TERRITORY, TERRITORIALITY, AND CULTURAL
CHANGE IN AN INDIGENOUS SOCIETY:
OLD CROW, YUKON TERRITORY
by
ROBERT JAMES McSKIMMING
B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1971
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department
of
Geography
We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
May, 1975 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study.
I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Depa rtment
The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada
Date ii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the research is to examine the impact of cultural, economic, and environmental factors on territory and territoriality in Old Crow, Yukon
Territory. It investigates both the social and spatial changes in the society. An historical sketch provides the circumstances which led Kutchin
Indians of the northern Yukon to eventually attach themselves to trading posts. The changing nature of resource-use patterns and the relationship between
•land-use' territory and 'perceived' territory is compared. The thesis framework, then, is to present an evolution of territory and territoriality in an isolated indigenous society.
The territory of Old Crow is defined as that which reflects native use and perception. Territoriality, on the other hand, is the behaviour of dominating, controlling, and defending a specific space. Through use of the ecological approach the relationship between occupied territory and the group's image of its territory is explored. At the same time the present conditions of Old Crow's used and perceived territory is compared with past use and past expressions of territoriality.
The ultimate purpose of this work is to shed light on the relationship between man and the environment with which he is intimately familiar. Little is known ill
of the implications of territoriality on human behaviour and even less is known about the effect of territorial change on that behaviour.
The thesis shows that territory cannot be separated from the behaviour of territoriality; the community's territory is that space which all members could identify as belonging to them. The group, essential to geographic study, is shown to be held together by common values toward the control and use of their territory and individual view• points could not be secured. The research supports the thesis that through cultural, social, and economic change the spatial extent of land used diminished and that there was a comparable drop in the spatial extent of territoriality.
Furthermore, there has been an intensification of land use in the 'core' of the territory which has been parallelled by an intensification in the expressions of territoriality.
However, although the total extent of the land is not used, it does not suggest that the people do not view the land as belonging to them.
The land and its resources as perceived by the people of Old Crow are shown to be the only known and permanent commodities. Not only can the land provide a livelihood, but it is shown to be part of the people - a base for identity. In the final analysis it is the land itself now under attack which intensifies the relationship between Old Crow people and their land. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 1. The Study: Its Purpose and Scope 1 (a) The Land-Settlement Dichotomy 2 (b) The Kutchin People k 2. Location and Setting of the Study Area 8 (a) Physical Geography 8 (b) The People of Old Crow 10 3. Methodological Context 12 (a) The Ecological Approach 12 (i) human ecology 12 (ii) ecology in Arctic studies 16 (iii) ecological approach in the present study 18 (b) Territory and Territoriality 19 (c) The Problem 22 (i) the hypothesis 22 (ii) data and sample size 2 3 (iii) procedures and measurements 2k
CHAPTER II PEOPLE AND PLACE: OLD CROW'S HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 2? A. TRADITIONAL MATERIAL AND SOCIAL CULTURE 27 1. Seasonal Movement and Location 27 2. Hunting and Fishing 30 3. Dress, Shelter and Travel 32 k. Social Organization 3k B. EARLY POST-CONTACT CULTURE 3k 1. Contact History 35 (a) Fur Traders 35 (b) Missionaries 41 (c) Gold Seekers and Whalers k2 (d) The Government k$ 2. Changes in the Way of Life k5 (a) Seasonal Movement and Location k"? (b) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping kB (c) Dress, Shelter, and Travel 50 (d) Social Organization 52 3. The Establishment of Old Crow 5k V
Page
CHAPTER III OLD CROW TERRITORY 58 A. THE OLD CROW LAND 58 1. Utilization of the Old Crow Land 58 2. Change in Land-Use Pattern 6l 3. Ownership and the Intensity of the Use of the Old Crow Land . 70 (a) Ownership 70 (b) Intensity of Land Use 81 (i) trapping 81 (ii) hunting 89 (iii) ratting 93 (iv) fishing 96 4. Summary 96 B. THE OLD CROW ECONOMY 99 1. The Community Based Economy 100 2. Land Based Economy 105 (a) Cash for Land Activities 105 (b) Direct Consumption from Land Activities 108 3. Summary and Conclusions 113
CHAPTER IV TERRITORIALITY 115 1. Territoriality in the Past 116 2. Present Day Claims 122 3. The Perception of a Territory 126 (a) Core Area 130 (b) Home Territory 130 4. Territorial Commitment 134 5. The Old Crow Claim 142
CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 144 1. Land-Use 144 2. Perceived Territory 146 3. Economic Realities 147 4. Territory and Territoriality 149
REFERENCES * 151
APPENDIX I OLD CROW FACT AND OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE 165
APPENDIX II ENDPAPERS I83 vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1 Athapaskans in Northwest America 5
1.2 Old Crow Region 9
2.1 Kutchin Territory in the Northern Yukon 28
2.2 Contact History and the Tribes in Northwest America ' J6
2.3 Caribou Migration Routes 56
3.1 Trapping Centre Locations 60
3.2 Old Crow Land Use, Long Ago 63
3.3 Old Crow Land Use, i960 64
3.4 Crow Flats Muskrat Trapping Sectors 6?
3.5 Old Crow Land Use, 1973 69
3.6 Crow Flats Muskrat Trapping Camps (i960 and 1961) 72
3.7 Crow Flats Muskrat Trapping Camps, 1973 78
3.8 Country Food Production: Old Crow Hunter/Trapper Family in 1973 109
4.1 Kutchin Inter Tribal Territoriality 117
4.2 Land Claim Territory and Group Trapping Area 124
4.3 Image of Old Crow Territory's Core 129
4.4 Older People's Image of Old Crow Territory 131
4.5 Younger People's Image of Old Crow Territory 132 vii
Page
4.6 Category Frequency of Scale Points For Each Location 136
4.7 Correlation and Regression of Defense Intensity and Accessible Distance from Old Crow 138
4.8 Old Crow Attitude Toward Pipeline 140
Questionnaire Map I69 Loucheux Map of the Old Crow Country •e-r cm r ocket Old Crow, 196 3
Old Crow, 1973 En&pap-er n-> f vill
LIST OF TABLES
Page .
3.1 Ratting Camps and Ratting Sectors, Old Crow Flats, 196O-6I 73
3.2 Muskrat Trapping Associations Long Ago, I960, 1973 77
3.3 Relationship Between Muskrat Trappers and Owner of Ratting Sectors, 1973 79
3.4 Productivity of Winter Traplines In Old Crow by Mile of Line Length and Per Trapper 83
3.5 Old Crow Fur Returns, 1938-1973 87
3.6 Hunt Productivity and Land Use
Intensity 90
3.7 Old Crow Game Returns, 1963-1973 92
3.8 Muskrat Camp Productivity 94
3.9 Fur Returns for Muskrats " 95
3.10 Old Crow Fisheries, 1967-1973 97
3.11 Length of Time in Wage Employment,
Old Crow, 1972-73 100
3.12 Employment Opportunities 101
3.13 Wage Income Distribution, Old Crow, 1972-73 102 3.14 Affinity to Old Crow by Residents 104 3.15 Fur Income, 1967-73 106
3.16 Families with Income From Land Activities, Old Crow, 1972-73 107
3.17 Land-Based Income as a Per Centage of Total Income, Old Crow, 1972-73 108 ix
Page
3.18 Family Requirements and Consumption of Country Food, 1973 110
4.1 Pre-Contact and Early Contact Territoriality in Northwest North America 119
4.2 A. Defense Response Values 135 B. Defense Indicies and Accessible Distance from Old Crow to the Sample Locations 136
11.1 Loucheux Place Name Map, Name and
Number Key 184
11.2 Building Code Key for Old Crow (1973) 196
11.3 Building Code Key for Old Crow (1963) 200 X
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The field portion of this research was carried out in the summer of 1973» under the auspices of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Federal and territorial agencies were extremely helpful in my search for data.
In Old Crow the people were friendly and open, enduring what must have seemed ceaseless inquiry.
Thanks go to the following, who, from time to time assisted in the research: Charlie Abel, Johnny Abel,
Martha Benjamin, Ben Charlie, Charlie Peter Charlie,
Helen Charlie, Shirley Frost, John Kendl, Peter Lord,
Neil McDonald, George Moses, Grafton NJootli, and
Moses Tizya. Special mention is made of Randall
Charlie, Glenna Frost, and Norma Kassi, who made valuable contributions to the research team.
My stay in Old Crow would not have been as rewarding without the company of Bob and Clare Sharp,
Ed and Mary Issacs, Herta Richter, and Rev. John Watts, who are all knowledgeable of the problems in northern society. I came to rely on Bob Sharp and Mary Issacs as major critics of the research. xi
At U.B.C. more than gratitude is owing to my advisor, Dr. John Stager, and to my reader, Dr. David
Ley, for their endless patience. Dr. Stager's expertise in the north proved invaluable to the framework of the research, while Dr. Ley's guidance with certain techniques in behavioural geography added much to the thesis. Mary C.orbett toiled over the computer work, and my wife, Allena, actually made the confused mass of notes legible.
Robert J. McSkimming
March, 1975 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Old Crow, a relatively isolated Indian village in the
northern Yukon Territory, exists in a condition of rapid
cultural change. Traditional settlement patterns of small, nomadic groups have changed to a sedentary community life.
The band unit still exists; however, economic and cultural
factors have altered the perception and occupance of the
land and the use of resources.
Subsistence activities are now restricted to a resource hinterland near Old Crow, rather than the wider expanse of the Porcupine drainage basin. Movement of people into Old
Crow has created social pressures, causing changes in the community which are paralleled by changes on the land.
1. The Study: Its Purpose and Scope
This study examines both the social and spatial changes in Old Crow's society. The thesis describes historical and economic circumstances which led Kutchin Indians of the northern
Yukon to attach themselves first tentatively, and then more permanently, to trading posts. The changing nature of resource-use patterns and the relationship between the
•land-use' territory and 'perceived' territory is compared. 2
Many settlements in the north do not have an economic
"base broad enough to absorb a large number of residents
(Usher, 1970: xix; Wolforth, 1971: 1). Trapping has declined as an occupation, although with nothing to fill the void, trapping, especially for muskrat, still engages many of the people (Tanner, 1966: 12). In Old Crow, winter trapping and ratting declined to an extreme low in 1969-70, but has been steadily increasing since. Recently many short-term opportunities have arisen to take the place of trapping; however, over the long term, Old Crow seems destined to a mixed settlement and land economy.
(a) The Land-Settlement Dichotomy
Honigmann and Honigmann gave the label 'dual allegiance' for an adaptive process to changing economic conditions in a community. The condition described resistance to changes.
"Where some families have chosen careers in town, others remain primarily fixed in hunting and trapping careeers. Others seem undecided, or unable to keep a Job in town, shift back and forth."
(Honigmann and Honigmann, 1965: 77)
Wolforth expresses this as a scale where the bush dweller is at one end and the town dweller is at the other (1970: xix). 3
Such people shift back and forth because the jobs are
seasonal in nature. Cohen (1962) observed that people
delibertately sought out seasonal or part-time jobs in
order to return to land activities (1962: ?6).
Chance (1965) also described the dual allegiance of
Eskimos on Barter Island, Alaska. He stated that acceptance
of certain white traits means a shift in their self identity
(1965: 375). Vallee (1962: 133) described this 'dual allegiance1 not only in terms of livelihood but also in
terms of a new social class system where people who have accepted some white traits are held in high esteem. Smith
(1967), Ervin (1968), Mailhot (1968), and Lubart (1969) have also observed the same conditions in the Mackenzie Delta.
These studies suggest a polarization between bush and
settlement in the north. Old Crow does not escape this
condition; in fact, it is in a critical position. To 1970
there had been a steady decline of trapping, although few
full-time employment opportunities were available.< In the near future there is a proposal for an oil pipeline close 1 to Old Crow. There is also the question of Land Claims
to be settled, as well as growing pressure for oil exploration
Land Claims: Negotiations for the title of certain crown land or land leased from the crown to be set aside for control and management by the local indigenous population. 4
in the region. The problem is to assess past conditions
which have affected the people of Old Crow, and determine
the impact of these conditions on the economy of the
community.
(b) The Kutchin People
Many studies have reconstructed the traditional ethno•
graphy of the Kutchin Indians. The classic is Osgood's
(1936b) done in the summer of 1932. The research dealt with
the distribution of Kutchin bands (1936a) and the similarities
among them (193*0. Unfortunately he limited his research
by not travelling extensively through the Kutchin country
and relying on two primary informants. Osgood also cited
observations made by early fur traders (e.g. Hardisty, 1866;
Jones, 1866) and missionaries (e.g. Kirkby, 1864).
Other research has been specifically on individual
Kutchin bands, both supporting and querying many of Osgood's
findings. For example, there seemed to be less geographical
isolation than Osgood thought, with numerous examples of
inter-tribal commerce and warfare in studies by Slobodln
(I960, 1962) among the Tatlit Kutchin, and Leechman (1954) among the Vunta Kutchin (see Fig. # 1.1). Balikci (I963) working in Old Crow criticizes Osgood's reconstruction of 5
in Gulf Of NORTHWEST A I a s k a AMERICA (After McClellan, 1964)
FIGURE 1.1 6
the social clan system, while McKennan (1965)» in Natsit country, disagrees with Osgood's assertion that all
Kutchin located their summer residences for fishing purposes.
The various groups of Indian people in these ethno• graphies were called "tribes", "community", or "bands". 2
Welsh (1970) adds the term "regional band" which described the social cohesiveness among small hunting groups in a particular resource region and distinct from the small, socio-economic, highly mobile hunting bands.
The literature on Kutchin Indians has focussed primarily on white contact and social change. However, no one has gone beyond using the resource region as a convenient classification for particular social groups. Osgood's studies (1936a, 1936b) were truly a taxonomy of Athapaskan groups: " ... each tribe is attached to a section of country for which some river is the principal artery" (1936b: 13)•
Slobodin (1962), Balikci (1963), and McKennan (1965) have all discussed in tremendous detail material and social- cultural changes, while Leechman (195*0 concentrated mostly on contemporary material change. Slobodin also described
2 This concept was adopted from June Helm, "Bilaterality in the Soclo-territorial Organization of the Arctic Drainage Dene" Ethnology (4:4), 1964, pp. 36I-385, in her attempt to describe the relationship of members in small hunting groups with members of other hunting groups, and the relationship of the larger territorial groups with other territorial groups. 7
seasonal movement with respect to warfare (i960) and
analyzed the effects of the Klondike Gold Rush in his
study on Tatlit Kutchin (1963).
Other studies have been directed toward social
problems. Honigmann (1965) and Balikci (1968)
described social disintegration in certain northern
communities, including Old Crow. This disintegration was characterized by distrustful competition, envy and
evil thoughts that individuals have for one another.
Marshall (1970) gives an example of this condition by
describing the social effects from a series of environmental
changes.
Research also has occurred in the fields of archaeology
(Irving, 1968), palaeontology (Harrington, 1971)* and pre•
history migration (Hall, 1969) within the Old Crow region.
Hall put forward the thesis that Kutchin were "distinctly
mountain, not riverine, people" (19&9: 328), but Irving
(1968j 19) and Harrington (1971: 59) have shown that for
at least a part of the year people utilized river valleys
in pre-history times.
There are three contemporary studies of Old Crow
(Welsh, 1970; Naysmith, 1971; Bisset and Meldrum, 1973).
Naysmith's study (1971) centres on the problems of a
hunting-trapping economy and future wage employment for
the village. Bisset and Meldrum (1973) assume trapping
and hunting will become extinct in their description of 8
the contemporary socio-economic condition in Old Crow.
Both studies were undertaken to predict the economic future of Old Crow. Welsh (1970), with an historical view, describes the relationship between changing settlement patterns and the nature of social organization.
It is evident that none of the studies have attempted to totally integrate man and the environment. To this point the analysis of present conditions in Old Crow has fallen short. It is the intent of this thesis to add the relationship between man and his environment.
2. Location and Setting of the Study Area
(a.) Physical Geography (Old Crow, Y.T.:
67° 35* N, 139° 45' W)
The study area includes the relatively isolated drainage basin of the Porcupine River in the northern
Yukon. In this land large rivers, streams and numerous lakes abound. The Porcupine River crosses this area in a generally westward direction, originating in the Ogilvie
Mountains, first flowing north, then meandering slowly through a broad flat plain before swinging west through the Porcupine Plateau. The Porcupine River, Old Crow River, and all their tributaries have valleys well below the
general level of the lake-covered plateau.
A most significant area of lakes is located fifty 9
FIGURE 1.2 10
miles north of the Porcupine River, a broad basin known as Old Crow Flats. The "Flats" abound in wildlife that have always played a central position in the different
Kutchin annual cycles. Two other areas of heavy ponding occur immediately south of the Old Crow village, and in the northern portion of the Eagle Plain.
Elevated areas exist between the lakes and have a thick cover of peat with dwarf birch and scattered stunted spruce.
For the remainder of the drainage area the soil is silt and clay of glacio-lacustrine origin. The polygonal network of ridges in the low lying areas of the region suggest an abundance of segregated ice in the form of ice wedges and ground ice.
The Porcupine drainage'area is underlain by continuous permafrost located within two feet of the ground surface (Naysmith, 1971: 20). When the insulating surface layer of peat is disturbed the permafrost melts to depths of several feet with a great deal of subsidence occurring.
Gullies draining from the basin surface rapidly incise themselves and on a number of occasions entire lakes bordering the main stream have been drained.
(b) The People of Old Crow
Three Kutchin 'regional bands' are represented in Old 11
Crow. Kutchin, or "dwellers" , are a distinctive group
of Northern Athapaskans (see Pig. #1.1). The people who
originally inhabited the Crow Flats were termed Vunta, meaning 'among the lakes'. The Tukkuth Kutchin, who at one time lived in the headwaters of the Porcupine
River, were known as 'dwellers among the rocks at the top
of the creek'. The Natsit inhabited the Upper Chandalar
River and were 'dwellers above the timber'. The people
of Old Crow no longer relate to their original tribes and tribal territory. Their home and life is in Old
Crow, brought together by the "melting pot" (Osgood,
1936: 14) of the trading post (Harrington, 196I1 5).
Old Crow is located on the north bank of the Porcupine
River, a mile west of its junction with the Old Crow River.
Old Crow has maintained a remoteness, being accessible only by air or water. In the summer of 1973 the native population of Old Crow was one hundred and eighty-three, predominantly 4 status Indians and a small minority who are non-status .
There was a white population of eighteen. This study focusses on those people in the community who regard it as a permanent
J 'Quarrelers' and 'Loucheux' were originally used by early explorers and 'Loucheux* is still used as the name of the Kutchin language.
4 Status and non-status Indians: Status Indians are those who are registered (legally) as an Indian with his name appearing on a band list. He has aboriginal or treaty rights and can have residence on a reserve or crown land. Non-status Indians are those that give up the right, or Indian women who marry non-Indians, and all their descendants. 12
home; it excludes the white people because none are permanent residents.
3. Methodological Context
(a) The Ecological Approach
The present study employs an ecological approach to changes in the social and spatial arrangement of groups.
We are interested, therefore, in the interrelationships of men, who behave in space and who express social organization and perception, and the encompassing environment (BrookfIeld, 1964: 284, 286).
Ecology is both an approach and a distinctive field of study. The difference lies in the major concern of the researcher — whether one is interested in the total ecological balance in an ecosystem, or a population's place in a particular web of life.
(i) human ecology
Barrows was first to suggest the importance of
•hiuman ecology' to geggraphy, in 1923. His plea was a reaction against the process ideas of Davis, and against
Semple, who professed Ratzel's thoughts concerning the influence of the physical environment on mankind. 13
Barrows (1923) put forward human ecology as the organizing
concept in geography (p. 8) which he considered to be
regional geography. In otherwords, he suggested that geography and human ecology were one and the same thing
(p. 3)• Those who followed Barrow's lead separated man and the environment by either considering the physical aspects of the environment alone (e.g. Wedel,.. 1961) , or man's effects upon it (e.g. Thompson, 196l).
These studies established the'man-land view' of human ecology (see Eyre and Jones, 1966). This point of view has been especially fruitful in studies which are concerned with groups dependent upon the land, particularly indigenous groups intimately linked with the immediate environment. This work has been common among anthropologists
(e.g. Leacock, 195^; Murphy and Stewart, 1956) and geographers
(e.g. Heidenreich, 1963; Poote and Williamson, I966;
Brookfield, 1968).
Downs (1970) stated that all man-land relationships are essentially ecological (p. 68) while Mikesell (1967) considered the common border between geography and anthropology to be the man-land view of 'human ecology', which he termed 'cultural ecology'.
The concept of cultural ecology was originally labelled by the anthropologist Julian Steward (195*0.
He felt that the ecological approach could be used to explain the adjustment of cultural features "which are In•
most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements" (195^-s 36). He was most interested in how particular variables functioned together (Vayda and
Rappaport, 1968: 485). Carl Sauer similarly stated that to understand human associations we must examine the development of land-use practices, a sequence of events, with respect to the distribution of the population (1941:
360).
Brookfield (1964: 286) added that the inner workings of culture and the reasons for human behaviour must also be included to understand the processes of land and resource exploitation patterns. Mikesell included empirical factors of landscape and livelihood, as well as the invisible social and cultural basis for these patterns (1967: 628-629).
An alternative view of 'human ecology' is the 'spatial view' that originated in the Chicago school of sociology in the 1920's. It defined 'human ecology' as:
" ... a study of the spatial and temporal relations of human beings as affected by the selective, distributive, and accommodation forces of the environment."
(McKenzie, 1924: 18)
Park (1936) dealt with man's place in the web of life; the balance of nature; the concepts of competition, dominance, succession, and symbiosis; and biological economics. Faris
(I967) stated, in retrospect, that the method of the human ecologist was to isolate the symbiotic elements in human 15
life (p. 46). McKenzie (1924: 18) felt that in order to
understand the spatial behaviour of people, human ecology was a necessary perspective to discover the spatial relationship among populations and their institutions.
Modern views of the social ecological school have dropped the idea that the community is a biological organism and
spatial organization is not necessarily viewed in a symbiotic state (e.g. Rowland, 1972; or Peuker and Rase, 1971).
A third alternative view of 'human ecology' is the modelling (Stoddart, I967), or systems view (Morgan and
Moss, 1965). This view has been expressed often in terms of socio-economic variables (e.g. Schnore, 196l; or Naysmith,
1971). The objective of this view is to provide a precise quantitative explanation, or prediction, or relationships between resources and their utilization. Factorial ecology
(e.g. Black, 1973)1 based upon multivariate factor analysis, could easily be drawn methodologically into this systems view.
Within the literature there is conflict about the use of the ecological approach. One argument is directed towards whether the interaction between man and the environment should be viewed functionally, in an isolated period of time, .or historically. The second argument arises over the dualism of man and the environment by separating rather than integrating the effects on each other. The conflict remains; we must realize that the environment, 16
cultural development, and social interaction cannot be separated.
(ii) ecology in Arctic studies
In the Arctic and sub-Arctic one cannot separate the
indigenous people from their environment. They were at the top of the food chain subsisting totally on resources the environment offered. Much of the early work documenting the subsistence and material cultures, remarked on particular adaptations to environment (e.g. Jones, 1866; and Murray,
1910). Others drew attention to the relative congruence of cultural areas and natural areas (e.g. Stefansson, 1913; and Osgood, 193^). Recently, with economic expansion, and industrial development, a proliferation of studies has increased our understanding. Possibly the most profound study was Project Chariot, which included work
in human geography (Saario and Kessel, 1966; and Foote and Williamson, I966) as an integral part of a study on planned ecological change. In Canada, the Department of 5
Indian Affairs and Northern Development (I.A.N.D.)
initiated studies in the late 1950's for regional
economic development programmes (e.g. Tanner, 1966). 5 Formerly Northern Affairs and National Resources (N.A.N.R.). 17
Studies now tend to focus on the ecology and economy
of small villages (e.g. Marshall, 1970; and Usher, 1970)
and the behaviour within these villages (Welsh, 1970) and
territories (Sonnenfeld, 1967). These studies have provided
information on the economic trends of communities (Arbess,
I967); the potential of resource development for particular
regions (Hill, 1967; Naysmith, 1971); and the social/
cultural conditions, including demographic studies, within
certain communities (Honigmann and Honigmann, 1965; Smith,
1971). The studies have been strong in description and
have provided a wealth of reference information. However, with few exceptions (Usher, 1971) the studies have not
provided adequate alternatives in solving socio-economic depression in the communities.
Most studies originate from a central problem that is
evident over the Arctic: settlement life has not satisfied
the needs of sedentary people.
Land activities, the centre of economic and social
life within the indigenous populations, have been declining.
Old Crow is no exception and although there has been a marked increase in land activities since 1970, we must be cautious in predicting this trend for the future. 18
(iii) ecological approach in the present study
The thesis is interested in the spatial change of
resource utilization over time by the indigenous people of
Old Crow. Specifically, the study examines how changes in
interaction between environmental and socio-economic
conditions affect the spatial and social behaviour of
people in the region. Thus, the present approach takes the man-land view of human, or cultural, ecology. It is concerned with the nature of the resources themselves, the
spatial ramifications in the utilization of the resources, the effects of these on social, cultural and economic conditions of the community, and the consequent changes
in these conditions that affect the nature of resources.
Many studies (Brookfield, 1964; Vayda and Rappaport,
1968; Kaplan and Manners, 1972) used the term 'effective environment', rather than 'environment'. Brookfield defined this concept as "the land as resources" (1964: 287), while
Vayda and Rappaport described it as "the cognitive environment"
(1968: 490). More recently, Kaplan and Manners used the concept as that environment which is "conceptualized, utilized, and modified by man" (1972: 79).
This present study encompasses man and the environment rather than separating them, and avoids the functional- historical argument. Although the primary goal is to understand the spatial ramifications of resource utilization as it changed over time, we must also include the parallel 19
changes in the social structure. All these socio-economic
variables are a product of culture and culture change, and
are manifested in northern communities such as Old Crow.
As the values of an invading culture become dominant, the
view of resources changes. It will be shown that even land
becomes a resource and therefore the areal extent of that
land Itself becomes a cultural characteristic.
(b) Territory and Territoriality
One theme of the thesis is to examine the relationship
between the physical land use around Old Crow and the
community's spatial image of its territory. The concept
'effective environment' is important here but cannot be easily
defined spatially. Yet it is in this environment that all human activity occurs and all behaviour is elicited; it
engulfs all of a group's activities - they live in it, shape it, and are products of it. This is most evident
in an indigenous society where the group's livelihood is dependent on the physical environment.
The concept of territory may be usefully employed here to give the 'effective environment' spatial bounds. In addition, it represents an area that is behavlourally important to the perceiver. Territoriality should also be introduced to distinguish between the idea of spatial extent and the intensity of commitment by individuals and a community 20
to this territory. In summary, territory is an assigned area determined by the criteria used, while territoriality comprises the behaviour and cognitive processes of dominating, controlling, and belonging to a specific space.
These concepts are important for the understanding of human behaviour. In an experimental situation It was shown that if th© designed environment was changed, Individual behaviour also changed (Stea, 1969). One's territory is both learned and instinctual (Lymann and Scott, 196?: 236) and if the territory were to be encroached upon, some reaction would result that expressed territoriality. Bragdon (1967) decided that a deep attachment to the land provided a sense of identity for the people who obtained their livelihood from it.
The loss of this identity was described by Bourne (1955) during the urban invasion of small self-supporting rural parishes near London in late 19th century England; life became meaningless as social conditions altered and people could not adapt. Happaport's study (1968) in New Guinea indicated the attachment primitive people have for their land through a symbolic ritual of defending their territory. Boal (I969) has shown that the image of a territory based on religious identity in Belfast affects spatial behaviour.
The obvious importance for spatial behaviour has turned the attention of some geographers to the study of 21
human territoriality (e.g. Doherty, 1969; %les, 1970;
SosJa, 1.97.1.; Porteous, 1971). Philip Wagner (I960) viewed the political divisioning of the world as a dominating behaviour, expressed in terms of territoriality. However, like many writers on human territoriality (Hall, 1966;
Ardrey, 1966), Wagner's main concern was in presenting an organizational model of human territoriality. Other than these taxonomies, until recently, little has been known about the implications of territoriality on human behaviour and even less is known about the effect of territorial change on that behaviour. Territory is not separate from territoriality ~ the assigned area of a particular group is that space which all members of the group identify as belonging to them. To this end, one may ask what will happen to feelings of identity and commitment if there Is a change in the area of jurisdiction; Is territoriality an integral element of social-cultural identity, or more simply a fear of losing the resources of the effective environment? The ultimate purpose is to shed light on the relationship between man and his environment and provide for a continuation of meaningful integration in a society of ever increasing complexity. 22
(c) The Problem
By using the territorial concept as the vehicle in
understanding man's integration with his environment, we
look specifically at how man behaves in space. These are
major implications for future development of the settlement,
not only in terms of economic expansion, but also in terms
of migrational streams of young people, and the information
flows that exist from one generation to the next. Peter Gould (1966) has shown that people's actions in a particular place are related to the perception of that place and
differential evaluations they place on different portions
of it.
It is essential to focus on the group since the group
is held together by common values toward the control and
use of their portion of space. While a portion of the group's viewpoint is quite particular to each individual, another part is shared, which allows the members to operate as a unit.
(i) the hypothesis
What is the spatial consequence of sooio-economic change? This thesis examines the impact of cultural, 23
economic, and environmental changes on the spatial behaviour
of a relatively isolated indigenous society. With new
values introduced by cultural and economic factors, in
conjunction with certain alterations in the 'effective
environment', changes are created in the spatial behaviour
of the people, with parallel changes in the territorial
image possessed by them.
(ii) data and sample size
The population for the current study was determined
by the number of adults, that is people over 17 years of age, who resided in Old Crow. The age of 17 was used as
the lower boundary for the population because people any
younger were attending school, dependent on parents, and had no say in community politics. With the exception of
family allowance, those younger than 17 had little direct
economic impact on the community. The sampling procedures
followed a combination of nonprobability methods (Sellltz, et al, 1959« 516). With a constant inflow and outflow of people there was no guarantee that the total population could be interviewed within the time constraints. Thus, the aim was to obtain a sample of at least 66%, The necessity of such a large sample portion was considered 24
critical "because of the small population size. Quota
sampling was used to guarantee that all diverse elements
within the population were taken into account. The final
sample size, 77 people, or 74$ of the adult population,
was sufficient for our needs.
(iii) procedures and measurements
Quantitative data were obtained through interviewing
and available statistical records. The data were used to
portray the current socio-economic characteristics of the
Old Crow people and provide information on their attitude
toward their territory. Interviews lasting from one to
three hours were secured from a large sample of residents
in the community. Individuals of the community had been
hired and trained to this end because it was felt that
older people would be more relaxed and willing to share
their experience with some of the young people in town,
rather than with strangers. Available statistical records,
other documents, and published sources served to supplement
the interview data.
The nature of the data dictated the need for interviewing.
It is this method that is most effective for gathering informati concerning individuals who are difficult to observe. Wherever 25
possible, the interview information was cross-checked by available records or by verbal confirmation with another member of the village. This was necessary to validate the accuracy of the informants, especially when recalling past events from memory. By validating the data through these techniques, reliability was also provided among Individual interviewers and each interview.
The concept of territoriality in Old Crow may be measured in numerous ways. One method was by mapping movement, showing the areas of intensive use. This took the form of nodes and paths to create a network over the region. Another method located the site and amount of game acquired by individuals in the town. The procedures provided the precise location and intensity of use for different locations and the extent of physical land use.
The image of the community's territory was obtained through cognitive mapping (Downs, 1970s 67)• Foote and
Williamson (1966) used cognitive mapping to identify the extent of spatial knowledge that the people of Cape
Thompson, Alaskai had of their region. They assumed that the responses were not necessarily expressions of
6 See Appendix I for questionnaire. 26
territoriality, but rather were only fixing features that people felt important in their territory. This method measures interpreted territory rather than territory used.
Territoriality, the process of occupying, claiming, defending, and identifying with an area, can be measured by the intensity of a person's reaction to a threat on what is considered his territory. A threat was presented to our Informants in the form of a pipeline, pumping stations and construction "camps and they responded either positively or negatively toward them. Another idea falls into the question of how much the land, itself, really means to the people, not only in terms of possession but in terms of how much the people are part of the land. This may be determined indirectly by measuring the attitude people have toward other economic opportunities that are not land related.
In summary, we have measured not only the development and current status of socio-economic conditions in Old
Crow, but also the relationship between the environment and people of Old Crow through use and perception. 27
CHAPTER II
PEOPLE AND PLACE: OLD CROW'S HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
With the opening of a trading post in 1912, Old Crow
became an established settlement (Ballkci, 1963: 35)•
Old Crow's development, from the beginning, was directly 7
related to influences from 'outside' . As a result of
white contact, traditional material and social culture,
seasonal movements, and locations changed considerably.
A. TRADITIONAL MATERIAL AND SOCIAL CULTURE
1. Seasonal Movement and Location
The Kutchin were primarily a hunting people whose
quest for food depended largely on the seasonal migration
of the caribou. Fishing was a secondary, summer activity.
Despite the relative abundance and variety of foodstuffs, game was migratory and the quest for food hard and uncertain.
7 The people of Old Crow responded in a variety of ways to what is meant by 'outside'. The term is relative. Residents of Whltehorse, Inuvik, and Yellowknife refer to 'outside' as any location in southern Canada. Residents of Old Crow refer to the same definition but also include statements such as outside village limits, or more generally, places outside the Porcupine River drainage area. FIGURE 2.1 29
Thus, Kutchin life was flexible, shifting with the changes in season, and adjusting to many environmental variations.
Spring, prior to break-up, was the time of movements for the Kutchin. After being dispersed throughout the forests all winter, they began to congregate along major river arteries to await break-up and the annual northern migration of caribou. The spring hunt was described in the following manner:
"When the caribou entered the water, men would paddle a canoe right up on the animal's back and let it rest there. At first the caribou would strike but with its forefeet to rid itself of the canoe but would then content itself with merely swimming faster. Through fear, the herd of caribou would spread a little, making a path for the one bearing the canoe, and the man armed with a spear with a caribou antler point would stab the animals on each side of him."
(Leechman, 195^: 6)
Prom the spring hunt Tukkuth and Vunta shifted into the smaller tributary streams and lake areas along the
Porcupine. Here fish traps were constructed and moose and waterfowl were hunted. Other Kutchin were found in the tundra area during spring and summer with a few going into the river valleys to fish and hunt moose.
Summer was the time to renew old acquaintances, trade, and prepare for the next winter.
The hunting season began earnestly in fall, when the caribou herds started their southern migration. From the summer fish camp locations people scattered along the hills 30
above the trees to attend corrals. Everyone took part:
"As soon as the herd approached, boys, men and women tried to run behind the caribou, Imitating the cry of the wolf, and attempting to drive the herd toward the opening of the surround."
(Balikci, 1963: 15-16)
Immediately after the hunt the animals were butchered
and cached by drying or freezing. People engaged in the
hunt at each surround then prepared for the winter by
forming a large "meat camp", which stayed together until
the game was depleted. The people then divided into
small groups and dispersed throughout the wintering grounds of the caribou until spring once again arrived.
2. Hunting and Fishing
Fishing and hunting were.basically communal efforts although individuals might fish and hunt alone.
Driving caribou into enclosures, or surrounds, was the principal hunting method used in the fall. Osgood described the surround as:
"Posts about four feet high are set in the ground to form an enclosure roughly circular in form. Between these posts, poles and brush prevent the caribou from escaping except through narrow openings about eight feet apart in which snares are set. One side of the surround is open and from this entrance stretch out two lines of posts ever widening like the mouth of a funnel ... caribou which have entered the trap will be afraid to run any other direction except that which leads to the snare-set enclosure."
(Osgood, 1936: 25) 31
Surrounds were owned by a single person, usually an experienced hunter of the group, who directed its construction and use. The owner of the surround took charge of the game captured and distributed the meat (Osgood, 1936: 115;
Welsh, 1970: 22). The eldest son normally Inherited ownership of a surround, but a more capable brother could supersede him in that right (Osgood, 1936: 135).
In winter the people followed the migrating herds into the forested lower slopes, capturing:them by encirclement.
As the frightened animals attempted to escape the ring of bowmen, they were killed. Other times a surround of snares was crudely and hurriedly constructed in the forest.
Other animals were hunted on an individual basis.
Moose were captured by ambush and snares placed around lakes favoured by them. During the winter moose had to be run down (Osgood, 1936: 26; McKennan, 1965: 32). Mountain sheep were hunted, particularly by the Tukkuth and Natsit, by climbing to the leeward above the sheep so that the animals could not escape upwards (Osgood, 1936: 36).
Bears hunted during the winter were pulled from their dens and clubbed. Smaller game such as rabbit, groundhog, squirrel, and ptarmigan were snared as well during the winter. Pitfalls were set for wolverine, porcupine and lynx.
Salmon first appeared in early July along the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers. Fish traps were located only on 32
small tributary streams, where the water was shallow enough to permit building weirs across them. Salmon going upstream to spawn would strike the V-shaped weir and follow it from one bank to another, eventually entering a willow pole trap which was positioned below one end (Osgood, 1936: 13)-
Like the caribou surround, there was ownership of a fishing location, which the eldest son could inherit. The right to the fishing sites was held from one year to the next, but if the 'owner' did not occupy the site for a season it could be taken over and retained by another.
It was the responsibility of the 'owner' to arrange and direct the construction of the wier, and to keep close vigilance for schools of fish and fluctuation in water level.
3. Dress. Shelter and Travel
In summer, garments were made of caribou skin, tanned without the hair. Shirts were cut a few inches above the knee and trousers were connected in one piece to footwear which had soles from the necksin of caribou and a second
layer of moose skin. Winter dress for the most part duplicated that of summer except that the hair was left
on the skin and it was turned Inward. Hoods.were not part of the garment. 33
McKennan (1965) and Osgood (1936) mentioned several
types of Kutchin dwellings in pre-contact time: skin-
covered dome lodges, teepees, moss covered houses, and
lean-tos. The moss-house was constructed soon after the
ground was frozen and occupied until mid-winter. The
semi-permanent skin-covered dwellings were made of thin
spruce or willow poles that were bent and dried. For
added insulation during the winter, snow was heaped over
the structure. During the summer the semi-permanent
structure was preferred for its lightness. These were
carried to the caribou hunting range in the late summer.
Teepees and lean-tos were of a temporary nature, used
particularly when on the trail.
Summer transportation varied immensely among the
Kutchin. The birch bark canoe and moose skin boat were
the most Important water craft. On the other hand, those
who hunted primarily in the foothills used narrow pointed
rafts for crossing rivers. Although birch was indigenous
to the Crow River area, there was a scarcity of good canoe
size trees. Canoes were obtained from people downstream
in the Yukon Flats (Leechman, 1954: 26).
"Snowshoes, sleds and dog packs were used in land
travel" (Balikci, 1963: 21). Sleds, pulled by the women, and occasionally by men, were small and narrow with both
ends curved upwards. The low carrying capacity of the
sleds dictated the need for packing dogs. 3k
k. Social Organization
In pre-contact time two matrilineal clans existed which were social units cutting across all.tribal groups. The clans were exogamous, termed Crow and Wolf. Exogamy was not rigorously observed, so a third category classified the children of endogamous marriages. Children of a middle clan woman affiliated with the clan of their grandmother.
It was the clan system that provided a strong social unit, increased cohesion within the tribe and provided peaceful relations between different tribes. The clan system provided a framework for the exercise of a chieftan- ship system (Balikci, 1963: 27). There were five classes of chiefs: economic chiefs, owners of caribou surrounds and fish traps; war chiefs, the leaders of war activities; clan chiefs whose concern was the social organization of the clan; Shamen or spiritual leaders; and tribal chiefs.
Shamen challenged the power of other chiefs and may have been the most influential of all.
B?. EARLY POST-CONTACT. CULTURE
The agents of cultural change were motivated by different causes at various times. There were those whose task it was to find a sea route to the Pacific. Others, 35
such as fur traders and gold miners, were interested only in exploiting the riches of the north. The discovery of new land and people opened the way for missionaries. The
Government also made a strong commitment to develop the
North, to alleviate social and economic problems and protect Canadian soverlgnty. In some way each has left its mark on the land and the people.
1. Contact History
(a) Pur Traders
The fur trader had the most profound influence on the traditional Kutchin way of life. Balikci stated that the first imported items were iron spears of Russian origin
(Balikci, 1963s 3*0. The spears were obtained through traditional inter-tribal trade ventures downriver. The first Russians, Bering and Chirikof (1741), were followed by fur traders who spread along the coast in pursuit of valued sea otter pelts. By 1784 the Russian-American
Company had established its headquarters at Kodiak, and many traders were known to be living at the head of Cook
Inlet in 1794 (McClellan, 1964: 5). The headquarters moved in 1801 to Sitka, in the heart of Tllnglt territory
(ibid). Figure 2.2 shows the location of the early contact fur trading posts. 36
FIGURE 2.2 37
The Russians also penetrated from the west, up the Yukon River, St. Michael was established on the coast in 1833 while Nulato was built on the Yukon River, 50 miles downstream from its confluence with the Koyukuk River, in I838. In this region the Tanana Indians operated as middlemen between Europeans and native people farther up river. Middlemen attempted to exert as much control as possible over their monopoly by: sealing off the country and establishing blockades "which successfully prevented whites from entering the area, or. Athabaskans from leaving it" (McClellan, 1964: 5). Direct access to Kutchin country was accomplished from the east, even though for a great length of time exploration and trading were restricted to the, Mackenzie drainage system. Sir Alexander Mackenzie was probably the first to come into direct contact with the Kutchin in 1789 (Osgood, 1936: 47). He called the people "Quarrelers" (Mackenzie, 1801: 72), "the people who avoid the arrows of their enemies, by keeping a look out on both sides" (Franklin, 1828: 24).
A permanent trading establishment opened in 1805 at Ft. Good Hope on the Mackenzie River but was not conveniently located for a large volume of trade. In 1826 Franklin learned that none of the Peel River inhabitants actually traded at Ft. Good Hope (Franklin, 1828: 182) because it 38
was too far from their traditional hunting territory (Wolforth, 1970: 53). Consequently, a major effort was made to establish a fur trading post closer to Western Kutchin. Also, the establishment ofawestern post was necessary to check Russian trade.
Richardson observed M ... the goods which the Mountain Indians exchange with the Esquimaux at Herschel Island are very unlike those issued by the Hudson's Bay Company Post, I conclude they obtain them from the Russians" (Franklin, 1828: 180).
Peel's River, later Ft. McPherson, was constructed in 1840. The fort was unsuccessful at first as the location was north of the Kutchin customary: hunting and fishing grounds, and south of the areas used by Eskimos. The fort, located on the Peel River about 35 miles upstream from the river mouth, was situated in the dangerous neutral territory between Kutchin and Eskimo (Slobodin, 1962: 18). Kutchin of the Peel River headwaters were not interested in Ft. McPherson because many of the commodities offered in trade were not of immediate need for the people (Wolforth, 1970* 62) and they were part of "that hinterland of fur trappers to which the Pacific coastal tribes had access" (Slobodin, 1963: 25). Tukkuth Kutchin of the Porcupine River frequented the fort more often than the Peel River people.
As the Tlingit and Tanana operated as middlemen from the Pacific, the Tukkuth and Vunta operated from the Mackenzie. 39
It is evident that the latter were vigorous in protecting their position, from Richardson's account of "Mountain
Indians", who attempted to violently overtake his trading and exploring party, in 1826 (in Franklin, 1828: 179). He stated that these people had been trading at Hersehel Island and after realizing the threat of the Europeans "resolved on coming down in a body to destroy us" (ibid). These mountain people were probably Vunta, as trading with
Hersehel Eskimos was not uncommon among them (Osgood,
1936: 45; Leechman, 1954: 26).
The first direct European contact in the territory came with the establishment of Ft. Yukon in 1847 (Osgood,
1936: 17). It is understandable that the natives controlling trade were hostile towards the post because it destroyed the monopolistic conditions they held. The Kutcha Kutchin, in whose territory Ft. Yukon was located, were totally dependent on the other tribes (Kirkby, 1864: 418). 8
La Pierre House was opened in 1846, on the Bell River.
It was the trans-shipment point for Ft. Yukon supplies.
Goods being sent to Ft. Yukon from Ft. McPherson were shipped to La Pierre House and floated downriver. Furs from Ft. Yukon were shipped back to La Pierre House on the return run in the summer, stored over the winter at La
Pierre House, then forwarded to Ft. McPherson after break-up. g Also Lapierre House or Lapierre's House.
1 40
As a trading centre La Pierre was relatively inactive, dealing only in guns, ammunition, tea, tobacco, and a few iron tools, but no foodstuffs (Balikci, 1963: 35).
The Nakotcho Kutchin (Mackenzie Flats), Tukkuth (Upper
Porcupine), and Tatlit (Peel River) became increasingly dependent on Ft. McPherson while the Vunta (Old Crow),
Tranjik (Black River), Kutcha (Yukon Flats), Tennuth
(Birch Creek), and Natslt (Chandalar) became dependent on Ft. Yukon.
In I867 the United States purchased Alaska and the
Hudson's Bay Company abandoned Ft. Yukon since it had been "deliberately built in Alaska; in order to counter
Russian traders working up the Yukon from St. Michael"
(McClellan, 1964: 5). The Hudson's Bay Company moved its post upriver from Ft. Yukon to Howling Dog in 1867» and then to Old Ramparts (I869). When the Alaska-Yukon boundary was surveyed in 1889 the Company post was still in
American territory, so moved once again, to New Ramparts, on the Canadian side of the international boundary. The
Hudson's Bay Company closed the New Ramparts post in 1894, four years after shutting La Pierre House (Leechman, 195^*
26). .
Dan Cadzow, a private fur trader, re-opened the New
Ramparts post in 1904 (Harrington, 196l: 5)• Again the post attracted Kutchin trade, as well as some Eskimo trade 41
(Balikci, 1963s 35). Major furs traded were marten, mink and lynx. Although Cadzow first introduced steel traps for ratting in 1906, it was not an intensive activity at that time.
(b) Missionaries
Kutchin took to Christianity quite readily according to Kirkby (1864):
"Before I left ... (they) all earnestly sought for pardon and grace. Oh, what a goodly sight to see that vast number on bended knees, worshipping this God of their salvation, and learning to syllable the name of Jesus."
(Kirkby, 1864: 419)
In the north missionaries depended on the traders' transportation networks, the traders' ability to acquire the necessities of life, and the traders' posts which acted as centres for the native people. The traders and missionaries barely tolerated each other. Missionaries accused traders of exploiting human beings (cited by Dailey,
1969) while traders regarded missionaries as a distraction from trapping (cited by Ellis, 1964).
Archdeacon Robert McDonald made his headquarters at
St. Matthew's Mission, Ft. McPherson, in 1868. He established a mission at Ft. Yukon, which moved up river to New Ramparts
House with the trading post. McDonald travelled throughout the Yukon and Porcupine systems, from the Mackenzie Delta to Ft. Yukon and Ft. Selkirk. It cannot be overlooked that McDonald was part Cree and soon after his arrival, he married a Peel River woman which enhanced his influence in the area. He became a master of the Tukkuth and Tatlit
Loucheux dialects and guided several selected men, generally economic or clan leaders, from each band to become catechists
(Slobodin, 1962: 26). He also translated the Common Book of
Brayer in I885 and the complete Bible in I898.
The Roman Catholic missionaries came into Kutchin country two. years earlier than the Anglicans but did not seem to have the same effect. Fr. Golller arrived at Ft. McPherson in the summers of i860 and 1861 but did not stay on either occasion. Ft. McPherson was such a strong Anglican outpost for such noted missionaries as Bompas, Stringer, and
McDonald that Catholics could not succeed in Kutchin territory.
(c) Gold Seekers and Whalers
The slow trickle of prospectors in the 1890's was the first breach of the Tlingit blockade (McClellan, 1964:
6). Kutchin who inhabited the Ogilvie and Richardson
Mountains heard about the Gold Rush from trade partners to the south and from parties of gold seekers who mistakenly sought an easy route to the gold fields by crossing the 43
divide from the Peel River system (Slobodin, 1963s 26).
The major route followed the Peel River to the Ogilvie
Mountains and down to the Stewart and Yukon rivers. A
secondary route, longer in distance but easier to travel
was up the Rat River, crossing the divide at Summit Lake,
and down the Bell and Porcupine Rivers to the Yukon River.
The prospectors progressed, by scow, up the rivers until
rapids impeded their Journey. The scows then were broken
up and the prospectors waited until freeze-up to cross the
mountains. Hardships were intense and prospectors were
completely dependent on their Kutchin guides.
Many of the Tukkuth and Tatlit began to trade at
Dawson City and for two decades their lives were oriented
toward the Yukon (Slobodin, 1963s 29). The main items of
trade were game and fine furs, which could be sold for much higher prices at the gold fields than at Ft. McPherson.
This was especially true In the winter when the demand for warm clothing and fresh meat was at its zenith. In summer,
instead of fishing and trading at Ft. McPherson, employment
could be had in Dawson City (Slobodin, 1963s 29).
Vunta and Natsit traded with whalers at Hersehel and
Barter Islands, using the old winter routes along the
Firth and Blow Rivers. The whalers were Initially not
interested in trading with people of the region but as more whalers wintered on the coast they became dependent on native hunters for meat. Word of new, exotic trade 44
goods reached the Kutchin from Eskimo traders with whom they did business along the Firth River and at Ft. McPherson.
By 1889 Kutchin people were known to be trading with whalers at Barter Island (Stockton, 1890s 186), and at Hersehel
Island in I896.
Kutchin people preferred to trade with the whalers because commodities offered were cheaper and of greater variety than those of the fur traders. The whalers were
supplied with meat and driftwood in return for tr;ade goods.
These were primarily winter transactions, which reduced the amount of furs available for summer trading at the
Hudson's Bay posts.
Due to the drastic reduction of indigenous trade the posts at New Ramparts and La Pierre House were closed.
Consequently the people, being dependent on certain white goods, had no other choice but to trade with whalers and gold rushers, or make the long hard trip to Ft. McPherson.
Cadzow's re-opening of New Ramparts coincided with the dramatic fall in price of baleen and the Vunta and Natslt again focussed on the trading posts. Still later, in 1918, the Tukkuth and Tatlit were lured back to trading at Ft.
McPherson with a rise in the price of muskrat pelts
(Slobodin, 1963: 29). 45
(d) The Government
"Both the Gold Rush in the Yukon and the whaling boom along the Arctic Coast resulted in the appearance of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police .... In the Yukon the major concern had been to prevent the lawlessness associated with Gold Rush towns in Alaska spreading to Canadian territory. In the Beaufort Sea areas, and elsewhere in the Arctic, it was to confirm Canadian rights to the areas that might otherwise be disputed."
(Wolforth, 1970: 118-119)
The police were the only representatives of the government in early contact times. A post was established at New Ramparts in the late 1890's, and at Herschel Island
in 1903. The officers in charge were often called upon to
support those in need and protect them against commercial
exploitation, although there was no policy toward the
social development of the native people.
The total effect of white contact was that the Kutchin people became oriented and dependent on the institutions of white settlement.
2. Changes in the Way of Life
Although all Kutchin still lived on the land at the turn of the century, they did so with imported equipment, 46
clothing and foodstuffs. A rise in fur prices drew people
to the trading post. Trapping became the central activity,
changing residential patterns and seasonal movement and also re-organizing the social structure.
Populations of Kutchin tribes were reduced by white
introduced disease. The Tennuth of Birch Creek and Kutcha
of Yukon Flats were completely annihilated (Osgood, 1936:
14-15). The Tukkuth and Tatlit were decimated by measles
contracted at Dawson City and spread to Ft. McPherson
(Wolforth, 1970: 112; Wlesh, 1970: 24-25). A blighting
smallpox epidemic occurred at New Ramparts in 1911 (Leechman,
195^: 13).
Natsit began to trade at Ft. Yukon, as well as reside at the post when it was moved to Howling Dog, Old Ramparts, and New Ramparts. The smallpox epidemic was the catalyst
for the entire community to once again move, sixfcy-five miles upriver to "Fish Trap Place" (ibid).
It was not until the Tukkuth returned from Dawson City
that they began to re-orient themselves, trading at Fish
Trap Place rather than taking the long trek over the
Richardson Mountains to Ft. McPherson. Tukkuth gradually merged with the Vunta and Natsit and began travelling with them to the trading post. Later, this condition was changed by the establishment of a trading post at Whitestone Village, but when the post closed the Tukkuth went back to Fish Trap
Place. 47
(a) Seasonal Movement and Location
White contact completely disrupted seasonal hunting and fishing patterns. In traditional times, summer travel was reserved for aboriginal trading and raiding (Slobodin, 19^2:
59)* and in post-contact times a trip to the trading post was included (Welsh, 1970: 23). Posts were located on main rivers so the people became centred on these arteries. By
1908 "trading had become an established activity, and supplies had to be periodically purchased at the store in exchange for furs" (Balikcl, I963: 57).
Since contact there have been major changes in the annual cycle of migration. The traditional surrounds were slowly abandoned in favour of the major autumn hunt at river crossings. More efficient individual methods supplanted the cooperative methods. The rifle allowed for more animals to be killed. Instead of migrating into the forests after the caribou the people dispersed to trapping camps along the river (see Chapter III). Mobility increased and trading intensified, becoming a year round occupation with major efforts directed to it rather than to subsistence hunting.
The seasonality and location of all Kutchin activities were permanently changed after white contact. Summer in• gatherings were related to the trading post rather than 48
traditional fish trap locations. In addition there was a new time for tribal gathering, at Christmas, which was dependent on the people 's mobility. Hunting shifted from the tundra to river crossings and winter activities were focussed on trapping rather than hunting. Lastly, transport ation was completely re-oriented for greater speed and mobility, with terminals located at white trading establish• ments and camps established on major waterways (Welsh, 1970s
23). Gradually all traditional activities were taken over by these new patterns.
(b) Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
The rifle and net gradually replaced the caribou surround and the fish trap. More game and fish could be captured with fewer people involved. There was no longer a need for cooperative organization and people became individualistic in their outlook.
During the trapping season all types of game were shot along the trail for food. Numerous caches would be set up with an abundant amount of food so that people could concentrate on trapping. When a hunt was necessary, a trapper would scout, without toboggan, until a herd was found. He took his kill, then returned for a dog team.
If the herd was large, he returned to notify other trappers in the area. 4-9
November marked the beginning of the mink season in
Old Crow Flats with the trapper breaking trail and setting traps near lakes inhabited by the animals. Ideally, traps were checked regularly because wolverines would destroy catches. With the exception of periodic hunting interruptions, this pattern continued until Christmas. After Christmas marten were trapped from a series of trapping settlements along the Porcupine River (see Chapter III).
Initially trapping was a marginal activity that resulted in trappers shifting extensively within a region.
There was no ownership of trapping areas or trap lines. Two conditions changed the situation to one of more permanent
•ownership'. Firstly, there was the realization that trap lines would have to increase in length and a more systematic check on traps was required for greater productivity.
Secondly, numerous white trappers such as Schultz, Johnson,
Frost, Lord, and Cody began to exploit individual areas with a number of different lines. Over a period of time these trappers influenced the indigenous people in the ways of ownership.
"Systematic ratting within the framework of fur trade among the Vunta Kutchin did not start until the beginning
of World War I" (Balikcl, 1963: 41). Ratting occurred on
innumerable lakes in Old Crow Flats. In December before heavy snow covered the rat houses, trappers proceeded to
stake the houses. In March and April, after marten and 50
mink trapping, ratting began in earnest with each person placing unbaited steel traps inside the houses he had staked. By the end of April it was no longer necessary to put the traps in the houses but rather they were placed just in front of the rat holes on the flat ice. After break-up the rats were shot in the water.
The net result was that people began to live an isolated bush existence. During a hunt people would not collaborate or share; they became simply a group of autonomous hunters who benefitted from a particular game concentration.
(c) Dress, Shelter and Travel
Traditional clothing was one of the first aspects of
Kutchin material culture to disappear after white contact.
All clothing was abundantly decorated with beads, purchased from the Hudson's Bay post. Imported coloured woollen shirts replaced caribou skin shirts, and locally tailored parkas from blankets were preferred over the old garments.
Balikci concluded that traditional clothing continued to be used by the trappers but was tending toward extinction
(1963: 46).
The fur trade introduced canvas tents with tin stoves to replace the skin houses. At the turn of the century, log cabins were common. With the winter nomadic system virtually non-existant, trappers no longer needed semi-permanent 51
dwellings. People built log cabins on their trap lines which provided better protection from.winter elements as did the uncomfortable sod or skin houses. Breaking trail, setting traps, and constantly checking them required that the trapper be away from the cabin for a number of days at which time he used the canvas tent, probably the same tent used for the summer gatherings at the trading post, as well as the same dwelling used during spring ratting.
There was substantial change in transportation, due
to increased mobility and heavier loads. The toboggan was
introduced to carry heavy loads of furs from trap lines to
trading posts, as well as for hauling meat. Dogs were used
to pull the sled and ensure the trapper considerable
mobility and speed. " ... a team of seven dogs can
easily pull a load of three caribou" (Balikci, 1963: 46),
and frequently more than eight dogs were harnessed together.
With large teams, more dog food was required. This was
accomplished through more efficient methods of hunting
and fishing. Dog teams reached their maximum size in the
1940's and 1950's.
Imported canvas substituted for moose skin and birch
bark in the construction of water craft. The white trappers
introduced a long narrow flat-bottomed boat made of plywood,
used for transporting people, game and furs. It was this
boat that drove the raft and moose skin boat into extinction.
Eventually these crafts were equipped with outboard motors 52
to facilitate even greater mobility. The canvas canoe,
very small, light and manoeuverable, is still used for
shooting muskrat and for fishing.
(d) Social Organization
Increasing dependency on white goods led naturally to
greater involvement with fur trading. The native people
became tied to the "superordinate position" (Balikci, 1963*
48) of the trading post which controlled their economic
position and altered their social organization.
White contact on Kutchin society destroyed traditional
leadership forms. Also, many Kutchin people believe that
missionary activity played an important role in bringing
Eskimo-Kutchin hostilities to a close. To be sure, the
traders made attempts to resolve hostilities and ,in that way could assist in promoting the serious business of
trapping and trading. This peace ended the role of the war
chief and eliminated many of the reasons for clan existance.
With the significant reduction in clan functions, clan
"chieftanship itself quickly became an institute of bygone days" (Balikci, 1963s ^8). In addition, the functions
of the economic leader followed the caribou surrounds and fish traps into extinction. 53
The role of tribal chief changed to that of a trading
chief. The Hudson's Bay Company often dealt with tribal
chiefs rather than with each trapper. The role of chief,
however, was not that of a general tribal 'wise man', but
rather a puppet of the Company, acting as middleman and
promoter for the fur trade. There was a gradual erosion
of the tribal chief's trade role with the Company as more
individuals traded at the post. After the post at New
Ramparts closed in 1894, the trading chief disappeared.
Shamen continued to be active for a much longer time and undercurrents of the Shamenism can still be felt today.
Even though the Kutchin took to Christianity quite readily,
the Shamen did not lose power. In some cases Shamen were
trained as catechists, establishing church power among the people.
Leadership systems broke down and the steel trap, rifle, and fish net made collaborative economic patterns obsolete.
The functions of the clan system disintegrated and the basic
socio-economic unit became the family, which was tied to the credit of the trading post. These agents of contact directed socio-economically well-organized nomadic hunters to living
in a small nodal centre. 54
3. The Establishment of Old Crow
Old Crow was a focal point for Vunta Kutchin bands long before the arrival of white men, although it was the intro• duction of white institutions that eventually led to the formation of a community.
Old Crow, formerly known as Pish Trap Place, was an informal gathering spot where inter-tribal feasting and trading took place. In post-contact time, the gathering was more formal, the purpose being to organize trading parties that would travel down river to Ft. Yukon. Fish
Trap Place, located at the confluence of the major trans• portation routes in the region, was the most convenient location for all groups to congregate. After the departure of the trading party, remaining band members travelled up the Crow River and dispersed throughout the Crow Flats to fish.
The function of Fish Trap Place did not change until an increased number of people accompanied the trading parties on the shorter hauls to Ramparts House. This was encouraged by missionaries who had established themselves at the trading post location.
New Ramparts House was the economic and administrative centre of the region. Prior to Cadzow opening his trading post in 1904, Kutchin people had been trading at Hersehel
Island, Dawson City, and Ft. McPherson. After the new 55
trading post opened at New Ramparts trading again focussed
at a central location within the Kutchin territory.
New Ramparts was poorly located. It was
adequate for fishing but fish trap locations were
limited in number and were on the other side of the
river. Trapping and hunting areas were not easily,
accessible from New Ramparts House and location on
the international boundary line apparently prevented the
exploitation of fur species to the west. Physical
amenities were few, and the location susceptible to
heavy snow drifting. The flat land area was minimal and bisected by a d.eep ravine. However, Ramparts House was the trading post centre for Natsit, Tukkuth and Vunta.
As long as trapping was a way of life, families would reside there for a short time. Eventually the post moved to Old Crow and again the people followed.
Old Crow developed as a central place in Kutchin territory as people began to stay longer, which eliminated some of the isolation and boredom at the trapping camps.
There was easier access to fishing, trapping, and hunting areas from Old Crow. In addition, the narrow west channel of Old Crow River was well suited for constructing fish traps. An added bonus to the Old Crow site was its nearness to migratory routes of barren-ground caribou (see Figure
# 2.3).
Old Crow was institutionalized by the conditions of an 56
FIGURE 2.3 57
external society. These externalities included outside goods that influenced a change in the way of life. Once this new way of life was established social amenities and strange laws were administered to effectively hold the people in the community.
Besides the mission, Old Crow's attraction for white men was purely economic. Trade goods, conveniently available, helped to corner the market on this relatively large concentration of trappers and tied the native people to the community. Government people shifted the emphasis from trade and commerce to administration.
The imposition of external roles dramatically altered the Old Crow way of life. The settlement pattern changed
in character, from one that was flexible and mobile to one that was stationary for a large part of the year. Seasonality
of subsistence living changed and the focus of the people
turned inward. 58
• CHAPTER III
OLD CROW TERRITORY
The effect of cultural change can be illustrated in
the people's relationship to their land. There are shifts
in land-use as well as in the people's attitude toward their
land. Each has ramifications in the present day. Chapter
III describes the altered patterns of land use and points
out the impact of alternative pursuits of livelihood on
the traditional land-based way of life in Old Crow. Chapter
IV is reserved for the study of the community's commitment
to their territory.
A. THE OLD CROW LAND
1. Utilization of the Old Crow Land
With the Kutchin people firmly entrenched in the fur
trade, the population became distributed in a series of
small settlements along the Porcupine River, from Ramparts
House to Whitestone Village (see Figure # 3.1). Each
location was a trapping camp consisting of one or more
families, each occupying a log cabin, where they resided
for a good part of the year. Co-operative meat camps were
eliminated and larger fish camps disappeared with individual fishermen re-locating near their trapping camps. The 59
location of trap lines varied from year to year, so that ownership of an area was identified by the occupation of an Individual's traps. At times partners shared a trap line and either divided the catch or kept what was caught in their respective traps. Once ownership for a season was established, it was usually respected.
Ownership was established through informal conversation.
Trappers would usually mention their intended lines before leaving, and kin would convey the information to the rest of the camp. At times trappers left without indicating their intended lines, however, if they were first to break the trail and clear the line then the trap line was theirs.
If over a number of years a trapper repetitively used the same trap line, he was considered the permanent "owner".
The main trails, although public property, could be trapped privately. Again the general rule, the first to break trail had the trapping rights to it, applied. Most traps were set along branch trails, each taking a one day round trip to check. Others could trap along the main trail only after permission was obtained.
A trapper could travel faster, cover a longer trap line, and haul more furs if he was alone. By hitching more dogs to the sled and leaving the family at camp, the trapper could travel lightly and speedily. This resulted in the trapper being away from camp for a large part of the time. FIGURE 3.1 61
Muskrat trapping added to the changing seasonal cycle
and settlement pattern. During the spring, about a month
prior to break-up to immediately following break-up, the
people spent their time ratting on Crow Plats. This was a
family operation because the number of pelts skinned was
too large for an Individual trapper. Each camp was relatively
close to another, allowing for more socialization. The ratting
areas were in surrounding lakes, unlike the winter trap lines
that extended many miles from the camp.
The fur trade obviously influenced all Kutchin activities.
Families began to stand as independent economic units in all
subsistence activities; the co-operative regional band no
longer existed and partnerships were not lasting forms of
economic integration.
2. Change in Land-Use Pattern
Since the rise in fur prices after 1906, emphasis on
land-use shifted from hunting to trapping. Initially, the
distribution of people did not dramatically alter from early
contact time until people desired more of the life style
based on fur trading. Thus, parts of the Old Crow land became specialized with activity during certain parts of
the year. For example, hunting locations were influenced by the location of settlements along the Porcupine River.
This can be seen in Figure #3.2, where hunting locations 62
are found along the transportation lines and concentrated around trapping settlements. Other hunting locations are connected with muskrat trapping camps in Crow Flats, and along winter trap lines. Fishing locations, on the other hand, perfectly correlate with trapping settlements.
Occasionally modern meat camps were established along the main winter trails, trails that did not exist in pre- contact time (see end papers, Loucheux Map). More often, however, groups of trappers returning from Whitestone or
Johnson Village would bring meat into Old Crow or cache it along the trail.
Figure #3.2 shows the locations of land use specialization in the"1930's - 40's. Trapping was a highly remmunerative activity which is reflected in extensive land coverage of the trap line pattern radiating from trapping settlements.
By i960 the Old Crow economy was characterized by a slow decrease in trapping and an increase in various govern• ment activities which provided income. This is reflected in
Figure # 3«3 where a reduced territorial range shows also intensified resource exploitation along the Porcupine River.
By i960 many of the trap lines were reduced in size and the total fur catch was diminished. Full time trapping was being neglected by a large part of the population and by 1961 only one person resided outside Old Crow at Salmon Cache (Balikci,
1963: 61). Rumour had it that this person chose permanent bush residence so that he could set a brew pot with relative OLD CROW LAND USE, LONG AGO OLD CROW LAND 65
9 freedom from the watchful eye of the R.C.M.P.
Most trappers commuted to their trap lines from Old
Crow in i960. The trapper set camp for a month or two of intensive trapping and then returned to Old Crow. No longer did the family reside at the trapping settlements nor were there groups of trappers based at any camps.
Summer residence also shifted from the trapping settlements to Old Crow. With this shift, fewer fishing sites were located along the Porcupine River. Most were at Old Crow, where the dogs were usually kept (see Figure # 3.3).
Less activity was based from winter trapping camps because families no longer occupied them. Hunting,occurred mostly during the fall while some occurred along the trap line and in Crow Flats during the ratting season. Neverthe• less, the extent of used land diminished (Figure # 3.3) due to the fact that Old Crow had become a site of permanent residence.
The government also applied pressure.for the development of permanent trapping sectors in Crow Flats (see Figure # 3«4).
This had the effect of reducing the disputes over certain muskrat "pushups" but also reduced the ratting territory.
Until 1966 it was illegal for a native Canadian to make 'home brew' or consume alcohol. 66
After the school was established, many families cut the amount of time they spent on the Plats ratting. In addition, some people were much more conscious of the "social centre" of Old Crow and chose to spend less time away from the village. These conditions had the effect of reducing the number of ratting camps and the amount of area used on the
Flats.
In I960, factors for locating permanently at Old Crow resulted from inter-related social and economic conditions.
To begin with there was a limited amount of work available in the community: a half dozen temporary maintenance jobs with different government institutions, house and school construction with Indian Affairs; and most importantly, wood cutting for domestic sale. This latter activity particularly detracted from trapping because it occurred during the winter. Many preferred wood cutting to trapping because the work was easier, the distance to travel was shorter, and a man could be with his family longer.
Immediate payment was considered a great economic benefit to the logger, because it increased his prestige in the community. In addition, the government contributed a generous relief system that encouraged people to stay in
Old Crow, and shifted the economic power from the male head of household. Lastly, Balikci (1963: 70) and Welsh
(1970: 25, 27) have suggested that the establishment of the Federal Day School in 1950 had the most profound impact 67
^ oh
ABEL ;«&jtsJOHN KENDI
.A'
J AOSES/* * CHARLIE
-2>i
CROW FLATS 1 **°
Va>.
10 20
mi let
FIGURE 3.4 68
on settlement in Old Crow. Balikci commented that the
people saw the advantage of education of their children,
thus abandoning winter trapping. Realistically, people
were forced to send their children to school or the law
could take the children away to a residential school. In
any case, the government had a strong impact on permanent
settlement at Old Crow.
At present the effect of schooling is dramatically
evident. Pew of the young people know how to trap and few
people in the community now set a trap line. In the winter
of 1972-73 six trap lines were established with lengths of a two-day, round trip duration. All the lines were checked
on sporadic weekends.
The Old Crow land was almost empty during the winter of
1972-73. Hunting was recorded only once along the trap line.
All other hunting occurred in the summer and fall along the
Porcupine River or on Crow Mountain (see Figure # 3.5)• Trapping
settlements did not exist; the focal point for all trap lines
was Old Crow.
There has been a significant drop in the muskrat harvest
since i960 (see Table #3.6). The reduction is attributed to
a combination of cultural and economic changes. Firstly, more
people have jobs and therefore less time is spent ratting as
it occurs during the school year. Families cannot attend to
their ratting camps. In the past, children were given time
off school so they could help with spring ratting, but this OLD CROW LAND 70
was discontinued in the spring of 1973. This has increased
the isolation of bush life, reduced catches, and restricted
the period of stay in the bush. Lastly, many ,now think ratting is a source of pocket money, and a short holiday.
To this end many brief partnerships are formed immediately following break-up, but only for the purpose of shooting rats, rather than the more difficult trapping of them.
3. Ownership and Intensity in the Use of the Old Crow Land
(a) Ownership
Kutchin developed individual trapping territories in response to the fur trade. Similar to the Montagnais of
Quebec (Leacock, 1964), Kutchin trap lines were used Initially by who ever first cleared them, and through repetitive use, lines were eventually regarded as 'private'. Unlike the
Montagnais, private Kutchin hunting preserves did not develop, however, the meat captured was considered the private property of the trap or surround owner.
The introduction of registered muskrat trapping areas
(see Figure # 3.4) in the mid 1950's did not alter "ownership" conditions in Crow Flats. Ratting camps shifted from year to year,, even after the sectors were registered. Flexibility in ratting patterns were maintained. People not only 71
switched from their own sector into public sectors, but also ratted in other 'private' sectors. Figure # 3.6 exemplifies this spatial shift from i960 to 1961 while
Table # 3.1 provides more detail on the relationship involved in the shift.
On Figure # 3«6 the muskrat trapping camps are plotted and numbered for the i960 and 1961 seasons. The numbers on the map correspond to the camp numbers listed in Table # 3.1* Trappers located at each camp are also recorded in an attempt to understand the relationship between trappers and sector 'owners'.
A note on any relationship between trapper and 'owner' is provided to complete the analysis. The move by each trapper from i960 to 1961 is graphically illustrated on the map (Figure # 3.6) by a line connecting the i960 and 1961 camps. FIGURE 3.6 Table # 3.1
Ratting Camps and Ratting Sectors, Old Crow Flats, 1960-61
Sector Trapped In Camp No. Trappers 1960 1961 Relationship
(a) Mary Kassi Mary Kassi (a) own (b) Rowena Lord (b) unknown No relationship (c) Mary Netro (c) unknown
John Moses own Paul Ben Kassi John Moses joined his son-in-law V-0 Lazarus Charlie in 1961. Neither are related to Paul Ben Kassi.
John R. Tizya own own Joanne Njootli
Neil McDonald own Effie Linklater Effie is Neil * s daughter.
(a) John J. Kay open area (a) unknown No relationship. (b) four Thomas Bros. open area (b) own & open area In 1961 Thomas Bros, returned to their own area, except Charlie, who ratted just outside their area.
continued Table # 3.1 continued Sector Trapped In Camp No. Trappers 1960 1961 Relationship
Andrew Tizya CP. Charlie J.R. Tizya Andrew is Moses' son Moses Tizya J. Njootli and cousin of J.R. Tizya.
1 Peter Tizya CP. Charlie open area Peter is Moses son. Moses Tizya
(a) Clare Frost own (a) did not trap Don's mother didn't (b) Don Frost (b) J.R. Tizya trap in 1961 so he J. Njootli joined Joanne Njootli his mother-in-law.
Dolly Josie Peter Lord unknown Dolly is Albert's Albert Abel sister.
10 John Kendi Peter Lord open area No relationship. Albert Abel
11 Peter Lord own open area Ratted with brothers- in-law Albert and Charlie.
12 (a) Charlie Abel Joe Kay (a) open area (a) No relationship. (b) Robert Bruce Robert Bruce (b) open area (b) Joe Kay is Robert's father-in- law.
continued Table # 3.1 continued
Sector Trapped In Camp No, Trappers 1960 1961 Relationship
13 Albert Abel open area open area See #11.
14 Abraham Peter open area open area Joe Kay was Abe Joe Kay Peter's grandfather.
15 (a) CP. Charlie open area (a) J.R. Tizya (a) CP. Charlie is (b) Lazarus Charlie J. Njootli second cousin to J.R. (b) Paul Ben Tizya. Kassi (b) See # 2.
16 Jack Frost own own (data obtained second hand from Don Frost)
17 Paul Ben Kassi unknown open area No relationship. Steven Frost
18 Peter Moses Lazarus Charlie Lazarus Charlie Old Peter is brother John Moses John Moses to John Moses.
19 Peter Charlie own own (evidence suggest that he and his wife every year rat here alone)
20 Philip Joseph unknown John Kendi No relationship.
Source: 1960 field data 1961 Balikci (1963: 2, 86, 88) 76
It is obvious that many of these shifts involved a relationship through the family. However there were occasions where friendship was the linking bond and other occasions where ratting expertise was the criterion. Of the twenty ratting sets reporting in i960 and 1961, six remained at their same camp and seven shifted within the same vicinity as the previous year's camp. Of special note is the fact that 'co-owners' ,of some sectors did not rat together in one of the years, nor did they necessarily rat in their own sectors. It is evident that other ratting partnerships were established but were not always renewed.
The number of people ratting diminished by five from i960 to
1961.
In 1973 ratting associations disintegrated to the point where numerous people merely shared camps (see Table # 3.3).
Table #3.2 points out that even the family, the basic social and economic unit, had broken down.
In many cases there has been a complete breakdown in kinship ties between trapper and owner of a sector. This occurred eleven times in 1973f by far the highest frequency.
Six cases reflected the blood relationships of parents and children. There were two trapping camps in the public area which did not require a relationship, and three occurrences of old partner relationships. In all, however, the most interesting arrangement was three uncle-nephew relationships and two grandfather-grandson relationships, which suggests Table # 3.2
Muskrat Trapping Associations
Long Ago, 1960, 1973
Long Ago* 1960 1973
Number of family units ratting 14 9 6 ^
Family units as a percentage 60.8% 50.0% 15.8% of total ratting units
Approx. average number of 105 80 42 days each unit ratted
*Long Ago: the time when an older person, over 40 years of age, was a young man of about 20 years.
Source: field data 3b O
*tO0l o 53< 0
ft o roar 1<# '8 ff 14
Do 0
3? 5& V2> \s9
02
) w 4
7 Q •ft ° D >0
CROW FLATS 0
MUSKRAT TRAPPING ,0 9^o CAMPS, 1973
K.y 10 LOCATION J OF CAMPS ™
HFI« to IEXI fOW NUMUt KEY. SOURCE: FIELD DATA
FIGURE 3.7 79
Table #3.3
Relationship Between Muskrat Trappers and Owner of Ratting Sectors, 1973
Camp Number and Trapper •Owner* of Sector Relationship Trapped
1. Mary Kassi (with own family)
2. Jimmy Linklater Mary Kassi none
3. Joel Peter, Billy Bruce Peter Charlie Randall is 4. Randall Charlie, Peter Charlie's Ronnie Linklater grandson; others are unrelated.
5. Wille & Irwin Linklater Effie Linklater Effie*s sons. (no longer living in Old Crow)
6. Neil McDonald Neil McDonald Thomas Bros, are 7. Issac & Jerome not related to Thomas Nell.
8. John Tizya Peter Moses none 9. Dick Nukon (deceased)
10. Joanne Njootli(with Joanne Njootli Joanne's sons. family) 11. Grafton & Stanley Njootli
12. CP. Charlie (with Andrew Tizya CP. Charlie and family) Andrew Tizya are 13. John Joseph Kay brothers-in-law.
14. Andrew and Peter CP. Charlie Brothers-in-law. Tizya
15. Roger Kay and Charlie Abel Charlie is Roger's George Moses great uncle.
16. Peter, David, Peter Lord and Peter is father Lawrence Lord Albert Abel of David and 17. John Abel (with Lawrence, while family) Albert is John's uncle. 80
Table #3.3 continued
Camp Number and Trapper •Owner* of Sector Relationship Trapped
18. Florence Netro Joe Kay (deceased) Joe Kay was 19. Abraham Peter and Robert Bruce Abraham's grandfather.
20. Robert Bruce Jr. and John Kendi none Peter Josle
21. Robert Bruce Stephen Frost none 22. John Joe Kay (with family) 23. Albert Abel and Peter Lord Albert and Wilfred Josie Charlie are 24. Charlie Abel Peterfs brothers- in- law.
25. John Kendi and Public Area Donald Frost 26. Dollie Josie (with family) 2?. Pharas Thomas
Sources field data
that a weak exogamous clan system may still persist in Old Crow.
The clan system was supposedly destroyed by the imposition of white economic and social order. However, the old social
order may still exist in a weak form among some community members. Most importantly, the number of people ratting
in 1973 was forty-two, an Increase of about ten from i960.
The number of camps also increased from 20 to 27. In contrast,
however, the amount of time spent ratting in 1973 was signifi•
cantly shorter than in i960. 81
'Ownership' of trap lines and ratting sectors seemed to be an additional factor in the increased individuality of land activities and resultant shorter durations for land activities. It also contributed to intensive individual use of the land near Old Crow, as well as Crow Flats, and a neglect for the broader territory.
(b) Intensity of Land Use
The distribution of land use activities provides
information on the spatial variation over time, but it does not indicate the intensity of utilization within those patterns. The spatial pattern of land use has altered significantly but to understand more clearly the effect of that shift, land use intensity must be established.
This may include the number of people who use the land or the amount of time spent on the land; the amount of game captured throughout the region; or the productivity of an area. Land use intensity, therefore, is really an indirect measure of the value individuals place on their territory because intensity depends on each individual's need to use
the land.
(i) Trapping
The most accurate measure of the intensity of land use 82
for trap lines is the actual number of lines, their length, and
the trappers' duration on the line. Productivity of the trap
line is an indicator of land use intensity along a trap line and the length indicates the commitment a trapper has to the
land. More effort is required in a longer line and more time must be spent away from camp or town.
The following table attempts to show a trend in the
intensity of trap line use from 'Long Ago', when the older people were young, to the present. The number of trap lines
recorded represent all the trap lines reported by the inform• ants but the data on productivity per line is derived from
only those lines reporting use. The reason is that reliability
of the respondants• memories failed in some cases. Also, in
the case of 'Long Ago', the productivity data may be not
truly comparable to other years because the method of specialized
trapping changed. In the past, instead of establishing one line,
two or three lines were set in territories known to be productive
in specific fur types. The trapper would then divide time
between these lines, with less frequent trap checks. This
is reflected in the low productivity per trap line recorded
in Table # 3.4.
Data presented in Table #3.4 shows a major decline in
the number of trap lines, their length, number of trappers,
and total catch. On closer analysis it is evident that the
decline in catch per trapper has not been as dramatic. In Table # 3.4
Productivity of Winter Traplines In Old Crow by Mile of Line Length and Per Trapper
Long Ago
Number of trap lines 34 Average length of line 57
Sample size* 26
Number of trappers as a percentage of Old Crow Adult Population 73.9%
Catch Catch/Mile Catch/Trapper
marten 344 6.0 15.6 mink 116 • 2.0 5.3 weasel 381 6.7 17.3 lynx 60 1.1 •2.7 fox 80 1.4 3.6 beaver 24 0.4 1.1 wolverine 16 0.3 0.7 wolf 9 0.2 0.4
continued Table # 3.4 continued
1960
Number of trap lines 21 Average length of line 50 miles
Sample size 32
Number of trappers as a percentage of Old Crow Adult Population 63.2%
Catch Catch/Mile Catch/Trapper marten 319 6.4 13.9 mink 262 5.2 11.4 weasel 225 4.5 9.8 lynx 48 1.0 2.1 fox 43 0.9 1.9 beaver 25 0.5 1.1 wolverine 36 0.7 1.6 wolf 4 0.1 0.2
continued Table # 3.4 continued
197 3
Number of trap lines 6 Average length of line 30 miles
Sample size 77
Number of trappers as a percentage of Old Crow Adult Population 10.7%
Catch Catch/Mile Catch/Trapper marten 103 3.4 14.7 mink 47 1.6 6.7 weasel 9 0.3 1.3 lynx 19 0.6 2.7 fox 4 0.1 0.6 beaver 10 0.3 1.4 wolverine 0 - wolf 0 -
Source: field data
* Sample size is from respondants only and may be misleading because a number of trappers "long ago" and 1960 are no longer around. 86
certain cases productivity per trapper "between i960 and
1973 has increased slightly, reflecting the change in pelt prices, intensification of specialization, reduction
in trap line lengths, or an improved system of trap checks.
In general, greater mobility and shortened trap lines has
caused this increase. Marten has always been the most
important winter fur while wolverine, fox and wolf are
captured in the same traps. A conflict of Interest arises
between marten and mink trapping, with the former more
popular because the price is higher. Also there is always a chance of catching other fur on a marten line. Thus there
is a tendency among the small number of trappers to specialize
in marten.
Trapping specialization has altered considerably over the
time period of the data. 'Long Ago* data reflects a special•
ization Influenced by group hunting and trapping territories
that persisted at the turn of the century. However, Table
#3.4 shows that by 1973 the major winter trapping effort
was aimed at marten. Table #3-5 supports this finding by
showing a general decline in winter trapping catches and
that marten have taken up a substantial amount of the catch.
The fur takes have tended to decline through numerous
fluctuations although marten declines have not been as
marked and lynx have not shown a decline. Also evident
from Table # 3.5 is the cyclical population of fur species Table # 3.5
Old Crow Fur Returns 1938-1973
1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 -39 -40 _41 -42 -43 -4 4 -45 -46 -47 -48 marten 97 97 234 272 199 205 183 113 132 200 mink 21 54 83 173 65 68 123 176 70 117 beaver 21 5 36 146 94 . 40 50 - 2 - lynx fox otter weasel wolverine wolf squirrel
1957 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 -58 -61 -62 -63 -64 -65 -66 marten 218 110 4 475 248 142 84 mink 5 247 19 165 70 14 18 beaver 47 48 26 13 37 19 45 lynx 2 4 17 17 19 fox 15 22 2 3 otter 0 0 0 0 weasel 159 138 38 10 wolverine 0 0 1 1 wolf 0 1 0 0 squirrel 31 7 0 4
continued Table # 3.5 continued
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 -67 -68 -69 -70 -71 -72 -73 marten 34 104 98 13 33 76 103 mink 4 8 29 4 25 23 47 beaver 98 47 13 11 13 12 10 lynx 12 3 11 1 26 24 19 fox 4 1 2 0 0 3 3 otter 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 weasel 46 49 30 20 3 17 10 wolverine 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 wolf 2 2 1 0 1 4 0 squirrel 0 2 7 19 0 0 0
Source: Balikci, 1963: 93 Naysmith, 1971: 21 General Hunting Licences field data. 89
although the extreme low catches of 1969-70 and 1970-71 were responses to job opportunities in the community.
Cyclical trends must be taken into account and do not necessarily mean less intensive use of the land.
Although the spatial extent of trapping has declined along with the number of trappers, trap lines, and the intensity of use for each utilized trapping parcel, productivity per trapper has not been reduced proportionately, especially in the species that account for most of the catch.
This suggests that land use for trapping is still relatively intensive.
(ii) Hunting
The intensity of hunting in the Old Crow land has a similar pattern. There has been a general decline in the spatial extent of the hunting territory and seasonality of hunting has shifted in response to the altered winter trapping patterns, but the productivity per hunting area has not declined. In the winter of 1972-73 there was only one reported case of hunting off the main transportation network. Table # 3.6 in conjunction with the land use maps presented previously provides the Information. Productivity for Table # 3.6 is derived from those Informants that provided data on the quantities that were taken in a given Table # 3.6
Hunt Productivity and Land Use Intensity
Long Ago 1960 1973
Sample size* 26 32 77
Number of hunters as a percentage of Old Crow Adult Population 95.4% 65.5% 66%
Total Catch Reported:
caribou 497 512 751 moose 160 32 22 rabbit 515 432 202 birds 147 335 342 bears unknown 2 1
Productivity per hunter:
caribou 16. 18.9 18.2 moose 5, 1.2 .6 rabbits 17 16.0 4.4 birds 4 32.7 8.1 bears 0 0
Source: field data * Sample consists of respondants only, therefore may be misleading terms of total number of hunters for "long ago ' and "I960". 91
hunt. All hunts, whether data was provided or not, are located on Figures # 3.2, # 3.3 and # 3.5.
Although the total numbers vary and partially are subject to the method of data gathering, the productivity section of
Table # 3,6 is a fair indicator of the aggregate hunting pattern. The differences in caribou values between 'Long
Ago' and the other columns represents the shift from communal meat camps during the trapping season to year round individual hunting. The decline in moose hunting shows the shift from living in dispersed settlements throughout the hunting territory to one large community in Old Crow, infamous for lack of moose in the immediate area. The decline of hunting other species is due to the great amount of effort required and small return in hunting these animals (see Table # 3*7)«
The attitude that the caribou is the life-line for Old Crow is by no means exaggerated.
Unlike trapping, the number of hunters has not declined, but has been relatively stable over recent years. In the past, most winter hunting took place along the trap line, a very rare occurrence at present. The fall hunt, both in the past and now, is the most important hunt. However the people now have greater mobility and more efficient means to capture
larger game reserves and use more powerful river craft to
their advantage in transportation. Although the same number
of people make larger catches the amount of time spent on the
land is less because each individual has a specific intent, Table # 3.7
Old Crow, Game Returns 1963-73
1963 1964 1965* 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 -64 -65 -66 -67 -68 -69 -70 _71 -72 -73 caribou 706 769 •mm 592 590 557 478 503 573 751 moose 10 7 - 22 17 24 18 11 26 22 bear 1 1 - 4 3 1 5 1 2 0 geese 15 3 - 4 11 25 5 0 12 ) ducks 155 110 28 77 50 16 20 44 ) 342 ptarmigan 196 12 - 15 10 27 50 100 43 ) rabbits - - - - — — — — — 202
* incomplete data
Source: 1963-64 to 1971-72 - General Hunting Licences, Game Branch, Whitehorse, Y.T. 1972-73 - field data 93
to hunt caribou. With specialization, the land is continually viewed with a high intensity of use.
(iii) Ratting
Contrary to the diminished spatial extent of hunting and trapping, the area for ratting has been relatively constant.
This is due to the special habitat required by muskrats, the location and size of that habitat. Since 1917* Crow Flats has been used for the spring muskrat harvest. Ratting camps may be on the old fish camp sites of the post-contact era.
It is evident from the three land use maps (Figures # 3.2,
# 3»3» # 3*5) that the distribution of ratting camps has not altered, even though specific locations have changed.
This is also evident in Figures # 3*6 and # 3*7 which more precisely locate the muskrat camps in I960, 1961, and 1973*
Table #3.8 provides the data on muskrat productivity.
The productivity per camp and per muskrat trapper is derived only from informants that were able to provide quantitative data.
The muskrat harvest Is down per person ratting. The most striking statistic however is the tremendous increase in the number of ratting camps. The land itself is being used more while productivity is declining. This trend is not similar to trapping, which has a declining number of Table # 3.8
Muskrat Camps Productivity
Long Ago 1960 1973
Number of camps 19 20 27
Number of people ratting as a percentage of Total Old Crow Adult Population* 86.9% 56.6% 69.2%
Muskrat Harvest: Total 10,210 8,950 13,725 Per camp 537 448 521 Per muskrat trapper 486 389 320
Source: field data
* Sample size consists of respondants only, therefore may be misleading for "long ago" and "1960". Table # 3.9
Fur Returns for Muskrats
Year Amount Year Amount Year Amount
1938-39 30,084 1957-58 36,311 1967-68 11,273 1939-40 19,688 1968-69 9,461 1940-41 13,858 1969-70 753 1941-42 11,120 1960-61 21,017 1970-71 5,225 1942-43 10,965 1961-62 12,361 1971-72 9,798 1943-44 15,137 1962-63 17,411 1972-73 13,725 1944-45 15,920 1963-64 14,000 1945-46 22,405 1964-65 7,860 1946-47 18,940 1965-66 9 ,688 1947-48 14,946 1966-67 13,324
Source: Balikci, 1963: 93 Naysmith, 1971: 21 General Hunting Licences Field data 96
trappers but a steady fur return; or to hunting which is seeing a steady number of hunters and a steady return of caribou. The number of people ratting has increased causing the productivity per person to drop. The muskrat catch has been fluctuating, on a downward trend, but recently an
increase has been noted (see Table # 3»9). When comparing
Table # 3.9 with Table # 3.5 it is evident that the muskrat harvest accounts for a substantial portion of the total fur return.
(iv) Pishing
Fishing is a much less intensive endeavour. Table
# 3.10 compares the catches for the last few years. Like
trapping and hunting, a cyclical trend is noted with a
slightly declining catch.
Twenty-two fishermen took fish in 1973 on a less than
intensive basis. They went after the salmon run in August
and left their nets in for only a short period.
4. Summary
There is a decline in the total number of trappers and
a steady drop in the productivity of muskrats. Hunting is
different, for with long range rifles, caribou are easy to
catch. The land still is being used as intensively as in the Table # 3.10
Old Crow Fisheries, 1967-1973
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Type
Chinook 43 38 27 8 - 81 13 Chum 11,768 10,000 3,377 620 10,000 4,570 5,780 Coho - 261 34 - - 25 - Whitefish 1,124 2,550 734 195 - 650 870 Other* 2,001 2,431 657 368 3,000 4,100 4,232
Total 14,936 15,300 4,829 1,191 13,000 9,425 10,895
* Others: grayling, sucker, jackfish, hump whitefish, losch, inconnu.
Sources: 1967 - 1970 - Bisset and Meldrum, 1973: 37. 1971 - :i972 - Steigenberger, et al, 1973: 42. 1973 - field data. 98
past, but not for the varied harvest of resources the land can provide. No one any longer occupies himself with the routine patience required to patrol a trap line, or accepts the isolation of trapping. Now, trips into the bush are frequent, but short, to meet immediate needs only, resulting in the new pattern of land use.
Resources from the land do not meet the total community needs. The following section will show the extent to which the land fills the people's requirements, and uncover other sources that provide for the necessities of life.. The section also explores the 'dual economy* of Old Crow. In this way we can precisely measure the status of the economy in an ecological way. 99
B. THE OLD CROW ECONOMY
The spatial change in land use is reflected in the social and economic changes that have occurred in Old Crow.
The purpose here is to present the economic conditions as they now exist and examine the relative importance of the land and community as the base for the people's economic existence.
Cash for fine furs, woodcutting, and handicraft can be added to other cash inflows such as wages, pensions, allowances, and government assistance to make up an aggregate income. The gross community cash income for
1972-73 was $315,000 with the average family income as follows:
Wages 4,580.00 (67%) Allowances, Pensions, etc. 720.00 (11$) Other: Trapping 1,090.00 (16$)
Woodcutting 310.00 ( 9%)
Handicraft 120.00 I 2$)
#6,820.00
Source: field data. 100:
It is evident that the residents of Old Crow derive their livelihood from a mixed community-based and land- based economy.
1. Community Based Economy
In the twelve months prior to the field season there were fifty-three wage earners in Old Crow, of which seventeen were employed full-time and the others for various time lengths. This is shown in Table # 3.11.
Table # 3,11
Length of Time in Wage Employment, Old Crow, 1972-73
Weeks of
Work 10 10-17 19-25 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 Total
No. of
People 11 8 11 3 2 1 17 53
Source: field data
Permanent jobs have been associated with the government while oil drillings have attracted people for short periods.
Lately many research groups have provided opportunities for temporary employment. Table # 3.12 suggests that there has been an increase in wage employment, although this trend must be viewed cautiously. Some of the full-time jobs require only 101
Table #3.12 Employment Opportunities 1961 1973 full part full part Type time time time time
Janitor 2 0 6 0 Guides or helpers 0 4 0 7 Trader or co-operative 0 1-2 2 3 Labourer: Indian Affairs 0 5-10 0 10 Yukon Gov't 0 0 1 1 Oil Companies 0 0 0 19 D.O.T. 0 0 0 2 Fisheries 0 0 0 1 Renewable Resources Ltd. 0 0 0 7 Forestry 0 0 0 1 Special Constable 1 0 1 0
Equipment Operator 1, & Truck Driver 0 0 0 4 Teacher Assistant 0 0 1 0 Weather Observer 0 0 0 3 Post Office Clerk 0 0 1 0 Band Secretary 0 0 1 0 Airline Agent 0 0 1 0 Domestic 0 0 0 2 News Reporter 0 0 1 1 Forest Fire Observer 0 0 1 0
~3~ 10-16 17 ~6l
Note: number of people involved: 196l - unknown 1973 - 53 (17 people employed full time; 40) people Source: Balikci, 1963: 96 employed part Canada Manpower Study, time, with many 1971, updated by having more than field data, 1973. one job) 102
a few hours a week, while others have uncertain durations.
Wage income made up about 60% of the total income for
Old Crow in 1973. Steady employment accounted for about two-thirds of that. Table # 3.13 shows the wage distribution for the community.
Table #3.13
Wage Income Distribution, Old Crow 1972-73
Income Range No. of People #10,000 1 7,500-10,000 8 15,000-7,499 3 #3,000-4,999 17 12,000-2,999 9 11,000-1,999 9 #1,000 6__ 53
Source: field data
77% of the Old Crow people had less than a $5,000 wage income, yet employment is the most important source of cash Income in Old Crow. Steady employment, however, is restricted to those jobs with different government organizations, limiting the number of people that can be steady employees. The only alternatives left are the short term jobs already mentioned, or employment outside the village. Most Old Crow people have chosen the first 103
alternative, a typical choice in small, isolated northern communities. Evidently Old Crow has not the necessary economic base to absorb the labour force that is looking more and more toward wage employment. When wage income is combined with all other forms of cash income, families are pushed into a higher range. However, it remains that 48$ of Old Crow has less than $5»000 total income.
There is a general feeling in Old Crow that fewer jobs will be available in Old Crow in the future. Yet, it also seems that employment opportunities are levelling off. Stager (m ds 94) has shown that there is a tendency toward more temporary employment in the village.
Some people have worked away from Old Crow, only to return. The government has encouraged and financially assisted residents to seek employment elsewhere, but many have preferred to remain at home. Table § 3.14 shows the percentage number of people who would not seek work outside Old Crow. It shows that more of the younger people are willing to go. 104
Table #3.1*+
Affinity to Old Crow by Residents
Would Leave Would Stay Total Age % % N = 77
Male:
40 yrs. 5 19 24 30-40 yrs. 6 1 7 17-29 yrs 14 _9_ Total 25 29 8
Female:
40 yrs. 3 18 21 30-40 yrs. 0 6 6 17-29 yrs. 10 _2 1 Total 13 33
Totals: J8 62 100
Source: field data
If the trend to "urbanize" persists in Old Crow, an economic base must be found to support the population.
Presently, none is evident; resource development would provide temporary employment only, not unlike present conditions. Bisset and Meldrum (1973: 7*0 report that local dependence on renewable resources will remain. It is to this idea that the following section is presented - to determine the extent of present conditions of land activities and to evaluate their potential in the future of Old Crow. 105
2. Land Based Economy
There is a need to establish the level of importance that the products of land activities have on Old Crow living standards. Cash is paid directly for fine furs, woodcutting, and handicrafts and can easily be compared to other constituents of the aggregate income. The role of country food can also be estimated in the domestic food budget,
(a) Cash for Land Activities
Woodcutting is a relatively stable enterprise from year to year, and accounts for about $13,000 of the gross community income. Twenty-six people went woodcutting for various lengths of time in 1973 which is typical of other years.
Handicrafts, on the other hand, seem to be a growing
enterprise. They accounted for around $5»000 of the gross
community income, distributed among fourteen women in ten different families. Lastly, trapping and ratting, a highly
fluctuating enterprise, saw 1973 as a good year for fur
prices. Table # 3.15 shows the dramatic increase in fur
income for 1972-73. Table # 3.15
Fur Income, 1967-1973
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 -68 -69 -70 -71 -72 -73 muskrat $7,440. 18 9,934. 05 737. 94 6,740. 25 16,460 .64 34,312. 50 marten 1,027. 52 896. 70 133. 51 325. 05 790 .40 1,236. 00 mink 128. 64 512. 14 59. 96 283. 50 373 .52 470. 00 beaver 591. 73 177. 97 142. 12 137. 80 190 .56 450. 00 lynx 59, 82 309. 10 22. 50 440. 70 643 .20 2,090. 00 fox 6. 82 25. 80 0 0 41 .25 180. 00 otter 17. 37 0 0 0 77 .64 0 weasel 27. 44 16. 50 9. 00 1. 35 7 .31 15. 00 wolverine 0 0 45. 89 0 111 .12 0 wolf 42. 62 28. 68 0 34. 18 178 .00 0 squirrel .7 4 2. 59 5. 32 0 0 0
$9,342.88 11,903.53 1,156.24 7,962.83 18,873.64 38,753.50
Source: derived from average fur prices reported in Statistics Canada, catalogue 23: 207. 10?
With the exception of 196-9-70 muskrat pelts have been making an increasingly greater percentage of the total fur income; 79% in 1967-68 to 88$ in 1972-73.
The upward trend in income is deceptive, however.
Table # 3.16 shows that cash for land-based activities accounts for less than #2,000 for 75% of the families who engage in those activities.
Table # 3.16
Families with Income From Land Activities, Old Crow 1972-73
Income Range No. of Families
$10,000 1 #7,500-10,000 0 #5,000-7,499 0 #3,000-4,999 3 #2,000-2,999 3 #1,000-1,999 10 #1-1,000 9 0 11 unknown 4
Total 41
Source: field data
In combining the analysis of Table # 3.16 with Table
# 3.17, we see that four families (12 people) relied on land-based activities for more than 50$ of their total family cash income. One of these families had a land- derived income of over #10,000, while the remaining three family incomes were less than #4,000. It is also evident 108
that over three-quarters of the community rely on the land
for less than 20$ of their income.
Table #3.17
Land-Based Income as a Percentage of Total Income, Old Crow 1972-73
Percentage Range No. of Families
1 71-80 1 61-70 0 51-60 2 41-50 o 31-40 -2 21-30 3 11-20 8 1-10 9 0 11 unknown 4. Total 41
Source: field data
(b) Direct Consumption from Land Activities
In assessing fish and game for a production consumption analysis, all catches were converted to weight. Similarly, all family food requirements were converted to weight. By doing this it is assumed that country food is preferred and people will eat mostly meat when it is available. 109
Country Food Production: Old Crow Hunter/Trapper Family in 1973 lb.
1500 birds
I y* J A muskrats 'A 13504- rabbits
moose 12001 caribou • fish 1050 consumption /
(Source: f ield data) 900
750
600
450
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
FIGURE 3.8 Table # 3.18
Family Requirements and Consumption of Country Food 1973
p amily Persons Estimated lbs. Estimated lbs. of meat & fish Consumed food Subsii Jo. Per Family of meat and consumed as % of Class fish required required food per family fish meat muskrats Total 1 1 1,825 625 625 34.2% II 2 1 1,825 480 1,345 120 1,945 100 I 3 4 4,740 20 40 60 1.2 IV 4 11 8,580 690 5,120 90 6,525 76.0 I 5 5 5,840 15 780 140 935 16.0 IV 6 8 9,490 935 8,555 520 10,010 100 I 7 9 8,760 1,340 1,340 15.3 IV 8 2 2,375 400 125 150 675 28.4 III 9 7 8,945 750 2,925 3,675 41.0 II 10 5 7,850 615 7,220 15 7,850 100 I 11 8 8,205 85 2,010 2,095 25.5 III 12 9 7,490 105 1,840 160 2,105 • 28.1 III 13 6 8,945 2,570 160 2,730 30.5 III 14 7 7,665 105 3,200 250 3,555 46.4 III 15 5 9,125 625 8,340 200 9,165 100 I 16 4 4,745 490 4,165 480 5,495 100 I 17 3 4,200 350 2,560 120 3,030 72.1 II 18 9 11,315 825 8,770 230 9,825 86.8 I 19 8 9,490 130 5,635 300 6,065 63.9 II 20 4 7,300 20 3,560 360 3,940 53.9 II 21 8 6,945 510 4,040 75 4,625 66.6 II
continued Table # 3.18 continued
Family Persons Estimated lbs. Estimated lbs. of meat & fish Consumed food Subsistence No. Per Family of meat and consumed as % of Class fish required required food per family fish meat muskrats Total
22 3 4,200 1,250 1,250 28.8 III 23 1 1,825 30 1,095 120 1,245 68.2 II 24 2 3,650 125 2,455 70 2,650 72.6 II 25 4 7,300 6,265 75 8,990 100 I 26 2 3,650 375 3,000 120 3,495 95.7 I H 27 2 3,650 425 2,830 180 3,435 94.1 I 28 5 7,845 0 0 0 0 0 29 12 11,680 unknown 30 1 1,825 0 0 0 0 0 31 7 6,390 unknown 32 2 3,650 50 2,030 40 2,120 58.1 II 33 2 2,920 0 0 0 0 0 34 2 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 35 1 1,800 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 -37 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 38 6 8,200 unknown 39 3 4,200 unknown 40 1 1,825 unknown 41 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 0
183 225,465 106,805 55.29%
Source: field data 112
The two most Important components of the food supply,
caribou and salmon, are available on a pronounced seasonal
basis. This is reflected in Figure #3.8 where country
food production shows a seasonal peak. The graph also shows
an estimated consumption level with the rate calculated on
the basis of surplus carry-over. By February the surplus
runs out and the importance of muskrat meat becomes very
evident in May and June. In March and April people required
a "grub stake" from the co-op. It must be concluded that
muskrats as a source of food, as well as a source of pelts, attracted people to Crow Flats.
This research made an attempt to classify the people
of Old Crow by their rate of country food consumption.
Usher (1971: II; 73) provided guidance for developing a family food budget - consumption was calculated at a rate of 5 lbs./adult and 1.5-2 lb./child per day through the year (ibid). Table # 3.18 lists each Old Crow family, their amount of food required, estimated amount of country food consumed, and the consumed as a percentage of required.
A classification into "subsistence levels" was made on a quartile basis with "Class I" containing those with 75$ of their dietary needs supplied by country food. The percentage declined to 25$ for "Class IV".
Table # 3.18 shows that 55$ of the food needs in Old
Crow are supplied by the land. There are 10 families with 113
fifty-one people (28$ of Old Crow) in "Subsistence Class I";
9 familes, or 37 people (20$) in "Class II"; 6 families containing 35 people (19$) in "Class III"; and 3 families or 18 people (10$) in "Class IV". This means that 77$ of the people in Old Crow rely to some extent on food from the land and that 48$ of the total population have at least half their food needs met by the land.
3. Summary and Conclusion
With modern views toward employment, the monetary return from land based activities is secondary. Greater effort and the uncertain returns of a bush existence move people to town employment. Yet, Old Crow is not completely caught; up in reaching for the new material world. This is evidenced by the fact that country food supplies the community with over half its requirements; fatting is gaining in popularity; and autumn hunting trips are still annual excursions. The land is still strong in terms of the people's livelihood.
The people no longer exploit the entire Porcupine drainage area but have focussed their attention to the land that is within easy commuting distance of Old Crow. Hunting and trapping are still carried on, but on a small spatial scale. The muskrat harvesting territory has not been 114
reduced and more people are engaging in the activity.
People still see land activities as a necessary function in every day subsistence, while the view of land has taken symbolic meaning. The land, by itself, is a product of their heritage; a fulfilling of the need for psychological escape as well as being the object for cultural expressions of territoriality. 115
CHAPTER IV
TERRITORIALITY
There has always been concern among Kutchin for their territory. Traditional ethnographies, such as Osgood's
(1936b), delimit territories on the basis of occupance.
This assumes that through repeated use of resources in an area over time, a group will feel they belong to that land area. Chapter III examined Kutchin territory in the light of land-use and cultural change. Occupance, however, is not an expression of territoriality. Territoriality is the act of claiming and defending a territory and is directed at another group. This chapter will focus on the aggressive or defensive actions of territoriality that occurred in the past, the expressions of territoriality through the perception of Old Crow people, and the commitment people have toward their land.
The following quote exemplifies the possessive feeling
Old Crow people now have for their land:
"You can't cut trees around 300 square miles of Old Crow ... but ... I suppose ... you can take logs out of the river because they aren't on the land."10
10 Personal conversation: July 23, 1973* 116
This expression claims control over land-use, infers the outright ownership of the land, but suggests confusion over control of the river that flows through the area.
In the past the concept of ownership was unknown.
There was, however, a sense of possession and control over a particular hunting territory. Acts of territoriality took the form of raiding as well as trading on territorial peripheries. Conflicts arose because people were unsure of "outsiders'" intentions. Inter tribal exchange occurred on neutral ground where both parties felt equally secure.
These relationships become evident in the following examples of recorded action in the past.
1. Territoriality in the Past
Hall (1969) has suggested that Kutchin, after being driven out of the foothills of the Brooks Range in Alaska, did not establish a hunting territory until they settled along the Chandalar, Porcupine and Peel Rivers. It is
inferred that when the Kutchin arrived at these locations
they were required to claim a hunting territory against
others in the area. The last settlement was as recent as I850 (Hall, 1969: 321), suggesting that conflicts
arising from territoriality were still a part of the
natives' lives after white contact. 117
FIGURE 4.1 118
Raiding and trading were warm weather activities
because people were highly dispersed during winter. •
Raiding was swift, utilizing the element of surprise, and retreat was rapid to avoid retaliation. Trade was
carried on with caution. In Figure #4.1 twenty-six
locations where two groups have encountered each other
in conflict or trade are recorded. Table #4.1 explains
in detail the happenings at the locations mapped in
Figure # 4.1.
Of the twenty-one conflict locations, only six are
not situated along territorial boundaries. Half the
conflicts recorded relate to a wide no-man's-land
between the undisputed territories of Nakotcho Kutchin
and Eskimos. Other cases of conflict occurred deep within
each other's territory usually in retaliation for conflicts
on neutral ground. However, warfare was not exclusively
Kutchin-Eskimo conflict; third parties were cited at
three different locations. In addition, four of the five
trading locations are situated peripherally.
The motive for such territorial behaviour was
essentially economic. One group would unexpectedly
come upon another, and thinking these 'outsiders' were
pillaging the territory, would strike swiftly. Revenge
often followed, occurring deep'in the opposition's territory. Table # 4.1 Pre-Contact and Early Contact Territoriality In Northwest North America
A. Mapped Conflict Locations:
Map No, Notes Source
1 pre-contact skirmishes deep Slobodin, 1960: 85 in Eskimo territory in retaliation of other conflicts. MD
2, 3 pre-contact skirmishes deep Slobodin, 1960: 83 in Eskimo territory in retaliation of other conflicts.
at times Eskimos also penetrated Slobodin, 1960: 85 deep into Kutchin territory to retaliate.
5-11 conflicts within a wide no-man's Slobodin, 1960: 89 land. Any group found within the no-man's land was considered a threat to the other group.
12 act of defense against an eastern Slobodin, 1960: 77 tribe who had been out exploring for economic gain.
continued Table # 4.1 continued
Map No. Notes Source
13 conflict arising because Tutchone Slobodin, 1960: 86 felt Kutchin were encroaching on their territory.
14 Eskimos kidnapped and killed Kutchin Balikci, 1963: 32 boys after trading expedition. An act of retaliation. (—1 15 Kutchin defending their middleman Franklin, 1828: 14 o position against whites who attempted to by-pass them.
16 counter-retaliation to kidnapping Balikci, 1963: 32 (#14); Kutchin annilated an Eskimo village at Shingle Point.
17, 18 pre-contact skirmishes along McKennan, 1965: 68-69 drainage divide near a common caribou hunting area.
19, 20 early Kutchin/Eskimo conflicts Hall, 1969: 321 of Brooks Range that forced Kutchin migration eastward.
continued Table # 4.1 continued
Map No. Notes Source
21 Tanana, expressing fear of invasion, Balikci, 1963: 32 surrounded Kutchin while Archdeacon McDonald was preaching, but no fight developed. H
B. Mapped Trade Locations
1 post-contact trade with whites during Slobodin, 1962: 31 gold rush.
unusual winter aggregation of Tutchone Slobodin, 1962: 32 and Kutchin for hunting and trading.
Kutchin trade with downriver McKennan, 1965: 25 Athapaskans.
4 trade between two Kutchin bands. Leechman, 1954: 26
5 Eskimo/Kutchin trade during pre McKennan, 1965: 25 and post-contact periods. 122
Prestige also characterized the economic motive of warfare. Often if a group felt cheated in trade they retaliated to gain face, but not usually to gain materially
(Slobodin, I960: 87; Hall, 1969: 87). Thus prestige was also a motive in itself.
Kutchin were aware of their territory basically for economic reasons. Prestige and revenge, although possible motives in themselves, were generally by-products of economic-based hostilities. True aggession accompanied prestige and revenge. Consequently, material gain was not an issue. Today, native people argue from the same point of view - that territorial claims are merely a defensive measure in retaining what they already possess.
2. Present-day Claims
Present-day land claims, according to the following quote, are motivated by cultural survival.
"Without land Indian people have no soul - no life - no identity - no purpose. Control of our own land is necessary for our cultural and economic survival."
(Y.N.B., 1973: ID 123
The quote suggests that the land has become a symbol,
representing a heritage that people can identify with and take pride in. This does not eliminate the economic motive, but actually complements it. It will be shown
that although the reasons given for land claims are
cultural, deep economic insecurity is the major contributor.
Land claims by native people is an important unresolved
issue in the Yukon. In the Old Crow region much of the
land has oil lease potential. Native groups are concerned about the land surface by title as well as sub-surface
mineral rights, water rights, and timber rights. Field
data in this research, presented in Chapter III, has also
shown the value of the land as a food and income source.
Finally, the land is viewed as a refuge from town (Usher,
1973: 6).
There are two spatial scales of land claims from the
Old Crow Band - the total Porcupine River drainage area
and the region of Crow Flats (see Figure # 4.2). The Old
Crow Band Council presented claim to the Porcupine
Drainage by citing precedence in using the land for
traditional hunting and trapping purposes (Y.N.B., 1973:
29). The Yukon Native Brotherhood, on behalf of the Old
Crow Band, suggested a formula for joint management of
the area. Two representatives, from the Federal Wildlife
Service and the Yukon Territorial Government, would be 124
FIGURE 4.2 125
appointed to a board by the Old Crow Council. In addition to this control the Band Council would have complete freedom to re-locate the village, if necessary, and have exclusive timber rights to two areas - at the mouths of Driftwood River and David Lord Creek.
The Old Crow Band also has claimed clear title "to the area called Crow Flats" (Y.N.B., 1973: 12). A major problem immediately arises in the definition of Crow Flats: that area of present occupation; the total area of flat topography and lakes; or, the total drainage area including the streams draining into the flat area.
The last idea was adopted formally in a Band Meeting on
July 23, 1973* in response to a Federal Government query on whether to grant an oil exploration permit in the
Flats. However, it is significant that no definitive statement has been made concerning land claims.
Both land claim areas have been reserved since the mid 1950's as the Old Crow registered group trapping area
(see Figure # 4.2). Although these areas have not been used extensively for many years, the people of Old Crow feel that when outside employment fails them, they could return to a lucrative hunting and trapping economy. Crow
Flats especially has been labelled "the bank" - something to which the people can turn in time of need. 126
Technically, without complete title for the Porcupine
Basin claim, it may be impossible to manage the resource
utilization of the area. With complete title to Crow
Flats a conflict immediately arises over scale of control between the larger territory and the smaller, more intensive territory. In addition, territorial and
international boundaries actually restrict both claims.
Ethnographies that review past Kutchin life provide territories that do not necessarily conform to the
Porcupine Basin claim area. These anomalies in territory have been recognized and accepted. However, the type of claims must be clarified to include specific powers before there can be consistent development toward a just settlement.
3. The Perception of a Territory
A territory is not simply the piece of ground defended and controlled, it is also the zone with which one identifies. Perception is an expression of territoriality because as a person identifies with an area, he is, at least in his own mind, claiming it.
Therefore locations identified within the territory become significant and become indicators of territoriality. 127
In the following discussion an attempt is made to delimit the spatial perception of the Old Crow territory- held by members of the community. The knowledge of their territory is based partially on past experience and history, or reputation, of Identifiable sites within it, as well as the people's attitudes toward those sites. This paper provides data on the nature of the perceived territory of Old Crow, gauges the information flow between generations, and may explain the two-scale land claims presented in the last section.
The procedure in obtaining the perceived territory
of Old Crow was through the compilation of an Indian language, Loucheux, place name map. Two groups, one of
'older people' and one of 'younger people*, were Invited 11
to participate in producing the Loucheux map . By careful
selection, the members of these groups fairly represented
the community.
The mapping activity was generally unsupervised.
Instructions given were to identify and provide names
for the most important locations in the Old Crow lands.
11 Older people were those over 40 years of age; younger people ranged from 17 years to 29 years of age. 128
There was no communication between the two groups.
Participants were given a large sketch map of the
Porcupine Drainage pattern. One hundred and sixty- eight locations were identified - one hundred and twenty-two by the younger group, one hundred and thirty by the older group, with a total of eighty- four duplications. Both groups listed locations in rank of importance and it was felt that the first day's work, giving twenty-five of the best known locations, was most valid in expressing a territorial core.
Consequently, the last locations mentioned were the least important in the perception of Old Crow territory.
There is no right or wrong answer to this exercise because it is impossible to obtain a reasonably objective delimitation of Kutchin territory. It is impossible to evaluate shifts in people's perception due to historical changes in land use and settlement. However, each group's map can be used for a comparison, the variable being age.
Shifts in perception between generations can then be studied.
Two terms, core area and home territory, may be adopted here to describe two distinct scales of perception held by Old Crow people. The core area defines the zone to which people immediately identify. Home territory describes the range of territory that people feel is part of Old Crow. 129
FIGURE 4.3 130
(a) Core Area
According to both groups the most Important feature of the Crow lands is a small tributary of the Old Crow River, Schaeffer Creek. This stream drains the southern portion of Crow Plats and Is the main artery to over half the muskrat trapping sectors in the Plats. The core area is identified as Crow Flats with Schaeffer Creek as Its focus (see Figure # 4.3)• The delimitation of the core area by the two groups suggests inconsistent information flow between generations. The land area of the core was reduced 59.8 per cent in passage from the older to the younger generation. The decrease in area reflects a reduction in the number of stream arteries and an increase in the number of lakes identified. On the other hand, within the core fifty-two per cent of the locations, all lakes, were commonly identified. Also, very significant is the fact that neither group included the community site of Old Crow in the core area.
(b) Home Territory
The influence of the Porcupine River was the major factor in identifying the home territory of Old Crow. The older group established 90 locations outside the core 131 132
FIGURE 4.5 133
while the younger group provided 71 (Figure # 4.4,
Figure # 4.5). The younger group's image of their
home territory is slightly smaller in area than the
older group's. Where young people considered the
least important locations to be on the periphery
of the territorial image, older people scattered the
least important locations throughout the territory.
Sites of lesser importance recorded by older people were not mentioned by the younger group.
Two remarkable pieces of evidence which contribute
to the differences between the two maps are the inclusion
of hunting and trapping trails, and the location of
caribou surrounds by the older group. In comparison,
the younger-people's image does not show caribou surrounds, and hunting trails are much shorter. Also of special mention is the large number of points located north of
Crow Flats in the foothills of the British Mountains
that are mentioned by the older group. This confirms
that the older people were much more oriented to hunting
caribou in the foothills, similar to pre-contact generations.
It can be concluded that the total territorial
perception has diminished between generations but the
image of the core has intensified. It is noteworthy that
it is the land, Crow Flats, that is identified as the core, not the community of Old Crow. In terms of ranking order, 134
however, the community is taking on more importance.
The younger people are still aware of the vast expanse of Old Crow territory and their image, although slightly reduced, is significantly large. The greatest shift has occurred in the core region of the territory, with minor shifts on the periphery. This may not be too surprising, in view of recent land claims and oil exploration in the
Crow Flats region.
4. Territorial Commitment
The preceding section has provided data on the spatial extent of Old Crow territory. To measure the intensity of the people's commitment to defend their land, a hypothetical invasion, in terms of a pipeline and external control of the pipeline, was posed to the
Old Crow residents. Defense responses were obtained for locations within the Porcupine Drainage system as well as two locations on the Arctic Coast (see Figure
# 4.8). The sites chosen represented both construction camps and pumping stations that would be necessary if a pipeline were constructed. It was found that no perceptual difference among the Old Crow people occurred between the 135
threat of a pumping station or the threat of a construction
camp, by themselves. However, when actual locations were
added, some became more threatening than others.
The intensity of commitment was obtained from a
defense index. This was accomplished by asking the Old
Crow residents to respond, on a five point scale, their
feelings toward pipeline development at the selected
locations. Each category on the scale was given a value,
the frequency was tabulated and the average response per
location was calculated. The category values ranged from
-2 (strongly unacceptable) to +2 (strongly acceptable) rather
than the usual +1 to +5. Therefore, accepting a proposed
site was clearly opposed to not accepting it. The following
table and figure summarize the procedure:
Table #4.2
A. Defense Response Values
Category Value
a. strong acceptance +2 b. acceptance +1 c. neutral 0 d. unacceptable -1 e. strong unacceptance -2
N = 77 136
Table #4.2 continued
B. Defense Indices and Accessible Distance from Old Crow for the Sample Locations
Location Accessible Defense Distance * Index (miles)
1 23 -1.22 2 54 -1.10 3 28 -1.25 4 152 -1.03 5 58 -1.01 6 12 -1.43 Route A (Old Crow) 0 -1.49 Route B .27 7 ** .16
* Accessible distance was measured in miles according to the easiest and quickest river and/or overland route to the particular location. ** The accessible distance to these locations cannot be measured accurately. The locations, in fact, to the people of Old Crow have become inaccessible.
Figure #4.6
Category Frequency of Scale Points For Each Location Location Frequency Route A (Old Crow) 6
+2 -2 (neutral) (acceptable) (unacceptable)
Source: field data 137
The people were also asked to respond to the alternative pipeline routes. The defense index derived for these routes could be located anywhere along the lines, however, for cartographic convenience, they were fixed at particularly significant locations (see
Figure # 4.8). The northern route was fixed where the pipeline crosses the Firth River, the only remaining major Arctic draining river that has any meaning to the Old Crow people. The southern route was placed at the townsite of Old Crow because many respondants expressed concern over how the pipeline would ruin
Old Crow.
Figure #4.6 portrays the effect of the frequency
of responses on the defense index. The curves for
location 7 and route B are highly skewed on the positive
side while the remainder are skewed on the negative side.
The skewness is reflected in the defense indices listed
in Table # 4.2 B where the intensity index ranges from
+ .27 to -1.49 and the strongest defense responses
provide the lowest index. The comparison also shows
that a location which possesses the strongest expression
of territoriality has a mode of the strongest defense
category.
The data from Table #4.2 B in its raw form presents
a non-linear function in a correlation and regression 138
analysis. Even in the untransformed state the correlation
is significant at the .05 level with r = .77. However,
when the data is logarithmically transformed the strength
of the correlation was increased and the regression
equation took a linear form.
Figure #4.7
Correlation and Regression of Defense Intensity and Accessible Distance from Old Crow
r = .88
y = .19 +• .08x
.10-* (log) 0 [
(log) accessible distance from Old Crow
The regression function (Figure # 4.7) shows a
strong correlation (.88) between defense Intensity,
which drops off rapidly, and accessible distance. However,
distance is not the only variable determining the strength of 139
territoriality for most locations, the r~ value is 0.77 so that 23 per cent of the spatial pattern may be explained by other variables. Location 6 is the greatest deviant from the line of least squares because it is in the immediate hunting range of Old Crow and in the fall of 1973 was a river crossing location for caribou. Location 3 is near the Crow Flats Drainage Divide and there is a very real fear within the community that a pipeline would destroy the muskrat population of the Flats; thus a higher defense
index. Location 4, the old site of La Pierre House, has recently been in Old Crow news with reference to historical and archaeological work by the government. Many people of
Old Crow have learned about their own history, as well as the natural history of the Porcupine Drainage; and from this work a higher defense intensity resulted than was
expected because the people identified with the location.
Location 5 had no focus in the people's mind, especially
in relation to the other locations, resulting in the
lowest defense index.
Figure #4.8 cartographically represents the defense
indices of Table #4.2 B. The numbers are location numbers only, while the width of the line between Old
Crow and each location portray the intensity of territor•
iality at each location. These intensity lines radiate
from the location with the strongest defense index. 140
Source: field data
FIGURE 4.8 141
Included on the map is the location of an existing base. There seemed to be no opposition to this camp and because it already existed was excluded from the study.
Undoubtedly, Old Crow is the centre of the defense territory, having the greatest index (see Table # 4.2 B).
It is also evident that the coastal locations are not part of the Old Crow defendable territory, in view of the low defense indices (see Table # 4.2 B).
It is impossible to provide accurate boundaries for the defendable territory of Old Crow; there are not enough locations throughout the area to give a basis for extra• polation. Although intensity is a function of distance, the function is not a straight line distance, but rather, accessible distance. It is difficult to measure the accessibility of many locations and, of course, access• ibility changes from winter to summer. However, this section has established the commitment held by Old Crow residents to various parts of their land. Old Crow people do think as a community; they view the land collectively and exhibit a solid front in the defense of their territory. 142
5. The Old Crow Claim
Two scales, the territorial expression encompassing the Porcupine Drainage Basin and the highly intensified region of Crow Flats, have emerged as the major spatial concerns in Old Crow territoriality. The exercise indicates that the expressions of territoriality have shifted from peripheral locations (see Figure #4.1) to a core area. The perception study has shown that the core is taking on more importance since the number of locations identified within the region increased between generations. This suggests an intensification of territorial awareness and explains the much stronger claim on Crow Flats, than for the Porcupine Drainage
Basin, in Old Crow's bid for Aboriginal Land Rights.
This is further supported by the analysis of defendable space, where the defense of the core was highly intensified while the defense index dropped off rapidly with distance.
This chapter has also shown a shift in attitude as well as motives toward claiming territory. It was shown that past expressions were motivated by economic conditions - one group would vie for the same food resources as another in a particular location. These groups were interested irv possessing that land only for the time that they required to gather the resources. Possession now means actual 143
ownership and control through legal title of the territory.
The reasons provided have been both cultural and economic.
To an extent the view of land, itself, has shifted to a symbol of cultural heritage. The people are also realistic in knowing that labour employment cannot last and that they will be assured land resources when in need only through a strong claim. 144
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The foregoing chapters have attempted to describe the changing spatial pattern of settlement and resource use as well as examine the attitude Old Crow people hold toward their territory. Mainly through interviewing, facts and opinions were obtained on various economic activities and cultural conditions. These data provided the basis for estimating the community's adaptability to new social and cultural conditions, the economic condition within the community, and the relationship between the people of Old Crow and their land.
In concluding this discussion we must ask whether the conditions laid out in the introduction have been met. We must examine the relationship between the 'land-use' territory and the 'perceived' territory. In the context of this relationship a note should be added on the economic realities existing in Old Crow.
1. Land-Use
The contact history of the Kutchin people is nearing
150 years but changes in the way of life in Old Crow have occurred recently. The research has shown a shrinking 145
land area used for traditional resource harvesting, yet almost half the people still get a large portion of their food from the land. Spring ratting and autumn hunting remain annual events, while fishing and winter trapping are on the decline.
The diminishing spatial extent of land-use took the form of a convergence onto Old Crow from a series of dispersed trapping settlements. This move created socialization that had been lost since the co-operative bands of pre-contact days. Permanent residence at Old
Crow was punctuated by rapid trips to trap lines and speedy returns to the settlement.
The more recent phase of this convergence has been one of intense concentration in the village. With an unreliable fur market, the cost of equipment, and extra effort required, winter trapping has become less attractive than wage employment. Consequently, few trappers were active in Old Crow during the winter of 1972-73. However, in Chapter III it was shown that the break from the old way of life is not complete.
What has emerged in this analysis is that land activities are now viewed differently. Seventy-seven per cent of the Old Crow population rely on country food, but only 18. people (nine per cent) have all their food requirements supplied by this means. Only one family out 146
of fifty total relies on trapping for the total income.
Obviously, land activities are not a necessity but they
are viewed as important functions in their way of life.
This trend is, in part, symbolic. They go partially
because of the need for food, but they also go back to an older, simpler, yet varied way of life. People can be their own boss and span the gap of cultural change in their
own experiences. The land is a refuge from town, a good place to be.
2. Perceived Territory
It has been shown that territoriality in the form of land claims is a dominant factor in the future of Old Crow.
The study indicates that over time the people's awareness of their territory has shifted from the periphery to a core.
The strengthening community consensus against outsiders probably contributes to this attitude of territoriality.
Perception of the Old Crow territory is no longer the spatial perception derived from long standing occupance of the land. Territoriality must be related to present conditions where the people have a tenuous hold on land that has questionable ownership. Without Crow Flats
Old Crow would have never existed. It links the present with the past and the future; it identifies an old, rewarding way of life; and its resources assure future 147
economic stability. Land use meets the immediate needs, while the expression of territoriality reveals the long term desire for security from ultimate domination.
3. Economic Realities
It is clear from this study that a characteristic feature of Old Crow economy is the dichotomy between land- based and town-based activities. Fifty-five per cent of all food requirements in the community are met by land activities, but only ten per cent of the cash income is derived from this source. Obviously, intensive trapping has disappeared, allowing for more time in the village and increased opportunity for wage employment. For example, four of the best trappers and hunters in Old Crow have steady employment. Each still manages to shoot some caribou, all engage in muskrat trapping, and one still is a part time winter trapper.
Old Crow is caught in modernization and the dilemma of breaking off with the land is upon the people. The transition need not be painful. Although the fur resources cannot maintain the whole economy, it has been shown that a number of people can be employed at a good standard of living. In Old Crow this trend is occurring; the land activities are increasing in response to the questionable 148
duration of wage employment.
The wage economy is one of boom and bust. The number of full time jobs has reached its peak and many of the part time jobs result from short, terminal projects. In the forseeable future the construction of a gas pipeline will attract people seeking wage employment. The bulk of employment will be for two winters and two summers with a few permanent jobs after construction. The initial impact will be a large Inflow of cash to the community which leads to the danger of free spending. This will take the form of accumulating material items, increased air travel, and undoubtedly a greater consumption of alcohol.
Many activities proposed by the Old Crow Band to the
Commissioner on land claims are in some way land related.
This, coupled with the fact that a larger number of people went winter trapping in 1973-74 than in 1972-73* and that a more serious effort was observed in 1974 ratting, suggests that a dual economy Is stabilizing in Old Crow.
This idea was underlined during the field investigation, when respondents expressed preference to work seasonally rather than permanently in a pipeline related job. Granted that these jobs would be away from the community, yet when it is realized that only fifty-two per cent of the people expressed interest in working at all, the emergence and stabilization of a dual economy appears the more likely. 149
4. Territory and Territoriality
The research has shown that through time, cultural and economic changes have altered the conditions of, and relationship between, land use and territoriality. The spatial extent of land use has been reduced significantly, while the subjective territory has shifted from a dispersed to' a nodal focus. With this conclusion we can accept the hypothesis that a reduction in territorial land use is parallelled by a diminished spatial extent in territoriality.
It is also evident from the data that territoriality has
intensified within the shrinking area. Thus the acceptance of the hypothesis is tentative because though the land is not used, it does not suggest that the people do not view the land as belonging to them. It may mean- that any one in the community has free use of the land as needed.
The people of Old Crow generally agree that hunting,
fishing, and trapping will be adversely affected by increased wage employment. They have also expressed concern that high wages will change the character of their culture so that
less interest will be shown for traditional activities.
The future is most uncertain and the people of Old
Crow are anxious. The pace in Old Crow has been accelerating.
The people are intimidated by an unknown picture of intense
activity and a fear that local government will be eliminated .
from planning events. 150
The land and its resources as perceived by the people
of Old Crow are the only known and permanent commodities.
Not only can this land provide a livelihood, but the land has also been shown to be part of the people. In the final analysis It is the land Itself now under attack which
intensifies the solidarity of the native northerners.
The research has shown that the people's concern for the Old Crow land is intense and they do consider the land collectively theirs. Control of the land Is the key for the people of Old Crow to evolve their own northern society.
i 151 152-
REFERENCES
Arbess, Saul "Economic Realities and Political 1967 Development: The George River Case." Anthropologlca N.S. (IX:2) pp. 65-76.
Ardrey, Robert "The Noyau." reprint in-Kasperson, R.E. 1966 and J.V. Minghi (eds). The Structure of Political Geography. Chicago, A-ldine. pp. 319-322. (1969).
Balikci, Asen Vunta Kutchin Social Change. Dept. of 19o3 Northern Affairs and National Resources. Northern Co-ordination and Research Centre. (NCRC 63-3).
1963b "Family Organization of the Vunta Kutchin." Arctic Anthropology. (1:2) pp. 62-69. 1968 "Perspective on the Atomistic-type Society; Bad Friends." Human Organization. (27:3) pp. 191-199.
Barrows, Harlan "Geography as Human Ecology." A.A.A.G.. 1923 (XII:1) pp. 1-14.
Bissett, D. and S. Meldrum 1973" Old Crow: A Community in Transition. Dept. of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Economic Group.
Boal, F. "Territoriality on the Shankhill-Falls 1969 Divide, Belfast." Irish Geographer. (6) pp. 30-50.
Bragdon, C.R. "Territoriality: An EcologicalConcept 19o7 for Urban Planning." Planning.' Comment (4) pp. 29042.
Brookfield, H.C. "Questions onthe Human Frontiers of 1964 Geography." Economic Geography (40: 4) pp. 283-303. 153
Brookfield, H.C. "The MoneyThat Grows On Trees." 1968 Australian Geographical Studies (VI: 2) pp. 97-119. 1969 "On the Environment as Perceived." Progress in Geography. 1. pp. 51-80. Bryan, J.E., C.E. Walker, R.E.. Rendel,and M.S. El son 1973 Freshwater Aquatic Ecology In...... Northern Yukon Territory. 1971. Department of Environment, Northern Operations Branch. Task Force on Northern Pipeline. (Report No. 73-21) October.
Cadzow, Donald A. "Habitat of Loucheux Bands." Indian 1925 Notes_. (11:3) pp. 172-177. Canada Department of Manpower.and.Immigration Yukon Indian Manpower Survey. Manpower 1971 Branch In conjunction with Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. September.
Carpenter, R.C, "Territoriality: A Review of Concepts 1958 and Problems." in Roe, A. and G. Simpson (eds). Behaviour and Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 224-250.
Chance, Norman "Acculturation, Self-Identification, 1965 and Personality Adjustment." American Anthropology. (67) pp. 372-393. Cohen, Ronald An Anthropological Survey in Mackenzie- 1962 Slave Lake Region of Canada. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Northern Co-ordination and Research Centre (NCRC 62-3). Dailey, R.C. "The Role of Alcohol Among the North 1968 American Indian Tribes as Reported in the Jesuits Relations." Anthropologlca. N.S. (X:l) pp. 45-59. 154
Doherty, J.M. Development In Behavioural Geography. 1969 Discussion Paper #35. Graduate School of Geography. London School of Economics.
Downs, Roger "Geographical Space Perception: Past 1970 ApproachesandFuture—Prospects." Progress in Geography 2. pp. 65-108.
Ellis, C.C. "The Missionary and the Indian inCentral 1964 and Eastern Canada." Arctic Anthropology (2:2) pp. 25-31. Ervin, A.M. New Northern Townsmen in Inuvlk. 1968 Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northern Science Research Group. Mackenzie Delta Research Project. (MDRP 5).
Eyles, John The Inhabitants Image of Hlghgate 1968 Village(London): An Example of a Perception Measurement Technique. Discussion Paper #15. Graduate School of Geography. London School of Economics.
1970 Space. Territory and Conflict. Geography Paper #1. University of Reading, England.
.1 Eyre, S.R. and G.R.J. Jones 1966 Geography as Human Ecology. Arnold, London. Faris, R. Chicago Sociology 1920-1932. Chandler, 1967 San Francisco.
Flowerdew, Robin Spatial Behaviour and Territoriality in 1970 Animals. Unpublished essay. Northwestern University.
Franklin, Sir John Narrativeof a Second Expedition to the 1828 Shores of the Polar Sea in the Years 1825. 1826. and 1827. Including an Account of the Progress of a Detachment to the Eastward by John Richardson. London. 155
Foote, D.C. and H.A. Williamson 1966 "A Human Geographical Study". Wilimovsky, H. and J. Wolfe (eds) Environment of the Cape Thompson Region. Alaska. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, pp. 1041-1107. Gould, P. 1966 On Mental Maps. Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers. University of Michigan. September.
Grainge, J.W. 1972 Report on Sewage and Garbage Disposal. Old Crow. Y.T. Environmental Protection Service. Unpublished.
Hadleigh*-West, F. 1959 "On the Distribution and Territories of the Western Kutchin Tribes". Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska (7:2). pp. 113-116,
Hall, E.S. 1969 "Speculation on the Late Pre-history of the Kutchin Athapaskans". Ethnohlstory. (16:4) pp. 317-333.
Hall, E.T. 1966 The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York,
Hardisty, W. 1866 "The Loucheux Indians". Smithsonian Institute Annual Report, pp. 311-320.
Harrington, C.R, 1971 "Ice Age Mammal Research In the Yukon Territory and Alaska ••'. UBC Law Review. (6:1) pp. 59-73.
Harrington, Lynn 1961 "Old Crow, Yukon's Arctic Village". Beaver (Outfit 292: 4). pp. 4-10.
Heidenreich, C.E. 1963 "The Huron Occupancy of Simcoe County, Ontario". Canadian Geographer. (VII 3) pp. 131-144. 156
Hill, R.M. Mackenzie Reindeer Operations. Department 1967 of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northern Co-ordination and Research Centre. (CRC 67-1).
Honigmann, J. and I. Honnigmann 1965 Eskimo Townsmen. Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology. Ottawa.
Honigmann, John "Social Disintegration of Five Northern 1965 Native Communities." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. (2:4) pp. 199- 2lk~.
Innis, H.A. The Fur Trade of Canada. University of 1930 Toronto Press. Toronto (revised edition 1955). Irving, W.H. "Upper Pleistocene Archaeology in Old Crow 1968 Flats, Yukon Territory." Arctic Circular (17: 2) pp. 18-19, January.
Jakimchuk, R.D. (ed) 1974 The Porcupine Caribou Herd - Canada. Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd., Toronto.
Jakle, John A. The Spatial Dimension of Social Organization: 1970 A Selected Bibliography for Urban Social Geography. Council of Planning Librarians. Exchange Bibliography #118.
Jones, S. "The Kutchin Tribes." Smithsonian 1866 Institute Annual Report, pp. 320-327.
Josie, Edith Here Are The News. Clarke Irwin and Co. 1966 Ltd. Toronto.
Kaplan, D. and R.A. Manners - . 1972 Culture Theory. Prentice-Hall. New York. 157
Kirkby, W.W. "A Journey to the Youkon,. Russian America." 1864 Smithsonian Institute Annual Report, pp. 416-420. Leacock, Eleanor The Montagnais 'Hunting Territory' and 1954 the Fur Trade. American Anthropological Association Memoir #78. Leechman, D. "OldCrow's Village." Canadian Geographical 1948 Journal. July. pp. 2-16. 1954 Vanta Kutchin. National Museum of Canada Bulletin #130. Lubart, J.M. Psychodynamlc Problems of Adaptation: 1969 Mackenzie Delta Eskimos. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northern Science Research Group. Mackenzie Delta Research Project (MDRP 7). Lyman, S.M. and M.B. Scott 1967 "Territoriality: ANeglected Sociological Dimension." Social Problems (15) pp. 236- 249. MacKenzie, Sir Alexander 1802 Voyages from Montreal on the River St. Lawrence Through the Continent of North America to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans. In the Years 1789 and 1793. Philadelphia. Mailhot, J. Inuvik Community Structure: Summer 1965. 1968 Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northern Science Research Group. Mackenzie Delta Research Project (DRP 4). Marshall, H. "Problems of a Contemporary Arctic 1970 Village." Arctic. (23: 4) pp. 286-287. 158
McClellan, Catharine 1964 "Culture Contacts in Northwest North America." Arctic Anthropology (2:2), PP. 3-15. McKennan, Robert A. 1965 The Chandalar Kutchin. Arctic Institute of North America. Technical Paper #17. Montreal.
McKenzie, R.D. "The Ecological Approach to the Study 1971 of the Human Community" in Short, J.F. (ed) The Social Fabric of the Metropolis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 17-32.
Mikesell, M. "Geographic Perspectives in Anthropology." 1967 A.A.A.G. pp. 617-634.
1970 "Cultural Ecology.H Focus on Geography: Key Concepts and Teaching Strategies. National Council for the Social Studies. 40th Yearbook, pp. 39-61. Murphy, R.F. and J.H. Steward 1956 "Trappers and Trappers: Parallel Process in Acculturation." Economic Development and Cultural Change. (4:4) pp. 335-355. Murray, Alexander 1910 Journal of the Yukon. 1847 and 1848. Publication of the Canadian Archives. #4. Naysmith, J.K. Canada North: Man and the Land. Department 1971 of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northern Economic Development Branch. Osgood, Cornelius 1934 "Kutchin Tribal Distribution and Synonymy." American Anthropologist (36) pp. 168-179. 1936a The Distribution of Northern Athapaskan Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthropology #7. Yale University Press, New Haven. 159
Osgood, Cornelius 1936b Contributions to the Ethnography of the Kutchin. Yale University Publications in Anthropology #14, Yale University Press, New Haven. Park, R.E. 1936 "Human Ecology". American Journal of Sociology. (XLII) pp. 1-15. Peuker, T. and W. Rase 1971 "A Factorial Ecology of Greater Vancouver". In Leigh, R. (ed.) Contemporary Geography; Western Viewpoint. Tantalus, Vancouver. PP. 81-96. Porteous, J.D. 1971 "Territoriality - Urban Design Implications of the Human Use of Space". In Leigh, R. (ed.) Contemporary Geography; Western Viewpoint. Tantalus, Vancouver, pp. 41-54. Raby, Stewart 1973 "Indian Land Surrenders in Southern Canada". Canadian Geographer. (XVIIs 1.) pp. 36-52. Rappaport, Roy 1968 Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven. Yale University Press. Ray, Arthur 1972 "Indian Adaptation to the Forest- Grassland Boundary of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 1650-1821: Some Implications for Inter-Regional Migration." Canadian Geographer. (XVIs 2) pp. 103-118. Richardson, Sir John 1851 Arctic Searching Expedition. London. Rowland, D. 1972 "Process of Maori Urbanization." New Zealand Geographer. (28sl). pp. 1-22, i6o
Saario, D.J, and B. Kessel 1966 "Human Ecological Investigations at Kivalina" in Wlllmovsky, N. and J. Wolfe (eds) Environment of the Cape Thompson Region, Alaska. U.S. Atomic Energy" Commission, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. pp. 969-1040.
Sauer, Carl "Forward to Historical Geography" in 1941 Leighly, John (ed) Land and Life. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 351-379 (1963).
1957 "Man in the Ecology of theTropics" in Leighly, John (ed) Land and Life. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 182-193 (1963). Schnore, L« "The Myth of Human Ecology." 1961 Sociological Inquiry (XXXI: 2) pp. 128-149. Selltiz, C., M. Jahoda, M. Deutsch, and S. Cook 1959 Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York.
Slobodin, Richard I960 "Eastern Kutchin Warfare." Anthropologlca, N.S. (2:1) pp. 76-94.
1962 Band Organization of Peel River Kutchin. National Museum of Canada. Bulletin #179.
1963 "The Dawson Boys - Peel River Indians and the Klondike Gold Rush." Polar Notes (V) June. pp. 24-35. =
Smith, D.G. The Mackenzie Delta; Domestic Economy 1968 of the Native People. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Northern Science Research Group. Mackenzie Delta Research Project (MDRP 3), 161
Smith, D.G. "The Implications of Pluralism for 1971 Social Change Programmesin a.Canadian Arctic Community.M Anthropologlca. N.S. (XII: 1-2) pp. 193-214.
Soja, Edward W. The Political Organization of Space. 1971 American Association of Geographers. Commission on College Geography. Resource Paper #8.
Sonnenfeld, J, "Environmental Perception and Adaptation 1967 Level inthe Arctic" in Lowenthal, D. (ed) Environmental Perception and Behaviour. University of Chicago, Department of Geography. Research Paper #109. PP. 42-59.
Stager, J.K. "Fur Trading Posts in the Mackenzie 1962 Region up to 1850" Occasional Papers in Geography. Canadian Association of Geographers. B.C. Division, pp. 37-46.
n.d. Old Crow. Y.T. and the Proposed Arctic Gas Pipeline. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (In press).
Stea, David "Space, Territory and Human Movement" in 1969 Kasparson, R.E. and J.V. Minghi (eds) The Structure of Political Geography, pp. 223-227. Chicago, Aldine Publication Co.
Stefansson, V. My Life With the Eskimos. MacMillan 1913 Company, New York. Steigenberger, L.W., G.J. Birch,P.G. Bruce and R.A. Robertson 1973 Reviewed Considerations of Pipeline Development in the Northern Yukon Relative to the Freshwater Fisheries Resources. Department of Environment, Northern Operations Branch. December. 162
Stockton, Charles "The Arctic Cruise of USS Thetis 1890 in the Summer and Autumn of 1889" National Geographic Magazine (11:2). pp. 171-198.
Steward, Julian H. Theory of Cultural Change. University 1954 of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Stoddart, David "Organism and Ecosystem as Geographical 196? Models" in Chorley, R. and C. Raggett (eds) Integrated Models in Geography. Methuen, London, pp. 5H-548.
Tanner, A. Trappers. Hunters and Fishermen: 1966 Wildlife Utilization in the Yukon. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Yukon Research Project (YRP5).
Theodorson, George A. (ed) 1961 Studies in Human Ecology. Harper- Row, New York.
Thompson, L. "The Relations of Man, Animals and 1961 Plants in an Island Community." in Theodorson, G. (ed) Studies in Human Ecology. Harper-Row, New York. pp. 462-470.
Time Magazine "Return to the Land." Time Magazine. 1974 March, p. 10.
Usher,.P.J. The Bankslanders: Ecology and Economy 1970 of a Frontier Trapping Community. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.
1971 The Bankslanders: Ecology and Economy of a Frontier Trapping Community. Department of Indian Affairs and' Northern Development. Northern Science Research Group. 3 vol. 71-1, 71-2, 71-3. 163
Usher, P.J. 1973 The Significance of Land to the Northern Native. Unpublished draft. National Convention of the Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists. Calgary, Alberta. April.
Vallee, F. 1962 Kabloona And the Eskimo in the Central Keewatln. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Northern Co-ordination and Research Centre. (NCRC 62-2).
Vayda, A. and R. Rappaport 1968 "Ecology, Cultural and Non-Cultural" in Cliffton, J. (ed) Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston, pp. 477-497.
Wagner, P. and M. Mikesell (eds) 1962 Readings in Cultural Geography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wagner, P. 1969 "Rank and Territory" in Kasparson, R.E. and J.V. Mlnghi (eds) The Structure of Political Geography. Chicago, Aldine Publication Co. PP. 89-93.
Wedel, W.R. 1961 "Some Aspects of Human Ecology in the Central Plains" reprint in Theodorson, G. (ed) Studies in Human Ecology. Harper-Row, New York, pp. 451-461.
Welsh, Ann 1970 "Community Pattern.and Settlement Pattern in the Development of Old
Crow ViHage, Yukon Territory". Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology. (2:1) pp. 17-30.
Wolforth, J. 1970 Dual Allegiance in the Mackenzie Delta. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia. 164
Wolforth, J. 1971 The Evolution and Economy of the Delta Community. Department of Indian and Northern Development. (MDRP 11) Northern Co-ordination, and Research Centre. Mackenzie Delta Research Project.
Yukon Native Brotherhood 1973 Report for the Commission on Indian Claims and the Government of Canada. Whitehorse Star, Whitehorse.
Yukon Territorial Government Trapping Areas and Camp Sites in the Old Crow Flats. Y.T. Yukon Territorial Government, Wildlife Service, Game Branch, Whitehorse. 165
APPENDIX I
OLD CROW FACT AND OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE 166
APPENDIX I
OLD CROW FACT AND OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire was designed to elicit facts about people's activities and general life in Old Crow.
Further, the questionnaire was used to determine the community's opinion about a natural gas pipeline that could be constructed near Old Crow. The questionnaire was divided into three parts - Activity Survey, Opinion
Survey and Main Questionnaire. The sample population were asked all questions. People responded to the Main
Questionnaire once for each time period 1973» I960 and
•Long Ago'1. The sample was divided into three groups according to age, that is, younger, middle and older.
The younger responded to 1973 only, middle to 1973 and
I960, and older to all sections.
'Long Ago' represents the time when an older person, over 40 years, was a young person. It is unrealistic to ask people to remember certain dates in the distant past, however, people do remember certain facts pertaining to a year when something important occurred. The responses of this time period fairly represent the formative years of Old Crow, when there were only minor changes from year to year. The lower bound of this time period is 1926, the institutionalizing of Old Crow, and the upper bound Is 1953, the establishing of a group trapping area, ratting sectors in Crow Flats, and a public day school. 167
PART Aj^ Activity Survey
The primary purpose of this survey was to update the
Canada Manpower Survey of 1971. We asked the respondents what they were doing each month for the last two years, for whom they were working, and the location. The categories were:
Activity Employer Location
(a) None (a) None (a) Old Crow (b) Trapping, (b) Self (b) 25 mile radius Hunting of Old Crow (c) Woodcutting (c) Oil Company (c) Crow Plats (d) Housekeeping (d) Government (d) Porcupine Basin (e) School (e) Other (e) Yukon or N.W.T. (f) Labour (f) Outside (g) Tradesman (g) Unstated (h) Equipment Operator (i) Other
PART B: Opinion Survey
The interviewer read the following three paragraphs to the respondent and then asked him all questions, circling the respondent's answer.
"The following questions ask your opinion on many things about natural gas pipelines. I would like you to tell me whether you strongly agree or strongly disagree, or feel somewhat in between for each of the following questions. I would then like to hear how you feel about a gas pipeline that would pump natural gas.
A natural gas pipeline built in the northern part of the Yukon would be buried. To operate it would need a pumping station every 50 miles which they say would employ between 4 to 8 men. The Yukon part of the pipeline would be maintained from some large maintenance camp which they say will employ 168
between 20 and JO men. The building of the natural gas pipeline will need about 1,000 men for the northern part. Building this part would take about one year. Work would be done only in the winter.
All the things about thig pipeline have not yet been decided. The exact location of the pipeline has not yet been decided. We have been asked to get your opinions on the two possible routes shown on the map. Since no decisions have been definitely made, your opinions are valuable to help the Government decide."
1. How would you feel about a pipeline being built here? (point to route A on the map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Defintely Not
2. How would you feel about a pipeline being built here? (point to route B on the map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
3. How do you feel about a pipeline being built at all? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
4. How would you feel about a pumping station being built here? (point to #1 on map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
5. How would you feel about a pumping station being built here? (point to #2 on map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
6. How would you feel about a pumping station being built here? (point to #3 on map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
7. How would you feel about' them putting a construction camp here? (point to #4 on map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
8. How would you feel about them putting a construction camp here? (point to #5 on map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
9. How would you feel about them putting a construction camp here? (point to #6 on map) Very Good - OK Don't Care No Definitely Not 169 i?o
10. How would you feel about them putting a construction camp here? (Point to #7 on map) Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
11. How would you feel about them putting the maintenance camp for operating the pipeline in Old Crow? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
12. How would you like a permanent job on the pipeline (10 days on and 5 days off)? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
13. How would you like a seasonal job on pipeline construction (all winter)? Very Much OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
14. How would you feel about taking special training outside for work on the pipeline? Very Willing OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
15. How do you feel about working 10 days on and 5 days off? Very Willing OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
16. How do you feel about working 20 days on and 10 days off? Very Willing OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
17. Would you be willing to work on a pipeline away from home and family for 2 weeks? Definitely Yes Don't Care No Definitely Not
18. Would you be willing to work on a pipeline away from home and family for 2 months? Definitely Yes Don't Care No Definitely Not
19. Do you think a pipeline will change the way in which the family works together? Definitely Yes Don't Know No Definitely Not
20. Would you move your family away from Old Crow to work on the pipeline? Definitely Yes Don't Know No Definitely Not
21. If a pipeline was built, how much time would women spend with their families? Much More More Unsure Same Less Much Less
22. If a pipeline was built, how much time would men spend with their families? Much More More Unsure Same Less Much Less 171
23. If a pipeline was built, do you think young adults would move out of Old Crow? Much More More Don't Know No Definitely Not
24. If a pipeline was built, would it change the way people drink in Old Crow? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much More
25. How would you feel about twenty families from outside moving into Old Crow? Very Good OK Don't Know No Definitely Not
26. How would you feel about five families from outside moving into Old Crow? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
27. How do you think outsiders would change the way the community runs Its affairs? No Change Little Change Moderate Large Complete Change Change Change
28. How do you think outsiders would change dances in Old Crow? No Change Little Change Moderate Large Complete Change Change Change
29. How do you feel about more tourists coming to Old Crow? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
30. How would you like 1000 men working on the pipeline to live near Old Crow? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
31. How would you like 100 men working on the pipeline to live near Old Crow? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
32. How would you like Old Crow to be the base for about 30 men operating the pipeline? Very Good OK Don't Care No Definitely Not
33. How many other kinds of jobs do you think will be created in Old Crow as a result of the pipeline? Many More More Don't Know Less Much Less
34. Do you think people would order more goods from outside? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
35* If a pipeline was built how much do you think people would depend upon the land for food and money from furs? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less 1?2
36. If a pipeline was built, how much money would people In Old Crow have compared to day?; Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
37. If a pipeline was built how difficult would it be to get stuff in from the outside? Much Easier Easier Same Unsure Harder Much Harder
38. Do you think people will go to trap and hunt more often by plane if a pipeline is built? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
39. Will people use boats as a way of travelling after the pipeline comes? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
40. Will people use dog teams as a way of travelling after a pipeline comes? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
41. Do you think the people of Old Crow will be travelling to the outside more if a pipeline comes? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
42. If a pipeline is built along route A do you think as many caribou will cross the river where they used to? Many More More Same Unsure Less Much Lass
43. If a pipeline is built, how much hunting do you think the people will do? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
44. If a pipeline goes in do you think there will be as many rats as there is now? Many More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
45. If a pipeline goes in how often do you think people will hunt and trap rats? More Often Often Same Unsure Less Much Less
46. How much do you think people will fish if a pipeline is built? Much More More Same Unsure Less Much Less
47. If the pipeline was built do you think that hunting and trapping would be seen as a good occupation by the people? Definitely Yes Don't Know No Definitely Not
48. Will you tell me how you feel about the pipeline? Why? 173
PART C; Main Questionnaire
The interviewer read the following paragraph to the respondent and then asked the questions, filling in the blanks.
"We are asking questions of Old Crows how is it now, was about twelve years ago, and was long ago. The facts you give us will show how Old Crow has been changing. Knowing about these changes will help tell us what sort of good things and bad things would come to Old Crow with the building of the pipeline. We would like to get facts from you this time and we would like to speak with you later to get your opinions on the kinds of changes you describe."
Hunt ing s
1. What animals did you hunt in the past one year, and how were they used?
Question Caribou Moose Rabbit Muskrat Birds Other animal hunted use: food clothing dog food other
2. What months of the year did you hunt each kind of animal? (Write down the number of animals in each month and total)
Caribou Moose Rabbit Muskrat Birds Other Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Total 174
3. How did you hunt each particular animal this past year?
Caribou Moose Rabbit Muskrat Birds Other
4. How did you keep the meat and who did the work?
Caribou Moose Rabbit Muskrat Birds Other
5. How did you travel to hunt?
Caribou Moose Rabbit Muskrat Birds Other
6. Did you go hunting: Alone Family Someone Else And Who Shared the Meat
Caribou Moose Rabbit Muskrat Birds Other
7. On the map mark the places where you hunted: 1. Caribou and the route you travelled there. 2. The same for moose, rabbits, muskrats and birds.
Trapping:
1. What type of animals did you trap over this past one year?
Muskrat _ _ Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel
Other (write). 175
2.. What months did you trap each animal and how many did you get in each month?
Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel Other Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec Total
3. How did you trap each type of animal (Use back of Page) Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel Other
4. How did you prepare each type of pelt and who did the work? Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel Other
5. Did you trap: Alone Family Someone Else Who Shared in the Catch Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel Other 176
6. How did you sell your furs? To whom? When? Where?
Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel Other
7. Did your family use any fur? How much? What kind?
Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Beaver Weasel
Other 8. Did you get a grubstake? From whom?
9. a) Mark on the map the places that you catch each type of animal (muskrat, marten, mink, lynx, beaver, weasel, etc.) b) Mark your trapping camps. c) Mark the routes that you go to your trapping camps.
Fishing:
1. What type of fish did you catch this past year? What were they used for?
Dog Salmon King Salmon Grayling Hump Whitefish Dog Food Food Other
continued
Little Whitefish Jackfish Losche Sucker Coni Other Dog Food Food Other 17?
2. What time of year did you fish for each? How long were you out? How long does it take to take fish from the net?
Dog King Gray- Hump Little Jack- Salmon Salmon ling Whitefish Whitefish fish Losche Sucker Coni Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3. Are there any different ways of catching different fish? Explain.
4. How much of each type of fish did you get over the past one year? Dog King Gray- Hump Little Jack- Salmon Salmon ling Whitefish Whitefish fish Losche Sucker Coni #
5. How did you keep all the fish? Who did it?
6. Who did you go fishing with last year? Did your family go? Who shared the catch? Who? Family? Who Shared?
7. a) Mark on the map the place that you catch each type of fish. b) If you have a fish camp mark that on the map. c) Mark the route that you use to get to your camp and/or net(s).
Wage Activitiest
1. You were asked about the things you have done over the past two years. Have you taken any jobs since then? Job Where When 178
2. How have you gotten most of the jobs you have had? Do you go looking, do people ask you, or what? Look Get Asked Notes
3. Have many jobs been going around this year? Is it hard to get a job even if you really want one? Jobs around: Lots To get: Hard Not Many Sometimes Hard Easy
4. Have you had any special job training? If so, where, when and what kind? Type Where When
5. When you look around for a Job what kind do you want? How long should it go on? How do you feel about shift work? Type Length Shift Work
6. Would you work outside? Have you worked outside in the south? How long, where, when? Outside work: would you: Yes No have you: Yes No
Where What When How Long
Family Life:
1. Is Loucheux spoken in the home regularly? Among whom? Does anyone understand Loucheux but not answer in it?
Loucheux spoken: regularly sometimes none Among: older people parents & older people parents parents & children older people & children children all of them
Notes:
2. Why do young people leave home?
3. Who tells the children what to do? What is the influence of school and other outside groups?
4. How much of the day do young/older children spend working at home? Playing at home? Working Playing Younger children hours hours Older children hours hours 179
5. Does your whole family go into the bush for hunting and trapping? Does each person have a special Job to do in the bush?
Family in bush: always sometimes never
Occasion for whole family, if not always?
6. How much of your day is spent at home? What would you do at home most days? What sort of jobs do all members of the family do at home?
Portion of day at home: Your job: Others: (who) (Job)
Do you know how to make: Did you make Yes No over the past year: Yes No toboggan dog whip harnesses snow shoes rat canoe rabbit blanket caribou boat canvas scow log cabin dog packs making babiche tanning hides sewing boats beading drying meat making bone grease making pemican
Social Activities: A. Local Government Meetings:
1. Do you go to band meetings? always sometimes never
How often are they held? weekly monthly every two weeks seldom 180
2. Do you speak your piece at band meetings?
3. Do you go to other meetings such as the men's club, school committee, co-op directors, or any other groups?
4. Does the band council have much influence in Old Crow? Do people do what the band council tells them to do?
5. Do the same people attend all these meetings?
6. Do most people agree with what happens and is said at band meetings?
7. If you disagree with what is said, what do you do?
8. Do you talk among friends and relatives about what you will say or feel about things before you go to a band meeting?
9. How do the people of Old Crow deal with the government?
B. Recreation:
1. Do you go to the dances held in Old Crow?
2. What kind of dances are done?
3. About how many people go to the dances?
4. How often do they have dances?
5. How much drinking is there done before and during dances now days? What does drinking do to the dances?
6. Do you go to the movies? alot sometimes rarely
Do you go with the family? always sometimes never
7. What sort of things do you do when you want to take it easy or have a good time? How often do you do these things? Who does them with you?
8. What kinds of sports or games do you like? Do you play or watch?
C. Social Gatherings:
1. How many people go to church regularly? Have the services changed? If so, how? 181
2. When things are done for the community do people help willingly?
3. Do you expect pay for working on community activities? Yes No
4. Do people help everyone or just friends and relatives? Everyone Friends and Relatives
5. When you run into people in the street do you say nothing, just hello, or talk about something? Nothing Hello Talk about something
6. Describe how a community feast works today? Who does the work? Who goes? When does it take place?
Community Economics;
1. What people at home bring in money or goods? (name, relationship)
2. What part of the money coming into the home comes from wages? (give fraction of whole amount)
3. What part of the money coming into the house comes from trapping?
4. What part of your household supplies did you buy at the Co-op?
5. How much did you buy outside and what kind of things did you buy? How easy is it to buy things outside of Old Crow? How do you do it?
6. How often do you use catalogues to shop? What sort of things do you buy from the catalogue?
7. What type of assistance do you get from the government to help meet the cost of living in Old Crow?
8. Have you taken advantage of government housing programmes? How?
9. What sort of major items have you bought over the last couple of years?
10. Show on the map where you got your own firewood and tell how you got it to Old Crow. 182
Personal Movement^
1. Have you been outside in the last two years? Where When How Long How did you get there?
2. Have you travelled in the Old Crow land in the last two years, besides where you went hunting, fishing, and trapping? Can you put it on the map? Where When How Long How did you get there?
3. How much of the Old Crow country have you seen? Can you put it all on the map? (Have we missed any trails or camps that you have ever used?)
**#**THE SAME QUESTIONS WERE ASKED FOR ALL THREE TIME PERIODS**** 183
APPENDIX II
ENDPAPER 184
APPENDIX II
COMMENT ON ENDPAPERS
A by-product of the research is two maps of the Old
Crow town site (1963 and 1973). In the discussion on the possible need to relocate the village, reference is made to the 1973 plan showing the restricted space on which the village is situated. The 1963ma P is included for comparison which reveals the extent of river bank erosion. Grainge
(1972:3) has given the rate of erosion at about 10 feet per year for the past twenty years. The 1963 map also shows the lot lines In Old Crow which provide reasons for the distribution and density of buildings in the village.
A Loucheux place name map is also, in a sense, a by• product of the research. In the analysis of the group's territorial image (p. 126) people were asked to name the location in their land that they perceived as most important.
In the analysis, the locations are most important. Reproduced here are the names for those locations:
Table II. 1
Loucheux Place Name Map Name and Number Key
NO. Name (Translation) Map Name A. Settlements, Camps, Lookouts 1. Vuttzui Thit Chll (Caribou sleeps there) Caribou Bar
2. The Tou Kwat Ta Nei (Broke through the bank) The Toh Na Goo Ta Nei (River broke through) Goose Camp 185
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
3. Ghoo Tsui Nul Kut (Next to the water) Thlii Tlui Thui (Point where two rivers meet) Old Crow
4. Thou Kut (Top of limestone) Caribou Lookout
5. The Tou Kwat Ta Nei (Broke through the bank) The Toh Na Goo Ta Nei (River broke through) Goose Camp
6. Choo Da Zyaah (Noisy water) Choo Da Zyaah (Water making loud noise) Red Bluff
7. Tshii Tsi Kyee (By the salmon cache) Tshil Tsi Kyee (Salmon by the house) Salmon Cache
8. Kyaa Tsik (Channel creek) John Vut Hun Go NJik Che (A cabin along Johnson River) Johnson Creek Village
9. Tinjee Zyoo Traa (Indian cache)
10. Tshi Tul Njiik Zzeh (Whitestone Village) Tshi Ta Njik Zzeh Whitestone Village
11. Tshi Tee (Under rock) Fish Hole (on Firth River)
12. Nyi I Li (Fish spawning) Fish Hole (on Babbage River)
13. The Ton Nut Kwat Ta Nei (Broke through the bank) Goose Camp
14. Zzeh Kwut Tsui (Little house) Zzeh Kwut tsui (Small log cabin) Laplerre House
15. Too Vii Kyoa (Water boiling strong beneath bluff) Blue Bluff 186
B. Mountains and Hills
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
16. Chit Ctou Duk (Top of the nest) Tzun eh Lhei (Rat caught in snare) Rat Hill
17. Tun Chyoo Li Dhat (Raking in mountain) Khui Ttel Vut Kug Husky Mountain
18. Chit Tsho Uut Thul (Head skin fence) Barren Mountain
19. Tshi Tsl Vi Ttrii Flint Mountain
20. Tsii Vi Sooh (Knotted tree hill) Tsii VI Choh (Knot hill) Timber Hill
21. Shii Dhat Tsui (Little bear mountain) Ammerman Mountain
22. Din Ni Zyoo (Torn off part of the mountain) Potato Mountain
23. Chun Chul (Nose trail mountain Chun Chul (Big nose mountain) King Edward Mountain
24. Tsii eh Dee (Fire place and camping grounds) King Edward Ridge
25. Chit Chechii (Hawk head) Chit Che Chil (Rock mountain) Schaeffer Mountain
26. Tyoo Dhat (Blue mountain) Too Dhat (Double mountain) Blue Mountain
27. Kwut Kun Choh (Big fire one time) Burnt Hill
28. Jug Dhat (Berry mountain) Blueberry Mountain
29. Tshua Dhat (Braided hair mountain) Tshua Njik Dhat Crow Mountain
30. Chit Tze (Ear mountain) Chit Tze (Shape of an ear) Ear Mountain 187
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
31. Dhat Chyaa Tshua Dhat (Caribou skin mountain) Second Mountain
32. Noo Dhat (No mountain) Noh Dhat (Bare ground mountain) No Mountain
33. Dhat Chit To Kwou (Round hill) Tsi it tee (Stove pipe) Round Mountain
34. Thun Nut Tha Ei (Lone mountain) Thun Nut Tha Ei (Mountain all by oneself) Lone Mountain
35. Dhat Kwut Toh (Winter trail goes Portage Mountain over the mountain) Old Paul Mountain 36. Kwe Ko Kyoo (Copy that guy)
37. Zhoo Trin Choh (White mountain) White Snow Zhoo Trin Choh (Big snow drift on it) Mountain
38. Chit Trii (Heart mountain) Chit Tri Dhat Heart Mountain
39. Kwut Kun Choh (Big burn) Kon Kun Tul Burnt Hill
40. Tshl Chaun Sii Vun Dhat (Grizzly bear cave) Bear Cave Mountain
41. Chin Nee Tsi Dhat (Jagged rock mountain) Dewdney Mountain
42. Nut Dhat Nie (Long mountain crossing the river)
43. Va Al Tlii (Caribou running away to the hills) Va El Till Choh (Tie her up in big knots) Oil Camp Mountain
44. Chyoo Gwoo (Egg)
45. Tloo Kuk (Stack of hay) 188
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
46. Njoo Choh (Big timber hill)
47. Vi Rzui Dhat (Cut bank mountain Cody Hill
48. Nut Tshi Tzii Sharp Mountain
C. Rivers and Creeks
49. Chyoo te Njik (Porcupine quill river) Porcupine River Kwuk Kuk Tsut Tzlt Hun Gig (Porcupine by the river)
50. Tshaa Njik (Long hair river) Tshau Njik (Deep water around the shore) Crow River
51. Tsleh Tee Njik (Cover up each other creek) Stii Dee Njik (Fire place creek) King Edward Creek
52. Netei (Braided man river) Netei (Braided man river) Schaeffer Creek
53. Maggie Vut Vun Ge Joo Chon Njik (Small creek beside Maggie Lake) Wild Creek
54. Kwut Took Tra Tei Njik (Over divide creek) Soo Sit Chi Li (You made me happy creek) Surprise Creek
55. Din Nl Zyoo Njik (Torn off part of the mountain creek) Pedades Ko Njik De Nen Shoo (Round hill that looks like a potato) Potato Creek
56. Ki Koo (Birch bark fish trap) Fish Trap Creek
57. Domas Vut Thul Njik (Thomas caribou fence creek) Domas Ko Njik Thomas Creek
58. Choo Tsun Koo (Stunk water) Fish Trap Creek
59. Tun Chyoo Ki Njik (Rake it in creek)
60. Tsii Vi Sioh Njik (Knotted tree) Kli Vii Choh Njik (Timber creek) Timber Creek 189
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
61. Ni Li Kuk Tyi Vut Hun (Top of the meat) Ne Koo Rzui (Black fox) Blackfox Creek
62. Hlui Kou Njik Dog Creek
63. Attrii Njik (Bark creek) Chit Tel Tlii Johnson Creek
64. Chin Nel Tlui (Junction creek) Vun Toh Koo Tsui Ko Njik Junction Creek
65. Rsi Nja Njik (Blue fish river) Rsi Nja Njik (Blue fish in river) Blueflsh River
66. Chit Tze Njik (Bar creek) Caribou Bar Creek Vittzul Kon Njik (Caribou bar creek)
67. Hun Kwut Rzui (Black earth)
68. Te Tsik Kwut Tsui (Little creek) Big Joe Creek 69. Tesik Good Tsui 70. Tlii Ye Njik (Opposite flow creek) Tlii Ye Njik (Burned ground creek) David Lord Creek
71. Ttroo Choh Njik (Big wooded creek) Ttroo Choh Njik (Big trees near river) Driftwood River
72. Vun Tut Kwut Chin Te Tsik (People that stay among the lakes) Vun Tut Kwut Chin Ko Njik (Crow Flat people camp site on creek) Rat Indian Creek
73. Jug Chun Njik (Under Berry Creek) Ko Njik Vut Dik Tug Kolie (Lots of berries on the shore) Berry Creek
74. Shei Ve Njik (Gray gravel river) Choo Ta Shan Njik (Noisy waters) Bell River
75. Chi Tali Lui Tsui Koh Hun Little Bell River
76. Choo Kooli Kon Hun Waters River 190
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
77. Tzun Kooli Hun (Muskrat creek) Rat River
78. La Shute Kwin Njik (La Shute Pass Creek) La Shute Pass Creek
Tshi Te Tuk (Between the rocks) 79. Tshi Choh Hun (Big rock river) Rock River
80. Chit Zin NJik(Eagle river) Chit Zhin Eagle River
81. Nok On Kyii Ko Njik (Carving creek) Nukon River
82. Nut Cha Lei Tsik (Water falls creek) Chit Che Chii Ko Njik (Big Stone creek) Schaeffer Creek
83. Chyoo Gwoo Njik (Egg creek) Johnson Creek
84. Tsii Zuk Ni Lui (Water running under Porcupine quill river) Tsii Vii Zit Ko Njik (Creek running through pine trees) Pine Creek
85. Ellen Ttsii Vut Ti Tsik (Gum up Ellen's creek) Ellen's Creek
86. Kwuk Kun Choh Njik (Big burn wood creek) Kwuk Kun Choh Njik (Burned at one time) Burnt Hill Creek
Vi Rzui Njik (Black bank river) 87. Ve Cuk Poh Njik (Cut bank on shoreof creek) Cody Creek
88. Shee Njik (Where the dog salmon spawn) Thloog Kooli De Khet (Pish spawning place) Fishing Branch River
89. Chin Ne Tsi Njik (Jagged rock river) La Ra Kun nit Tyl (Man looking for money) Miner River
90. Kel Hi Njik Vut Hun (Willow man river) Bear Cave River
91. Tshi Tul Njik (Stone arrowhead creek) Tshi Ta Kw Ko Hun (White rock river) Whitestone River
92. Trit Tri Khui Njik (Paddle down with Canoe River canoe) 93. Tshi Ve Njik (Grey rock river) 94. Trou Tshi Njik (Otter tail creek) 191
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
95. Tin Jik Kei Njik (Moose willow creek)
96. Chyoo Njik Hih Kikh Shoo Old Firth Vut Vun Firth River
97. Vlt Tsuk Tshik Kon Jun (Caribou hide Babbage River tread water) Blow river 98. Ah Trui Kon Hun (Strong wind river)
D. Lakes
99. Maggie Vlv Vun (Maggie's Lake)
100. Zilma Vut Vun (Zelma's Lake) Vut Zilma Viv Vun Choh (Zelma's Big Lake) 101. Chattri (Lake with high banks all around it) Chun Chui Tee Vun (Lake below big mountain peaks) King Edward Lake
102. Chul Kil Kwin te (fish hooking place all around) Fish Hook Lake
103. Maggie Vut Vun Ke Soo Vun Tha Ei (Lake next to Maggie's Lake) Old Chief's Lake
104. Da Koo Vut Vun (The ptarmigan's lake) Ptarmigan Lake
105. Vun Tun (Frozen lake) Vun Tun (Frozen lake) Frozen Lake
106. Soo Ko Li VUn (We are now happy lake) Happy Lake
107. Rufus Netro Vut Vun (Wolverine - Rufus Lake) Rufus Lake
108. Eliza Ben Vut Vun (Eliza Ben's Lake) Eliza Ben Lake
109. Vut Kug Te Ni Thi Nl (Drowned lake) Vut Kuk Te Ne The Ni (Somebody around there) Drown Lake
110. Ney Khul Vun (Frogs in the lake) Frog Lake
111. Tsii Vii Zlt (Lake in the green trees)
112. Stephen Vut Vun (Stephen's lake) 192
No. Name (Translation) Map Name 113. Chit Tloo (An important lake)
114. Chin Nei Tlui Koo (Junction fish trap)
115. Adtl Tro Panyoo Vut Vun (Cautious man's lake)
116. Tut Chun Ttrii Vun (Wooden canoe lake)
117. Own Jit Trick Vut Tse (White lady's hat) Bonnet Lake
118. Chi Shoo Vun (White fish lake) Tshii Choh Vun (White fish lake) Whitefish Lake
119. Netro Vut Vun (Wolverine's lake) Netro Vut Vun (Wolverine's lake) Wolvemlne • s Lake
120. Chit Troo Ndi (Tern all around the lake) Tern Lake
121. Vuna Tsui Tsui Ku Vun (Small lake) Joe Kykavikachik Vut Vun (Joe's - carry arrow - lake) Joe Kay Lake
122. Kei Tluk Zit (Willow lake) Kei Tluk (Bushy willow lake) Willow Lake
123. Te Tshid (Burning under ground) Te Tshid (Burning ground after the fire was put out) David Lord Lake
124. Shei Tsoo Ndi (Swallows all around)
125. Vut Thoo Chya Kooli (Lots of branches on lake)
126. Koo Dei Vun (Lake at mouth of fish trap lake)
127. Te Lui Koo (Whirling water)
128. Vut Ta Tzul Trul Dei (Shoot the loon with a bow and arrow)
129. Chin Ne Kui Vun (Eskimo Lake)
130. Shei Zit (In the gravel)
131. Tsoog Vut Vun Marten Lake
132. Peter Moses Vut Vun Chief Peter Moses Lake 193
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
133. Te Tshii (Nothing but dry willows on shore) Phillip Lake
134. Isaac Vut Vun (Isaac's lake) Isaac Vut Vun (Isaac's lake) Isaac Lake 135. Tun Chyo Li (Rake it in the lake)
136. Mun Njoo Win Ni Li (Line the island on the lake)
137. Te Tie Enjoo (Timber bay) Te Tie Njoo (Grass around the lake) Grassy Lake 138. Kyii Zit (In the birches) Khyii Zit (Deep in the timber) Schaeffer Lake
139. Chii Shoo (Big white fish lake) chil Shoo (Big fish) Whitefish Lake 140. Rsil Zit Kwut Choh (Pup lake)
141. Domas Vut Vun (Thomas lake) 1'homas Lake
142. Kei Te Till (Frozen to death in the willows) Khi Te Teii (Willows and swamp around the lake) Willow Lake
143. Kwi Hel Chya (Torn up lake) Kwi Hil Chyoa (Torn up lake)
144. Esou Vut Vun (Esau's lake)
145. Harry Vut Vun (Harry's Lake)
146. Enoch Vu Vun (Enuk's lake)
Enoch Vut VUn (Enuk's lake) Enoch Lake
147. Chief Peter Moses Vu Vun (Chief Peter Moses Lake) Khyii Zit Vun Kejyoo (Lake beside the lake that is deep in the timber)
148. Phillip Tsui Vut Vun (Little Phillip's lake) Phillip Tsui Vut Vun (Small Phillip's lake) Little Phillip Lake
149. Vut Kug Njoo (There is an island on it) 194
No. Name(Translation) Map Name
150. Vun Tsiika (Narrow lake) Vut Ve Njoo (A long shore around it)
151. Ta Al Sha (Fish on the shore) El Tin Vun (Jackfish in the lake) Jackfish Lake
152. Tsi Vi Zit (Inside the timbers) Netei Kww Tik Tsui (Little lake above Schaeffer Creek) Little Timber Lake
153. William Vu Vun (William's lake)
William Linklater Vut Vun (William was born on this lake)
15*. fhe Toh Na Kwut Tanes Thatoh Na Kut Ta Nl Cut-off Lake
155. Kei Tluk Zit (Inside of the willows) Kei Tluk (Thick willows around the lake) Willow Lake
156. John Charlie Vut Vun (John Charlie's lake) Tsha Njik Kwut Tuk Vun Choh John Charlie Lake
157. Chulvi Vun (Ducks close to the shore) Chil Vii Vun (Widgin's Lake) Annie Lake
158. Chit Ve Vut Vun (Hawk's lake) Hleli Choh Vut Kui Horseshoe Lake
159. Goo Sue Tsui Vun (Small nail lake) Tack Lake
160. Tshi Da Tsik (Red rock)
Cadzow Vut VUn (Cadzow's lake) Cadzow Lake
161. Lydla vut Vun (Lydia's lake)
162. Ballaam Vut Vun (Ballaam's lake)
163. Vut Nut Tuleh (Water around the Island) Vun Nut '^hul eh (Water around the ground) Flooded Island Lake 164. Chi Hi Li Vun (Fish running lake) Chi Hi Shoa Vun (Big white fish in lake) Whitefish Lake
165. Da Tsui Vun (The loon's lake) Teit Tuk vun (Lake among ...) Summit Lake
166. Chi Hi Li Isik (Fish running lake) 195
No. Name (Translation) Map Name
E. Trails
167. Tel Kwin Njik (Main trail to Crow Flats)
168. Hihy Tye Vut Cue Na Tra Tri Nut Tra Rzi (Winter trail we hunt on) 196
Table 11..2
Building Code Key- For Old Crow (1973)
Description Owner Date Built
1. Old Community Hall N.A. 1935
2. New Centennial Hall N.A. 1966
3. Band Office N.A. 1966
4. Metal Sided Storage Sheds 1945
5. Joe Netro*s Old Store 1912
6. Church Roman Catholic 1954
7. Nursing Station Y.T.G. 1962
8. Chief Zzeh Gittlit School Y.T.G. 1969
9. Teacherage Y.T.G. 1969
10. Ice House and Freezer School 1969
11. School Shed School I960
12. Log Building Neil McDonald 1926
13. Old Post Office (Vacant) 1926
14. Territorial Garage Y.T.G. 1970
15. Shed Canadian Wildlife
Service 1971 16. Sheds Water Resources 1970 17. Office Northward Aviation 1973 18. Shed Yukon Electric 1963 19. Trailer School 1959 20. Log House Robert Bruce 1971 21. Log House Robert Bruce Jr. 1932 22. Cook House Roman Catholic Church 1951 197
2 3. Ski Lodge N.A. I960
24. Old Shack Co-op (Vacant) 1930
25. Log House Peter Lord I967
26. Log House Clara Frost 1970
27. Log House Stephen Frost 1967
28. Log House Donald Frost 1957
29. Log House Peter Benjamin 1972
30. Anglican Church Rectory Church of England 1926
31. Church Anglican 1956
32. Proposed Site of New Ski
Lodge (Leased) 1926 33. Palace (Old Anglican Church) Government of 34. R.C.M.P. Canada 1964 35* Log House Martha Charlie 1926 36. Log House Joanne Njootli 1970 37. Log House Myra Kay 1963 38. Log House Alfred Charlie 1970 39. Log House Peter Charlie 1970 40. Log House Eliza Ben Kassi 1970 41. Log House Lazarus Charlie 1971 42. Log House Mary Netro 1962 43. Log House John Kendi 1970 44. Log House Peter Tizya 1970 45. Log House Abraham Peter 1963 198
46. Log House Mary Kassl 1964
47. Log House John Ross Tiyza
48. Log House Peter Nukon 1945
49. Log House Philip Joseph 1966
50. Log House Annie Fredson 1932
51. Log House Rowena Lord 1971
52. Log House Moses Tizya 1970
53. Shed (Forestry) Y.T.G. 1972 54. Log House Lydia Thomas 1938
55. Forestry Office Y.T.G. 1972 56. Log House John Abel 1972
57. Log House Charlie Abel 1971 58. Log House Joseph Kay 1969
59. Log House Sarah Abel 1962
60. Log House Myra Moses 1972
61. Log House John Joe Kay 1971
62. Log House Dick Nukon 1971
63. Log House Johnny Moses 1972 64. Log House Charlie Thomas 1971
65. Log House Mary Thomas 1971 66. Log House Dolly Josie 1970
67. Log House Kenneth Nukon 195* 68. Log House Amos Josie Edith Josie 1959
69. Log House Charlie Peter Charlie 1964 199
70. Work Shop Old Crow Co-op 1970
71. Store Old Crow Co-op 1970
72. ,Log House Andrew Tizya 1963
73. Log House Bill Smith 1965
74. Log House Freddie Frost 1973 200 Table II.3
Building Code Key for Old Crow (1963)
Description Owner Date Built
1. Log Shaok
2. Log House Mrs. Linklater
3. Log House Sam 01sen
4. Ski Lodge
5. Log House Philip Dicquermare
6. Cache Peter Lord
7. House Peter Lord
8. Log House Mrs. Frost
9. Cache Mrs. Frost
10. Log House Steven Frost
11. Log Shack
12. Log House Donald Frost
13. .Log Cache Donald Frost
14. Log Cabin
15. Log Post Office & Residence 16. Log R.C.M.P. Living Quarters
17. New R.C.M.P.
Living Quarters
18. R.C.M.P. Ice House
19. R.C.M.P. Privy
20. R.C.M.P. Warehouse
21. R.C.M.P. P.O.L. Martha Charlie 22. Log House John Tizya 23. Log House Joe Netro 24. Log Warehouse 201
Alfred Charlie 25. Log Cache Alfred Charlie 26. Log House Eliza Ben Kassi 27. Log Cache Eliza Ben Kassi 28. Log House Vacant 29. Log House Peter Tizya 30. Log House Peter Tizya •31. Log Cache John Kendi 32. Log Cache John Kendi 33« Log House Joe Netro 34. Log House Little Joe 35. Log House Joe Netro 36. Log Cache Philip Joseph 37. Log House 38. Log Cache Philip Joseph
39. Log Garage
40. Log Fish House
41. Log Cache
42. Log House Eliza Steamboat
43. Log House Eliza Kwatlati
44. Log Cache Eliza Kwatlati
45. Log House Annie Fredson
46. Store Joe Netro
47. Log Warehouse Joe Netro
48. Metal Sheet Structure Joe Netro
49. Yukon Electric Power
50. School Complex
51• Log Warehouse Log Ice House Caterp. House Palatiner Quarters 202 52. Nursing Station
53. Old Catholic Church New Catholic Church
54. Anglican Church Rectory
55. Anglican Church
56. Old Anglican Church (The Palace)
57. H.C.M.P. Barracks
58. Log House Big Joe Kay
59. Log House Joanne Njootli
60. Log House Charlie Peter Charlie
61. Log House Lazarus Charlie
62. LPS House Peter Charlie
63. Community Hall
64. Log House Dick Nukon
65. Log House Charlie Thomas
66. Log House Charlie Thomas
67. Log House Robert Bruce
68. Log House John Joe Kay
69. Log House Neil Macponald
70. Log House Sarah Ballem
71. Log Cache Neil MacDonaId
72. Log House Julia MacDonald
73. Anglican Church
Storehouse Effie Linklater 74. Log House Peter Moses 75* Log House Peter Moses 76. Store House Charlie Abel 77. Log House Sarah Abel 78. Log House 20 3
79. Log House Kenneth Nukon
80. Log House Edith Josie
81. Netro Store
82. Store Harry Halley
83. Warehouse Harry Halley
84. Store Peter Moses
85. Fire Equipment Cache