Traditional/Local Knowledge Salmon Survey River Panel Project CRE-16-03 Final Report

Prepared on behalf of the North Yukon Renewable Resources Council (RRC) and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation by Isaac Anderton & Phyllis Frost ABSTRACT: References to historic fish trap and salmon locations in the watershed were researched in the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’s Oral History Project and the Yukon Archives. Seven elders in Old Crow were interviewed regarding the historic location of fish traps and salmon. Results of interviews and previously documented references were analysed and compiled in this report, which documents the historic location of fourteen fish traps, fourteen locations of salmon, and associated information within the Porcupine River watershed.

OBJECTIVES: 1. Inspire and build community capacity and stewardship for the conservation, restoration, and enhancement of salmon stocks and their habitat in the Porcupine River sub-basin: In order to carry out needed research and to ensure long-term salmon habitat stewardship, the human capacity must be developed within the community of Old Crow. This is consistent with goals and objectives of the Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement and that of VGFN. This project will provide valuable experience in this regard to community members; 2. Identify all areas where salmon are known to exist in the past: This information will tell managers where present and past salmon habitat exists in the Porcupine River system. This information will assist in filling current information gaps and provide the basis for future research, restoration and enhancement work. It will also provide the community with tools that will assist in the local management, conservation, and restoration of Porcupine River salmon stocks; 3. Document historic locations of fish-traps throughout the Porcupine River watershed. This information is of key importance in identifying areas of important, productive fish habitat. This information will assist in filling current information gaps and provide the basis for future research, restoration and enhancement work. It will also provide the community with tools that will assist in the local management, conservation, and restoration of Porcupine River salmon stocks; 4. Set the stage to ensure the long-term conservation of the coho salmon resource and its habitat in the Porcupine River sub-basin: Both the knowledge acquired and experience gained by community members through this project will provide a basis from which local managers will pursue the conservation and restoration of this valued food resource. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1 INTRODUCTION: ...... 2

2 METHODS:...... 3

3 RESULTS:...... 4 3.1 LOCATIONS OF FISH TRAPS IDENTIFIED: ...... 5 3.2 LOCATIONS OF SALMON IDENTIFIED:...... 6 3.3 MAPS OF HISTORIC FISH TRAP AND SALMON LOCATIONS: ...... 8 3.3.1 Overview Map of Porcupine River Watershed with Study Areas ...... 8 3.3.2 North West Porcupine River Watershed...... 9 3.3.3 North East Porcupine River Watershed...... 9 4 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: ...... 9 4.1 FISH TRAP LOCATIONS: ...... 9 4.2 LOCATIONS OF SALMON: ...... 11 4.2.1 Chum Salmon...... 12 4.2.2 Chinook Salmon...... 13 4.2.3 Coho Salmon...... 15 5 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 16 5.1 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ...... 16 5.2 CHUM SALMON...... 16 5.3 CHINOOK SALMON...... 16 5.4 COHO SALMON ...... 16 6 REFERENCES: ...... 17

7 DOCUMENTATION: ...... 17

8 APPENDICES...... 17 8.1 SUMMARY TABLES OF COLLECTED INFORMATION...... 17 8.2 RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES AND MAPS FROM 2002 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH (CRE-16-02): ...... 26 8.2.1 Locations of Fish Traps Identified: ...... 26 8.2.2 Locations of Salmon Identified:...... 29 8.2.3 Maps of Historic Fish Trap and Salmon Locations: ...... 32 8.2.3.1 Northern Porcupine River Watershed...... 32 8.2.3.2 Southern Porcupine River Watershed...... 32

1 1 Introduction: The Porcupine River is one of the largest tributaries in the system. It extends from its mouth at Fort Yukon, , across the /U.S. border where it drains a large portion of the north Yukon and most of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’s Traditional Territory. The Porcupine has a number of large tributaries in Canada, including three significant rivers that form its headwaters: the Whitestone, Miner, and Fishing Branch Rivers. The only settlement within the Porcupine River watershed is the village of Old Crow, located approximately 80 kilometres east of the Canada/U.S. border at the mouth of the Crow River. Old Crow has a population of roughly three hundred, mainly Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation members.

Three species of salmon migrate up the Porcupine River. These include a chinook run that passes Old Crow mainly during the month of July, a chum run that passes Old Crow mainly in September, and a coho run that passes Old Crow between early October and late January. The coho and chinook salmon runs in the Porcupine River system are an important food fish to the Vuntut Gwitchin; the preferred chinook being a large summer salmon, while the more abundant coho is caught during the late fall/winter. Vuntut Gwitchin Citizens fish both runs in the vicinity of Old Crow. The coho run is unique in two ways: it represents one of the most northern stocks, and it is the only confirmed coho stock in the Canadian portion of the Yukon River drainage basin. The Vuntut Gwitchin also depend on the chum run for a substantial subsistence fishery. There have also been reports of summer chum in the vicinity of Old Crow.

A significant lack of information regarding salmon stocks in the Porcupine River system has been identified as an issue that needs to be addressed. Filling such information gaps has been identified as a priority to ensure the future success of stock and habitat management.

To fill existing knowledge gaps and ensure the long-term sustainable co- management of Porcupine River salmon stocks, on-going community engagement and capacity building must be undertaken. This project represents an important step in this process. The Traditional Knowledge documented in this report can be used as the basis to further this process and facilitate future research, planning, restoration, or enhancement work.

In 2002, the first Traditional/Local Knowledge Salmon Survey (CRE-16-02) was undertaken with considerable success. However, it was apparent that information gaps remained, and that further relevant Traditional Knowledge remained undocumented (Anderton, 2002). To fill such gaps, a second year’s efforts at documenting fish-trap and salmon related Traditional Knowledge regarding the Canadian portion of the Porcupine River watershed was undertaken. This report details the information gathered in 2003 regarding historic fish trap and salmon locations in the Porcupine River watershed. Historic locations of salmon throughout the watershed can be compared with current known locations and used in management decisions as well as to determine priority locations for future

2 salmon research. The historic location of fish traps can provide valuable information regarding the presence/absence of fish species and their abundance in tributary streams of the Porcupine. This information will also be valuable in identifying and addressing stock and habitat management issues, as well as future research priorities and opportunities. 2 Methods: Two local researchers were hired in Old Crow to carry out the project research. They followed a process of research similar to that conducted the previous year under CRE-16-02, with some variations on approach (Anderton, 2002). The researchers initially began work in May 2003, however, the completed most of it in September and October. The researchers carried out the following activities:

• The Yukon Archives were searched for documents with information related to the Porcupine River. Relevant references were recorded;

• Key transcribed and translated interviews from the VGFN Oral History Project were printed and obtained from the VGFN Heritage Department;

• Printed interviews were studied thoroughly for references to fish trap locations and/or known locations of salmon;

• Certain elders who were not interviewed in 2002, or, those who were thought to have additional information not obtained in 2002 were interviewed. They were asked questions related to the location of fish traps, as well as locations where they may have known of salmon in the past. Questions targeted specific areas of interest with regard to the presence/absence of salmon. Interviews were recorded with cassette tapes. Written notes were also taken;

• All recorded interviews and written notes were examined, and all information with regard to historic fish traps and fishing sites, their location, species caught, time of year, and who was present, were organized and summarized, interview by interview, in data tables;

• Historic fish trap and salmon locations were marked on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps. Locations recorded were based upon the best information made available by interviewed elders;

Upon completion of the above activities, the information was analyzed, detailed, and summarized in this report.

In 2003, the researchers took a new approach to interviewing elders about specific information. This was due to experience from 2002, when after the project was completed; some elders informed the researchers that they had later remembered

3 further information when memories were triggered during different activities. The new approach involved a sort of “pre-interview,” where prior to formal interviews, individual elders were approached by the researcher(s) and engaged in conversation regarding the nature of this research and the particular pieces of information required. The researcher(s) would then ask a particular elder to reflect on the questions at hand, and explain that when the elder was ready to be formally interviewed on the subject matter, they would return and record the elder on audio tape. This would give the elders a chance to think about what was being asked of them and to take note of relevant memories that may occur at different times.

The researchers encountered challenges while attempting to arrange formal interviews. Elders were often too busy and did not wish to take the time. They would repeatedly tell the researchers to come back another time. Many elders who were interviewed in 2002 had difficulty understanding why further information was requested of them. The researchers encountered a definite sense of “interview- fatigue,” with most elders indicating that they were tired of being asked for their knowledge.

Some elders indicated that fish traps were “all over” or “on every creek,” particularly in reference to the Crow River system. In some cases, it was difficult to obtain more specific responses than this. While this does indicate the level of fishing that was at one time conducted throughout the watershed, it does not provide the site-specific information sought in this study. Therefore for the purposes of this report, only fish traps where elders gave reasonably specific locations have been documented as such. The size of the area indicated on the map as the location of a particular fish trap is indicative of how specific the information provided was for the particular location.

Previously undocumented historic fish trap and salmon locations have been summarized and mapped as such in this report. Some locations are well known from the past and the present, while others have little to no previous documentation. The size of the area indicated on reference maps in section 3.3 is indicative of how specific the information provided was regarding the particular location. That is, the larger the area, the less specific the information provided. In some cases this includes large portions of a tributary watershed. Information provided by Elders in this research that was also previously recorded in 2002 has been provided in the appendices, including the results summary and maps of fish trap and salmon locations from the 2002 report. See section 8.2 for the 2002 summary and maps of said information. 3 Results: Information gathered in this project is of more limited scope than that from 2002. Fewer elders were successfully interviewed, and, the work in 2002 gathered a wide spectrum of information while the information obtained in this project was more specific in nature.

4 Historic fish trap locations and netting sites have been identified in several large and small tributary watersheds of the Porcupine River, as well as the Porcupine main-stem itself. Several fish traps were located in the lower portion of smaller tributary streams, near where they enter the larger river. Such smaller streams often drain lakes or extensive areas of land. Gillnets were also used in this type of location, but more so in the main-stem of larger rivers as is the practise today. Other traps were located in the upper portions of certain creeks, at lake outlets and particular sites “mid-stream” in a tributary.

In association with fish trap locations and netting sites, historic locations where people caught or observed salmon in the Porcupine River watershed have been identified. Some locations are well known from the past and the present, while others have little to no previous documentation.

3.1 Locations of Fish Traps Identified: The following table details locations of historic fish traps, the name(s) of elder(s) who identified each location, and relevant comments made. The map codes correspond with each location noted on the maps in 3.3. Fish Trap Locations Map Code Location Elders/ Sources Comments T1 Crow River, in Andrew Tizya -Lots of fish mouth -Early 1940s -Born in 1910, raised at mouth of crow T2 Outlet(s) of David Andrew Tizya -Traps made every year Lord Lake (Crow Flats T3 Creek at dry lake on Andrew Tizya -Traps made every year Stephen’s creek, near Crow River (Crow Flats) T4 Timber Creek, 3 Andrew Tizya -Lots of suckers, grayling, and miles up from burbot mouth, at creek from a dry lake. T5 Blackfox Creek, Andrew Tizya -Lots of suckers, grayling, and lower reaches. A burbot number of fish traps were located in the Hannah Netro -Suckers, grayling, jackfish, lower reaches and in whitefish mouths of adjoining, smaller, creeks. T6 Thomas Andrew Tizya -Traps in 2-3 different places Creek/Upper Crow River T7 Upper Crow River at Andrew Tizya -Eskimos fished there, 9 families Little Bear Mountain related to Sarah Tizya (Alaska) T8 Peterson’s Cabin Andrew Tizya Lake Creek, near Timber Hill

5 T9 Crow River at mouth Andrew Tizya of “Burnt Hill Creek” and creek from nearby horseshoe lake. T10 Big Joe Creek, upper Hannah Netro -Grayling, whitefish reaches at mouth of creek from lake T11 Crow River, at Six- Irwin Linklater -Lots of chum in Sept/Oct. 1950s. Mile, “fish-trap A rainbow trout was once caught place.” there. -Lots of nets were also set in this area, with salmon caught in nets and trap. Once observed 31 nets set at one time—nets were smaller than today. T12 La Chute River, at Irwin Linklater -Coho running, lots Curtain Mountain/Moses Hill T13 Timber Creek, lower Irwin Linklater -Lots of Chinook and small fish, reaches—where not many chum. creek gets shallow -Story from Neil McDonald -Location changes year to year -Traps, nets, and clubs were used T14 Bluefish River, Stephen Frost Sr. -Grayling approx. 5 miles upstream from mouth.

3.2 Locations of Salmon Identified: The following table details historic locations of salmon, the name(s) of elder(s) who identified each location, and relevant comments made. The locations are grouped into 4 categories, for chum, chinook, coho, and unidentified salmon. The locations noted as being of significant interest are locations where the presence or spawning of salmon has not been previously documented or confirmed. The map codes correspond with each location noted on the maps in 3.3. (Map Codes: C=chum, K=chinook, R=coho, & S=unidentified salmon) Salmon Locations * Location of Significant Interest Map Code Location Elders/ Sources Comments

Chum Salmon: C1* Johnson Creek Andrew Tizya -Chum. (Crow River), approx. six miles upstream from mouth. C2 Porcupine River at Hannah Netro -Chum, chinook. mouth of Driftwood River.

6 C3* Timber Creek Irwin Linklater -Lots of Chinook, not many chum, lots of small fish. C4* Crow River at Six- Irwin Linklater -1950’s Sept/Oct., lots of Chum Mile, “fish trap place.” C5 Crow Point Mary Netro -Chum, Fall l929 -Caught in nets under ice.

Chinook Salmon: K1* Little Flats, lake Andrew Tizya - Aug.-caught 1 big chinook in near Little Flat lake Creek K2* Rock River near Irwin Linklater -Chinook Spawning in late Curtain Mountain 1800’s—clubs were used. K3* Black Fox Creek, John Joe Kaye -1960s, caught one chinook in net. 40 miles up

Coho Salmon: R1* Johnson Creek Andrew Tizya -Chum, coho (Crow River), approx. six miles upstream from mouth R2 Salmon Cache Andrew Tizya -Chum, coho, whitefish, and burbot. R3* La Chute River, at Irwin Linklater -Coho running, lots Curtain Mountain/Moses Hill R4 Porcupine River at Mary Netro -Coho caught in nets under ice. Crow Point Hannah Netro -Lots of coho caught until November in 1930. R5* Crow River, lower Otto Geist -Reference to an expected run of 20 miles coho, August 30th, 1952.

Unidentified Salmon: S1 Porcupine River Frank Foster -Reference from Yukon Archives, and Mouth of Bell journal of catches at and near the River. mouth of the Bell River, Sept/Oct. 1940. -Type of salmon not specified (except for chinook on one day), however, references to all three species were documented at this location in 2002 (see appendix 8.2). S2* Crow River, Mary Netro -Salmon downstream of Surprise Creek at change in general direction of River (below Gilbert Lord’s Cabin).

7 S3 Porcupine River, Stephen Frost Sr. - Lots of salmon caught in nets Bluefish area (fall time)

3.3 Maps of Historic Fish Trap and Salmon Locations: 3.3.1 Overview Map of Porcupine River Watershed with Study Areas

8 3.3.2 North West Porcupine River Watershed

3.3.3 North East Porcupine River Watershed

4 Discussion/Conclusions: This project combined with the related work conducted in 2002 documents a basic survey of Traditional Knowledge with regard to salmon and historic fishing sites in the Porcupine River watershed. They have built interest and capacity in the community of Old Crow for carrying out future related work. Most importantly, they have provided significant information regarding the historic locations of salmon in the Porcupine River watershed. They have also contributed significantly to local and regional management objectives (Anderton, 2002). These findings include some previously recorded knowledge, augmented with further information from elders provided in interviews.

The information provided in this report combined with the Traditional Knowledge research completed in 2002 cannot be considered a complete account of historic fish trap or salmon locations in the Porcupine River watershed (Anderton, 2002). It can, however, be considered a basic account of such knowledge currently available, complete within reasonable terms considering the conditions of research and resources available. While further Traditional Knowledge in regards to fish likely exists, it resides as small bits of information scattered among many sources, or, with elders who do not wish to be interviewed. As well, a significant volume of knowledge has been lost in the past twenty to thirty years.

4.1 Fish Trap Locations: The tables and maps in sections 3.1 and 3.3, respectively, identify fourteen historic fish trap locations in the Porcupine River watershed. In combination with the twenty-two sites documented in 2002 (see section 8.2), this represents a basic account of existing knowledge surrounding such sites. People mainly used these sites in the post-contact period, from the 1920-1970 era. Some of the documented sites were also used around the time of contact and pre-contact. However, elders interviewed in this project are generally 1 to 3 generations since that era, therefore most information presented is post-contact.

9 According to Elders, fish traps were built in a variety of forms. In smaller streams basket style traps were used. In larger streams, including some significant rivers, a weir-type structure made of stakes and/or stones was constructed across the entire stream in an area that is shallow with slow moving water. There were various models of such structures, with different methods used to actually capture the fish, such as large basket traps placed in the opening of the weir.

Although the methodology of fish trapping is not the focus of this study, it is worthwhile to note a “new” piece of information in this regard. That is, historically small nets (4-5’ long) were woven from the inner bark of the spruce tree, and these were used to block off creeks as type of fish trap, with a basket trap placed in an opening, to provide the actual capture of the fish (Able, 2001).

Elders have indicated that people used to harvest an incredible amount of fish from a variety of locations throughout the Crow River/Fats watershed. In information gathered from the VGFN Oral History Project in 2002, Charlie Peter Charlie indicated that a single fish trap in the upper Schaeffer Creek area yielded over ten thousand fish in a season (Anderton, 2002). Irwin Linklater indicated in 2003 that at one time he counted 31 small nets set at “six-mile” in the lower portion of the Crow River, and, that a fish trap (T11) was also located in this area.

The value of the Crow River watershed in terms fish production was also documented in the early 1970s as part of a biological assessment of proposed pipeline routes across the northern Yukon. Authors of the assessment report wrote: “The is one of the most important rivers on the proposed southern pipeline route from the standpoint of potential disruption of fisheries resources” (Steigenberger et al, 1975).

Eleven out of the fourteen fish trap locations identified in 2003 were in the Crow River watershed. Further, nine of the twenty-two fish trap locations identified in 2002 were also in the Crow River system. Therefore, fifty-seven percent of historic fish trap locations (20 out of 35) identified in 2002 and 2003 were in the Crow River watershed, providing further confirmation of the productivity of this system (Anderton, 2002).

Also of interest are fish trap locations identified on upper Big Joe Creek (T10) and the La Chute River (T12), a tributary of the Bell River. Big Joe Creek drains part of an area of wetlands immediately south of Old Crow and was identified in 2002 as a historic source of large amounts of fish (Anderton, 2002). La Chute River is a significant tributary of the Bell River, located upstream from the historic site of La Pierre House. Irwin Linklater indicated that a fish trap was located at “Curtain Mountain” on the La Chute River, also indicated on some maps as “Moses Hill.” Research conducted under the biological assessment of proposed pipeline routes in the early 1970s stated that the La

10 Chute River (referred to incorrectly in the report as “Rat River”) supported major upstream and downstream migrations of arctic grayling. This research also noted that “historically natives operated a fish trap upstream of the proposed crossing site [in very lower portion of the river] to exploit the downstream fall migration of [a]rctic grayling” (Steigenberger et al, 1975). Therefore, the fish trap location identified in 2003 at “Curtain Mountain” by Irwin Linklater is likely the same one noted in the 1975 biological assessment.

Information provided by elders in this study has also indicated that fish trap locations in the upper portions of tributary streams (including those located at or near lake outlets) were utilized in the spring and early summer months. Alternately, locations at the mouths or in the lower reaches of tributary streams were utilized throughout the fall season. While this cycle of use follows seasonal migrations of people, it also may reflect on the migratory cycle of fish populations. For example, it is likely that upstream fish trap locations would target large populations of fish moving throughout the system in the springtime as they migrate from over-wintering habitats to feeding/spawning/rearing habitats. This would be consistent with peoples spring time occupation of lakes throughout Crow Flats for trapping/hunting prior to and after ice break-up. Likewise, locations in the lower reaches and mouths of streams may have targeted large populations of fish leaving/entering systems as they migrate to over-wintering habitats. This would also be consistent with peoples fall time occupation of camps along the main-stem of larger rivers (transportation routes) such as that of the Porcupine and Crow.

4.2 Locations of Salmon: In total, sixteen “new” references to salmon locations were recorded in this project. These references were to chum, chinook, coho salmon, and in three cases, just to salmon without specification of the species. Six of the locations are known today as part of the migratory patterns of salmon. Of the other ten locations, eight are in the Crow River watershed. While two references to chinook salmon in a tributary of the Crow (Timber Creek) were documented in 2002, specific questioning in 2003 has revealed historic locations of all three species of salmon in various areas of the Crow River watershed (Anderton, 2002). One reference was given by Mary Netro regarding the historic presence of salmon in the upper Crow River below the mouth of Surprise Creek (S2). While the species was not specified, this reference adds further evidence to other historic reports of all three species of salmon in the Crow River system.

It is important to note that information was provided indicating salmon historically migrated to several locations not currently considered to be part of the migratory patterns of Porcupine River salmon, including a lake in Crow Flats, Rock River, and La Chute River.

11 4.2.1 Chum Salmon Chum salmon were identified historically at two currently documented or expected locations (C2, C5) along the Porcupine River main stem. However, chum were also historically identified at three locations in the Crow River watershed. Specifically, these are at “six-mile” on the lower Crow River (C4), in the lower reaches of Johnson Creek (C1), and in Timber Creek (C3).

The location of chum at “six-mile” (C4) is not in itself sufficient evidence of spawning destinations in the Crow River watershed, as salmon are known to swim a short distance up tributaries before returning to the larger stream to continue their migration upstream. This behaviour was confirmed in information gathered from elders in 2002. Hannah Netro and Dick Nukon, both mentioned that salmon “seemed to travel around before going to spawn,” or that “sometimes salmon go up Whitestone a ways, then turn around and go back down and go up Miner/Fishing Branch.” In some cases catching salmon near the mouth or in the lower portion of a tributary may indicate this behaviour, in others it may indicate that salmon are actually migrating up said tributary to spawn. This is also known to be a behaviour of salmon colonizing new habitats (Anderton, 2002).

The location of chum in the lower reaches of Johnson Creek (C1) is a significant enough distance upstream from the Porcupine to suggest that areas within the Crow River watershed are in fact migratory destinations. The fact that the location is in the lower reaches of Johnson Creek is, again, not sufficient evidence that the spawning destination is necessarily in the Johnson Creek watershed, but that it may be elsewhere in the Crow River watershed or that of Johnson Creek.

The reference to chum salmon in Timber Creek (C3) is not entirely clear. That is, Irwin Linklater stated that he had been told of “lots of Chinook and small fish, but only one or two chum” being caught in Timber Creek. The reference to “one or two chum” indicates that the presence of chum may have existed, but was not extensive. The location is also in the lower reaches of Timber Creek, again not providing a clear indication of the spawning destination.

The presence of Chum salmon in the Crow River was documented in the past, although in a limited fashion. The biological assessment of proposed pipeline routes in 1975 indicated that small numbers of chum had been captured in the Crow River, however, that “[t]he size of the spawning populations and spawning locations are unknown” (Steigenberger et al, 1975). The study also documented over-wintering habitat for an estimated 20,000 grayling in the upper portions of Crow River and potential over- wintering habitats for grayling in lower Bilwaddy Creek, and the upper portions of Timber Creek. In a related 1972 study, areas of open water in

12 late winter were found on the upper Crow River, lower Bilwaddy Creek, upper Timber Creek, and, overflow ice was observed in Thomas Creek. These findings provide evidence that areas of the upper Crow River system do provide certain necessary conditions for salmon spawning habitat in the arctic (Steigenberger et al, 1972, 1975).

It should also be noted that Alexander Hunter Murray mentioned in his journal that he at one time saw 1,800 salmon, presumably dried, stored at La Pierre House. While he does not specify the species of salmon, such a large number would indicate that they were chum. Hannah Netro also spoke of seeing dried chum salmon at La Pierre House. While the fact that a stockpile of salmon was observed at La Pierre House may indicate that the fish were caught in the vicinity, it also may have been the case that the fish were caught elsewhere (ie: the Porcupine) and transported to La Pierre House for trade. However, Traditional Knowledge gathered in 2002 did include several references to chum salmon being caught at La Pierre House (Anderton, 2002).

4.2.2 Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon were identified historically at three previously undocumented locations. Specifically, these locations included a lake in eastern Crow Flats (K1)—an area know as “Little Flats,” Rock River near “Curtain Mountain” (K2) and upper Black Fox Creek (K3).

In the case of the medium sized lake in Little Flats, Andrew Tizya spoke of catching a very large chinook (K1) in a gillnet set for other species. He was at the time surprised and spoke of how large the salmon was, how he had pulled the net to shore to retrieve the fish. He spoke of rolling the fish off of the shore into his small ratting canoe and how he had to sit at the very back of the canoe to counterbalance the weight of the fish. This account is unusual yet rather compelling in its detail. While the shallow muddy lakes of Crow Flats may seem to be unusual habitat for chinook salmon, apparently certain lakes have gravel bottoms and some also are known to not freeze extensively during winters.

The presence of chinook salmon on the Rock River (K2) was provided by Irwin Linklater who recalled stories from the early 1900s of people clubbing chinook in the stream. This is consistent with reports of limited amounts of chinook salmon being caught in the Bell River that were documented in the 2002 Traditional Knowledge research (Anderton, 2002).

In the case of Black Fox Creek (K3), John Joe Kaye recalled how in the 1960s he caught a chinook salmon in a net set “forty miles” upstream from Crow River, while he was working in the area with an archaeologist. This

13 reference further expands the diversity of chinook salmon locations in the Crow River system.

In the 2002 Traditional Knowledge research project, two references to the presence of chinook salmon in Timber Creek were documented (Anderton, 2002). Further, the authors of a 1972 study of Porcupine River chinook salmon noted that “[t]he presence of chinook salmon in the Porcupine River drainage has been known by the natives of Old Crow for generations. From discussions with them, it was postulated that chinook reproduce or spawn in the headwaters of the Porcupine and Old Crow Rivers.” It was also noted from these discussions that “[i]n the headwaters of the Old Crow River, chinooks utilized Thomas and Timber Creeks” (Steigenberger et al, 1972). In combination with the favourable wintertime conditions detailed in section 4.2.1 (documented in the same study), Traditional Knowledge provides compelling evidence of the presence of a spawning population of chinook salmon in the Crow River watershed with multiple possible destinations. Radio tracking of chinook salmon tagged with radio transmitters conducted in August 2003 (CRE- 17N-03) in fact confirmed this with the location of two such radio tag signals in the upper and mid portions of the Crow River. Spawning redds were also identified in the upper Crow River at that time (Anderton, 2003).

A further item of interest documented in 2002 was a reference to the historical presence of chinook salmon in the Porcupine River late in the fall season. It was also noted that in 2002 Old Crow fishers caught chinook salmon in the Crow River near its mouth in early October, with one being caught as late as October 12th, just before freeze-up. The question was postulated as to whether or not these late chinook represent a unique fall run (Anderton, 2002). Further evidence of such a late chinook run has been gathered in 2003 from the personal notes of Frank Foster located in the Yukon Archives. Frank Foster fished near the mouth of the Bell River in the 1940s, and in notes he made during the fall of 1940 he recorded catches of fish in his nets (S1). Most of his notes only specify how many salmon he caught in total, not numbers of each specific species. However in a couple of exceptions to this, he wrote that on October 8th he caught “7 salmon, 2 coho” and on October 9th he caught “8 salmon, mostly chinook” at a location one mile upstream from the mouth of the Bell River (Foster, 1940). While he differentiated coho from salmon on October 8th, it is peculiar the way he did not differentiate chinook from salmon on October 9th but at the same time identifying the presence of chinook. This reference provides a further historical account of chinook salmon in the Porcupine River late into the fall season.

14 4.2.3 Coho Salmon Inquiries regarding the locations of coho salmon revealed five such references, two of which were in the currently documented or expected locations of coho salmon at Salmon Cache on the Porcupine River (R2) and at the mouth of Crow River also in the Porcupine (R4). The other three locations were previously undocumented—one for the lower twenty miles of Crow River (R5), one in lower Johnson Creek near Crow River (R1), and one on La Chute River (R3).

Andrew Tizya spoke of catching coho in the lower reaches of Johnson Creek near Crow River (R1). This location is a significant enough distance upstream from the Porcupine to suggest that areas within the Crow River watershed may in fact have been migratory destinations for coho salmon. The fact that the location is in the lower reaches of Johnson Creek is not sufficient evidence that the spawning destination was necessarily in the Johnson Creek watershed, but that it may have been elsewhere in the Crow River watershed or that of Johnson Creek. A further reference to coho in the lower twenty miles of Crow River (R5) was found in the Journal of Otto Geist, located at the Yukon Archives. On August 30th, 1952, where he encountered “several fish camps along here, all of which were in operation although there were very few fish. The fish they were getting were of a species not very desirable; namely suckers, which are fine for dog food but not much wanted by Indians. The expected run of grayling, whitefish and coho had not yet started” (Geist, 1952). Otto Geist’s reference to the expected run of coho that had not yet started may be an indication that fishers at camps along Crow River did in fact expect a run of coho there. Or, it may have indicated that the expected run of coho on the Porcupine had not yet begun and therefore fishers were targeting other species on the Crow River. What is peculiar is that he makes no reference to chum salmon at a time (August 30th) that is generally near the beginning of the chum season.

Irwin Linklater spoke of stories that he had been told from some of his ancestors regarding coho salmon spawning in the La Chute River (R3). This is the first reference of coho salmon encountered in the Bell River watershed. However, little information was provided, other than that coho salmon were caught at a fish trap location directly below “Curtain Mountain” on the La Chute River.

While elders were asked specific questions regarding Porcupine River coho salmon in an attempt gain further information on this little understood species, only these three previously unexpected locations (R1, R3, R4) were recorded. This is more “new” information than was gathered in the 2002 project regarding coho salmon (Anderton, 2002). However, given their late migration under the river ice, it is perhaps not

15 surprising that more knowledge regarding the ultimate destination(s) of Porcupine River coho stocks does not seem to be currently available. 5 Recommendations The Traditional Knowledge documented in this report combined with that of the project conducted in 2002 represents a basic account of historic fish trap locations and salmon related information that is currently available (Anderton, 2002). It should not be considered a complete account, but rather a basic account of most currently available and relevant Traditional Knowledge. It also can provide an excellent starting point from which other research and work can be conducted. It provides in a summarized form information that was previously unconsolidated or undocumented. In doing so it raises new questions and provides indicators of where in the watershed specific future research efforts may be valuably focused.

Based upon the above considerations, the following future activities are recommended:

5.1 Traditional Knowledge It is recommended that where opportunities become available, Traditional Knowledge regarding fish in the Porcupine River watershed continue to be documented. This can be accomplished with the cooperation of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’s Heritage Department.

5.2 Chum Salmon This report documents the historic presence of chum salmon in the Crow River system. Recent reports of catches of chum salmon in the Crow River indicate that a small run of chum continues to migrate up the Crow. It is recommended that the presence and destination(s) of spawning chum salmon in the Crow River be assessed in a scientifically relevant manner.

5.3 Chinook Salmon The results of this study and other research conducted in 2003 firmly establish the presence of a spawning population of chinook salmon in the Crow River system. It is recommended that the full extent of chinook utilization of the Crow River watershed be assessed. It is also recommended that further research be conducted on possible fall returns of chinook to determine if they are in any way distinct from summer runs, and, to determine their spawning destinations.

5.4 Coho Salmon It is recommended that historic references to coho salmon at locations previously undocumented in the Crow (R1, R5) and Bell (R3) River systems be investigated to determine the contemporary presence/absence of coho.

16 6 References: Able, Sarah. VGFN Oral History Project, catalogue #: VG 2001-4-5, page 8/17. Transcript of Interview. Anderton, Isaac. North Yukon RRC & Vuntut Gwitchin FN, 2002. Project Report: “Traditional/Local Knowledge Salmon Survey.” Yukon River Panel Project CRE-16-02. Anderton, Isaac. North Yukon RRC & Vuntut Gwitchin FN, 2003. Project Report: “Radio Tracking/Telemetry Pilot Project.” Yukon River Panel Project CRE-17N-03. Foster, Frank. Journal. Yukon Archives #82-415 PART 2, PHO54 AND 55. Frost, Stephen Sr. Personal Interview, Sept 30th, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon. Geist, Otto. Journal: “The Reconnaissance Expedition to the Old Crow River Basin in 1952.” Yukon Archives #81/10. Kaye, John Joe. Personal Interview, Sept. 23rd, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon. Linklater, Irwin. Personal Interview, Sept 28th, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon. Murray, Alexander Hunter. Journal of the Yukon, 1947-48. Yukon Archives #971- 91001. MUR 1910A. Netro, Hannah. VGFN Oral History Project, catalogue #: VG2001-2-54, page 12/16. Transcript of Interview. Netro, Hannah. Personal Interview, Sept. 22nd, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon. Netro, Mary. Personal Interview, Sept. 23rd, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon. Nukon, Dick. Personal Interview, Sept.21st, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon. Steigenberger, et al. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, 1972. Project Report: “An Assessment of Chinook Salmon in the Porcupine River Drainage.” Steigenberger, et al. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, 1975. Project Report: “Biological Engineering Evaluation of the Proposed Pipeline Crossing Sites in Northern Yukon Territory.” Tiyza, Andrew. Personal Interview, Sept. 25th, 2003. Old Crow, Yukon.

7 Documentation: Original and copies of raw data remains on file with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, Heritage Department. These materials include written notes and cassette recordings of interviews.

8 Appendices 8.1 Summary Tables of Collected Information Note: Information previously collected in the 2002 Traditional Knowledge study (CRE-16-02) is noted as the map code from the 2002 report, followed by “–02” (ie: T1-02, C5-02, etc.). See section 8.2 for the 2002 results summary and maps of said information. Source ALEXANDER HUNTER MURRAY

17 Archival JOURNAL OF THE YUKON 1947-48 Reference Murray, Alexander Hunter #971-91001 MUR 1910A Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Method Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code Participants

Fish Lake Whitefish (large head Aug/Sept Peel River & mouth) Indians

Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code S* LaPierre House* 1800 salmon were stored there

*The observation of salmon stored at La Pierre House cannot be considered a definitive indicator that salmon were caught there. There was no indication if the fish were dried or frozen.

Elder/Source ANDREW TIZYA Oral History Project Interview Yes, Dennis & Phyllis Frost Sept.25/03 Old Crow, Y.T. Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Method Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code Participants Trap

Baskets Traps (made of willow)

Traps (made every year)

“

“

“

Trap

Traps

Trap

Nets 18

Trap Mouth of Crow River Lots of fish Early 1940s Born 19l0- T1 July/Aug/ raised at Sept mouth of crow Crow Flats-small Lots of fish creeks

David Lord Lake (at T2 outlet(s))

Dry Lake (outlet/creek) T3 Schafer Creek (near T1-02 mouth),

Willow Lake (trap at T18-02 outlet to Schaeffer Creek)

Timber Creek (3 miles Lots of suckers, T4 up from mouth, at small grayling and burbot creek from a dry lake)

Black Fox (near mouth, Lots of suckers, T5*, and 40 miles up), grayling and burbot T17-02 Driftwood (1/4 mile up, Lots of suckers, T16-02 under bluff) grayling and burbot

Bell River Traders caught lots of different fish

Head of Crow River T6 (Nr. Mouth of Thomas Creek)

Head of Schaeffer T8-02 Creek at small creek, (Laughing Geese Creek/DeChyoo Njik)

Little Bear Mountain on Eskimos fished 9 families T7 Crow River (Alaska there related to Side) Sarah Tizya

Firth River

Timber Hill (Cabin Ishmel T8 Lake creek)

Mouth of Johnson Lots of grayling Peter Charlie T3-02 Creek (Porcupine) (7 (no salmon) mile)

Mouth of Johnson Chum, coho T22-02 Creek (Crow) (6 miles up)

19 Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code Nets R1 Crow River (Burnt Hill Aug/Sept/Oct/Nov –Lots of chum Creek, near horseshoe lake)

Net K1 Little Flats, lake near Aug.-caught 1 big chinook in lake Little Flat Creek (Go Dye Vun)

Trap C1, R2 Mouth of Johnson Chum, coho Creek (Crow) (6 miles up) Nets R3, C5- Salmon Cache (fall Chum, coho, whitefish, burbot 02 time)

*Trap in area also documented in 2002, however, the area mapped for T5 (2003) is much larger to accommodate information that there were a number of fish traps in tributary mouths in the very lower portions of Black Fox Creek.

Elder/Source DICK NUKON Oral History Project Interview Yes, Dennis & Phyllis Frost, Sept.21st/03, Old Crow, YT Dick Nukon was interviewed, however, he provided no new information from what he provided in 2002.

Source FRANK FOSTER Archival Reference YUKON ARCHIVES, 82-415 PART 2, PHO54 AND 55 Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Method Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code Participants 2 Nets

20 S1 Bell River Sept 12-18 Caught 104 salmon 1940 (few whitefish)

S1 Net at mouth of Bell River Sept 19 8 salmon, 16 other 20 54 salmon, 10 other 21 11 salmon, 30 others 22 19 salmon, 12 others 23 16 salmon, 12 others 24 28 salmon, 14 others 25 25 salmon, 16 others 26 29 salmon, 2 buckets other 27 17 salmon, 2 buckets other 28 15 salmon, 2 buckets other 29 15 salmon, 11 buckets other 30 14 salmon, 2 buckets other

MOVED NET, approximately 1 mile above mouth of Bell River S1, Oct.1 17 salmon, 2 buckets K11-02, other R3-02 2 30 salmon, 2 buckets other 3 23 salmon, 3 buckets other 4 11 salmon, no others 5 14 salmon, 1 bucket other 6 14 salmon, 1 bucket other 7 6 salmon, 1 bucket other 8 7 salmon, 2 coho, 1 bucket other 9 8 salmon (mostly chinook), 1bucket other

Net at Mouth of Bell, Nov. 1st to 13th 85 fish, unspecified

C3-02 Bell River (Mouth) First chum caught Aug.7, 1948

21 Elder/Source HANNAH NETRO Oral History Project Cat. No. VG2001-2-54 page 12/16 Interview Yes-Dennis & Phyllis Frost Sept. 22/03 Old Crow, Y.T. Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Method Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code Participants

Traps & Nets T1-02 Several locations on Small fish All year Schaeffer Creek, near mouth

T7-02 David Lord Cr, at mouth. “ “ Thomas Njootli/David T16-02 Driftwood, near mouth at “ “ Elias & bluff families when Hannah was small

T9, Big Joe Creek, near mouth* Grayling/white John Tizya T20-02 and in upper reaches fish White traders.

Firth River Trout Long ago

T5 Silver Creek/Black Fox Suckers/grayli Creek, lower portion of ng Black Fox Jackfish/whitef ish Nets Fish Lake Whitefish Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code Porcupine River (l935 to 40) Lots of chum, Chinook

C2, K7- Porcupine at Driftwood Chum, Chinook 02 River

C5-02 Porcupine at Salmon Cache Chum

C6-02, Bell River Dried chum seen at La Pierre House, and at C3- mouth 02** Fort Yukon, Gwitchya zhe Dried Chum & Chinook seen

K3-02, Porcupine at Caribou Chum, Chinook caught in nets C7-02 Bar/Rampart

R4 Porcupine at Crow Point Coho salmon caught in nets---lots of coho caught until November in 1930. Other *Fish traps were often set a short ways upstream from the mouth of a creek so that if water levels in the river rose suddenly, the trap would not necessarily be lost or damaged. **Dried chum observed at La Pierre House cannot be considered a definitive indicator that chum were caught there.

22 Elder/Source IRWIN LINKLATER Oral History Project Interview Yes, Dennis & Phyllis Frost Sept 28/03 Old Crow, Y.T. Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Method Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code Participants Jackfish Lake, Enoch Sept 1946 Liza Traps & small Lake (Central Crow Steamboat Nets Flats) Fish Lake (Crow Flats) Red bellied Jan. 1950’s whitefish (8-9lbs)

T10* 6 mile (Crow River)* Lots of Chum & 1950’s Coho, once one Sept/Oct. Rainbow trout was caught there

T11 La Chute River (at Coho running, lots Curtain Mountain/Moses Hill)

T12 Timber Creek, lower Lots of Chinook, Story from portion, where creek small fish, not Neil gets shallow---changes many chum MacDonald year to year---Traps, nets, clubbing

Chungklee Lake, Little -Lots of fish, Flats rainbow trout. Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code R4 La Chute River (at Coho running, lots Curtain Mountain/Moses Hill)

K2 Rock River near Chinook Spawning in late 1800s—clubbed salmon Curtain Mountain

C3, Timber Creek (Neil Lots of Chinook, not many chum, lots of small fish. K10-02 MacDonald)

C4, R5 6 mile (Crow River) 1950’s Sept/Oct., lots of salmon (chum) “Fish Trap Place” on Crow River

Other *Once observed 31 nets (smaller than today’s nets) set at six-mile, Crow River

23 Elder/Source JOHN JOE KAYE Oral History Project Interview Yes-Phyllis & Dennis Frost, Sept. 23rd/03, Old Crow Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code K3 Black Fox Creek, 40 1960s, caught one chinook in net miles up

Elder/Source MARY NETRO Oral History Project Interview Yes, Dennis & Phyllis Frost Sept 23/03 Old Crow, Y.T. Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Met Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code hod Participants

Crow Point Small fish, chum, red Fall l929 (under ice) salmon

Crow River (6 Small fish mile)

Crow River, Lots of fish 1942 Old Peter downstream of (salmon and small fish) Tizya Surprise Creek at change in general direction of River (below Gilbert Lord’s Cabin).

Whitestone lots of chum and small 1930 River, nets at fish mouth and at W. Village

T3-02 Johnson Creek fish trap once. (lots of fish Sept. 1910 & Chum) nets at mouth. Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code

24 C4-02 Johnson Creek- Chum l910 Sept. net at mouth and trap upstream a short ways

LaPierre House 1929 (never fished)

C8-02, Whitestone lots of chum C9-02 River, nets at mouth and at W. Village

S2 Crow River, Salmon downstream of Surprise Creek at change in general direction of River (below Gilbert Lord’s Cabin).

C5, R5 Crow Point Chum and coho, Fall l929 (under ice)

Source OTTO GEIST Archival YUKON ARCHIVES MANUSCRIPT Reference REFERENCE #81/10 “The Reconnaissance Expedition to the Old Crow River Basin in 1952” Other Aug.30, 1952, 1 days travel upstream on the Old Crow River (less than 20 miles from Old Crow): They passed “several fish camps along here, all of which were in operation although there were very few fish. The fish they were getting were of a species not very desirable; namely suckers, which are fine for dog food but not much wanted by Indians. The expected run of grayling, whitefish and coho had not yet started.”

Elder/Source SARAH ABLE Oral History Cat No VG 2001-4-5 page 8/17 Project Interview No Other Inner bark from spruce trees was used to braid small nets, perhaps 4 to 5 feet long. These nets were used to block off creeks and guide fish into basket traps. This system of trapping fish was used in various small creeks in Crow Flats.

25 Elder/Source STEPHEN FROST SR. Oral History Project Interview Yes, Dennis & Phyllis Frost Sept 30/03 Old Crow, Y.T. Fish Trap/Net Map Location/Method Fish Caught Time/Year Other Setting Code Participants

T13 Bluefish area (approx. 5 Grayling miles up)

T4-02 Crow river at Bruce Mostly grayling 1950’s Pete Lord, Riffle Moses Lord, Charlie T7-02 David Lord Creek (at Lots of fish 1952 Linklater mouth)

Willow Lake, Whitefish Heard stories about Lake, Little Flats lots of fishing done there long ago.

Mud Creek Lots of small fish.

Salmon Map Location Species/Number Caught Code

S3 Porcupine River, Lots of salmon caught in nets (fall time) Bluefish area

S1-02 Porcupine River, at Old Lots of salmon in the 1960’s. Crow

8.2 Results Summary Tables and Maps from 2002 Traditional Knowledge Research (CRE-16-02): 8.2.1 Locations of Fish Traps Identified: The following table details locations of historic fish traps, the name(s) of elder(s) who identified each location, and relevant comments made. The map codes correspond with each location noted on the maps in 8.2.3. Fish Trap Locations Map Code Location Elders/ Sources Comments T1 Schaeffer Creek near Alfred Charlie -Lots of fish caught all winter. mouth (Crow Flats)

T2 Black Fox Creek (2- Alfred Charlie -Lots of fish caught. 5km upstream from mouth Andrew Tizya

T3 Johnson Creek (near Alfred Charlie -Lots of fish (including chum) mouth, 4-5 miles up) caught.

26 Charlie Peter Charlie -Chum were caught long ago.

Dick Nukon -Lots of suckers were caught.

George Robert

Hannah Netro -Big whitefish were caught; -fish were dying there.

Peter Kaye

T4 Crow River 1-2km Alfred Charlie upstream from mouth, at Bruce Charlie Peter Charlie Riffle Hannah Netro -Lots of fish were caught for dog food in the 1930s; -communal fish trap for Old Crow.

John Joe Kaye

T5 Tiyza Creek (near Andrew Tizya mouth at Porcup. River—Whitefish Dick Nukon -Whitefish, pike, inconnu, burbot, Lake area) and grayling were caught in the spring, after break-up; -This fish was dried for dog food over the summer. T6 Whitefish Andrew Tizya Lake/Tiyza Creek (near lake outlet)

T7 David Lord Creek Andrew Tizya (near mouth)

T8 Upper Schaeffer Charlie Peter Charlie -Whitefish, inconnu, suckers, Creek at small creek grayling, pike—all kinds of fish (DeChyoo were caught; Njik/Laughing -Large numbers caught. Geese Place) (SW Charlie Thomas Crow Flats)

T9 Mouth of Fish Creek Charlie Thomas -Small fish were caught there. (at Surprise Creek), (referring to grayling, cisco, small which drains whitefish, suckers, etc.) Whitefish Lake in Crow Flats

T10 Mouth of Potato Charlie Thomas -Burbot, whitefish, pike, and Creek (at Crow suckers caught; River) -Large numbers caught.

T11 Chance Creek Dick Nukon -Grayling, inconnu, pike, burbot, (suspected 2-3km and suckers were caught there in

27 upstream from the 1930s; mouth) -Pike and suckers were most abundant.

T12 Cody Creek (near Dick Nukon -All kinds of fish were caught. mouth) T13 Whitestone River Dick Nukon -Whitefish, inconnu, suckers, (near Old Village) pike—all kinds of fish were caught; -trap was only partially successful, could not build it across entire river.

T14 Waters River at La George Robert Pierre House Hannah Netro -Lots of fish caught, including chum; -Fish from there were used for trade at Joe Netro’s store.

Mary Kassi -Chum and other small fish were caught, such as grayling and pike; -traps were located 300 yards behind the old building in a creek (Waters River).

Mary Kendi -Lots of fish were caught, including Whitefish, grayling, trout, and crooked back.

Peter Kaye -Chinook and grayling were caught.

Woody Elias -Salmon and grayling were caught in the 1920s and 1930s.

T15 Ellen Creek (near Hannah Netro -Chum and whitefish were caught. mouth) T16 Driftwood River Hannah Netro -Lots of fish were caught. (near mouth) John Joe Kaye -Whitefish, burbot, and suckers were caught.

T17 Head of Black Fox John Joe Kaye -Lots of whitefish were caught in Creek (Fish Trap the summer. Lake)

T18 Willow Lake, creek John Joe Kaye outlet, which drains in to Schaeffer Creek (Crow Flats)

T19 Creek that drains John Joe Kaye -Lots of chum were caught. Fish Lake, at Porcupine River

28 T20 Big Joe Creek (near John Joe Kaye -Lots of small fish (refers to mouth) grayling, etc.) were caught.

T21 La Chute River (near Peter Kaye -Whitefish were caught. mouth) T22 Lower Johnson Sarah Abel -Grayling were caught; Creek (Crow Flats) -reference from the old story of Vahsrigwehdli’ recorded in 1983.

8.2.2 Locations of Salmon Identified: The following table details historic locations of salmon, the name(s) of elder(s) who identified each location, and relevant comments made. The locations are grouped into 4 categories, for chum, chinook, coho, and unidentified salmon. The locations noted as being of significant interest are location where the presence or spawning of salmon has not been previously documented or confirmed. The map codes correspond with each location noted on the maps in 8.2.3.

(Map Codes: C=chum, K=chinook, R=coho, & S=unidentified salmon) Salmon Locations * Location of Significant Interest Map Code Location Elders/ Sources Comments

Chum Salmon: C1 Miner River (lower Alfred Charlie -Thousands of chum were caught. or mouth) Dick Nukon - Saw lots of salmon eggs, Dick’s dad told him they were from chum.

Edith Josie -Chum were caught with nets there.

C2 Fishing Branch Alfred Charlie -Thousands of chum were caught

Charlie Thomas -Chum were caught.

Hannah Netro -Lots of chum were there.

C3 mouth of Bell Alfred Charlie -Chum were caught at the mouth of River the Bell River, and all the way to Old Crow.

C4 mouth of Johnson Alfred Charlie -Lots of chum were caught. Creek Andrew Tizya -Lots of chum were caught, but no chinook.

Charlie Peter Charlie -Chum were caught there every year; -Small nets were set under the ice;

29 C5 Porcupine River at Andrew Tizya -Lots of chum were caught there. Salmon Cache

C6* Bell River/Waters Andrew Tizya -Lots of chum were caught with River at La Pierre nets, but no chinook. House Hannah Netro -Lots of chum were caught there.

Mary Kassi -Lots of chum were caught there.

Woody Elias -Chum were caught there.

C7 Porcupine River @ Andrew Tizya -Chum were caught there. Caribou Bar Creek

C8 mouth of Dick Nukon -Chum were caught there. Whitestone River Edith Josie -Chum were caught there.

C9* Whitestone River Dick Nukon - Long ago people said there was at Whitestone lots of chum salmon in the Village Whitestone, but Dick doesn’t remember any before 1932. After 1932, he did see chum in the Whitestone River. He does remember seeing dead salmon and also salmon eggs in the Whitestone

- Long ago chum were caught in the Whitestone, but not before 1932. Some dead salmon seen in Edith Josie Whitestone

C10 Ellen Creek (at Hannah Netro -Lots of chum were caught there. mouth) C11 Porcupine River, John Joe Kaye -two or three thousand chum were 15 miles below caught there, but only three or four O.C. chinook.

C12 Porcupine John Joe Kaye -Lots of chum were caught there. River/Creek mouth at Fish Lake

Chinook Salmon: K1 mouth of Crow Andrew Tizya -Lots of chinook were caught there River in 1940.

K2 Porcupine River at Andrew Tizya -A few chinook were caught there. Salmon Cache

K3 Porcupine River at Andrew Tizya -Chinook were caught there. Caribou Bar Creek

30 K4 Porcupine River at Charlie Peter Charlie -Chinook were caught there every Johnson Creek year.

George Robert -Chinook were caught there.

K5 mouth of Edith Josie -Chinook were caught there. Whitestone River

K6 Miner River Edith Josie -Chinook were caught there. (lower)

K7 Porcupine River at Edith Josie -Chinook were caught there. Driftwood

K8 Porcupine River at John Joe Kaye -Only 3-4 chinook were caught Martha and Peter there. Benjamin’s, 15 miles below Old Crow

K9* Bell River/Waters John Joe Kaye -A few chinook were caught there. River at La Pierre House Peter Kaye -Chinook were caught there.

Woody Elias -Chinook were caught there.

K10* Timber Creek John Joe Kaye -A few chinook were there.

K11 Mouth of Bell Mary Kassi -Chinook were caught there. River

Coho Salmon: R1 Mouth of Dick Nukon -Coho were caught there. Whitestone River Edith Josie -Coho were caught there.

R2 Miner River (lower Edith Josie -A few coho were caught there. or mouth)

R3 Mouth of Bell Mary Kassi -Coho were caught there. River

Unidentified Salmon: S1 Porcupine River at Andrew Tizya -Lots of salmon were caught in Old Crow 1970.

Mary Kendi -Lots of salmon were caught in 1938. S2* Porcupine River at Charlie Peter Charlie -Salmon spawned around there*. Johnson Creek Dick Nukon -Lots of dead salmon seen by people at Johnson Creek*.

31 Hannah Netro -Dying salmon observed there*.

S3* Rube Mason Charlie Peter Charlie -Salmon spawned near there. Creek/Porcupine River Hannah Netro -Some salmon caught there.

S4* Whitestone River Charlie Peter Charlie -Salmon spawned near there.

Dick Nukon - Saw dead salmon and also salmon eggs in the Whitestone.

S5* Miner River Charlie Peter Charlie -Salmon spawned near there.

Dick Nukon - Saw lots of salmon eggs there; -Dick’s dad told him they were chum eggs; -Once they fed their dogs from the eggs there were so many.

S6 Fishing Branch Charlie Peter Charlie -Salmon spawned near there. River Dick Nukon -Saw salmon eggs there.

S7* Timber Creek Charlie Peter Charlie - Low numbers of salmon were there; -Maybe because the water is not too deep or is warmer.

8.2.3 Maps of Historic Fish Trap and Salmon Locations: 8.2.3.1 Northern Porcupine River Watershed

8.2.3.2 Southern Porcupine River Watershed

32