SAT%IONFISHING PATTERNSALONG THE MIDDLE YUKON RIVER AT W&TAG, ALZXA

Priscilla Wheeler Technical Paper No. 156

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Juneau, Alaska October 1987 This research was partially supported by ANILCA Federal Aid funds administered through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, SG-1-4 and SG-l-5.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game operates all of its public programs and activities free from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap. Because the department receives federal funding, any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against should write to:

O.E.0 U.S. Department of Interior Washington, DC 20240 ABSTRACT

This report describes historical and contemporary salmon

fishing patterns in Kaltag, a community on the middle Yukon river in

Interior Alaska. Kaltag had a population of 262 in August, 1985.

The majority of the residents are Koyukon Athabaskan. Data concerning subsistence and commercial salmon use was collected from

May to October 1985. Research methods included formal and informal

interviews, participant observation, systematic household surveys,

literature review. Given the nature of the study (e.g. specifically

focusing on the subsistence and commercial salmon fishery) field work concentrated primarily on those individuals and households who actively engaged in fishing during the course of the 1985 salmon

fishing season. Research was supported by the Division of

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the University of Alaska, Vice-Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs.

The report contains an overview of the history of the Kaltag

region, and a description of salmon use patterns (both subsistence

and commercial) from the early 19th century up to contemporary

times. In addition, an overview of the village and people of Kaltag

is provided. The natural environment around the Kaltag area is

reviewed. Finally, harvest levels and pounds per capita of both

subsistence and commercial salmon fishing harvests are included.

Report findings indicate that both subsistence and commercial

fishing have been affected by state fishing regulations. More

specifically, state fishing regulations have resulted in different reactions and adaptations on the part of commercial and subsistence

fishermen. While certain adaptive patterns are consistent between

the two fisheries, important differences exist. Analysis of these

differences points to a perceived conflict between the (external)

state fishing regulations and the local perception of internal

control over the fishery. The same perceived conflict does not

exist in terms of the commercial fishery. Research and analysis

indicate that a separate value system exists for each of the two

fisheries; a value system supported (directly and indirectly) by both individuals and the community as a whole. Even further, adaptive strategies (for both commercial and subsistence fishermen)

evolve on the basis of these separate value systems. These

strategies include social behaviors, such as different structuring of work groups; technological factors such as different use and placement of gear types; and finally, different frameworks of land use and land tenure. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT List of Tables ...... **...... iii . List of Figures ...... *...... 1v Acknowledgements ...... v

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Research Problem and Research Focus ...... 5 Purpose ...... 7 Methodology ...... 8 Literature Review ...... 8 Field Techniques ...... IO Sample Selection ...... 12 Analysis ...... 14

CHAPTER 2. THE VILLAGE AND PEOPLE OF KALTAG...... 15 Historical Background ...... 15 Environmental Setting ...... 20 Contemporary Setting ...... 22

CHAPTER 3. LOWERKOYUKON SALMON FISHING: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT...... 34 Introduction ...... 34 Contact - 1910 ...... 37 Technology ...... 38 Land Tenure and Fish Camps ...... 43 1910 - 1940 ...... 47 Technology ...... 48 Land Tenure and Fish Camps ...... 51 Summary ...... 55

CHAPTER 4. DEVELOPMENTOF COMMERCIAL FISHING ON THE MIDDLE YUKON RIVER ...... 59 Introduction ...... 59 History of Management Agencies ...... 60 ADFG Management: Upper Yukon ...... 62 "Limited Entry" Program ...... 63 Fishing Seasons and Periods ...... 65 Guideline Harvest Levels ...... 66 Gear Types ...... 69 The Commercial Fishery in Kaltag ...... 71 Summary ...... 72

CHAPTER 5. 1985 SALMON FISHING SEASON...... 74 Introduction ...... 74 Species Harvested ...... 74 The Commercial Fishing Season ...... 75 The Subsistence Season ...... 75 Fishing Gear ...... 77

i Page

The Organization and Production of Subsistence ...... 79 Fishing Areas ...... 79 Work Group Composition ...... 81 Harvest Levels ...... 85 The Organization and Production of Commercial Salmon Fishing ...... 88 Base of Operations ...... 88 Fishing Areas ...... 90 Fish Camp and Work Group Composition ...... 90 Harvest Levels ...... 93 Comparison of Subsistence and Commercial Salmon Fishing ...... 101 . Base of Operations and Salmon Fishing Areas...... 10 1 Work Groups ...... 102 Harvest Levels ...... 104

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARYAND DISCUSSION ...... 107

REFERENCES...... 120

APPENDIX 1. 1960 - 1985 Summary of Subsistence Fishing Regulations ,...... 127

APPENDIX 2. 1960 - 1985 Summary of Commercial Fishing Regulations ,...... 133

APPENDIX 3. Summer 1985 Kaltag Subsistence Salmon Fishing Survey ...... *...... 142

ii LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Public Services and Facilities Available in Kaltag, 1985 ...... 28

Table 2. Price listing for Selected Goods, Kaltag, 1985...... 29

Table 3. Wage Employment Opportunities, Kaltag, 1985...... 32

Table 4. Household Subsistence Salmon Harvests by Species Kaltag, 1985...... 88

Table 5. Levels of Household Subsistence to Commercial Salmon Harvest and Per Capita Harvest, Kaltag, 1985..... 104

iii LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Location of Kaltag ...... 3 Figure 2. Kaltag Population trend, 1890 - 1985 ...... 23 Figure 3. Frequency of Household Size, Population and Sample, 1985 ...... 24 Figure 4. Population by Age and Sex, 1985 ...... 26 Figure 5. Commercial Fishing Seasons, 1960 - 1985 ...... 67 Figure 6. Commercial Fishing Periods, 1960 - 1985 ...... 68 Figure 7. Kaltag Drifting Area, 1985 ...... 80 Figure 8. Frequency of Household size, Subsistence Fishing Households, 1985 ...... 83 Figure 9. Age of Primary Household Head, Subsistence Fishing Households, 1985 ...... 84 Figure 10. Subsistence Salmon Harvest, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 86 Figure 11. Subsistence Salmon Harvest by Household, 1985 ...... 87 Figure 12. Fishcamp Composition, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 92 Figure 13. Frequency of Household Size, Commercial Fishing households, 1985 ...... 94 Figure 14. Age of Primary Household Head, Commercial Fishing Households, 1985 ...... 95 Figure 15. Commercial Salmon Harvest by Method, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 96 Figure 16. Daily Commercial Roe Sales, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 98 Figure 17. Roe Sales by Commercial Fishing Period, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 99 Figure 18. Individual Harvest and Production Levels, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 100 Figure 19. Total Commercial and Subsistence Salmon Harvest, Kaltag, 1985 ...... 105

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the entire community of Kaltag for their help with the project. In particular I would like to thank all salmon fishing families and individuals who helped me with the study. The project was presented to the mayor and to the Native

(IRA) Council at its outset and was met with support and approval by the council members and by the members of the community who were present. The value of this type of study was recognized by the majority of the community, without whose support it would not have been possible. Major funding for the project was provided by a

Research Fellowship from the Vice-Chancellor for Research and

Academic Affairs, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Supplementary funding was provided by the Division of Subsistence, Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. In addition, the Division of

Subsistence provided typing and drafting services, completed by Pat

Stredicke and Gary Nichols. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr.

Anne Shinkwin, and also Dr. Linda Ellanna for their help and direction in the project. I would also like to thank Howard Maxwell for his help with the graphics, Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the help of Elizabeth Andrews for her support in organizing and implementing this project, and for seeing it through to its end.

V

CHAF'IERl INTRODUCTION

This study describes historical and contemporary salmon fishing patterns in Kaltag, a Northern Athabaskan cmity. Research examines the interrelationship between cannercial and subsistence salmon fisheries, and the effects of state fishing regulations on the local, traditional fishing system. It is recognized that there is internal management of fish and game resources in an aboriginal system which is self-regulatory in nature, however, for the purposes of this study, the focus is on external regulatory systems imposed by the State of Alaska. While this study is primarily descriptive, it goes beyond description to analyze the relationships between contemporary external regulation of fishing and contemporary salmon fishing strategies based on tradition. It examines the traditional core of the fishery and determines to what extent the camnercial and subsistence salmon fisheries have emerged and diverged from that core. State regulation is only one element of change affecting the fishery: other variables, such as new technology, opportunities for wage labor, and state and federal land designations and restrictions, are also important and are discussed. This project was designed to concentrate specifically on state regulations in order to provide a case study of a feature of change that has in

SCXTEway affected all traditional Alaska Native fisheries in the state.

1 An overall goal of the study is to contribute to knowledge of northern modem foragers and their conteqorary adaptations. A literature search was conducted prior to the study. Fieldwork in 1985 included participant observation, administration of a survey and informal and tormal interviews, all of which were designed to obtain data on past and present c oa-munity fishing patterns.

Ccamrercial and subsistence salmon tishing are distinct and substantially difterent entities, but in Kaltag a c-n core underlies the two systems. Contemporary fishing patterns essentially represent an adaptation of traditional tlshing behavior.

Because state fisheries regulations address the tm fisheries as though they were one system, regulations have been a major force molding traditional fishing patterns. The integration of or divergence between the caarmercial and subsistence fisheries in Kaltag will be discussed.

Kaltag is a predmnantly Koyukon Athabaskan camnunity with a population of 261 in 1985. It is located in Interior Alaska, on the middle Yukon River. It is situated approximately 430 river miles

Worn the Ilbouth of the Yukon, and about 75 river miles from the confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk rivers. The ccarPnunity is accessible by river, airplane, or overland in winter along trails. Other nearby settlements include the subregional center of Galena, located about 120 miles up river; Nulato, another ccznnunity approximately 40 miles up river; and Unalakleet, an Eskimo carrpnunity roughly 90 miles west of Kaltag on Norton Sound (Fig. 1). The previous site of Kaltag, known as Old Kaltag is three miles down

2 . .II. :., . ..:...... , .:. . i ‘)O.;: .. . Q* :‘/ ,;.’ ._.:.‘0 ,: . :,../-h.i ..: ;:J($d

3 river at the mouth of the Rode &ver. The Kaiyuh Slough, the

open-water access into the Kaiyuh Flats, is roughly 22 miles down

river. The Kalyuh Flats comprise much ot the surrounding area, which is marked by nunaerous small tributaries and lakes, all of which figure prmnently in historic and contemporary local

subsistence activities. Kaltag was chosen as the study site for several reasons. Cmrcial fishing in Yukon River fisheries management districts 4,

5, and 6 has been intermittent within the past SO years, developing

into an industry only within the past decade (Marcotte 1982).

During the study period, the cmrcial fishing industry in Kaltag was based solely on the sale or Sumner chum salmon roe. This is in marked contrast to other carmercial fisheries along the Yukon.

Furthermore, it was only one of three comnunities in the Upper Yukon

Management Area in 1985 in which drift gill nets were permitted for

taking king and fall chum salmon tar subsistence purposes. Since this regulatory change occurred as the result of a c-unity- initiated action, and few other Upper Yukon communities had been

able to errectively alter state regulations pertaining to gear tvpe,

1t was considered important to examine this local process.

Additionally, the Division of Subsistence collected data on salmon fishing in Kaltag intermittently over the past three years, thus provldlng a partial data base to assist in interpreting the 1985 data. Overall, the situation in Kaltag presented an excellent

opportunity to examine the effects of the developnt of ccxnnercial fishing and the imposition of state regulations on an indigenous fishing system.

RESE?XHPROBUWANDRESENTHFEUS

External regulation of fish and game resources is currently a topic of major importance in Alaska, raising nmrous biological and social xssues. These issues invite political involvement on many levels, frcan a local to an international scope. Biological concerns have generally concentrated on managing resources on the principle of sustained yield. However, because of differing variables such as the character of salmon runs, the nature of the various fisheries resources and the river itself, management on the basis of this principle is ccxnplex and at times difficult (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries 1985). As a result, certain conflicts have emerged and research concerning other resource management perspectives has been proposed. Conflicts arise primarily from management decisions based on limited data such as inccxnplete escapement data, and from the fact that many of the fisheries are mixed-stock, yet management tends to treat them as being ccxnprised of a single stock (Alaska Department of Fish and

Game, 1985a; Pennoyer, et al. 1965).

The importance of issues surrounding the use and regulation of fish and game has resulted in considerable research describing patterns of wildlife use, prtirily in rural Alaska. The most c-n form of research is a baseline study, which focuses on the patterns of wild resource use by the inhabitants of one or several

5 comnunities (cf. Fall, Foster and Stanek 1984; Marcotte and Haynes

1984; Stickney 1981; Stokes 1984). The other less comTlon study is issue-related, in which a management issue is examined, usually in

light of a specific management problem (cf. Huntington 1981; Marcotte 1982; Stokes and Andrews 1982).

Subsistence research is mandated by the 1978 H.B. 960 Chapter

151 "Subsistence Law", which requires that subsistence use of

resources by Alaska residents be described. In addition, when state management of fish and game was initiated in 1960, little was known

about rural econcnnies. To ensure effective management of fish and

game in Alaska, it was essential to gain as thorough knowledqe as

possible of resource use in the state. A substantial data base has

now been established, although it is more ccanplete for scme areas

than for others. By analyzing the current data base, systems and patterns of wild resource use have emerged. While it is critical to maintain the descriptive data base, it is equally important to

analyze patterns of resource use in order to better understand the

adaptive strategies adopted by different groups of modem foragers. Analytic studies examining the resource base in relationship to the social, cultural, and econtic systems of the human users must be

conducted in order to examine the complexities and

interrelationships between various systems of local resource use.

Recently, several studies have started to view the uses of fish

and game resources in a systemic context. Some look at the

relationship of cash and economic developnt on subsistence

activities (Wolfe 1981, 1982; Wolfe and Ellanna 1983); others

6 examine the relationship between traditional socio-political arrangements (bands) and contemporary subsistence activity (Shinkwin and Case 1984). The effects of demographic and technological change on the social organization of &em hunting activities have also been studied (Ellanna 1983a, 198333).

It is the research hypothesis that the external (state) regulation of both ccarmercial and subsistence fisheries has significantly changed certain traditional patterns of fishing, while leaving others intact. Specifically, separate values and behavior are now unique and distinct to both comnercial and subsistence fishing. Also, it is hypothesized that contemporary cmrcial fishing patterns are an adaptive strategy which successfully incorporates western values and regulatory measures into the traditional Native fishery. The research also examines the perceived effects of the state regulations by local fisherrren.

PURPOSE

The State of Alaska regulates the subsistence and con-mercial salmon fishery by restricting technology (gear type and operation), fishing strategies (seasons, periods, times) and land use (fishing locations). In Kaltaq, these restrictions have altered traditional fishing patterns. As previously mentioned. however, other variables are also responsible for the changes in social organization, technology, land use, and land tenure that have occurred. The intent of this paper is to compare and discuss traditional and contemporary patterns of salmon fishing in Kaltag, Alaska, within

7 the context of state regulations. This report illustrates that state fishing regulations are an important and influential agent of change in Kaltag, especially concerning the develomt of contemporary salmon fishing strategies.

Literature Review

General preparation for the project consisted of a literature review to establish the historical context of Kaltag and to become familiar with econcxnies of modem foragers. A review of anthropological literature on &em foragers, primarily in Alaska and Canada was also conducted (Asch 1982; Brody 1982; Ellanna 1983;

Feit 1973, 1979, 1982; Honigman 1970; Leacock and Lee 1982; Usher

1976, 1981; Wolfe and Ellanna 1983; Wolfe 1982). This provided an overall perspective on theory and methodolcgy in anthropology as they have been used in studies of modem northern populations.

An understanding of socio-political groupings, social organization, and cultural variation among Koyukon Athabaskans was obtained through a review of ethnographic literature (Clark 1974,

1975; Osgood 1936, 1940: McClellan 1969, 1975; Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942). Other studies such as those by VanStone (1974)‘ Nelson

(1973, 1980) and Nelson, Mautner and Bane (1982) provide insight into cultural, econcxnic, and social adaptations of Koyukon Athabaskans. To compare the traditional and contemporary salmon fisheries in Kaltag with other Athabaskan fisheries, literature on Alaskan Athabaskan commercial and subsistence fisheries was reviewed (Behnke 1982; Braund 1980; Fall and Stratton 1984; foster 1982). All known historic sources with references to Kaltag were also reviewed. Lieutenant Zagoskin (Michael 1967), a Russian naval officer, reports some information on the middle Yukon during the early contact period even though questions have been raised regarding the reliability of his accounts in terms of inconsistencies between his written account and his log (L. Black pers. comm., 1986). However, information that seems consistence with other sources will be reported here. Major sources are Adams (1982) and Jette (1907, 1910, 1911). Adams worked under Major Kennicott and traveled extensively throughout the Kaltag and Nulato areas, immediately following Zagoskinls exploration, up until the late 1800s (1982). Father Jules Jette, a Jesuit priest, lived in Nulato from around 1890 until about 1920 and his writings provide prolific accounts and records based on careful observation and detailed recording. His work has been the source of most of what we know about the post-contact, early twentieth century culture in the Kaltag and Nulato areas (Jette 1909, 1910, 1911). Following Jette, two other Jesuit priests worked in the area. Sullivan (1942) and more recently Loyens (1966), provided extensive information on the Nulato and Kaltag Indians in their ethnographic accounts. Based primarily on Jette (1907), and to a lesser extent Loyens

(1966) , deLagun.a (1947), and Robert (1984), a place names map for the area extending from 18 miles above Kaltag to roughly 35 miles down river was constructed. This area was defined by Father Jette, and later confirmed by fieldwork, as the traditional Kaltag salmon rushing area. This map was used in interviews regarding historic and contemporary land use patterns. Ccznnercial and subsistence salmon fishing regulations for the Yukon Management Area District 4 were examined to understand the progression of external managent in that area. The final result was a cqilation and sumnary of fishing regulations for this district (Appendices 1 and 2). This cmpilation provided an understanding of the regulations which proved to be an invaluable tool in data collection and later in its analysis. It illustrates the evolution during the past 20 years of a manag-t scheme which regulates times and dates of fishing, gear types, as well as personnel who can be involved in different fishing activities and fishing areas.

Field Techniques

The first field trip to Kaltag took place in May 1985, for purposes of securing approval of the proposed research project. A tentative work plan was circulated and the proposed research was presented to the Mayor and to the Native Council (IRA). After several questions and scme discussion, a vote gained unanimous

10 approval for the project. Field logistics were also arranged at this-time.

Frcan June through October 1985, four field trips were made, ranging in time fran four days to three weeks. These trips were scheduled to coincide with major salmon fishing activities. Fieldwork was largely dependent on the timing of salmon runs and resultant fishing activities.

Irutial fieldwork involved conducting a c mity census by household. This enabled for an examination of the contemporary structuring of households and production units, both integral to examining the harvest and use of fish and other wildlife resources.

Following this, key respondent interviews provided historic and genealogical data, to determine geographic origin of SCEE family lines and inter-household relationships. A sketch of the c-unity located individual dwellings, city buildings, caches, mkehouses and drying racks, and other significant structures. All other data collection concentrated on historical and contemporary salmon fishing patterns. Shortly after arriving in Kaltag, a boat was chartered and services of a local resident obtained in order to locate on U.S.G.S. topographic maps (scale 1:63,360) the salmon fish camps used historically and at present by Kaltag residents. Sites where fish wheels and set nets are used currently were noted also. This map was used as a reference during personal interviews, and cross-checked for accuracy.

11 Harvest data on the 1985 fishing season were collected, as were data on technology and land use of the contemporary and historic salmon fishery in Kaltag. Several different methods were employed in collecting data. A survey (Appendix 3) elicited basic harvest data for the 1985 salmon fishing season (numbers, species, processing methods, ccxnposition of production units). The survey was administered during the 1985 s-r fishing season. In addition, formal and informal interviews during the fishing season provided data on historical and contemporary patterns of salmon fishing, including land use, technology, and social organization of fishing (work group ccanposition and division of labor). Finally, data was collected through participant observation. By visiting fish camps, the researcher was able to participate in and observe daily activities, the organization of labor, methods of harvesting and processing of salmon, and technological innovations. Observations were recorded on a daily basis.

A core group of the more active fishing families served as key respondents in informal interviews. These individuals provided information on all aspects of traditional and contemporary fishing patterns, salmon use, as well as general historic data.

Sample Selection

The sample population included households who fished for salmon four or more times either for corfmercial or subsistence purposes during the 1985 salmon fishing season. The household was used as the basic unit of study since it is a clearly defined social unit.

12 The definition of social units beyond the household, such as production units for salmon fishing, was a research goal. When two or more households fished together as a production unit, this fact was noted.

Using the household census, all salmon fishing households in the cormunity were identified. Twenty-tmo of the 63 households (35 percent) in Kaltag fished for salmon with regularity in 1985, for either subsistence or cormercial purposes. All but two of these fishing households took part in the research. These two individuals and their households were included in the gross analysis Of characteristics of fishing households, but all other data were obtained frm the sample of 20 households. Ccmnercial fishermen were also identified from the list of Cormercial Fisheries mtry

Commission D33Z) salmon permit holders for the Yukon River.

Subsistence fishing households were identified through key respondents. In 1985, there were 15 ccmnercial fishing permit holders

(including one "interim use" petit holder) in Kaltag. Eleven individuals hold a fish wheel permit and four have a permit for set nets. Two ccmnercial fishermen with fish wheel permits chose not to participate in the study, therefore the sample included 13 permit holders. Eleven of these 13 (85 percent) comnercial fishermen also fished for subsistence. Nine other households fished only for subsistence and all participated in this study. In sumnary, 22 of 24 salmon fishing households were intervie&. Of these, 20 fished for salmon for subsistence use.

13 Analvsis

Several methods were used in data analysis. First, all field notes were organized by topic and keyword, using Superfile Database

Management software. Harvest data were ccqiled and tabulated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Using data collected on personal fishing histories, a chronological history ot change in the fishery was developed. Information on land use patterns, social organization, and technology was campiled.

'I'his provided the context for examining the relationship between contemporary fishing regulations and the transformation of the traditional fishery into the contemporary fishery. Finally, the

SPSS graphics package and MAC graphics were employed in developing all graphics.

14 CHAPTER 2

THE VILLAGE AND PEOPLE OF KALTAG

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Euro-American contact with Lower Koyukon Athabaskans of the middle Yukon River did not occur until the mid-nineteenth century.

Prior to this time, there is evidence of contact between the Lower

Koyukon Indians and coastal Yup'ik and Inupiat Eskimos (Clark 1981; deLaguna 1947). Inupiat Eskimo groups bordered the Koyukon to the north, and Inupiat and Yup'ik Eskimos lived to the west and southwest. According to Zagoskin (1967) Athabaskans of the middle

Yukon had incorporated the ornamentation of the coastal Eskimos, as well as other habits, costumes and religious holidays by the time of contact, thus suggesting communication between coastal and interior peoples prior to his exploration beginning in 1842.

The first direct Euro-American contact with Natives of interior

Alaska occurred under the direction of the Russian-American Company, which became interested in the potential for commerce in furs from the interior after having exploited furbearing resources of the north Pacific coast (Loyens 1966; McClellan 1969). The middle Yukon was one of the first areas of the interior to be dominated by the

Russians, due in part to their discovery of the Kaltag Portage, a travel route between the Yukon River and the Bering Sea used by native peoples of both areas.

15 Kaltag is an historically important community because of its location on one end of the Kaltag Portage (Fig. 1). As the shortest overland route between the interior and the Norton Sound, the Kaltag Portage was used as a trade route by Yuplik and Inupiat

Eskimos and Athabaskans. After Russian contact, the coastal and interior natives kept the Russians from learning of the portage, knowing that upon its discovery, it could destroy the native trade monopoly (Andrews and Koutsky 1977; Burch 1976; Loyens 1966; Michael 1967). Despite their efforts, in 1843 Zagoskin qldiscoveredll the Kaltag Portage, and it soon became a commonly used passage for both travel and trade by Russians and later Euro- Americans (Andrews and Koutsky 1977). Throughout the nineteenth and' into the twentieth century, coastal and interior people continued to use the portage for travel and trade. Zagoskin (Michael 1967) mentioned three sites around the present day site of Kaltag. He noted a settlement at the end of the Unalakleet Portage, which Michael (1967) suggests could be the present day Rodokaket. Michael (1967) also suggest that the site Zagoskin noted as a community on the left bank of the Yukon near the mouth of the Kaltag River was probably the presently abandoned Lower Kaltag. Finally, Zagoskin noted the site of Khogotlinde, which Michael (1967) claims as being at the mouth of the Khogotlinde River, although the original location was probably on an island opposite the now abandoned Lower Kaltag. The next wave of Euro-American influx into the interior came as a result of the Western Union Telegraph Co., which planned on

16 constructing an overland telegraph line to the Bering Sea where it was to join a Russian counterpart (Loyens 1966). An expedition commanded by Major Kennicott crossed from Unalakleet to Nulato in an attempt to set a route for the station. One of Kennicott's expeditioners mentions Kaltag in his diary of 1865:

. ..after about one hours [sic] travel on the river we came to Kholtag, a one house village with a large population we judged, when we saw the large number of men, women and children that were crowded into this underground house, that was a counter part of the one at Ulukuk (Adams 1982: 56).

In a diary of his travels through the Yukon, Dal1 (1870:41) notes Kaltag as being the first village he encountered after having traveled the Kaltag Portage:

. . . a half mile above the point where we struck the river bank is a cluster of winter houses and caches, which goes by the name of Kaltag...

Without an accurate map it is difficult to tell, but from the descriptions, Zagoskin (Michael 1967), Adams (1982) and Dal1 (1870) appear to concur on the existence of the settlement at the end of the Kaltag Portage. Between the years 1843-1870, the primary settlements were either located at the mouth of the Rodokaket River on the west bank of the Yukon (Michael 1967; Adams 1982) or the mouth of the slough across the Yukon River from that site (Dal1

1870). According to Petroff (1880) by 1880, there were two primary settlements in the vicinity of Kaltag, one was known as "Upper" and the other known as "Lower" (Orth 1971). These sites are referenced in most of the historic literature pertaining to the area, providing an indication of their importance.

17 Later, Jette mentions several sites noted by his informants (Loyens 1966). One of them, a camp on the island at the mouth of the Kaltag River is referred to as I~Sanlaytorl~ (Jette 1911), "waiting for king salmon"

(Loyens 1966). This site was also noted by Schwatka (1898) although he called it Vhaltag," and Hrdlicka (1944) who referred to is as VIKogotlinde.lV The confusion surrounding the place names associated with Kaltag was first addressed by Hrdlicka (1944:136):

...the villages still existing give only a partial clue as to the old, even when they bore the same name, for on occasion the village changed its location though it retained the same name and stayed in the same vicinity. Thus, there existed, between the earliest contacts with whites and the present .. . 3 Kaltags. DeLaguna (1947) also reiterated the historic importance of this community site. According to her, the archaeological evidence suggested that the community on the island was likely the original llXogotlinde.l@ While this name was used to refer to several different sites, it was last applied to the present site of Kaltag (DeLaguna 1947). Other names used in reference to Kaltag include Kholtog (Adams 1982; Dal1 1870; Petroff 1930), Koltog (Adams 1982; Dall1870; DeLaguna 1947), andHoltog (Dal1 1870; DeLaguna 1947; Petroff 1930; Michael 1967). The existence of a large number of sites in the vicinity of Kaltag has been supported by both historical and archaeological evidence. It also conforms to the Lower Koyukon settlement pattern and band organization described by Clark (1981) and other ethnographic and archaeological studies (DeLaguna 1947; Osgood 1936;

18 VanStone 1977). Clark notes that the Lower Koyukon had semi-permanent winter communities and summer fish camps; the locations and sizes of which varied according to fluctuations in resources and changes in seasons. According to her interpretation, settlement patterns were heavily dependent upon the resource base, which was primarily salmon (Osgood 1936; VanStone 1977). Salmon is a relatively stable resource (in comparison with ungulates, which tend to have major population fluctuations), allowing for larger, more permanent settlements. While temporary camps were utilized by the Lower Koyukon, they were not the primary type of settlement

(Clark 1981; Osgood 1936; VanStone 1977). This is in marked contrast to the Upper Koyukon; who subsisted on a relatively unstable and marginal resource base. The Upper Koyukon rarely maintained permanent settlements and were far more mobile than the

Lower Koyukon (Clark 1981).

According to Jette (1907), deLaguna ( 1947) and Loyens ( 1966), until around 1910, the primary settlement was located at the mouth of the Rodokaket River. Local residents refer to this site as "Old

Kaltag," and the site that is currently inhabited as "New Kaltag."

A post office was built at Upper Kaltag in 1903, and by 1910 the majority of the population of Lower Kaltag had moved to join Upper

Kaltag (Ricks 1965:31). This history was confirmed by current residents of Kaltag. In 1910 the population of Upper Kaltag was

131, having increased from a population of 24 in 1880 (Orth 1971;

Rollins 1974). This increase in population indicates a transition

19 to a more centralized residence pattern and a concomitant reduction in use of seasonal camps in this are (Loyens 1966; Rollins 1978). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The physical environment of the Kaltag area is primarily subarctic boreal forest. Depending on drainage and location, predominant forestation is white spruce (Picea slauca, black spruce (Picea mariana) and birch (Betula napvrifera) all of which figure prominently in interior Athabaskan life (DeLaguna 1947:27; Nelson, Mautner, and Bane 1982). Willow (Salix ~JX), alder (Alnus ~13.) and poplar (Po~ulus sx).) grow profusely along the river bans, sloughs and tributaries of the Yukon. Poplar, locally referred to as cottonwood, is utilized almost exclusively for smoking sheefish (Stenodus leucichthvs), whitefish (Coresonus ~JX), king salmon (Onchorvnchus tshawvtcha) and fall chum salmon (Onchorvnchus keta) as it imparts a "tasty It flavor to the fish. The most stable and therefore most important resource base for the people of the middle Yukon is fish. Other than king, coho, and chum salmon, other fish common to the area and utilized by local residents include whitefish, grayling (Thvmallus arcticus), northern pike (Esox luscius), burbot (Lota lota), blackfish (Dallia pectoralis), and sheefish. Edible berries along the riverbanks and hills consist of blueberries (Vaccinium SJI.), raspberries (Rubus 513.) highbush cranberries (Viburnum vitis-idaea), and currants (Ribes sp.). Availability of these fruits is inconsistent and varies from

20 year to year. While berries do not provide a substantial addition to the diet in terms of quantity, they are an important nutritional component of traditional Koyukon diet. On the hills extending away from the river grow various lichens and moss, providing forage for caribou (Ranoifer tarandus). While there are few caribou in the middle Yukon region at present, historical reports note the existence of a substantial caribou population in the last century (VanStone 1974; DeLaguna 1947). The most important ungulate to the Koyukon is moose (Alces alces), although historically the population has fluctuated greatly. Other mammals utilized by Kaltag residents include black bear (Ursus americanus), brown bear (Ursus arctos), fox (Vulpes fulva), lynx UD2i canadensis), wolverine (Gulo sulo), wolf (Canis lunus), muskrat (Ondatra zebithecus), marten (Martes americana), hare (Lepus americanus), ground squirrel (Citellus narrvi), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Rock (Lacopus mutus) and willow ptarmigan (Lasopus lasonus), and grouse (Canachites canachites) are used, as are various species of migratory waterfowl. Dal1 (1870:118) mentioned that a belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) and several seals (Phoca vitulina) reached this part of the Yukon during his exploration. Similarly, DeLaguna (1947:26) reported that these marine mammals occasionally ascended the Yukon as far as Kaltag. During the 1985 summer, it was reported to the author that a belukha whale was seen making its way up river past Kaltag, although this report was not confirmed by observation.

21 CONTEMPORARYSETTING

The ethnic composition of Kaltag is primarily Koyukon

Athabaskan. In 1980, 95 percent of the residents were Athabaskan

Indian, 4 percent were Caucasian, .8 percent were Eskimo and .2 percent Black (U.S. Department of Commerce 1980). Based on the census conducted as part of this study, in 1985 the population was comprised of 261 individuals distributed in 63 households. Exact ethnicity was not established, however 96 percent of the population are Athabaskan.

Prior to 1970, the population fluctuated, ranging from around

20 to over 200 people. With the exception of a decline in 1920 from

1910, however, the population has either been stable or growing.

Between 1920 and 1950 the population was fairly stable. Steady growth took place between 1930 and 1970, and since the mid-1970s, the population has been relatively stable (Fig. 2).

Frequency of household sizes and comparison of population with sample household sizes for 1985 is shown in Figure 3. In comparison to the total population, fishing households were larger, with a mean size of 6 as opposed to the overall population which had a mean household size of 4. Only 1 of the 13 single person households fished, and the 3 households with more than 8 people were all fishing households; indicating that larger households were more likely to fish than smaller households. Household composition varied, ranging from a single person, to nuclear families consisting of a married couple and their children, to single parents with

22 300

200 i i I 100

E ...... I . 1 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1'

YEAR Fig. 2 o ulati n histo of K&tag, 1990 - 1985 $ofins; tks stud8 ------.-----

147------1N62,aZ --- 4, median = 4, mode.l(-

NUMSEROFlNDMDUMSlN~ Fii. 3. Frequency of household sizes, Kaltag, 1985. children. In several cases, grandchildren or adopted children are also present. In instances where a single older person lives alone, they are usually closely affiliated with another household.

The 1985 population structure of Kaltag by age and sex is depicted in Figure 4. Males comprise 57 percent of the population.

Within certain age categories, that ratio is greatly increased. For instance, in the age categories of .O-4, 15-19, 30-34 and 45-49, males outnumber females by at least twice as many. In the age group

40-44, the male to female ratio is 3.5:1. In 1985, 83 percent of the population was under the age of 40. The mode for females is in the age categories of 5-9 and 20-24, and the mode for males is in the age cohort O-4. Despite the fact that the mode for the total population occurs between the ages of 20 and 24, this represents only 14 percent of the population. The mode divides the overall population fairly evenly, as 44 percent of the population lies below the mode, and 42 percent lies above it. The overall population male to female ratio is 1.33:l. Several factors which include differential birth and mortality, migration and adoption can account for the differences among the age groups and in the male to female ratios, although whether one or all of these factors is accountable is not known.

Travel to and from Kaltag is possible year-round only by aircraft. It is about 310 air miles from Anchorage and about 285 air miles from Fairbanks. In 1985, there were two scheduled flights daily providing for transportation of people and freight. A project to lengthen the runway has been underway for several years to extend

25 MALES (149,67%) FEMALE9 (112,43X)

75-79 l 70-74.

65-69 l I 60-649 55-59 = 50-54. 45-49.

0" 40-44 n 7 4. A 35-39 l 30-34.

25-29. E 20-24. 15-19.

10-14 l

5-9 - O-4.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE FE. 4. Population of Kaltag by age and sex, 1965 (N= 261) the airfield from its present length of 3,000 feet to 3,600 feet.

The longer runway will enable a DC3 to land at Kaltag. During summer, inter-community travel is often accomplished with the use of flatbottom river boats, most of which are 16 to 20 feet long with outboard motors ranging from 15 to 50 horsepower. In winter, inter-community travel is most commonly by snowmachine and occasionally by dog team.

A number of services and facilities are available to the residents of Kaltag (Table 1). Housing consists of homes of log construction or frame construction. In summer 1985, there were 64 occupied residences. Almost all homes are connected to a water and sewer system and all have wood- burning stove for heat. In addition, homes built under the Alaska State Housing Authority have oil furnaces. Given the high cost of fuel and the abundance of wood, most people prefer to use wood for heat.

Electrical services are provided by the Alaska Village Electric

Cooperative (AVEC). Sitka Telephone provides telephone service, and many homes have telephones. A satellite disc provides for television reception.

27 TABLE 1. PUBLIC SERVICE AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE IN KALTAG, 1985

Service Available

Electricity Yes

Telephone Yes

Satellite Television Yes

Household Sewage System Yes

Household Water System Yes

Laundromat No

Garbage Pickup Yes

School System Yes

Headstart Program Yes

Roe Processing Plant Yes

Community Hall Yes

Health Clinic Yes

Village Police Yes

Post Office Yes

Airfield Yes

Other services and facilities available in Kaltag include two stores, one privately owned by a non-resident and the other operated by the Alaska Native Industries Cooperative Association (ANICA) and managed by a local resident. Both stores are stocked with staple foods, some dry goods and hardware. Table 2 presents a price listing for selected food items that were available from the stores during the summer of 1985.

28 TABLE 2. PRICE LISTING FOR SELECTED GOODS AVAILABLE AT EITHER OF THE TWO STORES IN KALTAG, SUMMER1985.

ITEM COST

loaf Wonder Bread $2.80

box pilot bread $3.35

box graham crackers $3.45

1 lb. chicken $3.55

1 6 oz. stick pepperoni $2.65

1 2.5 oz. can tuna fish $2.95

1 lb. Parkay margarine $1.70

1 doz. eggs $2.50

1 16 oz. can evaporated milk $1.00

3 lb. can Crisco $5.20

1 5 lb. sack pancake mix $4.80

1 2 lb. can coffee $8.05

1 lb. white onions $1.45

1 six-pack Sprite $6.00

1 16 oz. jar pickles $2.00

1 8 oz. bottle A-l sauce $3.70

1 pack Wrigley's gum $ .50

A Catholic church is operated by two resident nuns and a visiting priest. The Jesuit order has been present in the area for over a century. Most Kaltag residents are Roman Catholic.

Kaltag is a second class city but also has a tribal form of government established in 1940 under provisions of the Indian

29 Reorganization Act, applied to Alaska in 1936. Both the tribal

Council and City Council are seen as having different powers and responsibilities. Kaltag was recognized under the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act (P.L. 92-203; December 18, 1971; 85 Stat. 688) and the Village Corporation of Takathlee-todin, Inc. was established. The regional profit-making corporation representing

Kaltag is Doyon, Ltd.; Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC) is the regional non-profit organization.

A combined elementary and secondary school is operated by the

Yukon-Koyukuk School District. Grades kindergarten through twelve are taught. TCC operates a Headstart Program which is responsible for educating children of preschool age. Two health aides provide basic and emergency services and operate the health clinic. Medivac services are available if necessary. In fall 1985, a fire house facility was completed.

A salmon roe processing plant operates during the summer months. In 1982 it was built by Kyoko-Suisan Company of Japan and later sold to the Kaltag Fishermen's Cooperative, who in turn lease

it back to the Company. The plant is a small two room structure,

containing all equipment necessary for processing and packaging

salmon roe which is then shipped to Japan.

Wage employment on either a part-time or full-time basis was

limited during 1985 in Kaltag. Generally, most jobs in the

community are service oriented, and either directly or indirectly

funded by the state or federal government. Table 3 provides a

30 description of the wage employment opportunities available to

residents of Kaltag in 1985. At the time of this study, 47 wage

jobs were available within the community, of which only 14 were

full-time. Most employment was either on a seasonal or part-time basis, ranging from part-time seasonal to part-time year-round, to

full-time seasonal and finally to full-time year-round. In

addition, the Bureau of Land Management hired a group of 14 Kaltag

residents for two weeks in July 1985 to fight forest fires.

Other sources of income include commercial fishing, trapping,

cottage industries, and transfer payments. Commercial fishing and

transfer payments provide the largest overall support to the

community. Household income data were not collected during this

study. However, according to the 1980 census (based on 1979 data),

the mean income for households had an income of less than $12,000

and 1 percent of the households made more than $30,000.

Commercial salmon fishing is a source of income only to

households with a commercial fishing permit. In 1985, 14

individuals in 12 households owned a permit and fished commercially

to sell salmon roe. The total gross value of commercial roe sales

to Kaltag fishermen in 1985 was $93,219.75. Earnings from the sale

of roe by individual permit holders ranged from $375.40 to

$21,447.00 per permit holder, with a mean of $5,436.72.

According to information available through the Department of

Health and Social Service, public assistance in the form of food

stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC) and old age

31 TABLE 3. WAGE EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITIES, KALTAG, 1985

Job Hours/Week # Employed

City Equipment Operator* 40 3

Store Manager 40 1

Store Clerk 20 2

Community Health Aide 30 2

Alternate Health Aide 15 2

Custodian, Y-K School District** 20 2

City Janitor 20 1

Village Police Special Officer 40 1

Teacher's Aide** 10-20 5

Teacher, Y-K School District* 40 1

Headstart Instructor** 20 1

Cook, Headstart** 20 1

Construction Worker Y-K School District** 10-20

City Construction Worker* 40

Secretary, Y-K School District** 40

City Administrator 20-40

City Clerk 20-40

City Office Aide 20

Postmistress 20

Alaska Village Electric Co-op Plant Operator 30

Water Plant Operator 30

City Janitor 20-30

City Maintenance Person 20

Maintenance Person Y-K School District** 20 1

* Job duration less than 6 months/year ** Job duration 9 months/year

32 pensions provided one of the single largest source of income to most households in Kaltag (Dept. of Health and Social Services, Pers. comm. 1985). In 1985, an average of $6,238.00 per month in food stamps and $6,145.00 in ADFC was received by a mean of 13 and 11 households respectively.

33 CHAPTER 3

LOWERKOYUKON SALMON FISHING: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Historically, a primary focus of Lower Koyukon subsistence activities has been fishing. Changes in the Lower Koyukon salmon fishery from contact up to the present can best be understood by dividing the historic time span into three broad periods. The first period extends from direct.contact, which occurred in 1838, to 1910.

This time span is characterized by traditional settlement patterns and the utilization of primarily indigenous technology. The time period from 1910 to 1970 was a transitional period, its beginning marked by the introduction of the fishwheel, a major technological innovation which had lasting and numerous ramifications in all areas of Lower Koyukon culture (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942;

VanStone 1974). The final period, from 1971 through the present

(19851, starts with the beginning of the commercial fishery on the middle Yukon. Following a brief discussion of the different salmon species is an examination of change in the salmon fishery, looking specifically at technology, social organization, and land use and tenure.

Four different species are harvested in three distinct runs at

Kaltag. As with any natural resource, fluctuations in timing and abundance occur. Historic and contemporary data (Clark 1981; Jette

1910; Loyens 1966; Osgood 1940; Sullivan 1942) indicate that whi .le

34 the strength of the runs may vary, in general, salmon have been and continue to be a relatively dependable resource of the Lower

Koyukon. Further, while harvest and processing methods have changed, utilization of the three runs of salmon has been fairly consistent through time.

King salmon are the first to arrive, normally occurring during the latter half of June. King salmon harvest levels are generally lower, both in numbers and pounds, than that of the other three species. However, both traditionally and contemporarily they are viewed as the most valuable eating fish because of their high oil content. Summer chums, locally known as "dog salmon" since they provide an important source of dog food, typically follow kings, arriving in Kaltag in the first part of July. Summer chum harvest levels vastly exceed those of the other species for biological, commercial, and technological reasons. Currently, summer chums are by far the most abundant species at Kaltag, and the fish wheel is seemingly best suited for harvesting summer chums. With few exceptions, summer chums are not locally consumed; however, they do provide the sole source of the commercial roe market. The last salmon run occurs from mid to late August. Composed primarily of fall chum salmon with some coho salmon, both are harvested as food for people and dogs. Sources (Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942) and local people indicate that traditionally, king salmon were the most htghly valued eating fish due to their high oil content. However, fall chum is also a valuable subsistence food product.

35 Before discussing development of the Lower Koyukon fishery in terms of the three time periods outlined above, it is important to briefly discuss the configuration and depth of the river, the resultant positioning of the salmon runs, and subsequent use and placement of various gear types. As a result of the first two factors, certain gear types are useful while others are not.

In the portion of the Yukon River that is utilized by Kaltag fishermen, king and fall chum salmon travel up the middle of the river where there is deeper water. Additionally, they can also be found in large eddy sites, close to the bank in a few locations. In contrast, summer chums travel along the river banks. Because fish wheels necessarily operate near the river banks, they are most effective in harvesting summer chum, but not king and fall chum salmon. As noted, set nets are most productive when placed in large eddy sites. However, since there are only two such sites in the vicinity of Kaltag, set nets are not commonly used in Kaltag. As a result, drift nets continue to be the most commonly used method in harvesting king and fall chum salmon. Since they are most effective in snag-free, straight stretches of water, the river in front of

Kaltag is an ideal drifting area. In addition, since king and fall chum salmon travel the middle river, drift gill nets most effectively harvest these species. Drift nets have been modified in that they are presently store bought; historically they were hand-constructed from sinew and willow root.

Summer fishing for salmon, and winter fishing for whitefish, sheefish and burbot, were of great importance to the traditional

36 Lower Koyukon seasonal round. Most years, salmon fishing contributed more than any other fish species to the annual food supply. It was the foundation of Lower Koyukon subsistence economy, often serving as a gauge against which effort applied to other harvesting activities was measured (Loyens 1966; Michael 1967;

Sullivan 1942).

CONTACT to 1910

Early explorers focused primarily on the economic importance of salmon (Adams 1982; Michael 1967). In his diary, Zagoskin noted the intensity of effort directed at salmon fishing in summer (Michael

1967). Since he and other explorers relied on the Indians to provide salmon in trade for them and their dogs, they were especially interested in salmon fishing. Historic sources (Adams

1982; Petroff 1900; Michael 1967) report that Kaltag had difficulty in attaining enough salmon for food some years, but whether this is due to inefficiency as Loyens (1966:38) claims, or other factors is unclear.

Jette (1909), Sullivan (1942) and later Loyens (1966) and Clark

(1981) stressed the importance of the salmon harvest to the Lower

Koyukon. Loyens (1966:36-37) describes it as follows:

Salmon were the staple in the native food supply....Since Lower Koyukon life depended in great measure upon fish, it can well be said that fishing was the most important subsistence activity, both in summer and winter....The (summer) fishing season was anxiously awaited, as it was very often preceded by a period of short rations.

37 Technology

Fish traps used in conjunction with fish fences, gill nets, and dip nets were the primary salmon fishing gear types used until the introduction of fish wheels around the turn of the century (Clark

1981; Loyens 1966; Michael 1967; Osgood 1940; Sullivan 1942). Some sources also report that Lower Koyukon speared salmon (Loyens 1966;

Osgood 1940). Prior to the introduction of the fish wheel, the fish trap and fish fence was the primary method used for catching all fish, including salmon (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966). The operation of fish traps and fish fences used along the middle Yukon near Kaltag has been described as follows:

. ..the fish trap or wier was a grating of small slats split from a spruce tree of very straight grain tied together with a split willow. The fence or wier extended from the shore to slightly beyond the trap entrance to guide the fish into the trap. The vertical sticks of this grating projected above the water surface...the conical net or basket of the trap was also made of small wicker work. The larger end of the basket was closed by a small funnel shaped piece which allowed easy entrance but difficult exit and any fish that entered this funnel were trapped, especially since the strong current would push the fish toward the pointed end of the basket. This end was closed by a circular piece of wicker work, tied on with willow roots, which allowed the removal of the catch... (Loyens 1966:38-39).

In summer, from four to six nuclear or extended families

cooperated in fishing at a fish trap (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966).

They worked under the direction of a leader or a "Boss," who directed the construction, repair and installation of the salmon

traps and wiers (Clark 1981:588). Fish traps and fences were

checked on a regular basis depending on the strength of the run

38 (Loyens 1966). In spring and fall, fish fences were placed in the mouths of creeks and sloughs, and fish traps were positioned perpendicular to the fences to catch fish returning to the Yukon.

Older residents recall setting fish traps across the Rodokaket

River, the mouths of the Kaiyuh Slough and the slough across from the present site of Kaltag, thus documenting the use of fish traps well into this century. Historic and field sources report whitefish, northern pike, trout, arctic grayling and Dolly Varden among the species caught in fall and spring in fish traps.

According to most sources (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966; Sullivan

19421, salmon species were the only fish caught in the river itself.

All other fish, and some salmon species were caught in tributaries,

sloughs and streams. In addition, freshwater lakes were also used

for fishing non-salmonid species.

In aboriginal times, the most frequent methods utilized in

fishing for all fish were gill nets, dip nets, spearing and fish

traps (Loyens 1966:37). Fish traps and fences were used throughout

the year, for fishing in smaller tributaries of the Yukon River. In

summer, fish traps and fences were placed at the mouths of

tributaries of the Yukon River to catch salmon (Clark 1981; Loyens

1966; Osgood 1940; Sullivan 1942). While all three salmon species

were caught in the fish traps, summer chum provided the majority of

the harvest (Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942). In fall and winter, fish

traps were set in the vicinity of the fall and winter camps (not

necessarily in tributaries of the Yukon River). Targeted harvests

at this time of the year were whitefish, pike, grayling and Dolly

39 Varden (Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942). King and silver salmon were

most commonly harvested with dip nets, gill nets and spears (Clark

1981; Loyens 1966; Osgood 1940; Sullivan 1942).

Fish traps and fences utilized by the Lower Koyukon resemble

those employed by the Ingalik. Osgood (1940:226) provides a

detailed description of the fish trap and fence construction:

The trap is made by binding fish trap sticks together with spruce root lines. The fish trap sticks are long wood splints made by splitting pieces of spruce root by means of wedges. These splints, or fish trap sticks, are 318 inch wide and l/4 inch broad, and roughly round. They are as long as the maker can conveniently split them from a spruce strip. The front of the trap has a rectangular opening forming the mouth of the funnel. The opening is from 4 to 4 l/2 feet high and from 2 to 2 l/2 feet wide. It shortly narrows down to a tube about 1 foot in diameter. The length of the whole trap is about 18 feet, being made in three or four sections which are put together by slipping the end over that of the previous section like a stovepipe. The lengthwise trap sticks are held in place by pieces which form a continuous coil around the trap from one end of each section to the other....

Sources claim that Lower Koyukon men were responsible for

constructing the fish traps (Sullivan 1942). Generally, they worked

in groups, under the direction of the fish camp "Boss" (Clark 1981).

Construction occurred at the site of its' operation, which was also

generally within proximity of the fish camp.

Dip nets were also used for catching salmon (Loyens 1966;

Osgood 1940; Sullivan 1942). The sack-like nets were constructed by women from willow bast and babiche lashing line (Osgood 1940;

Sullivan 1942). The net was hung from a circular frame, made from

spruce wood, to which a long handle was attached (Osgood 1940).

Generally, the frame for the net was an oval, measuring 2 l/2 feet

40 wide and about 4 feet long: nets measured from 4 feet to 5 l/2 feet in depth, mesh size also varied (Osgood 1940; Sullivan 1942;

VanStone 1974). Dip nets functioned in two ways: most commonly it was hung underwater from a canoe as a person (man or woman) drifted down river, or it was used in eddies where a person held it, moving it in and out of the water during salmon runs (Loyens 1966; Osgood

1940; Sullivan 1942).

In addition to dip nets, set gill nets and drift gill nets were utilized in catching salmon (Loyens 1966; Osgood 1940; VanStone

1977). According to Osgood (1940:214), they were constructed in exactly the same way, except that set gill nets were longer and shallower than drift nets. Also, the floats on set nets were lighter than those used on the drift nets. As with the dip net, the net was constructed from willow bast line; floats were constructed from dry spruce root. Drift nets ranged up to 55 feet in length

(Osgood 1940; Snow 1981; Sullivan 1942). Mesh size varied according to the targeted species, which included chum and king salmon for drift gill nets, and primarily whitefish for the set nets.

Generally, women were responsible for net construction.

Drift and set nets were utilized in different ways. Osgood

(1940) reports that set nets were placed between two posts so that fish would swim into it on their way upstream. Another method for set nets is explained by Loyens (1966:37):

. ..fish nets were made of rabbit sinew, tied to the shore by one end and anchored to a stone out in the river by the other end. To keep it stretched, sinkers were attached to the bottom edge and floats to the top. The nets extended crosswise to the current towards the opposite bank.

41 Drift nets were used by the Ingalik as an alternative to fish

traps or dip nets (Osgood 1940: Snow 1981). Field sources indicate that the same was true of the Lower Koyukon. Drift nets were either played out from a canoe or held between two

canoes on the main river. Osgood reports the former as being the only method by which the Ingalik drifted, but field

sources report the latter for the Lower Koyukon. According to most sources, drift nets were used primarily for king salmon. Traditionally, nets were constructed from rabbit sinew or

babiche (Loyens 1966; Osgood 1944). After burlap sacks were brought into the interior by traders, twine was produced front unraveled burlap bags. This “homemade twine” quickly replaced

sinew in net construction. One informant recalled making twine from burlap sacks:

...we used to unravel burlap bags for rope, never for nets, just for rope. For nets we used twine that we bought from stores but mostly used 25 pound sugar sacks -- they were good. We twisted them with our hands into a big ball, then (we) knit it into a net. The sugar sacks were real thin. Had to string 5 strands together and twisted it. Had to twist it into a big ball. It took two years to get a big ball to make a net. That would make a net about 12 yards long. Respondents refer to the process of making nets as "knittingI or “crocheting. II Rows were knitted and subsequently sewn together to form the desired depth. Sullivan (1942:9) described the process as follows:

...in the manufacture of the nets, the meshes are tied on a measuring stick usually of birch wood, which consists of a handled and a flat end who& dimensions vary according to the size of the fish for which the net is made - the completed net is commonly about 12 fathoms in length, and 18 meshes in width...

42 Commercially produced twine and linen thread became available to the Lower Koyukon around the late 1800s (prior to the fish wheel). This changed fishing technology in several ways. Loyens

(1966:148) claims that it allowed for the construction of "better and larger" fish nets. Apparently, these provided for "more efficient fishing," since the main river could now be fished; as the fish trap only allowed for fishing in smaller tributaries.

Commercial twine was not readily adopted by all Koyukon women however, mainly because it was not considered to be as strong as babiche. Many women continued to make nets with homemade twine

(Sullivan 1942). Those who used imported twine made the thread stronger by separating the strands and reintegrating more strands to make a stronger net.

The end of this period was marked by the introduction of the fish wheel. Within twenty years of its introduction, the fish wheel had almost universally replaced the fish trap (Sullivan 1942;

VanStone 1974). The fish wheel and its effect on the fishery is discussed in a later section.

Land Tenure and Fish Camps

As mentioned previously, use of fish traps and fences necessitated a cooperating effort on the part of a large- group of people. Therefore, Loyens' (1966) claim that aborginally, Lower

Koyukon life was spent in groups of five or six related nuclear or extended families makes sense, in that a group that size could

43 effectively operate the fish fence and trap as well as maintain a fish camp.

Loyens refers to these family groups as "camps." In winter, these camps would be scattered throughout the entire Lower Koyukon territory, including the Kaiyuh Flats, the Innoko and Rodo Rivers, and along the Kaltag Portage (Loyens 1966). In summer, the camps would essentially relocate to the banks of the Yukon River, thereby forming fish camps (Loyens 1966). This agrees with Clark's (1981) analysis of Lower Koyukon settlement patterns, in that the group size mentioned by Loyens (1966) formed the core group around which both the summer and winter groups operated. All summer fishing activities took place from fish camps.

Generally, a temporary shelter, which served as both a smokehouse and a dwelling was located at the fish camp. Sullivan

(1942:25-26) provided a description of the building:

In former days the fish were smoked in a structure which also served as a temporary shelter. This --san konon, the "summer house" was divided longitudinally into three sections, by logs laid flat on the ground. The two sides were often raised and covered with straw and here is where the natives slept and ate. In the middle section, an opening was left at one end, generally the end near the river, to serve as a door and within a few feet of this was the fireplace. An opening in the roof allowed the smoke to escape...

Group "ownership" of the fish camp and fish trap sites was recognized by the Lower Koyukon, although ownership was not in terms of property which could be disposed of through sale, but rather as a territory which group members had a right to use (Clark 1981; Loyens

1966) * Clark (1981) states that T,ower Koyukon had recognized band territories which they utilized for fish and wildlife harvesting,

44 and other bands recognized that right. Wolfe (1981:242) provides the following explanation in reference to Yup'ik concepts of

"ownership" on the Lower Yukon:

"Participatory use" of an area for fishing, hunting, trapping, or collecting refers to two ideas. First, areas and their resources can be "used" be individuals or groups, but not owned. "Usufruct" approximates this idea, the right to use or enjoy the products of an estate not belonging to oneself....According to this traditional perspective, there are rightful occupants and users of a region of land and water, but no rightful owners. Second, "participatory' alludes to the idea that an occupant rarely hunted or fished in an area alone. Generally, one "participated" with others in the pattern of life activities of a region...

While it is recognized that this explanation pertains to Yup'ik people, it is also relevant in reference to Koyukon Athabaskan systems of ownership. In support of this, Loyens (1966:57) reports the following for mid-nineteenth century Lower Koyukon culture:

Beyond the household, the Lower Koyukon recognized the right to own fishtrap places and observed certain rules in the placing of other traps in the vicinity. The right to a given fishing place, usually a place with a swift current, belonged to the first occupant, but he held it from year to year, even though he used it only for a few months...

Loyens (1966) notes that at the time of contact, ownership rights to fish camp sites could be ceded by the boss. Once use was discontinued, another group or family could assume "ownership" of that site merely by establishing use. For certain periods of time, ranging from one to two years, usufruct rights hung in abeyance, and during that time permission had to be gained in order to assume use of a specific site (Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942). Clearly, usufruct rights were the rule for ownership of fish camp and fish trap sites from the time of contact.

45 Historically, use or "ownership" of fish camps was fairly

stable and core families residing at fish camps tended to remain the

same. Although general group composition at the site was dynamic,

fish camp groups were usually a combination of immediate and

extended family members. The "owner" or boss directed the

activities at the camp, as well as deciding who stayed and worked at

the camp (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966).

Most sources report that traditionally, division of labor was

on the basis of age and sex (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966; Sullivan

1944). Both sexes could take fish from the fish trap, although males most commonly performed this task. Depending on their age, women made fish nets and collected, cleaned, and cut the salmon.

The major responsibility for men was constructing fish traps. Work was organized on a group level, with each member working for and as

part of, the whole group. The group operated one or two fish traps,

depending on their size, needs and activities.

More permanent, year-round, larger settlements developed around

the turn of the century, due to numerous centralization forces

(Clark 1981; Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942; VanStone 1974). Decreased

mobility encouraged larger groups, although related nuclear and

extended families continued to be the basic unit of social

organization (Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942; VanStone 1974). Work

continued to be divided between and among the sexes, each group

working on a cooperative basis (Loyens 1966; Sullivan 1942). At

that time, fish camps were the basis of operation for harvesting all

46 four species of salmon and work groups functioned similarly in harvesting these.

1910-1940

Salmon continued to be the major resource during this period, as Sullivan (1942:32) emphasized:

. ..They depend far more on the summer catch - this is the basis to their food supply. They add to it of course whenever they can and strive to build up on the foundation. But unless they have this summer supply on which they know they can fall back whenever the need arises, they do not feel secure. There can be no doubt that this is the native point of view, it was manifested to me on numerous occasions and in varying circumstances, spontaneously as well as in answer to questioning. They become apprehensive and very anxious if the salmon runs are not large, or if rain ruins part of their catch, or if anything else happens to prevent them from laying up a good supply of fish during the summer.

The importance of salmon extended beyond its value as the major

source of protein for the Lower Koyukon. As Sullivan (1942:29)

explained, salmon was an economic mainstay in that it was also the major source of dog food:

. . . to the Ten'a [Lower Koyukon] mind, the storing up of an abundant supply of dog food is important not only in view of their own personal needs, but also because the fish is the principle food they give their dogs. They rely so heavily on their dog teams throughout the long period when the country is covered in snow, that it is essential to keep them in good condition. In fact, the natives manifest as real a concern in seeing that their dogs are fed as they do in providing their own children with sustenance. Their concern over this is a further reason for the emphasis given in their culture to summer fishing (Sullivan 1942:29).

47 Technology

Throughout much of this period, dip nets continued to be employed by men for harvesting salmon, although Sullivan (1942:7) claimed that women used it only for whitefish. In addition, set nets were utilized in sloughs or eddies, generally for king salmon.

During the late 193Os, women were still making their own nets from either commercially produced twine or linen thread. Generally the nets were 12 fathoms long and 18 rows of mesh in width (Sullivan

1942:6). In the 195Os, a gradual shift to commercially produced nets occurred (Clark 1981; Loyens 1966). According to respondents, by the 197Os, commercially produced nets had completely replaced homemade nets.

The fish wheel is thought to have made the greatest change to the Yukon River fishery in general, and specifically to the middle

Yukon River fishery during this time period (Clark 1981; Loyens

1966; Sullivan 1942; VanStone 1978). Sullivan (1942:2) stated that by the late 1930s and early 194Os, the fish wheel had "...almost universally supplanted the aboriginal ways of catching salmon...."

In addition, he claimed that the ease with which the Lower Koyukon changed from nets and fish traps to the fish wheel was due to the fact that the fish wheel was easier to use than nets and fish traps, and it provided a more abundant supply of fish necessary for feeding dog teams (Sullivan 1942).

Loyens estimated that by using a fish wheel for summer chums,

efficiency of catch per unit effort increased to the point where one

48 day of effort provided a catch that had previously taken over the course of a month to acquire (Loyens 1966). Thus he argued that this not only enabled more time with which to seek other wage employment, (outside of selling dried salmon), but it also allowed for the possibility of decreased dependence on winter fishing since more salmon could be processed and stored during the course of the summer.

Finally, Loyens claimed that the use of larger dog teams was made possible by the increase in harvest levels made possible by the fish wheel. However, the presence of large dog teams is not solely related to the presence of the fish wheel. Fish wheels were not used by people on the lower river, yet they had large dog teams also. Large dog teams often allowed a person to participate in the wage economy through cutting timber for sale to steam-powered ships on the Yukon during the late 19th century; for these purposes it is possible that the fish wheel was adopted in part to feed the larger dog teams.

Loyens (1966:149) makes the point that due to the adoption of the fish wheel by the Lower Koyukon, for the first time, surplus fish was available for sale to traders, mail carriers, missionaries and the military -- all of whom used large dog teams and relied on local fishermen for their supply of dried salmon for dog food. This represented an increase in the local trade of salmon, since, as previously noted, in aboriginal times salmon was traded. Thus, local trade merely increased during this time.

49 According to Loyens (1966) gasoline-powered engines appeared in the middle Yukon area in the 1920s. He notes that according to

Jette, the first Evinrude motor appeared in Nulato in 1913 (Loyens

1966:153). Sullivan (1942) reported that by the late 193Os, many

Lower Koyukon had outboard motors, or at least gas-powered engines.

According to local fishermen in Kaltag, outboards were not commonly used by people in Kaltag until the late 1940s - early 1950s. Local accounts claim that outboard motors, or "kickers," were first used in Kaltag in 1949, with regular use occurring by the mid to late

1950s. By this time most local men were going out of the community to work in the canneries in Bristol Bay, Naknek and Chignik, as there was an increasing demand for, and dependence on, cash.

Boats were built by hand from milled lumber during the early part of this period (Sullivan 1942). Most boats were built by hand up until about 15 years ago. Boat design generally followed the same shape -- a flat hull with the bow coming to a point, ranging in length from between 15 to 24 feet and having a width of 4 to 7 feet.

Boat frames were constructed of wood. Despite the commercial availability of aluminum hulls in the late 195Os, people retained wooden hulls. In 1985, aluminum hulls remained the exception rather than the rule in Kaltag. One respondent stated that the aluminum makes too much noise, thereby scaring the fish. Perhaps the reluctance to use metal boat frames relates to a traditional prohibition on the use of metal in any of the various activities connected to the catching and processing of fish (Loyens 1966:40).

50 Land Tenure and Fish Camps

The early 192Os-30s was a highly transitional time for Kaltag

residents. The introduction of the fish wheel and overall increased

sedentism combined to affect fish camp composition. Clark (1981) maintains that fish camps increased in size compared with camps

during the 19th century, while both Sullivan (1942) and Loyens

(1966) maintain that fish camps decreased in size. Possibly the

correct interpretation is that the larger fish camps occurred

immediately following the introduction of the fish wheel, in the

192Os, to be succeeded by reduced fish camp size in the late 193Os,

when no more than three and usually two families worked together at

fish camps in the Lower Koyukon area.

The late 1930s marked the beginning of a shift in fishing

location, from dispersed fish camps to the new permanent winter

community This was due in part to the out-migration of men to the

fish canneries, as previously mentioned. Residents remember that in

1948, 15 men from Kaltag went to work in canneries, significantly

depleting the adult male population for the summer. In addition,

men began participating in other wage labor, both in and outside the

community; leaving women and children with greater responsibilities

for catching and preserving salmon. As a result, women started to

congregate and fish from the community in a cooperative effort.

Fishing partnerships between women developed, many of which lasted

until the contemporary period.

51 During the late 1930s and early 194Os, smokehouses were

constructed at the village, and residents recall operating fish wheels and setting gill nets in front of Kaltag. Fish were

processed on the beach. A few individuals continued to fish from

fish camps, although most fishing effort during this time period was

predominantly community-based.

Starting in the late 1930s and early 194Os, income from cannery

work as well as other outside wage labor enabled the purchase of

outboard motors. Outboard motors reduced the amount of travel time

required between fishing sites and Kaltag. People fishing at camps

had the option of returning to the community at night while working

at camp during the day. The outboard promoted further the trend

toward community-based fishing.

A significant change occurred starting in the late 1930s and

early 194Os, this change was due in part to the introduction of the

fish wheel, as well as to improved means of mobility. During the

contact to 1910 time period, ownership and control of a fish camp

site was linked to the ownership and control of a single fish trap

site (Sullivan 1942:ll). However, during the 193Os-194Os, multiple

fish wheel sites came to be used from the base of the community of a

single camp site. Ownership and control of fishing locations became

distributed among a larger number of persons within the community --

in comparison with fish trap and fish weir sites. Traveling long

distances no longer presented the problem it had in the past; a fish

camp could be, and often was, situated distant from the community.

52 Sullivan (1942:ll) discusses the use and placement of fish wheel and

fish camp sites:

. ..the right to the camp must be distinguished from the right to the site where the fish wheel is set, as the two do not always coincide. The individual who holds the title to the camp usually has his fish wheel close by and he claims an exclusive right to the spot where it is set. But generally, each of the other families who are living at his camp also has a fish wheel site a short distance above or below his, and the title to the site selected rests in each family. Thus, while a man may not own a camp, he usually does own the site where his fish wheel is set and his right is respected as long as he remains at that camp. In these cases, he also owns the fish wheel itself and has an exclusive right to all the fish caught in it, and as far as I could learn, he is under no obligation to surrender part of his catch to the owner of the camp in return for the privilege of living at it * . .'I

Thus what Sullivan is describing is a shift in fishing orientation from a single camp and a single fishing site to a single

camp with multiple sites. Despite this change in traditional patterns of land use however, traditional (pre 1910) patterns of

ownership prevailed. The shift from fish camp-based fishing to

community-based fishing that occurred during the late 1940s was in part responsible for a de-emphasis in the traditional patterns of

land ownership, although it by no means altogether reduced its

importance, as the field data indicate. In 1985, 6 of the 11 fish

camps had been occupied by the present inhabitants for less than

five years. However, 7 of the 11 were owned according to immediate

or extended family ties, thus indicating the continued importance of

traditional ties in patterns of land use and ownership.

At this point it is important to re-emphasize that with two

exceptions, fish camps were not used for subsistence fishing in

53 1985. According to respondents, this has been the case since fisheries regulations once again permitted drift net fishing for king salmon -- after a seven year prohibition. Before that, fish camps were left in favor of village-based fishing, for reasons previously explained. However, while fish camps are not used for subsistence fishing in general, ownership is and has been maintained. Further, while they are currently utilized primarily for commercial fishing purposes, patterns of land use and ownership were initially established on the basis of use during subsistence fishing. That fish camps are currently owned and maintained on an individual basis is, in large part, due to the commercial fishing industry. CFEC permits are owned on an individual basis, which appears to structure the fish camp. This will be discussed in the following chapter.

Usufructory rights continue to be the norm for both fish camp and fish wheel sites throughout Koyukon fishing history up until the present, Sullivan (1942) reported that rights to fish camp sites could be ceded or sold. He also indicated that the primary mode of disposal of fish camps was for a father to transfer rights to his fish camp to his son. Data from the 1985 field study showed that

for the time period from 1940 to 1970, in 6 of 12 cases, this had occurred. However, four accounts of transfer of fish camp ownership

from mother to daughter was also reported for the same time period.

This indicates that camp transfers were mixed between father-son and mother-daughter transfers. Since these mixed transfers can occur in

54 all three kinship systems (bilateral, matrilineal and patrilineal), it can not be stated on this basis which system is represented.

Over the course of this period, the social organization of fishing changed considerably. A major change involved a shift to community-based orientation for king and fall chum salmon fishing.

Respondents report that during this time, women in the community worked together in a cooperative fashion, while the men worked outside the communities in canneries. Because men were not in the community during the fishing season, women grouped together. Work groups were primarily organized according to age, with the younger women performing the more menial tasks. However, all work was basically shared by all the women. At the same time, long lasting fishing partnerships developed between women. They travelled to fish wheels together, collected the harvest and brought it back together to be processed at the community.

SUMMARY

A review of the history of the subsistence fishery reveals both continuity and change. As the previous discussion indicates, Lower

Koyukon fishing technology has consistently changed to incorporate a more efficient gear. Canoes and paddles were replaced by skiffs, gasoline-powered engines, and eventually outboard motors. Fish traps, fish fences and spears were replaced with fish wheels. Drift nets and set nets continue to be used, although dip nets have fallen

into disuse for salmon fishing. Harvesting of king and fall chum has remained consistent through time (with the exception of a seven

55 year hiatus due to state prohibition of drift net fishing), with

Koyukon fishermen relying primarily on set and drift gill nets. The

fish wheel is now the primary gear type for summer chums, having replaced the fish trap. Finally, while summer chum continue to be harvested in great quantities, social organization surrounding their harvest has changed.

Change is also seen in the use or disuse of fish camps. With

the exception of two fish camps located on good (the only) eddy

sites, subsistence fishing did not occur at fish camps in 1985.

Respondents indicated that this had been the case since around 1940.

Thus, subsistence fishing in a community-based activity. Despite

this fact, patterns of fish camp and fish trap and fish wheel

ownership and use have clearly evolved out of subsistence fishing.

It stands to reason that the substantial capitol investment in

a fish trap and weir site was the reason behind their "ownership;"

ownership that fell within a particular clan or lineage. Because an

intensive group effort was required each year to set up, maintain

and operate the fish camp and fish trap/weir, a collective or group

"ownership" was established for the fish camp and fish trap/weir

sites. The group was generally directed by a "boss," although the whole fish camp and fish trap/weir operation was collectively owned

and operated. Generally, the group was comprised of several

kin-related families, thus a collective or group "ownership" was

established for the fish camp and fish trap/weir site.

By contrast, the fish wheel requires some initial labor to

construct and set, but once in place it can be operated by two or

56 three people. Overall, it is considerably less labor intensive than a fish trap/weir. During non-local cannery employment days, a substantial portion of the male work force could be absent from the region working for wages, while at the same time fish wheels could be efficiently operated and sufficient harvests attained.

Given the relative freedom of operation in comparison to the fish trap/weir, the fish wheel offers several options in terms of social organization of property and work relations, as well as in terms of spatial patterning. Families can split up into independent harvesting units and disperse along the river, using different fish wheels and different sites. They could operate from the same of different fish camps. This would allow for each unit to put up their own subsistence fish. It would also be a viable option if a family had more than one commercial fishing permit. Another option would be to work as a single unit -- the family could work together at the fish camp -- work together and split the harvest. Finally, the family could stay at the village, and a few members could go out and gather the harvest and bring it back to the village for processing.

Clearly there are several viable alternatives to fishing, which directly influence patterns of land use and ownership. With all of this flexibility, what influenced extended families to choose one alternative over the other? Probably not the technology itself.

Rather, a multitude of factors probably influence a group's decision. Among these are opportunities for wage employment, preferences of where to live, op tions in terms of river access,

57 needs of the group, etc. Thus, the system of fish camp use as it occurs today, is clearly influenced by, and a product of, commercial fishing for roe.

Despite vast changes occurring in the subsistence fishery, the economic importance of salmon has not changed. Salmon not only provides the major source of food to Kaltag, commercial sale of salmon roe provides an important source of cash to Kaltag.

58

CHAPTER 4

DEVELOPMENTOF COMMERCIAL FISHING ON THE MIDDLE YUKON RIVER

INTRODUCTION

Despite the fact that a commercial fishery on the middle Yukon did not develop until the 197Os, the development of the Yukon River commercial fishery dramatically affected the Lower Koyukon, both directly and indirectly. The development and history of commercial fishing is examined in order to understand the commercial fishery in the Kaltag area. In addition, commercial fishing is directly tied to subsistence fishing, since the underlying goal of regulation is ultimately to protect the subs'istence fisheries (Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963).

Commercial fishing on the Yukon River dates back to 1918, when the Carlisle Packing Company operated a floating cannery at

Andreafsky (Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1965). At that time, commercial fishing effort was directed at the river mouth and the

lower 150 miles of the river. While the major commercial effort and harvest continues to occur in this same area, the commercial

fisheries further up river have gradually developed within the past

25 years. Not surprisingly, the difference between the two

fisheries in terms of commercial harvest and production is

substantial. During the period 1975-1984, the lower river accounted

for 78 percent of the total commercial salmon catch (Alaska

Department of Fish and Game 1986).

59 Early regulation of the Yukon River commercial fishery was controlled by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963; Gilbert and O'Malley 1920). In 1940, management of the fishery was transferred to the U.S. Department of the Interior

(Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963). In 1960, one year after statehood, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game assumed responsibility for management of the fishery. With each change in management, regulations became increasingly more complex.

HISTORY OF MANAGEMENTAGENCIES

From 1918 to 1940 the Secretary of Commerce was responsible for regulating the commercial fishery on the Yukon River (Pennoyer,

Middleton and Morris 1963). In 1918, the Carlisle Packing Company operated a floating cannery at Andreafsky (Gilbert and O'Malley

1920; Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963). The following year, the first fishing restrictions were imposed on the Yukon River: commercial harvesting within the mouth of the river was restricted

(Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963). That year, 1919, 62 percent of the commercial pack was taken from outside the mouth (Pennoyer,

Middleton and Morris 1963). Nineteen nineteen was also an extremely low yield for subsistence harvests. In 1920, commercial fishing followed the same pattern, but the Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Fisheries conducted an investigation of the Yukon River fisheries

(Gilbert and O'Malley 1920; Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963).

The findings of the investigation indicated that the extent of the commercial catch was possibly detrimental to the subsistence

60 fisheries, and that commercial activity should only be allowed if it was certain that up river subsistence stocks and escapement would not be damaged (Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1965). The end result was that in 1924, commercial fishing on the entire river was eliminated (Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963), a closure which continued through 1931.

In 1932, a limited commercial fishery was opened on the lower

Yukon River. Limited dates and gear type restrictions (only set nets and drift nets were allowed) were imposed, setting the trend for later management schemes (Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963).

In 1935 several radical changes occurred. Quotas were set for the first time, allowing a harvest of only 350,000 salmon (Pennoyer,

Middleton and Morris 1963). In addition, legal gear for the commercial harvest of king salmon by Natives and permanent non-Native residents was extended to include fish wheels.

When the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, assumed responsibility for management of the Yukon River salmon fishery in 1940, management decisions continued to favor subsistence over commercial fisheries. Fishing inside the river in

1951 was limited to Native and non-Native residents. By 1953, subsistence fishing was allowed at all times, providing the fishing location was at least 20 miles from a commercial fishing site. One year later a weekend closure was imposed on the subsistence fishery

(Pennoyer, Middleton and Morris 1963). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service utilized a quota system: commercial harvest levels were set by district and when they were reached the season was closed.

61 The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, assumed control over fisheries management in 1960. Since then, commercial fishing effort on the middle and upper river has grown substantially

(Wolfe 1984). With this development, the lower river fishery has been increasingly more restricted to provide for adequate subsistence harvests and escapement so as not to deplete salmon stocks (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1986).

ADFG MANAGEMENT: UPPER YUKON

Since the Alaska Department of Fish and Game assumed management of the commercial fishery in 1960, regulations have become increasingly more complex on both the middle to upper and lower

Yukon River. From 1960 to the present the fishery at Kaltag has been included in three different management areas. Originally, the

Yukon River was subdivided into three management areas. First,

Kaltag was included in the "upper" area which extended from above

the mouth of the Anvik River (roughly 140 miles below Kaltag) to the

Canadian border (roughly 700 miles above Kaltag). Next, the boundaries were changed in 1963 so that Kaltag was included in

"District 3," which extended from Owl Creek (roughly 120 miles below

Kaltag) upstream to the mouth of the Koyukuk River (roughly 60 miles above Kaltag). Again, that boundary was changed in 1974 and Kaltag was included in "District 4" which extended from the mouth of the

Bonasila River (roughly 140 miles below Kaltag) up river to Kallands

(roughly 200 miles above Kaltag). District 4 was subdivided into

three subdistricts in 1978, and Ka.ltag became part of "Subdistrict

62 4A." This Subdistrict extends from the Bonasila River upstream to

Cone Point (roughly 61 miles above Kaltag). The boundaries of this subdistrict are the same at present. The "Lower River" refers to management districts l-3, 'Upper River" refers to districts 4-6.

"LIMITED ENTRY" PROGRAM

In the 14 years following the State's management of commercial

fisheries in State waters, the numbers of commercial fishermen and

commercial gear greatly increased statewide. As a result, salmon

stocks were seriously depleted in many areas, and the economic

viability of the commercial fishing industry declined in the state

(Dinneford and Hart 1986). In response to this, in 1972 the

constitution was amended to allow the legislature to develop a

limited entry program for the state's fisheries (Dinneford and Hart

1986). The purpose of the limited entry program was to regulate and

stabilize the amount of gear in each fishery and to assist in

effective fisheries management (Dinneford and Hart 1986). In 1974

limited entry was implemented in 19 salmon fisheries. In 1976 the

salmon fisheries of the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region were limited.

The "limited entry" program required people who wanted to fish

commercially in Alaska to purchase an "interim-use" permit first.

If the fishery was not limited at the time of purchase, then permits

were renewable annually as long as the fishery remained unlimited.

If the fishery was already limited, then interim-use permits were

issued by a commission to applicants who had not received an entry

permit but were likely to. Application for a limited entry permit

63 was open to anyone who had fished commercially as a gear license holder and/or as an interim-use permit holder at any time since statehood. Any person applying for a permit had to have held either of these: participation in commercial fishing alone was not sufficient. This stipulation therefore excluded individuals who had fished in a partnership and did not have actual ownership of the gear license or interim use permit, as was the case of many rural fishermen along the Yukon.

Applications for limited entry permits were evaluated on a point system, whereby points were assigned on the basis of evidence of economic dependence on the fishery (including percentage of individual gross income obtained from the fishery, among other things), assessment of reliance on and availability of other sources of income and occupations, and extent of previous participation in the fishery (measured in terms of years and degree of involvement).

In 1985, there were roughly 700 commercial gill net permits issued annually in the "Lower Yukon" management area, compared to 75 commercial set net and 170 commercial fish wheel permits for the

"Upper Yukon" area (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1986). Of these Upper Yukon permits, 14 permits were issued to residents of

Kaltag. Although exact figures were not collected, considerably more applications were submitted than received permits.

Before discussing the different aspects of the commercial

fishery that are regulated, it is important to review the roles of

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and of the Alaska Board of

Fisheries. The Alaska Board of Fisheries makes regulatory decisions

64 concerning management of fisheries resources. It regulates the fishery, setting fishing periods, seasons, harvest levels, and gear types among other things. Exact dates of the seasons and periods are set in-season by the Department of Fish and Game. In addition, emergency changes to the regulations and season opening and closures can be made by the Department. Regulatory decisions are made on the basis of information derived from research conducted by the

Department of Fish and Game and from public testimony. The major goal of management is to maintain sustained yield of the salmon resources while at the same time protecting the rights of the different user groups (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1986).

Since 1979, most commercial fishing in Kaltag (subdistrict Y4A) has been for summer chums. There is a small commercial guideline harvest level for king salmon in Y4A. King salmon are not generally sold by Kaltag fishermen, however, other communities in subdistrict

4A do sell king salmon. For the following discussion, the commercial regulations apply to summer chums unless otherwise stated. This regulatory history was developed from reviewing fishing regulation booklets for the years 1960 through 1985.

FISHING SEASONS AND PERIODS

Exact dates for open commercial salmon fishing for a particular year are contingent on the strength of the salmon run itself and the commercial guideline harvest levels. A clause allowing for emergency closures and openings by ADFG have been included in all

regulations since 1973.

65 As management areas have changed, so has the regulation of fishing seasons and fishing periods in the Kaltag area. Until 1974, the commercial fishing season in district 4 was open from June 1 through September 30. In 1975, the season opened two weeks later on

June 15, although the closing date remained the same. Both the opening and closing dates changed again in 1982, when the season opened June 24 and closed August 1. The 1985 commercial season extended from June 20 to August 1 (Fig. 5).

Commercial fishing periods have also become more restrictive since 1960 in subdistrict Y4A (Appendix 2). In 1960, commercial salmon fishing in the Kaltag area was open during the season, except for one 48-hour period a week. From 1961 to 1963 there were no restrictions and fishing could take place seven days a week. From

1964 through 1973, fishing time was reduced so that fishing could occur only four days a week. In 1974, fishing time increased to five days a week and this continued through 1978. At that time, instead of being able to fish for four consecutive days, fishing time was split into two 48-hour periods, separated by one day or one

24-hour period. This continued through 1985 (Fig. 6). Emergency closures of fishing periods and seasons can occur when the upper limit of the guideline harvest ranges have been surpassed or when it is in danger of being surpassed.

Guideline Harvest Levels

Quotas were set in district Y4A until 1979, when guideline harvest levels were introduced. Guideline harvest level (GHL) is

66 JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

15 20 24 301 I5 31 I IS 31 I5 3( I I I I I ,

reao 1874

1187S-1877

Figure 5. Comrcial Fishing Seasons, 1960-1985 lQ61-6983

1979-1930

Figure 6. Comnercial Fishing Periods, 1960-1985 the estimated level of allowable fish harvest which will not jeopardize the viability of salmon stocks (Alaska Department Fish and Game 1986). Since 1979, the GHL has been used for establishing the allowable commercial harvest. In 1960 commercial quotas for district 4A king and fall chum salmon were set at 5,000 for each species. These were reduced to 3,000 in 1962. Quotas for king salmon remained the same, but the combined quota for chum and coho was set at 3,000. Both the king and the chum and coho quotas were reduced to 2,000 in 1972. The quota for chums and coho was raised to 10,000 in 1974, allowing for a considerably increased commercial take of coho and chums, especially the latter. This remained the same until 1979, when the commercial season for coho and fall chum was eliminated for subdistrict Y4A, and the GHL for king salmon was set at 900 to 1100 fish. In 1981 the GHL for king salmon in subdistrict Y4A was set at 2250 to 2850 fish and this GHL remained through the 1985 commercial fishing season.

Gear Types

The allowable gear used in salmon fishing is set by regulation.

Gear has become progressively more restrictive during the past 14 years (1961-1985). From 1961 to 1972, gear restrictions were minimal. Commercial fishermen from Kaltag could use several types of gear for commercial fishing, including set gill nets, drift gill nets, and fish wheels. Set gill net aggregate length was limited to

150 fathoms and drift gill nets could not exceed an aggregate length of 50 fathoms. In 1973 commercial fishing regulations were changed,

69 allowing commercial fishermen to operate either a single fish wheel or a set net of up to 150 fathoms aggregate length at one time.

Drift gill nets were prohibited for commercial fishing.

Beginning in 1974 drift gill nets were prohibited for subsistence and commercial fishing purposes. After 1974, only set nets and fish wheels could be used. In 1980, local residents stated their desire to obtain subsistence king salmon with drift nets. The local fish and game advisory committee submitted a regulatory proposal to the Alaska Board of Fisheries to allow for use of drift nets in subsistence king salmon fishing. In 1981, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted regulations to allow again the use of drift gill nets for king salmon fishing for subsistence, but restricted the season during which this type of gear could be used and limited the area in which this type of fishing could take place. The season dates have changed each year from 1982 to 1985, in an attempt at more closely coinciding with the arrival of king salmon in the area.

In 1960, mesh size allowed for king salmon nets was regulated to 8 I/2 inches. These restrictions continued until 1973. Since then, regulations have required gill nets with 6 inch or smaller mesh from July 10 to July 30.

From 1960 on, regulations have required that both subsistence and commercial nets be removed from the water during closed commercial periods, and since 1980 regulations have required that fish wheel baskets be stopped from rotating during closed commercial periods. Since 1973, nets cannot obstruct more than one-half the waterway. From 1973 to 1985, commercial fishermen are not allowed

70 to operate more than one fish wheel at a time. Likewise, commercial fishermen are not allowed to operate more than one type of gear at one time, including operation of subsistence gear. In addition to these regulations, "helper's" (crew members) licenses are required of any individual assisting in commercial fishing.

The Commercial Fishery in Kaltag

The marketing of salmon taken in the Kaltag areas has been unstable during its 14 year history. A market for king salmon has never developed. According to residents, kings are the best eating fish and since the overall harvest of kings is generally small it is not worthwhile to sell them. Marcotte (1982) reports that 27 percent of the total king salmon harvest was sold in Nulato, another community in subdistrict 4A. However, during the 1985 study, there were no reported cases of commercial sale of king salmon in Kaltag.

Fall chum cannot be harvested for commercial sale. A commercial salmon roe market, targeting summer chums has been developing in

Kaltag over the past six years, basically since the legislature lifted the ban on commercial sale of roe (a ban which extended from

1974 to 1977). The primary method of summer chum harvest at Kaltag is the fish wheel. Of the 14 commercial permit holders in Kaltag in

1985, 12 have fish wheel permits.

The Japanese are largely responsible for developing the commercial roe market at Kaltag. Kyoko-Suisan, a Japanese firm, built and continues to maintain the roe processing plants in the

Upper Yukon. Kyoko-Suisan sold the plants to a local fishermen's

71 cooperative, which in turn, leased the plant back to the Japanese firm. In addition to lease fees, the local fishermen's cooperative gets 10 cents for every pound of roe purchased. Japanese employees who work for Kyoko-Suisan are brought in each summer to direct the processing operation. There is some effort to hire locally for plant work. The roe processing plant was built in Kaltag in 1983.

Prior to this, individual buyers of either salmon roe or dried dog salmon had been the only commercial outlet, and there was no stable commercial market. Now the price per pound for roe is set by negotiations with Kyoko-Suisan at the beginning of the season and the price is paid for the duration of the season. In 1985, the price paid for salmon roe was $2.05 per pound. On average, there is about one pounds of roe per summer chum.

SUMMARY

Although commercial fishing and commercial fishing regulation on the Yukon River dates to 1918, commercial fishing on the middle and upper Yukon has developed into a stable industry only within the past decade. Regulations affecting the middle and upper Yukon commercial fishery have been in effect since 1960, when the ADFG assumed control over fisheries management from the U.S. Department of Interior. Since then, regulatory measures have been increasingly restrictive. One of the most important programs implemented by the

State of Alaska is the "limited entry" program, the intent of which is overall to assist in effective fisheries management and to regulate and stabilize the amount of gear in each fishery. The

72 program has limited the amount of gear and numbers of fishermen in the middle Yukon, as evidenced by the fact that there are only 14

CFEC permits in Kaltag.

Since 1979, the commercial fishery in Kaltag has focused on summer chum. A limited market exists for king salmon. Fall chum and coho cannot be commercially harvested. The summer chum fishery is a roe fishery initiated to a large extent by interest in the product by the Japanese.

Regulations which are created by the Alaska Board of Fisheries and implemented by ADFG provide strict guidelines for commercial fishing, regulating gear, seasons, fishing periods, and harvest levels.

73

CHAPTER 5

1985 SALMON FISHING SEASON

INTRODUCTION

Up to this point, salmon fishing in Kaltag has been described from an historical perspective in order to provide the reader with a context in which to view the 1985 fishing season. Given that, this chapter describes both commercial and subsistence salmon fishing practices by Kaltag residents in 1985.

SPECIES HARVESTED

In Kaltag, there were substantial differences between the commercial salmon fishery and the subsistence salmon fishery in

1985. Different species were harvested in each of the two

fisheries. Summer chum was the only species harvested for

commercial purposes in district Y4A for the sale of roe. The

commercial fishery was solely a roe fishery, and state regulations

do not allow the "waste" of carcasses which are the by-product of

the commercial roe product. Consequently, summer chum carcasses

were air-dried, thus making a product suitable for dog food, but not

human consumption. They were baled in lots of 50, and either stored

or sold for dog food later in the season. Summer chums were rarely

utilized for human consumption. On occasion, the fatter male chums

taken in commercial catches were cut and dried, to be eaten with

seal oil in the winter. In 1985, about 100 summer chums were

74 reported to have been processed in this manner in Kaltag. King salmon, fall chum, and coho were taken solely for subsistence purposes.

THE COMMERCIAL FISHING SEASON

The 1985 commercial fishing season opened on Thursday, June 20 at 6:00 p.m. Commercial fishing was permitted from 6:00 p.m. Sunday through 6:00 p.m. Tuesday and from 6:00 p.m. Wednesday through 6:00 p.m. Friday (Fig. 6). This schedule held until the commercial season closed on Thursday, August 1, at 6:00 p.m. (Fig. 5 and 6).

No emergency closures were imposed during the 1985 fishing season.

The first summer chum run passed through Kaltag on July 1,

1985; 11 days after the fishery opened. It overlapped with the king salmon run, which created a problem for commercial permit holders trying to harvest fish for both subsistence uses and commercial sale. Open time for commercial fishing corresponded with the summer chum run in 1985 (allowing for all summer chum runs to pass through

Kaltag with open fishing time on either end of season). Closed periods were viewed in a positive light by commercial fishermen in

Kaltag, since it provided time to rest and repair gear for the next open fishing season.

THE SUBSISTENCE SEASON

The 1985 subsistence fishing season was regulated within

parameters set for the commercial fishing season. Until midnight

June 18, subsistence fishing was allowed seven days per week. For

75 the next 24 hours, all fishing was prohibited, as a mandatory

24-hour closure applies immediately before the opening and after the closure of the commercial fishing season. From June 20 - August 1, subsistence fishing had the same schedule as commercial fishing.

With the end of the commercial fishing season August 1, and the mandatory 24-hour closure, subsistence fishing was allowed from 6:00 p.m. Sunday through 6:00 p.m. Friday from August 2 until September

30. After that date, subsistence fishing was allowed seven days a week, 24 hours a day. However, all the salmon had passed through

Kaltag by that time. The subsistence drift season lasted from June

20 through July 14.

The first king salmon caught by a Kaltag fisherman was taken on

June 28, almost a week after the opening of the king salmon drifting season. About July 3 or 4, king salmon began to occur in harvestable quantities. Therefore, all the king salmon fishing opportunities occurred during the commercial season in 1985. Of the potential 312 hours of subsistence drift net fishing provided for in the 1985 fishing regulations, only 192 hours were actually open because of the commercial restrictions. During this time, however, windy, rainy conditions on four of the allowable fishing days further reduced potential subsistence drifting time. Also, since most people did not drift after about nine or ten at night, the time available for drifting was even less. At most, about 60 hours (20 percent of the originally regulated time), was available for drift net fishing for king salmon in 1985.

76 Fall chum and coho salmon arrived after the closure of the commercial fishing season on August 1. At that time, subsistence fishing was allowed five days a week, 24 hours a day. Therefore, commercial fishing regulations did not reduce subsistence fishing for fall chum and coho.

FISHING GEAR

Other regulations affecting both the subsistence and commercial fishery in 1985 apply to fishing gear. Fish wheels and set nets were the only legal commercial gear for district Y4A. Regulations required commercial fishermen to own a Commercial Fisheries Entry

Commission (CFEC) fishing permit. In 1985, commercial fishermen in subdistrict Y4A were permitted to use either set nets or fish wheels for commercial fishing. Operation of more than one commercial gear was prohibited, although commercial permit holds could assist in operating a subsistence gear in addition to a commercial gear. All commercial gear had to be clearly marked with the owners name and permit number. Fish wheels, set gill nets, and drift gill nets

(within a specific time) were legal gear for subsistence fishing.

In 1985, only two commercial fishermen used set nets, although four individuals owned set net permits. Set nets ranged in length from 60 to 100 feet, and in depth from 12 to 16 feet. Mush size for summer chum was usually 6 inches. The two fishermen who did not fish stated that it was "not worth it" to fish commercially with set nets -- it was too much work given the return. In addition, as previously noted, there are only two productive set net sites in the

77 Kaltag area. Consequently, set nets are considered by local people

to be inferior to fish wheels for commercial fishing for summer

chums.

Fish wheels were the preferred and predominant commercial gear

type used by Kaltag commercial fishermen in 1985. They were built with local materials as well as materials that were

commercially-produced and imported. Since fish wheels were

introduced, fish wheel baskets were made out of chicken wire, but

recently chain link fencing was being used by some people in Kaltag.

Although chain link fencing is more durable than chicken wire, its

high cost limits its use, so that chicken wire is most commonly

used. Fish wheel "baskets" ranged in size from 8 feet by 9 feet

with a 6-foot "dip," to 7 feet by 6 feet with a 4-foot "dip." Poles

are made of spruce saplings; the axle and raft are made from drift

logs obtained from the beach. In 1985, one commercial fisherman

used PVC pipe for the sleeve of his fish wheel axle. Most people

expect a fish wheel to last at least five years.

Commercial fish wheels required considerably less work than set

nets once they were put into position. By emptying the fish box on

a regular basis during open periods, the commercial fish wheel were

continually operated in 1985. One or two people emptied the fish

box and brought the harvest to the individuals who processed the

harvest ("cutters"). In comparison, commercial set nets required

more monitoring: collecting the harvest or "picking fish," as well

as keeping the net free from debris required several people. During

heavy runs, and especially during the peak(s) of the summer chum

78 run, set nets "filled up too fast," necessitating constant work, according to fishermen. Local fishermen felt that the amount of work required to keep a set net going did not balance out with the lower harvests. Consequently, fish wheels were the preferred commercial gear type in Kaltag in 1985. The three individuals fishing with commercial set net permits all tried and failed to obtain commercial fish wheel permits in the past. All three claimed that the sole reason for fishing with the commercial set net permit was the hope that in so doing, they would eventually be eligible for commercial fish wheel permits. Thus, while it was not profitable to

fish commercially with set nets, by continuing to do so, they retained commercial fishing privileges.

In 1985, legal gear for subsistence fishing included fish wheels and set gill nets throughout the season, and up to 150 feet

of drift gill net from June 21 to July 14 and after August 1. Any

number of subsistence gear units could be operated by one fisherman

in 1985, and a commercial fisherman was able to assist in

subsistence gear operation beginning in 1985.

THE ORGANIZATION AND PRODUCTION OF SUBSISTENCE SALMON FISHING

Fishing Areas

Figure 7 shows the area used by Kaltag fishermen for drifting

for king, fall chum and coho salmon for subsistence use in 1985.

The areas were on the east bank of the Yukon River, across from

Kaltag. Drifts generally began at one of two places: either

79 LEGEND P = = I I/2 0 = Oriftnet CIHH~+HI = Areas = m 0 KILOMETERS =-

80 slightly up river opposite from Kaltag, just below the mouth of the slough, or about four to six miles down river (Marcotte 1982).

During the 1985 season, most fishermen started their drift slightly down river. The length of each drift ranged from two to six miles, depending primarily on the strength of the run and the number of fish being caught. Once fish were caught, the fishermen pulled the net in to unload the catch. Occasionally, fishermen drifted about 8 miles, but that was rare. To avoid snagging their nets, fishermen generally stayed between 100 and 300 feet from

shore. Since the water was considerably lower in the fall during

the fall chum and coho salmon run, fishermen tended to drift farther

from shore then they did when fishing for king salmon. Also, since

the fall chum and coho runs were more abundant than the king salmon

runs, drifts were shorter in length and duration: more fish were

caught so the fishermen had to bring their nets in to remove the

fish.

Since the most productive drift areas are within close range of

Kaltag, drift net fishing was community-based. All of the harvest

that was taken with drift nets from the site in front of Kaltag was

processed at the village. All fishermen either owned or had access

to a smokehouse at the village. There were 16 smokehouses in

Kaltag, however, only 14 were used in 1985.

Wcrk Group Composition

A total of 22 households had members who participated in

subsistence fishing in 1985 (referred to as “fishing households”

81 hereafter). Figure 8 shows the frequency of household sizes for subsistence fishing households. These households were represented by 18 fishing groups. With one exception, all of the fishing groups that fished for kings also fished for fall chum and coho. The exception was one of the groups that fished for kings divided that catch and then split into two groups that fished separately for fall chum and coho. Eight of the groups fished for subsistence king salmon also fished commercially in 1985.

Subsistence fishing work groups ranged in size from 2 to 5 people, with a mean of 4 people. Generally, 2 to 3 people took part in the actual drifting process. Usually, 1 to 3 people processed the harvest. In some cases, the same people (always women) were responsible for harvesting and processing the catch. In contrast to commercial fishing, men did not participate in cutting since it was considered a woman's job to cut eating fish.

Figure 9 shows the age of the primary household head of subsistence fishing households. The head of processing operations in subsistence fishing work groups was usually a woman, either a woman who fished herself or the wife of a fisherperson. In her absence, a daughter or daughter-in-law assumed responsibility for processing. In 1985, of the 22 subsistence fishers (from 22 households), 17 wives- were in charge of cutting subsistence fish, with daughters and daughters-in-law comprising the remaining 5 heads of processing groups. Daughters and sisters of the head woman provided the remaining work force, except in one instance where a man's sister helped cut subsistence-caught fish.

82 4

2

Figure 8. Frequency of Household Size, Subsistence Fishing Households, Kaltag, 1985.

83 6

5

4 NUMBEROF PRIMARY txu!aaD3 HEADS

2

+ t + t 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 AGE CLASS: PRIMARY HOUSEHOLD HEAD

Figure 9. Age of Primary Household Head, Subsistence Fishing Households Kaltag, 1985.

84 Harvest Levels

Figure 10 illustrates the subsistence salmon harvest in 1985.

As is indicated, in terms of numbers of fish, 88.3 percent of the subsistence king and fall chum and coho harvest in 1985 was harvested with drift nets. The remaining king and fall chum and coho harvest, roughly 11.3 percent of the total subsistence harvest, was taken with set nets (with the exception of two kings caught in a fish wheel). In addition, 100 summer chums were taken by commercial fishermen in fish wheels, and cut for human consumption. Figure 11 illustrates the substantial variation between and among the 22 subsistence fishing households.

As mentioned earlier, there are only two good, productive eddy sites for using set nets for king salmon and fall chum in the Kaltag area. These two sites are located near fish camp sites, and are used solely by the fishermen associated with the fish camps. One eddy is located at eight miles below Kaltag and the other is 22 miles down river. Two other set net sites which were used by Kaltag fishermen are located one mile and three miles up river on the west bank. These sites are used by several different subsistence fishermen. These eddies are not large, and according to local fishermen, are not very productive.

The majority of the subsistence harvest caught with set nets was taken at one of the two large eddy sites. The two camps were the only places where subsistence salmon were targeted outside of the community drifting site. The harvest was processed at the fish

85 q FAU CHUM, DRIFT NET n=1455 q KINGS, SET NET n&4 881 KINGS. DRIFT NET n&O3

q FAUCHUM. SET NET rkal80

62% q KINGS. FW-IWHEEL n&?

Figure 10. Subsistence Salmon Hanrest by Species and Method, Kaltag, 1985

86 6000

5000

4000

TOTAL EDISLE LSS 3000

2000

0

1 2345676 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 SUSSISTENCE FISHING HOUSB+X!X (IGZ)

I I Figure 11. Subsistence Harvest by Household, Kaltag, 1985

a7 camps, although on occasion the drying process was completed at the

community.

Table 4 illustrates household subsistence salmon harvests by

species in 1985. As the table indicates, king and fall chum and

coho salmon comprise the majority of the subsistence salmon harvest.

Clearly summer chum is not a salmon species targeted for subsistence

use. Even so, it contributed slightly over 20 percent of the total

subsistence harvest in 1985. In terms of percent households harvest

study and mean household and per capita harvest, king and fall chum

and coho are the most important subsistence salmon species.

TABLE 4. HOUSEHOLDSUBSISTENCE SALMON HARVESTS BY SPECIES, KALTAG, 1985

Percent Mean Harvesting Mean Household Per Capita Salmon Households Households Harvest Harvest TOTAL Species Harvesting (In Pounds) (In Pounds) (In Pounds) t LBS

King 32 500.3 161.37 40.34 10,005

Summer Chum 18 454.2 87.9 21.98 5,450

Fall Chum/ Coho 34 382.1 129.44 32.36 8,025

THE ORGANIZATION AND PRODUCTION OF COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING

Base of Operations

Twelve fish camps were used by Kaltag residents during the 1985

commercial fishing season. Since summer chums are sun-dried on

racks, after being stripped of the commercially sold roe, all fish

88 camps were equipped with fish racks. One half of the fish camps utilized in 1985 had smokehouses, used for king and fall chum

incidentally caught in the commercial fish wheels. Both fish camps

located on the two good set net sites had smokehouses, since the

likelihood of obtaining king or fall chum salmon at these camps was

greater. Since smokehouses were also used for storage and temporary

living quarters, they were often present at camps which had no

access to eddies. Frame cabins were built at four camps, and canvas

wall tents were used for living quarters and storage at most camps.

All harvesting and the majority of processing of summer chums

occurred at fish camps. In 1985, two fishermen operated their fish

wheels continually during open fishing periods. The other eight

operated their fish wheels for limited periods of time. Eight out

of ten commercial fishermen ran their fish wheels only at night,

cutting fish during the day. To avoid spoilage, fish boxes were

checked about every four to six hours, especially during the peak of

the run and during hot weather. Fishermen who operated their wheels

continually stationed an individual at the wheel during the peak of

the run to throw males back into the river. This minimized waste,

since males are without commercial roe, in addition to reducing the

number of fish required to be cut for dog food. During peaks in

runs only females were kept and processed, although at times of

lesser run intensity, both sexes were sometimes retained. These

fishing practices were employed by most commercial fishermen in

Kaltag. In most cases, summer chums were cut and the eggs removed

as soon as the harvest was brought to shore from the fish boxes.

a9 Fishing Areas

Physical proximity of the fish camp to the community was an

important consideration in fish camp location, primarily because it was critical to get the roe to the processing plant in Kaltag as

soon as possible. Regulations mandate that any fish products must

be sold within 48 hours of their harvest. The value of having a

fish camp close to the community was mentioned by several fishermen

and it was reflected in fish camp locations. Seven of the 12 fish

camps in 1985 were located within eight miles of Kaltag. The

remaining 5 were between 8 and 22 miles of Kaltag. All fish camps

had an associated fish wheel site, within one mile of the fish camp

with one exception, a fish wheel situated 2.75 miles away.

Contemporary fish camp occupation for commercial fishing with

wheels and nets indicates a trend to smaller camps and less

cooperative work groups, with a more nucleated household pattern, in

comparison with historic subsistence and commercial camps. Rather

than extended families and unrelated friends sharing a fish wheel as

occurred in the early twentieth century, current camps consist of

either one nuclear family or two related (usually parent-child)

households staying at a camp and sharing the operation of the wheel.

In 1985, two different households each held two commercial permits

between them. Each of these two groups shared the work and divided

the proceeds.

90 In 1985, eight of the 12 fish camps were nuclear household operations, each with one commercial permit holder (six men and two women). The composition of the remaining four camps is diagrammed in Figure 11. These diagrams clearly indicate the importance of kinship in the structuring of fish camps in Kaltag in 1985. There is not a definite fixed rule in terms of matrifocality or patrifocality. However, female ties are activated in the formation of fish camp groups, as three of the four cases here document (Fish camps B, C, D). This may indicate a traditional preference, as in the literature it has been suggested that the Koyukon are matrilineal. Additional support for this claim is illustrated by the fact that at 65 percent of the fish camps, women essentially directed the operation (although men tended to dominate in terms of numbers). In any case, the use of kinship relations in recruiting fish camp members can be stated with certainty.

Commercial fishing work groups generally broke down as follows.

The operation of the fish wheel required anywhere from two to four people, depending on the strength of the run and if the fish wheel needed to be moved. The number of cutters was determined by both the number of people available to the household with the permit, as well as to their skill in cutting. The emphasis in the commercial fishing work group was on the speed and ability of the cutter, since that ultimately determines the profit. In 1985, men were the primary cutters of commercially harvested fish. As a result, commercial fishing work groups tended to be composed primarily of men. However, women were always present at the fish camps. They

91 FISHCAMP A:

FISHCAMP 6:

FISHCAMP C:

I -- -A- -\ ’ LEGEND FISHCAMP 0~ I -- r ( ’ k-j Fishcamp Unit Household Female Mole Male Deceased ( o+AjAOAAAO /‘\ ’ Married Living Together Female Permit Holder Male Permit Holder

Figure 12. Fishcamp Composition, Kaltag, 1985

92 commonly cut fish for roe and for eating, directed operations as mentioned above, as well as performed domestic chores.

Frequency of household size and the age of the primary household head for commercial fishing are shown in Figures 12 and

13. In 1985, the average size of commercial fishing households was larger than those of subsistence fishing (7.29 members per household, compared with 5.91 members per household). In addition, the mean age of commercial fishing household heads (52.1 years) was greater than the mean age of subsistence fishing household heads

(46.7 years) in 1985.

Harvest Levels

Commercial fishermen using set nets harvested far fewer chums

(average 705 per fisherman) than did those fishing with fish wheels

(average 3,264 per fisherman). As Figure 14 illustrates, 94 percent of the summer chums taken during the 1985 season were harvested with fish wheels. As mentioned above, three times as many fishermen used fish wheels as set nets in 1985. Clearly, fish wheels were far more efficient in catch than were set nets.

A total of 47,805 pounds of roe was sold by the 14 commercial fishermen in Kaltag (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1986).

According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1986), this represents approximately 20 percent of the total roe sales in 1985,

for districts 4, 5, and 6 combined (total = 247,085 pounds).

The amount of roe varied extensively from day to day as well as between fishing periods, as Figures 15 and 16 i llustrate. Fishing

93 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 NJ&EROFPEfSUSNlUB&Q.D

Figure 13. Frequency of Household Size, Commercial Fishing Households, Kaltag, 1985

94 6

5

4 NUMBEG(OF PRIMARY l-laJma3 HEADS

2

20-29 30-39 40-49 SO-59 60-69 AGE CLASS: PRIMARY HOUSEHOLD HEAD

Figure 14. Age of Primary Household Head, Commercial Fishing Households, Kaltag, 1985

95 6%

94%

Figure 15. Commercial Salmon Harvest by Method, Kaltag, 1985.

96 periods 3, 4, and 5 (corresponding to July 8 - 16) marked the peak of the 1985 summer chum run. During that time, the amounts of roe harvested and sold exceeded the capacity of the processing plant at

Kaltag, making it necessary to airlift a total of 9,926 pounds of roe to Galena to be processed at the plant (Figs. 15 and 16). This daily variation was primarily a function of the strength of the

summer chum run as it passed by the Kaltag fishing sites.

The actual physical location of the fish wheel site was an

important factor in harvest and production levels between individual households (Fig. 17). Figure 17 also indicates the substantial

differences in amounts of roe harvested and sold by each of the 14

commercial fishermen in Kaltag. Some sites were clearly more

productive than others. Since the river changes constantly, there

is variation even between these sites from year to year as well.

However, since mobility of fish wheels did not present a problem,

individuals who were not satisfied with their wheel sites during the

season relocated their wheel. As one individual stated, "We own our

allotments, but no one owns the water."

Effort per fishing unit was another factor affecting total roe

sales of commercial households in addition to physical location of

the wheel site. Effort was most commonly defined by local people in

terms of the length and duration of fish wheel operation (continual

or intermittent operation), and the size, structure, skill and speed

of the work groups. In general, enthusiasm and effort of work

groups and fishermen was greatest at the start of the commercial

season, with a gradual decline by its end. Effort expended by

97 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 is 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sow -2 CLO3ZOv)

98 16000

14000

R 0 12000 E 10000 PROCESSING SITE I N 8000 P 0 6000 U N 4000 D s 2000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

COMMERCIAL FISHING PERIOD

-igure I 7. Commercial Roe Sales by Commercial Fishing Period, Kaltag, 1985. 12000

10000

6000

LS!3 OF HARVESTED ROE 6000

4000

2000

o+ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 0 10 11 12 13 14 COMMERCIAL FISHING MusaioLos (l--14)

* Hduaoholds wntch sold m every commeraaI pewd

Figure 18. Individual Harvest and Production Levels, Kaltag, 1985.

100 fishermen essentially mirrored the intensity of the summer chum run.

While all of the 14 commercial fishermen in Kaltag participated in the summer chum fishery, they did so to varying degrees of effort.

Less than one-half (five) of the fishermen sold roe during the majority of the open fishing times. Only two (17 percent) sold roe every open fishing day. Clearly, variation in effort between

individual fishermen was a major contributing factor to the overall variation in commercial roe sales.

COMPARISON OF SUBSISTENCE AND COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING

Base of Operations and Salmon Fishing Areas

Contemporary "ownership" of fish camps is partially based on historic use of the camp sites by particular family groups in

Kaltag. However, the introduction of state and federal land

designations have complicated the traditional land tenure system and

"ownership" through usufructory rights is at present co-existing with western legal concepts of ownership. Currently, many of the

fish camps in Kaltag are legally owned through the implementation of

Native allotments. Unclaimed fish camp sites still exist and people

are free to experiment with them. In general, usufructory rights

remain the rule for fish wheel sites because local people, as well

as the State and Federal property system, believe that water cannot

be owned. In theory, since fish wheels are necessarily attached to

the river bank, control of a site can be exerted by control of the

adjacent river bank. However, this did not occur in Kaltag in 1985.

101 As discussed prev'iously, set net sites and drift net areas are, with few exceptions, within the vicinity of Kaltag. There is no

sense of ownership of drifting sites; people drift when and where

they please. Usufructory rights are the rule for set net sights,

especially if they are associated with a fish camp site.

The majority of subsistence fishing was village-based in 1985,

as was the associated processing. Individuals maintained separate

cutting areas, usually in association with smokehouse sites. These

sites were individually owned, and several people shared sites.

Work Groups

In 1985, work groups of commercial and subsistence operations were based on kinship ties. In both groups, the majority of workers

were kinsmen recruited along principles of kinship. Commercial

fishing work groups tended to have non-kin members, in contrast to

subsistence fishing work groups which, with few exceptions, did not.

With little variation, subsistence fishing work groups were composed

in part by paid, non-family members. In the past, non-family

helpers were often repaid for their services in fish, however, in

1985, workers were paid in cash without exception.

Larger, male dominated (in terms of numbers), usually but not

necessarily kinship-based, are the most common commercial fishing

work group. Commercial fishing work groups were larger than the

subsistence work groups. Since the commercial harvest was so much

larger than the subsistence harvest, commercial fishing required

larger work groups. Three factors contributed to the larger

102 commercial harvest in comparison to the subsistence harvest: the fish wheel, which enables the maximum exploitation of the resource, the abundance of the summer chum run, and the regulated open and closed periods, which required major labor inputs in a short time to obtain greatest financial output during open periods. The relatively large harvest levels also resulted in men cutting fish in

1985. The men used butcher knives to cut the fish and extract the roe and then to process the carcass for dog food, utilizing what was locally referred to as a "whiteman's cut." To further increase production output, non-kin workers are often hired by commercial fishing groups.

In comparison, subsistence fishing work groups tend to be smaller. The absolute number of fish taken for subsistence is less than the commercial harvest. This is because the subsistence harvest is harvest for use, and is therefore limited by the needs of the group. Thus, the subsistence harvest is limited by self-limiting food needs, by relatively small consumption groups.

Processing the subsistence harvest requires more skill than processing the commercial harvest, primarily because the subsistence is for use, and this requires a finished product. Consequently, fewer people were available in the communities with the knowledge to handle its production. In subsistence fishing work groups, division of labor occurred on the basis of age and sex in subsistence fishing

-- men collected the harvest and played a small role in basic processing tasks, while women were responsible for the remaining

103 tasks. This strong division of labor was not as apparent among

commercial fishing work groups.

Cleaning, menial cutting tasks (removing the head) and hanging

the fish after it has been cut, are traditionally the tasks of

younger women (and occasionally men). It is only the older and more

talented women who cut subsistence fish, using a traditional Indian

knife. This consists of a semi-spherical piece of metal attached to

a wooden handle. Historically, constructing and maintaining fish

traps and later fish wheels fell under the domain of men, this

continued to hold true in 1985. Work was also divided according to

individual status in addition to age and sex.

Harvest Levels

In 1985, the summer chum commercial harvest represented 94

percent of the total community salmon harvest (Fig. 18). Table 5

provides a further breakdown in levels of household harvests

(commercial and subsistence) in 1985.

TABLE 5. LEVELS OF HOUSEHOLDSUBSISTENCE AND COMMERCIAL SALMON HARVEST AND PER CAPITA HARVEST, KALTAG, 1985.

Percent Mean Harvesting Mean Household Per Capita Resource Households Household Harvest Harvest Harvest TOTAL Category Harvesting (In Pounds) (In Pounds) (In Pounds) i'f LBS

Kings Summer Chum 17.7% 1094.5 388.4 92.3 24,080 Fall Chum

Kings Fall Chum 35.0% 846.8 300.5 71.4 18,630

Summer Chum Roe 22.5% 47,243

104 2% 4%

Figure 19. Total Commercial and Subsistence Salmon Harvest, Kaltag, 1985.

105 While the commercial harvest represented a significant percentage of the total harvest (especially in terms of total pounds), subsistence harvests continue to play a major role in overall harvest in 1985.

106

CHARTER 6

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

This study has examined historical and contemporary patterns of salmon fishing in Kaltag, Alaska. Using a diachronic approach facilitated an understanding of how patterns of resource use have changed in light of state fishing regulations. Ultimately, the purpose of this report was to examine the affect of state fishing regulations on an indigenous fishing system. While it is clear that both subsistence and commercial fishing have been affected by state fishing regulations, it is equally certain that the regulations have resulted in different reactions and adaptations on the part of commercial and subsistence fishermen.

While the two fisheries are regulated according to some of the same criteria, as outlined in chapters 4 and 5, important differences are apparent. As an infinite number of regulatory differences undoubtedly exist, several are especially important and particularly interesting to this discussion: most notably, subsistence priority and quota versus self-limiting harvest guidelines. Although subsistence fishing is regulated within parameters established for commercial fishing, subsistence fishing has priority over commercial fishing (according to a state mandate).

In addition, commercial harvests are limited by a quota system, whereas subsistence harvests are essentially self-limiting. These differences essentially arise from the varying adaptive strategies employed.by commercial and subsistence fishermen: these are due, in

107 part, to a separate set of values fishermen associate with each of the two fisheries.

First, regulations have influenced the number of participants in the subsistence and commercial fisheries. More households participated in subsistence fishing (22 households) than in commercial fishing (14 households) in 1985. Subsistence fishing is not a limited entry fishery, and anyone from Kaltag may participate in harvesting subsistence salmon without a permit. In contrast, there is a limited number of commercial fishermen, due to the limited number of commercial permits. Second, up until 1985, commercial fishermen were prohibited from operating subsistence gear. Allowing fishermen to fish for both uses is a recent change in fishing regulations. Prior to 1985, fishermen could not simultaneously fish for both subsistence and commercial purposes.

The rule was changed in 1985, clearly this regulatory change was important to local fishermen. In 1985, most commercial fishermen

(12 of 14) fished for subsistence use also.

Subsistence fishing for king salmon, fall chum and coho has changed through time, due to state fishing regulations. One of the major changes concerns the time allowed for fishing: subsistence fishing time is regulated through fishing seasons and open and closed periods. For the duration of the commercial season, subsistence fishing is regulated within guidelines established for commercial fishing.

Regulations have substantially reduced the time allowed for fishing for king salmon (see Chapter 5, page 75). The regulated

108 time for drift net fishing for king salmon in 1985 was 192 hours, of which only 60 hours were actually available for drifting because of wind and rain in 1985. This compares to unlimited time before 1974, prior to imposition of regulations on subsistence fishing. Drifting is the traditional method for taking kings and is the only really effective gear for kings (in 1985, 87.7 percent of kings were taken with drift nets). Consequently, the limited number of hours open for drifting places a substantial constraint on fishermen's ability to obtain king salmon.

Similarly, time allowed for fall chum and coho subsistence fishing also has been reduced, although not to the extent of king

salmon fishing. After the August 2 closure of the commercial

fishing season, subsistence fishing was allowed five days a week.

Since fall chum and coho arrived between August l-31, regulations

allowed for ample open fishing time for these two species. As a

result, fall chum and coho are harvested in greater numbers than

king salmon. However, in terms of weight, kings, at 10,005 pounds,

comprise a greater part of the local food supply than fall chum/coho

at 8,025 pounds in 1985. After September 30, subsistence fishing

was allowed seven days a week. However, all species of salmon

typically are gone by that time.

Gear types for subsistence fishing have changed little. King

salmon are currently harvested primarily with drift nets, a

traditional gear type (Osgood 1934). Obviously technological

changes have been made, however, in principle, the use of drift nets

remain essentia lly the same. Although regulations currently al low

109 for the use of drift nets, they were prohibited from 1974 until

1981. During the seven years that drift nets were prohibited, king salmon harvests were drastically reduced (Huntington 1980). The nature of king salmon runs and the configuration of the river in the

Kaltag area are such that the only real effective means of harvesting king salmon is by drift nets. Residents of Kaltag have resumed the traditional fishing method since the change in regulations in 1981. Likewise, gear types used for fishing fall chum and coho have not been regulated except for the length of nets.

Drift and set nets continue to be utilized by subsistence fall chum and coho fishermen.

One major change in the subsistence fishery is the greatly reduced use of fish camps for subsistence fish harvest and processing. This appears to be tied more to the physical characteristics of the river (the lack of good eddy sites) and the incidence of wage labor than to state fishing regulations.

Traditionally, fish camps were the site of summer salmon fishing activities. When men began to leave the region for summer wage employment at canneries in the 194Os, subsistence fishing in Kaltag began to be more village-based. With the development of the local commercial roe fishery, fish camps were utilized one again. At present, the majority of subsistence fishing for king salmon, fall chum and coho occurs from the village, while the majority of the commercial salmon (summer chum) are taken from fish camps. As previously discussed, subsistence salmon harvesting and processing does occur at the few good eddy sites which are associated with

110 certain fish camps: these are however, the exception rather than the

rule.

Concomitant with the discontinued use of fish camps for

subsistence fishing was a change in the structure of subsistence

fishing work groups. At the same time as the shift to village-based

fishing, work groups became smaller. When subsistence fishing occurred from fish camps, the fish trap and wier was the primary

technology employed. This required substantial male labor, which necessitated several families working together. When set net and drift net materials were improved, and fish wheels obtained, the

labor requirements were reduced. This coincided with the outflux of men to work in canneries, which left women responsible for attaining

the summer salmon harvest. The new and improved technology allowed

for sufficient harvests to be attained by women working in pairs,

even with decreased labor input.

Subsistence work groups continue to tend towards smaller rather

than larger groups. Whereas in the past, several families may have

worked together in subsistence salmon fishing effort, currently work

groups tend to be nuclear family-based. Improved technology and

village-based fishing are partially accountable for this shift. In

addition, subsistence fishing regulations which limit fishing time

also limit group size. Since the harvest is limited by the needs of

the group, if the fishing group is small rather than large, then the

required or targeted harvest is limited. With decreased allowable

fishing time, adequate subsistence harvest are clearly more

sufficiently attained by work groups comprised of fewer individuals.

111 This is evidenced by the fact that the subsistence fishing work groups ranged in size from one to six people, with a mean of 4 people. Commercial work groups were larger, ranging in size from two to eight, with an overall mean of five individuals.

In summary then, subsistence fishing for king salmon, fall chum and coho continues to utilize historic methods as reported in the literature. Gear remains relatively unchanged: drift nets continue to be the dominant mode of harvesting king salmon, fall chum and coho. Dip nets are no longer used. Fish traps were used primarily for harvesting summer chums and fall chum and coho, but have been supplanted by the drift and set net methods. The use of fish camps for subsistence fishing has greatly declined. The size of subsistence fishing work groups has decreased, and women continue to be dominant, due primarily to their integral role as processor.

Finally, processing methods for the subsistence harvest have remained largely the same, air-drying and cold-smoking the fish.

Therefore, the central elements of subsistence fishing for human food remain largely intact. State regulations have directly affected the subsistence fishery most directly in terms of temporal constraints on drifting. Indirectly however, state fishing regulations have had tremendous impact on subsistence salmon fishing. One ramification of the subsistence fishing regulations is illustrated by the change surrounding subsistence harvesting and use of summer chum.

Compared to the above species, subsistence fishing for summer chum has undergone vast changes. Specifically, subsistence fishing

112 for summer chum no longer occurs. The emergence of the commercial

fishery (summer chum roe), as well as its' increasing importance to

the local economy, and the decreased use of dog teams have all

resulted in a decreased subsistence need for summer chum. Summer

chum have always been the primary source of dog food in the region.

When dogs provided the major form of travel, great effort was

devoted to harvesting summer chum primarily for dog food and

secondarily as eating fish. With decreased use of dogs, there was a

simultaneous decreased subsistence need for summer chum.

The commercial roe fishery (developed since 1974) created a

greater demand for summer chums as a commercial product. In 1985,

summer chum that were processed for human consumption were primarily

a by-product of the commercial harvest. With the exception of the

roughly 100 fat male summer chums that were cut and dried for human

food, all summer chums were harvested with commercial intent. After

the eggs are removed from the female summer chums, their carcasses

are processed for dog food for either local use or sale. While the

carcasses are used locally as dog food, in general they are not

utilized as human food. In this respect, summer chum are utilized

for subsistence, but only as by-products of commercial use. This is

illustrated by the fact that only commercial fishermen harvested

summer chum. Those commercial fishermen fishing only for

subsistence purposes did not harvest summer chum.

Currently, summer chum are the only commercially viable species

of salmon in Kaltag. Species and numbers of species allowed for

commercial sale is closely regulated by the state. A limited number

113 of king salmon are allowed for commercial harvest, but most residents of Kaltag consider them too scarce as a subsistence food product to be sold. Harvesting fall chum for commercial purposes is prohibited in District Y4A. Aside from the guideline harvest levels, (and requirement to cut and dry the carcasses) there are no restrictions on the commercial harvest of summer chum, thus making them the only species that is valuable commercially in Kaltag.

Both subsistence and commercial fishing times are closely regulated through fishing periods and seasons. These times are set long before the arrival of the salmon and do not always match the peaking of the runs. Close monitoring of both subsistence and commercial fishermen on the part of state officers ensures that closures are carefully followed.

The "limited entry" program limited the number of gear types and fishermen able to participate in the commercial fishery. In

1985, only 14 fishermen in Kaltag owned commercial fishing permits.

Since all commercial fishing activities are conducted from fish camps, the limited number of fishermen results in a limited use of

fish camps. Those fish camps whose owner does not have a commercial

fishing permit are not used. That fish camps are used by all

commercial fishermen for the commercial harvest of summer chums in

an interesting deviation from the trend exhibited by subsistence

fishermen; the latter of whom never utilize fish camps solely for

subsistence harvests.

The limited entry permit program also affected the structure of

the commercial fishing work group in a number of ways. The

114 underlying problem with the LEP program in terms of rural fishermen in that it did not account for the nature and composition of rural fishing groups. Permits were issued on the basis of a point system; the system was based on western models of fishing activities. For example, since applications did not account for fishing partnerships, of which most rural fishermen were a part, many individuals were excluded on that basis. The end result of the imposition of the LEP program was that both the number of fishermen and gear types was limited: the program clearly achieved its desired goal. Size and structure of commercial salmon fishing work groups has also been altered or affected by other state fishing regulations. The regulation requiring helpers permits of all people involved in commercial fishing limits the size of the group. While the cost of a helpers permit is negligible to fishermen in the Lower Yukon River, ($10.00 in 1985), to fishermen in the Middle and Upper districts, the cost of a helpers permit can represent a substantial percent of the overall profit. As regulations mandate that helpers permits are required of every individual taking part in commercial fishing activities, the overall cost is a measurable amount of the total income. In 1985, commercial fishermen complained about regulation requiring helpers permits of all participating individuals, adding that it was unfair, and resulted in fewer people helping out. In a social system that depends on support from family members, this regulation clearly creates a dilemma.

115 In addition to the above limiting factor, group size is also limited during the times that commercial and subsistence fishing periods are concurrent if the group is fishing for both subsistence and commercial purposes. As a result, often non-family members are hired to work as part of the fishing group. These individuals work in all capacities, from watching the fish boxes as they fill up to cutting and hanging the summer chum carcasses. Thus the scheduling conflict presented by parallel commercial and subsistence seasons and periods potentially results in reduced commercial fishing group size.

Adaptive strategies have been developed by both commercial and subsistence fishermen to deal with state fishing regulations. While state fishing regulations have at times altered traditional fishing patterns in particular ways, (especially the 7 year closure on drift net fishing) for the most part the subsistence fishery is still intact, and elements of the traditional fishery are still an integral part of the fishery. The greatest constraints on the subsistence fishery is that subsistence fishing is regulated according to parameters established for commercial fishing, and drifting is allowed only a short while. In effect, state fishing regulations have placed subsistence fishing in an adverse and secondary role to commercial fishing.

Local fishermen have dealt with the constraints established because of commercial fishing by developing two different sets of values associated with each of the two fisheries. I contend that these values are reflected in the attitudes towards the harvest, in

116 the social organization of the fishing groups, and the economic aspects of each of the two fisheries.

Subsistence harvests are closely monitored by the participants: harvest levels are set by the needs of the group. Use of set and drift nets enables a close watch over the harvest. Only that which is needed and can be effectively processed is taken. In reference to questions concerning subsistence harvests, local fishermen reiterate the statement that "we only take what we need, there is no waste." Only women and preferably older and more skilled women cut subsistence fish. Subsistence fishing work groups are female dominated. Finally, and without exception, subsistence fishing work groups are kin-based.

In contrast, few internal limits on the harvest exist for commercial fishermen. The sole self-imposed limit lies in the speed and agility of the processors as well as in the individual fishermen preferences concerning level of earnings. The state regulated the harvest through the imposition of quotas. There are few guidelines or limits on who can process the harvest. For most commercial

fishermen, the goal is to harvest and process has much as possible.

This was clearly true of five households in Kaltag in 1985; in

general this is true for commercial fisheries over time (Wolfe

1982).

Clearly local people perceive subsistence and commercial

fishing as very different systems, operating by different rules, which are reflected in patterns of harvesting and processing.

Subsistence fishing is seen as internally directed and controlled on

117 an individual and community level. It is a highly valued system, in which the harvesting and processing of subsistence salmon are closely guarded by an implicit set of village regulations and values. As a result, state fishing regulations are seen as an intrusion. In contrast, commercial fishing is seen as an externally derived and controlled system, available to fishermen for their exploitation, within limits set by the state. The latter are seen as a necessary corollary to commercial fishing. In spite of this, commercial fishermen also commonly see the commercial regulations as negative and intrusive on their ability to catch and sell fish.

Successful involvement in the commercial fishery has resulted from the development of new adaptive strategies on the part of local fishermen. The strategies allow them to exploit and take advantage of both fisheries without compromising traditional values in regards to subsistence uses. Participation in commercial fishing provides an opportunity to participate in the market economy in a situation where few other opportunities exist. Participation in the commercial fishery, exploiting the resource within limits set by the state (not defined by need), adherence to commercial fishing regulations, and the development of a separate value system are all elements of an adaptive strategy on the part of local fishermen.

The intent of this study has been to examine the effects of

state fishing regulations on an indigenous fishing system. At this point, it should be clear that state fishing regulations have affected both subsistence and commercial fishing in Kaltag. In a variety of ways, local fishermen have altered their behavior and

118 developed new strategies to deal with the fishing regulations imposed by the state of Alaska. All the while traditional elements still underlie the basic patterns of fishing in Kaltag. In conclusion, this report has illustrated that state fishing regulations are an important and influential element of change in

Kaltag, especially concerning the development of contemporary

fishing strategies by local fishermen.

119 REFERENCES

Adams, G.R. and R. Pierce, ed. 1982 Life on the Yukon, 1865-1867. Ontario: Limestone Press.

Andrews, E.A. and K. Koutsky 1977 Ethnohistory of the Kaltag Portage, West Central Alaska. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, pp. 921-924.

Andrews, E.A. and R.J. Wolfe 1985 Yukon River Fall Chum Fisheries: An Overview. Oral Presentation to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, November 1985. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Asch, M. 1979 The Ecological-Evolutionary Model and the Concept of Mode of Production. In Challenging Anthropology. D. Turner, ed. pp. 81-97. McGzw-Hill Ryerson, Ltd.

Behnke, S. 1982 Wildlife Utilization and the Economy of Nondalton. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Technical Paper No. 47. Juneau, Division of Subsistence.

Berkes, F. and C.S. Farkas 1978 Eastern James Bay Cree Indians: Changing Patterns of Wildlife Food Use and Nutrition. 7:155-172.

Braund, S.R. 1980 Cook Inlet Subsistence Salmon Fishery. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage. Technical Paper No. 54.

Brody, H. 1982 Maps and Dreams. New York. Pantheon Books.

Burch, E.S. 1976 Overland Travel Routes in Northwest Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, 18(1):1-10.

Clark, A.M. 1974 Koyukuk River Culture. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service, Ottawa. Paper No. 18.

120 1975 Upper Koyukuk River Koyukon Athabaskan Social Culture: An Overview. In Proceedings of the Northern Athabaskan Conference, 1971. A.M. Clark, ed., Vol. 1, pp. 146-180.

1981 Koyukon. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 6: The Subarctic. June Helm, ed. pp. 582-601. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Dall, W.H. 1870 Alaska and its Resources. Boston: Lee and Shepard.

1898 Travels on the Yukon and in the Yukon Territory. In The Yukon Territory. pp. l-242. London: Downey and Co., Ltd.

delaguna, F. 1947 Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen From the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society for American Anthropology. No. 3.

Dinneford and Hart 1986 Changes in the Distribution of Permit Ownership in Alaska's Limited Fisheries. 1975-1985. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Juneau, Report No. 86-6.

Division of Commercial Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game 1985 Yukon Area Salmon Report: Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.

1986 Annual Management Report. Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.

Ellanna, L.J. 1983a Bering Strait Insular Eskimo: A Diachronic Study of Economy and Population Structure. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 77.

1983b Technological and Social Change of Marine Mammal Hunting Patterns in Bering Strait. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 79.

Fall, J. and L. Stratton 1984 The Harvest and Use of Copper River Salmon: A Background Report. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Juneau. Techrical Paper No. 96.

Fall, J., D.J. Foster and R.T. Stanek 1984 The Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Tyonek, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 105.

121 Feit, H. 1973 The Future of Hunters Within Nation States: Anthropology and the James Bay Cree. In Politics and History in Band Societies. E. Leacock and?. Lee eds., pp. 373-412. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1979 Political Articulations of Hunters to the State: Means of Resisting Threats to Subsistence Production in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Etudes/Inuit/Studies. 3(2):37-52.

1982 The Income Security Program for Cree Hunters in Quebec: An Experiment in Increasing the Autonomy of Hunters in a Developed Nation State. Canadian Journal of Anthropology. 3(1):57-70.

1983 Conflict Arenas in the Management of Renewable Resources in the Canadian North: Perspectives Based on Conflicts and Responses in Northern Quebec. Paper prepared for the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.

Foster, D.J. 1982 The Utilization of King Salmon and the Annual Round of Resource Use in Tyonek, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 27.

Gilbert, C.H. and H. O'Malley 1920 Investigations of the Salmon Fisheries of the Yukon River In Alaska Fisheries and Fur Seal Industries in 1920. Bureau of Fisheries Document No 909.

Helm, J. and E.B. Leacock 1971 Traditional Economic Institutions and the Acculturation of the Canadian Eskimos. Studies in Economic Anthropology. No. 7, pp. 107-121.

Honigman, J.J. and I. Honigman 1970 Arctic Townsmen; ethnic backgrounds and modernization. Canadian Research Center for Anthropology, St. Paul University.

Hrdlicka, A. 1944 Alaska Diary, 1926-1931. Lancaster, PA: Jacques Catell Press.

Huntington, C.C. 1981 Issue Paper on Subsistence King Salmon Drift Gillnetting, Yukon Area Subdistrict 4-A. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 17.

122 Jette, J. 1907 On the Language of the Ten'a. Man VII: 51-56; VIII: 72-73.

1911 On the Superstitions of the Ten'a Indians. Anthropos VI: 95-108; 241-259; 602-723.

Ms. On the Geographical Names of the Ten'a. Oregon Province Archives, Gonzaga University. Spokane, Washington.

Leacock, E. and R. Lee (eds.) 1982 Politics and History in Band Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Loyens, W.J. 1966 The Changing Culture of the Nulato Koyukon Indians. Ph.D. dissertation. Anthropology Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Marcotte, J.R. 1982 The King Salmon Drift Net Fishery on the Middle Yukon: An Overview and Study of the 1982 Season. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 18.

Marcotte, J.R. and T.L. Haynes 1984 Contemporary Resource Use Patterns in the Upper Koyukuk Region, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 93.

McClellan, C. 1969 Culture Contacts in the Early Historic Period in Northwestern North America. Arctic Anthropology, 2(2):3-15.

Michael, H.N. (ed.) 1967 Lieutenant Zagoskin's Travels in Russian America, 1842-1844. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Nelson, R.K. 1973 Hunters of the Northern Forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1980 Athapaskan Subsistence Adaptations in Alaska. --In Senri Ethnological Studies, No. 4, pp. 205-232.

Nelson, R.D., K. Mautner and G.R. Bane 1982 Tracks in the Wildland: A Portrayal of Koyukon and Nunamiut Subsistence. Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

123 Orth, D.J. 1971 Dictionary of Alaska Placenames. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 567. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Osgood, C.B. 1936 The Distribution of the Northern Athabaskan Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthropology. No. 15. New Haven, Connecticut.

1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Yale University Publications in Anthropology. No. 22. New Haven, Connecticut.

Pennoyer, S., K.R. Middleton, M.E. Morris 1965 Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Salmon Fishing History. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau.

Petroff, I. 1900 Compilation of Narratives of Explorations in Alaska. U.S. Congress Senate Committee on Military Affairs. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Pope, D. 1981 Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Fisheries Management and Development of the Fisheries in Western and Arctic Alaska. Vol. 1. Report the the 12th Legislature.

Reckord, H. 1982 That's the Way We Live: Subsistence in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Anthropology and Historic Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Occasional Paper No. 34.

Ricks, M.B. 1965 Directory of Alaska's Postoffices and Postmasters. Ketchikan: Tongass Publishing Co.

Robert, M. 1980 Trapping Patterns in the Vicinity of the Kaiyuh Flats, West Central Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 84.

Rollins, A.M. 1978 Census Alaska: Numbers of Inhabitants, 1792-1970. Manuscript on file at Elmer Rasmusson Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Schwatka, F. 1898 Along Alaska’s Great River. Chicago: George M. Mill, Co.

124 Scientific Working Group for the Delegations from U.S. and Canada Concerning Yukon River Salmon. 1985 Briefing Report on the Status of Salmon Stocks, Fisheries, and Management Programs in the Yukon River.

Shinkwin, A. and M. Case 1984 Modern Foragers: Wild Resource use in Nenana Village, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 91.

Stickney, A. 1981 Subsistence Resource Utilization: Nickolai and Telida. Interim Report II. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 20.

Stokes, J.W. 1982 Subsistence Salmon Fishing in the Upper Kuskokwim River System, 1981 and 1982. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 23.

1984 Natural Resource Utilization of 'Four Upper Kuskokwim Communities. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 86.

Stokes, J.W. and E. Andrews 1982 Subsistence Hunting of Moose in the Upper Kuskokwim Controlled Use Area, 1981. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 22.

Sullivan, R. 1942 The Ten's Food Quest. Catholic University of America Anthropological Series No. 11. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

U.S. Department of Commerce 1980 American Indian Areas and Alaska Native Villages: 1980. Census of Population. U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census.

Usher, P.J. 1976 Evaluating Country Food in the Northern Native Economy. Arctic, 29(2):105-120. 1981 Sustenance or Recreation ? The Future of Native Wildlife Harvesting in Northern Canada. In M.M.R. Freeman, ed. Proceedings First International Symposium on Renewable Resources and the Economy of the North. Ottawa, Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies. pp. 56-71.

125 VanStone, J.W. 1974 Athabaskan Adaptations: Hunters and Fishermen of the Subarctic Forests. Arlington Heights, 11: Harlan Davidson, Inc.

1977 Processes of Ingalek Culture Change: 1835-1935. In Problems in the Prehistory of the North American Subarctic: The Athabaskan Question. J.W. Helmer, S. Van Dyke, F. Kensel (eds.) University of Calgary, Alberta.

Watkins, M. (ed.) 1977 Dene Nation: The Colony Within. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wolfe, R.J. 1981 Norton Sound/Yukon Delta Sociocultural Systems Baseline Analysis. Bureau of Land Management, Outer Continental Shelf Office, Anchorage, and Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Report No. 72.

1982 The Subsistence Salmon Fishery of the Lower Yukon River. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 60.

1984 Commercial Fishing in the Hunting-Gathering Economy of a Yukon River Yup'ik Society. Etudes/Inuit/Studies Vol. 8, pp. 159-183.

Wolfe, R.J. and L. Ellanna (eds.) 1983 Resource Use and Socioeconomic Systems: Case Studies of Fishing and Hunting in Alaskan Communities. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Technical Paper No. 61.

126 APPENDIX 1

SUMMARYOF SUBSISTENCE FISHING REGULATIONS, 1960-1985*

GEAR TYPES

General

1960-1976: Salmon may be taken by spear as well as any other legal form of gear.

1977-1985: Salmon for subsistence purposes may be taken only by gill net, beach seine or fishwheel, subject to certain restrictions.

Specific

1977-1980: Salmon may not be taken for subsistence purposes by drift gill net.

1981: Salmon may not be taken for subsistence purposes by drift gill net except in district 4A, where kings may be taken by drift gill nets from June 5 - June 14.

1982: Salmon may not be taken for subsistence purposes by drift gill net except in district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, where kings may be taken by drift gill nets from June 10 - June 22.

1983-1984: Salmon may not be taken for subsistence purposes by drift gill net except in district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, where kings may be taken by drift gill nets from June 21 - July 7.

- Chum salmon may be taken by drift gill net after August 2.

1985: Salmon may not be taken for subsistence purposes by drift gill net except in district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, where kings may be taken by drift gill net from June 21 - July 14.

- Chum salmon may be taken by drift gill net after August 2.

* For exact wording, see Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Board of Fisheries regulations.

127 NET LENGTH

General

1960-1976: No restrictions regarding net length.

1977-1985: The aggregate length of a set gill net in use by any individual may not exceed 150 fathoms and the aggregate length of a drift gill net may not exceed 50 fathoms, with certain restrictions.

Specific

1981: In district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, no person may operate a drift gill net that is longer than 100 ft. in length from June 5 - June 14.

1982: In district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, no person may operate a drift gill net that is longer than 100 ft. in length from June 10 - June 22.

1983-1984: In district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, no person may operate a drift gill net that is longer than 100 ft. from June 21 - July 7.

1985: In district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, no person may operate a drift gill net that is longer than 150 ft. from June 21 - July 14.

MESH SIZE

1960-1978: No restrictions regarding mesh size.

1979-1985: In district 4, commercial fishermen may not take salmon for subsistence purposes during the commercial salmon fishing season by gill nets larger than 6 inch mesh after a date specified by emergency order between July 10 - July 31.

GEAR OPERATIONAL OBSTRUCTIONS

1960-1978: No salmon gill net or other salmon device shall obstruct over 213 of any salmon migration waterway or spawning upstream.

128 1971-1985: No salmon gill net may obstruct more than one half the width of any fish stream. A stationary fishing device may not obstruct more than one half the width of any salmon stream.

1977-1985: It is unlawful to set subsistence fishing gear within 200 ft. of any operating commercial or subsistence fishing gear.

OTHER

1976-1984: During the open weekly fishing periods of the commercial salmon fishing season, a commercial fisherman may not operate more than one type of gear at a time for commercial and subsistence purposes simultaneously with more than one type of gear.

1985: During the open weekly fishing periods of the commercial salmon fishing season, a commercial fisherman may not operate more than one type of gear at a time for commercial and subsistence purposes, except that in district 4A, upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, a commercial fisherman may at any time assist subsistence fishermen in the operating of subsistence fishing gear.

TIMES AND DATES OF FISHING SEASONS

General

1960-1985: Fish for subsistence purposes may be taken at all times and shall not be restricted by the commercial regulations, with certain restrictions.

Specific Concerning Opening and Closing times:

1960-1973: In the Yukon area, fishing for, taking or molesting salmon is prohibited between 6pm Saturday and 6am Monday of each week except before the opening and following the closing of commercial fishing in each quota area.

1974-1975: Salmon may not be taken for 24 hours before the opening and following the closure of the commercial salmon fishing season.

1976: Salmon may not be taken by any means during the weekly closures of the commercial salmon fishing season.

1977-1982: During the weekly closures of the commercial salmon fishing season and for 24 hours before the opening and following the closing of the commercial salmon fishing

129 season, salmon may not be taken, excluding the area between the mouths of the Rodo and Nowitna Rivers.

1983: Salmon may only be taken during the open weekly fishing periods of the commercial fishing season and may not be taken for 24 hours before the opening and following the closure, except in district 4A, from June 15 - August 1, where salmon may only be taken from 6pm Sunday to 6pm Tuesday and from 6pm Wednesday to 6pm Friday.

1984: Salmon may only be taken during the open weekly fishing periods (6pm Sunday-6pm Tuesday; 6pm Wednesday-6pm Friday) of the commercial fishing season (June 24-August 1) and may not be taken for 24 hours before the opening and following the closure. After August 2, subsistence fishing is allowed from 6pm Sunday-6pm Friday. After September 30, 7 days per week.

1985: Salmon may only be taken for subsistence purposes during the open weekly fishing periods of the commercial fishing season, from June 20-August 1; 6pm Sunday-6pm Tuesday and from 6pm Wednesday-6pm Friday. Fishing is prohibited 24 hours before the opening and after the closure of the commercial season. After August 2, subsistence fishing is allowed from 6pm Sunday-6pm Friday. After September 30, subsistence fishing is allowed 7 days per week.

TIME AND DATES

Specifics Concerning 5 day closures:

1977-1978: During any commercial salmon fishing season closure of greater than five days duration, salmon may not be taken during a two day period each week, excluding the area between the mouths of the Rodo and Nowitna Rivers.

1979: During any commercial salmon fishing season closure of greater than five days duration, salmon may not be taken during a two day period each week (6pm Friday-6pm Sunday) excluding the area between the mouths of the Rodo and Nowitna Rivers.

1982: During any commercial salmon fishing season closure of greater than five days duration, salmon may not be taken during a two day period each week (3pm Friday-3pm Sunday) gexcludin Rodo and Nowitna Rivers.

1983-1985: During any commercial salmon fishing season closure of greater than five days duration, salmon may not be taken

130 during a two day period each week (6pm Friday-6pm Sunday) excluding the area between the mouths of the Rodo and Nowitna Rivers.

IDENTIFICATION OF GEAR

1960-1964: No restrictions regarding identification.

1965-1973: Within the commercial fishing areas of the Yukon, each subsistence fisherman shall plainly and legibly inscribe his initials on his fishwheel or on a bright red keg or buoy that is attached to his gill net or on a sign nearby.

1977-1985: For all gill nets and unattended gear, the first initial, last name and address of the operator must be plainly and legibly inscribed on an attached keg or buoy.

- this information must be plainly and legibly inscribed on a stake that is inserted into the ice that is attached to gear operated under the ice.

- each fishwheel must have the first initial, last name and address of the operator firmly and legibly inscribed on the side of the fishwheel facing midstream of the river.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING OTHER FISH

Regulations on other fish:

1960-1979: Whitefish may be taken by spear, dip net and fyke net as well as other forms of gear.

1980-1985: Fish other than salmon may only be taken by set gill net, drift gill net, beach seine, fishwheel, pot, long line fyke net, dip net, jigging gear, spear or lead subject to the following restrictions which apply to subsistence fishing:

- during the open weekly fishing periods of the commercial salmon fishing season, a commercial fisherman may not fish for commercial and subsistence purposes simultaneously with more than one type of gear.

131 - it is unlawful to set subsistence fishing gear within 200 ft. of any operating commercial or subsistence fishing gear.

- a gill net may not obstruct more than one half the width of any fish stream; a stationary fishing device may not obstruct more than one half the width of any salmon stream.

- the aggregate length of a set gill net in use must not exceed 150 fathoms and a drift gill net may not exceed 50 fathoms.

132 APPENDIX 2

SUMMARYOF COMMERCIAL FISHING REGULATIONS, 1960-1985"

Definition of District

1960-1962: All waters of the Yukon River and tributaries and all coastal waters from an east-west line through the westernmost part of Stuart Island southward to 62 N. Latitude. No subdistricts.

1963-1973: Divided into districts. District 3 of the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim area extended from Owl Slough upstream to the mouth of the Koyukuk River.

1974-1977: District 3 extended from Owl Slough upstream to the mouth of the Bonasila River and district 4 went from the mouth of the Bonasila River up to the mouth of Illinois Creek at Kallands.

1978-1979: District 4 was subdivided into two sections: 4A covered the area from the mouth of the Bonasila River upstream to Cone Point and 4B went from there up to the mouth of Illinois Creek.

1980: District 4 was enlarged so that it started at a regulatory marker at the mouth of an unnamed slough 3/4 of a mile downstream from Paradise Village and it went upstream to the western edge of the mouth of Illinois Creek at Kallands, including the Bonasila River Drainage. Section 4A started at the regulatory marker and went up to the tip of Cone Point, including the Bonasila River. Section 4B went from there upstream to the western edge of the mouth of Illinois Creek.

1981-1985: District 4 was divided into three sections, although section 4A remained the same. 4B was changed slightly to go from the tip of Cone Point upstream along the north bank of the river to the westernmost edge of Illinois Creek and included the following islands: Cook, Lark, Serpentine, Louden, Fish, Dainty, Yuki, Melozi, Dashna, Straight, Kit, Fox, Hardluck, Mickey, Florence, Doyle, Chokoyik, Lady, Liner, Flora, and Cronin. Section 4C extended from the tip of Cone Point upstream along the south bank of the river to a point opposite the westernmost edge of Illinois Creek and included the following islands: Cat, Hen, Jimmy, Big,

* For exact wording, see Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Board of Fisheries regulations.

133 Ninemile, Ham, Emerald, Edith, Kathaleen, Henry, Burns, Youngs, Wier, Clay, Large, and Brant.

FISHING SEASONS

1960-1972: Open fishing was permitted from 6am June 1 through 6pm September 30, except as noted in the fishing periods.

1973-1974: Fishing prohibited except from 6am June 1 through 6pm September 30. The season opening June 1 to be closed by emergency order and subsequent fishing seasons to be opened and closed by emergency order.

1975-1977: Fishing prohibited except from 6am June 15 through 6pm September 30. The season opening June 15 to be closed by emergency order and subsequent seasons to be opened and closed by emergency order.

1978-1981: Fishing prohibited except from 6am June 15 through 6pm September 30 in district 4B. In district 4A, fishing prohibited except from June 15 through August 1. The season opening June 1 to be closed by emergency order.

1982: In district 4A downstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, fishing is prohibited except from June 15 through August 1. Upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, the season extends from June 24 through August 1. The seasons opening June 15 and June 24 respectively, to be closed by emergency order. Subsequent seasons to be opened and closed by emergency order.

1985: In district 4A upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek, fishing prohibited except from June 20 through August 1. The season opening June 20, to be closed by emergency order and subsequent seasons to be opened and closed by emergency order.

WEEKLY FISHING PERIODS

Salmon may be taken commercially provided that the taking of fish for sale or barter as dried dog food shall be permitted throughout the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim area seven days a week provided that:

1960: Commercial fishing is prohibited from 6pm Saturday through 6am Monday.

1961-1963: No restrictions, commercial fishing allowed seven (7) days per week.

134 1964-1973: Salmon may be taken commercially from 6pm Monday through 6pm Friday.

1974-1975: Salmon may be taken commercially from 6pm Monday through 6pm Saturday.

1976-1978: Salmon may be taken commercially from 6pm Sunday through 6pm Friday.

1979-1980: Subdistrict 4A: June 15 - August 1: 6pm Sunday - 6pm Tuesday 6pm Wednesday - 6pm Friday

1981-1982: Subdistrict 4A: June 15 - August 1: 6pm Sunday - 3pm Tuesday 6pm Wednesday - 6pm Friday 1983-1984: Subdistrict 4A: June 15 - August 1: 6pm Sunday - 6pm Tuesday 6pm Wednesday - 6pm Friday

1985: Subdistrict 4A: - downstream from the mouth of Stink Creek: June 15 - August 1: 6pm Sunday - 6pm Tuesday 6pm Wednesday - 6pm Friday - upstream from the mouth of Stink Creek: June 20 - August 1: 6pm Sunday - 6pm Tuesday 6pm Wednesday - 6pm Friday

LEGAL GEAR

Gear Types:

1960-1972: Set nets, drift nets and fishwheels may be operated with certain restrictions. 1973-1985: Only fishwheels and set nets may be operated with certain restrictions.

Net Length:

1960-1985: The aggregate length of any set net is not to exceed 150 fathoms and the aggregate length of a gill net is not to exceed 50 fathoms.

Mesh Size:

1960: King salmon gill nets shall have a mesh of at least 8 l/2 inch stretched mesh. 1961-1979: No restrictions could be found.

135 1979-1985: Salmon may be taken with gill nets of 6 inches or smaller mesh after a date specified by emergency order between July 10 and July 31.

Fishwheel Specifications:

1960-1979: No restrictions could be found. 1980-1985: The fishwheel vessel registrant is responsible for the operation of the fishwheel.

GEAR OPERATION RESTRICTIONS:

1973-1985: Gill net gear may not obstruct more than one half the width of any waterway. 1965-1985: Fishermen shall operate or assist in operating only one type of gear at one time. 1973-1985: Fishermen shall operate no more than one fishwheel at any one time. 1960-1985: All nets must be removed from the water at closed periods. 1980-1985: Fishwheel baskets must be stopped from rotating in the water during periods closed to commercial and subsistence fishing.

IDENTIFICATION OF FISHING GEAR

1960-1971: a> each drift gill net in operation shall have at each end a suitable bright red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats plainly and legibly marked with the initials and vessel number of the operator. When fastened to a vessel only the distant end of such a net must be so marked.

b) each set net in operation shall have at each end a suitable bright red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats which shall be plainly or legibly marked with the initials and vessel number of the operator. In the case of set gill nets anchored to the land, it shall have a suitable bright red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats at the outer end of the net. c> each fishwheel in operation shall have plainly and legibly inscribed thereon the initials and vessel number of the operator.

136 1972-1974:

a> each drift gill net in operation shall have at each end a suitable bright red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats plainly and legibly marked with the permanent registration number of the operator.

b) each set net in operation shall have a suitable bright red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats which shall be plainly or legibly marked with the permanent registration number of the operator. In the case of set gill nets anchored to the land, the set gill net shall have a suitable bright red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats at the outer end of the net. c> each fishwheel in operation shall have plainly and legibly inscribed thereon the permanent registration number of the operator.

1975:

-- all of the above with the additional requirement that:

d) the number on the fishwheels must be at least six inches in height with lines at least one inch wide and shall be painted in contrasting colors.

1976-1979:

-- same as 1975 with the added stipulation that the numbers that are painted on the fishwheel shall be painted on the side of the fishwheel facing midstream of the river.

1980-1985: 5 AAC 39.280 Identification of Stationary Fishing Gear a> the owner or operator of a set gill net or fishwheel in operation shall place in a conspicuous place on or near the set gill net or fishwheel the name of the fisherman operating it, together with the fisherman's five digit CFEC permit serial number. Numbers must be at least six inches in height with lines at least one inch wide and a color contrasting with the background. The identification name and numbers for fishwheels must be laced on the side of the fishwheel facing midstream.

137 b) in addition to the requirements of (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a set gill net in operation shall have at each end of the set gill net a red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats; or in the case of set gill nets anchored to the land shall have a red keg, buoy, or cluster of floats at the outer end of the net. Everything must be plainly and legibly marked with the fisherman's five digit CFEC permit serial number.

MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEENUNITS OF GEAR

1960-1973: no restrictions

1974-1976: it is unlawful to set commercial fishing gear within 200 feet of other operating commercial fishing gear.

1977-1981: it is unlawful to set commercial fishing gear within 200 feet of other operating commercial or subsistence fishing gear.

1982-1985: it is unlawful to set or operate commercial fishing gear within 200 feet of other operating commercial or subsistence gear, except in district 4 from Old Paradise Village to a point 4 miles upstream from Anvik where there is no minimum distance requirement between fishwheels.

OUOTAS:

The following restrictions are placed on the taking of salmon commercially, provided that the taking of salmon for sale, barter or as dried dog food shall be permitted throughout the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Area.

1960: - 5,000 kings above the mouth of the Anvik River

1961: - Kings may only be taken prior to August 1 - limits are 5,000 kings and 5,000 silvers for the area above Owl Slough

1962-1964: - Kings may only be taken prior to August 1 - subdistrict 3 is limited to 3,000 kings and 3,000 silvers

1965-1971: - Kings may only be taken prior to August 1 - limited to 3,000 kings and 3,000 chum and coho combined for the area

138 1972-1973: - When the king salmon quotas have been attained in any subdistrict, the season in the subdistrict will be closed and a later season will be announced allowing fishing to attain quotas for the other species of salmon. Commercial catches are restricted as follows: - 2,000 kings and 2,000 chums and coho for the area

1974: - Same seasonal restrictions, commercial catches lessened to: - 2,000 kings and 2,000 chum/coho for the area

1975-1985: - 1,000 kings and after August 15, 10,000 chum/coho for the area

REGISTRATION AND RE-REGISTRATION

1960-1963: no registration requirements

1964-1966: - each registrant must indicate in which subdistrict such gear and boat is intended to be first used during the king salmon season. - gear and boats registered to fish in subdistricts 3 and 4 may not transfer to subdistricts 1 or 2.

1967-1969: - each registrant must indicate in which subdistrict such gear and boat is intended to be first used during the fishing season. - gear and boats registered to fish in districts 3 or 4 may not transfer to districts 1 or 2 prior to August 1.

1970: - each registrant must indicate in which subdistrict such gear and boat is intended to be first used during the fishing season. - gear and vessels registered to fish in districts 3 or 4 may not transfer to district 1 or 2 until after the king salmon season.

1972-1973: - each registrant must indicate in which district and subdistrict gear and vessel are intended to be used during the season. - gear and vessels registered to fish in subdistricts 3 and 4 many not transfer to subdistricts 1 or 2 until after July 10.

1974-1976: - must indicate in which district and subdistrict the gear and vessel are intended to be used the first season. - gear and vessels registered to fish in 1, 2, 3 may not transfer to 4, 5, 6.

139 - gear and vessels registered to fish in 4, 5, 6 may not transfer to another subdistrict.

1977: - all of the above - a fisherman may register in only one subdistrict

1978: - all of the above, append to last regulation the following: - a fisherman may register a vessel in only one subdistrict, including a vessel used to take salmon with a fishwheel. Fishwheel vessel registrants shall register the vessel by indicating on the vessel by indicating on the vessel license application or renewal form, the single subdistrict selected.

1979: - all the same rules still apply only now the terminology is "salmon interim use or entry permit holder" (must indicate in which...)

1980-1982: - the owner or his authorized agent, of a commercial salmon fishing vessel registered for salmon net registration area Y shall register prior to fishing for a district. Registration is accomplished on a form provided by the Department indicating the district in which the vessel is intended to be first used during the season. - subsequent to the initial registration in districts 1 and 2, a registrant may operate a vessel in another district following reregistration for the district of intended operation. The registrant shall not fish during the 48 hour waiting period following registration. -a salmon interim use or entry permit holder whose vessel is registered to fish in district 1, 2, 3 shall not fish in 4, 5, 6. -a salmon interim use or entry permit holder whose vessel is registered in 4 shall not fish in another district. - a vessel (including a vessel used to take salmon with a fishwheel) may be registered in only one district. Fishwheel vessel registrants shall indicate on the renewal form the single district selected. - after fishing in subdistricts 1 or 2, a salmon interim use or entry permit holder shall wait 48 hours before fishing in another district. - each drift gill net registrant shall be assigned a permanent registration number by ADF&G.

1983: - all of the above and additionally: - a commercial salmon fishing vessel may be registered for not more than one district at a time.

140 1984 and 1985: - same as the above with one addition: - no CFEC salmon permit holder may take salmon in the set gill net only locations after July 19 unless he is registered for those locations. CFEC salmon permit holder shall register with the Department for the set net only locations before the opening of the late season. A CFEC salmon permit holder registered for the set net only locations may not take or attempt to take salmon in any other location or district 1, or in districts 2 and 3 for the remainder of that calendar year.

Subsistence Fishing Regulations for District 4: 1960-1985

Permits: 1960-1985

Fish may be taken for subsistence purposes* throughout district 4 with certain restrictions, none of which apply to Kaltag or to district 4A.

* Subsistence fishing in the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim was defined as the sale, barter or trade of fish as dried dog food.

141 KALTAG SALMON FISHING SURVEY, Summer 1985 University of Alaska and Division of Subsistence

Respondent: Date: Interviewer:

Are you from Kaltag?

For commercial fishermen:

How long have you been fishing commercially for salmon?

Did you commercial fish each year since then? No Yes

In the years you didn't fish commercial, why not?

What kind of salmon do you fish for commercial? kings dogs !z Since you have been fishing commercial have you always fished for these or have you fished for silvers, too?

Does anyone else help you commercial fishing? No Yes who?

Did you use or trade any of the dog salmon for dog food? -- No Yes about how much? How may dogs, including pups, did you have?

Do you also fish for salmon for subsistence? No Yes kings dogs silvers

For subsistence fishermen:

Have you ever or anyone in your household fished commercially for salmon? No Yes When was that? Where did you fish from? What kind of salmon did you fish for? kings dogs silvers Where were you fishing then?

Why did you decide to stop commercial fishing?

SALMON FISHING HISTORY

Do you fish from the village or from a fish camp? for each kind of salmon? If not, which? Locate fish camp on the map.

How long have you been fishing from here or your fish camp?

If from the village, where do you dry and smoke your fish?

If from the village, have you always fished from the village or have you used a fish camp to fish from and put up fish?

If from a fish camp, do any other families or households use the same camp for salmon fishing? If yes, who?

How did you decide on this place for your fish camp?

Is there an Indian anme for this place? What does it mean?

Who used this place before you? when was that? what other families were here (at the camp) then? What other places have you used for your fish camp since you were married? (ASK BOTH SPOUSES)

Place (locate on map) When? Who else was at this camp? Why did you stop using it? Indian Name, if any GEAR TYPE

1.

2.

3.

4.

KING SALMON fishing activities

What type of gear do you use for subsistence fishing?

Who built the fishwheel?

Who got the wood for smoking? Do you get the wood at camp for from where?

Who usually drifts? When did you (they) begin drifting for kings?

Who usually cuts the fish? Does anybody else help?

(if at fish camp) Who else stayed with you at camp this summer?

Did you fish for any kings before the commercial season started? (set net or wheel)

Did weather, water level, or regulations affect your salmon fishing for subsistence this year?

No Yes In what way? How?

Did you have any problems getting subsistence salmon because of commercial salmon fishing?

No - Yes Please explain why: Did you fish for king salmon last year? FL u-l Did you give any king salmon to otherr families last year? who?

DOG SALHON (summer chums) fishing activities

T&at type of gear do you use for subsistence fishing?

Who built the fish wheel?

Who got the wood for smoking? Do you get the wood at camp or from where?

who usually cuts the fish?

Does anybody else help?

(if at fish camp) Who else stayed with you at camp this summer? Did weather, water level, or regulations affect your salmon fishing for subsistence this year?

No ~ Yes In what way? How? Did you have any problems getting subsistence salmon because of commercial salmon fishing?

No ~ Yes Please explain why: Did you fish for dog salmon last year?

Did you give any dog salmon to other families last year? who?

Do you use or trade any of the dog salmon? No Yes About how much? How may dogs, including pups, do you have?

SILVER SALMON (fall chums) fishing activities i What type of gear do you use for subsistence fishing?

Who built the fish wheel?

Who got the wood for smoking? Do you get the wood at camp or from where?

who usually drifts? When did you (they) begin drifting for silvers?

Who usually cuts the fish?

Does anybody else help?

(if at fish camp) Who else stayed with you at camp this summer? Did you fish for any silvers before the commercial season started? (set net or wheel)

Did weather, water level, or regulations affect your salmon fishing for subsistence this year?

No - Yes In what way? How? Did you have any problems getting subsistence salmon because of commercial salmon fishing?

No Yes Please explain why:

Did you fish for silvers last year?

Did you give any silvers to other families last year? who? ------Processing Method------

SUBSISTENCE HARVEST I/ fish # set f drift # a # /I # d # for CATCHES TOTAL wheel net net eaten dried strips salted canned frozen dogfood kings ggad dog salmon noolaagha fall chum "silvers" lagheen coho "chinook" noldlaagha sheefish whitefish GEAR What kind of gear do you use for subsistence fishing?

What size wheel do you use?

What size net do you use for kings? Drift net length mesh size Set net length mesh size

dog salmon Set net length mesh size

fall chums Drift net length mesh size ("silvers") Set net length mesh size

Did you use your own net or fish wheel for subsistence fishing or one belonging to someone in another household?

used own net used someone else's net used own fish wheel used someone else's fish wheel

What size boat do you use? What size outboard? wooden or aluminum?