Special Publication No. SP2012-04

Subsistence Wildlife Harvests in Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales, Alaska, 2010–2011

by Nicole M. Braem and Marylynne Kostick

May 2014 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence

Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the reports by the Division of Subsistence. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative Code AAC all standard mathematical signs, symbols deciliter dL all commonly-accepted and abbreviations gram g abbreviations e.g., alternate hypothesis HA hectare ha Mr., Mrs., base of natural logarithm e kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. catch per unit effort CPUE kilometer km all commonly-accepted coefficient of variation CV liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., common test statistics (F, t, 2, etc.) meter m R.N., etc. confidence interval CI milliliter mL at @ correlation coefficient (multiple) R millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient (simple) r east E covariance cov Weights and measures (English) north N degree (angular ) ° cubic feet per second ft3/s south S degrees of freedom df foot ft west W expected value E gallon gal copyright  greater than > inch in corporate suffixes: greater than or equal to  mile mi Company Co. harvest per unit effort HPUE nautical mile nmi Corporation Corp. less than < ounce oz Incorporated Inc. less than or equal to  pound lb Limited Ltd. logarithm (natural) ln quart qt District of Columbia D.C. logarithm (base 10) log yard yd et alii (and others) et al. logarithm (specify base) log2, etc. et cetera (and so forth) etc. minute (angular) ' Time and temperature exempli gratia (for example) e.g. not significant NS day d Federal Information Code FIC null hypothesis HO degrees Celsius °C id est (that is) i.e. percent % degrees Fahrenheit °F latitude or longitude lat. or long. probability P degrees kelvin K monetary symbols (U.S.) $, ¢ probability of a type I error (rejection of the hour h months (tables and figures) first three null hypothesis when true)  minute min letters (Jan,...,Dec) probability of a type II error (acceptance of second s registered trademark  the null hypothesis when false)  trademark  second (angular) " Physics and chemistry United States (adjective) U.S. standard deviation SD all atomic symbols United States of America (noun) USA standard error SE alternating current AC U.S.C. United States Code variance ampere A U.S. state two-letter abbreviations population Var calorie cal (e.g., AK, WA) sample var direct current DC hertz Hz Measures (fisheries) horsepower hp fork length FL hydrogen ion activity (negative log of) pH mideye-to-fork MEF parts per million ppm mideye-to-tail-fork METF parts per thousand ppt, ‰ standard length SL volts V total length TL watts W

SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. SP2012-004

SUBSISTENCE WILDLIFE HARVESTS IN ELIM, GOLOVIN, KIVALINA, KOYUK, NOATAK, AND WALES, ALASKA, 2010–2011

Nicole M. Braem, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks

Marylynne Kostick, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99701-1551

May 2014

The Division of Subsistence Special Publications series was established for the publication of techniques and procedure manuals, informational pamphlets, special subject reports to decision-making bodies, symposia and workshop proceedings, application software documentation, in-house lectures, and other documents that do not fit in another publications series of the Division of Subsistence. Most Special Publications are intended for readers generally interested in fisheries, wildlife, and the social sciences; for natural resource technical professionals and managers; and for readers generally interested the subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources in Alaska. Special Publications are available through the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS), the Alaska State Library and on the Internet: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/publications/. This publication has undergone editorial and professional review.

Nicole M. Braem Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701-1511

This document should be cited as: Braem, N.M. and M. Kostick. 2014. Subsistence wildlife harvests in Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales, Alaska, 2010–2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Special Publication No. SP2012-004, Fairbanks.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility please write: ADF&G ADA Coordinator, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK, 99811-5526 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042, Arlington, VA, 22203 Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, MS 5230, Washington DC 20240 The department’s ADA Coordinator can be reached via phone at the following numbers: (VOICE) 907-465-6077, (Statewide Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) 1-800-478-3648, (Juneau TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-6078 For information on alternative formats and questions on this publication, please contact: ADF&G Division of Subsistence at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=contacts.anchorage.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ...... ii LIST OF FIGURES ...... ii LIST OF APPENDICES ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 METHODS ...... 3 The Survey Effort in 2011 ...... 3 Survey Design in 2011 ...... 4 Analysis ...... 6 RESULTS ...... 8 Caribou ...... 8 Moose and Other Big Game ...... 21 Furbearers ...... 22 Comparing the 2010–2011 Results with Previous Survey Data ...... 23 Acknowledgements ...... 25 REFERENCES CITED ...... 26

LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1.–Demographic characteristics of sampled households in WAH study communities, 2010–2011...... 5 Table 2.–Estimated harvest and uses of caribou, WAH study communities, 2010–2011...... 8 Table 3.–Estimated harvest and uses of moose, WAH study communities, 2010–2011...... 22

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1.–Western Arctic caribou herd range and 2011 study communities...... 4 Figure 2.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Elim, 2010–2011...... 10 Figure 3.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Golovin, 2010–2011...... 11 Figure 4.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Kivalina, 2010–2011...... 12 Figure 5.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Koyuk, 2010–2011...... 13 Figure 6.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Noatak, 2010–2011...... 14 Figure 7.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales, 2010–2011. ... 16 Figure 8.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Elim, 2010–2011...... 17 Figure 9.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Golovin, 2010–2011...... 18 Figure 10.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Kivalina, 2010–2011...... 19 Figure 11.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Koyuk, 2010-2011...... 20 Figure 12.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Noatak, 2010–2011...... 21 Figure 13.–Pounds per person caribou harvests, study communities and other Northwest Alaska communities, 1990–2010...... 24

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page Appendix A.–Wales survey form...... 28 Appendix B.–Letter from Noatak/Kivalina Fish & Game Advisory Committee to State Representative Joule and Senator Olson ...... 36 Appendix C.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011...... 40 Appendix D.–Harvests of caribou by sex and month of harvest, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011...... 47 Appendix E.–Household accounts of caribou that were harvested but not eaten, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011...... 49 Appendix F.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011...... 51 Appendix G.–Harvests of moose by sex and month of harvest, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011...... 57 Appendix H.–Comparison of 2010–2011 estimates with previous survey results from Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales...... 59

ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of a big game subsistence harvest surveys conducted in Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales, Alaska in spring of 2011. Since 1999, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, with support from the Division of Wildlife Conservation, has conducted this limited scope harvest survey in communities within game management units (GMUs) 22 and 23 that harvest from the Western Arctic caribou herd. The survey asked household heads in Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales about their harvests of caribou, moose, other large land mammals, and furbearers between May 2010 and April 2011. It documented the number, sex, and harvest timing of these subsistence resources, as well as observations, if any, of unhealthy animals. Reported results were expanded to account for unsurveyed households. In the 2010–2011 study year, Elim hunters harvested an estimated 83 caribou, approximately 35 edible pounds of caribou per person. In Golovin, hunters harvested an estimated 17 caribou, 16 per capita pounds. In Kivalina, hunters harvested an estimated 86 caribou, 32 pounds per capita. Koyuk hunters harvested an estimated 184 caribou, 84 pounds per capita. Noatak’s estimated harvest was 66 caribou, about 16 pounds per person. Wales households reported no harvest of caribou. Key words: caribou, moose, brown bears, Dall sheep, muskoxen, furbearers, Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, Wales, WAH, Western Arctic caribou herd, subsistence hunting.

INTRODUCTION Caribou Rangifer tarandus are an important subsistence resource for communities in the Northwest, Arctic, and Interior regions of Alaska. People from more than 40 villages, from Wainwright in the north to Kotlik in the south, as well as from the regional centers of Barrow, Kotzebue, and Nome, are known to harvest caribou from the Western Arctic caribou herd (WAH; Figure 1). This herd, which roams throughout an area of 140,000 square miles, is the largest caribou herd in Alaska, with a estimated July 2011 population of 325,000 animals.1 The 2011 count represents a 5% decline from the 2009 census, which counted 348,000 caribou. The herd has declined 4–6% annually since 2003 from its peak of 490,000 caribou. The role of caribou in the nutritional, cultural, and economic health of northwestern Alaskan communities varies. In some communities, caribou meat is a large portion of the total subsistence harvest each year. In communities where other resources are more abundant, caribou may represent a smaller portion of the total subsistence harvest. Because of a village’s location, residents may have only occasional access to the WAH. In villages located along key migration routes, residents might take caribou during several months of the year. A variety of other factors may also influence caribou harvests each year, including gasoline prices, user conflicts, weather, the success (or lack thereof) in harvesting other subsistence resources, migration timing, and so forth. Subsistence harvesters adapt to local conditions. Therefore, inter-annual variation in harvest numbers and characteristics is not uncommon, even within a single village. It is the statutory responsibility of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Division of Subsistence to provide information to the public, agencies, the Board of Fisheries, and the Board of Game about the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the lives of Alaska residents (AS 16.05.094). The division studies and reports on the seasonality, methods, sharing and trading, use areas, cultural and economic values, and trends of subsistence harvests and uses. This information is increasingly necessary as development projects are proposed throughout rural areas of Alaska. Documenting and understanding subsistence harvests is also necessary in order to evaluate reasonable opportunities for customary and traditional uses of wild resources. Other duties of the division set forth in statute include:  Quantifying the amount, nutritional value, and extent of dependency on foods acquired through subsistence hunting and fishing;  Evaluating the impacts of state and federal laws and regulations on subsistence hunting and fishing, and when corrective action is indicated, making recommendations to the department; and  Making recommendations to the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries regarding adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations affecting subsistence hunting and fishing. Subsistence harvest surveys of varying scope have been conducted in over 200 Alaska communities since the division was formed in 1978. This research helps ADF&G estimate subsistence harvests and understand the role of subsistence in local economies. Since 1999, ADF&G, in cooperation with the Maniilaq Association and Kawerak, Inc., has gathered big game harvest information in selected Kotzebue and Norton Sound area communities each year.

1. State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, “Western Arctic Caribou Herd Numbers 325,000 Animals in Recent Survey,” press release, July 3, 2012.

METHODS THE SURVEY EFFORT IN 2011 In 2011, division staff collected subsistence harvest information in 6 communities in the Kotzebue Sound and Bering Strait regions: Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales. All data were processed and analyzed by the division. Survey data were expanded to account for unsurveyed households. Survey timing was designed to coincide with the end of a major harvest period. Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales households were asked about their harvest of caribou, other large game, and furbearers between May 2010 and April 2011. Other work responsibilities delayed Division of Subsistence staff from beginning fieldwork until May; this may have affected sample achievement in Unit 23 (Kivalina and Noatak) where members of active subsistence households were busy or absent from the community during fieldwork. Funding for the big game survey came from ADF&G’s divisions of Wildlife Conservation and Subsistence. The division’s policy is to seek community approval before conducting local research. Community approval from the traditional councils of all study communities was obtained by the Division of Subsistence. Nicole Braem and Lisa Slayton (Division of Subsistence) traveled to Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales in May 2011, where they trained local surveyors and helped administer surveys. Four local residents in Elim, Morris Nakarak, Jr., Zachary R. David, Desiree Dawson, and Joni Saccheus, were hired to update the household list and complete surveys. In Golovin, Peter J. Amaktoolik and Dwight Amaktoolik were hired. Jolene Wesley, John Norton, Andrea Baldwin, Brenda Hawley, Brenda Norton, and Rhonda Norton were hired in Kivalina. Michael J. Dewey, Richard Hoogendorn, Johnny Anasogak, and Justina R. Adams worked on the survey in Koyuk. Johnson Booth, Hannah Onalik, and Jacquelyn Smith conducted surveys in Noatak. Kelly J. Anungazuk, Gerald Oxereok, Stanley Oxereok, and Mary Ann Olanna worked on the project in Wales.

Figure 1.–Western Arctic caribou herd range and 2011 studdy communities.

SURVEY DESIGN IN 2011 The division’s standard method for collecting harvest information in smaller communities is to attempt to survey every household, usually by talking to the head or heads of each household. Confidentiality is protected by using randomly assigned household numbers instead of names on the survey form. Before starting the project, survey workers compile an updated, accurate list of every household present in the community during the study period. Participation in surveys is voluntary—people may refuse to answer any or all questions. Surveyors try to contact each household on 3 separate occasions on different days. If no contact is made, then that household is recorded as “no contact.” There are a variety of reasons that a household is marked “no contact:” they may be out of town during the survey effort; they may have moved to another community; or the household members may have passed away during or after the study year. Surveyors often go door to door, but make appointments for surveys when necessary. The big game survey used in 2011 gathered demographic information on the number of people living in each household, the age of its members, the relationship between its head(s) and others living there, and whether members were Alaska Native (Table 1). The survey (Appendix A) included questions about harvests and uses of caribou, moose Alces alces, brown beara s Ursus arctos, Dall sheep Ovis dalli, muskoxen Ovibos moschatus, and several furbearers. It also asked about sharing (i.e., if a household gave away a resource to other households or if the household

received it). Harvest location was recorded by ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation uniform coding unit (UCU). These units are geographical areas that can vary in size from just a few square miles to several thousand square miles. Respondents were asked about the locations of harvests, the sexes of harvested animals, and the months in which harvests occurred. In this study period, as in the previous year’s survey, respondents were given the option of naming a season of harvest. At times, season of harvest (for example, fall) is the most detail that can be obtained; in previous studies this has been merely recorded as “unknown,” in effect discarding useful information. Respondents were also asked if any members of their household harvested animals with diseases or other physical abnormalities. Surveys typically took 5–10 minutes to administer. Sample achievement varied in the 6 communities (Table 1): 81% of Elim households, 66% of Golovin households, 70% of Kivalina households, 80% of Koyuk households, 67% of Noatak households, and 63% of Wales households were surveyed. Table 1.–Demographic characteristics of sampled households in WAH study communities, 2010– 2011. Community Characteristics Elim Golovin Kivalina Koyuk Noatak Wales Total Sampled households 71.0 33.0 63.0 64.0 77.0 31.0 339.0 Eligible households 88.0 50.0 90.0 80.0 115.0 49.0 472.0 Percentage sampled 80.7% 66.0% 70.0% 80.0% 67.0% 63.3% 71.8% Household size Mean 3.7 2.8 4.1 3.7 4.9 3.0 3.9 Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Maximum 9.0 6.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 8.0 14.0 Age Mean 26.6 29.6 26.6 27.1 26.8 31.2 27.3 Minimuma 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maximum 95.0 85.0 81.0 81.0 87.0 82.0 95.0 Median 24.0 26.0 22.5 22.0 20.0 27.0 23.0 Sex Estimated male Number 189.6 71.2 197.1 163.8 303.2 85.4 1010.3 Percentage 58.2% 51.6% 53.7% 55.3% 54.1% 57.4% 55.1% Estimated female Number 136.3 66.7 170.0 132.5 256.9 63.2 825.6 Percentage 41.8% 48.4% 46.3% 44.7% 45.9% 42.6% 44.9% Alaska Native Estimated householdsb Number 78.1 50.0 81.5 75.0 113.5 47.4 445.5 Percentage 89% 100% 90% 94% 99% 97% 94% Estimated population Number 308.6 134.8 357.1 283.8 548.1 143.8 1776.3 Percentage 94.7% 97.8% 97.3% 95.8% 97.9% 96.8% 96.8% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants that are less than 1 year of age. b. The estimated number of households in which at least one head of household is Alaska Native.

ANALYSIS Since its establishment in 1978, the Division of Subsistence Information Management (IM) team has adopted standards based on observations and findings to analyze subsistence harvest resource data. The base unit for the majority of surveys is the household. IM generates harvest estimates and participation rates at the community level. The statistical program SPSS2 is used to analyze data and prepare tables. Results from surveyed households were entered into the division’s data repository in MS SQL Server. Each survey was entered 2 times by different staff. As the first step in data validation, the 2 versions were compared and corrected according to the actual values recorded on paper surveys. Once entered and validated, data were then extracted using SPSS v19.0 and analyzed using standard division methods. Harvest amounts and demographic information were extrapolated to un-surveyed households to derive total harvest and human population estimates for each community. Fractional estimates are the direct result of this expansion procedure and are rounded to the nearest tenth in accompanying report tables. Participation levels, presented in percentages, are derived directly from the sampled data and are assumed to be the same as estimated participation levels for the entire community. Harvest estimates and responses to all questions were calculated based upon the application of weighted means (Cochran 1977). These calculations are standard methods for extrapolating sampled data. The formula applied for this method is N n X C   xi n i1 Where:

x = household harvest i = ith household in the community n = number of sampled households in the community

N = number of households in the community

XC = total estimated community harvest

In addition to harvest estimates, the division reports confidence intervals (CI) to provide some context to the quality and accuracy of the sample. This value represents the relative precision of the mean, or likelihood that an unknown value falls within a certain distance from the mean. In the accompanying tables, the CI is expressed as a percent and applies to both the mean household harvest and total community harvest. The division standard is to use a 95% confidence interval. The formula applied to produce this value is  t 2 sx  nN IC .%.    nx N  1 Where:

t/2 = Student’s t statistic for given alpha level (α) with n-1 degrees of freedom (95% CI with n-1 degrees of freedom). The commonly accepted standard is to use 1.96, however for very small populations (fewer than approximately 140 households), the appropriate value must be identified from a look-up table.

2. Product names are given because they are standards for the State of Alaska, or for scientific completeness; they do not constitute product endorsement.

s = the sample standard deviation = sample mean for the community n = sample size for a community N = total households in a community

RESULTS CARIBOU High percentages of households in 5 of 6 study communities reported use of caribou during the study period, ranging from 70% in Golovin to 95% in Koyuk (Table 2)—regardless of total caribou or per capita harvest for a community. Wales, located on the extreme western tip of the Seward Peninsula, is considered outside the commonly understood range of the WAH; hence, caribou are, in most years, not available to its hunters. Despite no harvest of caribou by Wales households, 13% reported using caribou in the study period, which speaks to the continued importance of traditional foods distribution networks based on barter and sharing. The percentage of households in each community that hunted caribou varied. No surveyed Wales households reported hunting caribou, while 72% of Koyuk households did so. Fewer percentages of households tried to harvest caribou in Golovin (21%), Elim (39%), Noatak (44%), and Kivalina (67%). Table 2.–Estimated harvest and uses of caribou, WAH study communities, 2010–2011.

Percentage of Households Reporting Estimated Harvest 95% confidence Mean Per capita limit (±) Community Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household pounds harvest Elim 84.5% 39.4% 28.2% 42.3% 66.2% 83.0 0.9 34.6 21.6% Golovin 69.7% 21.2% 12.1% 15.2% 57.6% 16.7 0.3 16.4 61.4% Kivalina 79.4% 66.7% 30.2% 50.8% 73.0% 85.7 1.0 31.8 39.9% Koyuk 95.3% 71.9% 46.9% 48.4% 53.1% 183.8 2.3 84.4 17.8% Noatak 79.2% 44.2% 20.8% 27.3% 68.8% 65.7 0.6 16.0 32.2% Wales 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 12.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

Household success (roughly measured by dividing the number of households attempting to harvest caribou by the number of households that did so) ranged from 45% in Kivalina (and just 47% in Noatak) to 71% in Elim. This rough measure of “success” does not, however, account for effort—the number of trips made, instances of trips made with no harvest, the distance traveled, and the amount spent on gasoline and other supplies. The 2010–2011 study period was marked by the second year of unusual fall migration patterns (timing and route) by the Western Arctic herd that resulted in very few caribou being available to Noatak and Kivalina (Jim Dau, Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G, Kotzebue, personal communication, July 30, 2012); Noatak in particular usually takes the majority of its annual caribou harvest in fall. The prevalence of sharing of subsistence food accounts for the difference between harvest and uses in all 6 study communities. For example, in the community of Golovin, only 12% of household harvested caribou, but 70% of households reported using it. Caribou harvest in a given year is driven by several factors, including: village location relative to herd range and migration routes (which vary), the availability of other resources (notably marine mammals), success in harvests of other subsistence resources, travel conditions, gas prices, food preferences, and others. In both 2009 and 2010, the fall migration was unusual. As noted by Game Management Unit (GMU) 23 Area Biologist Jim Dau: In 2009, caribou moved through the Noatak drainage in an unusually narrow east–west corridor roughly centered on the Anisak River drainage. As a result, hunters from Noatak, Kivalina, and Kotzebue had a difficult time finding caribou, as did many nonlocal hunters using guides or transporters to access hunting areas. The fall migration through the Noatak drainage was again limited mainly to the Anisak drainage; additionally, caribou were relatively late moving south again with the largest numbers of caribou moving

through the Dall Creek–Kobuk–Shungnak areas during mid-October. This created the most difficult caribou hunting conditions that the communities of Noatak, Kivalina, and Kotzebue have experienced probably since the 1970s. (Jim Dau, Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G, Kotzebue, personal communication, July 30, 2012) Estimates of total caribou harvests by community ranged from 17 in Golovin to 184 in Koyuk. As noted earlier, unusual fall migration patterns by the WAH resulted in significantly lower harvest by the villages of Kivalina and Noatak in the study period than in previous years. Several Kivalina residents said that when they did see a few caribou in the fall near the community, the animals were spooked by road traffic from Red Dog Mine or disturbed by a helicopter operating in the area. Comments received by Noatak residents during project fieldwork portray a very difficult fall hunting season for the community. Many Noatak hunters traveled farther than normal in search of caribou, investing a great deal of money in gasoline for travel that did not result in locating caribou, let alone a harvest. One resident described traveling far up the Noatak River, as far as its confluence with the Cutler River (located north of the mountains above Ambler). Another described traveling as far as the Selawik Hills near Buckland to find caribou, once travel was possible by snowmachine. Some relied upon caribou supplied by relatives in other communities in GMU 23. The situation prompted the Noatak/Kivalina Fish and Game Advisory Committee to send a letter to Alaska State Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska State Senator Donny Olson, ADF&G, the Alaska Board of Game, and the Big Game Commercial Services Board requesting a limit on transporter activity on the Agashashok (commonly referred to as the “Aggie”) River (Appendix B). Looking at pounds per capita harvests (pounds per person) allows one to compare the results from communities of different sizes as well as results for one community over time. By that measure, Koyuk harvested the most caribou in the study period, approximately 84 lb of caribou per resident (Table 2). Elim (35 lb) and Kivalina (32 lb) were the next highest harvesting communities by pounds per person harvested. Golovin harvested 16 lb per person, as did Noatak. Detailed information on harvest and uses of caribou and all other resources in the survey is available in Appendix C. The percentage of harvest made up of bulls and cows varied by community, as did harvest timing. For a complete breakdown of harvest by sex and month, see Appendix D. The majority of Elim’s harvest (~61%) was bulls, with just over 25% cows and slightly more than 13% unknown sex. Elim, located in the winter range of the WAH, harvested caribou from early winter through spring (Figure 2). Harvests in March and April (52 caribou) made up 63% of the total harvest; these are months in which subsistence hunters have more daylight and usually less severe weather than earlier in the winter. Travel conditions (for snowmachine) are also usually still quite good.

20 Unknown

15 Female

Estimated caribou harvest caribou Estimated Male 10

Month of harvest Figure 2.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Elim, 2010–2011.

All of Golovin’s harvest (17 caribou) was bulls. Virtually all Golovin’s caribou harvest took place in winter 2011. This is consistent with its location in the winter range of the WAH. Caribou are usually present north of the community in the vicinity of McCarthy’s Marsh and Death Valley during the winter.

5 Unknown

4 Female

Estimated caribou harvest caribou Estimated 3 Male 2

Month of harvest Figure 3.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Golovin, 2010–2011.

Kivalina’s harvest had a higher percentage of cows—48% were cows, 25% were bulls, and 27% were unknown sex. Kivalina’s caribou harvest began in July 2010 and continued through late winter (Figure 4). Twenty-eight percent of harvest, 24 caribou, was taken in an “unknown fall” month, with another 6 caribou taken in an unknown month or season.

Unknown

10 Female

Estimated caribou harvest caribou Estimated Male 5

Month of harvest

Figure 4.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Kivalina, 2010–2011.

Most of Koyuk’s harvest was bulls (78%); 22% was cows. Similar to Elim, the majority of Koyuk’s caribou harvest came in winter months (Figure 5), although limited harvest occurred in the spring of 2010 (9 caribou in May).

25 Unknown 20 Female

Estimated caribou harvest caribou Estimated 15

10 Male

Month of harvest

Figure 5.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Koyuk, 2010–2011.

Of Noatak’s harvest during the study period, 71% were bulls, 18% were cows, and 11% were of unknown sex. Most of the Noatak’s caribou harvest (80%) occurred in August and September (Figure 6). The remainder came later in the winter, in February and March 2011.

30 Unknown

Female 20

Estimated caribou harvest caribou Estimated Male

Month of harvest

Figure 6.–Estimated caribou harvest by month, Noatak, 2010–2011.

With the exception of Kivalina, those surveyed in 2009–2010 were able to attribute all caribou harvested to specific months of the year. Uncertainty about month of harvest can occur for several reasons: the length of the study period, the time between harvest of animals and survey administration, the sheer number of animals harvested by a particular hunter or household (in the case of caribou), and which member of the household answers the survey questions. Surveyors attempt to speak to the hunter(s), but at times they are unavailable and another member of the household is surveyed. An example of this situation is when a hunter is out of town during the survey but his wife can report how many caribou he harvested, although not recall exactly the sex of the animal or the exact month it was harvested. Often, season of harvest (for example, fall) is the most detail that can be obtained. In the case of Kivalina in 2010–2011, the delayed timing of survey administration led to Division of Subsistence staff attempting to conduct surveys during spring whaling season when many of the community’s hunters were out on the ocean. Survey achievement and respondent recall likely were affected by this. There were few reports of caribou harvested but judged too unhealthy to eat in the 2010–2011 study period. One Koyuk household reported killing one caribou that was “too skinny, skin and bones.” One Noatak household reported killing an unhealthy caribou but did not describe the symptoms or conditions of the caribou. A complete list of symptoms and general comments is presented in Appendix E. Caribou harvest took place in 18 UCUs near the study communities in 2010–2011 (Figure 6). Harvest by location is broken down by community in tabular form in Appendix F; the following maps (figures 7–13) show harvest apportioned to UCUs for each community. Limitations to this study’s approach to data collection are that it did not ask where hunters hunted caribou, but merely where they killed them; another is its very rough, generalized approach to location. In any year, hunters may use vastly larger (or smaller) areas than reflected in the maps.

Most of Elim’s harvest, 33 caribou (or 40%) came from the UCU in the vicinity of Koyuk in the lower Koyuk River drainage (Figure 8). Twenty-one caribou (or 25% of harvest) came from the area to the northeast, which includes the West and South forks of the Buckland River. An estimated 14 caribou (or 16% of harvest) came from the Koyuk River area above Willow Creek. Fewer caribou were taken in the Kwik and Tubutulik river areas, and to the west in the area bounding McCarthy Marsh. Most of the caribou killed by Golovin residents (15 or 88%), were harvested in the area north of community bounding McCarthy Marsh (Figure 9). This is an area where residents of Golovin and White Mountain would expect to find caribou in most years. Two caribou were taken in the UCU to the south. Most of the caribou taken by Kivalina residents were killed in the immediate vicinity of the community (Figure 10). This includes 47 caribou (55% of total harvest) that came from the area southeast of Kivalina and 21 caribou (25% of harvest) in the Wulik River drainage. Additional harvest, 7 caribou (8% of harvest) came from the Singolik and Asikpak river areas. One household reported getting a caribou near Kotzebue. Harvest location information was unavailable for 9 caribou, 10% of harvest. Koyuk hunters took most caribou (126, or 68% of total estimated harvest) in the Koyuk River drainage above Willow Creek, an area that also includes the Peace River (Figure 11). Thirty-three caribou (18% of total harvest) came from the Buckland River drainage. An estimated 16 caribou came in the immediate vicinity of Koyuk. A few caribou (4) were taken north of Koyuk in the Kiwalik River area, and 5 caribou were killed east of the community in the Inglutalik River drainage. More than one-half of Noatak’s harvest, 36 caribou, came in the Noakak River drainage above the Kelly River (Figure 12). The UCU extends from the mouth of the Kelly River, including the Poktovik Creek area, to the mouth of the Kaluktavik River. Fewer caribou, 7, came from the hilly area south of the Noatak River that includes Akikuchiak Creek on its eastern boundary. Respondents also harvested caribou (3) to the southeast in the Nakolik River drainage. Ten caribou, ~15% of that community’s total harvest estimate, came from an area near Buckland (the Kauk River drainage). Harvest location information was unavailable for 6 caribou, 9% of total harvest.

Figure 7.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Elim, Gollovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales, 2010–2011.

Figure 8.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Elim, 2010–2011.

Figure 9.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Golovin, 20010–2011.

Figure 10.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Kivalina, 2010–2011.

Figure 11.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Koyuk, 2010-2011.

Figure 12.–Estimated caribou harvest by UCU, Noatak, 2010–2011.

MOOSE AND OTHER BIG GAME Uses of moose by households in the 6 study communities varied, with GMU 22 communities using more moose than those in GMU 23 (Table 3). Koyuk had the highest percentage of households using moose (89%). Just 27% of Noatak households used moose. Koyuk also had the highest percentage of households hunting moose (69%) and successfully harvesting (23%). Elimm, located near Koyuk, had the next highest percentages of attempting to harvest and harvesting, with 41% of households trying to harvest a moose and 13% doing so. Thirty-five percent of Kivalina households tried to harvest a moose, and 16% did. Less than 20% of households in Golovin, Noatak, and Wales hunted moose. While only 13% of households in Wales hunted moose, 10% of households were successful. Sharing among households also varied by community, with Koyuk (67%) and Elim (62%) having the highest percentages of giving away moose. Elim, Koyuk, and Kivalina had similar percentages of households reporting that they received moose in the study period, with 27% of Elim and Koyuk households receiving it and 22% of Kivalina households being given moose.

Table 3.–Estimated harvest and uses of moose, WAH study communities, 2010–2011. Percentage of households reporting Estimated harvest 95% confidence Mean Per capita limit (±) Community Use Attempt Harvest Receive Give Total household pounds harvest Elim 70.4% 40.8% 12.7% 26.8% 62.0% 11.2 0.13 18.4 27.5% Golovin 60.6% 18.2% 6.1% 6.1% 54.5% 3.0 0.06 11.8 82.7% Kivalina 49.2% 34.9% 15.9% 22.2% 42.9% 12.9 0.14 18.8 38.2% Koyuk 89.1% 68.8% 23.4% 26.6% 67.2% 18.8 0.23 34.1 20.4% Noatak 27.3% 11.7% 5.2% 9.1% 23.4% 9.0 0.08 8.6 59.3% Wales 61.3% 12.9% 9.7% 6.5% 58.1% 4.7 0.10 17.2 69.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

Estimated moose harvest in the 6 communities in 2010–2011 was 11 in Elim, 3 in Golovin, 13 in Kivalina, 19 in Koyuk, 9 in Noatak, and 5 in Wales. Translated into pounds per person in each community, Elim hunters brought home an estimated 18 lb of moose per person; Golovin, 12; Kivalina, 19; Koyuk, 34; Noatak, 9; and Wales, 17 lb per capita. Most moose taken were bulls—Kivalina harvested an estimated 7 cows, and Noatak 3. Moose harvests are broken down by sex and month of harvest for each village in Appendix G. No harvest or use of black bears was reported in any of the study communities during the study period. (A complete summary of big game harvest data appears in Appendix C.) Only Elim and Noatak reported any harvest or use of brown bears. Use was minimal—6% in Elim and 3% in Noatak. Just 6% of Elim households hunted brown bears, with 3% being successful. In Noatak, equal numbers of households hunted brown bears and harvested (3%). It is unknown if any of the brown bears were taken for food. Few communities in northwest Alaska still eat brown bears, but their use as food has been documented in Northwest Alaska previously (Loon and Georgette 1989). No community reported harvest or use of Dall sheep. Elim and Golovin were the only communities in which households said they harvested muskoxen during the study period. However, ADF&G’s Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) records indicate that 1 muskox was taken by Wales as well. It is likely this household was not surveyed by this project; DWC records did not show harvest by residents of Elim or Golovin. It is unclear if the discrepancy between survey results and DWC data are indicative of recall error, changing residency during the year, or unreported harvest. Households in Elim, Golovin, Noatak, and Wales reported use of muskoxen, with values ranging from 1% of households in Noatak to 23% in Wales. FURBEARERS Furbearers were less widely used than caribou and moose in all communities. (For a full summary of harvest and use data for furbearers see Appendix C.) Wolves and wolverines were the most commonly used furbearers, although not every community used both. Use of these 2 species was highest in Kivalina, where 16% of households used wolves and 11% used wolverines. Wolverines were the only furbearer used in Wales; 3% of households used them. The most widely used furbearer in Elim was beavers (8%), followed by lynx, martens, and wolverines (3%); and wolves (1%). Koyuk and Noatak households used all 6 species of furbearers asked about in the survey. Nine percent of Koyuk households used wolves, while 11% used wolverines. In Noatak, the most commonly used species was wolf (6%); use of all other species was 3%. No particular species of furbearer was most commonly shared—the percentages of giving and receiving them ranged from 0–3% in all communities except Kivalina. There, 11% of households reported giving away wolves, and 8% reported giving away wolverines. Elim harvested the most beavers (6) of surveyed communities. Kivalina harvested the most wolves (26) and wolverines (13). The highest lynx harvest occurred in Koyuk (an estimated 11). In summary, Elim

harvested an estimated 6 beavers, 3 lynx, 5 martens, 1 wolverine, and no red foxes or wolves. Golovin harvested 2 red foxes and none of the other 5 furbearers on the survey. Kivalina harvested an estimated 26 wolves, 13 wolverines, and no beavers, lynx, martens or red foxes. Koyuk harvested an estimated 1 beaver, 11 lynx, 8 wolves, 5 wolverines, and no red foxes or martens. Noatak harvested an estimated 5 beavers, 5 lynx, 2 red foxes, 6 wolves, 2 wolverines, and no martens. Wales harvested an estimated 5 wolverines, and none of the other 5 furbearers in the survey. COMPARING THE 2010–2011 RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS SURVEY DATA 2011 was the third year in which big game harvest information was collected for Elim and Golovin. Elim had previously been surveyed in 1999 and 2006, while Golovin had first been surveyed in 1989 and again in 2001. This was the fourth survey collecting big game information in Koyuk and Wales. Noatak had been previously surveyed in 1994, 1999, 2002, and 2007. Kivalina has the dataset with the greatest time depth, with 7 data points extending back to 1964. See Appendix H for a summary table of results, 1964– 2010, for these communities. When comparing harvests between communities of different sizes through time, per capita harvest (harvest per person) is a useful measure. In the case of caribou, comparing pounds per capita (per person) allows one to compare how much caribou a community harvests per person; for example, Koyuk harvested 84 lb per person while Golovin harvested 16 lb per person. Another way to compare harvests (while controlling for community size) is to compare per capita animals, i.e., Koyuk harvested 0.6 caribou per person while Noatak harvested 0.1 caribou per person. Comparing tenths of animals is a more abstract (and unwieldy) approach; the following section will make comparisons based on per capita lb harvest of caribou and moose. Elim’s pounds per person caribou harvest in the 2010–2011 study period, 35 lb, is roughly one-third of that documented in 1999 (99 lb), with the value in 2005 between the two (77 lb; Figure 13). A linear trend line drawn between the 3 points shows a decline over the time period. However, with just 3 data points, whether this is indeed a long-term trend remains to be seen. Comments received during fieldwork included concerns that there were fewer caribou and moose in recent years and that they were too far away from the community. Other residents said there were too many bears and wolves that were killing moose and caribou calves, or that there were concerns that reindeer herders were chasing caribou away from their normal areas with small planes.

Figure 13.–Pounds per person caribou harvests, study communities and other Northwest Alaska communities, 1990–2010.

Golovin’s pounds per person caribou harvest, 16, was the lowest documented so far for Golovin. That compares to an estimated 32 lb per person in 1989, and 30 lb in 2001. Comments received from Golovin residents during fieldwork included concerns that there were fewer caribou than in past years and they were too far away from the community. As in Elim, residents said there were too many bears and wolves that were killing moose and caribou calves. Comments were received about reindeer herders in small planes chasing caribou away from their normal areas. Considerable differences in caribou harvest may occur even for communities located within the core of the range of the WAH. In the case of Kivalina, in 1964, the community harvestedd an estimated 256 caribou (209 lb per person); the following year, the total harvest was 1,010 caribou (830 lb per person.) In more recent decades, total annual harvest has ranged from 268 caribou (2007), to 564 (1983), with per capita values from 85 lb to 284 lb. As noted earlier, the 2010–2011 study year was a particularly poor one for Noatak and Kivalina. Kivalina’s estimated caribou harvest, 86, is the lowest ever recorded, and just one-third of that documented in 2007. A linear trend line drawn from 1992 to the present shows declining pounds per person harvests from a value of 138 in 1992, although the steeppness of the decline is no doubt influenced by the extremely low per capita value for 2010–20011 (32 lb per person).

The 2010–2011 caribou harvest (184 caribou, or 84 lb per person) was also the lowest recorded in Koyuk. In the 2 surveys preceding (2004 and 2005), the community had harvested 414 and 447 caribou respectively. Comments received during fieldwork included concerns that small planes were driving the caribou away from the area, and that there were fewer caribou in the past few years. For the community of Noatak, the 2010–2011 caribou harvest was disastrous. The estimate, 66 caribou total or 16 lb per person, was a fraction of that in the previous low years, 2002 and 2007. Pounds per person caribou harvest in those years were just one-half of those observed in the 1990s. Taking into consideration the confidence interval associated with the 2010–2011 data (expressed as a percentage), the harvest could be as high as 87 or as low as 45 caribou for the time period. Compounding the community’s troubles, the Dolly Varden (known locally as “trout”) harvest was unusually poor as well. No caribou harvest was reported in Wales in the study period. Harvest estimates for the community range from 3 to 7 caribou in years in which harvests occurred. In 2000, no harvests were reported either. Moose per capita harvests in Elim in 2010–2011, 18 pounds per person, were lower than those in 1999 and 2005, when 25 and 50 lb per person were documented (Appendix H). Golovin’s pounds per person moose, 12, was less than 1989, when 68 lb of moose per person were harvested. However, it was a better year than in 2001, when no moose harvested was documented. Kivalina’s moose harvest, 19 lb per person, fell within the range of previous studies; it has ranged between 5 and 26 pounds per person since the 1980s; in Koyuk, the 2010–2011 moose harvest, 34 pounds per person, was lower than all previous study years, but not greatly so. In past surveys, harvest has ranged from 40 to 45 lb per person. Moose harvest in Noatak, 9 lb per person in the study period, fit within the range of previously studies; moose per capita harvests have ranged from 4 to 11 lb per person. Wales’ moose harvest in 2010–2011 was 17 lb per person, up from 12 lb in 2006, but less than 2000 results, in which the community harvested 52 lb of moose meat per person. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is grateful to the residents of Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales for participating in this project and their courtesy to and patience with those administering surveys. Special thanks go to the tribal administrators in the study communities, who help out projects such as these in a myriad of ways, including but not limited to facilitating local hiring, building community lists, lodging, and community approval. Funding for this project has been provided since 1999 by the ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, with funding provided by the Division of Subsistence in 2010 and 2011. For further information, please contact: Nicole M. Braem ADF&G Division of Subsistence 1300 College Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99701 (907) 328-6106

REFERENCES CITED Cochran, William G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Loon, Hannah, and Susan Georgette. 1989. “Contemporary Brown Bear Use in Northwest Alaska.” Kotzebue: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 163. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp163.pdf.

APPENDIX A: WALES SURVEY FORM

Appendix A.–Wales survey form.

APPENDIX B: LETTER FROM NOATAK/KIVALINA FISH & GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOULE AND SENATOR OLSON

Appendix B.–Letter from Noatak/Kivalina Fish & Game Advisory Committee to State Representative Joule and Senator Olson

APPENDIX C: HARVESTS AND USES OF WILD RESOURCES WAH STUDY COMMUNITIES, ALASKA 2010–2011

Appendix C.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011. Appendix C-1.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, Elim, 2010–2011. Harvest quantity, Percentage of households Harvest weight, poundsa individual 95% Per Per Per CI Resource name Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household capita Total household (±%) Land mammals 91.5% 57.7% 42.3% 47.9% 85.9% 18,243.3 207.3 56.0 112.8 1.3 17.5% Large land mammals 91.5% 56.3% 38.0% 47.9% 85.9% 18,243.3 207.3 56.0 97.9 1.1 19.3% Brown bear 5.6% 5.6% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 213.2 2.4 0.7 2.5 0.0 61.5% Black bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Dall sheep 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Caribou 84.5% 39.4% 28.2% 42.3% 66.2% 11,293.7 128.3 34.6 83.0 0.9 21.6% Moose 70.4% 40.8% 12.7% 26.8% 62.0% 6,001.4 68.2 18.4 11.2 0.1 27.5% Muskox 7.0% 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 4.2% 735.0 8.4 2.3 1.2 0.0 87.7% Small land mammals 12.7% 12.7% 9.9% 5.6% 2.8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.2 34.5% Beaver 8.5% 12.7% 5.6% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.1 45.5% Red fox 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

40 Lynx 2.8% 12.7% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 87.7% Marten 2.8% 12.7% 2.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.1 69.0% Wolf 1.4% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Wolverine 2.8% 12.7% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 87.7% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A harvest weight of zero pounds for a resource with a non-zero harvest quantity indicates that the resource was used exclusively for fur, and not eaten.

Appendix C-2.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, Golovin, 2010–2011. Harvest quantity, Percentage of households Harvest weight, poundsa individual Per Per Per 95% CI Resource name Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household capita Total household (±%) Land mammals 84.8% 30.3% 18.2% 18.2% 78.8% 5,693.9 113.9 41.3 24.2 0.5 55.4% Large land mammals 84.8% 27.3% 15.2% 18.2% 75.8% 5,693.9 113.9 41.3 22.7 0.5 59.2% Brown bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Black bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Dall sheep 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Caribou 69.7% 21.2% 12.1% 15.2% 57.6% 2,266.7 45.3 16.4 16.7 0.3 61.4% Moose 60.6% 18.2% 6.1% 6.1% 54.5% 1,630.3 32.6 11.8 3.0 0.1 82.7% Muskox 18.2% 6.1% 6.1% 9.1% 12.1% 1,797.0 35.9 13.0 3.0 0.1 82.7% Small land mammals 12.7% 12.7% 9.9% 5.6% 2.8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 116.0% Beaver 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Red fox 3.0% 6.1% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 118.8% Lynx 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Marten 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 41 Wolf 3.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Wolverine 3.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A harvest weight of zero pounds for a resource with a non-zero harvest quantity indicates that the resource was used exclusively for fur, and not eaten.

Appendix C-3.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, Kivalina, 2010–2011. Harvest quantity, Percentage of households Harvest weight, poundsa individual Per Per Per 95% CI Resource name Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household capita Total household (±%) Land mammals 82.5% 69.8% 39.7% 52.4% 76.2% 18,574.3 206.4 50.6 137.1 1.5 29.7% Large land mammals 82.5% 69.8% 36.5% 52.4% 76.2% 18,574.3 206.4 50.6 98.6 1.1 35.2% Brown bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Black bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Dall sheep 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Caribou 79.4% 66.7% 30.2% 50.8% 73.0% 11,657.1 129.5 31.8 85.7 1.0 39.9% Moose 49.2% 34.9% 15.9% 22.2% 42.9% 6,917.1 76.9 18.8 12.9 0.1 38.2% Muskox 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Small land mammals 15.9% 17.5% 15.9% 11.1% 3.2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.4 34.5% Beaver 3.2% 17.5% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Red fox 0.0% 17.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Lynx 0.0% 17.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Marten 0.0% 17.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 42 Wolf 15.9% 17.5% 15.9% 11.1% 1.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.3 36.2% Wolverine 11.1% 17.5% 7.9% 7.9% 1.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.1 48.6% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A harvest weight of zero pounds for a resource with a non-zero harvest quantity indicates that the resource was used exclusively for fur, and not eaten.

Appendix C-4.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, Koyuk, 2010–2011. Harvest quantity, Percentage of households Harvest weight, poundsa individual Per Per Per 95% CI Resource name Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household capita Total household (±%) Land mammals 96.9% 75.0% 48.4% 51.6% 75.0% 35,101.9 438.8 118.5 227.5 2.8 16.2% Large land mammals 96.9% 75.0% 46.9% 51.6% 75.0% 35,077.5 438.5 118.4 202.50 2.5 16.9% Brown bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Black bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Dall sheep 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Caribou 95.3% 71.9% 46.9% 48.4% 53.1% 24,990.0 312.4 84.4 183.8 2.3 17.8% Moose 89.1% 68.8% 23.4% 26.6% 67.2% 10,087.5 126.1 34.1 18.8 0.2 20.4% Muskox 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Small land mammals 10.9% 10.9% 9.4% 1.6% 0.0% 24.4 0.3 0.1 25.0 0.3 46.5% Beaver 4.7% 10.9% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 24.4 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 89.4% Red fox 1.6% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Lynx 3.1% 10.9% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.1 89.4% Marten 3.1% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 43 Wolf 9.4% 10.9% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.1 40.9% Wolverine 10.9% 10.9% 4.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.1 54.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A harvest weight of zero pounds for a resource with a non-zero harvest quantity indicates that the resource was used exclusively for fur, and not eaten.

Appendix C-5.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, Noatak, 2010–2011. Harvest quantity, Percentage of households Harvest weight, poundsa individual Per Per Per 95% CI Resource name Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household capita Total household (±%) Land mammals 80.5% 48.1% 23.4% 32.5% 74.0% 14,890.3 129.5 26.6 104.5 0.9 33.2% Large land mammals 80.5% 45.5% 23.4% 32.5% 74.0% 14,890.3 129.5 26.6 86.6 0.8 31.2% Brown bear 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 1.3% 0.0% 385.3 3.4 0.7 4.5 0.0 84.9% Black bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Dall sheep 6.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 5.2% 746.8 6.5 1.3 7.5 0.1 82.1% Caribou 79.2% 44.2% 20.8% 27.3% 68.8% 8,937.1 77.7 16.0 65.7 0.6 32.2% Moose 27.3% 11.7% 5.2% 9.1% 23.4% 4,821.0 41.9 8.6 9.0 0.1 59.3% Muskox 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Small land mammals 9.1% 11.7% 7.8% 3.9% 3.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.2 52.7% Beaver 2.6% 11.7% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 114.5% Red fox 2.6% 11.7% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 114.5% Lynx 2.6% 11.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 114.5% Marten 2.6% 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 44 Wolf 6.5% 11.7% 3.9% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.1 69.3% Wolverine 2.6% 11.7% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 114.5% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A harvest weight of zero pounds for a resource with a non-zero harvest quantity indicates that the resource was used exclusively for fur, and not eaten.

Appendix C-6.–Harvests and uses of wild resources, Wales, 2010–2011. Harvest quantity, Percentage of households Harvest weight, poundsa individual Per Per Per 95% CI Resource name Use Attempt Harvest Give Receive Total household capita Total household (±%) Land mammals 71.0% 16.1% 9.7% 9.7% 67.7% 2,551.2 52.1 17.2 9.5 0.2 86.1% Large land mammals 71.0% 16.1% 9.7% 9.7% 67.7% 2,551.2 52.1 17.2 4.74 0.1 69.0% Brown bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Black bear 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Dall sheep 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Caribou 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 12.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Moose 61.3% 12.9% 9.7% 6.5% 58.1% 2,551.2 52.1 17.2 4.7 0.1 69.0% Muskox 22.6% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 22.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Small land mammals 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.1 124.1% Beaver 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Red fox 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Lynx 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Marten 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 45 Wolf 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Wolverine 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.1 123.8% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. A harvest weight of zero pounds for a resource with a non-zero harvest quantity indicates that the resource was used exclusively for fur, and not eaten.

APPENDIX D: HARVESTS OF CARIBOU BY SEX AND MONTH OF HARVEST, WAH STUDY COMMUNITIES, ALASKA, 2010–2011

Appendix D.–Harvests of caribou by sex and month of harvest, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011.

2010 2011 Season Community Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Spring Summer Fall Winter Unknown Total Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.5 8.7 6.2 13.6 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.8 Elim Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.7 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 Male 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 Golovin Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 8.6 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 21.4 Kivalina Female 0.0 0.0 7.1 1.4 0.0 4.311.410.0 2.9 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 41.4 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 22.9 Male 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 25.0 20.0 31.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 143.8 Koyuk Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 6.3 13.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 40.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.3 47 Noatak Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wales Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

APPENDIX E: HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNTS OF CARIBOU THAT WERE HARVESTED BUT NOT EATEN, WAH STUDY COMMUNITIES, ALASKA, 2010–2011.

Appendix E.–Household accounts of caribou that were harvested but not eaten, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011. Households Community Comments, reasons, or symptoms reportinga Quantityb Koyuk Too skinny/sick, skin and bones 1 1 Noatak Did not describe 1 n/a Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011. a. “Households reporting” indicates the number of households that reported either harvesting or receiving caribou that was not eaten because it was considered unfit for human consumption. b. “Quantity” indicates the number of caribou that were harvested (not received) by households that later discarded the meat because it was considered unfit for human consumption.

APPENDIX F: HARVESTS OF CARIBOU, BY LOCATION, SEX, AND MONTH OF HARVEST, WAH STUDY COMMUNITIES, ALASKA, 2010–2011

Appendix F.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011. Appendix F-1.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, Elim, 2010–2011.

Polygon 2010 2011 GMU UCU Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unknown Total 22B N000201 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 6.2 6.2 0.0 14.9 N000201 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 9.9 N000201 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 8.7 22B N000202 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 N000202 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 N000202 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 22B N000301 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 6.2 N000301 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N000301 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51 22B N000302 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.7 N000302 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N000302 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22B N000402 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 N000402 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N000402 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23Z H000501 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 5.0 0.0 14.9 H000501 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 5.0 0.0 6.2 H000501 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

Appendix F-2.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, Golovin, 2010–2011.

Polygon 2010 2011 GMU UCU Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unknown Total 22B N000401 Male 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 N000401 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N000401 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22B N000402 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 6.1 4.5 0.0 15.2 N000402 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N000402 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

Appendix F-3.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, Kivalina, 2010–2011.

Polygon 2010 2011 GMU UCU Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unknown Total 23Z H000601 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H004903 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 Unknown 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 H005001 Male 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 8.6 Female 1.4 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 Unknown 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 23Z H005201 Male 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1

53 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Unknown Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

Appendix F-4.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, Koyuk, 2010–2011.

Polygon 2010 2011 GMU UCU Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unknown Total 22B N000101 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22B N000201 Male 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.8 0.0 15.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22B N000202 Male 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 21.3 20.0 20.0 6.3 0.0 103.8 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 22.5 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54 23Z H000401 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23Z H000501 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 8.8 0.0 21.3 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 11.3 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

Appendix F-5.–Harvests of caribou, by location, sex, and month of harvest, Noatak, 2010–2011.

Polygon 2010 2011 GMU UCU Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unknown Total 23Z A003501 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 23Z A003502 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23Z A003601 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23Z A003802 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

55 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23Z H000602 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 Unknown Unknown Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

APPENDIX G: HARVESTS OF MOOSE BY SEX AND MONTH OF HARVEST, WAH STUDY COMMUNITIES, ALASKA, 2010– 2011

Appendix G.–Harvests of moose by sex and month of harvest, WAH study communities, Alaska, 2010–2011. 2010 2011 Community Sex May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unknown Total Male 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.5 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 Elim Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Golovin Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Male 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 5.7 Kivalina Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 Koyuk Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0

57 Noatak Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 4.7 Wales Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2011.

APPENDIX H: COMPARISON OF 2010–2011 ESTIMATES WITH PREVIOUS SURVEY RESULTS FROM ELIM, GOLOVIN, KIVALINA, KOYUK, NOATAK, AND WALES

Appendix H.–Comparison of 2010–2011 estimates with previous survey results from Elim, Golovin, Kivalina, Koyuk, Noatak, and Wales. Elim Percentage of households harvesting Total number harvested Per capita pounds harvested Resource 1999 2006a 2010 1999 2006a 2010 1999 2006a 2010 Brown bear – 0.0 3.0 – 0.0 2.5 – 0.0 0.7 Black bear –– 0.0 ––0.0 ––0.0 Caribou 65.8 57.7 28.0 227.0 150.0 0.0 98.5 76.8 34.6 Moose 19.0 36.5 13.0 14.0 25.0 83.0 24.7 50.0 18.4 Muskox – 0.0 1.0 – 0.0 11.2 – – 2.3 Dall sheep –– 0.0 ––1.2 ––0.0

Golovin Percentage of households harvesting Total number harvested Per capita pounds harvested Resource 1982 1989 2001 2010 1982 1989 2001 2010 1982 1989 2001 2010 Brown bear 5.0 9.1 2.9 0.0 –4.01.0 0.0 – 1.9 0.2 0.0 Black bear – 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 10.0 18.2 44.1 12.0 – 40.0 106.0 16.7 – 32.0 30.3 16.4 Moose 60.0 45.5 0.0 6.0 – 21.0 0.0 3.0 – 67.5 0.0 11.8 Muskox – 0.0 –6.0 –0.0 –3.0 –0.0 –13.0 Dall sheep – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 59 Kivalinab Percentage of households harvesting Total number harvested Per capita pounds harvested Resource 1982 1983 1992 2007 2010 1982 1983 1992 2007 2010 1982 1983 1992 2007 2010 Brown bear – – 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 Black bear – – – – 0.0 ––– – 0.0 ––––0.0 Caribou – – 74.2 64.3 30.0 346.0 564.0 351.0 268.0 85.7 178.5 283.9 138.3 84.8 31.8 Moose – – 22.6 9.5 16.0 6.0 6.0 17.0 3.0 12.9 11.3 11.0 26.4 4.8 18.8 Muskox – – – 0.0 0.0 ––– 0.0 0.0 –––0.0 0.0 Dall sheep – – 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

Koyuk Percentage of households harvesting Total number harvested Per capita pounds harvested Resource 1998 2004 2006a 2010 1998 2004 2006a 2010 1998 2004 2006a 2010 Brown bear 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 – 0.0 Caribou 58.6 71.9 72.0 47.0 263.0 425.0 446.8 183.8 129.3 153.2 171.4 84.4 Moose 30.0 28.1 38.0 23.0 23.0 27.0 28.0 18.8 45.2 40.3 42.9 34.1 Muskox – 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep – – – 0.0 –– – 0.0 –––0.0 -continued-

Appendix H.–Page 2 of 2. Noatak Percentage of households harvesting Total number harvested Per capita pounds harvested Resource 1999 2002 2007 2010 1999 2002 2007 2010 1999 2002 2007 2010 Brown bear 2.2 1.1 2.2 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.5 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.7 Black bear 0.0 –1.10.0 0.0 –2.0 0.0 0.0 –0.40.0 Caribou 72.2 71.3 65.6 21.0 683.0 410.0 441.0 65.7 224.0 120.0 114.1 16.0 Moose 3.3 3.4 8.9 5.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 9.0 5.7 4.0 10.8 8.6 Muskox – –1.1 0.0 –– 1.0 0.0 ––0.70.0 Dall sheep – – 3.3 3.0 – – 5.0 7.5 – – 1.0 1.3

Wales Percentage of households harvesting Total number harvested Per capita pounds harvested Resource 2000 2006a 2010 2000 2006a 2010 2000 2006a 2010 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear – – 0.0 –– 0.0 ––0.0 Caribou 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 Moose 31.8 8.0 10.0 14.0 3.2 4.7 51.6 12.3 17.2 Muskox 0.0 13.0 0.0 4.0 6.3 0.0 16.2 27.2 0.0 Dall sheep – – 0.0 –– 0.0 ––0.0

60 Source ADF&G Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS) http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/. a. Kawerak Inc. household surveys, 2006. b. Earlier harvest estimates for Kivalina include the 1959–60 and 1960–61 harvest years (Saario, Doris J., and Brina Kessel. 1966. “Human Ecological Investigations at Kivalina.” In Environment of the Cape Thompson Region, Alaska, 969–1039. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Division of Technical Information. Oak Ridge, Tennessee), however, those data are not believed to be reliable. The earliest dates where information was systematically collected were 1964 (256 caribou, 209 pounds per capita) and 1965 (1,010 caribou, 830 pounds per capita.) (Burch Jr., Ernest S. 1985. “Subsistence Production in Kivalina, Alaska: A Twenty-year Perspective.” Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 128. Juneau. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp128.pdf). – = Data on this species were not collected during this survey period.