REPORT ON THE
YUKON ·
INDIAN FOOD FISHERY
Prepared by
N. Seigel Project Coordinator Fisheries Resource Employment Development for Youth Program
for
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Pacific Region
March . 1985
LIBRARY FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA 200 - 401 BURRARD ST. . .. VANCOUVER, B.C. V6C 3S4 ..·· _ 604-666-3851 :\ ~1 ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This "Report on the Yukon Indian Food Fishery" was made possible through the Fis her ies Resource Employment Development for Youtt, Program. I would like to thank Chris de Wirth, Bill Caspell and Lorrie Pella for their help and support. I would also like to thank fisheries personnel in the Native Affairs Branch in Ottawa and in the District Office in Whitehorse, particularly Gordon Zealand, and Sandy Johnston. Ray Kendel, Pat Milligan, Tom Munson, Mary Ellen Jarvis, and Graham Baird assisted in the production of this report.
The following individuals participated in the program: Kerry Horoscoe, Dick Dewhurst, Wayne Williams, Douglas Billy, Mitchell Alfred, Ted James, Ernie Caesar, Linda Blair, Gina Alaric, Gary Jim, Laurie Catto, Darrell Bouvier, Stewart Moses, Earl Benjamin, Victor Le Cheminant, and Norma Johnstone. iii
SUMMAR.Y
This report presents the harvest information collected from the Yukon Indian food fishery by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries personnel have estimated the catches of thl$ fishery since 1909, although collection methods have been inconsistent and the accuracy of some of the estimates are questionable. The harvest information, however, may indicate the general trends in this fishery. Based on the information presented in this report it appears that both the salmon and freshwater fisheries have declined from historic levels, the freshwater fishery to a greater degree than the salmon. Despite this decline, fishing is still an important means of obtaining food for Indian people, and it continues to be an important social and cultural activity. The information presented in this report may provide the insight required for those agencies making management decisions to ensure harvest requirements of the Yukon Indian food fishery are met. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Acknowledgements ii Summary iii List of Tables vi List of Figures vii List of Appendices viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Area 1 1.2 Definition, Background 1 1.3 Purpose 4 1.4 Information Sources 4 1.5 Scope 4
2.0 METHODS 5
3.0 RESULTS 7 3.1 Indian Food Fish Harvest Information 7 3.1.1 Prior to 1909 7 3.1.2 Freshwater Harvests from 1909-1916 7 3.1.3 Salmon Harvests from 1909-1916 9 3.1.4 1918-1958 9 3.1.5 Freshwater Harvests from 1958-1984 12 3.1.6 ·Salmon Harvests from 1959-1984 16 3.2 L~censing Information 18
4.0 DISCUSSION 21 4.1 Harvest Information 21 4.1.1 1909-1916 Harvest Estimates 21 4.1.2 1958-1967 Freshwater Harvest Estimates 22 4.1.3 1974-1983 Salmon Harvest Estimates 23 4.1.4 1984 Harvest Estimates 24 4.1.4.1 Carcross 25 4.1.4.2 Little Salmon/Carmacks 25 4.1.4.3 Champagne/Aishlhik 26 4.1.4.4 Dawson 27 4.1.4.5 Kluane Tribal Council 27' 4.1.4.6 Liard (Watson Lake) 27 4.1.4.7 Mayo 28 4.1.4.8 Old Crow 28 4.1.4.9 Ross River 29 4.1.4.10 Selkirk (Pelly Crossing) 29 4.1.4.11 Teslin 30 4.1.4.12 Kwanlin Dun (Whitehorse) 31 4.2 Trends in the Fishery 31· v
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 33 5.1 Continuation of Collection Program 33 5.2 Negotiation for Additional Salmon Stocks 34 5.3 Further Recommendations 34 5.3.1 Community Education Programs 34 5.3.2 Fishery for Suckers· 34 5.3.3 Commercial Salmon Licences 35 5.3.4 Beaver dams on Mica Creek 35 5.3.5 Salmon Enhancement Programs 35
6.0 CONCLUSION 36
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 38
8.0 APPENDICES 39 vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Yukon IFF Freshwater Harvests in Pounds, 1909 - 1916.
2. Yukon IFF Salmon Harvests by Area, 1909 10 - 1916.
3. Yukon IFF Freshwater Harvests in Pounds, 13 1958 - 1970.
4. Yukon IFF Freshwater Harvests in Pounds, 14 1974 - 1979.
5. Yukon IFF Freshwater Harvest in Pieces, 15 1984.
6. Yukon River Basin IFF Salmon Harvests in 17 Pieces, 1960 - 1984.
7. Yukon IFF Licences Issued, 1972 - 1984. 19 ---·------·------
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Study Area, Yukon - Northern B.C. 2 Fisheries District. viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
1. Common and Scientific Names of Yukon 40 Fish Species Referred to in this Report. 2. Yukon IFF Harvests of Lake Trout and 41 Whitefish by Area in Pounds, 1909 - 191R.
3. Yukon IFF Lake Trout and Whitefish Harvests 43 by Area in Pounds, 1958 - 1967.
4. Yukon River Basin IFF Harvests of Chinook 46 Salmon· in Pieces, 1959 - 1984. 5. Yukon River Basin IFF Harvests of Chum 47 Salmon in Pieces, 1959 - 1984. 6. Alsek and Stikine River IFF Harvests of 48 Chinook Salmon in Pieces, 1959 - 1984. 7. Alsek and Stikine River IFF Harvests of 49 Sockeye Salmon in Pieces, 1959 - 1984. 8. Alsek, Stikine and Porcupine-River IFF 50 Harvests of Coho Salmon in Pieces, 1959 - 1984. 9. Indian Food Fish Survey Forms. 51 -1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1. 1 Study Area
Fourteen Indian bands partlclpate in Indian food fisheri'' _ located in Northern B.C. and the Yukon Territory. This fishery is managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO~ , Pacific Region. Twelve Yukon bands associated with the Counc11. for Yukon Indians are as follows: Carcross, Little Salmon/Carmacks, Charnpagne/Aishihik, Dawson, Kluane Tribal Council, Liard (Watson Lake), Mayo, Old Crow, Ross River, Selkirk (Pelly Crossing), Teslin and Kwanlin Dun (Whiteho~se). The two additional bands from Northern B.C., include the Atlin Indian Band of Atlin and the Tahltan Indian Band of Telegraph Creek.
Five species of Pacific salmon and nine species of freshwater fish are harvested by the Indian fishery (Appendix 1). Indian salmon fishing occurs in four river drainages (Figure 1) in this region lncludlng the Yukon (and Porcupine River), Alsek, Taku and Stlkine River basins. Freshwater flshlng occurs year round on various rivers and lakes within the region. The largest lakes include: Atlin, Aishihik, Bennett, Kluane, Laberge, Marsh, Tagish and Teslin.
1.2 Definition, Background
The native use of the fisheries resource has changed over the past century, although fishing remains an important part of Yukon Indian life. Harvest estimates have been periodically recorded over the past eighty-five years. Thls report - presents the Department of Fisherles and Oceans (DFO) historic harvest information of the Indian food fishery (IFF). In addition, detailed catch information collected during the 1984-19R5 season is presented. Trends in the fishery, as indicated from the harvest information, are also discussed.
At present, freshwater and salmon stocks within the Yukon Territory are managed and protected by DFO. Four licensed fisheries utilize the resource. An Indian food fish licence (free of charge) entitles anyone who ls defined as an Indian under the Indian Act to fish for personal use. Flsh caught under this permit are not to be bartered, or sold. Flsh which are to be sold must be caught under a commercial f lshing licence ($25.00) whlch entitles the holder to flsh with either gillnets or fishwheels. A domestic licence ($10.00) permits non-Indians to fish with a gillnet or fishwheel for personal consumption. Sport fish licences (price varies according to type) permii angling within specified guildlines. -2-
~ Beau tort ,,~ ; Seo LAKES
A Aishihik I~ t I 8 Kluane I I I c Bennet Crow/ I D Marsh ' I I ,/ E Tagish •... F Atlin G Teslin H Laberge J Hutshi I I I I I ALASKA I I I I I I I I I NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
RIVERS
Yukon 2 Porcupine
3 Stewart 4 Kluane s Pelly BRITISH 6 Teslin COLUMBIA 7 Alsek a Tatshenshini 9 Peel
10 Liard II Taku
12 Stikine
.,...'-...,---
Fig. I. Study area, Yukon - Northern B.C. Fisheries District -3-
The allocation policy of the Department of Fisheries and OceanE places the Indian food fishery second in importance only to th~ conservation of the stocks ("Native Fisheries" 1982:C5), Commercial, domestic, and recreational fisheries have third priori~y to the resource. The following goals regarding the IFP have been established within the DFO. management plan:
1) To incorporate appropriate Native fishing rights into department policy; 2) To make the Native food fishery an integral part of the total fisheries resource management plan; and 3) To involve Native food fishermen more closely in fisheries management ("Native Fisheries" 1982:C4).
Though the stated policy of DFO is to insure that the IFF receives an adequate supply of fish, th{s is not always a simple matter. In the case of salmon returning to the Yukon and Alsek river systems, the fish must first pass through substantial commercial and subsistence fisheries located in the United States. A Canadian commercial fishery operates on the Yukon River in the vicinity of Dawson City, downriver from most Indian communities within the Territory. ·Thus, though the IFF has priority to the salmon under departmental policy, other substantial fisheries have the opportunity to catch the fish first.
Administering DFO policy with regards to the freshwater fishery presents similar difficulties. A large sport fishery and a small .commercial and domestic net fishery also utilize the freshwater fish resources. The total catch of. the sport fishery may be significant, particularly with regards to lake trout. At present, the commercial and domestic fisheries are the only two fisheries which have participated to any extent in a catch recording system. Without accurate catch estimates from all four user groups, it is difficult to ensure that the allocation policy of DFO is adequately carried out.
An "Agreement in Principle" with respect to fishing in the Yukon was recently drafted. The document defines Indian fishing rights and establishes a means whereby Indian people will have more involvment in the management of the resource. At present this agreement has not been finalized, and the uncertainty of the outcome of land claims negotiations creates a hesitancy in some native people to reveal catch information. -4-
1.3 Purpose
In an attempt to collect more accurate IFF statistics and ~~ provide the opportunity for Indian people to become more involv~' in management, a Fisheries Resource Employment Development fo: Youth (F.R..E.D.Y.) program was init"iated in July of 1984. Undet· its direction the Yukon Indiin Food Fish Statistics Gatherin~ Program was created with the following defined objectives:
1) To establish a working relationship with respect to cooperative fisheries management among the Department of Fisheries, the Council for Yukon Indians (CYI), and individual Indian Bands; 2) To collect and compile catch statistics from the twelve Yukon communities participating in the Indian food fishery; 3) TQ familiarize young Native people with management aspects of DFO and the career opportunities available to them; 4) To obtain biological information from IFF catches; and 5) To r view the existing historic IFF catch records.
1.4 Information Sources
The historic information presented in this report was compiled from DFO Annual Reports and records. The 19R4 catch information was gathered through direct interviews with participants of the Indian food fishery. Surveys were conducted both at fish camps and in the various communities.
1.5 Scope
The results of the F.R.E.D.Y. Program were intended to providG the Indian community and the Department of Fisheries with more concise information and to establish a workable fish management policy for the Yukon Territory. A program of this nature should be viewed as an initial step toward that goal, as the acceptancE of DFO licence and catch monitoring will occur only when Indian people understand the need for the information. Improved communication between DFO and the Bands is essential, to allow Indian people the opportunity to express their concerns about the fish resource. The focus of this report will be the determination of the past and present use of the fish resource, and an assessment of whether fish stocks are presently adequate to meet the needs of the IFF. _,__ -5-
2.0 METHODS
The collection of Indian· food fishing statistics by L, F.R.E.D.Y. program was two-phased. In the first phase, histor _ catch information was obtained from a search of DFO records ar: .: reports. The second phase involved the collection of cat.'. information during the 1984 - 1985 fishing season.
Nine "food fish technicians" were trained arid employed in tht following communities for the time period indicated: Total Weeks Carcross 9 Carmacks 12 Haines Junction 31.4 Mayo 5.6 Old Crow 3 Pelly Crossing 12 Ross River 33 Teslin 36 Liard/Watson Lake 9
151
In addition, a field supervisor provided technical support (23 weeks) and a computer operator assisted the compilation of data (20 weeks). A project coordinator (37 weeks) was responsible for the overall design and implementation of the program, including:
hiring and supervising all employees; implementing the training seminar; maintaining books and records; facilitating communication among DFO, CYI and the Bands; and preparing the final report.
As one of the F.R.E.D.Y. Program goals was to provide fisheries training and experience to young people, a two day training seminar was held at the beginning of the program. · The seminar was designed to provide an understanding of the role of DFO in fisheries management. Specific discussions included: the lifE cycles of salmon and freshwater fish, management techniques, biological sampling techniques, and the current status of the Yukon land claims negotiations and the international salmon negotiations. A film, The Life of the Sockeye Salmon was alsc presented.
Following the training seminar, field techni~ians worked from their own communities, travelling when poss.i ble to the campE -6-
.during the fishing season. A survey form was used to record the Indian Band, licence holders name and number, date, camr location, fishing gear, month, and number of each species caught in pieces. Biological measurements were taken and included: species, ~cale or otolith sample, we~ght (kg), standard, hypural, and fork lengths, sex, fishing area, and gear. Door-to-door surveys were also conducted in each community to determine fishing activity and catch estimates.
The F.R.E.D.Y. program required minimal equipment. A vehicle equipped with a mobile radio, an inflatable boat (Avon), and an outboard motor, were provided for the project coordinator and field supervisor. Food fish technicians were compensated for the use of their own vehicle, boat, or snowmachine Each technician was supplied with a biological sampling kit which contained the following: waterproof field notebook, scale books, tweezers, weigh scale, tape measure, knife and otolith pouch.
-',..._,· -7-
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Indian Food Fish Harvest Information
3.1.1 Prior to 1909
The earliest written records of Indian fishing are found io the journals of European explorers who arrived in Yukon circa 1850. They noted the Indian's dependence on fish for survival, recorded locations of large fish camps, and described traditional fishing and preserving techniques (Seigel & McEwen, 1984). Unfortunately, however, these early travellers failed to quantify Indian catches. Perhaps the concept of "numbers of fish" was as foreign to them as it was to the Indians - who either had enough .or not enough fish.
3.1.2 Freshwater Harvests from 1909 - 1916
A DFO employee stationed in Dawson City recorded the first IFF catch estimates in 1909. The complete list for all species and areas ls presented in Seigel & McEwen (1984: 133) A summary of the IFF freshwater harvests (Table 1) indicates that a large Indian freshwater fishery was operating during the 1909-1916 time period. Total freshwater harvests (all species) ranged from 103,500 to 274,300 lbs with an average catch for the eight year period of 177,900 lbs. Ling cod, least cisco, and grayling were included in the "Mixed Coarse" $pecies category following 1911.
Lake trout and whitefish are two freshwater fish species closely monitored by DFO biologists. Therefore, the IFF harvest of these two species is presented by area for the 1909-1916 period (Appendix 2). It is not clear whether the area headings specify only the locations of people surveyed, or whether in a more general sense the headings include additional lakes and rivers in the vicinity. If the latter was the case, fish caught in Tatlmain Lake for example, would have been listed under the "Selklrk/Pelly" heading. Two of the area headings, Big Lake and Duncan, are not commonly used today. R. Coutts (1980:2, 87, 219) suggests "Big Lake" to be a synonym for Alshihik Lake, and "Duncan" for a small tributary of the Mayo River above Mayo Lake. Rampart was a trading post located on the Porcupine River at the present day Canada/U.S. border. Coutts reports that the community was abandoned in 1911 and moved to the present site of Old Crow. Assuming this to be correct, it is unclear why statistics for the 1911-1916 period continue to list both communities. ( ( (
TABLE 1. YUKON IFF HARVEST OF FHE:.-.lllWA'l'EH HAHVESTS IN POUNDS, 1909 - 1916. (FROM DFO ANNUAL REPORTS)
YEAH SPECIES Mixed Lake Trout Whlteflsh Plke Llng Cod Clsco Grayling Cou r_..:;1_~ TO'l'AJ,
I 1909 15740 84392 12375 10390 30580 59800 l5l)~1 '.?. 2 !::W !:H.1 00 HJ10 19800 94000 17700 30600 73600 38600 274300 I 1911 16500 81400 17600 117000* 2~32500 1912 15900 78800 16600 127500 * 238800 191 ~) 13800 48300 200 54 non* 11 7200 1914 14000 48400 200 54900 * 117500 1915 ) 12500 44500 300 5 ~~ l 00 * 110400 19Hi 11500 41500 50500 * 10:3500
M~1:1.n 14968 65162 8121 84040 177912 * Coarse fish included ling cod, least cisco, and gray ling. -9-
Based on the yearly averages (Appendix 2), the Selkirk/Pell) Region produced the largest catch of lake trout and whitefish, For all areas, the percent of lake trout to the total lake trout: whitefish harvest ranged between 10 and 25 percent.
3.1.3 Salmon Harvests from 1909 - 1916
IFF salmon harvests were also recorded between 1909 and 1910 (Table 2). However, estimates from Hootalinqua, Tagish and Yukor! Crossing were not kept for the entire eight year period. Peel River catches, though not part of the Yukon drainage, have been included.
The species of salmon was not identified in the Annual Reports. The estimates of pieces in Table 2 were calculated based on current species composition and distibution. The Porcupine River (including Rampart) calculation was based on a species composition of 75% chum, and t&e Selkirk/Pelly on a 50% ratio of chlnook and chum. In the areas of the Yukon drainage for which harvests . were consistently recorded the mean harvest in pounds ranged from a low of 5100 lbs of salmen for the Mayo River to a high of 26,350 lbs for the Selkirk/Pelly area.
The harvest information for the Peel River indicates an average catch between 1909 and 1916 of 11827 lbs of salmon. However, according to a Wildlife Officer recently stationed in Ft. McPherson, salmon do not presently migrate into the Peel River (Graham Baird, 1984). Perhaps migration patterns have changed, or the heading "Peel River" might have referred to the McKenzie River Basin generally. It could also be possible that the catch of another species (perhaps Arctic charr) was listed under the salmon heading.
In 1916, the Fishery Officer noted that the runs of chinook anc chum salmon to the Yukcn River were light, but that the salmori run in the Porcupine River was the largest in recollection. Unfortunately, the salmon species referred to was not defined.
3.1.4 1918 - 1958 Catch estimates and yearly reports were discontinued when the Yukon Fishery Officer position was terminated in 1918. The IFF continued operating during the 1918-1959 time period, catching fish for personal food, dog teams, and in some instances to feed fur farm stocks (Seigel & McEwen 1984:50). The RCMP werP responsible for protecting the fish resource during this period -10-
TABLE 2. YUKON IFF SALMON HARVESTS BY AREA, 1909 - 1916. (FROM DFO RECORDS) ~ -·. -
HOOTALINQUA HUT SHI MAYO RIVER (Duncan) ------·------Ftnmds Pieces Fbunds Pieces fulIDdS Pieces Salmon Chinook Chum Salmon Chinook Chum Salmon Chinook Chum
1909 1910 4000 (267) 4000 (266) 1911 10000 (667) 6000 (400) 1912 10400 (693) 5700 (380) 1913 10000 (667) 5000 (333) 1914 10500 (700) 5000 (333) 1915 10000 (667) 5000 (333) 1916 9000 (600) 5000 (333)
Mean 9983 5100
PEEL RIVER roRCUPINE RIVER RAMPART (Fbrcupine R.)
Fbunds fulIDdS Piecesl Fbunds Pieces 1 Salmon Salmon Chinook Chum Salmon Chinook Chum
1909 9614 5524 (592) 15108 (1609) 1910 6900 4000 (429) 11200 (1200) 1911 13800 4000 (429) 15500 (1661) 1912 13800 4000 (429) 15000 (1607) 1913 13000 4000 (429) 14500 (1554) 1914 13500 4000 (429) 14500 (1554) 1915 12000 4000 (429) 11500 (1232) 1916 12000 7500 (804) 11500 (1232)
Mean 11827 4628 13601
( ) - approximation of pieces based on current information. (chinook - 15 lb average, chum - 7 lb average) 1 - ·calculation of pieces based on a species composition of 75% chum. 2 - calculation of pieces based on a species com:i:osition of 50% chinook and 50% chum. .__ ,, continued ••• -11-
TABLE 2. YUKON IFF SALMON HARVESTS BY AREA, 1909 - 1916. (CONTINUED) ------SALMON RIVER SELKIRK/PEI.LY R. STEWART/McQUESTEN
R:rnnds Pieces fbunds Pieces 2 fblIDdS Pieces Salmon Chinook Chum Salmon Chinook Chum Salmon Chinook Chum
1909 13929 (929) 10500 (350) (750) 3334 (222) 1910 15300 (1020) 12000 (400) (857) 6000 (400) 1911 18000 (1200) 36900 (1230) (2636) 17000 (1133) 1912 17500 (1167) 36400 (1213) (3600) 17000 (1133) 1913 16000 (1067) 30000 (1000) (2143) 14000 (933) 1914 15500 (1033) 31000 (1033) (2212) 14000 (933) 1915 14000 (933) 30000 (1000) (2143) 12000 (800) 1916 12000 (800) 24000 (800) (1714) 10000 (667)
MEAN 15279 26350 11667
TOTAL FOR TAG I SH YUKON CROSSING YUKON RIVER .'-- DRAINAGE
fbunds Pieces fbunds Pieces POUNDS Salmon Chinook Chum Salmon Chinook Chum SALMON
1909 58009 1910 1800 (120) 65200 1911 3000 (200) 124200 1912 3000 (200) 122800 1913 106500 1914 108000 1915 98500 1916 91000
MEAN 96776
( ) - approximation of pieces based on current information (chinook - 15lb average, chum - 7lb average) 1 - calculation of pieces based on a species composition of 75% chum. 2 - calculation of pieces based on a species comp:::isition of 50% chinook and 50% chum. 3 - correction of previously published figures. -12-
by issuing licences to commercial, domestic and sport fisherme: and intervening in problem situations. However the IFF was no1 licensed until the early 1970's, and since the workload of thf RCMP was large little statistical information concerning thi: fishery is available for the period~
3.1.5 Freshwater Harvests from 1958 - 1984
In 1959 DFO reinstated a Fishery Officer in Yukon and harvest information for the IFF was again recorded. A catch summary of freshwater species was compiled from DFO records (Table 3). However, no harvest estimates were found for 1964, and the statistics for 1968-1970 were extracted from Boland (1973:28). It should be noted that in his report Boland labeled the catcb harvests in pieces, but based on DFO records for 19R6-1967 the 1968-1970 figures actually were estimates of pounds caught. The most significant increase in harvest between the two six year periods was for the catches of ling cod and inconnu. The reason for the difference is not known. Based on the 12 year mean the species catch composition in descending order of importance is: whitefish, lake trout, other undefined species (suckers, pike, cisco, etc.), grayling, ling cod, and inconnu. The total freshwater harvest during this period ranged from 44,100 lbs to 158,760 lbs with an average catch for the· twelve year period of 92,735 lbs.
A search of DFO records provided area specific information of IFF freshwater catches from 1958 to 1967, from which the lake trout/whitefish catch information was extracted (Appendix 3), Based on the yearly average, the most important areas for lake trout harvest, in descending order of importance were: Kluane, Aishihik, Teslin, and Tagish /Marsh lakes. The areas of greatest whitefish harvest, in descending order were Kluane, Tagish/Marsh, Aishihik, Teslin, and Ethel lakes. When compared to the total lake trout/whitefish harvest, the percent of lake trout harvested ranged between a low of 27% in Watson Lake, to a high of 64% ir: Fish Lake. In DFO Annual Reports between 1974 and 1979 the Fishery Officers estimated total harvest weights for six species of freshwater fish (Table 4). The mean harvest of whitefish over the six year period was 17,500 pounds, while the mean lake trout catch was 5500 pounds. The lake trout catch comprised 25% of the total lake trout/whitefish harvest. The 1984 freshwater harvest estimates (Table 5). were collected aE ·.._ -13-
TABLE 3. YUKON IFF FRESHWATER HARVESTS Er Xll1'iDS, 195B_- 1970. ( FR0~1 DFO RECORDS) .·
FRESHWATER FTSH HARVEST (lbs)
Lake Trout Whitefish Grayling Ung Cod Inconnu Other TOTAl
1958 18200 21200 3000 100 1200 43700 1959 18650 24700 6700 550 85 10700 61385 1960 30300 34450 9300 500 40 22150 96740 1961 41200 44650 7400 500 150 23850 117750 1962 44300 54150 11650 500 150 19150 129900 1963 47350 63900 19650 600 150 14450 146100 1964 1
MEAN 33333 40442 9617 458 115 15250 - 99196 :.- 1965 41952 55108 11400 4000 900 13370 126730
1966 49000- ~ 63350 16750 7860 2950 18850 158760 1967 20000 18600 6200 3550 450 10950 59750 1968 2 18600 32400 5900 6600 1100 12900 77500 1969 2 16200 14700 5200 5700 900 6600 49300 1970 2 19700 12600 3300 3900 500 5600 45600
MEAN 27575 32793 8125 5268 1133 11378 86273
12 YEAR MEAN 30454. . 36618 8871 2863 624 13314 92735
1 - No estimates available for 1964. 2 - Poland (1973:28) ------·
-14-
TABLE 4. YUKON IFF FRESHWATER HARVESTS IN FQUNIB, 1974 - 1979. (FROM DFO ANNUAL REFORTS)
YEAR SPECIES
Lake Trout Whl tef lsh Pike Grayling Ling C'.Dd Suckers TOTA
1974 5000 10000 2000 2000 1500 2000 2250;, 1975 5000 15000 200 1000 1000 2000 2420( 1976 5000 15000 200 1000 1000 2000 24200 1977 6000 20000 500 1500 1500 3000 32500 1978 6000 20000 500 1500 1500 3000 3250C 1979 6000 25000 1000 300 1500 3000 3680':~·
~fEAN 5500 17500 733 1217 1333 2500 2878] % LT of 24% LT/WF Catch \:...... -- '( ' (
TABLE 5. YUKON Jlt'F FHESHWA'l'EH HARVESTS IN PIECES, 1984.
BAND LAKE THOU'l' WHITEFISH PIKE GRAYLING SLJCKEHS LING CT)D INCXWNlJ
('urcross/Tagish 20 93 12 0 45 () b Li LL le Salmon/C'..armacks 0 290 0 0 0 0 (J Champagne/Aishihik 22 90 6 0 5 0 () Il!w::;on 0 0 0 0 0 () (J Kluane 'l'ribal Cbuncil 0 0 0 () 0 () 0 Lia rd (Watson Lake) 40 140 12 84 0 0 0 Mayo 0 9 0 0 0 0 () Old CrDw 0 749 216 520 334 ~J36 155
Hoss Hiver 0 176 3 0 0 0 ·1 I f...J &-)lkirk (Pelly) 0 3 0 147 0 0 1 U1 Tt::JSlin 150 813 386 102 184 :317 l I Kwanlin run ( Whl Lehorse) 35 21 19 0 10 0 ()
TOTAL PIECES CAUGHT 267 2384 654 853 578 653 lbl
2 2 1 1 ~JEAN WEIGHT (KG) 1.92 l .99 l 2.62 l .31 1. 24 1.58 -'l. 40 TUJ'AL \YIUGTfi' 'JUl'Af, WEIGHT CAlXIH'l' (KG) 513 2360 1713 264 717 10:12 708 -7:KY7
(LB) 1130 5203 3776 583 H)tW 2275 lfifi2 lblOLl
1 - Based on 1984 conmercial eaten informa Lion 2 - Hurler et .al (1983:59) -16-
part of the F.R.E.D.Y. Program. Specific catch statistics are presented for each band. The Teslin Band harvested the most laJc, trout and pike from Teslin Lake; the. Old Crow Band harvested tl:H· most whitefish, grayling, suckers, ling cod and inconnu in th~ Porcupine River. Zeros (0) indicate that that no fish of tha\ species were reported caught.
All freshwater harvests prior to 1984 were estimated by Fishery Officers in pounds. However, the information in 1984 wa~ collected directly from the Indian communities and it was no; possible to obtain information on the weight of the catch, Therefore, the 1984 IFF harvests are recorded in pieces and ar approximation of the weight of the catch was established by determining an average weight for net caught fish, and multiplying this by the pieces ·caught. Based on the 1984 commercial catch reports the average weight for lake trout was 1.92 kg and the average whitefish weight was .99 kg. Therefore, 267 pieces convert to 1130 lbs (513 kg) of lake trout, and the 2384 pieces of whitefish (species were not differentiated) convert to approximately 5203 lbs (2360 kg).
3.1.6 Salmon Harvests from 1959 - 1984 '--. - Salmon harvest estimates have been kept for the IFF since 1959. The five year averages for Chinook salmon (Table 6) indicate catches declined steadily between 1960-1964 (7458 pieces) and 1975-1979 (2277 pieces). However, the five year average for the 1980-1984 period increased to 7587 pieces. The five year averages of IFF Chum harvests have declined steadily from 1960 to 1984. Coho salmon harvest estimates for the Porcupine River are so sporadic that averages were not calculated.
Area specific IFF salmon harvest information (Appendices 4-8) has been recorded since 1959. For simplicity, harvests and specie~ have been separated by river drainage. The harvest estimates which were collected over the 26 year period are not complete for each area. However, it is not clear when catch information was not recorded, whether the information was included .in the estimate from another area or not recorded at all.
A mean was calculated for each area with the available catch information. Based on harvest means, the three most important areas for the chinook salmon IFF (Appendix 4) are Carmacks, Pelly Crossing and Minto. Harvest means for chum .. salmon (Appendix 5) indicate that the IFF in Old Crow on the Porcupine River has a substantially higher average catch than any other area. Of the remaining areas, Carmacks and Minto have the highest average chur harvest. -17-
TABLE 6. YUKON RIVER BASIN IFF SALMON HARVESTS IN PIECES, 1960 - 1984. (FROM DFD RECDRDS)
YEAR SPECIES QUNOJK CHUM CDHO
1960 5595 101;1.5 1961 9800 5800 1962 9900 8500 1963 7794 25500 1964 4200 10258 34
1965 3115 9718 1966 2510 10035 132 1967 2963 13618 1968 2830 11180 1969 984 5497
1970 2052 1232 1971 3269 15150 560 1972 3960 5000 1973 2323 7329 47 1974 3417 8636
1975 2600 13500 1976 1025 3200 1977 2276 6990 1978 2485 5482 1979 3000 11000
1980 9546 9218 1500 1981 8979 5410 500 1982 7833 4096 1983 5225 3200 1984 6350 5800 500
FIVE YEAR OUNOOK CHU!/ TOT AL AVERAGE PIECES POill't'DS * PIECES FOL'?\TIS * PIECES FOL"J\"D.S
1960-64 7458 111870 12035 84245 19493 196115 1965-69 2480 37200 7550 52850 10030 90050 1970-74 3004 45060 7469 52253 10473 97343 1975-79 2277 34155 803~ 5623S 10311 90393 1980-84 7587 113805 5545 38815 13132 152620
"' - 15 lb average for chinoo:i-:, 7 lb averag.:.::- for cbu-:-.. -18-
Two other river drainages support an IFF for chinook salmon - the Alsek and Stikine (Appendix 6). The Alsek River chinook catchee are relatively small with five year means ranging from 107 to 53; pieces. The 1979 recorded catch of 1300 pieces on the Alse~ River ls an exceptionally high catch estimate when compared wit~ other years. The five year means for the Stikine River chinooh harvests have remained constant over the period covered (Append1~ 6).
Sockeye salmon are also harvested.in the Alsek, Taku, and Stikir river drainages by the IFF. Catches for sockeye in all rive· systems are significantly higher then chinook catches (AppendJ 7). In the Alsek system the average five year harvest range~ from 1340 in the 1965-1969 period to 7250 pieces in 1975-1979, The catches estimated for 1977 through 1979 were significantly higher than most other years. Five year averages of Stikine River IFF sockeye have steadily increased from 1261 to 4344 pieces. No information was recorded for the Taku River IFF harvests.
A small IFF coho fishery is located on the Alsek, Taku, Stikine and Porcupine rivers. Harvest estimates which are sporadic (Appendix 8) indicate that the fishery is extremely small. Though information from the Porcupine River coho fishery is incomplete, catches appear to be higher than on the Alsek or Stikine rivers.
3.2 Licensing Information
Free Indian food fish licences have been issued to Registered Indians in Yukon since 1974, and as previously mentioned permit fishing by Indians for personal use. In 1983, as a result of the ongoing land claims negotiations, Elders (as defined.in th€· land claims agreement) who are not registered Indians were alsc entitled to obtain an IFF licence.
The introduction of IFF licences has proceeded slowly, due to DFO personnel constraints and the need for community education tc identify licence use; it has proceeded almost on a community by community basis (Table 7). Telegraph Creek, on the Stikine River, was the initial target community for licence distribution in 1974. In 1978, DFO issued 63 licences to participants in the Klukshu salmon fishery -- members of ~luane Tribal Council, Whitehorse, Champagne and Aishihik Bands. In 1981, 32 licences - were issued in the Carmacks area, 28 in Pelly Crossing, 10 in Carcross and 35 in Teslin. The following year (1982) 15 licences were issued in Mayo, 22 in Ross River and 5 in Dawson. Finally, in 1983, 45 licences were issued to members of the Liard (Watso1 Lake) Band. Old Crow remains the only community to which· I Fr -19-
TABLE 7. YUKON IFF LICENCES ISSUED, 1972-1984. (FROM DFO RECORDS) ------KLUK$HU & DIST. 10 KL UK SHU DIST. 10 STIKINE TAKU TOTP. ------1974 9 1 1 15 3 2!?
1975 18 2 35 3 5F 1 1976 15 4 4 26 4 53 2 1977 17 6 3 30 56 6 1978 17 3 61 2 45 125 4 1979 21 40 1 60 2 124 6 1980 60 6 8 36 10 114 (7) ,_ 6 1981 120 75 47 G 248 (86) 1982 151 83 51 1 286 (1301 6 1983 240 82 2 68 2 394 (166) 1984 169 82 2 60 5 318 (148)
( ) - Estimate of licences issued to harvest Yukon River Salmon
1 - Includes 2 licences issued to Teslin, and Ross River Ban(
2 - Includes 3 licences issued to Dawson, Mayo, and Ross Rive' Bands.
3 - Includes 4 licences issued to Carmacks, Dawson, Mayo and Ross River Bands.
4 - Includes 3 licences issued to Dawson, Mayo and Selkirk Bands.
5 - Includes 1 Band licence issued to Kluane Tribal Council.
6 - From Annual Report. -20-
I licences have not been introduced. This is due in part to the geographic isolation of the community and to the financial anci manpower restaints of DFO.
Prior to the introduction of IFF licences into some communities s single Band licence was occasionally. issued (Table 7). However, since little information is gained about the fishery when IFF licences are used in this manner, the practice was abandoned in 1983. -21-
4.0 Discussion
4.1 Harvest Information
4.1.1 1909 - 1916 Harvest Estimates
Two different collection methods were used to gather the IFJ harvest information (Tables 1 & 2) for the 1909-1916 period. Th~ information from the first foui years was collected by determining the number of Indians living in remote areas ano applying to that population estimate the per capita fish consumption rate of the more easily accessible Bands (Fisheries Annual· Report,1909:223). The information from the second four year period was obtained from .the traders or trappers travelling into the remote areas (Fisheries Annual Report, 1913:247).
The method used to obtain the 1909-1912 catch data was dependent on obtaining accurate population estiirrates. The remoteness of Yukon combined with the Indian's seasonal patterns of movement. would suggest .that the population estimates were probably not very accurate. Secondly, the method assumEd· a constant rate of fish consumption could be applied throughout the Territory. In fact, this was not the case. Factors such as th~ availability of other food sources and the proximity of the Indian people to a salmon river not only ~ffected the yearly fish consumption rate of a Band, but also affected the proportion of fish consumed among different bands. Consequently, the information from this period probably contains a high degree of innaccuracy.
It is not clear whether the area headings listed for the time period (Table 2, Appendix 2) referred to a specific place, or more generally to the lakes and rivers in the vicinity of the heading. A number of factors seem to indicate the latter. The high lake trout catch recorded for river headings, for example, would suggest the catches from nearby lakes were included in the statistics, since very few lake trout are taken in .river fisheries. The heading "Salmon River", appeared in the 1909-1915 reports. In 1916 the heading appeared as "Big and Little Salmon Rivers", which may indicate that the previously recorded harvests also have included both areas.
There are a number of important fishing areas which are not included in the headings. The most obvious one is the Klondike or Yukon rivers (in the vicinity of Dawson), where the DFC Officer was stationed. It is not clear why this area was omitted from the IFF harvest estimates, since it was included in -22-
the commercial sta-tistics for the time period. Other reference:. indicate that there was an active IFF in that area (Dawson DaiJ. News, 23 August 1924). This omission points to the fact tha c the catch information in the report is incomplete, agaiP indicating a degree of inaccuracy. ·
Two areas listed in the salmon harvest information for thi: period - Hutshi and Duncan - may provide insight into th~ historic salmon runs. Hutshi Lake is located on the Nordenskiolo River. Chinook salmon are presently known to spawn in thi~ system. However, the 1909-1916 IFF catch harvests are fairly high and may indicate a decline in stocks has occured s~nce that period. The inclusion of Duncan in the headings, identified by R. Coutts (1980:87) as a tributary of the Mayo River, substantiates other evidence that prior to hydro development salmon utilized this area for spawning.
The harvest estimates for this time period may give indications of salmon spawning areas and show relative harvests, but in all probability do not accurately indicate IFF catches. Because of the above mentioned problems in collection methods, the harvest estimates for this time period should be used cautiously. Catch estimates are suspected to be quite low. Present day whitefish harvests from the Ft. McPhers6n area of the Peel River, for example, are in the range of 40,000 pieces (Graham Baird, 1984). If the 1909-1916 mean catch was converted from pounds to pieces the average catch would only be around 1000 fish and this would seem extremely low.
4. 1. 2. 1958 - 1983 Freshwater Harvest Estimates
When the Fishery Officer was reinstated in Yukon in 1959, communication and travel had greatly improved from the earlier period. However, the area covered by the one Officer was still extremely large. Consequently, estimates were again derived froro third party information.
Table 3 summarizes the harvest information of lake trout and whitefish, which is also presented in detail for 32 areas (Appendix . 3). There are indications that the drama tic fluctuations in harvests resulted from the inclusion or exclusion of certain areas, as well as the collection.method used, and were not the result of fluctuations in the numbers of fish caught, For example, in 1960 there was a significant increase in th~ catch of both lake trout and whitefish (Table 3). However, baseo >-- on the area specific information the increase is a result of the increase in the catch estimate for 11 other 11 lakes and streams. -23-
Thus it would seem the inclusion of additional catch information, rather than an increase in lake trout and whitefish harvest, is responsible for the large increase in catch between 1959 and 1960. In another example, the increased lake trout catch of 1961 resulted from a jump from 500 to 10000 lbs for Kluane Lake, There is no evidence to suggest tha~ the actual catch of the IFP varied to that extent in one year, and it would seem more plausible that the increase reflected a change in collection methods.
No area-specific details were found for the estimates of the 196R - 1970 IFF freshwater summary information. Consequently, it is difficult to determine if collection methods changed.
From 1974 to 1979 the freshwater catch information became even more vague. Only total IFF freshwater harvests were estimated by DFO Officers -- no attempts were made to establish area catches. In the 1976 Annual Report, the Officer stated that the IFF freshwater harvest was unknown and that the figures reported for that year were based on the previous year. It would appear then, that the estimates presented in Table 4 contain a high degree of inaccuracy.
No IFF freshwater estimates were recorded by DFO between 1980 and 1983.
4.1.3 1959 - 1983 Salmon Harvest Estimates
The IFF salmon harvest information has been ~ recorded more consistently since 1959. Table 6 summarizes the Yukon River Basin catches which are broken down into specific areas in Appendix 4. IFF catches on the Stikine and Alsek Drainages are presented in Appendix 6-8. It is clear, however, that even though efforts were made to determine area salmon catches for each year this was not always successful. The information gaps in Appendices 4-8 probably reflect problems in the statistical gathering process, and do not indicate zero catches for the area. In certain instances area estimates were made by the Officer without actually travelling to the area, due to time and budget const.rain ts.
As DFO personnel increased in the Territory during this time period, and as more time became available to concentrate on the collection of the IFF salmon harvest information, ~he accuracy of the catch statistics improved. However, the information was still based for the most part on speculation and not on an actual catch return system. Catch calendars had been distributed in some areas dhring the 1980's but the return rate wa~ very low. -24-
4.1.4 1984 Harvest Estimates
As mentioned previously all IFF harvest estimates collected pric to 1984 were estimated by Fishery Officers and not based on uniformly applied catch return system. Therefore, the 19R~ harvest estimates, collected as part of the F.R.E.D.Y. program, represent the first universally applied direct catch return system for the Yukon IFF.
A catch collection system is dependent on the methods used, th~ individuals employed to gather the information, and the attitud~ of the fishermen toward the statistic gathering process. Thougt generally the F.R.E.D.Y. Program was a success, problems were encountered in obtaining the information in some communities.
One of the objectives of this F.R.E.D.Y. Program was to provide Indian young people (16-24 years of age) with fisheries training and work experience. However, in certain communities difficulties were encountered as a result of the age restriction. The nature of the program required that the food fish technicians work for the most part independently in their own communities. For some technicians a more structured work situation would have better suited their level of self-discipline. A second problem centered around transportation to the fish camps. The program was structured to compensate technicians for the use of their own vehicle (car, boat, or skidoo) to travel to fish camps. However, in a number of instances, technicians did not have access to a vehicle, partially a reflection of their age and financial situation. Due to insurance and liability concerns it was not possible to provide the technicians with DFO equipment. The above two factors prevented some of the technicians from collecting information on site, and community surveys were conducted lnstead. Finally, the rate of pay established for F.R.E.D.Y. employees was low ($200/week). In certain cases this made it difficult to hire poeple with appropriate skill levels.
The most significant factor influencing the accuracy of the data was the attitude of Indian people toward a statistical gathering program. As previously mentioned, the Yukon land claims negotiations were in a critical phase in 1984, and though CYI supported the F.R.E.D.Y. Program (providing the information was not used in the negotiations without the consent of both parties) some bands expressed hesitations about providing information. In addition, individuals expressed the fear that the collection of catch data would ultimately lead to the curtailment of their fishery. Finally, the current eligibility restrictions for IFF licences (Registered Indian or Elder) may create problems, and individuals may prefer anonymity to protect those fishing without a licence. -25-
Due to the above difficulties the catch information reported was generally thought to be low. There was not enough information to adjust the freshwater estimates, so they are recorded as reported. The salmon harvest information is presefited with actual reported catches and adjusted catches for each area. The adjusted estimates were based on the statistics collected and additional information provided· by community members. Based on the information collected the Old Crow Band harvested the largest quantity of fish of all Yukon bands. For specific species, the Carmacks Band caught the most Chinook; Old Crow the most chum, grayling, pike, ling cod, suckers and inconnu; Champagne/Aishihik the most sockeye; and Teslin the majority of the lake trout and whitefish. A summary for each community follows.
4.1.4.1 Carcross
Members of the Carcross Band, most of whom live in Carcross or Tagish, participate in a small freshwater fishery. Thirteen licences were issued for the following: Atlin, Bennett, Little Atlin, Marsh, Nares, Tagish lakes; and Hootaliqua on the Yukon River. Eight individuals reported a total catch of 277 whitefish, 98 lake trout, 60 pike, 61 suckers, 6 chinook, and R chum (Yukon River). Marsh, Nares, and Tagish Lakes were the most frequently fished ar~as.
The food technician who was employed from July 23 to October 5, also surveyed sport fishing activity on the bridge in Carcross. Of the 25 days he conducted the survey, anglers caught 26 lake trout, 4 whitefish, 14 grayling, and approximately 35 cisco. The technician reported the cisco to be running in the Narrows from the third week in July to the fourth week in August. _
4.1.4.2 Little Salmon/Carmacks
Members of the Carmacks Band participate actively in the Yukon River salmon fishery, and to a lesser extent in - a freshwater fishery. Seventeen 1984 licences were issued and included Braeburn, Fish, Frenchman, Marsh, and Tagish lakes; and the Yukon River. A food technician employed from July 23 until October 19, reported 1440 chinook and 100 chum salmon caught. Followup community surveys i~dicated the reported catches to be low and an adjusted estimate of 1800 chinook and 500 chum would more accurately reflect harvest levels. The Carmacks Band reported the largest chinook catch of all Bands surveyed. -26-
When participants in the Carmacks IFF were interviewed, most felt the 1984 run of Chinook salmon to be small, and reported]~ increased fishing effort to obtain the fish they required. A fe~ individuals felt the run was satisfactory, with one individua' reporting a good catch. Water levels (which were low in 198~: may explain some of these discrepancies.
The only freshwater catches reported, either to the technician o~ in the periodic surveys conducted throughout the 'winter, wert from Braeburn Lake (120 whitefish), and Frenchman Lake (17( whitefish). However, the freshwater fishery of the Carmacks Ban<.. is thought to be considerably larger than this data indicates.
/ 4.1.4.3 Champagne/Aishihik
A large proportion of the Champagne/Aishihik Band participates in the salmon fishery on the Alsek River system: 84 licences werE issued -- two allowing the use of fish traps and the rest permitting the use of gaffs. Seventeen licences were issued for other areas including: Aishihik, Atlin, Canyon, Dezadeash, Kloo, Kluane, Laberge, Little Long, Little Atlin, Marsh, Pine and Tagish lakes; Otter Falls below Aishihik Lake; and the Takhini, Pelly and Yukon rivers.
Two technicians were employed to collect catch information during the salmon fishery but their efforts were not very successful. A third technician was employed following the season to conduct a community survey. However, catches reported to him appear to be extremely low. The fear of' cutbacks in the fishery is the most plausible explanation for the under-reporting of catches. Band members reported catching only 57 chinook and 1375 sockeye salmon. Based on the information provided by the Fishery Officer an adjusted catch of 100 chinook and 2400 sockeye may more accurately reflect harvest levels.
The individuals reporting freshwater species caught 90 whitefish, 22 lake trout, 11 pike, and 20 suckers. Catches were reported for Aishihik, Kluane, and Pine Lakes. Two individuals reportec no fishing. The freshwater estimates are also thought to be lo~ for the reasons stated above.
Pine Lake, which is easily accessible to Haines Junction, appears to be one of the freshwater sites most often used by the Champagne/Aishihik Band. One band member expressed concern that the lake's stocks were becoming depleted, as the overall size of the fish had declined and the harvest of suckers was outnumbering that of lake trout or whitefish. -27-
4.1.4.4 Dawson
Nine of the ten licences issued to members of the Dawson Ban .. were for salmon fishing on the Yukon River. The other licenc~ was for Fox, Marsh and Tagish lakes. · The DFO Patrolman sta tioncO:: in Dawson during the summer report~d that only six IFF licencer were used. The total harvest of chinook reported was 171 pieces, and the total chum catch reported was 890 pieces. The Patrolmar: felt an adjusted catch of 200 chinook and 1000 chum would morE accurately reflect the harvest of this Band. No freshwater cater information was obtained.
During 1984 the Dawson Band requested that DFO make commercial Yukon River Salmon Licences available to band members. At present, due to a freeze on the issuance of salmon licences, band members are unable to participate in the fishery, and thus cannot support the Han Fish Plant (the processing facility which the band helped develop).
4.1.4.5 Kluane Tribal Council
No IFF licences were issued during 1984 to members of this band. Band members who did fish were doing so under commercial licences.
4.1.4.6 Liard (Watson Lake)
The Liard Band includes individuals living in a number of communities in Southern Yukon and Northern British Columbia. The information collected by the food fish technician was confined to the Yukon Territory. In 1983, 45 licences had been issued to band members following a concentrated distribution effort by the Fishery Officer. Though available through the Band Office, only two licences were issued in 1984.
The technician reported very little fishing activity between July 23 and September 21, 1984. An extensive three-day survey confirmed the low levels of fishing activity. Of the people surveyed, 9 reported catches totalling 140 whitefish, 40 lake trout, 84 grayling and 12 pike. Fishing was conducted on Frances, S.impson, and Wind Lakes; and the Liard River. It would appear that for many band members fishing ls limited to periodic angling. -28-
4.1.4.7 Mayo
Eight licences were issued to Mayo Band members for salml fishing on the Stewert River, one licence for chum fishing on the Yukon River, and one licence for freshwater species in Ethel an Ta tlmain Lakes. Information provided by the technician ( employt'' from August 16 to September 19) suggests that more individual, participate in the fishery than the number of licences woult indicate. Unlicenced individuals probably participate in th~ fishery at the camps of the licenced individuals. Participants ir the fishery reported catching 495 chinook with an incidental catch of 9 whitefish. This estimate is felt to be low based on information provided by the technician and other community members, and an adjusted estimate of 800 chinook would more accurately reflect the harvest.
The majority of fishermen in Mayo felt the 1984 chinook run was quite low, and in some cases noted a substantial increase in effort. One individual, who last year caught 175 chinook in one net, caught only 105 this year in three nets.
The Mayo Band expressed the desire to have more control over the IFF in the Mayo area. They also wished to explore the -pQssibllity of enhancing fish stocks in their area, particularly those effected by hydro dams on the Mayo River.
4.1.4.8 Old Crow
The community of Old Crow located on the Porcupine River, is the most geographically isolated Indian band in the Yukon. The isolation, combined with the high cost of food and transportation, has helped to preserve more of the traditional huntittg and fishing lifestyles. Three attempts to hire a food fish technician during the summer of 1984 failed, apparently du( to a surplus of higher paying jobs in the community. Consequently, catch information was collected by the F.R.E.D.Y. field supervisor in the beginning of October and by a technician hired for three. weeks in November.
DFO food fish licences have never been issued in Old Crow, but twenty-four individuals participated in the fishery in 1984. They reported catching 384 Chinook, 3834 chum, and 423 coho salmon. It was felt that these figures were fairly close to actual catch, so the adjusted figures of 500 chinook, 4000 chum, and 500 coho salmon differ only slightly. The IFF catch of chum salmon, grayling, ling cod, and suckers, were the largest Indian , __ _ catches recorded in Yukon. The freshwater whitefish harvest was second only to Teslin. -29-
4.1.4.9 Ross River
Nineteen IFF licences were issued to members of the Ross Rivej· Band who participate in both salmon and freshwater fishing, Salmon fishing occurs on both the Pelly and Ross Rivers. Tenas Creek, which Joins the Ross Elver about 10 km north of the communJ. ty and which is accessible from the North Canol Road, is ~·. popular area for salmon fishing. Of the individuals licensed t.<_ fish, seven reported no fishing, and the rest reported a catch o7 141 chinook, with an incidental catch of 6 whitefish, 1 grayling, 5 pike and 4 inconnu.
The freshwater fishery occurs mostly in the late summer and fall, to provide bait and dog food for individuals trapping. Winter fishing seems to be sporadic and harvests are thought to be minimal. The only freshwater catches reported were for Sheldon Lake (170 whitefish) and Orchay Lake (150 fish -- mostly pike).
Salmon fishermen reported that the 1984 Chinook run was two weeks late, weak in numbers and composed of smaller fish. The technician felt the delay in the run may account partially for the low reported catch. However, he felt the political situation was the largest influencing factor. Based on additional information an adjusted estimate of 500 chinook salmon would better reflect the 1984 harvest, and that may be low compared with other years. The technician working in Ross River felt the band was not supportive of the F.R.E.D.Y. Program because of the land claims negotiations. Some community members were helpful, once they understood the nature of the Program and the reasons for collecting the data. ·
4.1.4.10 Selkirk (Peily Crossing)
Seventeen licences were isssued to members of the Selkirk B~nd, the majority of whom live in Pelly Crossing. All the licence& were issued for either the Yukon or Pelly rivers. Most chinook fishing occurs on the Pelly River and most chum fishing occurs at Minto.on the Yukon River.
A food fish technician was employed from July 23 to October 12. The reported catch of chinook salmon was 1092 pieces. This estimate was felt to be low based on information obtained in the surveys. An adjusted estimate of 1600 Chinook would more accurately reflect actual harvest levels, making this band second to Carmacks in the number of chinook salmon harvested. The chum fishery, thought to have been faJ.rly large in the past, appeared to be extremely small in 1984. Only 100 piec~s were -30-
reported, with the adjusted catch estimated at 200.
The indLviduals interviewed felt that the chinook run was lat. with fewer numbers of fish. In addition, the fish were report(':::; to have been smaller in size. It was also noted that the chu; were few in number and in poor cond~tion; the decline in the chu~ fishery may have been partially the result of the poor conditior: of the fish. One Elder and active fisherman felt the small si~~ of fish and low numbers were directly related to heavy fishing pressure by Alaskan fisheries downriver. This person also notec the deterioration of historic spawning areas during his lifetim0 -- a result of development.
Freshwater fishing is carried out on a number of lakes in the area, and in the Pelly River in the fall (for grayling). However, the only freshwater catch reported was 147 grayling caught in the Pelly system. Surveys did not reveal any information on winter fishing activity this year. There were indications that two or three individuals fished but it was not possible to obtain their catch estimates.
Selkirk Band councillors voiced concerns about Tatlmain Lake and the DFO policy which allows commercial fishing on the lake, as they felt this was an important fishing site to the community. They also expressed . concern about beaver dams impeding fish migration on Mica Creek, particularly migrations of broad whitefish, locally named Tezrah.
4.1..4. 11 Teslin
Forty-two IFF licences were issued to members of the Teslin Band; permitting fishing on Daughney, Marsh and Teslin lakes and the Teslin River. Chinook salmon are caught both in Teslin Lake and River in the later part of July and August. The reported catch of chinook in the lake was 468 pieces, while 178 pieces were caught in the river. The freshwater harvests reported were taken in Teslin Lake and the catch of whitefish (813 pieces) was the highest of all Yukon bands. The harvests of lake trout (150 pieces), grayling (102 pieces), pike (386 pieces), ling cod(317 pieces) and suckers (184 pieces) were second only to Old Crow.
The food fish technician employed from July 23, 1984 until March 29, 1985 collected most of the salmon statistics from the fish camps, - and completed his estimates from community surveys. The individuals involved in the fishery were helpful in providing statistics and an adjusted estimate of 800 chinook, only slightly higher than reported, is believed to reflect an accurate catch ,level. The majority of the freshwater fish+ng on Teslin Lake -31-
took place in the summer and fall. The technician reported that ·other freshwater catches probably occur in other areas b: individuals on traplines, but no estimates were available.
4.1.4.12 Kwanlin Dunn (Whitehorse)
Twenty three members of the Kwanlin Dunn Band were licenced tc fish in 1984. The majority of the licences for salmon fishing were for rivers in the Yukon Basin (Yukon, Takhini, and Pelly); one licence was issued for the Alsek drainage. Fifteen lakes were specified on the licences including: Aishihik, Atlin, Bennett, Coghlan, Drury, Fish, Frank, Jackfish, Kusawa, Laberge, Marsh, Pine, Quiet and Teslin.
The collection of catch statistics for the Whitehorse Band is difficult because the fishing activity is decentralized throughout the Territory. Door-to door surveys, conducted by the field supervisor were also not very effective as it was difficult finding people at home. Only 150 pieces of chinook were reported caught in the Carmacks area on the Yukon River. Catches (in pieces) of freshwater species were reported from Kusawa, Marsh, Pine and Quiet lakes, totalling only 21 whitefish, 35 lake trout, 19 pike, and 10 suckers. Due to the above collection problems it was difficult to make an adjusted catch estimate. For salmon, however, chinook may be a more accurate figure. The reported freshwater catches are also thought to be quite low.
4.2 Trends In The Indian Food Fishery
As the previous discussion indicated, the IFF harvest information collected by DFO since 1909 is inaccurate due to problems in the methods of collection. In general, the estimates are thought to be below the actual catch levels. Yet, even with the inherent problems, the harvest information may indicate trends in the fishery, particularly for freshwater harvests.
One theory presented in Seigel and McEwen (1984:11) states that the freshwater Indian fishery peaked around the turn of the century following the introduction of a trapping economy. Trappers used dog teams for transportation and fish was a main food for the dogs. Then with improved modes of transportation (automobile, airplane, and snowmachine), the use of the dog team declined, with a corresponding decline in the need for fish. Other factors, including improved systems of government support, and the availability of alternate types of food, have furthered the decline. -32-
DFO freshwater harvest information supports this theory of decline. The mean harvest of all freshwater species between 1900 and 1916 was 177912 pounds. The mean harvest between 1958 anc 1970 dropped to 92735 pounds, almost a fifty percent decline. The 1974 to 1979 figures indicate further decline, with a mea~ harvest for this period of 28783 - pounds. Finally, the 198!;. freshwater estimates (when converted from pieces to pounds) sho~ a decrease to 16109 pounds.
Trends in the Indian salmon fishery are less clear. In addi tiol to long-term changes, yearly fluctuations in salmon harvests art to be expected for a number of reasons including: overall rue strength, fishing pressure, water level, timing of run, fishing effort, and changes to spawning habitat. If some of these factors occur over a long period of time a general change in the fishery may occur. Consequently, the IFF may have declined as a result of the decrease in use of fish as dog food. Secondly, the fishery may have declined due to a general decrease in stocks. (There was evidence in the 1984 chum survey that fishing activity was stopped due to the poor condition of the run.) Heavy fishing pressure of Yukon-bound salmon stocks (in Alaska and in the high seas by the Japanese fishery) may be responsible for a general decline in stocks.
There are indications that Indian salmon fishing has declined. The 1909 to 1916 figures (Table 2), thought to be substantially lower than actual harvests for that period, are in the same range as the 1960-1984 es ti mates. Nevertheless, salmon fishing (probably more so than freshwater) remains important to Indian people for social and cultural reasons. Many people, though no longer following traditional lifestyles, make an effort to return yearly -·-to fish for salmon. To a .certain extent, this is presently limited by the qualification restrictions of the IFF licence. Based on 1984 information, there were 3439 Registered Yukon Indians (Marg Ganski, pers. comm. ,1985). If the proposeci CYI "Agreement in Principle with Respect" to Fishing is adopted as it stands at the time of this report, over 6000 people would be defined as Beneficiaries and entitled to fish. (A Beneficiary is any person, or descendent, who was of 25% Indian ancestry or January -1, 1940.) Consequently, it is expected that the Indian salmon fishery would increase if the Agreement was adopted as it now stands.·
Given the policy of DFO, which places the IFF in importance second only to the preservation of the stocks, Management decisions should be made to accommodate the projected increase of IFF participants. · -33-
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Continuation of Collection Program
As previously mentioned, accurate· catch statistics- will only bE: obtained from the Indian food fishery when Indian peopl0 understand the need for collecting the information, and trusL that DFO will implement policies to protect the fishery. The process of communication and education of which the F.R.E.D.Y. program was a part, must be ongoing, as positive steps were made in establishing dialogue between DFO and the Indian community. It would be detrimental to stop at this point of development. Secondly, there is a need to continue to provide young Indian people fisheries training and employment, if Indians are to have future involvement in management. Consequently, a collection program similar to the 1984 program should be implemented during the summer of 1985.
The next collection program, if designed similarly to the F.R.E.D.Y. program, should incorporate the following changes:
1. The initial education workshop should be four days long and include two days of classroom training, and two days of field experience. Four additional films which could be used, include: My Fish Your Fish, Northern Fisherman, River of Re-tlirn~d Sauk - Ai.
2. Two field supervisors should be employed during the summer phase of the program, to provide more supervision to the food fish technicians.
3. Food fish technicians, working in areas with large salmon fisheries (Carmacks, Pelly Crossing, and Klukshu), sho~ld work in pairs.
4. Steps shoald be taken to overcome the transportation problems encountered in 1984, by renting vehicles or boats when necessary.
5. Wages for technicians should be increased to at least $250. per week, and the field supervisors, computer operator, and office assistant's wages should be increased to $325. per week.
6. Two food fish technicians should be based out of Whitehorse during the winter phase of the -34-
program. These technicians would conduct periodic surveys of the freshwater fishery in each community throughout the winter. Working from the Whitehorse office will ensure a structured work situation, and contact with other DFO personnel.
7. A full time computer operator and office assistant should be employed, allowing the project coordinator more time for superviQion of program staff and communication with CYI and bands.
8. A more specific survey form (Appendix 9) should be used by the technicians. This form would aid in the collection of more concise information, and would help to eliminate biases in the survey.
5.2 Negotiation for Additional Salmon Stocks
It was apparent from the surveys conducted in various communities, particularly the communities of Carmacks, Pelly Crossing, Mayo and Ross River, that a number of ind±-v-irluals had difficulty in obtaining the salmon they required. In certain cases individuals reported a substantial increase in fishing effort. It is therefore recommended that a strong position be taken by the Canadian negotiators in the upcoming transboundary meetings, to ensure more salmon will reach the Yukon Indian food fishery.
5.3 Further Recommendations
5.3.1 Community Education Programs
During the course of -the F.R.E.D.Y. program a number of communities inquired into the possibility of the Department of Fisheries conducting education programs for young people in the schools. It would be an excellent public relations gesture to implement such programs.
5.3.2 Fishery for Suckers
In a number of Indian communities, including Carcross and Burwash, individuals inquired as to the possibility of a fishery targeting on suckers. It was the opinion of these individuals that there was an imbalance in some of the lakes due to fishing -35-
pressures, which had caused an increase in the population of suckers. They felt this was.- having a detrimental effect on other fish stocks. A feasibility study (and possibly a test fishery, to establish if suckers are overabundant and pressuring other fish stocks should be undertaken.
5.3.3 Commercial Salmon Licences
The request from the Dawson Indian Band to make available number of commercial salmon licences to band members, should bE considered. Licences are to be made available when the lane' claims settlement presently under negotiation is approved, but presently band members are unable to participate in the fishery and to support the Han Fish Plant which they helped to finance.
5.3.4 Beaver Dams on Mica ·Creek
An investigation into the beaver dams on Mica Creek, which are reportedly impeding fish passage, should be conducted and the dams destroyed if necessary.
5.3.5 Salmon Enhancement Programs
The feasibility of a joint salmon enhancement program should be pursued with the Mayo Band, to replenish stocks lost because of hydro development. -36-
6.0 CONCLUSION
The harvest information for the Indian food fishery, collected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1909, is sporadic and the accuracy of some of the estimates is questionable" However, the information (which appears to be the only recorded estimates) may indicate general trends.
Based on the information presented in this report the Indian use of the freshwater fishery appears to have declined from the early part of this century. This decline is thought to be partially a result of both a change in use of fish, and to a general change in the lifestyles of Indian people.
The Indian salmon fishery appears to have declined, but probably not to the same extent as the freshwater. The decrease in harvests of salmon is thought to have resulted in part from a change in lifestyle and subsequent change in use, but may also be a result of a general decline in salmon stocks. Members of the Carmacks, Selkirk, Mayo and Ross River bands felt the 1984 chinook run was weak in number and the fish were small in size. Though factors such as timing and water level also affect catches, many part..Lcipants in the Indian fishery attributed the state of the run to heavy fishing pressure in Alaska. A number of the individuals from the Carmacks and Selkirk bands felt the 1984 chum numbers to be low and the fish in poor condition. It was felt that in. some cases the fishing effort was sign if lean tly increased to harvest the necessary amount of fish.
Freshwater and salmon fishing are still important to Indian people as a source of food, and as a social and cultural activity. To ensure the requirements of the food fishery are met, yearly harvest information is necessary. Ultimately this information may be acquired through a voluntary catch recording system; however, this type of system would work only if it had the support of the Indian people. More communication and education has to be undertaken before a voluntary system would be successful.
The F.R.E.D.Y. program, which collected the 1984 information, furthered communication between the Department of Fisheries and Indian organizations. This should be viewed as but one step in a long process. The 1984 information, in spite of the fact that it was ~ollected by Indian people in their own communities, is still thought to be below actual harvest levels. The under-reporting of catches is believed to occur for a number of reasons, including the current land claims situation and the fear of -·- curtailment of the fishery. -37-
The need for cooperation will be essential if the propose( "Agreement in Principle" for f lshing ls adopted as part of th~~ land claims settlement. This agreement would approximate] double the number of individuals eligible for an Indian food f isl licence. In addition the agreement calls for increased India~ participation in management decisions. Additional programr., designed to provide education and training, as well as collectln~: the necessary harvest information, are essential to the propP. management of the Yukon fish resource...... ;_.-·-· ,,_ ------·-----· ___
-38-
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baird, Graham. Former NWT Wildlife Officer. Interview regarding Indian fishing in the Peel and Porcupine rivers. Whitehorse, YT, March, 1985.
Boland, John. The Yukon Fishery Resource: Its Existing Role and its Future---Potential. Department ~ the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Pacific Region, 1973.
Coutts, Robert. Yukon Places and Names. Sidney, B.C.: Gray's Publishing Ltd., 1980. Department of Marine and Fisheries Annual Report 1909 - 1916. Ottawa:Ifing's Printer, 1910 - 1917. Horler, A., S. Johnston, G. Cronkite. An Assessment of the Fisheries Resource in 18 Lakes within the Yukon TerrTtory: Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region, 1983.
Ganski, Marg. Indian and Inuit Affairs. Interview regarding total number of Registered Indians in Yukon as of December, 1984. Whitehorse, YT, March, 1985.
"Good Run of King Salmon". Dawson Daily News, 23 August 1924.
"Native Fisheries". in Presentations to the Commision on Pacific Fisheries Policy.Department ofFisheries and Oceans; Pacific Region, 198~.
Seigel, N., E. McEwen, A Historical Overview of Fishing in the Yukon. for the Department of Fisheries and-Oceans, Pacific Region, 1984. -39-
I 8.0 APPENDICES -40-
APPENDIX 1. COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF YUKON FISH SPECIES REFERRED TO IN THIS REroRT.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - "Kings" Chum Salmon O. keta - "Dogs"
Coho SalnDn 0. kishutch - "Reds" (Old Crow) Sockeye Salmon O. nerka
Pink Salmon ~ gorbuscha - "Humpbacks"
Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush
Arctic Charr §..:_ al pinus Steelhead Salmo gairdneri Humpbacked Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Broad Whitefish C. nasus - "Tu zra , tizareh 11 Least Cisco C. sardinella - "Tullibee, cisco" Inconnu Stenodus leucichthys nelma - "Cony, sheefish 11 Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostornus Northern Pike Esox lucius Ling Cod Lota lota - "Burbot, loche" Arctic Grayling Thymallus articus - "grayling" ( ( (
APPENDIX 2. YUKON !FF HARVESTS OF LAKE THOUT AND WHITEfi'ISH BY AREA IN l-OUNDS, 1909 - HH6. (FROM DFO RECDHDS)
YEAH AREA
AISHIHIK HOOl'ALINQUA HUTS HI L. LABERGE MAYO R. PEEL H. fOHCUPINE H. HAMPAH'l' (Big Lake) (I:Arncan) ( lbrcupintJ H. ) ------LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF L'l' WF LT WF i;r WF LT WF
1909 800 3990 2620 13068 1160 5786 2060 fa)83 400 '.3990 2200 10U73 I ~ 1910 . 200 4000 500 2600 1400 7000 1600 8000 1000 5000 2300 11500 600 3000 2800 14000 I-' I 1911 800 3000 2700 12000 1000 4000 2100 fiOOO 300 2500 2000 9500 1912 600 3000 2700 11500 1000 4200 2000 6000 200 2500 2000 9000 1913 600 1000 2200 6000 1000 2200 2000 5000 200 2500 1400 7000 1914 600 1100 2200 6000 1000 2200 2000 5000 200 2500 1400 7000 1915 500 1000 2000 5000 1000 2000 2000 5000 300 2500 1200 7000 1916 400 1000 1500 5000 800 2000 2000 5000 300 2500 1200 6000
Yearly 563 2261 2165 8196 995 3423 2058 n~no 313 2749 1775 8809 Average
% LT of 20 16 21 17 23 25 10 17 LT/WI" 01.tch
con Lin utjci • • • ( ' ? (
APPRNnTX 2. · YUKON IFF HARVESTS OP LAKE TROUT AND WHITEFISH BY AREA IN FOUNDS, 1909 - 1916. (ffiNTINUEO) ------
YEAR AREA
SALMON H. SELKIHK/ STEWART/ TAGISH TESL IN YUKON WHITEHORSE PF.r .LY McQUESTEN CROSSING ------
LT WF I ,T WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF I lFl09 890 887!1 21fi0 10474 ~ 500 4988 1380 6883 1480 7382 N 1810 2000 fl 1on moo 8000 1100 1500 2000 10000 1900 9500 200 900 flOO 3900 I 1911 1000 7000 :-moo 19000 700 4000 1400 6400 1500 8000 1912 1000 6800 3000 18400 700 4000 1200 6000 1500 7400 1Fl1 :1 100() 1)000 2500 8000 500 2700 1000 5400 1400 4500 ln14 1000 4000 2500 8000 600 2700 1000 5400 1500 4500 1915 800 3000 2000 7500 500 2500 1000 5000 1200 4000 1D1R ROO 3000 2000 7000 !100 2000 1000 ·4500 1000 3500
Yearly 1071) 5347 231)1 10707 638 3049 1248 6198 143!1 R098 Average
% LT of 17 18 17 17 19 18 13 LT/WP Oltch - -43-
APPENDIX 3. YFKON IFF LAKE TROUT Ai.\'D WHITEFISH HARVESTS BY AR.EA IN FOFNDS, 1958 - 1967. (FROM oro HE€0RDS)
YEAR AREA
AISHIHIK ATLIN BENNETT BRAEBURN DEZADEASH ETHEL
LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT :.VF 1958 5000 5000 500 1000 500 500 :m NE 500 1000 500 lOOC 1959 5000 5000 200 200 500 500 ~TE NE 500 1000 500 100(1 1960 5000 5000 N'"E NE 200 200 NE NE 500 500 500 1500 1961 3200 4000 300 300 200 200 NE NE 500 500 500 1500 1962 3500 500Q 300 300 1000 1000 NE NE 500 500 500 1500 1963 3000 6000 300 400 1000 800 NE NE 500 500 500 1500 1964 1965 4000 6000 800 1000 640 800 1100 1300 500 700 800 1500 1966 5000 5000 800 1100 700 500 1200 1500 300 800 1200 1800 1967 NE NE 600 400 600 NE 700 1000 200 400 400 600
Yearly 4213 5125 475 587 593 563 1000 1267 444 655 600 1322 '~ Average
% LT of 45 45 51 44 40 31 LT/WF Catch
YEAR AREA
FINLAYSON FISH FORTIN FOX FRANCES HUTS HI
LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF 1958 NE NE 400 NE NE NE NE NE 500 500 600 NF 1959 NE NE 400 NE NE NE 500 500 500 . 500 500 ~J1-' 1960 NE NE 200 200 NE NE 500 500 500 500 250 25( 1961 NE NE 200 200 NE NE 200 300 500 500 250 25( 1962 NE NE 200 200 NE. NE 200 NE 500 500 250 25(~ 1963 NE NE 300 300 NE NE (400)(400) 800 500 100 10( 1964 1965 1000 800 440 130 NE NE NE NE 200 300 250 25(· 1966 1200 800 500 150 300 300 NE NE 200 400 400 300 1967 400 400- 500 200 400 300 . NE NE 400 600 300 400
Yearly 867 667 349 197 360· 425 455 478 322 25'.:' Average
~~,_,. % of LT 57 64 46 49 56 LT/WF Catch continued< , -44- -
APPENDIX 3. YUKON IFF LAKE TROUT Al'ID WHITEFISH HARVESTS BY .-illEA IN FOGNDS, 1958 - 1967. (CDNTINUED)
YEAR AREA
KLUAL'IB KTSAWA LABERGE L. ATLIN L. SALMON MA Yr:
LT WF LT ;VF LT WP LT \ATf LT WF LT '· 1958 1500 2000 .:IE >TE 500 500 500 500 NE >i"E 500 _., 1959 1500 2500 :IB .\rE 500 600 500 500 400 :JE 500 ;_"i\ .. l. 1960 500 1000 250 250 500 600 400 400 250 250 500 ;::1(;·:·. 1961 10000 10000 250 250 500 600 500 400 250 250 1000 2C' ·: 1962 10000 10000 NE ';:m 500 600 500 400 250 250 500 lOCK 1963 10000 12000 1500 1500 500 800 500 400 250 200 500 1000 1964 1965 12000 16000 400 300 NE 2500 750 1000 200 250 2000 170C 1966 12000 15000 400 400 300 2500 800 1500 200 300 2000 18CCi 1967 4000 1100 200 100 300 1500 1000 2000 300 NE 800 120C'
Yearly 6833 7733 500 467 450 1133 605 789 263 250 922 1133 Average ,,__. % LT of 47 52 28 43 51 45 LT/WF Catch
YEAR AREA
QUIET PEILY L. FORCUPINE R. SEKOLMUN STEWART R. SIMPSON
LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF LT WF 1958 250 250 .:JE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 200 200 1959 300 300 NE j\T£ NE NE 500 NE NE NE 200 300 1960 250 250 NE NE NE NE 250 250 NE NE 500 500 1961 250 250 NE NE NE NE 250 250 ~"E ~ 500 500 1962 250 300 NE- NE NE NE 250 250 NE NE 1000 1000 1963 300 400 NE NE NE NE 250 250 NE NE 1000 1000 1964 1965 . 250 300 400 220 5000 NE 300 500 500 NE 400· NE 1966 200 400 600 300 500() 5000 200 200 1000 NE 500 800 1967 400 400 200 400 1000 500 NE NE 500 NE 200 500
Yearly 272 317 400 307 286 283 Average
% LT of 46 56 50 .:±5
, ___. LT/WF Catch continued •• , -45-
APPENDIX 3. YUKON IFF LAKE TROUT AND WHITEFISH HARVESTS BY AREA IN I-OUNDS, 1958 - 1967. (CX)NTINUED)
YEAR AREA
TAGISH/MARSH TATLMAIN TESLIN TI0l"C'UP WATSON L. WEI.LESL.
LT 'NF LT VfF LT WF LT WF LT \VF 1958 NE NE NE 1000 2000 2000 250 250 NE NE 500 50( 1959 NE NE NE 1000 1500 2000 250 ~'E NE :>TE 500 :snc 1960 NE NE 500 1500 1500 3500 250 :IE NE >i""E 1000 50( 1961 :>J'E NE 500 1500 2500 2100 300 :JE NE NE 1000 50( .. 1962 ~'E NE 500 1500 2500 2500 300 ~'E NE NE 1000 50C1 1963 NE NE 500 1500 2500 2500 300 500 NE NE 2000 lOOC 1964 1965 2500 8000 800 1000 3500 5000 300 :fE 372 1058 500 ~m 1966 3000 8000 1500 1000 4000 6000 500 500 400 1000 400 400 1967 1000 3000 600 500 2000 1000 200 500 NE NE NE ;...'E
Mean 2167 6333 700 1167 2444 2955 294 437 863 557
% LT of 25 37 45 40 61 LT/WF catch '~. YEAR AREA
WOLF OTHERS TOTALS
LT WF LT WF LT WF 1958 NE NE 3500 4500 (18200) 21200 1959 200 NE 3200 7800 186500 24700 1960 200 NE 15800 16300 30300 34450 1961 250 NE 17300 18300 41200 44650 1962 250 NE 19550 1 26600 1 44300 54150 1963 250 NE 20100 2 30350 2 (47350) 63900 1964 1965 250 NE 1800 4500 3 41952 55108 1966 300 600 3900 4 5000 4 49000 63350 1967 300 . 500 2500 5 1100 5 20000 18600
Mean 9639 12205 53200 42234
% of LT 44 56 'lbtal catch ( ) - Differs from previously published totals. 1 - Includes Drury Lake (250 LT, 300 WF). 2 - Includes Tillel Lake (300 LT, 300 WF). 3 - Includes Frenchman lake ( 2500 WF). 4 - Includes Fairweather ( 400 LT) , Frenchman ( 300 LT, 2000 WF) , and McQuesten (200 LT) lakes. 5 - Includes Fairweather (200 LT, 100 WF), and Tillei (300 LT) lakes. .. ( ( (
J\1'1'1•1'11HX o.J. YlJKll'l llIVEH UJ\SJN H'l" llAHVl~':l'l'S 01" CllJNlXJI{ SAL/.fl'l IN l'H.:CES, Hl!:i[j - J!JH1. ( i"llll/.1 JlloU 111,0.JllJJ.':l) ------~-~------~------~- YU Km Ylll\ON S'i'EWAtrr Pl,LJ.Y 'l'ESJ.IN HIVEll l I - 'l'uklii11i Iii Vul' 2 - 20 I.. I .ul11..:r~t:, 8 ~k~CI 111 tok H. :1 - I.. I 11lx:r~u ·I - I ne l uc f.,::; l!ub::; Hi vu I' 5 - (illlJJUd\<.> tlJ l"ul'L Sulkil'k Ii - Spul! i Ji l! Ul'uu nut dufinud '( APPENDIX 5. YUKON HIVl·ll UASIN IFI" llAllVl!:.S'l'S 01" CllUM SAi J.K N IN PIECEH, lflt)lj - IUH4. (Flll1M llf•l) l!fo.lX1H1XiJ ------YIJKC¥'1 YUKON Pl•:t LY 'l'l•:HLIN Kl IIANI•: YEAH llJllClll'INI•: HIVl•Jl fll v1111 llIVC:ll llIVEll Ill Vl•JI ------111 VEI! BASIN {/} (.!J l'z zz ;~ E i:1 H ;.'; OH 5 H 0 ;,.. l1I l1I fj ~ H Ul UI ~ &! t'1 0 H l1I ~ 0 14 tA~6Jlll ffi i:i µ, l1I ~ i'J 0 ~ :::i ~ ~ ~~ ~ fl ~~ t-, LI Ill Q8 IH59 1000 1000 21 l(J() l!)(j(} 2400 1125 15DO !ill( HJ I Cl 11 !i 19HJ 1200 600 1000 t)UO 500 :~()()() [)HOil 19fl2 2000 3000 1500 :moo H!llJO wc;::i 2500 1500 1500 :~()()( )(} :!fi:lf Xl IBH4 4200 1 till~H 10'.~: 1H 1005 2GO I 000 o:i:1 :JCXJ 7!J:Jfi !r/ IH 1 !)(j(j 100 50 450 450 :lHU Hllll!i wm:1 HJB7 500 50 1000 50 2!)() I 17CiH t:HilH 1BH8 200 50 50 llJO 500 HO :mn ll )()()() 111 HU lflGH 400 fl(} 500 100 :llXl 71i0 :1:rn f)')H'/ W70 50 60 500 I 2 li20 12:12 .~ IH71 '1 Jfi(l J!AH•O lfl72 I !i lfiO I fil XI() !ilKKl fH73 4HU 100 :uo 1 :~(){) Ii:~()() 7:!:!!! 1B74 1008 l:J2 450 2 14 :J2 lff75 ?Ji00 '/lllli~ Hli: lfi 11 !Jilt HJ7fi 100 I :l!illll :11 Oil :1:~1 k I I 077 780 lifi() h:-J(j() li\l!lll l!J7H :150 1:12 W79 !il KKl !l·IB:~ !'ilKJ I I OIJO WHO mJ:J 40ll lfi25 fJIKl tiUIKJ !l21H Hl81 fi42 7:J l:l!Jfl :mo : I( I()() !i'I JO l!l82 076 20 20CXJ 4(XJ il)()() 4CM~i l!l83 2CXJ 50 150 41X) tJlJO :iooo :·1~!()() HJH'l 500 JO()() ](}() 200 .)()()() fJHllO MEAN DB!J m:i !i(Jt:i 724 126 t:iU8 5(Xl Hll :n :1 li2H'l !Uli·l 1 - Arun no L du fj lll:d 2 - CU1111u1!l11:; Lo FL, Hulki!'k -48- APPENDIX 6. ALSEK AND STIKI~'E R.IVEH IFF HARVESTS OF C-1r:;ccs:: SALMCN IN PIECES, 1959 - 1984. ( FRrnf DfO ?~CORDS) AI.SEK RIVER STIKI~IB RP/ER YEAR KLCKSHU AREA TELEGRAPH CREEK 1959 807 1960 32 1338 1961 26 550 1962 600 1963 14 300 1964 1965 1966 180 1967 100 1968 100 1969 50 1970 40 1971 30 300 --- 1972 30 1973 550 200 1974 300 100 1975 1024 1976 150 924 1977 350 100 1978 350 400 1979 1300 850 1980 150 587 1981 150 586 1982 400 618 1983 300 1066 1984 100 643 ---5 YEAR AVERAGE 196.0 - 1964 697* 1965 - 1969 107* 1970 - 1974 190 1975 - 1979 537* 660 1980 - 1984 -220 700 * - 4 year average -'--' -49- APPENDIX 7. AI.SEK and STIKINE RIVER IFF HARVESTS OF SCCKEY"E SALMCN IN PIECES, 1959 - 1984. (FEOM DFO P.EC08.Ll'3) ALSEK RIVER STIKINE RIVER YEAR KLL:'KSHU AREA TELEGRAPH CREEK 1959 830 1960 3824 1946 1961 2495 1000 1962 300 1500 1963 600 600 1964 1965 1966 4000 1967 500 1968 400 1969 460 1970 2200 1971 1670 900 1972 2000 4373 ,._..., 1973 3670 1974 6000-·· 3500 1975 1982 1976 4000 2911 1977 10,000 4335 1978 8000 3500 1979 7000 3000 1980 800 2100 1981 2000 4697 1982 5000 4948 1983 2550 4649 1984 2400 5327 ---5 YEAR AVERAGE 1960 - 1964 1805* 1261* . 1965 - 1969 1340 1970 - 1974 2967* 1975 - 1979 7250* 3146 1980 - 1984 2550 4344 * - 4 year average -50- -- APPENDIX 8. AI.SEK, STIKINE, and fORCUPINE RIVER IFF HARVESTS OF COHO SALlfON IN PIECES, 1959 - 1984. (FROM DFD PECORDS) Al.SEK RIVER STIKINE RIVER PROCUPINE RIVER YEAR KLlJKSHU AREA TELEGRAPH CREEK OLD CROW ARE.A 1959 250 1960 500 1961 100 300 1962 1963 300 1964 34 1965 1966 25 132 1967 40 1968 50 '1969 70 1970 50 ·,~ 1971 40 560 1972 40 25 1973 47 1974 1975 1976 7 1977 1978 1979 1980 100 1500 1981 200 500 1982 40 1983 3 1984 500 -51- APPENDIX 9. Indian Food Fish Survey Forms The following forms have been designed to help you collect freshwater statistics either through fish camp surveys or followup door-to-door community surveys. The ideal time to collect harvest statistics is d~ring the fishing season. However, when this is not possible periodic surveys in the community should be conducted. You are the most important part in gathering catch statistics, and you must have a good understanding of the issues relevant to the fishery. Therefore, before beginning the survey you should be familiar with the Yukon Indian culture, land claims, the International salmon agreement, the fish allocation policy of the Department of Fisheries, techniques used to manage fish stocks, and the importance and use of the harvest information. You are conducting the survey to determine the number of fish caught by Yukon Indians this year. The information is important to 1) properly manage the fish stocks; 2) to ensure that Indian people receive the required amount of fish; 3) to help establish the condition of the fish populations; and 4) to identify any additional factors affecting the Indian harvest (i.e. fishing effort, weather conditions, water levels etc.). The salmon which return to the Yukon Territory must first pass through large subsistance and commercial fisheries in Alaska. In recent years the total catch of all the Yukon fisheries (commercial, domestic, Indian, and sport) is less than 10% of the Alaskan catch. This information·, collected through this survey will assist the Department of Fisheries to ensure that an adequate number of salmon reach the Yukon Indian food fishery. Commercial, domestic, and sport fishermen also utilize the freshwater fish resource. However, the allocation policy of the Department of Fisheries gives the Indian fishery priority to the resource. It is difficult to ensure that this pol~cy is carried out if harvest needs or catch estimates of the Indian fishery are not known. The information collected through this survey will assist management decisions which ensure the Indian fishery has-an adequate supply of fish. -52- Instructions for Conducting Survey of Indian Salmon Fishing Please read the following instructions before completing the form (page 3). They survey questions will help provide the information to complete the form. You should ask each person the same set of questions to eliminate inaccuracies or bias. If you do not receive enough information with the question provided, try to ask additional questions which w~ll clarify the answer. Fill in the form as you are conducting the survey, and take as much space as you need to record the answers. Name - List the full name of the person fishing. In some cases ~may be difficult to establish who is fishing, and you may clarify this by determining who owns the nets, or who has an Indian fishing licence. Band Number or Licence Number - The licence number is preferred. However, if you are interviewing someone who does not have a licence or who doesn't remember the number, then list the person's band and band number. Camp Location - Be as specific as possible, by identifying the .- river and either a familiar landmark or the distance from a familiar landmark (i.e. Yukon R. - Minto, or Yukon R. - 6 miles below Minto). Catch Estimate (Pieces) - Write in the square below the appropriate species the total catch for the time period covered on the survey sheet. If an individual is vague, ask whether they caught less than 50, more than 50, less than 100, etc. Commonly used names for salmon are: chinook -"king", chum "dog", coho - "red". Note: The term "reds" is the local term for coho in Old Crow and differs from its usage in Alaska. Total Number of Nets - Record the total number of nets used for each species. Length/Mesh Size - Record the total length of nets of the same mesh size. (Mesh size is the distance between two opposite corners of a square of mesh when stretched firm.) Time Fished - Record the dates of the fishing activity covered by the survey. form. Be specific for each species (e.g. chinook - July 10 to August 2, chum - August 20 to September 10). Comments - Record the answers to questions 4, 7, and 10. Number of Fish Needed/Year - Record the estimate of fish needed to supply the person and any other family members. ' - ·-·---~----· -53- Water Levels - Record the person's estimate of the water level during the time period(s) fished. Levels may differ for different species, depending on the time of the runs. SALMON SURVEY QUESTIONS The following questions will help provide the answers to fill in the survey form. Please be sure to ask the same questions to each person you survey. 1) Did you fish for chinook (king) salmon this year? chum (dog) coho (red) sock eye Note: Ask only the species found in the river system being surveyed: Yukon River - chinook, chum; Porcupine River - chinook, chum, coho; and Alsek River - chinook, sockeye, coho. 2) Approximately how many chinook did you catch? chum '- sockeye coho 3) Where did you fish? 4) Was this a good year for you for salmon fishing? Why? (Record answer in comments section.) 5) When you fished for chinook how many nets did you use? chum sockeye coho What was the total length? (Specify feet, yards or meters.) What was the mesh size? (Specify inches or centimeters.) 6) How long did you fish for each species? 7) Would you have fished longer if there had been more fish? (Recoro answer in comments section.) 8) Approximately how many fish do you need each year? \ 9) What was the water level like this year? 10) Did you notice anything unusual or different from other years? (Record answer in comments section.) -54- Instructions for Conducting Survey of Indian Freshwater Fishing Please read the following instructions before completing the form ·(page 3). They survey questions will help provide the information to complete the form. You should ask each person the same set of questions to eliminate inaccuracies or bias. If yoLl do not receive enough information with the question provided, try to ask additional questions which will clarify the answer. Fill in the form as you are conducting the survey, and take as much space as you need to record the answers. Name - List the full name of the person fishing. In some cases ~may be difficult to establish who is fishing, and you may clarify this by determining who owns the nets, or who has an Indian fishing licence. Band Number or Licence Number - The licence number is preferred. However, if~you are interviewing someone who does not have a licence or who doesn't remember the number, then list the person:s band and band number. Camp Location - Be as specific as possible, by identifying the lake or river and a familiar landmark or the distance from a familiar landmark (i.e. Teslin Lake - Village, or Teslin Lake - 6 miles below the Village). Catch Estimate (Pieces) - Write in the square below the appropriate species the total catch for the time period covered on the survey sheet. If an individual ls vague, ask whether they caught less than 50, more than 50, less than 100, etc. Note: Ling cod ls the another name for burbot. Total Number of Nets - Record the total number of nets used for each species. Length/Mesh Size - Record the total length of nets of the same mesh size. (Mesh size ls the distance between two opposite corners of a square of mesh when stretched firm.) Time Fished - Record the dates of the fishing activity covered by the survey form. Comments - Record the answers to questions 4, 7, 9, and 10. Number of Fish Needed/Year - Record the estimate of fish needed to supply the person and any other family members. -55- FRESHWATER SURVEY QUESTIONS The following questions will help provide the answers to fill .L the survey form. Ple1ase be sure to ask the same questions tc each person you survey. 1) Did you fish this year? 2) Approximately how .any fi~h did you catch? (List for each species.) 3) Where did you fish~ 4) Was this a good ye~r for you for fishing? Why? (Record answe~ in comments section.) 5) When you fished howI many nets did you use? What was the total length? (Specify feet, yards or meters.) What was the mesh size? (Specify inches or centimeters.) 6) How long did you fish? 7) Would you have fished longer if there had been more fish? (Record answer in comments section.) 8) Approximately how many fish do you need each year? 9) What were the conditions like this year? (Depth of ice, weather, overflow, etc.) 10) Did you notice anything unusual or different from other years? (Record answer in comments section.) ,_. ( ( \ \ ( INlllAN IUlll Frn111·m - SAIMON SlJHVl•:Y llATI·: - ll!lllMlJN I TY SllllV 1-:Y - Tl·:<11NICIAN - . ----·------·-----·------·------. __ ._ ---·--- ·------. ·--··· -----· ------·------. -. ------. CATCll EST!MJ\'l'E l•'l,'lll WATl·:ll NMtl·: BAN() II CllINWK OTlll•:ll (~IUM--&lCKF:YE crno TIMI•: Olli1Ml-:NTS NEl•:lli-:JI I ,l·:Vl·l .'l LI C. II (KING) (IUj) · (Ill•;()) Frn11m (Hun size, w.. at11t,1·, t!ff•wL) VA< 11 Yll. 1'11'<'.l!S 0111~hl Tnlnl Nuinher of NPls CJ\TCll l·~TI MAT!•:s I FISll IVATl·:ll Ul NM.11·: llANll II CllIN Total Nurnl~r of Nets Fi sli i rig 111,:a Lion ------.------..------·------·-··-·. . CATCll liST UIA'l'E l'IHll IVl\Tl·:ll NAME llANll II WINmK ClllJM--§.:CK~:Vh-.- Ol'lllo:H crno TIMI·: < l l/J.ll·:N I'S Nl•:l·:l 1J•J I l.l•:Vlo:I .": I.IC. II (KIN ToLLll Nt111litH' uf Nuts -.~1 ( '( ( INllli\N 1-U~l l"ISlll•:llY - l"llK'lllW/\Tlm 8lll!Vl;;y l"IHll CA~tl' SllllVEY - l•i\TI·: - O>MMllNITY SYllVJ.:Y 'l'l·:l'.llf 11 CI AN LIC. II CATCI I EST I Mi\TI~ Tl Ml·: Tulul N1u11IJUI' of N"Lti I" i sh rng I n1;a Li un I ... ----·-·------·------lJl ------·- -- --· -- - . ------·---- -~------·------· ---·--·------·--·- ···------~----~--'----- .. -~------LlC. II ---1 CATO! EST! i1ATE I Ni\111·: 1 111\Nll II 1Vlll'l'1~1 Hlll L. THOUT lJ'l I.IC. II !'i\'1'(11 l•S'J'IM/\n: 'l'JW·: < l1~lMl'NTS Ni\MJ.: 1\1\Nll II IVlllTl•:l"JSll I.. TllOlJT INCYi-JNtl ---il!l/\Yl;IN Al'l'l·1'1llJX '1. YlJKU'l H!VEJ! UMllN 11"1" llAHVK')'J'::l 01" CllJNlXJK .SAL/.¥'~ IN l'JECl•:.':l, W51-.l - Hl81. ( 1"l!Lll.t mu 11EO.J11Ji.') l ------~-~------~- YUKctl YlllWN ::rt'EWAlrl' Pl~l.J.Y 'l'E::ll.IN IOHCIJPINI~ HIVt.U HIVEI! ll!Vl.:Jl HIVl!:ll Ill VEH l!IVl,Jl 'l'Ol'Al. ------~------~-~ w ") i2 l'J l!l lJJ VJ f;j 0 ~~ z fJ ~ 5 ~ zz (J i'=l OH !'l 0 ~ t;j UJ Ul lJl IS;.:J Iii "'lJl '~ ~ p, ti ~ 0 .1 UJ .~ ('l "'' g H >< (J]uJ ~ ~ 0 Iii ~H! 05i p;~ µ, UJ ~ ~@ iH! ~~ 6 Cl :..: Ii-I u ~ ~ (Jj u p, u ~ E3 t-, u 0 lJ JUh!J IUOll 1500 1250 tilJO HWlO h:J.:,o Wt iO lHOll :moo 210 2:W 500 H'lh 20 bbU~ IUtil :moo l!lOO 1700 :JOO 1000 1000 1500 5()() llllllO 1D02 :J(JOO 2000 1500 300 1000 500 1000 HOO !J!JOO 1fi()() I Uli:I 2fi(){) 1200 2fi0 800 600 000 44 7794. IDti-1 70 4200° fj{)() :J!) I JO() Wtifi 170 150 :mo llJO :ui 5()() 4h0 !:M :111 ti IDliti )()5() 50 125 J50 100 :J50 l 20 :mo O:i :~!)10 I Uli7 l•JhO 50 400 401 (j()() :JO 150 200 1:1 ~!lti:l l !ltiH 1200 lllO 200 JOO IOU ti()() I JOO 2lXl 2UO :10 :!H:lO ~ 2B:! (j\ IUCiU <1:ill till !d~ 50 200 l'/5 27 !llH W'/O 700 40 (j() I 11 :JO 450 120 600 h H 2l~>2 IU71 '1 •J!)(J 3 wo ~fill li50 tiOll Hll llJl) u :i:~uo IU72 2Hitl 30 2til !J5() 50 7bU :H11itl W7:J l:JH5 45 2lil 150 2o:i4 21ti till ·I· 2:12:1 llJ'7 ·1 2021 2tH ~HH 2·1fi :m.1 JO 150 'l!i :l-11 '/ l!J75 2uuti' 5lX) llHl 2l illtl l!J7ti HOO 200 ~h w:~i J~J77 1121 Lil 2ti5 ll()ll ~~u -- 2:nu IU7H 12Hll I05 fi()(l ti(){) :~·IHh I WU : llJIJll" WHO :j:J!)!> 1:i:J1 2 lti(l '/(JI l ~uuu u:J·lt> l!JBI :ltl,12 :10 I 1000 :J281:i MEAN I 'l'IH 1'1ti tilM l!~J mm M :15-1 100 !l:j2 :15·1 h·l'l :rn 225 ·lti:~ti - 'l'uklii11 i llivur ~ - 20 I.. 1.ul>ul'~tJ' H ~t.:Cl lll LOk II. :1 - I.. I 11Lx•I'~'" ·l,. - lll Ai'Pl•:NIHX 5, YUKON HIVl•JI BASIN lFJo' llAl!VK'ffS 01" CllUM SAi.MiN IN PWCl':S, Hlti!J - HJtM. ( Jo'llliM IJJo\J IU•.U1Hli.·; J ------YlJK!¥'J YUKON Pto:JJ..Y TESLIN KWANE H Hlt:l IJ 1 I NI·: HIVl·ll n:AI! RIV 1111 llIVl':H lllVl;;fl HlVl•JI 111 v~:11 ------·------BASIN zl~ ll) t..9 E ~ H z 5~ :~ 5 H 0 >< lJl µ; H lJl UJ lJl rJ f-1 l1l f;l t:1 B .~ ~ fii lJl ~ l!l g2 ~ n i5 Q l;l ~ ::i ~-1 Jl~ ~ 2 ~ ~~ ~5 ~ :>! E~g~ Ill OU Hl59 1000 1000 211()() 1Dti0 2400 1125 1590 !il)(JI) IOI lti Wl31 1200 600 1000 ti()() 5lXl '.!1100 [)!!(Ill Wfl?. 2000 3000 1500 :woo Hfi()IJ HlG:i 25l~O 1500 HiOO !~()( )l Jl) ~'n'i!iCX J 19134 4200 liO!JH I0'.~!1H1 1Uo5 21:30 1000 n:i:i :_l(XJ 7!i:Jfi !rt IH 1 {)(j(j 100 50 450 450 :1tHJ Htillli wo:1:, wm 500 50 1000 50 2::,0 I 17li!I l:JlilH Hll18 200 50 50 100 500 HO :mn Jill)()(} 11 I HU lOOH 400 60 500 100 :100 7tm :nn fl MJo:AN ll!lB 57:1 t)(JI.) 724 126 tiU8 5lXJ Hll :11 :1 fi:.lHtJ !1:11 i·I - Arua not clefl u"d 2 - Cunuuek::; Lo fo'L. :-Jul kirk -48- APPE?IDIX 6. ALSEK Al\TI STIKI~'E R.IVEH IFF HARVESTS OF c-rr:;ccs: SAU.1CN IN PIECES, 1959 - 1984. ( FRmf DFO ?'.::CGFl.DS) Al.SEK RIVER STIKDIB RP/ER YEAR KU:KSHU AREA TELEGRAPH CREEK 1959 807 1960 32 1338 1961 26 550 1962 600 1963 14 300 1964 1965 1966 180 1967 100 1968 100 1969 50 1970 40 '. 1971 30 300 >--· 1972 30 1973 550 200 1974 300 100 1975 1024 1976 150 924 1977 350 100 1978 350 400 1979 1300 850 1980 150 587 1981 150 586 1982 400 618 1983 300 1066 1984 100 643 ---5 YEAR AVERAGE 1960 - 1964 697* 1965 - 1969 107* 1970 - 1974 190 1975 - 1979 537* 660 1980 - 1984 --220 700 * - 4 year average .·-...-" ______,______ -49- APPENDIX 7. Al.SEK and STIKINE RIVER IFF HARVESTS OF S ALSEK RIVER STIKINE RIVER YEAR KLL'KSHU AREA TELEGRAPH CREEK 1959 830 1960 3824 1946 1961 2495 1000 1962 300 1500 1963 600 600 1964 1965 1966 4000 1967 500 1968 400 1969 460 1970 2200 1971 1670 900 1972 2000 4373 1973 3670 ·- 1974 6000- 3500 1975 1982 1976 4000 2911 1977 10,000 4335 1978 8000 3500 1979 7000 3000 1980 800 2100 1981 2000 4697 1982 5000 4948 1983 2550 4649 1984 2400 5327 ---5 YEAR AVERAGE 1960 - 1964 1805* 1261* 1965 - 1969 1340 1970 - 1974 ' 2967* 1975 - 1979 7250* 3146 1980 - 1984 2550 4344 * - 4 year average -so- APPENDIX 8. AI.SEK, STIKINE, and FORCUPINE RIVER IFF HARVESTS OF COHO SAU.fON IN PIECES, 1959 - 1984. (FROM DFO EECORDS) .L\LSEK RIVER STIKINE RIVER PPJJCUPINE RIVER YEAR KLL1KSHU AREA TELEGRAPH CREEK OLD CROW AREA 1959 250 1960 500 1961 100 300 1962 1963 300 1964 34 1965 1966 25 132 1967 40 1968 50 '1969 70 1970 50 :---' 1971 40 560 1972 40 25 1973 47 1974 1975 1976 7 1977 1978 1979 1980 100 1500 1981 200 500 1982 40 1983 3 1984 500 -51- '·'-- APPENDIX 9. Indian Food Fish Survey Forms The following forms have been designed to help you collect freshwater statistics either through fish camp surveys or followup door-to-door community surveys. The ideal time to collect harvest statistics is during the fishing season. However, when this is not possible periodic surveys in thE community should be conducted. You are the most important part in gathering catch statistics, and you must have a good understanding of the issues relevant to the fishery. Therefore, before beginning the survey you should be familiar with the Yukon Indian culture, land claims, the International salmon agreement, the fish allocation policy of the Department of Fisheries, techniques used to manage fish stocks, and the importance and use of the harvest information. You are conducting the survey to determine the number of fish caught by Yukon Indians this year. The information is important to 1) properly manage the fish stocks; 2) to ensure that Indian people receive the required amount of fish; 3) to help establish the condition of the fish populations; and 4) to identify any additional factors affecting the Indian harvest (i.e. fishing effort, weather conditions, water levels etc.). The salmon which return to the Yukon Territory must first pass through large subsistance and commercial fisheries in Alaska. In recent years the total catch of all the Yukon fisheries (commercial, domestic, Indian, and sport) is less than 103 of the Alaskan catch. This information·, collected through this survey will assist the Department of Fisheries to ensure that an adequate number of salmon reach the Yukon Indian food fishery. Commercial, domestic, and sport fishermen also utilize the freshwater fish resource. However, the allocation policy of the Department of Fisheries gives the Indian fishery priority to the resource. It is difficult to ensure that this policy is carried out if harvest needs or catch estimates of the Indian fishery are not known. The information collected through this survey will assist management decisions which ensure the Indian fishery has-an adequate supply of fish. ·"--"'- -52- Instructions for Conducting Survey of Indian Salmon Fishing Please read the following instructions before completing the form (page 3). They survey questions will help provide the information to complete the form. You should ask each person the same set of questions to eliminate inaccuracies or bias. If you do not receive enough information with the question ~rovided, try to ask additional questions which wi-11 clar,i.fy the answer. Fill in the form as you are conducting the survey, and take as much space as you need to record the answers. Name - List the full name of the person fishing. In some cases n---may be difficult to establish who is fishing; and you may clarify this by determining who owns the nets, or who has an Indian fishing licence. Band Number or Licence Number - The licence number is preferred. However, if you are interviewing someone who does not hav.e a licence or who doesn't remember the number, then list the person's band and band number. Camp Location - Be as specific as possible, by identifying the river and either a familiar landmark or the distance from a familiar landmark (i.e. Yukon R. · - Minto, or Yukon R. - 6 miles below Min to). Catch Es~imate (Pieces) - Write in the square below the appropriate species the total catch for the time period covered on the survey sheet. If an individual is vague, ask whether they ~aught less than 50, more than 50, less than 100, etc. Commonly used names for salmon are: chinook -"king", chum "dog", coho - "red". Note: The term "reds" is the local term for coho in Old Crow and differs from its usage in Alaska. Total Number of Nets - Record the total number of nets used for each species. Length/Mesh Size - Record the total length of nets of the same mesh size. (Mesh size is the distance between two opposite corners of a square of mesh when stretched firm.) Time Fished - Record the ·dates of the fishing activity covered by the survey form. Be specific for each species (e.g. chinOok - July 10 to August 2, chum - August 20 to September 10). Comments - Record the answers to questions 4, 7, and 10. Number of Fish Needed/Year - Record the estimate of fish needed to supply the person and any other family members. -53- Water Levels - Record the person's estimate of the water level during the time period(s) fished. Levels may differ for different species, depending on the time of the runs. SALMON SURVEY QUESTIONS The following questions will help provide the answers to fill in the survey form. Please be sure to ask the same questions to each person you survey. 1) Did you· fish for chinook (king) salmon this year? chum (dog) coho (red) sock eye Note: Ask only the species found in the river system being surveyed: Yukon R.iver - chinook, chum; Porcupine River - chinook, chum, coho; and Alsek River - chinook, sockeye, coho. 2) Approximately how many chinook did you catch? chum sockeye coho 3) Where did you fish? 4) Was this a good year for you for salmon fishing? Why? (Record answer in comments section.) 5) When you fished for chinook how many nets did you use? chum sockeye coho What was the total length? (Specify feet, yards or meters.) What was the mesh size? (Specify iii~hes or centimeters.) 6) How long did you fish for each species? 7) Worild you have fished longer if there had been more fish? (Record answer in comments section.) 8) Approximately how many fish do you need each year? 9) What was the water level like this year? 10) Did you notice anything unusual or different from other years? (Record answer in comments section.) -54- Instructions for Conducting Survey of Indian Freshwater Fishing Please read the following instructions before completing the form ·(page 3)~ They survey questions will help provide the information to complete the form. You should ask each person the same set of questions to eliminate inaccuracies or bias. If you do not receive enough information with the question provided, try to ask additional questions which will clarify the answer. Fill in the form as you are conducting the survey, and take as muct space as you need to record the answers. Name - List the full name of the person fishing. In some cases U-may be difficult to establish who ls fishing, and you may clarify this by determining who owns the nets, or who has an Indian fishing licence. Band Number or Licence Number - The licence number is preferred. However, if you are interviewing someone who does not have a licence or who doesn't remember the number, then list the person:s band and band number. Camp Location - Be as specific as possible, by identifying the lake or river and a familiar landmark or the distance from a familiar landmark (i.e. Teslin Lake - Village, or Teslin Lake - 6 miles below the Village). Catch Estimate (Pieces) - Write in the square below the appropriate species the total catch for the time period covered on the survey sheet. If an individual is vague, ask whether they caught less than 50, more than 50, less than 100, etc. Note: Ling cod is the another name for burbot. Total Number of Nets - Record the total number of nets used for each species. Length/Mesh Size - Record the total leng~h of nets of the same mesh size. (Mesh size is the distance between two opposite corners of a square of mesh when stretched firm.) Time Fished - Record the dates of the fishing actl\'ity covered by the survey form. Comments - Record the answers to questions 4, 7, 9, and 10. Number of Fish Needed/Year - Record the estimate of fish needed to supply the person and any other family members. -55- FRESHWATER SURVEY QUESTIONS The following questions will help provide the answers to fill i •. the survey form. Please be sure to ask the same questions t( each person you survey. 1) Did you fish this year? 2) Approximately how many fi~h did you catch? (List for each species.) 3) Where did you fish? 4) Was this a good year for you for fishing? Why? (Record answer in comments section.) 5) When you fished how many nets did you use? What was the total length? (Specify feet, yards or meters.) What was the mesh size? (Specify inches or centimeters.) 6) How long did you fish? 7) Would you have f.Lshed longer if there had been more fish? (Record answer in comments section.) 8) Approximately how many fish do you need each year? 9) What were the conditions like this year? (Depth of ice, weather, overflow, etc.) 10) Did you notice anything unusual or different from other years? (Record answer in comments section.) { \ INlllAN IUJll F/i-llll·~IY - SAIMUN SllHVl;:Y ll/\'l'Jo: - llli\IMIJNJTY SllllVEY - Tl·:( 11N WI AN - -----·------·------~--·------... ·----·------·------~- -- - - CATCH ~:ST I MATE 1"1.'ill IV/\1'1-:H HANJJ II ClllNlXlK l~IUM-&lCKl\YE t\l!IO 01'111.:it THU•: CXJi\IMl·:N'l':-l Nl·:l•:lll•:11 1.l·:Vl•J .'i I.IC. II (KING) (IXll) (lli':ll) FWlll~~ l (111111 size, w.. alllt!I', t!ff11rl) 1"/\!11 Yll. l'lf'l:t!S n111ghL TnL11l N1.onher of NPls l"isl1i11g lu1:alio11 CATCH l•:':iT IMAT!•:S I N/\111': ll/\Nll II CllINmK Fl:-lll IVATl·:I! Ul ClllJM~lCKIWP. OlllO Ul'lll-:H TIMI·: (I l~l~ll·:N'l':-l Nl·:l·:I ll·:IJ Ll-:vJ·:I .'i Cfl I.IC. II (KINfJ) I mm (mm l . 1~ ISi mi 1 ( lluu s I Zt!, WI 'HI lll!l', ,, rtol'l) 1;:Arn m. PiuL:t:s nu1gl1 L Total Nuutl.Jer of Net,s Leng th and ~lush Sl ze --~------~------~------··----- .. _ -· CATCll ESTHIA'l'E Vl:-lll IVATl·:ll NMIE l\ANI> II OllNmK ClllJM--°&X~Kl•:Y~-:- O»IO OTlll-:11 TIMI·: lll/.~.ll·Nl'K Nl·:1·:111.,11 J,l•:VFt.'1 I.IC. II ( KINCi) ( I XX I ) ( 1ll·:Dl FIHIWI> (lh111 SIZP, Wt•aLllur, l'ff11rl.l l·:/\('11 Yll. l'lt:L!l'S (:Utigltl To LLI l Numl>HI' u f Nu lR Lt!ng lit umt ~b;lt S l zo ( " ( . ( INllJJ\N l'XX~l 1~.ISIWllY - Fl!K'lllW/\'l'l\11 SllHVF:Y Fl:ill CA~ll' SllllVEY - ll/\TI·: - I.IC. fl CJ\TCll EST HIJ\'n: TIMI·: Tulal N1u11l.>u1· uf Ni:l:; Fi sl1111g I 1 i.;a L iun I ---·------·--- Ul LI C, II -..] CATO! ES1'Hl/\TI; 'l'IW·: 1rn1M1·:1H:l I Ni\111•: lli\Nll II \VII l TEii IHll L. Tl!OUT 0 I_Nlifoiu - - rnu\\'L ING PlKl : J.lN(i Total Nuwl~r ut' NtJ tfi I.IC. fl !'/\'1'(11 l•S'J'l~l/\TE 'I'll.II·: I li~IMFNTS N/\t.11': ll/\Nll fl IVlll'l'l•:FISll I,, TllOlJT IN!~f'lll ---(1jf1\Y(;JN!i Pl Kl•: l.IN Tolal NumL>rn· uf Nuti; Fii>ll111g ln1:Jll1Jll I "A Report on the Yukon Indian Food Fishery" EXPANDED SUMMARY March 1985 Nancy Seigel INTRODUCTION Twelve Indian bands located in the Yukon Territory participate in an Indian food fishery (IFF)'for salmon and freshwater species. This fishery is licensed, regulated and monitored by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). This report presents all Indian harvest information collected by DFO between 1909 and 1983. The report also records the catch information collected in 1984 as part of a Fisheries Resource Employment Development for Youth (F.R.E.D.Y.) Program. The allocation policy of the Department of Fisheries places the Indian fishery second in importance only to the conservation of the stocks. Commercial, domestic, and recreational fisheries have third priority to the resource. However, administering this policy is difficult, unless all fisheries participate in catch monitoring systems. Accurate harvest estimates provide the information necessary to make proper management decisions. Prior to 1984, the commercial and domestic fisheries were the only two which participated in a catch recording system to any extent. Acceptance and support of a DFO catch monitoring system by Indian people will occur when the need for the information is understood. Improved communication between DFO and the bands is essential to allow the Indian community the opportunity to express their concerns about the fish resource, and to establish whether stocks are presently adequate to meet the harvest requirements of the IFF. METHODS Historic harvest information was compiled from DFO records and reports. The 1984 information was collected by technicians employed by the F.R.E.D.Y. Program. The technicians received training in an initial two-day seminar, and then worked in the following communities: Carcross, Carmacks, Haines Junction, Mayo, Old Crow, Pelly Crossing, Ross River, Teslin, and Liard/Watson Lake. Dawson and Whitehorse bands were covered by other personnel. Catch information was collected at the fish camps. When this was not pos:: ible, door-to-door surveys were conducted in the· communities. A tee.al of 17 individuals were employed for varying periods of time throughout the F.R.E.D.Y. Program for a total of 231 person weeks. RESULTS A fishery officer stationed in Dawson City recorded the first harvest estimates for the Yukon Indian fishery between 1909 and 1916. He - 2 - estimated both salmon and freshwater catches for 15 different areas. The estimates were in pounds, and the species of salmon were not differentiated. The average harvest of salmon between 1909 and 1916 for all areas was 96776 pounds. The average harvest of all freshwater species for this same period was 177912 pounds. The Yukon fishery officer position was €liminated in 1918, and no further estimates of the Indian fishery were recorded until 1959 when the position was reinstated. The harvests of the salmon fishery have been estimated for most years since 1959. The average yearly harvest for chinook salmon in the Yukon River drainage for this time period was 68418 pounds. The average yearly chum harvest was 56886 pounds. Freshwater harvests were estimated by area between 1959 and 1967 and averaged 107138 pounds. The overall harvests between 1968 and 1970 averaged 57466 pounds, and between 1974 and 1979 averaged 28783 pounds. The total weight of freshwater fish estimated from the catch recorded during 1984 and 16109 pounds. Based on the information collected by the F.R.E.D.Y. Program in 1984, the Old Crow band harvested the greatest quantity of fish of all Yukon bands. For specific species, the Carmacks band reported catching the most chum salmon (4000). Champagne/Aishihik the most sockeye salmon (2400), and Teslin the majority of the lake trout (150) and whitefish (813). Indian food fish licences have been issued from the Whitehorse DFO office since 1974. However, a concentrated effort ~o issue licences to Yukon bands was not begun until the late 1970 1 s. Old Crow is the only band where licences have not yet been issued. DISCUSS IO!\ Historic Information The harvest estimates collected for the 1909 to 1916 period (the only records available for this early period) are thought to be innaccurate for the following reasons: the remoteness of the Territory, the collection methods used, the apparent exclusion of known Indian fi£hing areas, and the overall low levels of harvest. Tr:.c :;;,.:.::-·~·r: harvest information reported between 1959 and 1983 was h2s~~·c- .c~:ioates made directly by the fishery officers or indirectly tr:r('US~ :_!-,:rd party information. The information is thought to have increaset in accuracy in proportion to the number of DFO personnel stationed in the Yukon. The fresh"'·ater estimates for the 1959-1967 period were the only estimates until 198.:+ which separated cc.tches by area. T.~e accuracy of the estimates reported for the 1970's are questionable. In some - 3 - instances, due to personnel and financial constraints, the figures were arrived at without actually travelling to the areas. Current Information The 1984 information collected through the F.R.E.D.Y. Program was obtained through a universally applied catch recording system. Generally the reported catches are thought to be low for the following reasons: - a hesitation to provide information by some bands because of the ongoing land claims negotiations; - fear that the reporting of fish catches will eventually lead to curtailments in the fishery; - desire to protect those persons who are fishing without IFF permits, but who are not eligible due to the current licence restrictions; inherent problems in the program which resulted from the· age restrictions and the low rate of pay; and - transportation problems, preventing some of the technicians from collecting information at the fish camps. The salmori harvest information was presented with both the actual reported catches and an adjusted catch based on the follow-up community surveys. There was not enough information to estimate an adjusted catch for freshwater species. Trends in the Fishery Though the harvest information collected by DFO since 1909 is suspected to be inaccurate, and probably well below actual harvest levels, it ~ay indicate general trends. Based on the information presented in the report the freshwater fishery is thought to have declined substantially from the turn of the century. The decline is most likely a result of a change in use of fish and in a change in Indian lifestyle. The salmon harvest estimates also indicate a decline, but not to the same extent as the freshwater fishery. The decrease in salmon catches may als~·reflect a general decline in fish stocks. Freshwater and salmon fishing are fLi11 important to Indian people as a source of food, and as a social and cultural activity. A continuation of a catch recording sysLem is important to ensure the requirements of this fishery are maintained. - 4 - ·....__,_.' RECOMMENDATIONS Continuation of Collection Program Accurate catch statistics will only be obtained when Indian people understand the need for collecting the information. The F.R.E.D.Y. Program began positive steps in establish-ing communication between DFO and the Indian community. Secondly, there is a need to continue to -provide fisheries training and employment to Indian young people if there is to be meaningful participation in management in the future. Tiie following suggestions for a 1985 collection program are based on the experience gained during 1984. 1. The initial education workshop should be extended to four days, -and include more field experience. 2. Two field supervisors should be employed .during the summer phase of the program. 3. Food fish technicians should work in pairs in areas with large salmon fisheries. 4. Transportation problems must be addressed. 5. Wages for all program employees should be increased. 6. Two technicians, based out of Whitehorse, would conduct the periodic community surveys during the winter phase of the program. 7. A full time computer and office person should be employed. 8. A more detailed survey form should be used. Negotiations for Additoinal Salmon Stocks Individuals in four corrrrnunities expressed difficulty in obtc.ining an adequate supply of salmon in 1984. A substantial increase in effort was also noted to compensate for the decline in stocks. Canadian negotiators must take a strong position in future transboundary river talks to ensure more salmon reach the Indian fish;::::-v. Further Studies and Recommendations The following studies are also recommended: 1. Community education programs should be implemented for the Department of Fisheries • ..... ~ -· - .. ' - 5 - • . .' i 2. A feasibility study (including a test fishery for suckers) should be undertaken to determine if suckers are in an imbalance. 3. The request by various bands for comffiercial salmon licences should be considered. 4. An investigation into beaver dams on Mica Creek should be conducted to determine if fish migration is impeded. 5. The feasibility of a joint salmon enhancement program with the Mayo band should be pursued.