DOCSLIB.ORG

Rela Ationship P Betwee Belug En the Na Ga Whale Ative Villa Es in Cook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rela Ationship P Betwee Belug En the Na Ga Whale Ative Villa Es in Cook Relationship Between the Native Village of Tyonek, Alaska and Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska Submitted to: NOAA Fisheries 709 W 9th Street, Room 420 • Juneau, Alaska 99801 Submitted by: Stephen R. Braund & Associates and Huntington Consulting Stephen R. Braund & Asssociates P.O. Box 1480, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 • 907-276-8222 (Phone); 907-276-6117 (Fax) • [email protected] June 2011 Front Cover Photograph: Tyonek Residents with Harvested Beluga, 2005. (Pictured from Left to Right: Jane Standifer, Peter Merryman, James Ollice, Joshua Salas, Jaison Salas, Randy Standifer, Sr., Rolland Standifer, Timothy Standifer, Randy Standifer, Jr., Dustin Constantine, Brandy Standifer, Sam Standifer. Photograph provided by Janelle Baker) Relationship Between the Native Village of Tyonek, Alaska and Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska Submitted to: NOAA Fisheries P.O. Box 21668 709 W 9th Street, Room 420 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Submitted by: Stephen R. Braund & Associates and Huntington Consulting Stephen R. Braund & Associates P.O. Box 1480, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 907-276-8222 (Phone); 907-276-6117 (Fax) [email protected] June 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SRB&A and Henry Huntington would like to thank the Native Village of Tyonek and the residents of Tyonek for their cooperation and assistance in completing this project. We would also like to give a special thanks to Ron Stanek for his help in conducting interviews, contacting and setting up interviews with a number of active and knowledgeable Tyonek beluga hunters, and for providing valuable advice and insight into the study design; to the 28 Tyonek residents for providing SRB&A with the valuable information used in this report; and to the Native Village of Tyonek for coordinating with SRB&A and providing the space to conduct the interviews and for supporting the project. NOA07_Tyonek Beluga Report_Jun2011 i Stephen R. Braund & Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on research conducted by Stephen R. Braund & Associates (SRB&A) and Henry Huntington of Huntington Consulting. The purpose of the study is to document the relationship between the residents of Tyonek, Alaska and beluga (Delphinapterus Leucas) whales in Cook Inlet. The study team conducted a literature review in addition to fieldwork in the community of Tyonek, during which researchers interviewed 28 residents who provided their knowledge and views about current and past beluga hunting and associated activities. A review of the literature, including ethnographic and subsistence-related studies, first-hand historical accounts, and archaeological research, revealed documentation of the hunting and use of beluga by upper Cook Inlet Dena’ina, including the people of Tyonek, since at least the 1700s until present. Several sources also noted the high value that Cook Inlet Dena’ina placed on beluga products such as beluga meat and oil. Tyonek residents’ level of beluga hunting activity has varied over the years, primarily due to changes in resource availability; however, cultural ties remained strong. After a decline in Cook Inlet beluga hunting during the 1940s through the 1960s, Tyonek residents began regularly hunting beluga again in the late 1970s. A decline in the Cook Inlet beluga population in the 1990s led to restrictions placed on beluga hunting in 1999. Since that time, residents’ harvests of beluga, in addition to their harvest methods, have been regulated. The study team interviewed Tyonek residents who either had experience with or knowledge about hunting beluga whales; this included individuals who may not have hunted beluga, but who had participated in beluga hunting related activities (including hunting preparation, butchering, processing, and other associated activities). These individuals provided descriptions of the methods of preparing for, hunting, butchering, and processing beluga, in addition to observations about the historical, social, and cultural aspects of beluga hunting. Although aspects of the beluga hunt, especially in regards to hunting technologies, have changed, much of the activities surrounding a beluga hunt have stayed the same. These include methods of butchering and distributing beluga and methods of processing beluga for consumption. Based on the literature review, there have been periods of time with few or no documented harvests of beluga by Tyonek people. This may be due either to Tyonek residents focusing on other more available resources at those times or simply a lack of documentation of beluga harvests. Regardless, Tyonek residents maintain the traditions and values associated with beluga whales and continue to pass on traditional knowledge associated with beluga whales and beluga whale hunting. Furthermore, Tyonek hunters continue to apply the knowledge passed on by their elders about beluga hunting in the Cook Inlet environment; the use of this knowledge helps ensure safe and successful hunts. Tyonek residents still regard beluga as a highly valued subsistence food and hope to continue hunting beluga in the future. Their responses indicated that the relationship between Tyonek residents and Cook Inlet beluga remains strong despite recent restrictions on their hunting activities. NOA07_Tyonek Beluga Report_Jun2011 iii Stephen R. Braund & Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Maps ........................................................................................................................................................... ix List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... x Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Field Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Planning and Approval and Fieldwork Preparation ............................................................................ 4 Identifying and Contacting Respondents ........................................................................................................ 4 Interview Method ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Field Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Post-field Data Processing .............................................................................................................................. 5 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Tyonek – A General History ........................................................................................................................... 6 Hunting and Use of Beluga Prior to the early 1900s ...................................................................................... 9 Hunting and Use of Beluga from the Early 1900s to the Early 1940s .......................................................... 15 Hunting and Use of Beluga from the Early 1940s to 1978 ........................................................................... 17 Hunting and Use of Beluga from 1979 to present ........................................................................................ 18 Current Relationship to Beluga Whaling .......................................................................................................... 25 Preparation for the Beluga Hunt ................................................................................................................... 26 Participation in the Beluga Hunt ................................................................................................................... 28 Hunting Experience .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recovery Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus Leucas)
    Recovery Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration December 2016 Cover photo is a composite of two photographs and was created specifically for this document. Use by permission only: Anchorage photo: Michael Benson Beluga photo: T. McGuire, LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., under MMPA/ESA Research permit # 14210 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale DISCLAIMER Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate such reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, for the conservation and survival of listed species. Plans are published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than NMFS. They represent the official position of NMFS only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions.
    [Show full text]
  • August 21, 2015
    Testimony before the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on applications to reserve water in the Chuitna River watershed in Upper Cook Inlet August 21, 2015 I. Overview Thank you. My name’s Bob Shavelson1 and I’m the Executive Director of Cook Inletkeeper, a nonprofit organization founded twenty years ago that works to protect clean water, healthy salmon and a vibrant democracy in Alaska. We have been focused on the Chuitna coal strip mine since around 2004 when the project proponents dusted off their old plans and started another run at exporting coal from the Beluga coalfields in Upper Cook Inlet to Asian markets. Today I will talk about several topics to show the proposed reservations of water in middle Creek are in the public interest. First I will review studies on international coal markets and pricing structures to show why the Chuitna coal strip mine is not financially viable, and therefore, will not occur within a “reasonable time” to affect alternate uses of the water.2 Next, I will provide information showing that DNR under-valued Middle Creek and the surrounding Chuitna watershed, and that the proposed reservations will have positive benefits to the applicant and on economic activity, fish and game resources, recreational opportunities, and public health.3 Finally, I will discuss our permitting process, including salmon stream restoration and how a grant of the instream flow applications does not derail state and federal permitting processes to harm other persons.4 In conclusion, I will make the case why Commissioner Myers and the Walker Administration have a legal, moral and scientific duty to grant the requested instream flow applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Canyon Creek Administrative Appeal
    ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID‐PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERNATIONAL July 25, 2013 Via Email Daniel Sullivan Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 [email protected] Re: Final Finding and Decision to Hold Competitive Coal Lease Sale Canyon Creek Area near Skwentna, Alaska ADL 553937 Dear Commissioner Sullivan: On behalf of Alaska Center for the Environment, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Survival, Center for Biological Diversity, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, Chuitna Citizens Coalition, Cook Inletkeeper, Envision Mat‐Su, and Sierra Club, Earthjustice files this administrative appeal, pursuant to 11 AAC 02.030, of the Final Best Interest Finding and Decision to Hold a Competitive Lease Sale for Coal in the Canyon Creek Area near Skwentna, Alaska, dated July 5, 2013 (Final Finding). As the following explains, we file this appeal of the Final Finding because it omits serious analysis of several important considerations including the crucial issue of climate change, makes unsupportable assumptions about the ability to mitigate future harm to human health and the environment, and overstates the benefits supposedly accruing from the coal lease sale. Additionally, the statutes and regulations governing coal exploration conflict with the Alaska Constitution, and therefore no coal lease should be issued until the corresponding statutory and regulatory language is revised to comport with the constitution’s requirement that exclusive rights of exploration be granted only for “specific” periods. For these reasons, the Final Finding fails to conform to the mandates of the Alaska Constitution and AS 38.05.035, and the competitive coal lease sale in the Canyon Creek area is not in the best interest of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationship Between the Native Village of Tyonek, Alaska and Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska
    Relationship Between the Native Village of Tyonek, Alaska and Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska Submitted to: NOAA Fisheries 709 W 9th Street, Room 420 • Juneau, Alaska 99801 Submitted by: Stephen R. Braund & Associates and Huntington Consulting Stephen R. Braund & Asssociates P.O. Box 1480, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 • 907-276-8222 (Phone); 907-276-6117 (Fax) • [email protected] June 2011 Front Cover Photograph: Tyonek Residents with Harvested Beluga, 2005. (Pictured from Left to Right: Jane Standifer, Peter Merryman, James Ollice, Joshua Salas, Jaison Salas, Randy Standifer, Sr., Rolland Standifer, Timothy Standifer, Randy Standifer, Jr., Dustin Constantine, Brandy Standifer, Sam Standifer. Photograph provided by Janelle Baker) Relationship Between the Native Village of Tyonek, Alaska and Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska Submitted to: NOAA Fisheries P.O. Box 21668 709 W 9th Street, Room 420 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Submitted by: Stephen R. Braund & Associates and Huntington Consulting Stephen R. Braund & Associates P.O. Box 1480, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 907-276-8222 (Phone); 907-276-6117 (Fax) [email protected] June 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SRB&A and Henry Huntington would like to thank the Native Village of Tyonek and the residents of Tyonek for their cooperation and assistance in completing this project. We would also like to give a special thanks to Ron Stanek for his help in conducting interviews, contacting and setting up interviews with a number of active and knowledgeable Tyonek beluga hunters, and for providing valuable advice and insight into the study design; to the 28 Tyonek residents for providing SRB&A with the valuable information used in this report; and to the Native Village of Tyonek for coordinating with SRB&A and providing the space to conduct the interviews and for supporting the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Public Benefits of the Chuitna Coal Project
    Net Public Benefits of the Chuitna Coal Project A Preliminary Assessment1 Prepared for Cook Inletkeeper By John Talberth, Ph.D.2 Evan Branosky3 September 2011 1 Generous support for this research was provided by the Alex C. Walker Foundation through a grant to Cook Inletkeeper. 2 Senior Economist, Center for Sustainable Economy, [email protected]. 3 Environmental Policy Fellow, Center for Sustainable Economy, [email protected]. Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary ES-1 1.0 Regulatory Framework 1-1 1.1 Net public benefits framework and key components 1-1 1.1.1 Incorporating both market and non-market costs and benefits 1-3 1.1.2 Ecosystem services 1-5 1.1.3 Consumer surplus as the basis for benefit calculations 1-7 1.1.4 With and without framework 1-8 1.1.5 Externalities 1-9 1.1.6 Uncertainty, risks, and sensitivity analysis 1-11 1.2 Net public benefits and the regulatory framework for Chuitna 1-12 1.2.1 Water Resources Development Act 1-13 1.2.2 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources 1-13 Implementation Studies 1.2.3 National Environmental Policy Act 1-14 1.2.4 Clean Water Act 1-18 1.2.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 1-19 1.2.6 Solid waste management permits 1-19 1.2.7 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Section 103 1-20 1.2.8 Dam safety certification 1-20 1.2.9 Alaska Coastal Management Plan consistency review 1-20 1.3 Specific recommendations for the economic analysis 1-21 2.0 National and Regional Economic Development Benefits 2-1 2.1 National economic development
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Assessment and Project Implementation Plan
    The Tyonek Tribal Conservation District Natural Resource Assessment and Project Implementation Plan Compiled by the staff of TTCD June 2013 THE TYONEK TRIBAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Authors: Christy Cincotta Tyonek Tribal Conservation District Erin Hoffman Innovative Funding, LLC Matthew Schmitt Tyonek Tribal Conservation District Funding for this project provided by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Tyonek Native Corporation Cover photo: Indian Creek road crossing after culvert replacement and restoration project coordinated by the Tyonek Tribal Conservation District. This project, which was developed as a result of the creation of this document, is discussed in more detail in chapters 6 and 12. Photo taken in August 2013 by Christy Cincotta. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of this document would like to thank several groups and individuals, whose support and assistance was essential to this project. We wish to thank and acknowledge the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tyonek Native Corporation who provided funding for this project. We would also like to thank the following individuals: Margaret Perdue and David Wigglesworth of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, who contributed many hours to the completion of this document and assisted with editing and brainstorming; David Kroto of the Tyonek Native Corporation, who shared his considerable ArcGIS skills to assist with the creation of maps for this document; Melissa McCord of the Tyonek Tribal Conservation District who assisted with photos, editing, and tracking down information; the staff of the Native Village of Tyonek and the Tyonek Native Corporation, many of whom took time to answer questions and provide assistance; all of the partners listed in this document who provided us with information, and the TTCD Board of Directors (Patrick Chuitt Jr, Elizabeth J Standifer, Ron T Stanek, Emil J McCord, and Harriet Kaufman), who provided insight throughout the project, answered questions, and provided edits.
    [Show full text]