the households, respectively, whereas miscellaneous “other” income was somewhat more widely distributed among 26 percent of the households.
These figures point to several major characteristics of Tenakee’s cash economy. The majority of Tenakee households rely on transfer payments, often in combination with some type of employment, for the major share of their yearly income. Fishing, construction, and logging jobs each provide income for less than one quarter of the households and altogether provide roughly 29 percent of the total community income. Small-scale private enterprise and other miscellaneous income contributed only 5 percent of community income which was distributed among one quarter of all households.
Government-related employment provided the most earned income and the most job opportunities to the sampled households in 1984. Of the 10 households reporting income from government-related work in 1984, the percent this income contributed to total household earnings was one household each at 5 percent, 30 percent, 33 percent and 34 percent, and three households each at 50 percent and 66 percent. Thus, of all households surveyed, government employment contributed no more than two thirds of total household earnings for any one household. Transfer payments, on the other hand, which were received by 12 of the 19 households reporting income information for 1984, accounted for 100 percent of earnings for three of the households, and for 50 percent or more of total earnings for another six households. Therefore, of the 19 households, 9 households (or 47 percent) relied on transfer payments for at least one half of their total earnings. Employment in commercial fishing in the Tenakee area has fluctuated greatly in recent years. For example, in 1974 nine salmon hand troll permits were owned by Tenakee residents as compared to eighteen in 1984, three of which were
31 fished that year. In all, 51 permits were owned in 1984 by 30 Tenakee residents.
Twenty permits were fished by Tenakee residents in 1984: 3 salmon handtroll, 2 salmon power troll, 1 miscellaneous finfish handtroll, 1 Bristol Bay gillnet, 8 halibut longline, 2 dungeness crab, 2 king crab, and 1 tanner crab. The 20 permits were fished by 12 Tenakee residents, yielding an estimated gross earnings of
$274,375, or $22,865 gross per fishing resident (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission statistics).
In the 1985 random survey, five households trolled commercially for salmon in 1984. Most of their fishing was done outside of Tenakee Inlet. Of these five households, one reported earning 90 percent of its household’s total annual income from commercial fishing, two reported 50 percent, and one reported earning 34 percent from fishing. The fifth declined to provide income information. Reasons stated locally for fishing outside of Tenakee Inlet were the lack of a buying facility and a decline in available salmon. This decline is locally attributed to an increase in seining in the inlet, which takes place by “outside” vessels. This led the
City Council in 1978 and 1981 to pass resolutions requesting a closure of commercial seining in Tenakee Inlet. The Commercial Fisheries Division of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has established a closed commercial zone for the waters of Tenakee Inlet west of Corner Bay, The zone is usually opened to commercial fishing one to three weeks each summer as deemed appropriate by the
Department. Even during closed periods inside the Inlet, key respondents reported that the narrow entrance to Tenakee Inlet outside the closed zone is sometimes so crowded with commercial seine boats that local fishermen have difficulty avoiding the nets when entering Chatham Strait. A marked decrease in the availability of salmon in Tenakee Inlet over the last decade is locally thought to be due to these commercial seining activities in and immediately outside Tenakee
Inlet (see Chapter 4).
32 Logging jobs decreased around Tenakee after the initial logging along
Indian River was finished in the early 1980s. A nearby logging camp at Corner
Bay does not currently employ any Tenakee residents. Some residents have left Tenakee to find jobs in the logging industry. A local sawmill operated off and on until it was destroyed in the 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm. Of the two households reporting income from logging activities in 1984, one earned 70 percent and the other 50 percent of their annual income from logging jobs outside of Tenakee. A more detailed discussion of the logging history of Tenakee Inlet follows below.
Six full-time and six part-time jobs in small business existed in the community in 1984. Four sampled households reported earnings from construction activities which contributed from 34 percent to 70 percent of their total household income in 1984. Of the five households reporting income from “other sources,” the percent contribution of these earnings to total household income ranged from 5 to
50 percent. In addition, a limited number of cottage industry businesses sold such items as eggs, milk, vegetables, and arts and crafts. At present, Tenakee is attracting a few new businesses. A hotel is being built, and more people are doing wood work, carpentry, and various arts and crafts. Also, a few individuals are attempting to diversify the commercial fishing in Tenakee Inlet, exploring possibilities for harvesting shrimp and bottom fish.
HISTORY OF THE TIMBER INDUSTRY IN TENAKEE INLET
Pre-1970 Activitv
Before the 197Os, timber harvesting in the Tenakee area was characterized by small clearcutting and highgrading operations along the shore in which only the highest quality trees were selectively cut and hauled a short distance to the beach for transport by water. According to information compiled by Kirchhoff (1985),
33 the first area to receive any sizable amount of logging was the shoreline near the town of Tenakee, extending west to five mile spit. A thin margin here was first cut in approximately 1915-1919. Other small areas were clearcut in the next two decades in coastal areas on both sides of the town. During this same period timber along the north shore of Tenakee Inlet west of Tenakee for a distance of up to 20 miles from town was high-graded to provide pilings for cannery construction. This logging was accomplished by handloggers, living either in Tenakee or in camps along the Inlet. Harvesting was not regulated at this time, and anybody was free to cut wood for building fish traps, wiers, docks, homes, and other construction purposes.
In the 1950s and 1960s the scale of logging operations increased due to the activities of logging companies in the Inlet. Large areas were cut across the Inlet from Tenakee in Crab, Saltery and Kadashan bays. Timber at the head of Seal Bay was harvested once in 1967. Freshwater Bay north of the Inlet received some cuts between 1959 to 1966. Larger areas of timber were also harvested from the steep hillsides off the beach on the north shore of the Inlet.
Reconstruction of the areas cut and date of cuts by Kirchhoff (1985) are summarized in Figure 12, which depicts the timber harvest areas around Tenakee
Inlet from the early 1900s until 1984 along with their approximate dates. AS shown in the Figure, there were no major roads built in association with the cuts prior to the 1970s.
One key respondent was active in logging this area in the 1960s as an employee of Island Logging Company out of Sitka. He reported that the Sitka pulp mill operated a camp in Tenakee Inlet. The camp consisted of small homes on floats for families and two larger bunkhouses which were all rafted together into one large floating camp and moved from bay to bay. At one time the camp contained about 30 workers, ten of whom lived there with their families. The
34 camp was moored at various times in Saltery Bay, Long Bay (for logging the north shore of the Inlet), and near Tenakee. Life in the floating camp was described as being very enjoyable. Gardens were kept on shore, and the fishing and hunting
were described as excellent. The camp was considered a good environment for
raising children, and high levels of cooperation was reported among residents in
both work and play activities.
By 1970 approximately one half of the north shore of the Inlet, extending from East Point through town to a distance of about 20 miles west of town, had received some degree of timber harvest. Across the Inlet, Seal, Crab, Saltery and
Kadashan Bays had also received limited cutting. The three tidal inlets at the northwest end of Tenakee Inlet (known locally as upper, middle and lower Goose Flats), Long Bay, and Corner Bay had not received any cutting as of 1970. Outside of Tenakee Inlet, isolated spots at the heads of Freshwater, Basket, and Little
Basket Bays had also been subject to timber harvest.
1970 to Present
By the early 1970s the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company was a major
operator in northern Southeast Alaska. The company’s original proposal for its 1976-1981 operating period in the Tenakee area called for a harvest total of 280
million board feet (mmbf) in the following watersheds: Indian River, East Cannery
Cove, Kadashan River, Crab Bay, Trap Bay, Seal Bay, Saltery Bay and Long Bay.
However, public and agency comment received during the early stages of this plan caused the target volume to be reduced to 155 mmbf, and harvest sites were limited to Indian River, East Cannery Cove, 10 Mile Creek, South Crab Bay, Fog Creek, and areas in between (DCRA 1975).
Although the City of Tenakee had been receptive to loggers and logging activity prior to the 197Os, with the arrival of large-scale cutting operations in the
35 ” 1 mid-1970s the mood in town began to change. Several residents protested that
logging activities in Corner Bay were affecting their use of the area. In 1975, the
City Council requested Governor Jay Hammond to investigate the effects of the major industrial timber activities being proposed for the Inlet on the residents of Tenakee. This resulted in the 1975 report by the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, The Socio-Economic Imnlications of Longing Operations on
Tenakee Sorings. and Tenakee Inlet. Alaska. This report was the first to examine
the role of subsistence in the economy of Tenakee. Its calculations showed that the 1973 deer harvest (250 estimated deer for a community population of about 74) contributed food equivalent in value to one half of the total community income.
The report went on to state: “Unlike the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [of
the ALPC 1976-81 Operating Plan], this DeDartment must conclude (as did the
residents of Tenakee) th1 n 1 werin deleterious effects on the Tenakee standard of living” (page 7, original emphasis).
However, the report did commend the decision to maintain a logging camp at Corner Bay rather than establish a new camp near the City, at Indian River. The
report concluded by urging that the Forest Service planning process examine
potential long-term negative impacts on subsistence, commercial and recreational use of fish and wildlife resources by Tenakee residents. Road construction began in Corner Bay in 1973. A logging camp was also established then near the shore of Corner Bay and still serves as the basis of
operations for most timber harvest activity in the Inlet. Six miles of road
construction followed in south Crab Bay and along the Indian River in 1977
(Figure 12). Since then these areas have been the site of clearcut logging
advancing in successive stages up the respective valleys as road building continued. Today, the Indian River valley behind the town of Tenakee is roaded for a
distance of approximately 14 miles, with a spur road heading west around the base
37 of Redwing Mountain for another four to five miles. The road from Corner Bay
up Corner Creek now extends seven miles to connect with Kook Lake (and almost
back to the coast at Basket Bay), with spur roads continuing south into two smaller
watersheds. Several miles of road were built at Inbetween (between Seal and
Saltery Bays) in 1981, where logging was begun in 1986. Further roading and cutting occurred in 1984-1985 at the northeast end of the Inlet along an extension of the Salt Lake Bay logging operation. This road leads from Salt Lake Bay onto
the hillsides above Tenakee Inlet but does not reach tidewater in the Inlet.
According to key respondents, approximately one dozen residents of
Tenakee were employed at the Corner Bay logging camp during the 197Os, some of whom moved across the Inlet to live at the camp. In the late 1970s some workers were boated across the Inlet each day to work on the Indian River road. This road was strongly opposed by the City and some residents in Tenakee, both due to its
proximity to town and the eventuality of its being extended to provide road
connection with Hoonah on the other side of the island. The road connection issue remains a strong point of contention between the City and the Forest Service today, with the City and nearly all residents strongly opposed to completion of the
final few miles of road which would complete the intertie with Hoonah.
The DCRA 1975 report addressed this road issue, stating, “A Tenakee-
Hoonah road connection appears unwarranted, wasteful of public funds and
undesired by a majority of Tenakee residents... Specifically, we recommend that the
Indian River loaaina road network not be converted into an all-weather Permanent hiahwav link between Tenakee Sorinas and Hoonah” (page 12, original emphasis). A logging road was begun up the Kadashan river valley in 1984, but the
Forest Service was enjoined to cease further construction through a temporary injunction issued by the Ninth District Court of Appeals in a case filed by the
City of Tenakee Springs and the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. The legal
38 issue revolves around whether the Forest Service needs to prepare a specific Environmental Impact Statement before it can proceed with roading and logging activity in this area.
As of 1985, logging activity was occurring along the Corner Bay - Kook
Lake road system, the Salt Lake Bay extension, Indian river, and at Inbetween. No
Tenakee residents were employed in logging operations in the Inlet. The Alaska Pulp Company Draft EIS for the 1986-90 operating period is under review, and will determine which areas in Tenakee Inlet will be identified for additional roading and timber harvesting in the next five year period. Identified for harvest
in the Forest Service’s preferred alternative are areas from Trap Bay around So. Passage Point towards Basket Bay, portions of Gypsum, Wukuklook, and Iyouoktug Creeks, and areas along the shore by East Point (Supplemental Draft EIS, 1986) . In summary, from the early 1970s to 1984 logging has been conducted in the
Indian River valley, at East Cannery Point, and in south Crab, Corner, and Basket
Bays (Figure 12). Little or no logging has ever occurred in the three Goose Flats,
or Long, Seal, upper Crab and Trap Bays. Although the north shore of Tenakee
Inlet was the site of logging activity along the beach fringe and adjacent hillsides prior to 1970, no large scale timber harvesting has occurred there recently. In the past 10 years, approximately 40-50 miles of logging roads have been constructed
from the shores of Tenakee Inlet at Indian River, Corner Bay, Kadashan River,
Crab Bay, and Inbetween. As of 1980, 5,287 acres of old growth timber had been harvested in watersheds surrounding Tenakee Inlet (VCUs 219-239) (U.S. Forest Service 1979). This comprised 4.8 percent of the inventoried commercial forest lands in these watersheds, or approximately 9 percent of the 60,105 acres scheduled
for harvest in the next 100 years (Schoen et al. 1985). Whereas small-scale logging
and logging-related employment provided jobs for Tenakee residents from the early
39 1900s to the late 197Os, current industrial logging operations in the Inlet are conducted with little or no employment of Tenakee residents.
40 CHAPTER 4
THE TENAKEE SPRINGS ECONOMY: SUBSISTENCE SECTOR
This chapter describes the non-cash, subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering element of Tenakee’s economy. Detailed information is presented on 1984 household participation rates in subsistence activities and on quantities harvested of 42 resources taken from Tenakee Inlet and surrounding areas.
Information is also summarized on transportation modes used in resource harvesting, the geography of harvest activities, the sharing of resources, and the subsistence use of Tenakee Inlet by residents of other communities.
SEASONAL ROUND OF HARVESTING ACTIVITY
The seasonal round of yearly harvests of subsistence resources by Tenakee residents is shown in Figure 13. This information is based on interviews with three active community harvesters and verified in a later community meeting. The seasonal round is a general representation of Tenakee subsistence activities; however, this information does not reflect all harvesting activities of all residents.
The seasonal round represents the season of harvest of 42 types of subsistence resources used by Tenakee residents. Certain resources are harvested throughout the year, including seal, clams, cockles, chiton, octopus, shrimp, crabs, king salmon, halibut, sea bass, red snapper, and firewood. Thus, fishing, crabbing, and intertidal gathering provide a constant background of activity throughout each month of the year. Winter is characterized by the trapping of land mammals and intertidal gathering and fishing. In the spring, many intertidal resources and land plants are actively gathered. Fishing for dolly varden and cod is added to the on- going harvests of winter fish species. Fishing activity greatly increases in the
41 \ Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Ott Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar
MAMMALS
Deer
Seal
Land Otter
Mink
Weasel
Marten
INTERTIDAL AND OTHER GATHERED RESOURCES
Clams and Cockles
Mussels
Sea Urchins
Chiton
Scallops
octopus
Shrimp
Herring Eggs
Crabs
Kelp
Sea Weed
Berries
Wild Rhubarb
Indian Celery
Ferns
Fig. 13. Seasonal round of resource harvest for Tenakee residents.
42 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Ott Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar - I I I I I I I Roots
Hudson Bay Tea
Goose Tongue
Beach Asparagus
Mushrooms
Firewood
FISH
King Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Chum Salmon
Pink Salmon
Coho Salmon
Halibut Cod I I I I Bass
Dolly Varden
Herring
Red Snapper \
BIRDS
Ducks
Canada Goose
Fig. 13. (continued) Seasonal round of resource harvest for Tenakee residents
43 summer and on into the fall as successive runs of king, chum, coho, pink and sockeye salmon enter Tenakee Inlet and nearby portions of Chatham Strait. By mid-summer, the gathering of land plants is replaced by berry picking, which continues into the early fall. The primary fall activity is deer hunting, with some hunting effort directed toward ducks and Canada geese.
RESOURCE USE AND HARVEST
Qverview of all Resources Table 2 summarizes the harvest quantities and numbers of Tenakee households using, harvesting, giving, and receiving 33 resources in 1984, based on the 1985 random survey of 24 households. A difference between “use” and
“harvest” of resources is made in this table. “Harvest” refers only to the actual taking of a resource (whether or not it is consumed by the harvester), whereas “use” refers to the end use of a resource for consumption as food. Therefore, a household may report “use” of a resource either through harvesting it or receiving, it from others. Figures 14 through 20 are based on information in Table 2. Eleven resources were utilized by half of Tenakee households: king salmon, sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, halibut, red snapper, basket cockles, butter clams, dungeness crab, king crab, deer, and berries. Figure 14 shows that of eight categories of resources, five are used by over 80 percent of all households: shellfish
(including crab, octopus, and shrimp), salmon, other fish, land mammals, and berries/land plants. Marine plants, marine mammals, and birds and eggs were used by a much smaller proportion of households. Figure 14 also shows that of the eight resource categories, berries/plants were harvested by the greatest number of households (83 percent), followed by shellfish (67 percent), salmon (63 percent), other fish (58 percent), land mammals
44 Table 2. Household use, harvest, giving and receiving of fish and wildlife resources by random survey households, Tenakee, 1984 (N = 24).
HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES RESOURCE HARVEST LEVELS
Edible Pounds Percent of Households No. Harvested Edible Pounds Harvested Harvested Using Receiving Giving Harvesting Per Household Harvested Per Household Per Active HH4 CATEGORY MEAN MAX I MUM MEAN MAX TOTAL MEAN #HI-l
NON-COMMERC I AL SALMON King 79 63 13 42 3 35 42 578 1007 101 IO Sockeye 79 46 21 33 15 220 85 1232 2044 256 8 Silver 33 13 4 21 I 7 7 61 157 31 5
SALMON RETAINED FROM COMMERCIAL CATCH King 4 8 * 5 6 83 149 75 2 Sockeye 4 4 * 6 I 34 34 34 I Silver 4 4 * 2 I 17 I7 I7 1 TOTAL SALMON 88 71 38 63 142 1232 3407 227 I5
OTHER FISH Do1 1 y Varden 54 33 8 25 5 40 7 56 171 24 6 Steel hea 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ho01 i gan 4 0 0 4 I I5 I 15 15 15 1 Pac. Herring’, 46 33 8 I3 14 300 I4 300 340 II3 3 Herri ngf Eggs 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Halibut 92 71 33 54 55 500 55 500 1309 101 I3 Red Snapper 54 25 4 29 3 25 8 75 189 27 7 Pacific Cod 4 4 I CATEGORY TOTAL 92 83 46 58 84 931 2024 135 14
Notes: A dash (-) indicates unavailable or missing data, asterisk (*) indicates less than one. i Harvests recorded in pounds. Active Household is one which harvested the species. +l ‘S~a~OIlq UOl[e6 5 U) papJO3aJ SL)SaAJeH 2
*au0 ueyq ssal sawm~pu~ (+) ysbJa3se ‘e3ep 6u~ssy1 JO alqel4eAeun saqe3jpuk (-) ysep V :saqoN
1 081 081 081 8 2 Y 3 EL EL l&X JOq JeH SlVwWVW 3NIMVW
08 08 08 11 LL lV101 AM0331V3 8 J=‘-i?O 08 08 08 tr * tr 8 dta’rl tuna 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 paaheas 43e ~9 'SlNVld 3NltlVW
91 E81 8Z6Z LO61 ZZL L9 8E 6L 96 1VlOl AtlO331V3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El EL 200qmB 23e 1~ Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8E 911 du!Jw - 8 sndoaaD 1 Z Z Z * 1 * ti 0 tr 8 qeJ3 Jauuel f 90s 6LSl ootr 1 f9 ooz 6 EL 4 OS L9 qeJs 6~4~ Zl 86 EL11 SLE 6tl OSL oz OS 62 8s Z6 qeJ3 ssauatjuna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c +I SlItI 13 aS JOH 41 01 9fL 99 9 ff f 8S EL EL LL 3(Ule 13 Ja$Z$nQ 6 11 86 99 11 ff Z 8E ILL 8 OS s 6 ~~303 aayseg Z HSlzlll3HS
Htl# NV3W TdlOl xvw NV3W wnw I xvw NV3W AM033 IV3 HH aA!%+/ Jad ploqasnoH Jad pa$saAJeH ploqasnotj -lad 6U kL)SaAJSH 6U ~A!!-J 6u IA ka3au 6uksn 11 paqsaAJet( pa2saAJeH spunod alq !pg paZ+StiAJeH ‘ON Sp ~Ol(XTlOH JO aUa3Jad spunod a 191~3
Sl3A31 lS3A1VH 33unos3u S31Vtl NOIlVdl3ll~Vd alOH3SnOH
*(I aded panu&wto3) ‘($z = N) *86~ ‘aaqeual ‘SplOqaSnoq r(aAJns UIopueJ Aq Sa3JnoSaJ a4!lpL.IM pue 4si4 40 6ukAia3aJ pue ~IJ!A!~ ‘?saAJeq ‘asn ploqasnoH *I atwi Table 2. Household use, harvest, giving and receiving of fish and wildlife resources by random survey households, Tenakee, 1984 (N = 24), (continued page 3).
HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES RESOURCE HARVEST LEVELS
Edi bl e Pounds Percent of Households No. Harvested Edible Pounds Harvested Harvested Using Receiving Civi ng Harvesting Per Household Harvested Per Household Per Active HH4 CATEGORY MEAN MAX I MUM MEAN MAX TOTAL MEAN #HH
LAND MAMMALS Deer 83 58 42 50 2 16 130 1280 3120 260 12 Moose 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown bear 4 4 0 0 O- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mink 4 0 0 4 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 Marten 4 0 0 4 * 5 0 0 0 0 1 CATEGORY TOTAL 88 63 42 54 130 1280 3120 240 13
BIRDS Canada goose 4 0 0 4 * 1 * 5 5 5 Ducks 4 0 0 4 * 2 * 3 3 3 CATEGORY TOTAL 4 0 0 4 * 8 8 8
PLANTS3AND BERRIES Plants 33 4 0 33 4 28 4 28 83 10 8 Berries3 83 13 25 83 7 50 7 50 158 8 20 CATEGORY TOTAL 83 17 25 83 10 50 241 12 20 --~~ TOTAL ALL RESOURCES 96 92 71 88 499.5 5350 11987 570.9 21
Notes: A dash (-1 indicates unavailable or missing data, asterisk (*) indicates less than one.
3 4 Harvests recorded in quarts. Active Household is one which harvested the species. X R i!
48 (54 percent), and marine mammals, marine plants, and waterfowl (all at 4 percent).
Thus more than one half of Tenakee households engage in the harvest of five broad resource categories.
Figure 15 illustrates use and harvest of the 10 most frequently used resource types (either species or groups of related species). All ten resources are used by over 50 percent of households, indicating that these resources are both generally desired and available. Dungeness crab and halibut are used by virtually all households (92 percent), followed by deer (83 percent), berries (83 percent), king and sockeye salmon (79 percent), clams (71 percent), king crab (67 percent), and
Dolly Varden and red snapper (54 percent).
Figure 15 also shows that all resources except berries are harvested by fewer households than use them (berries are used by the same number of households as use them). In particular, king and sockeye salmon and king crab are harvested by a much smaller number of households than use them, indicating that a relatively few number of harvesters distribute these resources widely throughout the community. The same difference between percentage of households using and harvesting the eight broad resource categories was shown in Figure 14, where roughly 20 to 30 percent fewer households harvest each resource category than use the resources (again, excepting berries). Therefore, harvest figures alone underestimate the percentage of households using resources in Tenakee.
Figure 16 shows the breadth of resource harvest among households, indicated by the number of different resource types harvested by each household.
Thirteen percent of the households harvested no resources at all, 33 percent engaged in the harvest of one to five resource types, and 54 percent of the households harvested between 6- 11 resource types. Therefore, resource harvesting is fairly broadly based among a variety of resources for half the households in
49 OCr EO M-h
50 Harvested no resources (13x1
Har'vested 6-U resources (54x1
Figure 16. Percent of Households Harvesting Multiple Resource Types (breadth of resource harvest), Tenakee 1984. Tenakee, and for approximately another third of the households harvests are limited to a few key resource categories.
Tenakee households harvested a mean of 500 pounds of wild resources per household in 1984 (Table 2). Since the average household size was 2.0 persons, the mean per capita harvest in 1984 was 250 pounds per person. Expanded to the 1984 winter population of about 100 residents, there was a total of approximately 25,000 pounds (12.5 tons) of wild resources harvested by the community of Tenakee
Springs in 1984.
Of all resources, salmon was harvested in the greatest quantity, with a mean household harvest of 142 pounds, or 28 percent of all resources harvested (Fig. 17,
18). Deer (130 lbs) and shellfish (122 lbs) followed, comprising 26 percent and 24 percent of the total harvest. Other fish (84 Ibs) contributed 17 percent of the total pounds harvested, and miscellaneous resources (berries/plants, marine mammals and plants, and birds) together contributed 4 percent.
The information on harvest and use of resources shows substantial use of marine resources by Tenakee residents, especially dungeness crab, halibut, clams and cockles, and king and sockeye salmon. Deer constitute the most widely utilized land resource. Of the total reported harvest, 72 percent was obtained from marine resources and 28 percent from land resources (Figure 19), 93 percent of which was deer. Although these figures substantiate the high degree of dependence of Tenakee harvests on marine resources, in comparison to other southeast communities Tenakee residents obtain a relatively high percent of harvests from the land. Twenty-eight percent of the Tenakee resource harvest was land-based, compared to Angoon (29 percent), Klawock (21 percent), and Yakctat
(19 percent) (Division of Subsistence data files).
52 160 142
100
Mean Pounds e. Harvested
60 u-l W
10 3 1 l- l- 7 -r l- l- “7 Salfflon Deer Shellfish Other Fish Plants, Marine Marine Birds Berries Mammals Plants Resource Category
Figure 17. Mean Household Harvest (pounds per household) for Eight Resource Categories, Tenakee 1984. .
.
54 . 2
55 Kev Resnondent comnared with Random Survev Harvests
Nine of the eleven key respondents responded to the same survey as given
to the random sample of households (the other two key respondents were
unavailable to complete this survey). Mean harvest quantities of individual
resources for these key respondents are listed in Table 3. As might be expected,
key respondents on the average harvested larger quantities of most resources than
did random survey respondents (Table 2), with the exception of pacific herring,
clams, bull kelp, king crab, berries, and all three non-commercial species of salmon
(sockeye, king, and coho).
Table 4 compares the total household harvests of the 24 random survey
households and 9 key respondent households. In the random survey, 3 households
reported no harvests, and 21 households reported harvests ranging from 3 to 5,350
pounds. The range for key respondent households was 183 to 2,473 pounds. Key
respondent households averaged 763 pounds harvested as compared to 500 pounds
per randomly surveyed household. Four of the key respondents had harvests less
than the community average. This suggests that these respondents were considered
experts for their past harvesting activities rather than their 1984 level of harvest.
As shown in Table 4, one household included in the random survey had a
very high harvest of 5,350 pounds of edible resources, representing 45 percent of
the total reported harvest of the entire sample. This multiple-person, non-Native
household participated extensively in the harvesting of salmon and other fish,
dungeness crab, and deer, and was active in sharing and trading many resources
with others, especially senior citizens. Similarly, in the key respondent group,
there were two households which harvested over 1,000 pounds, representing 53
percent of the key respondent’s total output. It is frequently the case in rural communities throughout Alaska that a few active households account for a large
proportion of the community’s total harvest (Wolfe 1987). These highly productive
56 Table 3. Resource Harvests of Nine Key Respondent Households, Tenakee 1984.
Pounds Mean Household Max Household Resource Harvest Harvest
NON-COMMERCIAL SALMON
King 24 83 Sockeye 65 168 Silver 0 0
SALMON RETAINED FROM COMMERCIAL CATCH
King 84 495 Sockeye 4 34 Silver 18 148
OTHER FISH
Dolly Varden 72 280 Steelhea 1 6 f Hooligan 2 15 Pacific Herrfngl 3 30 HerringlEggs 6 55 Halibut 91 400 Red Snapper 14 75 Cod (Ling) 1 5
SHELLFISH
Basket Cocklfs2 4 14 Butter Clams2 5 12 Horse Clams 2 18 Dungeness Crab 89 375 King Crab 5 35 Tanner rab 0 0 f Octopu7 2 15 Shrimp 0 0 Black Gumboot2 1 12
MARINE PLANTS
Black Seayeed2 2 20 Bull Kelp 0 0 Other
Notes: A dash (-> indicates unavailable or missing data. 1 2 Harvests recorded in pounds. Harvests recorded in 5 gallon buckets.
57 Table 3. Resource Harvests of Nine Key Respondent Households, Tenakee 1984 (continued page 2).
Pounds Mean Household Max Household Resource Harvest Harvest
MARINE MAMMALS
Harbor Seal 40 180
LAND MAMMALS
Deer 213 320 Moose 0 0 Brown Bear 0 0 Mink Marten
BIRDS
Canada Goose 2 15 Ducks 2 15
PLANTS AND BERRIES
Plants3 8 28 Berries3 4 16
TOTAL ALL RESOURCES 763 lbs
Notes: A dash (-> indicates unavailable or missing data. 3 Harvests recorded in quarts.
58 Table 4. Total Household Harvest of wild resources (lbs. per HH) by Sampled and Key Respondent Households, Tenakee 1984.
Random Survey Key Respondent Household Pounds Percent of Pounds Percent of Number Harvested Total Harvest Harvested Total Harvest
1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 3 0.1 5 11 0.1 6 12 0.1 7 20 0.2 8 83 0.7 9 148 1.2 10 183* 1.5 183* 2.7 11 223* 1.9 223* 3.2 12 245 2.0 13 284* 2.4 284* 4.1 14 287 2.4 15 351 2.9 16 355 3.0 17 380 3.2 432 6.3 18 510 4.2 19 517 4.3 20 572* 4.8 572* 8.3 21 782* 6.5 782* 11.3 22 807* 6.7 807* 11.7 23 864 7.2 1,146 16.6 24 5,350 44.6 2,476 35.9
TOTAL 11,987 pounds 6,904 pounds Mean HH 500 pounds 767 pounds
* Indicates key respondent household included in the random survey.
59 households share or exchange much of their harvests within the community, and are an important support for many less active households.
Deer Hunting
Tenakee Inlet is in Game Management Unit 4. Since 1974 the Unit 4 deer hunting season has opened on August 1 and has closed on December 31. The bag limit for this five month season is four deer.
The 1985 survey collected deer harvest data for two years -- 1983 and 1984.
In 1983, 55 deer were taken by 13 households in the sample who hunted deer, for an average take of 4.2 deer per hunting household, or 2.3 deer for all households
(Table 5). Seventy one percent of the deer were taken with use of a skiff, and the rest by foot or all terrain vehicle (ATV). Fifty three percent of deer were taken along the beach in 1983, 20 percent along roads, 11 percent in clearcuts, 9 percent in the forest, 5 percent in muskeg areas, and 2 percent in the alpine (Figure 20).
Based on Division of Subsistence census data, with 47 households surveyed, 108 deer were harvested by community residents in 1983.
In 1984 only 39 deer were taken by 12 households in the survey who hunted that year, for an,average harvest of 3.3 deer per hunting household, or 1.6 deer for all households. The total estimated community harvest thus was 76 deer in 1984.
The decline in deer hunting from the previous year (108 deer to 76 deer) was reported by residents to be due to the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984, in which many residents lost homes and/or skiffs. In 1984, 87 percent of deer were harvested using skiff access to the hunting site, the rest by foot or all terrain vehicle (ATV). Forty-six percent of the deer were harvested on the beach, 31 percent in clearcuts, 15 percent in the forest, 8 percent along roads, and none in muskeg or alpine regions (Fig. 20). In 1984, 23 of the 48 household members surveyed, or 48 percent of the sample, participated in deer hunting.
60 60
50
40 Percent of Deer 30 Harvested
! 20
10 5 2 0 0 0 l- l- 1 Beach Forest Road Clearcut Muskeg Alpine Habitat Type
Figure 20. Percent of Deer Harvested by Habitat Type in 1983 and 1984 (1983 N = 55, 1984 N = 39). Table 5. 1983 and 1984 Deer Harvest by Tenakee Housheolds (based on a 1984 survey of 24 households).
Total Mean Maximum No. Percent of Households Number Household Harvested Year Using Receiving Giving Harvesting Harvested Harvest Per HH
1983 92 58 42 54 55 2.3 12
1984 83 58 42 50 39 1.6 16
Figure 21 shows the differences among households in the range of deer
harvests in 1983 and 1984. In 1983, of the 13 households harvesting deer (54
percent of the total households surveyed), 2 harvested one deer, 3 harvested two
deer, 1 harvested three deer, 4 harvested four deer, and 3 harvested more than
seven deer. In 1984, of the 12 households that did not harvest deer, 3 households
went hunting but had no success. Of the 12 successful households, 6 harvested one
deer, one household each harvested two and three deer, 3 households harvested
four deer, and one harvested 16 deer. This last household, which also reported the
largest deer harvest in 1983, distributes a large amount of deer meat to older
residents in the community.
As discussed above, most hunting is done using skiffs for transportation.
Hunters commonly cruise the beach or hike along or near the beach on foot.
Hunting may take place with partners, family groups or by individuals hunting
alone. A skiff sometimes is used to transport an ATV to take advantage of logging
roads in the area. Use of logging roads has increased dramatically in recent years
(see Chapter 5).
62 q Numberof HousehoIds, 1983 8- q Numberof HousehoIds, 1984 Number of 6 I Househo Ids 6- cn w 4-
2-
0 -- T -I- l- 0 1 2 3 4 8-16 Number of Deer Harvested
Figure 21. Number of Deer Harvested Per Household, 1983 and 1984, Tenakee. Most local hunters reported sharing their deer among members of a hunting party and with older people who can no longer hunt. Survey data supported these reports: whereas 54 percent of households harvested deer in 1983, 42 percent of households gave deer, and 58 percent received deer, resulting in the use of deer for food by 92 percent of all households (Table 5). Similarly, in 1984 50 percent of households harvested deer, 42 percent gave deer away, 58 percent received deer, and 83 percent of all households used deer. In general, therefore, the deer harvested by approximately half of the households in Tenakee are distributed throughout the community, resulting in the consumption of deer meat by nearly all households.
Changes in the way deer are hunted have occurred since the introduction of large scale logging operations and associated road systems in Tenakee Inlet. These changes are discussed with respect to specific deer hunting areas in Chapter 5.
Fishing
Fishing activities by Tenakee residents consist primarily of salmon fishing and bottom fishing for halibut and snapper or rockfish. A more limited harvest of
Dolly Varden, steelhead, hooligan, herring, herring roe, and cod also occurs. Table
2 gives a complete breakdown of the percent of households using, sharing, and harvesting all fish species, and provides means, maximums and totals of the harvest quantities. Fifty-six percent of household members surveyed participated in fishing in 1984.
Tenakee residents harvest salmon with three different types of gear: beach seine, rod and reel, and commercial gear such as troll gear. Fishing with gill nets takes place at Basket Bay, under the terms of subsistence fishing permits. The areas fished when using rod and reel include waters throughout the study area and
64 parts of Chatham Strait. The salmon harvested from commercial catch and taken
for home use are primarily from Tenakee Inlet and Chatham Straits.
Only three species of salmon were reported harvested or used by Tenakee
residents: king, coho, and sockeye. Although chum and pink salmon are available
in Tenakee Inlet, they were not the focus of any harvesting activity by survey
respondents. Several households spoke distainfully of pink and chum salmon, and
indicated a desire for only the “higher quality” salmon species. However, key
respondents did report that both chum and pink salmon are harvested locally by
some households.
Relatively few salmon are removed from the commercial catch for
consumption at home. Of the 24 households sampled one reported using commercially-caught king and sockeye, and one household reported using king and
coho salmon for personal home use. The total number used was 17 salmon, or
approximately 200 pounds.
Subsistence salmon fishing, on the other hand, is actively pursued by a
majority of residents. Sixty-three percent of all households participated in
harvesting at least one of the three salmon species: 42 percent harvested king
salmon, 33 percent harvested sockeye, and 21 percent harvested coho salmon. A
high degree of sharing salmon between households resulted in consumption of at
least one species of salmon by 88 percent of the households.
The total subsistence salmon harvest by Tenakee residents in 1984 was 134
pounds per household (67 lbs per person). Figure 22 shows that sockeye salmon
contributed the majority of this harvest (64 percent of all salmon), followed by
king salmon (31 percent) and coho (5 percent).
Subsistence net fishing for sockeye salmon with a permit has increased
dramatically since 1979. In 1979 only two subsistence fishing permits were issued
to Tenakee residents, but in 1982, 22 permits were issued, followed by 32 in 1984.
65 - P86T aayeua& ‘ad&, mza3 pm saTDads dq ‘(p-coqasnoq ;rad spunod ueaur) ysaaxq uourpg ployasnoH -zz azm6Td It is likely that this does not represent an actual increase in subsistence sockeye
fishing, but an increased compliance with the permit system. In 1984, survey
results showed that 33 percent of households fished for subsistence sockeye salmon
that year, 21 percent gave sockeyes to others, and 46 percent of households
received sockeye. This resulted in a total of 79 percent of all households surveyed
using sockeyes for food. The sockeye harvest was 85 pounds per household. For
the 8 households which actually harvested these fish, the mean harvest was 256
pounds per household. The maximum number of sockeye caught by any one
household was 220 fish, or approximately 1232 pounds.
Basket Bay is the area closest to Tenakee Springs for which subsistence
sockeye fishing permits are issued. One long time resident said that sockeye
fishing occurred in the Pavlof Harbor area in the 1950s but this area is no longer
used. Sitkoh Bay is another area near Tenakee that is available for subsistence
sockeye salmon fishing but is not easily accessible by boat. Competition and
accessibility are two factors that Tenakee residents consider before fishing for
sockeye salmon. Another consideration is that fishing permits are issued for two
week periods and weather may not always permit travel to fishing areas. These
factors combine to restrict the participation of Tenakee residents in local
sibsistence fisheries. Both Basket Bay and Sitkoh Bay are considered quite
dangerous to travel to because of the limited harbors in route to these areas. Both areas are also heavily used for subsistence fishing by residents of other communities. Table 6 shows the number of subsistence permits issued and number of sockeye salmon reported harvested for Basket Bay in 1984 by the residence of applicant (Commercial Fisheries Division, unpublished data). Of the 300 permits issued, 32 (11 percent) were to residents of Tenakee, 56 (19 percent) to Hoonah residents, 92 (31 percent) to Juneau residents, and 109 (36 percent) to Angoon residents.
67 Table 6. 1984 Basket Bay Subsistence Salmon Permits by Residence of Applicant.
Number of Number Number Permits Percent Reporting Sockeye Percent Community Issued of Total Harvest Parvested of Total
Tenakee 32 11 24 446 16
Hoonah 56 19 31 758 27
Juneau 92 31 50 969 35
Angoon 109 36 17 395 14
Sitka 7 2 7 170 6
Other Alaska 4 1 2 50 2
TOTAL 300 129 2,788
Source: Commercial Fisheries Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, unpublished data.
68 King and coho salmon are also caught for local use, but in much lower
quantities than sockeye salmon. In 1984, 61 king salmon and 18 coho were
harvested by trolling with rod and reel for household use by the Tenakee survey
respondents. Forty-two percent (42 percent) of all Tenakee households harvested
king salmon in that year, and 21 percent harvested coho. Thirteen percent gave
away king salmon, 4 percent gave away coho, 63 percent received king salmon
from others, and 13 percent received coho. Mean household harvests were 42 lbs.
for kings and 7 lbs. for coho.
As discussed in Chapter 3, commercial seining is largely blamed by local
residents for the small catch of subsistence king and coho salmon. Many key
respondents indicated that during the 1960s and into the 197Os, both king and coho
salmon were readily available throughout Tenakee Inlet. One respondent reported
that during the 1970s he and his wife were able to catch at least one or two fish
each evening as they trolled from town back to their house. Now they feel that
too much feed (herring) is removed from the Inlet during the winter, and too many
fish are harvested at the mouth of the Inlet during the summer by commercial fishermen.
Bottom fishing for halibut, red snapper, and pacific cod takes place predominantly with rod and reel. Most bottom fishing occurs in Tenakee Inlet, with the majority taking place in front of town. In 1984 surveyed Tenakee residents harvested 63 pounds of bottom fish per household, of which 55 pounds were halibut and 8 pounds were red snapper. Fifty four percent of the survey sample fished for halibut in 1984, 33 percent gave halibut, and 71 percent received halibut, resulting in consumption of halibut by 92 percent of all households surveyed. Red snapper was harvested by 29 percent of households, given by 4 percent, and received by 25 percent, resulting in total usage by 54 percent of households.
69 Other fish harvested in smaller quantities than salmon and bottomfish in
1984 were Dolly Varden (25 percent, or 6 households), hooligan (one household),
and pacific herring (3 households). In addition, steelhead and herring eggs were
not harvested by the sample population, but were received by one and five
households, respectively, from other households outside the sample.
Shellfish
Shellfish (including crab, clams, shrimp, octopus, and gumboot) are used by
more Tenakee residents than any other resource category. In 1984, 96 percent of
the survey sample used shellfish, derived from harvests by 67 percent of the
households. One half of the households surveyed engaged in setting subsistence
pots for dungeness crab. Dungeness are also widely distributed, resulting in
consumption of dungeness by 92 percent of all households. In 1984, the mean
household harvest was 20 dungeness crab or 49 pounds per household (based on the
average weight of whole crab - see Appendix II). Among those 12 households
harvesting dungeness, the average catch was 98 pounds. The maximum dungeness
crab taken by one household was 150 crab (375 pounds).
King crab harvesting requires crab pots that are larger, more expensive, and
more difficult to handle than dungeness crab pots. Consequently, king crab was
harvested by only 13 percent (3 households) of the surveyed households. One of
these households caught the bulk of the harvest (200 king crab, or 1400 pounds)
and distributed it widely among 50 percent of the households, resulting in
consumption of king crab by 67 percent of the surveyed households. The total
king crab harvest of 63 pounds per household was greater than the dungeness
harvest. Tanner crab was harvested by only one household, and received by another household, for total use of tanner crab by two households in Tenkaee.
70 Clams and cockles are also widely harvested in tidal flats throughout
Tenakee Inlet. Fifty eight percent of households harvested butter clams, and a
total of 71 percent of all households consumed them. One household gathered 33
five-gallon buckets of clams, or 66 pounds of usable clams. The average household
harvest was 2.8 five-gallon buckets, or 6 pounds. Cockles were harvested by 38
percent of households and consumed by 50 percent (4 lbs per household). In
addition, one household used horse clams which were given to it by another
household.
Shrimp, octopus and black gumboot were also used by Tenakee residents,
although none were harvested by households surveyed. Shrimp was reported
received by 38 percent of the surveyed households, and used by 46 percent,
indicating that other households outside of the survey harvested shrimp and
distributed it widely throughout the community.
Trapping of furbearers was reported by two key respondents who used to
trap extensively along the shoreline throughout the Inlet (Figure 27). One
respondent reported that he no longer sets traps along the northern shoreline where
clearcutting has occurred down to the beach, claiming that these areas are no
longer productive for furbearers. He restricts his trapping now to the narrow band of old growth forest on gentle slopes adjacent to the beach fringe. In the random survey, one household reported trapping 15 mink and 5 marten in 1984.
TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS TO HARVEST SITES
Access to resource harvest sites is predominantly accomplished by foot or by skiff, although all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are increasingly being used for hunting
71 *(PZ = N) -Ez ambra P86T 'spIoyasnoH aayeuaa Aq Gu-gsaAxeH amnosax x03 pasn pu-e pamo uogewodsuex& 30 apoK
uoqqJodsueJl 40 apow
1 I , I I 0 0 0 0 0 K’I 0 P
6urqsaAJeH ~04 II pasn uo~qeqJodsueJ1 q II paw0 uo! y?qJOdSUeJ~ [9 /I ii (Fig. 23). In 1984 skiffs were owned by 75 percent of the households: 9 households owned one skiff, 6 households owned two skiffs, and 3 households owned three skiffs. All but two households owning skiffs reported using them for hunting and fishing activities. Twenty five percent of the households (6 of the 24 sampled) owned a larger cabin cruiser, seiner or troller, of which 67 percent were used for hunting or fishing. Boats owned ranged from 10 to 31 feet long, with the average boat being a 17 foot open skiff with a 30 horsepower engine. No snowmobiles or airplanes were reported owned by survey respondents.
The lack of roads in Tenakee is reflected in the fact that only 3 of 24 households indicated they owned an automobile in 1984, and none of these were used for hunting or fishing. One household in the sample owned a truck, which also was not used for hunting or fishing. One key respondent outside the sample reported having used a truck in the past on the Corner Bay and Indian River logging roads to access deer hunting areas. The main “trail” through Tenakee supports the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), which can also be transported by skiff for use on logging roads across the Inlet or in the Indian River valley.
Forty-six percent of Tenakee households reported owning one or two ATVs in
1984; 64 percent of these households used this equipment for hunting or fishing.
ATVs are also used along the main trail through town to transport household items to and from the ferry dock and mercantile. The high percentage of ATVs used for hunting or fishing (29 percent of all households) indicates substantial acceptance of this fairly new technology as a productive element in resource harvesting.
GEOGRAPHY OF HARVEST ACTIVITIES
Figures 24 through 28 portray the total extent of land and water areas used for hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering during the lifetimes of Tenakee key
73 respondents, reflecting use from 1921 until the present. The maps show use of all shoreline areas from Little Basket Bay north to False Bay, including all of Tenakee
Inlet. In addition to using the entire beach fringe and adjacent intertidal waters,
Figure 26 shows that every river valley in this area, plus some of the alpine ridges,
have been used for deer hunting.
Key respondents indicated that the small islands, reefs, and shoreline in the
near vicinity of the towr, of Tenakee are heavily used for intertidal gathering,
crabbing, and fishing. The area directly behind town is sometimes used for deer
hunting, although this use appears to be declining. Redwing Mountain and the
Indian River valley are two key areas traditionally used for deer hunting (see the
Indian River case study, Chapter 5). The north shore of the Inlet is used primarily
for deer hunting only, although some trapping does occur in old growth forests
near the beach fringe (see trapping section above).
The south shore of the Inlet receives a wider variety of resource uses. Deer
hunting occurs along all of the beach fringe, in each of the river valleys for a
distance of one to several miles from salt water, and along several of the alpine
ridges. All of the bays are used for intertidal gathering, fishing, and waterfowl
hunting.
The shoreline and adjacent forest areas from South Passage Point south to
Little Basket Bay also are used for deer hunting. Basket Bay receives substantial
use for subsistence sockeye fishing by residents of Tenakee, Angoon, Hoonah,
Juneau, and other towns. This bay also is used for hunting waterfowl.
North from Tenakee Inlet, Figure 26 shows use of the entire beach fringe
extending throughout Freshwater Bay and on to False Bay for deer hunting. Deer
are hunted inland along the entire area extending from Cannery Point north to
Pavlof Lake, and in the Kennel Creek, Freshwater Creek, North Fork, and Iyoutug
Creek watersheds, Pavlof harbor is generally the most northern point that Tenakee
74 ,, , . . . :, . 1 . 1 . ‘* .*
residents use for fishing: Deer have also been hunted by Tenakee residents in
Whitestone Harbor, on Admiralty Island, at the mouth of Game Creek, and on
Pleasant Island.
In summary, resource use by Tenakee residents occurs throughout the entire
30 mile long Tenakee Inlet, north and south of the Inlet along the shores of
Chatham Strait for approximately 10 to 15 miles, and in other isolated locations accessible by water. In and near Tenakee Inlet, use appears to be concentrated in
each of the bays, along the entire beach fringe back to a distance of roughly one
mile, and up each of the major creek and river valleys for several miles.
Respondents indicated that weather is a major factor that is considered when
contemplating resource gathering trips that go outside of Tenakee Inlet. They say
that since the Inlet and nearby adjacent shores provide adequate resources to fill
their needs, further travel at higher expense, safety risk, and time is not generally
necessary.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE OF RESOURCES
Resources are commonly shared in Tenakee between harvesting and non-
harvesting households. Figure 29 shows the percent of households receiving and
giving resources from eight broad resource categories. In all categories except
berries and plants many more households receive resources than give them away.
Indeed, all four major resource categories (salmon, other fish, shellfish, and land
mammals) were received by over 50 percent of the households surveyed, whereas
less than 50 percent of households participated in giving away these resources to
others. These figures indicate that a majority of Tenakee households are dependent
upon a smaller number of actively harvesting households for at least some of their
subsistence needs. A 0
II 0
0
81 Sharing of resources played a key role in the distribution of several resources. For example 63 percent of the households harvesting sockeyes gave this resource away to other households, resulting in the wide consumption of sockeye
by 79 percent of all households. By contrast, only 1 household of the 5 harvesting coho salmon gave this resource away, resulting in its consumption by only 33
percent of all households. This appears to be due in large part to the difference in
harvest quantities available for exchange: 2,044 total pounds of sockeye versus only
157 total pounds of coho for the sample of 24 households. The same relationship
existed for halibut. Households which gave halibut to others harvested an average
of 164 pounds, while households which did not give any away harvested an
average of 32 pounds.
With a population size of only three native households in the survey sample,
it was not possible to examine the effect of ethnicity on resource exchange in a
statistically valid manner. However, it is interesting to note that all 3 Native
households received four or five of five key resources examined (dungeness crab, king salmon, halibut, deer, and berries), whereas non-Native households received an average of two of these resources. This may indicate a higher degree of resource sharing among Native households. A larger sample size is needed to statistically verify this apparent trend.
Exchange of resources in Tenakee takes place in a variety of ways between
relatives, friends and neighbors. Although the random survey did not investigate distribution and exchange networks, several key respondents reported widespread sharing of harvests. For example, one key respondent said “I never crabbed on my own, because I got all the crab I needed from others.” Another commented “I let my friends use my gillnet in exchange for sockeyes.” These examples typify the variety of barter, trade, and sharing arrangements that occur on a daily basis in a small community such as Tenakee.
82 USE OF TENAKEE INLET BY RESIDENTS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES
Tenakee Inlet is the site of substantial hunting and fishing activity at various times throughout the year by residents of other southeast Alaska communities. Fishing for sockeye salmon by subsistence permit in Basket Bay takes place by residents of Angoon, Hoonah, Sitka, Juneau and other southeast towns. Indeed, as was shown in Table 6, most of the people using Basket Bay for sockeye fishing are not from Tenakee. Tenakee Inlet is also becoming increasingly popular among residents of other towns, principally Juneau, for crabbing and non- commercial salmon fishing. However, the chief use of Tenakee Inlet by non-local residents is for deer hunting.
Table 7 shows 1980, 1982, and 1983 deer harvests for Tenakee Inlet by residency of hunter, based on a sample of harvest ticket holders (Game Division statistics). This table shows that hunters from Tenakee comprise between 7 to 11 percent of the total successful hunters using Tenakee Inlet, and that they harvest lo-12 percent of the total number of deer taken out of the Inlet. By far the largest number of deer are taken by hunters from Juneau (62 percent of deer in 1983).
Hunters from Sitka and Hoonah also equal or outnumber those.from Tenakee in all years. The rest of the non-local deer hunters in Tenakee Inlet come chiefly from other small communities around southeast Alaska.
The 1983 harvest ticket estimate of 63 deer for Tenakee Inlet by Tenakee residents (Table 7) is substantially lower than the 108 deer figure obtained in the household survey (Chapter 4). For 1984 the two methods yielded closer results (75 deer from harvest ticket holders and 76 deer from the household survey). This variance in the data can be explained by the data gathering methods used. A survey administered in person to 50 percent of Tenakee households probably
a3 Table 7. Deer Harvests in Tenakee Inlet by Residency of Hunter 1980, 1982, and 1983.
Residency Successful Hunters Total Deer Harvest of Hunter 1980 1982 1983 1980 1982 1983
Juneau 83 95 173 172 184 402 Sitka 27 19 32 67 32 91 Tenakee 13 17 21 34 38 63 Hoonah 16 23 18 23 46 27 Angoon 2 0 0 4 0 0 Gustavus 0 0 9 0 0 18 Haines 4 9 6 9 28 19 Petersburg 8 0 6 13 0 12 Ketchikan 0 5 0 0 5 0 Wrangell 4 5 6. 8 10 6 Other Alaska 11 5 7 16 5 13 Nonresidents 1 6 0 1 6 0
TOTAL 169 184 278 347 354 651
Tenakee Residents as Percent of Total
8% 9% 8% 8% 11% 10%
Sources: Game Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.
81 produces more accurate harvest figures than a mail-out questionnaire. A harvest ticket survey is more likely to record only the legal maximum of four deer per individual hunter. The household survey method is more likely to include those situations where one very productive hunter provided deer for an entire household or several households (yet where the average harvest for the entire household is still less than the four-deer-per-individual legal limit). Assuming, however, that the relative rate of return of harvest tickets has not changed for residents of different communities between 1980-1984, the data listed in Table 7 does give an accurate representation of the relative rates of deer use in Tenakee Inlet.
Four principle modes of transportation are used by outside hunters to get to
Tenakee: airplanes, small skiffs, large seine/crab boats, and the state ferry system.
The ferry system appears to be the most popular method for transportation into and out of Tenakee. Local residents estimate that from 40-60 deer are taken out of
Tenakee Inlet by ferry on many weekends during the hunting season. A majority of hunters stay in the vicinity of Tenakee, the most accessible area being the
Indian River drainage. Skiff and cabin rentals are available in Tenakee and occasionally skiffs are borrowed from friends living in Tenakee. Many Tenakee residents expressed concern with the large number of deer being taken by out-of- town harvesters, and are worried about the future deer population (see Chapter 6).
35 CHAPTER 5
CASE STUDIES OF CHANGING SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES
This chapter uses a case study format to review changes in subsistence activities in three areas traditionally and currently used by Tenakee residents for hunting and fishing, and examines several factors that appear to be responsible for these changes. The three areas discussed are “Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit”, “Indian
River”, and “Corner Bay” (see Figure 2). Information on use of the “South Passage
Point” area is also briefly presented. These four areas have been subject to varying degrees of logging and road building and provide examples of the types of effects that timber harvest activities may have on subsistence fishing and hunting, at least in the near term of less than 20 years.
Information for the case studies derives from the random survey and from key respondent interviews. The random survey included questions asking each head of household to indicate the dates he/she used the four areas for hunting and fishing since 1960 (Figure 30). In addition, survey respondents were specifically asked about changes in deer hunting activities in the Indian River, Corner Bay and
South Passage Point areas (Figure 31). Information on changes in deer hunting strategy was also obtained from key respondents during the interviews and mapping sessions, and is presented below.
Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit
“Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit” is the local name used to describe the area between two points of land along the shore 10 and 15 miles west of Tenakee
(Figure 2). In some instances, key respondents included the beach for several miles east of Ten Mile Spit in this same use area. The upland area is characterized by
86 Corner Bay lo-15 Mile
lmrI
Indian River South Passage Point
Figure 30. Percent of Active Tenakee Hunters Using Case Study Areas by Years, 1960-1984.
87 South Passage Point Indian River Corner Bay
100-
70
60 60
0 050 50 a3 f 40 40 H 30 3 t ea 20 r s 10 10
a a 1970’s 1960’S - 1970’s 19eo’s . Decade Decade
Figure 31. Percent of Active Tenakee Deer Hunters Using the Beach Fringe and Roaded Areas in Indian River, Corner Bay and South Passage Point in the 196Os, 197Os, and 1980s. steep slopes adjacent to the beach, rising to an alpine ridge at approximately 2500 feet. As of 1980 approximately 30 percent of the commercial forest along this section of Tenakee Inlet’s north shore had been harvested (USFS 1980, unpublished land-type timber inventory data for VCU 221). Nearly one half of the harvested areas are now in the seedling stage of regrowth (6 - 25 years) since being clearcut from 1966 to 1970, while the remainder is young saw timber (76 - 150 years old) which had been hand-logged earlier this century (exact timber harvest figures are not available for this use area since its boundaries overlap with VCUs 221 and
222). Unlike some other drainages in the Inlet, no roads have been built in this area to access timber stands since trees were yarded directly to tidewater.
Resources identified by local residents as being harvested and used from this area and associated shore lands and waters include deer, mink, otter, marten, bear, berries, clams, cockles, salmon and herring. Access to the area by most hunters traditionally has been by skiff or by hiking along the beach from town.
In recent years a few hunters have begun using ATVs for access via the Indian
River logging road system. From the road they walk to the summit of Red Wing mountain and then hike down to the beach at Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit, hunting as they go.
Logging activities reportedly had no effect on use of marine resources in this area by key respondents. Commercial salmon fishing and herring seining were both mentioned as being more detrimental to local use of marine resources along this section of shore than were timber harvest activities.
Five of the six key respondents commenting on this area stated that deer hunting has been less successful in the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area since the
196Os, compared to prior years. Habitat alteration due to logging was considered responsible for the observed decrease by four of these hunters, and the other was unsure of a reason. The sixth respondent did not indicate whether or not hunting
89 success had changed over his seven years of hunting in the area, but said that hunting the margins of clearcuts was sometimes productive.
One of these respondents commented: “...there’s not as much deer. It’s impossible to walk through [the regrowth].” Whereas one other hunter used to get his limit of deer in this area in the 196Os, he reported that he now needs to travel further because the beach hunting between the spits has been unproductive since the area was cut. This conclusion was backed by a third respondent, who reported that the deer became more scarce along this section of shore two to three years following logging in the late 1960s.
One respondent was very specific about the changes in his hunting and trapping patterns before and after logging occurred. In the 1960s he hunted throughout the forest in this area, and ran productive. traplines along the entire beach fringe. In more recent years productive traps could only be set in the unlogged sections and in the buffer zone of trees left standing along the beach fringe; the logged areas were abandoned for trapping purposes. In recent years he hunted deer in the unlogged areas, above the clearcuts and along the buffer zone left between clearcuts.
These observations by five key respondents are consistent with predictions made by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFBrG) deer population
model developed by Schoen, Kirchoff, and Thomas (1985). This model evaluates
changes in habitat capability for Sitka black-taiIed deer resulting from change in
habitat composition caused by logging (using TLMP timber inventory data). Using
U.S. Forest Service timber type inventory data for Value Comparison Unit 221, in
which Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit is largely located, the model predicts that currently
during periods of intermediate snow fall (15 to 20 inches of snow on the ground)
this area should support 72 percent of the deer population it supported before
logging. During months with deep snow (up to three feet of ground snow), the
90 reduction in critical winter deer habitat results in a predicted 50 percent reduction
in deer carrying capacity for this area.
The location of clearcuts in this area adjacent to the beach may be a
contributing factor in reducing deer hunting opportunities along the shore. Most
deer make seasonal migrations within the same watershed from higher elevations in
the summer to lower elevations in the fall and winter (Schoen and Kirchoff, 1985).
It is possible that deer may be impeded from reaching the beach at Ten to Fifteen
Mile Spit by the presence of dense regrowth areas near the shore.
Figure 30 shows the percent of active deer hunters in the random
household survey using the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area in the years 1960 to 1984.
Between 50 - 60 percent of hunters used this area in the early 1960s. There was a
sharp reported decline in hunting activity from 1968 to 1972, followed by a sharp
rise to nearly the previous level. Since 1978 use has again been steadily declining.
Figure 30 also shows dates for timber harvest activity and subsequent regrowth in
this area. The initial decline in hunting coincides with the period of active
logging. During the first five years of regrowth following logging, when deer
browse typically is plentiful and visibility for hunting in or along the margins of
clearcuts is excellent, hunting activity increased. Based on key respondent comments, the subsequent decline in hunting from 1978 to present is apparently due to the high density of regrowth in the clearcuts after reaching the seedling stage (over 6 years old) and to the perception of a decline in deer numbers, especially along the beach zone.
In summary, according to key respondents, overall hunting and trapping success has decreased in the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area, attributable apparently to near-shore logging in the late 1960s. Results from the random survey show variations in use of the area that can be correlated with stages of logging, early regrowth and later regrowth. Approximately one half as many of the active deer
91 hunters in the random survey now use Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit as did so in the early 1960s. Since the random survey did not attempt to quantify the deer harvest in each use area prior to 1983, further research would be needed to determine how hunting success rates may have changed in this area, and whether any decline might be due to difficulty of hunting in and around the older cut areas or to an actual decline in deer numbers. According to the key respondent comments and predicted deer population figures reported above, both explanations could be important factors influencing hunter success. For those still using the Ten to
Fifteen Mile Spit area, the mode of access (by skiff or on foot) has not changed, with the exception of it now being possible for hardy individuals to hike to the area over Red Wing mountain from the Indian River logging road.
92 Indian River
The Indian River watershed is a major drainage running more than six miles down a low, wide, and heavily-wooded valley, emptying into Tenakee Inlet one mile east of town (Fig. 2). The area is principally used by Tenakee residents for deer hunting, along with some salmon fishing and crabbing at the mouth of the river. There is a trail from town to the river valley, that runs parallel to the shoreline. Due to its proximity to town, the Indian River area has always been extensively used by residents as well as visitors to Tenakee, although the pattern and intensity of use has shifted dramatically in the last seven years.
Logging road construction was begun in 1977 in Sunny Cove, just east of the mouth of the Indian River. The road was extended several miles up the east side of the drainage that year, and cutting operations began shortly thereafter. By
1981 approximately 15 units of various sizes had been cut at intervals along the road. The logging road now extends roughly 14 miles up the valley, with a several mile fork leading across the river to the west. As of 1980 2.4 percent of the commercial timber in this watershed had been recently harvested, while another 3.6 percent near shore was cut earlier in the century, presumably for town and cannery construction (USFS, 1980, unpublished land-type inventory data). Timber harvest figures for 1980 - 1984 were not obtained.
The percentage of active Tenakee hunters using the Indian River watershed steadily increased from the early 1970s until 1983, when 50 percent of the hunters were using the area (Fig. 30). As discussed below, this increase in use is largely attributable to the increased ease of access provided by logging roads. The 10 percent drop-off in use shown in 1983 and 1984 is not explained, and may represent only a short term fluctuation. (In addition, destruction to homes and
93 Table 8. Percent of Active Hunters Using, Indian River, Corner Bay, South Passage Pt. from 1960s - 1980s. (N = Number of hunters in the 1984 survey who used each area in the decade listed).
Indian River Corner Bay S. Passage Pt. - 1960s 1970s 1980s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1960s 1970s 1980s Areas N=5 N=3 N=12 N=4 N=5 N=7 N=4 N=8 N=lO
Beach 40 0 8 25 60 43 100 100 100 Forest 40 67 8 75 0 14 50 13 30 Muskeg 40 33 17 50 0 0 0 0 G Alpine 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 G Road 0 0 83 0 40 57 0 0 c Clearcut 0 0. 75 0 20 57 0 0 c
94 skiffs by the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984 may have curtailed some hunters’ use of this area.)
One possible explanation for the increased use of Indian River for hunting is the change in hunting preferences by older hunters, to road hunting. Analysis of hunter-age data for Indian River is shown on Figure 32. By and large, the age of active hunters shows a moderately increasing level, which is due to the increasing age of the sampled hunters over time. In addition to this overall trend, the maximum and mean age of hunters using the area shows an increase in 1982 and 1983, though the average age drops again in 1984. It is possible that this increase shows a preference among some older hunters for hunting roaded, early- clearcut areas, such as Indian River, but this evidence is not particularly compelling. Hunter-age data for the roaded Corner Bay also show a recent increase in maximum hunter age, but less clear trends in average age. The mean age of hunters in Corner Bay is lower than Indian River, probably due to the age of the loggers living at the Corner Bay camp. By and large, age of hunter is not as good an explanatory factor as the shift in hunting technology to roadhunting.
Table 8 and Figure 31 show the areas reported hunted by key respondents within the Indian River and two other watersheds (Corner Bay and South Passage
Point) over the last three decades. In the Indian River watershed during the 196Os, deer hunting reportedly occurred equally in the beach fringe, upland forested areas, and muskegs. Access was by skiff or on foot along the trail from town, with deer hunting occurring primarily close to the shore. A few hunters hiked further up the drainage, sometimes reaching the alpine zone for hunting early in the season.
During the late 197Os, however, none of the respondents were using the beach area at Indian River for hunting, reportedly due to the construction of the log transfer facility at Sunny Cove, just east of the mouth of Indian River, which
95 began in 1978. Two thirds of the hunting activity in this decade was concentrated in the upland forest zone, and one third in the muskegs, In the 198Os, following completion of the log transfer facility and several miles of logging roads, more key respondents began hunting in the Indian River valley. Since 1980 only eight percent of Tenakee hunters have used the beach fringe and upland forests of the drainage, whereas 83 percent have hunted along the road system and 73 percent have hunted along the young clearcuts (Table 8, Fig. 31). In 1984 hunters commonly transported ATVs by skiff to the log transfer facility and, using fogging roads, quickly gained access to the upper portions of the valley. Others simply hunted by walking from the beach up the road. Nearly one third of the active hunting households interviewed in 1984 indicated they had acquired ATVs specifically for use in hunting along the Indian River road. One household used a logging company vehicle to hunt deer along the road.
The change in land use pattern for hunting deer in the Indian River watershed during the past three decades contrasts with hunting patterns in the
South Passage Point area, where roading and logging have not yet occurred. Overall . use of South Passage Point has remained fairly constant over the past twenty years
(Figure 30). All random survey respondents hunting South Passage Point since the
1960s reported use of the beach fringe (Figure 31, Table 8). The consistent use of these beach fringe areas over the past three decades suggests that in the absence of roading or logging this hunting strategy is still followed.
AS discussed in Chapter 4, the beach is still the most productive hunting zone used by Tenakee residents, providing 53 percent (1983) and 46 percent (1984) of the deer harvested during the two years covered by the survey. However, the logging roads and recent clearcuts around Tenakee Inlet are being increasingly used as more areas are roaded, so that in recent years logging roads have provided
20 percent (1983) and 8 percent (1984) of the deer harvested, and clearcuts
96 provided 11 percent (1983) and 31 percent (1984) of the deer harvested by Tenakee residents.
Among Tenakee residents, attitudes are mixed about changing hunting patterns in the Indian River area. Some hunters express their desire to use the area now because of the easier access provided by the roads, while others are worried about the increase in competition and resulting pressure on the deer population. In most households the road is perceived at present as having a larger impact on hunting patterns than are the actual timber harvesting activities or habitat alterations. Two households in the random survey sample stated that the roads benefited older people, whose hunting activities would otherwise be more restricted. However, an older key respondent stated that he has recently stopped using the area because of “traffic” (three-wheelers) along the roads. Two key respondents expressed the view that the Indian River road system has taken hunting pressure off the rest of the Inlet by focusing more hunter attention in that area. Another key respondent has stopped using Indian River, stating that despite increased ease of access there was too much competition from other hunters
(especially non-Tenakee residents) to make the area worth hunting. One respondent stated he no longer used the area because major sections of it have been clearcut. However, the nature of his objection to clearcuts was not stated.
For non-residents of Tenakee, the Indian River area appears to have become
an especially attractive place to hunt. One resident reported that early in the
hunting season people from other towns come to the area every weekend, and that
later in the season it becomes much harder for local people to hunt deer
successfully. A major concern of many hunters is that if a road connection is
made between Hoonah and Tenakee, linking the Indian River road system with the
Game Creek logging road network, this area will receive still greater hunting
97 pressure, and it will become even more difficult for Tenakee residents to compete for deer. In general, hunters indicated that the deer population had remained strong in the Indian River watershed. Only one survey respondent felt that the population was now declining due to overhunting. Several hunters, however, expressed concern about the future deer population. This concern is especially great among older hunters, who fear that another harsh winter with heavy snow accumulation such as was experienced in the early 1970s will result in the crash of a deer population already under stress from high hunting pressure. These observations are again backed by the ADF&G deer population model developed by
Schoen et al. (1985). Given the 2.4 percent of the commercial forest logged in the
Indian River watershed by 1980, the model predicts only a 3 percent decline in deer numbers during winters with intermediate snow cover, and a 5 percent decline in deer numbers during periods with more severe snow cover (20 to 36 inches).
However, if the 66.7 percent of commercial forest in the Indian River watershed currently scheduled for harvest is actually harvested, the model predicts an eventual decline of approximately 83 percent of the deer population given conditions of intermediate snow depth (Table 10). During winters with heavy snow accumulation the deer losses could be substantially greater. In general, fishing and intertidal gathering along the shore of the Indian River area was not mentioned by key respondents as having been greatly affected by logging. Two households stated that they were no longer able to obtain crabs after the Sunny Cove log transfer facility had been in place for several years, but otherwise, offshore fishing and crabbing activities by Tenakee residents appear to be following the same pattern before and after timber harvesting in the Indian
River area.
98 In summary, road construction, log transfer facility development, and logging in the Indian River watershed from 1978 to 1981 created a new set of conditions to which hunters from Tenakee and other southeast Alaska communities were quick to respond. Access into the area shifted dramatically over a few years time from traditional skiff and foot access along the beach fringe to use of inland logging roads on foot and by motorized vehicle. The road opened portions of the valley to hunting that had previously been too far from shore to receive much use. Hunting of the beach fringe fell to low levels, perhaps due to the log transfer facility and related vehicle activities on the shore and to the shift to road and clearcut hunting.
Attitudes of Tenakee hunters towards the road and timber activities in the
Indian River area are mixed. Opinions range from those who favor use of the roads because they create easier access to good hunting areas, to others who believe the logging roads create conditions for increased hunter competition, by concentrating local residents’ efforts and by attracting use by hunters from other communities. Most respondents reported that the area is still productive for hunting, but many are concerned that too much hunting pressure along the road corridors throughout the valley will ultimately result in lower deer levels. Changes in hunting patterns and in intensity of use of the Indian River area, due to logging road construction, is evident from this case study. However, timber harvesting has occurred too recently in this area to determine if some of the longer term, habitat-related changes manifested in the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area also may be taking place in the Indian River watershed. Corner Bay
Corner Bay and the Corner Creek watershed use area are directly across
Tenakee Inlet from Tenakee (Figure 2). Corner Creek extends eight miles from the beach up a valley which is two to three miles wide and is heavily forested. Corner Bay is approximately four miles across the inlet from Tenakee, making it easily accessible by skiff except during periods of high winds. This area has always been used by Tenakee residents and visitors, as well as by people living and working in the Corner Bay logging camp. In addition to its primary use for deer hunting, the
Corner Bay area also has been used by Tenakee residents for trapping furbearers and for harvesting crab, clams, cockles, ducks, geese, trout, bottom fish and salmon.
Figure 31 shows consistent use of the Corner Bay area by approximately 30 - 40 percent of all Tenakee deer hunters since 1970.
Figure 32 shows the age profile of hunters in the 1985 survey who have used Corner Bay. The trend of increasing age among hunters in general reflects the age of the sampled individuals (who get older each year), but the data also show a brief increase in the maximum age of hunters in 1982 and 1983. More significantly, data show that the mean age of hunters is lower for Corner Bay than for other case study areas. This may not be unusual for an area adjacent to a logging camp, since most loggers are relatively young. Road building and logging in the Corner Bay area began in 1973 along with construction of a logging camp near the shore of the bay. A U.S. Forest Service administrative site adjacent to the logging camp was completed in 1982. By 1980 extensive clearcutting had taken place throughout the valley along seven miles of
road, for a total harvest of approximately 22 percent of the available commercial
timber in that VCU (USFS 1980, unpublished land-type timber inventory).
100 -o-- o- R- E- 3- t- 2- *- 8- II- 1-- 8- 3- 3- t- a- a- P- il- :-- 2- 2- -4 jY- iu- a- a- :- P- Y- Y- a- ;1- Y- Y- a- it- a- s- 1- I- 3- 3- a- A- z- D- I- t-
9 o
-o- o- I- R- t- 8- e- :- a- 8- a- 8- 3- 3- 8- 0- $- %- a- a- z- is- &- z- i2- P- :- Y- Y- a- a- Y- J- a- :- a- ;L- a- 8- 3- o- a- 4- s- I- L- t- Access to the Corner Bay use area by Tenakee residents traditionally has been by small skiff. Since the construction of logging roads, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are frequently loaded into skiffs and transported to the beach flats or log transfer site at Corner Bay. Three respondents had access to trucks on the Corner
Bay road system which they had purchased from the logging company there.
Additionally, the logging camp and U.S.F.S. administrative site have some year round residents who hunt primarily along nearby beaches and logging roads. Some employees use company vehicles to hunt on the way to or from work. In addition, visitors from other communities sometimes fly into Corner Bay and stay with friends at the logging camp.
Table 8 shows the percentage of hunters from the random survey using different habitat types for deer hunting in Corner Bay since the 1960s. These data show beach fringe hunting in each decade varying between 25-60 percent of hunters. This may be due to the large perimeter of the beach along Corner Bay, much of which has been unaffected by the logging camp and road construction.
However, forest hunting has declined from 75 percent participation by active hunters using the area in the 1960s to low levels in the 1970s (0 percent) and 1980s (14 percent). Hunting along the logging roads and clearcuts shows a corresponding increase following the beginning of timber harvesting activities in the 197Os, with
40 percent of hunters using the roads and 20 percent using the clearcuts in that decade. In the 1980s this participation had grown to 57 percent of the active hunters using both roads and clearcuts for deer hunting. These trends in road and beach hunting are summarized in Figure 31, which shows consistently moderate levels of beach hunting and a growing level of road-accessed hunting. The fall deer hunting season and four-deer bag limit remained unchanged throughout this time period.
102 Responses by surveyed Tenakee respondents about effects of Corner Bay logging activities on hunting practices are varied. When asked the question: “Has logging in the Corner Bay area changed your hunting practices?“, five random survey respondents answered “no.” Three of these said they now use the logging roads for deer hunting. However, five other surveyed households said the logging camp and presence of loggers have disrupted or ended their use of the area. All four key respondents commenting on Corner Bay voiced concerns about the logging activities. One respondent indicated that logging activities near the shore caused him to abandon his hunting and trapping use of this area. Another stated that he has never used the area because of the presence of the logging camp, while a third respondent has stopped using the area since 1978 because “people live in the area and use the road systems.” The fourth respondent still uses the area, but said he has stopped hunting in certain areas which have been logged and are now “too brushy” to use.
Although most hunters in the random survey reported that deer populations remain strong in the area, concern was expressed regarding the consequences of increased hunting pressure and the possibility of a severe winter leading to a crash in the population. As in the previous cases cited above, these concerns may be viewed in light of the deer population model developed by Schoen et al. (1985). The model can be used in this case to evaluate the effects of the reduction in critical winter deer habitat that has resulted from the harvest (as of 1980) of 23 percent of the commercial timber in the Corner Bay area (VCU 236). The deer population model predicts a decline in deer numbers of 28 percent under moderate snow conditions and 49 percent under deep snow conditions. Deer population effects due to additional logging that has occurred since 1980 have not yet been evaluated by the model, and further logging is scheduled for the future (Table 10).
103 In summary, road construction and logging in the Corner Bay watershed since 1973 have created conditions somewhat resembling those previously described for the Indian River Area. The construction of logging roads has allowed easier access to the area by hunters using ATVs and skiffs, and overall use of the area has increased. In addition, the development of a large logging camp with some year round residents has created a new user group that has reportedly caused some
Tenakee residents to avoid the area. In general, it appears that the logging roads have tended to increase the use of the Corner Bay area by certain hunters, while the presence of logging trucks and loggers have led to decreased use of the area by others.
104 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In many respects Tenakee is unique among rural Alaskan communities. Its
population is small, fluctuating between 100-150 residents, and largely non-native.
The median age of year-round residents is high (60 years in 19SS), and the mean
household size of 2.0 is low compared to the average for the rest of the southeast region of approximately 3.0. Despite a recent influx of younger families, Tenakee is still largely a retirement community, with 63 percent of households deriving some income from government transfer payments, which in 1985 contributed to 42 percent of the total community income. This chapter summarizes hunting and fishing activities of Tenakee households and briefly compares Tenakee with three other communities in southeast Alaska. These figures show that resource harvesting makes important contributions to the overall economy of Tenakee, providing a significant and reliable source of food to a majority of residents. In addition, this chapter summarizes information presented in Chapters 4 and 5 concerning deer hunting by Tenakee residents and reviews how deer hunting has changed since clearcut logging and associated road-building have taken place in
Tenakee Inlet. Long term implications for deer hunting of replacing old growth forests with second growth stands throughout watersheds surrounding Tenakee Inlet are identified as areas of future concern.
105 TENAKEE’S ECONOMIC BASE
In the context of Alaska, the term “mixed economy” is often used to describe subsistence-based socioeconomic systems in which the market, or cash, sector of a community’s economy is integrated with and complementary to a subsistence sector (Wolfe and Ellanna 1983). In Tenakee, cash incomes are low ($9,583 median annual income in 1980), and, as shown in Chapter 3, heavily dependent on government transfer payments consisting largely of retirement and social security benefits.
Year-round jobs in Tenakee are few, and most households combine several types of part-time or seasonal wage incomes. Monetary income is used by a majority of households to allow participation in the harvesting of fish and game resources. In 1984, 67 percent of Tenakee households owned a skiff which they used for hunting and fishing. Nearly one third of the households had recently purchased an ATV to aid in deer hunting. Each household participating in hunting and fishing in 1984 made use of purchased technologies such as skiffs, engines, rifles, shotguns, and various fishing equipment to procure needed food resources. Thus, Tenakee appears to have an economic base that fits the above description of the mixed economy, not unlike many other communities in the state.
In Tenakee the subsistence and cash sectors are closely linked, with the overall economy being a mixture of these elements. A part of the relatively limited cash earnings of Tenakee residents are used by a majority of households to purchase the equipment needed to engage in successful hunting, fishing and gathering activities. As discussed in Chapter 2, wage employment in recent decades has not provided a long-term, stable source of income for residents of Tenakee. The crab canneries and fish processing plants came and went in the early part of the century. Opportunities for involvement in the timber industry also have been highly variable. Even the commercial fishing fleet has recently dwindled to just a few permanent boats. Hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods, on the other hand, continues to provide a significant return of wild resources. In this longer term historical context, the use of locally available foods appears to have played a particularly important economic role.
Quantitative harvest data illustrate the contemporary significance of game and fish harvests in supplementing the monetary incomes of Tenakee residents. In Southeast Alaska, the annual Tenakee harvest of 250 pounds per capita ranks above all communities studied to date except Yakutat (369 Ibs). Other Southeast
Alaska communities for which comprehensive harvest data are available include
Haines (114 lbs), Sitka (141 lbs), Klukwan (174 lbs), Hoonah (209 lbs.), Kake (212 Ibs.), Angoon (216 lbs), and Klawock (223 lbs) (ADF&G Division of Subsistence, unpublished data). Participation rates of Tenakee residents in hunting and fishing activities are also fairly high, with 48 percent of household members engaging in hunting’ and 56 percent in fishing, in 1984. Sharing of resources is widely practiced, with older, inactive residents often receiving fish and deer meat from actively harvesting households. Table 9 compares the percent of households in Tenakee, Yakutat, Angoon and Klawock engaging in the harvest of several wild resources.
This table shows that whereas Tenakee ranks last among these four communities in household use of marine plants, marine mammals, birds/eggs, and berries, it is second only to Yakutat households in use of marine fish, shellfish, and land mammals other than deer, and second only to Angoon households in use of deer. Tenakee households harvested an average of 1.6 deer per household in 1984 and 2.3 deer per household in 1983, higher than the 1.6 deer per household in Klawock, but lower than the reported harvest of 3.13 deer per household in Angoon (ADF&G Division of Subsistence, unpublished data).
107 Table 9. Percent of Households in Four Southeast Communities Using Ten Resource Categories in 1984.
Resource Category Klawock Yakutat Angoon Tenakee
Salmon 89 96 79 88
Shellfish 83 100 87 96
Deer 81 20 90 83
Other Land Mammals 14 70 5 25
Marine Mammals 14 50 32 13
Marine Fish 83 98 90 92
Marine Plants 36 44 50 17
Freshwater Fish 61 64 34 54
Flora 78 94 74 83
Birds/Eggs 19 66 18 4
108 HUNTING AND FISHING AREAS
Chapter 4 describes the overall harvest area for Tenakee residents, which includes virtually all of the waters, shores, and upland areas of Tenakee Inlet, and extends along the shoreline and adjacent forests north and south of the Inlet a distance of approximately 12 miles. Areas outside this contiguous use zone that are also used by Tenakee residents include some watersheds and alpine ridges on
Admiralty Island, the beach zone of Pleasant Island, Whitestone Harbor north of Tenakee Inlet, and the lower portion of Game Creek in Port Frederick. It is likely that within this overall use area, certain places are more or less intensively used than others, and it is possible that Tenakee residents would place relative degrees of importance for hunting and fishing on various portions of the total use area. Such distinctions were not possible from the information gathered with this study, but might be gained from further community involvement that uses the available maps as a guide. Compared to other communities in Alaska, the overall area used by Tenakee residents for subsistence hunting and fishing is relatively small. For example, caribou hunting in the north slope village of Kaktovik extends across an area up to 150 miles long and 50 miles wide (Pedersen and Coffing 1984). The contiguous subsistence use area for residents of the coastal town of Tyonek in Cook Inlet extends over 100 miles of shoreline and 30 miles inland (Fall et al. 1984).
Several factors combine to concentrate most subsistence hunting and fishing activities of Tenakee residents within the boundaries of Tenakee Inlet. The 35
mile length and 4 mile width of the Inlet make most of its bays and watersheds accessible by skiff during a day’s journey from town. The waters of the Inlet are usually protected from the southerly prevailing winds, unlike the exposed waters of Chatham Strait, outside the Inlet. Since afternoon winds often make these
109 outside waters unsafe for skiff travel, most residents make limited use of these areas unless traveling by larger boat. Perhaps the most important reason, however, for why Tenakee residents predominantly restrict their subsistence activities to
Tenakee Inlet is because the richness of marine, intertidal, and land resources in the inlet makes further travel unnecessary. Respondents repeatedly referred to the fact that they can satisfy most of their subsistence needs close to Tenakee. The major exception to this is salmon. Because salmon fishing has reportedly declined in the Inlet over the last decade, many residents must now travel further to get their supply of fish. The Basket Bay subsistence sockeye fishery south of Tenakee Inlet is particularly important in this regard.
HARVEST OF DEER
Information in Chapter 4 reflects the importance of deer harvesting to Tenakee residents. Harvest data from the random survey shows an estimated 108 deer killed in 1983 and 78 in 1984, the difference largely being attributed to the
Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984, which curtailed the hunting season for many households (these figures compare to 65 deer for 1983 and 75 deer for 1984 estimated from ADF&G Division of Game mail surveys). Deer harvests of Tenakee residents represent approximately 10 percent of the total deer taken annually in Tenakee Inlet, with the majority of non-local hunting being conducted by hunters from Juneau (ADF&G hunter survey figures, Table 7). Because of a high degree of sharing deer among households, a total of 83 percent of Tenakee households consumed deer in 1984 and 92 percent consumed deer in 1983. Deer harvests constitute a greater percentage of the total community harvest in Tenakee than in Klawock, and even represent a greater percentage of the total resource harvest than do moose harvests in Yakutat.
110 TIMBER MANAGEMENT AND FISH AND WILDLIFE UTILIZATION
It was in 1975 that the issue of the potential impacts of industrial logging on uses of fish and game resources in Tenakee was first raised (DCRA 1975).
Since then, the town council of Tenakee Springs has engaged in a series of dialogues with the U.S. Forest Service concerning the council’s desire to limit the amount of roading and clearcutting occurring in Tenakee Inlet, and has joined lawsuits aimed at stopping logging road construction in the Kadashan and Game
Creek drainages. The research presented in this report is the first attempt to explicitly examine any changes in game and fish harvest patterns that may be related to the relatively short history of industrial-scale logging activities in the Inlet.
Case studies reported in Chapter 5 illustrate some of the kinds of changes in hunting patterns that appear to have resulted from logging and associated road development. The impacts of these activities on fishing and intertidal gathering are less evident, and in Tenakee appear to be limited to reports of declining crabbing and other intertidal gathering activities in the near vicinity of log transfer facilities.
However, several trends concerning the effects of timber harvesting and related activities on deer hunting in Tenakee Inlet emerge from the case studies.
As shown in the South Passage Point area, in the absence of any timber management activities the use of the beach zone for most deer hunting has remained stable over the past three decades. Changes in hunting patterns following timber management activities were identified in other areas. These changes are summarized below by distinguishing between the effects of habitat alteration due to timber harvesting and the effects of road and LTF construction.
111 It is important to note that, as the above deer harvest information shows, deer harvests in Tenakee Inlet have not shown any decline in recent years. On the contrary, it appears that more deer than ever are being taken from the inlet by a rapidly increasing number of hunters. On the surface, then, it may appear that current and historic timber management activities are having a beneficial effect on deer hunting. However, this conclusion is contradicted by information from one area in Tenakee Inlet with a longer history of timber harvest, and by the predictions of a deer habitat suitability model that includes snow depth as a key variable in evaluating deer habitat quality.
EFFECTS OF HABITAT ALTERATION
Clearcutting is postulated to initiate a sequence of forest regeneration stages, and deer have been found to react in different ways to these stages (Alaback 1982, Schoen and Kirchhoff 1985). Linkages between habitat change, changes in deer use and changes in hunter use are illustrated by the Tenakee case studies. Up to 10 years following clearcutting, in portions of Tenakee Inlet, hunting is reported to have been good along margins of cut units. This reportedly is due to the availability of deer browse in combination with good visibility across open spaces. During that time period, hunters have used the edge of clearcuts, or a forested corridor between two cuts, with good success.
Ten to fifteen years after clearcutting in the inlet, hunters decreased use of clearcut areas due to dense regrowth, which was reported to be impenetrable by both deer and hunters. It has not been possible to document effects beyond this fifteen year span in Tenakee Inlet, due to the relatively short history of logging.
112 This sequence of forest regeneration-deer hunting changes is primarily supported by information on historic uses of the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area
(Chapter 5). In this area, traditionally productive for deer hunting, use declined during logging activity and then increased for several years while the clearcuts were still in the young regrowth stage. After approximately 10 years, use again declined, reportedly in response to lower deer numbers and difficulty of travel and hunting in areas of dense regrowth.
In the case studies of the Indian River and Corner Creek watersheds, few clearcuts were ten or more years old. While these areas do illustrate the phenomenon of increasing hunter use in the early stages of regrowth, the types of deer hunting changes that may result from older stages of regrowth were not in evidence.
EFFECTS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Survey data and case histories strongly suggest that logging road. construction has been an agent of change in the hunting patterns of Tenakee residents. Roads have affected hunting areas used, hunting success rates and perceived competition among hunters. Immediately following road construction in the Tenakee Inlet area, the number of local hunters using roaded areas increased (while use of other areas showed a corresponding decrease), reportedly due to ease of access. According to respondents, non-local hunters also began to increase their use of roaded areas. Use of the beach zone for hunting by skiff declined and the use of upland forested areas and the clearcut edges made accessible by roads increased. Hunting strategies changed from predominant use of the beach zone and near forested areas by skiff and on foot, to use of ATVs and in some cases trucks in conjunction with walking along roads in upland regions.
113 Competition for deer among hunters is reported to have increased along roaded areas. In the case of Tenakee Inlet, this competition is not currently manifested as an overall decrease in deer harvests per hunter. Rather, competition appears to take the form of perceived crowding, the possibility of an increased cost of hunting (in the form of added time or distance costs), or displeasure with motorized hunter access. Some traditional users of an area (notably the Corner Bay area) were displaced from traditional hunting areas because of this perceived competition.
LONGER TERM CHANGES
Additional socioeconomic or other employment-related effects of logging on hunting and fishing activities in Tenakee were not’ revealed in the course of this study. This may be a consequence of the fact that relatively few residents of Tenakee have been employed in the logging industry in the past decade. As a rule the cash jncome used for pprchase and maintenance of skiffs, ATVs, and other hunting and fishing equipment continues to be derived from a mix of non-logging related sources.
The Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit deer hunting area, with its 15-year time depth of logging and regrowth, provides a revealing case of habitat change and subsequent change in hunter behavior that may have implications for other areas in the inlet, including Indian River and Corner Bay. The evidence from Ten to
Fifteen Mile Spit suggests that the regrowth of timber and understory vegetation can inhibit use by deer and deer hunters. Undoubtedly, design considerations for roading and clearcutting are important factors that condition, and possibly mitigate, this effect.
114 Table 10. Timber Harvest Summary and Predicted Decline in Deer Population for -Tenakee Inlet VCUs.
Percent CFLb Percent CFL Percent Deer Already Scheduled Remaining vcua Number Harvested For Harvest After 100 Years
Pt. Cannery 219 6.1 69.1 25.5 Tenakee Springs 220 2.4 66.7 17.5 Whip Station 221 13.0 50.8 26.6 Sand Station 222 6.7 66.6 21.3 Goose View 223 0.0 48.2 49.2 Tenakee Inlet 224 7.1 42.3 61.2 Little Goose Flats 225 0.0 51.4 44.7 Goose Flats 226 0.0 49.2 39.5 Hub Station 227 0.0 58.4 26.5 Beth Station 230 2.6 71.2 29.6 Saltery Bay 231 3.5 61.8 32.3 Crab Bay 232 5.9 67.0 32.5 South Crab Bay 233 0.0 59.7 38.0 Inbetween 234 0.0 81.1 12.5 Kadashan 235 1.1 64.1 24.0 Corner Bay 236 21.9 66.7 22.2 Trap Bay 237 2.7 63.0 18.1 South Passage 238 0.0 55.0 27.3 Kook. Lake 239 12.2 39.6 58.7 Little Basket Bay 240 0.C 43.6 44.5 Source: Schoen et al; 1985. t Value Comparison Unit (U.S. Forest Service system for naming watersheds) Commercial Forest Land (greater than 8,000 board feet of timber per acre)
115 This finding points to the need for timber harvest planning that identifies the design features that provide for optimum continued hunter use, and timber sales that incorporate these features. This may be particularly important near communities, like Tenakee, that make extensive use of deer.
Any decline in the availability of deer in the Indian River area due to factors such as those described for Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit could require Tenakee hunters to travel farther to hunt deer or to find substitutes for the deer now taken from there. Since any change in use of the Indian River area would probably increase use somewhere else in the inlet, a decline in hunting success in this drainage may eventually increase the use and competition for deer in other areas.
If deer populations decline relative to hunters, this could lead to increasingly stringent harvest regulations. Research results from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Game Division, raise concerns for longer term impacts of clearcut logging on deer hunting. According to the ADF&G deer population model (Schoen et al. 1985), if all timber that is now (under the terms of TLMP) scheduled for harvest in Tenakee Inlet is actually harvested, the remaining old growth forests in place one hundred years from now will support an average of less than half the current deer population during periods of intermediate snowfall (Table 10). During heavy snow years, the combination of deep snow in the clearcuts and inadequate browse material in the second growth stands are predicted to result in seriously depleted deer’populations. In conclusion, the cumulative impacts of the logging-related changes described in this report appear to be of sufficient importance that they should be closely examined when considering future options for timber development in Tenakee Inlet. Evidence from this study suggests that logging road construction and habitat change from clearcutting have become significant agents of social
116 change in this area, which is manifested through changes in patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing.
It is likely that numerous similarities exist between the conditions described here for Tenakee Inlet and those of other areas in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia. However, caution must be used in generalizing these observations and findings beyond the Tenakee Springs case study. A future summary report in this series of “Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife
Utilization” research projects will synthesize results from several case study communities and will evaluate the Tenakee findings in the context of available data for all cases.
117 LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) 1975. The Socio- economic Implications of Logging Operations on Tenakee Springs, and Tenakee Inlet, Alaska. 1984. Tenakee Springs Community Plan Alaska Geographic Society 1978. Southeast, Alaska’s Panhandle. S(2). Anchorage: Alaska. Northwest Publishing Co.
British Columbia Forest Service 1983. Reservation of Old Growth Timber for the Protection of Wildlife Habitat on Northern Vancouver Island. Ministry of Forests.
Brody, Hugh. 1981. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier. Douglas and McIntyre: Vancouver, 297 pages.
Bunnell, F.L. 1981. Wildlife and Land: The Vancouver Island Example. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Bunnell, Fred L.; McNay, Scott R.; and Shank, Chris C. 1984. Trees and Snow: The Deposition of Snow on the Ground - A Review and Quantitative Synthesis. University of British Columbia. de Laguna, Frederica 1960. The Story of a Tlingit Community. Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 172. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. Dimitrov, Peter 1984. A Northern Indian Band’s Mode of Production and its Articulation with the Multinational Mode. M.Sc. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Doyle, D. and McNay, R. S. 1984. Black-tailed Deer and Intensive Forestry Interaction: A three. year data report. Ministries of Forests and Environment.
Ellanna, Linda and George Sherrod 1986. (draft) Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast Alaska Communities: Klawock, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Technical Paper #126. Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Ellanna, Linda, George Sherrod and Steve Langdon 1985. (draft) Subsistence Mapping: An Evaluation and Methodological Guidelines. Technical Paper #125. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
118 Fall, James A., Dan J. Foster and Ronald T. Stanek 1984. The Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Tyonek, Alaska. Technical Paper #105. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Freeman, Milton. (ed.) 1976. Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project, Volume I. Land Use and Occupancy, Volume II. Supporting Studies, Volume III. Land Use Atlas. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Ottawa.
Gates, Rodd Bryan 1962. Deer Food Production in Certain Seral Stages of the Coast Forest. Univ. of British Columbia.
Goldschmidt, Walter and Theodore Haas 1946. Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeastern Alaska. Unpublished report. Washington, D.C. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Harris, Arland S. and Wilbur A. Farr 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. No. 7. Forest Ecology and Timber Management. Portland: USDA, USFS, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 109 pp.
Herbert, D.M. Implications of Forest Tenure for Wildlife Management in Coastal Ecosystems. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Nanaimo, B.C. Jones, William 1971. Aspects of the Winter Ecology of Black&tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columtianus Richardson) on Northern Vancouver Island. University of British Columbia. Kirchhoff, Matthew 1985. A Timber Harvest Atlas for Selected Areas in Southeast Alaska (unpublished). Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Krause, Aurel 1956. The Tlingit Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 3 1Opp
Krieger, Herbert W. 1927. Indian Villages of Southeast Alaska. In U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. Annual Report, pp. 467-494. Leghorn, Ken 1985. Subsistence Land Use Mapping in Canada and Alaska: A Comparative Review of Research Methods, Applications, and Policy Contexts. Unpublished manuscript. Univ. of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning.
Ministry of Forests,. British Columbia 1983. Reservation of Old Growth Timber for the Protection of Wildlife Habitat on Northern Vancouver Island. 48 pages, plus appendices.
McNay, R.S. and Davies, R. 1984. Black-tailed Deer and Intensive Forestry Interactions - A Problem Analysis. Ministeries of Forest and Environment Nanaimo, B.C.
119 Niblack, Albert P. 1980. The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia. In U.S. National Museum, Annual Report, 1888, pp. 225-386. (Reprinted in 1970 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.)
Oberg, Kalervo 1973. The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 146 pp.
Olson, R. L. 1967. Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit in Alaska. Berkeley: University of California Press. 123 pp.
Pedersen, Sverre and Michael Coffing 1984. Caribou Hunting: Land Use Dimension0 and Recent Harvest Patterns in Kaktovik, Northeast Alaska. Technical Paper #92. Fairbanks: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Petroff, Ivan 1884. Alaska: Its Population, Industries and Resources. 10th Census of the U.S. Vol. 8. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Printing Office. Rochelle, Arthur James 1980. Mature Forests, Litterfall and Patterns of Forage Quality as Factors in the Nutrition of Black-tailed Deer on Northern Vancouver Island. Washington State University.
Sahlins, Marshall 1972. Stone age Economies. New York: Aldine Publishing Co. 348 pp. Schoen, John and Matthew Kirchhoff 1985. Seasonal Distribution and Home- range Patterns of Sitka Black-tailed Deer on Admiralty Island, Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(l): 96-103.
Schoen, John, Matthew Kirchhoff and Michael Thomas 1985. Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use by Sitka Black-tailed Deer in Southeastern Alaska. Division of Game, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.
Shoen, John W.; Matthew D. Kirchhoff; and O.C. Wallmo 1981. Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use by Sitka Black-tailed Deer in Southeastern Alaska. Division of Game, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. Stevenson, Susan 1978. Distribution and Abundance of Arboreal Lichen and their use as Forage by Black-tailed Deer. University of British Columbia.
Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau, Alaska 1984. Logging in Southeast Alaska and Its Relationship to Wildlife, Fisheries, and Economics. Unpublished report. Juneau: Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau, Alaska. 56 pp.
U.S. Forest Service 1979, 1980. Tongass Land Management Plan, land type timber inventory data (unpublished). 1986. 1986-90 Operating Period for the Alaska Pulp Corporation Long-term Sale Area, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau: United States Department of Agriculture.
120 Weinstein, Martin 1976. What the Land Provides: An Evaluation of the Fort , George Subsistence Economy and the Possible Consequences on it of the James Bay Hydroelectric Project. Grand Council of the Crees: Montreal, 255 pages.
Willms Walter David 1971. The Influence of Forest Edge, Elevation, Aspect, Site Index, and Roads on Deer Use of Logged and Mature Forest, Northern Vancouver Island. University of British Columbia. Wolfe, Robert J. 1987. The Super-household: specialization in subsistence economies. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Wolfe, Robert J. and Linda J. Eilanna (compilers) 1983. Resource Use and Socioeconomic Systems: Case Studies of Fishing and Hunting in Alaskan Communities. Technical Paper #61. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
121 Appendix I: Study Site Selection Criteria ; Phase 1
TONG&T N.F. COPIMUNITIES RATING/COMMENTS
YAKIJTAT possible; In Yakutat study KLuKwAN no; little local use of deer XAINES no; little local use of deer SKAGWAY no; little local use of deer JUNEAU no; too large for phase 1 _ GUSTAVUS possible ELFIN COVE possible; marginal access PELICAN possible; marginal access HOONAH possible TENAKRE SPR. possible ANGOON possible SITKA no; too large for phase 1 possible PT. BAKRR possible; marginal access PORT ALEX. no; marginal access CAPE POLE no; short history -EDNA BAY no; short history KLAWOCK possible HOLLIS no; short history CRAIG no; too large for phase 1 HYDABURG possible KASAAN possible MEYERS CHUCK no; short history PETERSBURG no; too large foti phase 1 WRANGELL no; too large for phase 1 KETCHIKAN no; too large for phase 1 SAXMAN no; not a defined community MKTUKATLA no; unique reservation status HYDER no; poor access THORNE BAY ix ii ix i i--ix ix i no; short history
122 Appendix Ia: Study Site Selection Criteria and Timber Harvest History in Immediate Vicfnity of Communities Rated as Possible
High Volume Low Volume/or Short Moderate Volume/ Long History History of Timber Moderate History of Timber Earves t of Timber Harvest Iiarves t
Hydaburg Hoonah Rake
Gus tavus Tenakee** IUawock*
Elfin Cove Pt. Baker/Port Protection Pelican
Angoon*** , Rasaan
Long History of Timber Harvesting Category *Rlawock - Additional criteria for selection:
1) Reasonable accessibility 2) History of being road connected to other communities; 3) Long History of extensive timber harvest in vicinity; 4) Predominantly Native community.
Moderate Involvement with Timber History *qenakee - Additional criteria for selection:
1) Reasonable accessibility (regular ferry schedule and mail flights make Tenakee a cost efficient choice); 2) Predominantly non-Native, provides a mixture of Native and non-Native communities; 3) Timber harvest history available.
Low Involvement with Timber Harvesting ***Angoon - Additional criteria for selection:
1) Reasonable accessibility, division staff living in the community, cost effective; 2) Timber harvest history available.
123 APPENDIX II
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR DETERMINING USABLE WEIGHTS OF RESOURCES IN TENAKEE DURING 1984
(Local Name if Different from Cormnon Name Comson Name) Scientific Name Usable Weight SOUf-Ct
SALHON
Chinook (King) Oncorhynchus tshaeytscha 16.5 tbs. AOFLC Corms. Fish. Div. Chun (Dog) Oncorhynchus k&a 7.7 Ibs. ADFAG Cces-s. Fish. Div. Pink (Humpback) Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 3.5 lbs. ADFLC Corms. Fish. Div. Red (Sockeye) Oncorhynchus ncrka 5.6 lbs. AOFLC Comn. Fish. Div. si 1 ver (Coho) Oncorhynchus ki sutch 8.7 tbs. AOF6C Corms. Fish. Div.
OTHER FISH
Cutthroat Trout Salmo clarki 1.5 Ibs. Researcher Estimate Oolly Varden Salvelinus malma 1.4 lbs. Researcher Estimate Steelhead Salmo gairdneri 6.0 Ibs. Researcher Estimate Eulachon (Hooligan) Thagichthys pacificus Recorded in lbs. - Pacific Herring Clupea pallasii Recorded in Ibs. Herring Eggs on Kelp/Other Substrate Recorded in lbs. Halibut tiippoglossus stenolepis Recorded in lbs. Pacific Cod Cadus macrocephalus 4.0 lbs. Researcher Estimate Red Snapper Sebastoder rub errimus 3.0 lbs. Researcher Estimate Basket Cockles 2.0 lbs. (per 5 gal bucket) Tech. Paper No. 95 Butter Cl MS Saxidanus giganteus 2.0 lbs. (per 5 gal bucket) Tech. Paper No. 95 Razor Clams Siliqua patula 2.0 Ibs. (per 5 gal bucket) Tech. Paper No. 95 Oungeness Crab Cancer magister 2.5 Ibs. Koeneman, ADFaG, per. coasn. King Crab Paralithodes camtschatica 7.0 lbs. Koenenan, AOFLC, per. colllll. Tanner Crab Chionoecetes bairdi 2.2 lbs. Koeneman, AOF6G, per. coass. Black Gumboots 20.0 Ibs. (per 5 gal bucket) Researcher Estimate Sea Urchin (Neets) 5.0 lbs. (per 5 gal bucket) Researcher Estimate octopus (Devil Fish) 10.0 Ibs. K.A.N.A. (1993) APPENDIX II (continued)
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR DETERMINING USABLE WEIGHTS OF RESOURCES IN TENAKEE DURING 1985
(Local Name if Different from Common Name Cornnon Name) Sclentiflc Name Usable Weight source
OTHER FISH
Sea Scallops Patlnopeeten cauirnus Recorded in lbs. shrimp Panadal id Recorded in lbs. Black Seaweed 20.0 lbs. (per 5 gal. bucket) Researcher Estimate Bull Kelp 20.0 lbs. [per 5 gal. bucket) Researcher Estimate
MARINE HAHrlALS
Harbor Seal Phoca vi tul ina 180.0 lbs. ADFIG, Subsistence Div.
LAND MAMMALS
Deer Ddocoileus hemionus sitkensis 80 lbs. L. Johnson, ADFaG pers. coo. Moose Alces alces 550.0 lbs. Researcher Estimate Black Bear Ursus americanus 150.0 lbs. Researcher Estimate Brown Bear Ursus arctos 50.0 lbs. Researcher Estimate
B IRDS AND EGGS
Canada Geese Branta canadensis 5.0 lbs. Tech. Paper No. 95 Ducks 1.5 lbi. Tech. Paper No. 95
PLANTS AND BERRIES
Berries : 1.0 lb. per quart Researcher Estimate Plants 1.0 lb. per quart Researcher Estimate
. C. 00 yau hrvr parents or children in other Southeast Alrslr communities? 11 so, plerse list communities below; ------
0. Did you own or use any of the following equipment in 1984? --- l I RURDLR 1 DO YOU USE FORI TT?E Of tQVIPRERT I OIRIED 1-w: I --- ; w%!im; LD~QL-: :Auta#bile 1 , I ‘~~,,,-~~-~~~~__~~~~~_:-~~~~~~~~~-~~~_~_~__~ :trucU 1 1 I I ------_------_____uI : ------‘--m :skiff I-- -,-,-~,~~~~_,~~~_~_~~-~:~~~~_-~ ----:---_: IPurse Seinrr/Cabin Cruiser/Troller : ~-,,--,,~,_,,,~_~~~~~______:___~~~:~_~__:______: :Snowmschine , i~------:------:----:------i : : , I I ------’ ----I_ -w-w -m-w :Airplrne I , I I I : -u------w- -w------e--s-- for each skiff owned, please indicate length, type, rnd moror sizer
Sltiff (11 ----I------SlIiff B2r ------______I_____------
2. EN?LOIRERT lRfQRNAT101
Plerse complete the following information for rll jobs (cash employment) held by household members during 191348 --- IIDI FROR : JO1 TITLt I D Of RSRTHS : e Of HOURS ywu’I f rpgll~*~~*~_I)pB~~u~u~E~ ‘i 4 ------______-____-______: I ------__----__--__: t I ------_------:
------: ------_-----_------: ------: I I ----m---e- ,,~,~,,~~~~,,~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------: , ,
: ------______-,--_----______: ------
I ------I
: ------: ------: ------w-
2
127 3. FlDlt
Did your household try to harvest or did you give or recrivr any type of fish, shellfish, or beach food in I914? yes ___ no ___ If yes, please complete the following tables;
Aa Use of Salmon Fra CorrrcIrl Catch c ” I I I I NUNDERREIIOVED fRON COllllEEK: I I ITRIED TO I WQJQQus : I SPECIES I _PITlrcl soino I power I hand I Kill l I --:y*linn 1 ; rrel*nlq,nu-,! :King : I I
I I I I
:tJjglL, I I I I : : es e-s --a -we w--w -w--u------‘------: I I 1 --w--- ~~~~~~~:~_~~___‘~~__-_ : lRed I I8 : I I I :llQs&firL:;Iilver ;--..;---;: 1-w-s ;: m-s- 1;------:------:------1------i :&Qbk: : : -e-- ; me-- ; ------: ------m------m---e--' lather or l--'--: :YnmRDJ,,~,J-,: ---_: -v-s------L------+ Used salmon from, .commercirl catch? et Tried to harvest commercially?
Be Use of Salmon From Non-Comorcirl Catch ----_I------I I : WED TO 1mLQ~rrDWQtiQCUL1ULELlgIXEL: I IO ii?- ISPECIES l_YarD,~~~fil seine Itroll lrod k I gill Ispear/lother l,Qg~g-jJ~~,:SALltON : net I Krff : :yeslno lyeslno :DSIREI: -m'----: ---v :--,I ' ' ' I : -,--- I : --a---*
:IQnll,,,,:,,,:,,,~-,,,:,,,,:,,,I ..-- : -es------: ----:--: _-:---:--! ----me :KoNrnee : I : : : : : ‘---B---s: --‘--: -s-w: -me-: e-w: w-m’ ---es ------me------__e___: --- _-:__a m-e ----mm :Pink I I :Ih,u~n~rl:,,:,,:,,,,:,,: e-s I -- : ------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: --so---'--- : --- ! ------:Red : 9 , : * : I : ! I , I :IlnSLrYzL:--i,--:-,-,:---,:---:,,:_------~------:------’ ------iSilver :
:~sQlJQ) --- ! -- : se- : me-- I w--- : -_:-_ -de------:Olhrr or : : I : : : : :UnRnRwn------w : --- : --- : me-- : --:-- e-e ------
l Used salmon from a non-commercial catch? tt Tried to harvest non-commtrcirlly~ tee Specify purse stine or beach selneo tt4* Dragging l lrne I hook from l moving boat, rod b rreL means tverything cls*,
‘If there were no limitrt,ions set by rr;ulrtion, about how many salmon would
your household have harvested last year?'
128 C. Freth I)JtOr Fish a- I : ITRIED TO :tixR IIPECIES ; aYil$~M&~J~EBTED : SdWL,~ I :YDlp.9~Ys3pD~! ICutthroat I I I I I I IrsIlt I I * 0 I I I * a ------m-w w-- --em w-e ------e-m -- -em _I :Dolly Vardtn : : : : : I I t 8 , ------_ s-w -e-s e-v ------:Rainbor I I I I I * I -----m-e---- - m-s --es --mm ---s-s------:--- s--: :Sterlhead I t * I 8 I I I I ------se ------:------' -*--~---:--: IOthw or : * I , > lptknqrn :I: : I ------me -se e-m- me------_------m-s I --- 1--- b Qlm :Crayllng I frn!mur ------:-- @---:--:---: ------:---:--: --- -- iNorthern PiRt : I : : I I * I risk! I I ------em -- -~~‘~~~~‘~~~~~~: --_:-:--:--: :Rhittfish : I I I ------w----m------‘----*------w m-s -- -me :Othtr or I I I * * :UnNnown-----es------w-s e-e mm-- ---s ------'------:--- -em
I -1 I rairP'T0 :&ROUNT :SPECIES I J9fo_IHB@!ar I HARVESTED i JgQ&&“L i I :YSDj”9+W3+2Q+‘YQ.iU~ : yJlfDQ+Y+9- ; iCandle Fish : ): :1Emslln) ------s -me we- ----:------:- em- --- ___: lliool rgan ( 1: : : : : ~LhlEsW~- ----: e-s I e-w : -w-e : --em : ------me------em :Surf Smelt : : : : : ( 1: : : : : l(Qilvrr------s--m Smelt): e-e I w-m: ---- : ----'------1 ------iOther or :I ( );---I---; ; : I !Unknosn------s --- -we ----'---_ ------s --- -em -se -MS IPacific I I ( ): I : : : I I 1 :QXCiQl ------____*____: -----s---- 4--- : w-v'---' I --- I !Hcrrlng Eggs t t : : : t ): : : : : I ------I -- I -- I ------: : : , ;Rerrln( ELLS : ; ; : :------( ): --- I --- : ---i--y -~~~~-~~~:~~~:~~~: e-w 5--- ' ( ): : : : : :Y”lOqRn,,,,,,,,,,_:,,_: ---- -em- ______-___: ---:---: --- ’ --- NURSER l~F;;;;-“‘---“T’--i---T’---~--T- !M!!LSIEQ ------e- 91YCm!n I : : , I -----v------me ______:___I___ --,---: :Whitt -----w--s----- m-w w-m ------a------_ ~~~~~~~:~~~ iOther or , : I Y~X~~wn-----: ------VW ------mm --w --- Erh :Bltnny :lerlrxl~,Barrl:,,_:,,,I ----: ----: ------: --- ! --- ! --- ' --- ' :Pacific :b!!A_nrrr ------:---:---~ '-w-e : -w-- : ------:---: --: ---' :Othtr or :Unlnown~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~ ---- : ---:------: ___:___:______: s or othtr substract
129 llarino Flsh Cow, I :TRIED TO IRVNRER -- :SPECIES 1 --I__ lysluu4Jutin I ~Yfl~DQ+YSl~DP-~ :Floundor 1 8 I I I I 'w-e------I::------se : ---- '------m-m --- m-m s-w :so10 I , I 8 I
I -I I I ------e---'-- -- -w--: -s-m -----v cl&): e mm I -- : e-m I -- : :Lin( Cod I t I , , I 8 I
;Rocl:i!klY,tQdL,,,,: Creenl*n(l---;---1----;----;------I-:---:---:-'-j---1 : 1 : : ,,,-,,,-,-:--: ,,,:,---:---: ------I ---:--:------I :Tom Cod 1 I I ---s------a------,-s:---: ,,---,,---:---:---: -em ' e-f :Rhiting (SlnJm: : : : I I I * I :~~Q~~yQelsk -- ) I e-w I --- t --- I ,--I -----s--- -es -- -me -- :Sablofish I I I I t * ! I :IP?~s~~~Ql---j---~---j -e-s : -w-s 1------s-s ------we lOthor or 8 I I : : :;Blur y"l&Qwn RockfIsh------: :-'-I---1----1----i------i--j----~---~---~ BPS!!Ein!! ------w--v------______: ,,,:---:---: -m: :Red Snapper : : : : : I ---s------s-- --- e-s w-s------: --- ! -- I -- I a-- I :Soa Bass : : : I ,
:Sea Porch -B------e------emme ---- ______-__:___: --- : --- : --- : :Othtr or I I :Unknown;SiiTI------:---:l-:----:----i------~,---~---~---~---~ Qkrtts I : : ----- I ------s-s : w-s'--' I __B_~___: ------e--w --a -- I e-w : S-M ! 6 : : ShlCll I 4 jDog------Firh --- m-m e-m- ---- ______I___:___:___I a- 1 :Salmon Shark : : : :I : : : : : I ------w--w w-s e-w ------: --w----w--- -we I --- : ___'___' I :Othor or I ------e--'..--Unknown WV ,---I ------'------Tuna and :Blut fin w--m --- I ns!!lrll ------:----Q -e-m ------_ I --- : mm_‘-__' 0 :Htcktrtl -___---___-__: -w:---: _--- f ---- ’ ------,-,-,*,--:---: ---: ---: IOther or I : : : ;i;TTiiD------':---'---:---':----i------i---i---j---~---iIUnknown ;lr,sh:Sf91wn ------s-: Lord :---I---r----r----i------~---i---~---~---~ 4 1 I I ---w------'----'----: ------em- me- I --- i ---I ' :Othor or , I I s : : I , I y$nqwn------_: w-v I --- : -e-w e-s------_------_-- ___: I : ! , I : I , ------m-v ------e------'---'v-m : me_'s ------s--w --s e-e ------______: m-w* --- : ,,-.---:4
5
130 t0 nrrtno ~nVOrt8bPatOS
--a I I ITRlfi TO :S CALLOR : ISPECIEB lJQ&JQ~yEQ~:BUCKETS lJE&YL~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ iBasket Cocllr : Em!2 I I I I * r!!Q !2&!!l~2 : ------:--* W-B’ -SW------‘---‘--- IHeart CocNlo : I : : : I : I 6 I I t )----,-,,-..,,, ------w-s --- ~~~~~~~~~~~: m-m --- S-B --- iButter Clam : : I : : I 4 e 8 I , I I I I I I I ‘-~~~-~~-__~_~~~___:~__’ --se -s---s m-w, --- : ---‘---’ , :Blue flussel : I : : : I I * I I t I I I I I b ‘------m-m -se -s-e s-w------mu -- e-w BBS I I I I Ceoducl I I I I I : * 1 * I ;“orsos-v------Clam ; e-w ; -s-:---:; ;----;------+-;---;--~--; ;Razor------:--- Clrn l ; --- ;: --- ;----1------‘---!---‘--‘---I: I ----w--w------me ------: ------s------w- -I me- e-s , s-d : :Oiher or I I I I I b * : Yn!lDQ~n------: --- :I--- -w-w I -w-w : ------‘------‘------RURRER ; ~;;;‘~;;;~ ----- ;-l;--~---T---:----~--~---~---~---: I I 1 I I I I I ----I---- I I e-m ! -m-m : -,------:-.---:-- -- IDungonoss Crab:-:-1 : I I I I t I I I -I------we- e-v ----‘------s-v w-v e-s :Kin( Crab I , , -.P------..- -me -- m-e ------:--: -- : --- :--: ITanner Crab I I : : : ------:----: ____:______:--_:___:___: --w ’ IOcher or I ynlnown------s---s- -Be -~---: ---‘:S-~~iit~~~-‘:“‘:‘-‘:“‘:“‘: BUCKETS ------_------QlhZC iAbalone I I , Shrlliir!! : -v------w e-w w-e -v-e --mm ------‘--- ! --I-- ’ : :Blacll Gumboot : : : I : :cQlark;Rcd C;;;lb;o,chjtpn): - -- ; -de :; -we I; ----: ;----1------i---i---~---i---j I IQzQ,LQy,Q&) -- I em- 1-se : ---- : -m-s : -----e-m--- -_- ___f___ ---: :Linpet I ;I;;T;““““’ I ---;---;----;----;’ ’ ------:--- --:--:---: 1ISsamYcsh&n) - ---- : ___: --: ----: w-e------w------:---:---: :Rock Oyster : : : : :Whelks : llDiii1) ------a-- --- e-v- --we -______‘___1___‘___l___l :Othor or I :ynknpwn------se------e--w we------SW ------
6
131 lnrortobrrtrr Coat.
-s-e- I - I5?5CIL5 : :octopur RfhSl: I a hYrrLll!rull :1&yll e-m-----Fish) : e-w : -em I --me : em-- ! ------: es- -- w-w -__I :Ser Cucumbtr : : : 0 g11: : : --- : :ser Scrllops : : 1 : : ( 1: I , : : I ------a --w -mm- -e-s ------I es- . --‘--‘---: :Shrtmp I I , ( 1: : : : :
I Io~;a;------r-~---i--t---i--i - : -‘v : ---:---: 1: : : I I I : Yckppwn------u- -SW -s-s -em- ----u--- I a-- : --:--- --
F. Rrrim Ylrnrr
I I trlED0 : MOURT- :sPECIta : RllRll~ !Blrck Serwred : : is*,------Ribbonr ; -- *p--,; -a-,: ----,; ------‘--++++ ( ): ;*,h,r------,---:--‘--- SIJw~rd I ) ; _-_: ‘,,-,----,----:---: -! ---:----: ------:---: *a------: !ssln :Bull K11p ( ): : I : : ------,--,-:---: --:---:----: iO,hrr op ; ; ; ; ;------I 1: ---‘--‘---‘---;: : : :Yli!nw!,~,: e-e ’ e-w ’ e--m s--e ------_-- _- __-
132 Did your household try lo harvest or did you give or r8crive any type of arrrlr in 19841 yes __ no ____ If yes+ plerre complete the following trblert
A. Dwt Bid you use deer \rrt yeer? yes __- no ____
How many deer did rll nerbers of your household ?atie (to~rl) 1rr1 year? _-_
How nrny of these deer were taken on the ,I*
(indicrte N hervested O=tried mirhout success blrnR=did not try) ------______I__------, SKIFF ACCESS
------u------: CABIN CRUISER I TROLLER I SEINER ACCESS
------AUTO I TRUCK ACCESS e----p -: +iiiiiiiii~jdlW ; FQSuL+wmf~UL,,~ : ------e--e ------M- : ----e-w ------~~~~~~~~~~: ------8 OTHERACCESS (sprc~fyl * ------LJiAsudfi~L~~~~~~~~~ I : ------:------: ------: ------s-- --~~~~~~~~~
Did you receive rny deer from another household? yes ____ no ____
Did you (IVI my deer to mother household? w -_ no ____ Did you use deer prrts for rnythlng besldes food? yes B-s- “0 ----
Did you use or 61Ve deer for l potlrtch, perty, or other celebrrtion? yes ---- no _-_ If there were no limi?rtionr set by re(ulrtion, about haw meny dear would your household have hervested lest year? ------ID of deer) R
133 Da Rarinr Nurlrn
: I :tRlLb TO IRURBfR :RURDtR Uk----- :D?fCIEB I~~i~IllARUfStfD I fOR I -_uI_ IYD2hninU :PmJPPQrY22lnY22G~~ : BaluRhr 1 : I I : I I I I I ------s----- I--- m-w -w-w e-w ------e-m-- -we e-w -se es- :Fur Seal * I 1 1 : I I 1 I I b ‘------I --- : -- : ~~~~~~-~~~~~~-~~~-‘~-~~‘~~~~- --- s-w m-w e-e :Harbor Seal : I : : : 0‘~~~~~~~~-‘~~~‘~~~‘~~------s --me- --- -se e-v --- :Smlion I a 1 I ------e-v e-m --we -m-w ------w-w-- ~-~~~~~:~~~:~~~: :sea otter I I : ‘------‘------Be------‘----- w-m -~~~~~~~~~: :Qthrr
I I , , 8 I I I ------e-w -w-w ------_-__:_-__ W-B ------IBlrck Dear : : I I I I I , I I 1 I I -----w---u : m-e I v-m I -- ---,----..------w-'---s -s -- -se -se IBrown Bear I I : : , I t I * , I ------mm --- --a- -v-m I ------s-s ----- s-w m-m -- B-m llountrln Coat : : : : : I I ------e-e --- --es -we------:wolf : : 1E~;~T;------:-‘-:“-:----:----:--”--”---:--’--:-----:--- I ~~~:~~~:~~~~ I I I I I 1 ------w-v --- --em -em------_------:---:------:Red FOI I 8 * I ‘: I e I ------we e-w --em m-w------I --- : --- : I Lynx I I 4 I I 0 ------e-e -e-w ------;.----- :.--- : --- , s-- ) --- I. :19olverlne I I I ------s-s- s-w e-e -s-s -se------'------m-e I m-w: ---~--w’ : --- : :Lmd Otter : : I : I --m------e m-e -em ---w --: ------S-B ------I Server ------em --- -w-w ----'------_: -----: ----- :---: --- ' --- : --- : :Porcuprnr 8 I I I ------:--: --:--:---: ------:--_: ----- : --- : --- : --- : --- : :l!usUrrt ---______:___ ------t ------:------___: I llrrmo t ------! ----- , --- : ---~---' I --- , : Ueasa 1 : ------m-e : --a’---’ : ---- ! -we- -e------t -----:---:------:HinU ------: ---‘---’ , --- I --- I :Irrtcn , ------: --- : B-e I --se _------‘------‘--- : --- : --- : I Hare : mm’ ------) m-w w-e ------6-----: ----- :___: -me ’ m-w: -em : :Squirrrl ------e-e --w e-e ------em ------~~~~~:~~~:~~~'~~~ ___: :OIher I '~~~~~~~~~~~~__'~~~'~~~'~~~~:~~~~: ______I_____:_____(___)__ : ' '
134 Did your household try to harvest or did you give or receive birds or bird l (# during 1984? yes -_ no -- If yes, please complrto the following table;
-,------fYuiQ~IuLiQQ i IYl2iZLiY22i!!L ,: Ptrraigrn : I ffYL ------'------m-w e-e SW-,: Grouse I I I ------we --- -we- B-B --v-s---- -me w-m -em es- ,: I , I * I EL@ I : , ------I ---'---' : s--w I -s-s -s------w , s-w : e-m ! e-e I --- ,: Other I si;;~'8,;,T-"l-"j---~----~--~-~------~---~---~---~--- ,’ liss22 I , I I I t s I ------Me ---‘------‘------we --- -we -- I Crnrdr 8 I : I I I I I I ----s------v -- -- -e-e --Mm ------I e-s ! B-m I -- I --- I I inperor I I I ------:-- I 8 I ------me --- I Snow I ‘------__‘____ ------mm e-e :Whttr Fronted : : : : : 1 : : 8 ------.-----'------we -mm : EggI t I I '-______------,',-A ------SW -we IOther or SYlQ2 ;~i;;;tiT~~-~Y;;;'--;:UnRnqwn ---'----'----'------1. :. :,:---I --:-_ , , --: I ------:Trumpelar Swan: : : : : ------_:-_:------: : Eg;s -----_-_~-_ -me -e-e --es ------i-_: --:--:--: :Othcr or :!m!nn!E! ------:---: --- : ---- : ---- : ------.--:--' ---: ___: rr2na2r :Crerc Blue : : : Hlrqns- - SW :HaCQ",,,,,,,,:,,,:,,,:,,,,:,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,',,-:,,,:-,,: :Sandhill Crane: : : : : :______,___~---~----~----~------~---~---~---!---~ : Eg;s I I '------s ------:--- : ---' ' :Other or : : I : Y :UnRnown------we -me -v-e : ---- ! ------: --- :___:___: ------DUClSl : Ducks : : , SC2 !!a!2 ------we --- -em --me -----_:-- : --- ! e-e : --- : : Eg;s , : : ! '------'------em I -em ! --- ( --- I
IO
135 ------em I- t ITRIED TO IffURBER ISPECIES I~~~~~~~IHARVEBTEB iJ~E&&-i
I ,IY22i22J.Y22L22 1 ~"2"""2'"2-! : , S22PM2 :cu11r I I I I ------I _-:--__:___:_-____-_-- : A : w-e I -me I e-e I I Terns ------:---:---: ______:___:___:___I___: ICormorants : : : : : ------:-- I Crebee I , I , I I ------a -we me- we- -w-e -----a- -- --..,-- -em I Loons I I I I I 8 1 I 8 * I ------v-m I -- : --- : --- : ---- : ------‘--- iPuffins , I I I * I I ------we -- ^-- --se ------e-w -- , -- : e-w : : Eggs I ------~~~~‘~~~~‘~~~~~~~~~~~ ------em iOther I I I
6. QLARtS
A* Did members of your household hervest or give or recetve berries, in 1’?84?
yes ____ no ____ If yes, how many querts did you harvest? ____ glveq --em rccrlve? -..--
DS Oid members of your household harvest or give or receive plants in lY94’?
yes ____ no ____ If yes, how much did you hervest- ______give’ ______recekve? ______
C. Did members of your household gather wood durlnz 19847
Yes e-e- no __- If yes, how much did you gather? firewood ______(cords)
house logs -v--w- (number of 1061) other (specify) ------e---- (cords)
136 +A, Please circle the range below which best represents your household’s annual gross incomet a0 s 0 1. s 50,000 - 54,999 br S 1 - 4,999 a. s 55,000 - 59,999 ce s 5,000 - 9,999 n. S 60,000 - b4,999 d. S 10,000 - 14,999 o, S 65,000 - 69,999 4, S 15,000 - 19,999 p. s 70,000 - 74,999 1. S 20,000 - 24,999 9, S 75,000 - 19,999 LB S 25,000 - 29,999 r. S 80,000 - 64,999 h. S 30,000 - 34,999 s, s 85,000 - 89,999 i, S 35,000 - 39,999 1, s 90,000 - 94,999 j. S 40,000 - 44,999 u. s 95,000 - 99,9V9 a. s 45,000 - 49,999 v, S100,OOO or over
7 8. Approriaately what percent of your total household income in 1964 ceme froa each of the followtng crtegorlest (should tote1 100%) x x
! conmorcirl fishing -WV- retail business ____ logging Be- construction -B-w longshoring ---a transfer payments ____ , government servtces -w-e other ----
12
137 -- -- -_ -_ _ I I
__ -- __ me .
I I
138 -. I- -I- -- I I i I 1
139 8upplaonc a 4 TENAKEE
A. How did you Runt deer in the Indian River area during these tire periods?
I)uc11 : FOREST-I NUSKEC I ALPINE : ROAD I CLEAR : DIDN’T : 1,~~mL+-+-- : -yYL-pLj 1930’S I e---m------‘------I ------‘-..------1940'S ------:------: 1950'S ------_------*------19LO'S I ---w--w ------1970'S I-----:-----: ------: 1980'S mm------______:______- m----‘------
81 HJS logging in the IndIaa River area chanted your hunlinK practices? Please explain,
C. How wuuld you describe the deer population in the Indian River at-pa during these tme pcrlods? ------mm-- I GOODDEER I FAIR DEER I POOR DEER : DOR’T KNOU :
2. Kadrshrn
A. How did you hunt deer In rhc Krdrshrn area during lhece time pkrkodsq m-----s IBLACN : FOREST-: IdKEG I ALPINE : ROAD : CLEAR : DIDN’T : :--f,snne,_f,--,i--~---~-EIlL,i-~~, 1930'S : ------w--w ------'------'------'------1940'S : ------es--- -______:______:______1950'S :------: ----_:------'------'------.------1960'S : ~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ______:______:______1970'S : ------'------__: ------'------1980'3 : ------:-----: ------:---__: ----:----
140 Irpphmmt 4 cont. TENAKEE
8, Has logsing in the Krdrshrn area changed your hunting practices? Please explain,
C. How would you describe the deer population in the Krdrshrn area during these time periods?
I GOODDEER : FAIR DEER : POOR DEER : DON’T KROU :
3. Corner Bay
A* How did you hunt deer in the Cornrr Ray area durinr these *time periods?
I BEACN 1 Fii%%i-i@==fiE I ROAD 7 CLEAR I RIDR'T I I -+QQL+,, I,_I___ I -+mL+mLg 1930’S I --v------w-s ------s ------’ ------B-I ------’ 1940’3 :~~~~~~~~~~~: ,~_-~‘~~-‘-~-~‘~~_~~~~_~_~-__-: * t 1950’S : ---se------w------‘------~----- 1960’S : ------:--w----B: -~~~~~:~~~~~~~: 1980’S : --e--e -- ---: -----m -----Be ------:------:
Bt Has logging in the Cornar Dey wea chrngcd your hunting prrctlcos? Please erplrln,
141 Rupplmnt I 4 cont. TENAKEE
C, How would you describe the dcrr population in the Cormr Bay area durin( these time periods?
I COW DEER I FAIR DEER I POORDEEi- : DON’T XNOU-: ~weut6rlON : PQHb4IlQ~Q~b4IlQM-: ____ -w--s : 1930’S : e-----s : ------s- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1940’S : ---s----w ------______:______: 1950’S : a------,------.------1960’S : ------‘------19Bo,s1970’S :‘------:------:------:------~: , ------‘------’
4. sooth ?rssrga Pt.
A. How did you hunt deer in the Seurh Passage Pt. area during these tlmc periods? ------I_ I BEACN I FORKST-: NUSKEC : ALPINE : ROAD I CLEAR : DIDN’T : I -+tuL+--: ---I: ---- :,E!L-:,-~ 1930’S : ------‘------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~______:______. 1940’S : ------:-_-___ ------1 ------:-----’ ------‘--v---w------‘------:__---
8. Has log(in( In the South Passage Pt , arCa changed your hunrIng pracIrcr55 Please explain,
C, How would you describe the deer population In the South Passage Pt. droa during these time perrods? ___------~--- I GOODDEER : FAIR DEER : POORDEER : DON’T KNOW : -1 1930’5 : _-______:______:______------1940’S :______:______:______:______: 1950’S : ------‘------. 1960’S : ------se------1970’S : ------‘------0 IPSO’S : ------‘------’
142