HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA960I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SK
49
.593
no. 47
SUBSISTENCE
lHLDLIFE UTILIZATION AND THE
ECONOMY OF NONDALTON
by
Steven R. Behnke
Technical Paper Number 47
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Division of Subsistence
Technical Paper Series
[
[
[
[
[
[
L
c
c
C'
[
[
[J
[
c
[
r-·
L_..
L
WILDLIFE UTILIZATION AND THE
ECONOMY OF NONDALTON
by
Steven R. Behnke
Technical Paper Number 47
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Subsistence
Dillingham, Alaska
March 1982
-~
~
"""' I~
r
l-~""'
( '---~/
'"'
! 1
c__/
~
[
[
c
0
~~
'-~
c
r
l~
[
[
[
c
[_,
(=o/
[
[
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to describe the use of wildlife, particularly moose
and caribou, as part of the contemporary economy of Nondalton, a community of
180 people in the Iliamna Lake region of southwestern Alaska. The information
on which this report is based was gathered between 1976 and 1981 by a
combination of participant observation methods, informal interviews, and sys-
tematic household surveys. This report il? an initial product of a more
comprehensive study of fish and wildlife utilization in Nondalton and the Iliamna
Lake region.
In the 1970s and early 1980s the economy of Nondalton, like other communities
of the Iliamna Lake Region, was based on a combination of cash earning and
harvesting local fish and game resources for domestic use. There were few cash
earning opportunities available to residents of the region, including a limited
number of wage paying jobs, occasional construction work, and firefighting.
Nondalton residents were marginally involved in the Bristol Bay commercial
fishery compared to residents of villages closer to Bristol Bay.
Harvesting local fish and game resources for food and other domestic uses was
extremely important in Nondalton. Large quantities of salmon, moose, caribou,
and freshwater fish were harvested. The mean annual harvest per household for
three years (1973, 1980, 1981) was 4,432 pounds of edible food product~ or 846
pounds per household member. The high cost of imported goods, particularly
fuels, the lack of economic alternatives, and fluctuations in monetary income
J
( [
made production of food and goods from local resources for household use a major
component of the village economy.
cc
[
[
Moose and caribou were major resources to the people of Nondalton, together
supplying about twenty percent of the total harvest by weight in 1981. On the [
average, about three-quarters of a moose and slightly in excess of two caribou
were taken per household in 1980 and 1981. A small group of households actually [
harvested most of these animals, however, approximately half the households did
not harvest moose and about forty percent did not harvest caribou. In 1981 four
[
households (21 percent of those surveyed) harvested ten moose (60 percent of the [
reported harvest). Meat was widely shared between households in the village.
[J
Variations from year to year appeared in the harvest levels of particular species,
and among the harvest levels of individual households, due in part to environ-
c~
\=.>
mental and economic conditions. However, the mean total household harvest level
of combined fish and game resources was relatively consistent over the three
[
years for which harvest data were collected in Nondalton. The size of the moose [
and caribou harvest during the study period appeared to be limited largely by the
expense of effective transportation and storage technology, by traditional ethics [
which discouraged waste, and environmental conditions. Hunting regulations
appeared to play a relatively minor role in determining harvest levels in the [
village. [
[
L c
L
[,
C
~-,
"-/ [
D I
!
0
r'
·'
0
c
0
[J
D
[
c
[
[J
c
r
~n
___ ..,_/
L
WILDLIFE UTILIZATION AND THE ECONOMY OF NONDALTON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Introduction ··························································~··········••.!•············r·•
Methodology ...................................................................................... .
Nondalton and the Iliamna Region ..................................................... .
Nondalton ................................................................................... .
The Regional Setting .................................................................. .
Regional Economy and Society ................................................... .
The Economy of Nondalton
The Monetary Sector .................................................................. .
Living Costs and the Need For Cash .......................................... .
The Seasonal Round of Resource Use in 1981 ............................ .
Fish and Wildlife Harvests in Nondalton
During 1973, 1980, and 1981 .............................................. .
Methodology ............................................................................... .
Household Harvests of Fish and Wildlife ..................................... .
Moose and Caribou Utilization in Nondalton
The Significance of Moose and Caribou •••••.•••••••••••••••••....•••••••••••.
The Availability of Moose and Caribou •••••.•••••.••.•••••••••..•••.•.••••••.•
Hunting Patterns ........................................................................ .
Moose and Caribou Harvests in 1973, 1980, and 1981 •••..•••••••••••••
Discussion: Limitations on Harvest ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••..•••••••••
Summary ........................................................................................... .
Bibliography ....................................................................................... .
Appendix
Appendix 1: Calculation of Edible Weights of Fish and
Wildlife Species Harvested by Nondalton Residents
+
2
5
5
7
9
13
13
20
26
41
41
45
52
53
57
58
62
66
71
73
... ~
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
LIST OF TABLES
Iliamna Region Population, 1970 and 1980 •.•••••••••.••••..
Fixed Capital Costs Per Year of Hunting and
Fishing Equipment For a Representative
Nondalton Household (1981) .•.••••••••...•••••••.•.•..•.•.•.....•••.
Example of Daily Sockeye Harvest By A
Nondalton Woman (1981) ..••..•••••••...•••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••
Mean Household Harvests By Pound of Selected
Fish and Game Resources, 1973, 1980, 1981,
From a Sample of Nondalton Households ••.••••••••..•••••••
Mean Harvesis In Pounds Per Household and
Household Member, Nondalton, Alaska ••••.•••••••••••••••••••
Percentage of Sampled Nondalton Households
Harvesting Selected Species, 1973, 1980, 1981
Uses Made of Moose and Caribou Parts By
Nondalton Dena 'ina •••.•••••...•••••••••..••.••••••••.••.•....•••••••••.
Inland Dena'ina Terms For Moose and Caribou .••.•.•••••
Mean Number of Moose and Caribou Harvested
Per Household and Household Member in
Nondalton, 1973, 1980, 1981 .••••••••••••.••••••••.••••.•.•••••.••.
8
24
35
46
47
48
54
56
63
[
r [,~
[
[
[
L
[
[
[
c~
L__.,
r L
[
[
[
[
L
L
cl
L
[
r~,
(~_)
[
r
c
c
c
c
0
[~
~_)
c
0
c
[
[
L
[
{J
[
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
LIST OF ~-IGURES
Map. Nondalton and the Iliamna Lake Region
Seasonal Round of Harvest Activity For
Selected Species, Nondalton, 1971 to 1981
Proportion of Nondalton Harvest By Weight
of Salmon, Moose, Caribou, Beaver, and
Freshwater Fish, 1973, 1980, 1981 •••••.••••••••...••••••••••••.
Percentage of Nondalton Households HarvestinQ
One or More Moose and Caribou ............................... .
6
27
50
6.5
c
[~,
( .. /
[
[
[
[,
c
C
0
[~)
-./
C
c
[
[
c
L
,-
L.
{~
L
INTRODUCTION
This report describes economic conditions and patterns of wildlife utilizataion in
the village of Nondalton in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The report has two
primary purposes. First, it provides information about contemporary wildlife use
by Nondalton residents. This information includes descriptions of types of wildlife
resources utilized by Nondalton residents, seasons of use, harvest methods,, .Cind
'·' l
estimates of harvest levels for three annual cycles. This information is useful· to
a variety of land and resource management agencies for land use planning, for
establishing hunting and fishing regulations, and for evaluating the costs and
benefits of social and economic change.
In addition to describing general patterns of wildlife use and harvest, this report
describes moose and caribou harvests in greater detail. The analysis briefly
explores some of the factors which may influence wildlife harvest levels or
"demand" for wildlife in the community of Nondalton.
This report is the first product of a long term and continuing study of fish and
wildlife utilization in the Iliamna Lake area of Southwestern Alaska. The initial
phase of this study focuses on Nondalton, the largest community in this region.
A more comprehensive report on the Nondalton portion of the study will be
completed in summer, 1982. The current report includes preliminary findings
about hunting and wildlife use which will be further elaborated in the
comprehensive report.
-1-
. [
This report is organized into four parts. The first describes the population,
location, and regional setting of Nondalton. This is followed by a brief description
c[
[
of the economy of Nondalton including sources of monetary income, the cost of
living, and the seasonal round of fish and game harvest activities. The third
[
section provides a quantitative description of fish and game harvests for three [
years. The final section focuses on the use of moose and caribou in Nondalton,
and describes methods, seasons and areas of harvest, and quantities harvested. r
This section also discusses the constraints which appear to regulate the size of
resource harvests in Nondalton. [
[
[
METHODOLOGY en
L
[
This descriptive study of wildlife harvests and the economy of Nondalton is based
on information gathered by three basic methods. The most important method was
[
participant observation. The researcher rr·sided in the Lake Clark-Nondalton area [
from summer, 1976 through fall, 1978, and has maintained close contact with that
area from winter, 1978 to 1982. The research design called for the participation [
in and observation of Nondalton resident's economic activities. From the direct
experiences with fishing and hunting activities, data was gathered on a wide range [
of variables, such as types of resources utilized, methods of harvests, timing of
effort, the economic costs and returns of fishing and hunting, among others. L
CL
[
-2-
l
r'
L_}
l~
(_;
L
.-,
I lj. __ j
~-~
[
[
D
1\.
I
~J ~
c
c
~,
,_.~
'--'
[
r L.J
~~
("o
----~
L
The informal interviewing of selected knowledgeable informants was a second
research method. This technique allowed gathering information not directly
accessible by participant observer techniques, and provided systematic validations
of observation-based data by verbal responses. Informal interviews especially
provided information about the methods, scheduling and locations of harvest
activities, the uses made of particular resources, social organization, and
economic and social change. Maps of Dena'ina place names, travel routes, camps,
and harvest areas were developed during interviews.
Systematic interviews of a sample of Nondalton households were conducted in
1980 and 1981 to collect information about quantities of resources harvested and
about selected socioeconomic variables. The methodology of these sample
selection, and sample size surveys is described in a later section of the report.
In addition, the results of a harvest survey conducted in Nondalton in 1973 by the
University of Alaska (Gasbarro, 1974) were integrated into this study.
The long-term, multimethod research design increases the likelihood of data
reliability and validity. The long period of contact with the community and
region, and the diverse research methods used, have provided numerous oppor-
tunities to cross-check information. Observation provided evidence that the
validity of quantitative measures of harvest levels gathered through the recall
method possibly varies between species. In the case of freshwater fish, birds, and
small game, there is more likelihood for errors in estimates because people
generally do not count or keep track of harvests of such resources. Harvest
estimates of larger species, such as moose and caribou, are much more likely to
be accurate.
-3-
If there is a systematic bias in informants' responses to questions about quantities
of resources harvested, it is probably toward understating harvests. This is
because some villagers were hesitant to report harvests which occurred out of
season or in excess of bag limits. Nondalton people say, for example, that they
have frequently understated subsistence salmon harvests on their fishing permits
out of fear that, if managers knew how many they were taking, their harvests
would be restricted. Some community leaders appear to be reevaluating this
strategy and have supported accurate reporting of fish and game harvests.
The survey format was designed to reduce this problem by asking about harvests
for the household as a whole, rather than for individuals. In this manner,
individual hunters were not identified in field notes or quantitative data.
Confidentiality was also assured respondents, who were informed that no
individual or household harvests would be reported, but only sample totals.
Because of the qualifications, the researcher feels that there was a reasonably
high reliability of response, that most people responded with as accurate
information as they could.
-4-
[
f c--
r-
r
L
r
[
[
[
c:
[
[
L
[
[
L
[
( __
L
[
--,
=
( NONDALTON AND THE ILIAMNA REGION
--..
Nondalton
The village of Nondalton is located between Lake Clark and Iliamna Lake, on the
northwestern shore of Six-Mile Lake (Figure 1). About 180 people lived in the
community year-round in 1981. Most of them consider themselves Dena'ina (or
1: Tanaina, as the name has been spelled in anthropological literature). They are
r'l
descendants of Athapaskan speaking groups which aboriginally inhabited the
drainages of the Newhalen River, Lake Clark, the upper Mulchatna River and the
~, Stony River. Because of this interior population distribution, the dialect which
L~ these people speak has been termed Inland Dena'ina to differentiate it from the
~~ dialects of the Dena'ina who inhabited Old Iliamna, both shores of Cook Inlet, the
Susitna River, and Knik Arm (Kari, 1975). Other Inland Dena'ina, close relatives
--.
, _ _)
of Nondalton people, live in Lime Village, 100 miles north of Nondalton; still
others live in the village of Stony River, at the mouth of the river of that name.
Nondalton is strategically located on a major waterway, which includes the upper
Newhalen River, Six-Mile Lake, Lake Clark, Little Lake Clark, the Tlikakila
River, and the Chulitna River. The Tazimina River empties into Six-Mile Lake
just across the lake from the village. These waterways and their valleys provide
--.-,
access to a variety of habitat types, including lakes, rivers, spruce-birch forests,
open dry tundra, and mountains. These habitats support a wide variety of fish and
wildlife.
(
__: ____./
~~
-5,
FIGURE 1:
THE LAKE ILIAMNA REGION
" -r~
~
ALSWORTH
~
-6-
[
c[
c
[
[
r
r
[
[
C~,
L
['
'
[
[
L
[
[
J~
CL
[
L
[
~~.
[
[
[
[
C
[
n L
[J
c
[
[
[
[
[
,~
~(-=\
[
L
The Regional Setting
Nearby settlements include Iliamna, Newhalen, Pedro Bay, Kakhonak, Igiugig, and
Port Alsworth. In addition to these six communities, which had a combined
population of about 350 in 1980 (U.S. Census, 1980), another twenty or thirty
individuals were living in isolated locations around Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark
in 1980 and 1981 (see Table 1).
Although inhabited by diverse ethnic groups and encompassing several diverse
environments, the area forms a distinct physical and socio-economic unit which,
for purposes of this study, will be called the Iliamna region. Three major bodies
of water--massive Iliamna Lake, mountainous Lake Clark, and the Newhalen River
which joins them--create a regional focus. These lakes and rivers serve as major
transportation routes which have brought diverse peoples into contact. They also
support one of the major sockeye salmon runs of the world.
The Iliamna region is a meeting place between several major environmental zones
and supports diverse flora and fauna (Williamson and Peyton, 1962). Little is
known of the early prehistory of the Iliamna region; it is likely, however, that the
region has been inhabited for thousands of years. Fish and game resources
continue to play a major role in the economy of the region.
The major fish species present in the Iliamna region include sockeye salmon,
arctic grayling, rainbow trout, dolly varden, arctic char, humpback and round
whitefish, burbot, lake trout, and northern pike. Moose inhabit the forested and
mountainous areas around Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark. Caribou of the
-7-
TABLE 1
ILIAMNA REGION POPULATION
1970 and 1980
1970
Nondalton 184
Port Alsworth
Iliamna 58
Newhalen 88
Pedro Bay 65
Kokhonak
Igiugig 36
Source: U.S. 1980 Census (preliminary)
-8-
1980
170
22
94
87
42
83
33
r
r c-
L
[
[
L
r
[
[~
,>
c~
~
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
C' -L
[
[
Lc
[
n
[
[
['
~
c
0
[J
[
c
[
[
[
[
,~
L.,,----,
(___)
c----:
L
l
Mulchatna herd range through the area north of Iliamna Lake and small groups of
caribou calve and remain year-round in the Stuyahok Hills area east of Iliamna
Lake. Brown bear are relatively common and concentrate on the numerous
salmon spawning streams during the summer and fall, while black bear are
abundant around Lake Clark. Iliamna Lake has a year-round population of seals.
Other land mammals present in the region include beaver, mink, muskrat, tundra
and snowshoe hare, land otter, red fox, wolf, wolverine, lynx, weasel, marmot,
ground squirrel, and porcupine. Ptarmigan and spruce grouse are present ye1'!r
round, sometimes in huge numbers. Migratory waterfowl, including swan, Canada
geese and a number of duck species, including mallard, pintail, greenwinged teal,
and old squaw pass through the region in spring and fall. Swans remain through
the summer in the area, nesting on small ponds.
Regional Economy and Society
Iliamna Lake has long been a meeting place between diverse cultural groups. The
distribution of ethnic groups and population in the aboriginal and early contact
period is not well understood since major population movements were underway
when Russian fur traders entered the region in the late 18th century (Osgood,
1963; Townsend, 1970, 1973). At the turn of the present century, however, the
Iliamna Lake area was a meeting place of the Dena 'ina and Yup 'ik Eskimo groups
(Townsend, 1965, 1973). Increasing numbers of whites were also entering the
region as prospectors, trappers, and traders.
-9-
Today, the Oena'ina are concentrated in the communities of Nondalton, Pedro
Bay, and Iliamna, while Yup'ik Eskimo speakers are concentrated in Kakhonak,
Igiugig, and Newhalen. The community of Port Alsworth is predominately Euro-
American. There are also significant concentrations of Euro-Americans in
Iliamna. A number of people of Euro-American and Oena'ina descent live in
scattered locations around the shores of Lake Clark and Iliamna Lake.
As a whole, villages with residents of Oena'ina and Yup'ik descent have
maintained relatively distinct identities and social groupings despite long periods
of contact. There is considerable interaction between communities, however.
Because of this, at a . general analytic level it is possible to consider the
communities of the Iliamna region as comprising a single social and economic
region. Although the bulk of this study focuses on the Oena'ina on Nondalton, it
seems worthwhile to examine the characteristics of the region as a whole first.
This allows the identification of commonalities, particularly in economic adapta-
tions to the regional environment, and provides a context for describing the
economy of Nondalton.
The people of the Ilimana region can be considered a regional society, despite
ethnic differences, because of the high degree of social and economic interaction
between the different communities. Most of the villages are closely linked by
kinship ties. Ties of blood and marriage are particularly close between the Yup'ik
communities of Igiugig, Levelock, and Kakhonak and less close between these
communities and Newhalen. The Oena'ina communities of Nondalton and Pedro
Bay are similarly linked. Other close relatives of these people live in Lime
-10-
[
cr
r·
L,
['
[
[
r
[
[
c~
l.~
[
[
r
L
[
[
[
C,
L
[
c
[_~,
(~---
[
[
[
c
[
c
c
[J
c
c
c
[
[
[
[ c [
[
Village and Stony River in the Kuskokwim drainage. Iliamna also has some
families of Dena'ina descent as well as people of Yup'ik and Euro-American
descent.
There have been some marriages between people of Yup'ik and Dena'ina descent
in recent years. This has created fairly close ties between a few Nondalton and
Newhalen families. Other families have members who have settled in Nondalton,
Newhalen, Iliamna, and Kakhonak and have created major linkages between those
villages.
The communities of the area are linked by two sets of major social ceremonies.
The first is "Slavi "--the Russian Orthodox tradition of travelling to other
communities and visiting every house in each place at Russian Christmas. The
second is late winter carnivals in which dog-racing, visiting and gambling play a
large part. The sets of inter-village relationships are much the same in both
cases; there is much interchange between Newhalen, Kakhonak, Igiugig and
Nondalton, less between these communities and those of the Nushagak River.
A third major linkage is linguistic. Although middle-aged and older people of
most of the communities speak either Dena'ina or Yup'ik, English is in common
use. Therefore, the three ethnic groups of the area can communicate.
Interethnic communication is not recent, however, since people point out that
both groups spoke Russian, and that long ago the Dena 'ina often understood or
spoke Yup 'ik dialects.
-11-
All the communities of the Iliamna region share a common economy, if that term
is understood to mean a social group's system of production, consumption and
exchange. Commercial salmon fishing in Bristol Bay, firefighting for the Bureau
of Land Management, temporary work on construction within and outside of the
region, and trapping have been the major sources of monetary income for most
people, regardless of ethnic affiliation, over the last twenty years. Putting up
salmon, hunting moose and caribou, and harvesting fresh-water fish species are
major sources of "subsistence" income. All communities in the region have a
heavy reliance on these resources. For most residents of this region monetary
incomes are limited, highly seasonal, and variable from year to year.
The communities of the area are also linked by growing dependence upon the
community of Iliamna as a transportation hub and service center. Wien Air
Alaska provides daily flights between Anchorage and Iliamna during the summer
and three times per week during winter. In the last two years Wien has initiated
jet service. The Federal Aviation Administration has a flight service station in
Iliamna and there is a state highway facility for maintaining the runway. Several
air services operate out of Iliamna, serving primarily the seven communities of
the Iliamna. One of three stores in the region is located in Iliamna; the other
two are located in Nondalton.
-12-
[
(J
["
[
[
[
r
[
[
C"
L=
[
[
[
[
[
L.
L
c[
L
[
C~~-\_·
[
[ ...
-~
[
r
L"
[
c
c
[)
-.._/
[
c
r-~
L_,
c-l
!.cor
[
[
I>
l_(_\
---"-../
L
~.J
THE ECONOMY OF NONDALTON
The harvests of fish and wildlife for household use and the monetary sector of the
economy have both been important to the people of the Iliamna region since the
Russian fur trade era (Townsend, 1965, 1966). Opportunities to earn money have
historically been highly seasonal and variable from year to year. Trapping,
handcraft production, and freighting for prospectors and traders were the major
sources of money or credit for Nondalton people early in the twentieth century.
Cannery work and commercial fishing provided additional opportunities in the
1930s and 1940s. Some trapping continued into the 1980s but the significance of
trapping declined greatly during the 1950s as fur prices dropped in relation to both
the cost of living and costs of production. In the 1970s and early 1980s the
economy of Nondalton was based on a close integration of production for
household use, and monetary income.
The Monetary Sector
This section briefly describes the basic elements of the monetary sector of
contemporary Nondalton economy. It describes the opportunities for earning
money which were available in the community and in the region during the study
period as well as patterns of employment.
As noted in the preceding section, a limited number of wage employment
opportunities were available in the Iliamna region. The opportunities which did
-13-
exist, such as commercial fishing, firefighting, and construction, were con-
centrated in the short summer season. A few jobs were available year-round in
the village, but these were often part-time or low-paying. Many of the
employment options available to residents of the area involved leaving the region
for periods of time.
Only four jobs in Nondalton have been relatively long-term, existing over most of
the past decade. These included the postmaster, school janitor, water system
maintenance, and health aide positions. These jobs were basically year-round, but,
with the exception of the janitor position, part-time and low paying. Since the
construction of a high school in 1978, the school has been the most important
employer in Nondalton, providing three full-time jobs (nine months), and about
five part-time jobs.
Construction work occasionally has been available in public works projects for
small numbers of people over short periods, such as the construction of
Nondalton's water and sewer system in the mid-1970s. Few Nondalton men were
employed when a new school was constructed in the village, however. State and
federal funds occasionally have provided a small number of jobs such as village
administrator and short-term projects such as community hall renovation.
Nondalton residents recognized that these jobs were particularly uncertain and
vulnerable to funding cuts.
During the study period (1976-1980), three or four Nondalton men worked on
construction jobs outside the village as laborers or equipment operators. Two men
worked on the Alaska Pipeline during its construction in the early 1970s, for
-14-
[
cr
[
[
[
[
[
[
C
c:
[
Q
[
[J
c
[
f' L;'
CL
L'
(~
___I
--'
__.}
--'
[
lJ
[: ,'-../'
n
~
'
'--'
'----'
r~
I
L-'
[0
[
[
example. These same men have continued to work seasonal construction jobs
outside the village for four to six months 'in most years, leaving Lheir families in
the village.
Other Nondalton people worked seasonally as firefighters. This was particularly
important during summers when fishing was expected to be poor in Bristol Bay.
Firefighting also served as a source of income for people who were not involved
in the Bristol Bay fishery. The Bureau of Land Management has relied heavily on
villages, including Nondalton, to provide emergency firefighters. Crews of about
15 people were organized by a village "crew boss" who was responsible for
assembling the crew on a few hours notice to be flown to a fire. Individual
incomes from firefighting ranged from about two hundred to two thousand dollars
for the season. In some years the village fielded one to three crews, including
young men and women. Firefighting employment, which was restricted to the
summer months, was also highly unpredictable and variable from year to year
depending on the severity and locations of fires across the state.
Nondalton residents have participated in the Bristol Bay commercial salmon
fishery to varying degrees for more than sixty years. In the 1920s a small number
were involved primarily as cannery workers or laborers. During the 1930s and
1940s many Nondalton residents began fishing commercially.
Historically most Nondalton people have had a marginal association with the
· Bristol Bay fishery, in part because of its distance from Bristol Bay. Residents
or the village have not invested heavily in gear or boats in compal'ison with other
commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay. They generally fish only the peak of the
-15-
I
these were all older wooden boats in poor condition. Lack of competitive
J
I sockeye run. Only three residents of Nondalton owned fishing boats in 1981 and
equipment and the time and cash required to maintain old equipment, has limited I
the productivity of the few Nondalton boat owners. Nondalton set netters also
often have trouble obtaining the gear necessary to compete effectively. I
Nondalton residents have adapted their summer economic activities to the highly I
cyclic nature of the sockeye runs of the Naknek and Kvichak systems. From
about 1950s through 1975, peak runs tended to occur at five year intervals, with I
poorer runs in years between these peaks. As one strategy during this period, I
Nondalton people attempted to minimize economic losses by not investing heavily
in the fishery. In years of poor runs, Nondalton residents, like other people from I
the Iliamna region, found that their earnings barely covered expenses. Non-
dalton's distance from the coast added to transportation costs to and from the • fishery. Poor gear made it more difficult to compete for the smaller number of
fish available in lean years.
Historically, Nondalton people have tended to remain in the village to seek other ..
work when poor fishing was expected. When high runs were predicted, they would
return to Bristol Bay. After several years of very poor runs in the early 1970s,
Bristol Bay was declared a "disaster area" in 1974. Poor runs were predicted well 1
in advance by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and few Nondalton
re s idents fished commercially from 1972 to 1974. In 1974, 73 percent (19 of 26)
of the households in Nondalton had members who considered themselves
commercial fishermen; none of them made any muney fishing in 1973 (Gasbarro,
1974).
I
-16-
[
[c-~
( '
'---' [
[
[
[
D
D
0
[~
,-._/
D
[
[
[
c
c
[
Cc
As in the case of trapping, historically the credit relationship was an important
aspect of commercial fishing for the Nondalton Dena'ina. They purchased boats
on credit from the cannery and often relied on credit to purchase a winter's
supply of groceries after the fishing season.
As Bristol Bay salmon runs improved in the late 1970s, Nondalton people increased
their participation in commercial fishing. Peak years between 1979 and 1981
brought about a major resurgence of fishing by residents of the community~
However, entry to the fishery had been limited by legislation during the mid-
1970s, with considerable impact on Nondalton resident's fishing opportunities.
The Limited Entry Commission weighted 1971 and 1972 particularly heavily in
awarding points for fishing participation to qualify for Limited Entry Permits.
Many Nondalton residents who felt they should qualify for permits had not fished
in those years, and therefore did not receive permits.
In 1980 Nondalton residents owned 25 Bristol Bay limited entry permits. These
included 13 set net permits and 12 drift net permits (Langdon, 1981). Three
interim use permits were still being adjudicated at the time of this study. The
ratio of permits per capita in Nondalton (about 1:6.4) was similar to those in other
Iliamna communities which ranged from 1:6 to 1:7 in 1980. This contrasted with
most other Bristol Bay communities, where ratios varied from one permit for
every two people (Egegik, Pilot Point, Naknek) to one permit for every four
people (Togiak, Levelock) (Langdon, 1981). Several younger people who did not
own permits worked as assistants for other fishermen in 1980 and 1981.
-17-
In 1979 and 1980, the structure of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery was considerably
different than in the late 1960s. The capital costs of fishing had increased
dramatically, as most fishermen invested in larger, more efficient boats.
Canneries no longer provided credit to fishermen, cutting off the major source of
investment capital to Nondalton residents. Nondalton people had little access to
other sources of credit to finance boats and equipment. Many Nondalton people
[
c[
[
[
r
also had difficulty finding markets for their fish. [
Nondalton men with drift permits who did not own boats in the late 1970s began
to fish as partners on boats owned by others, generally non-local fishermen who
did not have permits. In such cases the share for the Nondalton permit-holder
averaged about 30 to 40 percent. In the best case, this system enabled people
to take advantage of newer, more efficient equipment, producing larger catches
and larger incomes. In the worst case, Nondalton fishermen found themselves the
victims of poor partnerships, misunderstanding and bad faith, and in these cases
made little money.
In 1980 and 1981 most Nondalton drift fishermen fished for the Alaska Packers
cann~ry in South Naknek. Most Nondalton people arrived in South Naknek during
the first week of June to prepare fishing boats and set up camps at their set net
sites. In order to reach the fishing area, people chartered aircraft from
Nondalton to South Naknek. A few men came across Iliamna Lake and down the
Kvichak River by skiff, a trip which, under good weather conditions, takes a day
and costs about fifty dollars for gas and oil. Most Nondalton commercial
fishermen stayed through the early July peak of the sockeye run, returning home
beginning in mid-to-late July.
-18-
[
[
[
cr
-L
[
[
[-.
·'
[
[
[
[
cc
[
[
r~
~ ('-~~ ~ Half of the fourteen households surveyed in 1981 had members who fished
!"""'~
l_ commercially in the 1980 season. The mean gross earnings from commercial
[
fishing reported by these seven households was $8,442. Household earnings ranged
from a low of about $100 to a high of $30,000 (the high case representing the
" earnings of a household with four members participating in the fishery).
[ There was greater participation in fishing during the 1981 season. Sixty-eight
percent (13 of 19) of the households surveyed indicated that members had fished
[ commercially in 1981. Twenty five members of these thirteen households
[ participated in the Bristol Bay fishery. Ten of the nineteen households owned
limited entry permits.
[
Transfer payments and social security were minor sources of income for the
[")
_}...___......
village as a whole, although very important to a few households with disabled or
elderly mEmbers. These payments may help some families get through periods of
C low income in some years.
[ The income data collected in 1980 and indirect evidence and observation indicates
[~ that there are wide differences in income between households. Four or five
households consistently earn higher incomes than others, but all are subject to
[ significant fluctuations in income from year to year.
[ Most Nondalton individuals tended to work at a range of jobs, despite the small
[ number of options, rather than specializing in one skill. They tended to avoid
being too dependent on any one activity in an economy characterized by seasonal
[ r
and annual fluctuations. Most households attempted to reduce economic risk by
[~
-19-
[
employing several members of their household if possible. Another major way of
diversifying opportunities, reducing costs, and reducing risk was tci produce their
own food, heating fuel, goods, and equipment.
Living Costs and the Need for Cash
Social, economic, and technological change in the Iliamna region, as in most rural
areas of Alaska, has increased the necessity for a household to maintain relatively
consistent sources of cash income. The cost of imported products was
particularly high in the village of Nondalton in 1980 and 1981 because of its
inaccessibility by surface transportation and its distance from transport at ion and
service centers. Goods had to be brought into the village by ·air or by a
combination of water and overland transport. Shelter, food, fuel for space
heating, transportation, power generation, and equipment necessary for domestic
production were among the major costs in the village. Some of these costs are
illustrated with the following examples.
the single greatest cost for a Nondalton household in 1980 and 1981 was fuel for
heating, electrical power, and transportation. Most homes in Nondalton, including
both the old log buildings and houses built through various federal programs, were
poorly insulated and inefficient in use of heating energy. With rapidly rising fuel
costs in the late 1970s and early 1980s, these houses began to impose an
increasing financial burden on many households.
-20-
[
cr
[
[
[
[
[
L
[
c:
[
[
[
[
[
[
c[
[
L
-l~
"9
_)
~
"""'
:::-1
_ _J
..
=.-i
~~
\
.J
=-->
_J
_;
--'
__;;
'
-'
~J
-,
~c
Just over one-third of the families in Nondalton heated primarily with oil, while
the rest heated primarily with wood. Three of the families who heat
predominately with oil estimate that they use from 8 to 15 barrels per year (440
to 825 gallons) for space heating.
However, the major expense for fuel for several families was for electrical
generation. There is no village power plant in Nondalton, and about twenty
percent of the households have small gas or diesel generators to power lights,
radios, and tools. About five families have freezers.
Even families without electrical power had significant power costs, since they
used gas or kerosene lanterns. These fuels were also expensive in Nondalton,
ranging from $4.00 to $5.00 per gallon in 1980 and 1981.
The village water and sewer system has also increased the need for cash in the
community over the last five or six years. A $35.00 monthly service charge per
household is presently not covering even the cost of fuel oil to keep water
circulating in the system. In 1982, the service charge was due to be increased
substantially.
During the fall, fuels were delivered at Iliamna by barge from Naknek and could
be purchased in bulk by individuals. The fall 1981 bulk price for fuel oil was
about $1.30 per gallon. Transportation of drums of fuel across the Newhalen
Portage by truck, and then up the Newhalen River by skiff added an estimated
$.30 per gallon, plus considerable labor, making fuel oil at least $1.60 per gallon
delivered in the village. Many Newhalen families were not able to buy fuel in
-21-
bulk, however, due to lack of cash, storage drums, and means of transporting the
drums over the Newhalen Portage. Once the barges stopped hauling fuel, during
September or October, the price of fuel rose rapidly, reaching $1.93 in Iliamna in
October, 1981. Several families bought drums of fuel oil at this cost, increasing
the cost in Nondalton to about $2.33 per gallon. During the winters of 1980 and
1981, some fuel oil was flown into Nondalton at a cost ranging from $2.20 to
$2.50 per gallcn.
The three case examples below illustrate fuel costs for three Nondalton
households in 1981. One family which had a freezer and basic appliances ran their
generator fairly constantly and purchased fuel in bulk. They estimated the
following costs for fuel for heating, cooking and electricity in 1980: space
heating, 10 drums of fuel oil at $88.00 per drum; cooking, six 100 pound bottles
of propane at $75.00 per bottle; and electricity, 30 drums of fuel oil at $88.00
per drum, for a total of $3,970.00 per year. Another family with a freezer, which
supplemented with wood for heating and heated water and ran a clothes dryer
with propane, estimated the following costs: space heating, 8 drums of fuel oil
at $104.50 per drum; propane for cooking, heating water and drying clothes, 30
bottles at $75.00 per bottle; and electricity, 12 drums of fuel oil at $104.50 per
drum, for a total of $4,340.00 per year. Finally, a lower income Nondalton family
which heated with wood and did not have electrical power, estimated the
following costs for 1981: lighting, about 120 gallons of Blazo at $5.00 per gallon;
propane, 15 bottles at $75.00 per bottle; gasoline for snowmachine and chainsaw
for obtaining wood, one drum at $110.00, for a total of $1,835.00 per year.
Several Nondalton households indicated that they were spending between one-
quarter and one-third of their annual gross income on fuels in 1980 and 1981.
-22-
[
cr
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
c9
L;
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
c[
L
[
r.~
-~~I
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[:)
c
[
l__j
[
[
[
[c
1-,
L_~
Food prices in Nondalton were also quite high, as they are in most small remote
communities in Alaska. A survey of prices for typical food items in Nondalton
in 1980 indicated food costs were about forty percent higher than in Anchorage.
The high cost of air-freight and the small scale of stores in the area contribute
to high costs. There was one store in Iliamna in 1980-1981, and two stores in
Nondalton (a cooperative village store and a smaller store owned by the village
corporation). In addition, two families sold foods out of their homes, primarily
candy, pop, and cigarettes, but also occasionally eggs and bread. Most fo~ds~
except for frozen items, are shipped by mail to the village. Frozen items must
be shipped air-freight to Iliamna and retransported by air-taxi to Nondalton. Air
freight rates to Iliamna in 1981 were $.27 per pound, while air-taxis charged $.15
per pound (for 100 pounds or more) for shipment to villages in the region.
Purchasing and maintaining transportation and hunting and fishing equipment was
also a major expense to Nondalton families in 1980 and 1981. Since one of the
objectives of this study was to explore the effects of inflation, particularly the
rising costs of fuel, on subsistence production by Nondalton residents, information
on the costs of maintaining hunting equipment was gathered in Nondalton. This
information, presented in Table 2 shows that the cost of maintaining a typical
complement cf hunting and fishing equipment in Nondalton is at least $2,030 per
:rear. This represents a minimal set of gear for supporting the fishing and hunting
activities of a household. The costs of fuel for running snowmachines and
outboards is also substantial, commonly running $500-$1,000 per year.
In addition to the high costs of mobility for hunting and trapping purposes, the
residents of Nondalton had large expenses related to travel outside the immediate
-23-
I
N
~
I
~
TABLE 2
FIXED CAPITAL COSTS PER YEAR OF HUNTING AND FISHING EQUIPMENT FOR A
!3~RRESENT A TIVE NONDALTON HOUSEHOLD (1981)
Replacement Life
Cost (Years) Depreciation MaintenanceS Annual Costs
16' Aluminum Skiff
35 hp Outboard
Small Snowmachine
30.06 Rifle
12 Ga. Shotgun
.22 Rifle
Snares (3 doz.)
112 Traps (2 doz.)
Salmon Net (50 fathom)
ln=9
2n=l9
3n=l3
4based on Wolfe, 1979
$1,500 91
1,800 3.82
1,800 3. 73
300 6.84
275 7.54
125 134
64 1.5
120 1Q4
350 6
5informant 's estimates of average annual maintenance costs.
n n r--: .r-1 ~ r:--1 r--1 ~ r:-:-:1 r:-n r ] 1.. ,j '
$166 $166
474 $350 824
486 350 836
44 44
37 37
10 10
43 43
12 12
58 58
Total Annual Costs $2,030
r:1 r--:7) r-1 r-:1 lJ c-l .~
l J
(~
'~ _r--]
--,
__.,
~.
~
-..1
i
'='
Cl
F"'l
=d
,~)
.__/
_::]
~,
=c
area of the village. There are no scheduled air-taxi flights between Nondalton or
Iliamna and the Naknek area where Nondalton people fish commercially for
salmon. A round trip charter costs about $650.00, though this may be split
between three or four people. A round trip flight to Iliamna to go to the store,
to visit, or to catch the scheduled flight to Anchorage, costs about $50.00 per
person; the round trip from Iliamna to Anchorage costs $150.00.
In part because of the high costs of imported foods, materials goods, and energy,
th1~ people of Nondalton have continued to rely heavily on a wide range of local
resources, including fish, game, plants, and wood. The limited and highly variable
monetary incomes typical of the Iliamna area are not sufficient to enable most
Nondalton families to rely solely on store purchases. The monetary incomes are
not reliable enough to allow people to be completely dependent on imported goods
even when they do have enough money to buy food. There are, of course, non-
monetary rea .;ons, to be discussed below, that also perpetuate reliance on local
fish, wildlife, and other resources.
It appears that in Nondalton, as in other Alaskan communities, people have found
that the best and most efficient use of ·~heir limited monetary income has been
to invest a substantial portion of it into hunting and fishing equipment and
operating costs. This investment, combined with labor for which there are often
few other demands, produces a higher return in food than would have been
possible if equivalent amounts were spent on imported foods (see Wolfe, 1979,
1981).
-25-
The Seasonal Round of Resource Use in 1981
The second major sector of the economy of Nondalton is harvest of fish, wildlife
plants, and other local resources for domestic use and local distribution and
exchange. These economic activities in 1981 were closely tied to annual cycles
of fish and wildlife populations. Each season brought a different set of economic
opportunities to residents of the community. Figures 2 illustrates the general
seasonal round of economic activity by showing typical times of harvest for
selected resources. As can be seen, during the summer months relatively few fish
and wildlife species were sought. The summer period was spent large! y on putting
up salmon for household use and earning cash. During the rest of the year a wide
range of resources were utilized.
The seasonal round is portrayed in this figure as beginning with the calendar year.
The month of May would be a more appropriate starting point from a cultural-
ecological perspective, since spring marks the end of a traditional late winter
~
resource scarcity and move to spring camp.
Incidental harvests are not depicted in Figure 2, which is intended to illustrate the
major periods of time when particular resources were actively sought or regularly
harvested. The figure also does not directly reflect the seasonal abundance or
distribution of fish and wildlife species, since a resource may have been available
in the Nondalton area even though it was not being harvested. For example, little
effort was devoted during mid-summer to catching grayling, trout, or whitefish in
the waters of the area, because people were too busy with other economic
activities such as putting up salmon and seasonal wage employment. Figure 2
-26-
[
c[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
c:
[
l
[
[
[
[
[
ct:
L
ijj r-:~-)r:-1
j
lJ
I
N
-.J
I
FIGURE 2.
Grayling
Lake Trout
Whitefish
Pike
Dolly Varden
Sockeye
·Moose
Caribou
Black Bear
Brown Bear
Waterfowl
Ptarmigan
Spruce Grouse
Porcupine
Hare
Fox
Lynx
Marten
Otter
Beaver
Berries
Wood
~ lj "-c-J ~ ~ r-l
(_)
~ c-=::i r--J c-J r-l r-J r-Jr~
·. )
SEASONAL ROUND OF HARVEST ACTIVITY FOR SELECTED SPECIES, NONDALTON, 1971-1981
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Break-up Freeze-up
--- -
-- - -
----------
----
-------------- - -
---------------------------------------
Commercial Fishing
Usual period of harvest effort Occasional effort-- ---
r-l
does not portray the great degree of variability in timing and level of harvest
effort which is characteristic of hunting and fishing activities. Environmental
conditions greatly influence when, where, and how harvest activities occur. For
example, a warm winter in 1976 meant there was little snow cover, so that
snowmachines could not be used for trapping or moose hunting most of the winter.
Lake Clark did not freeze and boats were used for trapping in that area in
January and February. A period of extreme cold or wind, on the other hand,
prevented people from fishing through the ice for two weeks in February, despite
the fact that people usually devote considerable time during February and March
to ice-fishing. Finally, there are certain resources not depicted in the figure
which are also harvested, especially wild plant products. These are not included
[
c[
[
[
[
[
[
[
because of lack of detailed information. [
The following section describes the seasonal round of activity in Nondalton in
1981 depicted in Figure 2 to illustrate some of the specific factors which affect
harvests, resource use, and economic options in Nondalton. This description is
necessarily selective. It is intended to portray the main outlines of the seasonal
round, but not all of its complexity.
The beginning of the new year in Nondalton, as in other predominately Russian
Orthodox communities in the Iliamna Lake region, was closely tied to religious
and social celebrations. During the first and second weeks of January, most
activities focused around the Orthodox holidays. People rushed to get foods
together for visitors from other villages. At "Slavi," the Russian Orthodox winter
holiday, people from villages throughout the Iliamna Lake region and as far as the
upper NushngLJk River cnmc to Nondalton. In turn, Nondalton resident:; vir;i I cd
-28-
c:
[
0
[
[
[
[
[
CL
L
\
=<
~·
~,
C1
r=-,
~~,
~'
__)
---,
~C'
other communities in the reqion. Most. hunting and trapping activity ceased
during this time of important social interchange.
Gathering of firewood for heat and steambaths was a contant activity throughout
the winter. In most years, a few men would trap in late January. However, in
the first months of 1981 there was no snow in the Iliamna Lake or Nondalton
areas. Most pe()ple did not consider it worth the effort, expense, or wear on
snowmachines to travel long distances to trap. A few made sets for fox, lynx,
and marten on the mountain behind the village. Others put out traps down the
Newhalen River which they could check by walking. Two families with "three
wheelers" used them to check traps.
The beaver regulatory season opened February 1, 1981, but the absence of snow
throughout the two month season restricted trappers to areas close to the village.
A group of four families camped up on lower Lake Clark in mid-February and used
a combination of snowmachine travel and walking to reach beaver houses in that
I
area. Four or five other people trapped for beaver in the Tazimina River and
Pickerel Lake areas, located across Six-Mile Lake four miles east of the village.
These areas could be reached only by a short snowmachine trip across glare ice
and a rough ride through frozen swamp. The equipment used by Nondalton
trappers did not hold up well under these rough snowless conditions, and many
people had to make major repairs to snowmachines and sleds. One family put out
a gill net down the Newhalen River for dolly varden. During trips by three
wheeler or snowmachine on the bare ice to check his net, he also checked beaver
sets by walking back in from the river about two miles. Many people spent long
hours fishing through the ice in front of the village and by the mouth of the
-29-
Tazimina River during February and March. On warm, sunny weekends, 40 or 50
people were out fishing. Productivity varied from about one to ten fish per
person per hour, mainly grayling, with some lake trout, whitefish, dolly varden,
and rainbow trout.
The lack of snow in January and February also reduced opportunities to harvest
caribou, although a few which wandered close the lake and village were killed.
These poor travel conditions were common between 1976 and 1981. In years with
better travel conditions, Nondalton people travel into Chulitna drainage, the upper
Talarik Creek, the drainages of the Chulitna, Upper Talarik, and Koktuli Rivers,
as well as up Lake Clark to trap and to hunt large game. Traditional hunting
areas for caribou were even wider, including the entire upper Mulchatna
watershed.
Late spring, the latter part of April and May, was traditionally a time of food
shortages and economic stresses for the Nondalton Dena 'ina. Travel was difficult
during this time, and food stores were usually low. In 1981 the little snow that
fell during late winter was gone from the immediate vicinity of Nondalton by
April, ahd smaller lakes and creeks had lost their ice cover, thus ending the
season of snowmachine use. A relatively small number of fish and game resources
were available in the vicinity of Nondalton during this period of limited mobility.
Until the 1960s, it was common for most residents to move to spring camps during
the break-up period, particularly along the lower Chulitna River and the Chulitna
Bay area of Lake Clark, where beaver muskrat, waterfowl, and fish species such
as pike and whitefish could be obtained. One or two families continued this
pattern in the late 1970s and early 1980s but the need to keep children in school
-30-
[
c[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
C.,
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
cc
L
(~' made it difficult for others to leave the village. For most families which
remained in Nondalton, only small quantites of fish and game resources were
harvested during the months of April and May. During this time, many families
relied upon fish species such as lake trout and grayling.
Break-up occurred relatively early in 1981: the ice cleared from in front of
Nondalton in late April. It was then possible to resume boat travel after the long
period of low mobility. People immediately put boats into the water to travel
down the Newhalen River. The ice also cleared from the lower end of Lake Clark
::::J
=J early so that during the first and second weeks of May a number of persons took
_) boats into Lake Clark. In some years, break-up on Lake Clark has not occurred
""! until nearly a month later, in late May or early June.
~~,
\
"---'!
With sunny and warm weather in early May, a number of families traveled by boat
about 10 miles from Nondalton up into the Snowshoe Bay area of Lake Clark to
camp. Weekends were particularly favored for these trips, since school-age
children could then go along. On these trips, people fished with hook and line in
the area near the mouth of Snowshoe Bay for lake trout and pike. Two families
set gill-nets for these species in small bays. Ducks were occasionally shot and
people kept a close eye on the mountainsides for caribou and black bear.
In late May and early June three or four Nondalton families camped in the
Chulitna Bay area about twenty miles from the village. They hunted muskrat and
duck and put out nets for pike. Pike were split and dried for food for the family
and dogs. Dried pike was frequently consumed by families during commercial
fishing season in Bristol Bay. Pike also were caught by hook and line up the
,C'
L -31-
l
Chulitna River. Two or three boats went up Lake Clark as far as Chulitna Bay
to take a group of children camping as part of an outdoor education class. Lack
of gasoline restricted the mobility of Nondalton families in spring, 1981. Gas was
flown and sold at a price of $2.75 per gallon in May 1981. Several families
mentioned that these high costs caused them to limit their boat travel.
At least five or six families set gill-nets on Six-Mile Lake within two miles of the
village during May. These nets were fairly productive, taking mainly lake trout
and pike, as well as some burbot and suckers. Three or four families appeared
to be relying heavily on the fish for food. Most of the dried salmon from the
previous summer was gone. Some fresh fish was used to feed dog teams.
Although little mention is made of flora in this study, the people of Nondalton use
a wide variety of plants throughout the year. Spruce, birch, and other woods,
used for fuel and tools, are the most common example. The Dena'iria have used
hundreds of other plants for food, medici: ,e, coloring, and crafts and Kari (1977)
provides Dena'ina plant names and describes Dena'ina use of plants in considerable
detail.
By June 8 residents of Newhalen, seventeen miles south of Nondalton, were
catching a few salmon. Some Nondalton residents were given fresh salmon from
friends or relatives in that community. The first sockeye salmon of the 1981
season reached the upper Newhalen River by about June 20. A few Nondalton
people put out nets near the Newhalen River Landing, about eight miles below the
village, to harvest the earliest fish. As the run increased, these nets were moved
-32-
[
cL
r-
[
[
[
[
c
c
c:
[
[
[
L
[
L
[ c L
[
[
~~.
\ closer lo the village of Nondalton to conserve time and gasoline while checking
[ nets and transporting fish for domestic processing.
[ Relatively few families participated in the early summer subsistence salmon
[ fishing at Nondalton in 1981, because so many people traveled to Bristol Bay to
fish. A few families traveled to Bristol Bay by skiff during the second week of
[ June, while others chartered aircraft. Preparation of gear and boats occupied
people until fishing began in earnest in late June. Enough sockeye and kings for
[ fresh meals for the fisherman's family were retained from commercial catches.
[
One or two Nondalton families obtained subsistence salmon permits from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game office in King Salmon, which allowed them
c to set a separate net to take fish for family use. Families did not dry large
quantities of salmon during the short, intense commercial fishing season.
[-----;
-'---=-'/
Preparation would have taken time from commercial fishing. Also, because of the
long distance and expense of travel, it was not considered worthwhile to transport
[ dried fish back to the village at the end of the season. Several families obtained
[
one or two quarts of seal oil from Kvichak River residents to bring back to the
village to eat with dried fish.
[
As can be expected from the seasonal movements of Nondalton residents in 1981,
[ by late June and early July few people were left in Nondalton. Those who
remained prepared for the arrival of the main run of sockeye. They also cut and
[ hauled supplies of cottonwood for smoking fish; repaired "fish boxes" for storing
[
freshly caught salmon in the water until they were cut; repaired cutting tables
and smokehouses; and prepared drying racks.
~~
L
[c
-33-
[
About the Fourth of July, several women flew to South Naknek to visit husbands
who were commercial fishing during the holidays. At that time only small
numbers of sockeye were being caught each day in Nondalton, about 4 to 15 fish
per net each day. Just after July 4, the number of salmon reaching the upper
Newhalen River and lower Six-Mile Lake increased and catches rose to 20 to 30
fish per day per net. Daily catches peaked by about July 20, with catches of 120
to 130 sockeye per day being possibly. Catches then tapered off toward the end
of the month as the main run moved past into Lake Clark, and as people who had
been fishing consistently met harvest goals. Table 3 depicts the daily catches of
one Nondalton woman who was assisted by her partially disabled husband and
grandchildren. She supplied three households with dried fish: herself and her
husband; an adult son, his wife, and their four children; and a sin~,;le, unmarried
son who lived alone. In addition, she supplied about 20 salmon to another family
which did not fish but usually canned salmon each year, in return for freshly
baked bread. This Table illustrates internal restraints on harvest. When
household members had as many fish as they could process, they pulled the net
out of the water.
Dog teams at Nondalton were usually maintained during summer at fish camps.
Dogs were fed with salmon guts, eggs, heads, and other by-products of dried fish
preparation, cooked into a mash every couple of days. Cooking for dogs, heating
the tents at fish camp, and keeping smoke in the smokehouse required large
quantities of wood. Children assisted in getting wood, hauling water, and other
chores.
-34-
[
c[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
c:
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
c[
l
[
r -~
t ' '---~
[
c
[
[
b
C
c
[~
p ~
c
c
[j
[
[
[_,
L'
[
[
July
August
TABLE 3
EXAMPLE OF DAILY SOCKEYE HARVEST BY A
NONDALTON WOMAN (1981)
Date Number of Fish --
3 2
4 11
5 26
6 26
7 21
8 Net Pulled Out
9 28
10 21
11 37
12 67
13 43
14 -17 Net Pulled Out
18 82
19 124
20 126
21 -23 Net Pulled Out
24 65
25 Net Pulled Out
26 26
27 Net Pulled Out
28 26
29 -August 8 Net Pulled Out
9 102
10 -16 Net Pulled Out
17 27 (Plus 2 dolly varden)
18 7 -
Total Sockeye 8671
1 Salmon catch was distributed among four households, as des-
cribed in the text.
-35-
After people returned from commercial fishing in Bristol Bay, there was a flurry
of activity in the village. Many people returned with new boats, motors, and
gasoline and began making numerous boat trips up into Lake Clark. Families who
did not get a chance to put up salmon earlier in the summer went to fish camps
around lower Lake Clark and along Chulitna Bay, where fish stayed bright later
into the fall than they did in Six-Mile Lake. By mid-August people began to look
for blueberries and crowberries. However, in 1981 as in several recent years,
there were poor crops, perhaps due to the lack of winter snow cover.
Apparently, because of large commercial harvests in the Naknek-Kvichak districts
and reduced escapements upriver, relatively small numbers of sockeye were
available in Six-mile Lake after mid-July. Nondalton residents who returned to
the village in mid-to-late July from commercial fishing to put up fish for
household use said they found it difficult to fill family food stores. Salmon for
subsistence use at that time were taken with set nets near the village or from
camps previously described. Weather was relatively dry in 1981, and fish dried
much better than they had the previous summer, when wet weather soured much
drying salmon.
·Old fish camps scattered along the Newhalen River two to five miles below
Nondalton were not occupied during summer, 1981, although nets were oc-
casionally set in these locations. Fish camps closer to the village, particularly at
the narrows where the Newhalen River begins, were occupied and used by about
eight families. Two families constructed new smokehouses and tent-frames at
fish camps relatively close to the village. This was the first time in several years
that major improvements had been made to fish camps in the area, indicating a
-.56-
[
cr~
[
[
[
[
b
[
c
c~
[
c
[
[
[
[
r~
CJ
[
[
c
l~~,
~ .... ,...._____/
[
c
[
[
b
c
c
D
c
c
[
[
[
[
lc
[
[
general trend toward locating fish camps closer to the village. This may have
been related to the high costs of fuel for traveling back and forth between the
village and fish camp.
People who did not commercial fish in 1981, including young and middle aged men
and several women, w·ere employed as firefighters in early summer 1981. In
addition to the Bureau of. Land Management, which has commonly hired Nondalton
fire fighting crews in Lhe past, the Stat~ of Alaska hired about fifteen Nondalton
men and women as firefighters in 1981.
Three elderly couples from Nondalton spend most of the summer living at Lake
Clark, where they caught and dried salmon. They occasionally hunted small game
such as porcupine, which were particularly numerous in 1981.
During the sockeye run, through July and early August, Nondalton people ate a
particularly heavy fish diet. By middle and late August they were increasingly
interested in getting meat; people frequently said they were tired of fish. The
caribou regulatory season in Unit 9B opened August 10, but caribou remained high
in the mountains around Lake Clark. People watched for caribou on the mountain
close to Kijik Lake and Snowshoe Bay, on Lake Clark, and the mountain east of
the Newhalen River ten miles from the village. Two or three groups of people
walked up into these mountains to hunt caribou and black bear. People also
watched the shores closely as they traveled by boat, and occasionally spotted a
caribou or moose. Four or five parties went up the Chulitna River as far as the
Nikabuna to the Lakes area and took at least one caribou which was shared
between four households. The water was high and it was easier than usual to get
-37-
so far up river. Caribou were said to be more plentiful on the upper Chulitna
River, but the long distance and shallow water usually discouraged effort in that
area during fall. One or two of the local hunting lodges occasionally provided
meat to some families in the village. Meat from several caribou, moose, and
black bear, harvested by hunters the lodge flew out, was brought back and made
available to the village.
Moose were seen relatively frequently on the lower Chulitna River throughout the
fall by Nondalton people.. One family which was Cdmped on Lake Clark through
the latter part of August and early September putting up salmon for dogfood,
made about six trips up the Chulitna River. They caught pike and whitefish,
picked berries, and saw moose each time. In early September, when they had put
up about 1,000 sockeye, they made one last trip up the river and killed a young
bull moose. The family returned to Nondalton the next day with the moose meat,
hung it for a day, and then spent about two days cutting and wrapping it. The
meat was shared primarily between the household of the man who shot it and his
son's family. These families were among the few in the village which had
freezers, and most of the meat was frozen. The moose lasted the two families,
totalling eight people, about three or four months.
At least four other households looked for moose around the shores of Lake Clark
and Little Lake Clark, and along the banks of the lower Tlikakila River, as well
as the Chulitna River. Some traveled over 150 miles by boat and spent two to
ten days hunting moose with mixed success. Nondalton residents say that
increased aircraft and boat traffic in the Lake Clark area over the last ten to
fifteen years have made moose increasingly wary, and that moose tend to stay
-38-
[
r c~
[
[
[
[
[
c
c
c~
c
[
[
[
[
[
r-
c~
l
[
[
C--~
\-
[
r L_;
[
[
c
[
c
[~
[
c
[
c
[
[
r_~
L
[
L
back away from the waterways more than they did in the past. This, they say,
makes it more difficult to take moose in the fall. Although there were no major
storms, several hunters were caught for a day or two while traveling on upper
Lake Clark by wind and heavy waves while looking for moose. In some years,
wind storms have lasted for weeks at a time during September and October,
preventing people from hunting in Lake Clark during much of the moose season.
Two Nondalton people had a local pilot fly them to a small lake north of Lake
Clark where they shot a moose. This moose was shared among at least five
interrelated households. Other Nondalton households received meat from relatives
in the Iliamna area, who had killed rr 1oose and caribou in the fall.
Nondalton residents were also busy hauling fuel during August and September.
Gasoline and fuel oil had to be hauled by truck over the portage from Iliamna,
and then by skiff upriver from the Newhalen Landing to Nondalton.
The opening of school in September once again limited family mobility, since
parents preferred not to leave children alone in the village. Much of the long
distance traveling by boat, and camping, shifted back to weekends.
Freeze-up of creeks and small ponds and the first snowfall occurred during late
October, but Six-Mile Lake was late in freezing in 1981. One or two men traveled
down the Newhalen River by boat to put out otter and fox traps in early
November. As the weather got colder, the use of boats declined, dnd two families
with three-wheelers used them to travel out to check traps.
-39-
After Six-Mile Lake froze, in early November, people began to fish through the
ice for grayling, dolly varden, whitefish, and lake trout. Several older women
were the most serious producers of fish; as long as the wind was not too cold,
there were always people fishing. With the lake frozen, people were able to cut
wood southeast of the village and haul it back by snowmachine. Wood cutting
continued to be a major activity throughout November and December, although
the lack of snow made transporting the wood difficult and was hard on
snowmachim::[; and sleds.
Moose season was open from December 1 to December 30 in GMU 9B, and either
sex could be taken. In December 1981, just as in 1980, there was little snow in
the entire Iliamna Lake area and people throughout the area had difficulty in
traveling. Throughout the month of December in 1980, for example, Nondalton
people tried to kill caribou and moose. The lack of snow and cold weather
prevented people from getting into areas where the animals were located. Even
when moose or caribou were located, they were difficult to approach because the
cold weather magnified sounds. In late December, however, when the weather
warmed slightly, people intensified efforts to get meat; particularly, they said, in
order to have meat on hand during Russian Christmas.
As can be seen, fishing hunting, and trapping activities comprised a significant
con•t'onent of the Nondalton economy. Summer was a critical period of time for
earning money and preparing and storing salmon, a staple food. The village
economy during other seasons revolved around the harvest of a wide range of local
resources for household use.
-40-
[
ex
[
r L
[
[
c
[
c
c-,
L
C
c
[
[
[
[
r~
CJ
L
L
[
[~
~--/
[
[
[
[
c
[
c
D
c
r
L
[
[
[
[
[' c\
[
L
FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVESTS IN NONDALTON DURING
1973, 1980, AND 1981
Preceeding sections have described general problems of hunting, fishing, trapping
and remunerative employment within the economy of Nondalton. This chapter
provides quantitative data that illustrate the dependence of Nondalton residents
on local fish and game resources. Annual harvests of subsistence resources
reported by samples of Nondalton households over three years are presented to
supplement the more general descriptions of the Nondalton economy. Whereas the
preceding section described the general organization of economic activities
through time, this section provides estimates of actual levels of subsistence
production for three different years based on a sample of households.
Methodology
The goal of this portion of the study was to produce quantitative information
about subsistence harvests by households in Nondalton. The estimates of harvest
levels were derived from three surveys conducted in Nondalton over an eight year
period; in 1974, 1981 and 1982. All three surveys were similar in methods and
content and were based on questioning members of sample households about their
total harvest for the year preceding the survey.
-41-
Information about Nondalton harvests in 1973 was obtained from a survey
conducted in summer 1974 by the Institute of Social, Economic and Government
Research, University of Alaska. The purpose of that study was to determine how
extensively Bristol Bay residenl.s utilized the region's fish <Jnd wildlife, <md how
certain social and economic factors influenced harvests (Gasbarro and Utermohle,
1975). A questionnaire was administered to as many household heads as possible
in 21 communities in the Bristol Bay region, including Nondalton and all of the
villages of the Iliamna region except Port Alsworth. A summary of village
harvest information was obtained from the principal investigator of the study, and
portions of this unpublished information are presented below. Twenty-five of an
estimated thirty households in Nondalton were included in the 1974 survey.
A similar questionnaire was administered to a smaller sample of households in
Nondalton in January 1981 as part of this current study. The survey was designed
to collect information on household harvests of fish and wildlife, as well as on
other selected variables, including participation in commercial fishing, costs of
transportation and energy consumption.
A sample of about one-third of the households in the community was desired, and
~ the households to be questioned were selected to include knowledgeable, active
informants, as well as a range of incomes. Lack of data about the households
prevented use of a rigorously stratified sample, but based on recommendations of
other community members, ten households were originally selected. Interviews
with these households resulted in additional information about four other
households, making a total of fourteen households in the sample. This constituted
-42-
[
cr'
[
[
[
[
c
[
c
c~
L
r ........
[
[
[
[
[
F c~
[
[
[
r~.
~~·
[
c
[
[
b
c
[
D
c
[
[
[
[
[
[,
L
r~
L
[
a 40 percent sample (n=14) of the 35 households identified in Nondalton in 1981.
Sixty-seven people, 39 percent of the village population, lived in these households.
Information collected in this survey and in subsequent interviews indicated that
the 1981 sample was probably somewhat biased toward more economically secure
and productive households. The people acknowledged by others to be more
knowledgeable about hunting and fishing matters were probably also more active
and successful providers. 11 this is the case, estimates of average harvests are
higher Lhan an average which included all Nondalton households would have been.
In February 1982 a sample of Nondalton households was questioned about their
harvests during calendar year 1981. An attempt was made to include as many
households which had participated in the 1981 study as possible. In addition, an
attempt was made to i1 1clude a greater proportion of less active, potentially less
productive households. The 1982 sample comprised 19 households, or 54 percent
of the 35 households identified in 1981. Eleven of the 14 households surveyed in
1981 were included in the second survey. The surveyed households included 60
percent of the estimated 1981 population of 180 people.
Numbers of animals harvested per household have been converted to pounds edible
weight to provide a standard unit of measure to compare the relative contribution
of various resources to the household food economy. The methods used to derive
standard edible weights are described in Appendix I. This comparative technique
does not account for nutri tiona! differences in food products or for the cultural
evaluation of the importance of a food resource. Consequently, "pounds edible
weight" should not be interpreted as a valid measure of the relative "importance"
-43-
of a food resource in the economy of Nondalton. Estimating importance must
take into consideration dietary, evaluative, and a number of other factors.
One methodological problem, which reinforces the need for understanding
economic units before designing studies of this kind, was that households are not
always the important economic units in Nondalton. That is, household units are
not the same as units of production, units of exchange, or units of consumption.
Several households surveyed included people who were dependents of people in
other households, or who participated in productive activities only as part of
another household. They may have considered their production to have occurred
in that household. Several of the surveyed households provided most of the meat
and fish used by other households. These interconnections would make it
methodologically unsound to determine total harvests in a village from a random
sample of household units. Ideally, a survey of this kind could identify harvests
of particular individuals, and then trace the disposition of the fish and game as
distribution or exchange occurred to other people and households. This method
would be feasible only for a small number of resources, a few people, or ove~< very
short periods of time. Generally, people cannot remember all of the details of
such exchanges over a year's time. Further research is planned to examine
distribution and exchange for speci fie resources in villages of the Iliamna Lake
area.
-44-
[
r c~
[
[
[
[
b
[
[
l-~
'-L
[]
.
E
[
[
[
[
r: c/ ~
[
[
[
r ~,
~-)
[
[
c
[
c
[
c
D
c
u
r--
L~
L
'l-~
.~
[
Lc
[
[
Household Harvests of Fish and Wildlife
The mean annual harvest per household of fish and wildlife species in Nondalton
in 1973, 1980, and 1981 are presented in Tables 4 and 5. As previously described,
harvests are expressed as pounds of edible food products.
Table 4 shows that Nondalton families were highly dependent upon local food
resources harvested from the land and waters around the village. Average food
output per household for local use over the three years was 4,432 pounds. There
was a marked degree of consistency in average household harvests between the
three years. The 1980 average harvest, which was the greatest of the three
years, was 16.5 percent larger than the 1973 harvest, which was the smallest. As
shown in Table 5, average output per household member ranged between 738 and
1,036 pounds.
These average household harvests are very comparable to harvests reported in
1981 for six Yukon Delta communities, where the average food output per
household for local consumption was 4,597 pounds in 1981. Average food output
per household member in those six communities was 783 pounds (Wolfe, 1981).
Table 6 shows the percentage of the sampled Nondalton households which reported
harvesting particular species. As in the case of harvest quantities, there is
variation from year to year. These figures indicate that not all households
harvest the full range of resources and that even such basic resources as fish,
moose, and caribou were harvested by fewer than 70 percent of households in
Nondalton.
-45-
[
r
TABLE 4 C"
MEAN HOUSEHOLD HARVESTS BY POUND OF SELECTED [
FISH AND GAME RESOURCES, 1973, 1980, 1981
FROM A SAMPLE OF NONDALTON HOUSEHOLDS [
1973 1980 1981
(n=25) (n=14) (n=19) [
Fish --
Sockeye 2,614 3,985 2,883 [
White Fish 57 18 36
Grayling 44 23 65
Pike 28 5 14 b Burbot 1 1
Char /Dolly Varden 2 10 29
Rainbow Trout 9 9 21 [ Lake Trout 68 64 39
TOTAL FISH 1,811 4,115 3,088 c
Land Mammals
Moose 518 366 483 c~
Caribou 576 332 347 L
Black Bear 32 47
Brown Bear 4 26 [ Porcupine 34 14 27
Snowshoe Hare 11 4 8
Tundra Hare 6 3 r Beaver 114 114 143
Lynx 2
TOTAL LAND MAMMALS 1,291 836 1,084 [
Birds [
Duck 4 7
Goose 9 4
Ptarmigan 13 5 5 [ Spruce Grouse 3 3 7
TOTAL BIRDS 29 8 23 L
TOTAL SUBSISTENCE
FOOD HARVEST 4,142 4,959 4,195 r,
c·
-46-L
[
[
f ~'
"---~'
[
C
[
[
c
c
c
D
c
D
[
i u
[
[
t'-~ L
[
[
TABLE 5
MEAN HARVESTS IN POUNDS* PER HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
NONDALTON, ALASKA
1973 1980 1981
(n=25) (n=14) (n=19)
Subsistence Output
Per Household Mean 4,142 4,959 4,195
Range 0 -10,171 0 -10,962 0 -14,213
Subsistence Output
Per Household Member Mean 803 1,036 738
*Edible weight.
-47-
TABLE 6
PERCENT AGE OF SAMPLED NONDALTON HOUSEHOLDS
HARVESTING SELECTED SPECIES
1973, 1980, 1981
1973 1980 1981
(n=25) (n=14) (n=19)
Sockeye 76 71 58
Sockeye Fall Fish 21 37
Whitefish 48 50 63
Grayling 56 64 63
Pike 32 35 26
Bur bot 29 16
Char/Dolley Varden 20 50 63
Rainbow 32 43 63
Lake Trout 60 50 58
Moose 52 50 53
Caribou 60 71 68
Black Bear 24 32
Brown Bear 4 21
Porcupine 60 50 63
Snowshoe Hare 44 35 47
Tundra Hare 7 16
Beaver 36 43 63
Lynx 8 14 5
Duck 28 0 42
Goose 16 0 16
Ptarmigan 64 43 32
-48-
[
cr~
[
[
[
[
c
[
[
cl~
[
c
[
[
[
[
_r c·
L
L
[
[ ~~.
"-···
[
[
[
[
c
[
c
[~
c
c
[
[
[
[
f'~.
L
[
L
Systematic information about harvest effort was not collected in these surveys so
it is not possible to determine how many of the households who did not harvest
a particular resource had attempted to harvest the resource. This research
indicates, however, that a relatively small group of Nondalton households
accounted for most of the harvest in 1980 and 1981, while another relatively small
group harvested very litte. These variations are described in more detail in the
discussion on moose and caribou harvests.
Figure 3 illustrates the composition by weight of the Nondalton fish and wildlife
harvest for 1973, 1980, and 1981. Salmon provided the bulk of this harvest,
accounting for 63 to 80 percent of the harvest by weight over the three years.
Moose and caribou, supplying roughly equal amounts of meat, accounted for the
next most significant quantities, followed by freshwater fish species and beaver.
The large proportion of sockeye salmon in the harvest is indicative of the major
role salmon plays in the Nondalton economy. It is not only a staple food for
humans, but also for dogs. The large quantities of salmon harvested also
underscore the significance of other species to Nondalton residents, who note that
people cannot live by fish alone.
This report does not attempt to explain why Nondalton households harvested the
quantities of specific resources that they did, or why these varied between the
three years. Much more research and information would be needed in order to
address these questions. Obvious differences between the three years, which may
account for some of the variation, are discussed below, however.
-49-
(/) .....,
.c
Cll ·-Q) :s:
Q) -:9
"C w
>.
.0
(/) .....,
(/)
Q)
> '"' co I
~
0
Q)
0"1 co .....,
c
Q)
CJ
'"' Q)
CL
FIGURE 3
PROPORTION OF NONDALTON SUBSISTENCE HARVEST, BY WEIGHT
SALMON, MOOSE, CARIBOU, BEAVER AND FRESHWATER FISH
1973. 1980. 1981
100 nth PI" --/ ~~% .......... other
beaver {2-.7%) .,..,.'"" fish (2~6%) ..... ' beaver (3.4%) .....
' rti~~' " / 7ari~~u ' fish " ' " 'fi 7°L (4.9%) ' 90
I '
80
caribou I moose ' 7~r~~~u I (7.4%) ' (13.9%) I '
I I I \ I \ moose I
70
I \ 01.5~~) moose I \
I \
(12.5%) I
60
50
40 salmon
(80.3%)
30 salmon salmon
(63.1%) (68.7%)
20
10
0 --
1973 1980 1981
-50-
[
c~
[
['
__/
[
[
b
[
[
c~:
L
L
r
-,
-·
[
[
[
r~
c~
[
L
[
['~
.\._j'
[
[
[
[
[
[
c r)
c
c
[
L
[
[
f~
L -\ L
[
L
The differences in harvest between the three years (Table 4 and Figure 3) are
pnrtially cxplninPd hy eli ffcrences in economic conditionu, went.her, nnd renourcr.
availability in those years. In 1980, for example, salmon accounted for 80 percent
of the total harvest by weight, compared to 63 percent in 1973 and 69 percent
in 1981. One significant difference between these years was the magnitude of the
1980 sockeye escapement to the Kvichak drainage, which was one of the largest
ever recorded (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1980). Despite this large
run Nondalton people did not earn very much money or spend much time
commercial fishing in 1980 due to a fishermen's strike in Bristol Bay. Therefore,
many families devoted a high degree of effort to putting up salmon for home use.
There was also much rainy weather in July and August 1980 and people had
trouble getting fish dried without spoiling. One household, for instance, said that
about 1,000 of their fish spoiled due to wet weather. These fish were used to
feed dogs, and additional fish were taken late in the summer to dry for human
use. These conditions apparent! y led families to increase production in order to
make up for the spoiled portion. The large run of sockeye made it possible for
people to take the additional fish. Harvests of moose and caribou in 1980 were
affected by the lack of snow in December, which made it nearly impossible to
travel by snowmachine.
In 1973 Nondalton incomes were extremely low (approximately $5,600 per
household [Gasbarro, 1974]). Salmon returns to Bristol Bay were very low from
1971 to 1973 and no one in Nondalton fished commercially in 1973. Not enough
information is available to evaluate whether production for household use was
expanded to meet increased needs, reduced because of lack of cash for harvesting
equipment and fuel, or maintained at approximately the same level as preceding
-51-
years. Noticeably larger numbers of moose and caribou were taken that year,
however, reflecting better winter travel conditions that year.
In 1981 many Nondalton residents participated in the Bristol Bay commercial
fishery and were therefore gone from the village during the peak of the sockeye
run in Six-Mile Lake. Sockeye returns to the Lake Clark drainage were relatively
low. These circumstances may account for the relatively low participation in
subsistence salmon harvesting in 1981 (Table 6). It is interesting to note that
salmon harvests in 1981 were still relatively large compared to 1973, despite the
lower participation rate. More information on salmon use and harvests will be
presented in a later, more comprehensive report on resource use in Nondalton. In
1981, a:; in 1980, caribou harvests were constrained by lack of snow and poor
travel conditions, as reflected in the average household harvests in Table 4.
MOOSE AND CARIBOU UTILIZI~ TION IN NONDALTON
This section examines moose and caribou hunting and harvests by Nondalton
residents. Preceding secti,Jns described the general seasonal round of activities,
including when moose and caribou hunting generally occur. This section examines
how moose and caribou are used by Nondalton residents and general tempo:"al and
spatial patterns of moose and caribou hunting and harvest.
-52-
[
r~ c-
[
[
[
["~
~4
[
[
[
c~
[
[
[
L
l
[
L c~
L
L
[
[~
"-~
[
[
[
[
[
[
c
c=)
[
[
[
r~
'--"
[
[
l~~
[
[
The Significance of Moose and Caribou
Moose and caribou are particularly important wildlife resources to the people of
Nondalton. As shown in Table 4, only salmon provided more pounds of protein to
Nondalton residents than did moose or caribou. Nondalton residents view moose
and caribou as large animals which can potentially provide households with a large
proportion of the food they need, in the form of high quality meat, with relatively
low expenditures in time and money. "They are our supermarket", people say, in
describing the variety of foods and materials which a moose or caribou supplies.
The Dena'ina have a thorough knowledge of moose and caribou anatomy, and
specialized terms for the butchering parts of large game. Table 7 lists some of
the Dena'ina names for these butchering parts and the uses made of them. They
also have an extensive vocabulary describing moose and caribou by sex and age.
Some of the terms are described in Table 8.
In addition to using almost every part of the animal for food, in 1981 some
Nondalton Dena 'ina used moose hide as rawhide for snowshoe webbing, and
softened or tanned caribou and moose hides for mukluks. At least one older
woman continued to use caribou sinew for thread in sewing fur articles of clothing
in 1981. Nondalton residents frequent! y contrasted their complete utilization of
large game carcasses with the use made of these animals by outside hunters.
From their perspective, outsiders commonly left much of the edible meat of the
animal in the field.
-53-
Butchering Part
Heart
Kidney
Liver
Moose stomach
Small pouch
Moose "book"
Brisket
Neck meat
Front quarter
Hind quarter
Nose
Tongue
Lower backbone
Sirloin
Tenderloin
TABLE 7
USES MADE OF MOOSE AND CARIBOU PARTS
BY NONDALTON DENA'INA
Dena'ina
k'kuz'in'
k'jech'a
k'ezet'
k'chundiyes
k'chilaqa jijegha
k'di'in
k'yits'ena
k 'entukhunda
k'gguna
k'qakena
k'enchix
k'tsila
k'yina
k'q'iliha
ki yints 'aq 'a
-54-
Preparation and Use
cooked on stick when camping; fried
in pan; boiled.
fired; boiled
fried; boiled
contents cleaned out of main pouch,
then coagulated blood scooped up
from body cavity and placed in pouch.
This was used for dogfood plain, m·
cooked with other dogfood in winter;
had high food value.
small sack near stomach. Could be
pegged with a stick and formed into
kettle for boiling water and cooking
meat in.
portion of gut with folds located close
to the stomach; washed and eaten raw
boiled
Boiled
boiled; fried; meat dried; bones boiled
for marrow
boiled; meat dried; sinew saved
boiled until tender, skin peeled off,
then sliced
boiled and treated as nose
boiled; stewed
cooked on stick over fire; steaks fried
steaks fried; sinew saved for sewing
thread
[
r~
C'
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
c~
c
[
[
[
[
[
f" (,~
L
L
[
[~,
\~_j
[
[
[
I
.l
[
[
[
c
c=)
r
[
[
[
[
[
l~
[
[
Backfat, hump
Head
Hoof
Hide
Main Intestine
Meat in Rutting
Season
vakeshlaha
k'ench'ik'a
k'talnigi
TABLE 7
(Continued)
a choice part; boiled
stewed; boiled and cooled for "head
cheese"
boiled, cooked, and eaten
hair removed and used as "rawhide";
for webbing in snowshoes and lashing
on sleighs. Softened and smoke tan-
ned for leather
cleaned and boiled
Source: Behnke, 1978; Kari, 1977; Tenebaum, 1975.
-55-
TABLE 8
INLAND DENA 'INA TERMS FOR MOOSE AND CARIBOU
MOOSE
Bull
Bull in rutting Season
Young moose separated from mother
Cow
Cow and calf
Calf
Moose "bell"
CARIBOU
Bull
Young bull
Yearling bull
Cow
Calf
Center Antler or "palm" of large
caribou; "sunshade"
Source: Kari, 1977.
-56-
k'uhda'i
k'tiya
k'eyich'a
k'talnigi
k 'eghtghi y i
deyuzhi
vedechiga gilani
k'dechiga
veq'usa
vejex
dugilin
veda gilani
cheg'i k'ilin
nulida
vejexshla
k'kuha
ventuq' tauazha
[
cr
[
[
[
[
[·~.
~
[
U
c~
[
[
[
[
[
[
r C~~
l
L
[
[~
\_/
[
r
[
[
["
--
[
c
[)
~
[~
c
[
[
[
[
L'-~ u
[
[
The Availability of Moose and Caribou
Nondnlt.on people believe that moose and caribou are relatively abundant in the
region surrounding the village, but they note that major changes have occurred in
the distribution and abundance of both species. Until the 1930s, for example, both
moose and caribou were extremely scarce in the Lake Clark, Chulitna River, and
Six-Mile Lake areas, and Nondalton hunters had to travel north into the upper
Mulchatna and Stony River drainages to find them. Sif1ce that time, both spec)es
have become more numerous in the vicinity of Nondalton, although people have
assessed that there was a period of decreasing abundance of moose in the mid,-
1970s in the Lake Clark area. Other Nondalton people mention that moose have
become more wary since aircraft and boat traffic began increasing in the Lake
Clark area in the 1970s. Moose appeared to avoid the lake shores and riverbanks
more than they did in previous years. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
Nondalton residents said that moose numbers in the Chulitna drainage were
increasing. They also said that caribou were increasing in abundance and
becoming available more frequently close to the village.
Despite the perceived relative abundance of these resources, Nondalton people
have experienced difficulty in harvesting moose and caribou during legal hunting
seasons in recent years. Weather and travel conditions have greatly limited the
accessibility of moose and caribou during both fall and winter. Moose have tended
to stay higher in the mountains in early winter during recent years because there
has not been enough snow to drive them down into the valleys. This same lack
of snow for long periods of time each winter over the last six years has made
snowmachine travel difficult. During several of these winters, lakes and creeks
-57-
remained open much of the winter. Nondalton residents have been confined to
travel on the higher areas and mountains behind Nondalton where there is snow.
Poor winter travel conditions also· exacerbate another recurrent problem noted
earlier--that of the expense of maintaining and operating snowmachines.
~!
Hunting Patterns
Two basic patterns of caribou and moose hunting, corresponding to the time of
year when hunting occurred, existed in Nondalton in the 1970s and more currently
in the early 1980s. During the open water season, hunting methods revolve arojund
the use of boats in conjunction with walking. During winter, when snow and ice
conditions permit, snowmachines shape the pattern of hunting. Aircraft are rarely
utilized for transportation purposes for hunting by Nondalton residents; in 1981
one non-Dena 'ina resident of the village owned and operated a small plane.
As mentioned previously, during the fall considerable traveling is done between
the village and the fish camps and boat landing on the Newhalen River. Hunters
watch for moose while traveling by boat. Nondalton residents also look for
moose, caribou, and bear when traveling by boat to fall fish camps and berry
picking locations on Lake Clark and Chulitna Bay. Animals spotted on the
lakeshore or on a hillside near the water are pursued. If the animal is observed
on a mountainside further away, a group of people may decide to walk inland to
attempt to take the animal. Caribou and black bear are more like! y to be
harvested in this manner than are moose.
-58-
[
"
cr
[
[
[
[
[
f
.,
_,
c
c~~
[
[
[
[
[
[
r c~
[
l
[
[~
I '--· ~
[
r
[
[
[
c
c
D
[
c
[
[
[
[
l
L
[
Trip:; ill:;o urn !iJl!~ciricnlly rnmln to look rur ITlOOBC~ nround the !illCH"f~!l or I ilkO
Clark and Little Lake Clark and up the Tlikakila and Chulitna rivers. Families
or groups of related men travel in one to three boats for several days, stopping
periodically to walk and search for moose in likely areas. The groups camp at
night and slowly cruise along the shore in early morning or late evening in hope
of spotting a moose. A number of locations noted as particularly good areas for
moose hunting were regularly visited in the fall. These places included several
bays in lower Lake Clark, the mouths of tributaries emptying into the lake,
including the Kijik, Current, Big (Tlikakila) and Chokotonk rivers, and numerous
smaller creeks. Sometimes boats are taken up the Big (Tlikakila) River to the
vicinity of Otter Lake in search of moose.
The Chulitna River is another major moose hunting locale. Nondalton people take
boats up the Chulitna throughout the open-water season for a variety of
activities, and moose are killed when located close to the river. A major hunting
method is to drift the river with the outboard shut off, particularly in the
evening, hoping to surprise a moose coming out on the riverbank. High rocks
providing good views of rivers, sloughs, and surrounding country are used as
vantage points for locating moose.
During the summer, caribou tend to stay far back in the country north of Lake
Clark, and residents generally do not expend much effort to find them. A few
caribou move into the hills and mountains close to the lake, however, and small
numbers frequently may be seen on ridge tops and mountain sides on the north
side. In 1981 the regulatory season for caribou opened in mid-August, and a few
groups of people walked up into the mountains in the Kijik Lake and Snowshoe Bay
-59-
area to kill a caribou, although brush and rugged terrain limit this practice. A
small number of caribou may have been taken in this way by Nondalton people
each year during the 1970s.
A small number of caribou which wander into the lower country in late summer
or fall also are taken by people traveling by boat on Lake Clark or the Chulitna
River. Almost every year a few caribou have been killed on Chulitna Bay on Lake
Clark and in Snowshoe Bay. Long trips are occasionally made up the Chulitna
River to the Nikabuna Lake vicinity to look for caribou or moose. In August,
when the caribou bulls are particularly fat, their meat is preferred, while cows
are normally more highly valued late in the fall and in the winter.
In some years a few Nondalton people have had pilots fly them into the "Caribou
Lakes" (Upper Koksetna River) or other areas north of Lake Clark to hunt moose
or caribou. People say that the expense of chartering aircraft greatly limits this
practise for villagers, even though it would increase the likelihood of getting meat
in the fall.
Generally little hunting is done during the freeze-up period in late October or
early November, when it is frequently too cold to operate a boat, but when there
is seldom enough snow to use snowmachines. After creeks freeze and snow falls,
Nondalton people begin to travel onto Hoknede mountain behind the village to
make sets for fox, lynx, and marten and to watch for moose and caribou tracks.
In years of little snow, the mountain has been a particularly important trapping
and hunting route, since there often is sufficient snow to allow snowmachine
travel, even when the ground in the lower country is bare. When there is
-60-
[
cr
[
[
[
[
k
[
c
c~~
[
[
[
[
[
[
c!~
[
[
.....
-~,
\,_/
,.,
~
L.
b
[
c
L~
[
[
" I ,
.... ~
[
[
[
[~,
L
L
[
sufficient snow, Nondalton people travel around the northern end of Hoknede
Mountain into the Chulitna drainage to trap and to look for game.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, small bands of caribou generally have been
available in the Chulitna River Valley, (15 to 20 miles from the village) throughout
winter and into spring. When the wind blows from the south or southeast,
Nondalton people travel the mountain trail behind the village or around the
Hinmore Cache trail to the Chulitna Valley, expecting to find caribou closer to
.the village. Caribou also are sought in the Upper Talarik and Upper Koktuli
drainages. If caribou are not found closer to the village and there are good snow
conditions, hunters travel into the Mulchatna drainage in the Tutna Lake area
about 30 miles northeast of Nondalton.
When caribou tracks are spotted by a hunter in winter, they are usually followed.
If animals are located, the hunter attempts to drive his snowmachine close enough
for a shot. However, caribou frequently are spooked by snowmachines, even at
long distances. In rough, partially forested areas, it is often hard to get close
enough to shoot. If several snowmachines are traveling together, one driver may
attempt to swing around to head the caribou toward the waiting hunters. If the
caribou run into a patch of timber, hunters try to circle around the woods to find
an open area where the animals might be spotted.
In the winter, moose occasionally are taken in areas near Nondalton or while
traveling by snowmachine on Six-Mile Lake, lower Lake Clark, or in the Chulitna
drainage. Often they are located while people are engaged in other activities,
such as trapping, wood-hauling, or caribou hunting. In years when there has been
-61-
little snow during the December moose season, including 1976, 1977, 1980, and
1981, Nondalton hunters have tended to concentrate their winter moose hunting
in the mountains north and west of the village where snowmachine travel is
possible. These rough travel conditions frequently damage snowmachines and
sleds. Hunters commonly spend one or two nights camping so that they do not
have to make the rough trip from the village so frequently and to increase their
chances of finding game. Most winter moose and caribou hunting by Nondalton
residents during the study period occurred within a twenty or twenty-five mile
radius of the community.
Moose and Caribou Harvests in Nondalton in 1973, 1980, and 1981
Average per capita and per household moose and caribou harvests in Nondalton in
1973, 1980, and 1981 are shown in Table 9. These data were gathered from
surveys described previously.
These averages may be misleading in one respect. Although for the sample as a
r
cr
[
[
[.
[
6
[
c
c~
c
c
whole-lessthan three:cjuarters of a moose and about two caribou were-harveSted _________ [
per household in 1980 and 1981, this statistic masks the great variability in
harvest between households. In all three of the survey years, only about 50
percent of the households harvested moose, while a little over 60 percent
harvested caribou (see Table 6). A small number of households regularly take a
relatively la:·«;e proportion of the moose and caribou harvested in Nondalton. In
1981, for example, four families (21 percent of those surveyed) harvested ten
moose or 60 percent of the reported harvest. In all three years of the survey,
-fi2-
[
[
[
c!~
L
L
.-,
I~
-\,_)
t_J
[
[
[
c
[
c
D
c
[
TABLE 9
MEAN NUMBER OF MOOSE AND CARIBOU HARVESTED
PER HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IN NONDALTON
1973, 1980, 1981
1973 1980 1981
Households Surveyed 25 14 19
Percent of Households 83 % 40 % 54 %
People in Surveyed Households 129 67 108
Moose Reported Harvested 25 10 16
Moose Harvested Per Household 1.00 0.71 0.84
Moose Harvested Per Person 0.19 0.15 0.15
Caribou Reported Harvested 97 26 42
Caribou Harvested Per Household 3.90 1.90 2.20
Caribou Harvested Per Person 0. 75 0.39 0.39
c-------------
[
[
[
[~~
L'
[ -63-
[
less than 25 percent (ranging from 14 to 24 percent) of the households in the
sample took 60 percent of the moose.
When household harvests by pounds of fish and meat produced are considered, the
variation among households is equally striking. The five most productive families
in 1981, with about 30 percent of the population of the surveyed households,
accounted for 65 percent by weight of the meat and fish produced by sampled
households. At the other extreme, the 5 least productive households, with 15
percent of the population, produced less than 1 percent of the total.
Table 9 shows that moose harvests ranged from . 71 to 1.00 moose per household,
while caribou harvest ranged from 1.90 to 3.90 per household. Of the three years,
the highest moose and caribou harvests both occurred in 1973, while the lowest
both occurred in 1980. As previously discussed, the low moose and caribou
harvests in 1980 were probably due to poor winter traveling conditions (i.e. lack
of snow). The harvests in 1973 may be more typical for the community since this
year had normal snow cover.
The percentage of Nondalton households which reported harvesting one or more
moose and caribou is shown in Figure 4. As this figure illustrates, in 1980 about
65 percent of the households harvesting moose took only one animal, while about
17 percent of the households took 2 animals, and another 17 percent took 4
animals.
Similarly, the figure shows that approximately 41 percent of the households which
harvested caribou took 4 or more animals in 1980 and 1981. The pnttern of
-64-
r
en
[
[
[
[
c
[
c
C' L
[
[
[
[
[
[
cT
L
[
"
" I~ ~-' \ _ _/
r--;
l_J
r L_l
[
[
c
[
en ::g c 0 ..c
(!) en
:l
0
I
[J '+-
0
(!)
CJ\ co ..._, c c
(!)
(J
~
(!)
0..
c
[
[ .
[
[
[~,
~' ./
[
[
FIGURE 4
PERCENT AGE OF NONDALTON HOUSEHOLDS HARVESTING
ONE OR MORE MOOSE AND CARIBOU
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
ONE
ONE
MOOSE
TWO THREE FOUR
Ill 1973 n=l4
:::::::: 1980 n= 6
Ill 1981 n=ll
0
Number of Moose Harvested Per Household
CARIBOU
TWO THREE FOUR
lfll973 n=l6
:::::::: 1980 n= 9 .·.·.·.·.
111981 n=ll
FIVE OR
MORE
Number of Caribou Harvested Per Household
-65-
harvest of both moose and caribou in 1973 differed considerably from that in 1980
and 1981. In 1973 a much greater proportion of the households reported taking
two or more moose than was the case in two recent years. About 50 percent of
the households taking caribou in 1973 took 5 or more caribou, compared to about
20 percent taking 5 or more in 1980 and 1981.
Discussion: Limitations on Harvest
Harvest levels of resources used by Nondalton residents appeared to be regulated
primarily by factors internal to the local economy and society. This is suggested
by the similarities from year to year in harvest figures illustrated in Table 3.
Mean total outputs by weight per household were similar for the three years
sampled: 4,142 pounds in 1973; 4,959 pounds in 1980; and 4,195 pounds in 1981.
Harvest levels of particular species varied from year to year, but total output
seemed to remain relatively stable. Determinants of this total output are
probably complex. As is argued later, legal regulations are probably not a major
limiting factor. Instead, a complex combination of other varieties served to
regulate both the total harvest and species-sped fie harvest. Some of these
factors are briefly identified below.
First, at the most general level the total population of consumers, including
people outside the village which Nondalton residents supplied with food, and dogs
kept by villagers, sets some minimum and maximum bounds for the amount of
food required by the community. However, not enough research has been done to
assess the extent to which population size is an accurate predictor of subsistence
-66-
[
c~
r -'
[
[
[
b
c
[
c~
[
[
c
[
L
[
cr.
[
L
[
r ~~
\_/
[
[
[
[
r~
6
c
c
~) [/~
c
c
[
[
[
[
[~ L;
[
[
output for a region. Taken alone, population size is probably not a good predictor
of subsistence harvests of particular species. Multiple other factors of ecology,
economy, and culture are mediating variables between the size of a population
and food production outputs. This study did not address the relative proportion
of foods purchased and locally produced.
Weather and climatic conditions, in combination with their technological limita-
tions, appeared to be major influences on harvest levels of moose and caribou.
Winter travel conditions were frequently very poor between 1976 and 1981. T~e
snowpack was often limited or non-existent; in winter 1976-1977, lakes and creeks
did not even freeze. This greatly limited the periods of time when Nondalton
hunters could travel by snowmachine for caribou and moose. As described in
several places in this report, mild winters and lack of snow made it difficult for
Nondalton hunters to find moose and caribou in winters of 1980 and 1981.
Weather and snow depth also increased moose and caribou distribution patterns
and locations, and hence increased the costs, in time and cash, of hunting.
The costs of transportation technology at Nondalton relative to monetary income
imposed major constraints on hunting. A high proportion of Nondalton households
lacked basic equipment, such as snowmachines and outboard engines, needed to
predictably and efficiently harvest large game. Low incomes and high costs
prevented many households from acquiring these items.
Other significant limitations on harvest were alternative uses of time and the
opportunity costs of hunting. Due to consistent and increasing needs for cash,
Nondalton residents eagerly took whatever jobs were available in the community.
-67-
Even part-time jobs tended to tie people to the community during work days, and
reduced the time available for certain types of subsistence production. Similarly,
the need to haul wood nearly every day also limited the time available for other
forms of subsistence production for many families. A small number of families
with relatively higher incomes were able to "purchase" additional time for
subsistnce production by using fuel oil for heat instead of wood. This relieved
them from some of the burden of constant wood gathering and provided rnore time
for other activities. As mentioned previously, low incomes and high cash needs
have apparently prevented many households from purchasing the transportation
equipment they would need to increase mobility enough to overcome these time
constraints.
Storage preparation, methods and capacity affected the timing and extent of
harvest. Although a particular resource might be available in abundance, there
had to be some way to preserve and store a surplus in order to make it worth
harvesting more than could be immediately used. The size of the smokehouse set
an upper limit on the number of salmon which could be processed. The lack of
freezers in Nondalton, which did not have community electricity, was a major
constraint on the fall moose harvest. Although more effort could be devoted to
hunting and more moose could often be harvested in the fall, Nondalton hunters
appeared to limit their harvest to what could be used by their households and the
households of their relatives without spoilage. A small number of moose
therefore were taken and distributed widely within the village in the fall.
Ideology was also a limitation on harvest. Nondalton Dena'ina had strong
traditional beliefs about the proper treatment of animals. Probably the most
-68-
IJ
c~
[~.
[
[
[
c
[
c
c~
[
c
[
[
[
[
c'~
L
L~
[
l-~
~-
[
[
"
[
[
[
c
c
D
c
[
[
[
[
[
[~,
L'
[
[
powerful of these in contemporary society was the belief that game should not be
wasted. As previously noted, the Dena 'ina prided themselves on their complete
utilization of fish and game, and contrasted their practices with those who they
perceived as "trophy hunters." Small children were scolded for killing small birds
or animals for the fun of it. Frequent comments about waste and misuse of game
served as a means of continuous social controls ensuring that hunters constantly
kept their active needs in mind when planning to harvest or while hunting. "We
take only what we need, and we never waste any fish or game," summarizes this
ideology. This abhorrance of waste also reinforced social values such as sharing;
if a hunter killed more game than he could use before spoilage occurred, there
was a strong incentive to distribute the excess to other households.
Further restraints on harvest, internal to Nondalton social and economic system,
were found in producer's desire to reduce costs, time and effort, and to minimize
risk. If a game species were a long distance away, and there was only a small
chance that it would be located (perhaps because of poor tracking conditions or
weather), the producer was unlikely to go out hunting.
Nondalton producers also balanced social objectives in deciding how much effort,
time, or money to devote to particular harvest activities at particular times. On
one hand, there was prestige to be gained from bringing back game and
distributing it to relatives. On the other hand was the desire to be with family
or relatives, and to stay in the community with the comforts of home. Again,
these restraints operated in the context of other factors, such as desire for
particular foods or the availability of hunting equipment.
-69-
The role of hunting regulations in controlling wildlife harvests in Nondalton is
difficult to assess. This study focussed on general patterns of resource use and
harvest, but not on details of illegal harvest, an obviously sensitive and difficult
[ilea to research. People responded well to questions partially because potentially
sensitive areas were avoided. Therefore this study has not been able to answer
questions about the importance of harvests which are out of season or in excess
of bag limits. Hunting regulations have probably played some role in restricting
harvest of wildlife, however, regulatory seasons, for example, reduce the time
during which animals can legally be tnken. Bag limit~; are potentially re8trictivc
in view of the customary patterns described above, since a small proportion of
hunters take a large percentage of the wild resources. Compared to weather,
technology and local economic conditions, legal restrictions do not appear to play
a major role in determining how much fish and game is harvested by Nondalton
residents.
In summary, it appears likely that the harvest levels of moose, caribou, and other
resources used by Nondalton residents were primarily regulated by factors internal
to the local economy and society, as well as by weather and travel conditions.
Legal restrictions played a relatively minor role in determining harvest levels.
-70-
[
cr
[
E
[
[
6
[
c
c~
L
c
c
[
[
[
L
,--:
c~
L
L
[
l~,
\
r
l_~
[
[
[
c
c
c
D
c
0
[
'
[
[
[
l'_
C
[
[
SUMMARY
During the 1970s and early 1980s residents of the village of Nondalton, like the
people of most of the surrounding communities of the Iliamna Lake region,
continued to harvest a wide range of fish and wildlife species. The contemporary
Nondalton economy in 1981 was based on a close integration of domestic
production and cash income. Sources of cash income were limited, seasonal, and
variable from year to year. Most Nondalton families spent a high proportion of
their limited cash income on imported energy in the form of oil and gasoline.
Domestic production of food was necessitated by the high cost of imported food
and fuels. A major portion of the local food supply was derived from fishing,
hunting, and trapping. Local food resources play a particularly important role in
buffering households against fluctuations in wage earning opportunities and
variations in cash income.
For three years for which harvest data were collected, it was estimated that a
Nondalton household produced an annual average of 4,432 pounds dressed weight
of local fish and game resources for domestic use. This was an annual average
of 846 pounds per household member. Salmon was the largest harvested resource
by weight, followed by moose, caribou, freshwater fish species, and beaver.
The moose harvest for Nondalton averaged just less than one moose and just over
two caribou per household in 1980 and 1981. As these harvests occurred under
poor hunting conditions, they may underestimate typical harvest levels. Average
household harvests in 1973 of one moose and four caribou may be better estimates
of typic:~l harvest levels. Moose and caribou were important resources to the
-71-
people of Nondalton, together supplying 14 to 20 percent by dressed weight of the
subsistence foods harvested by ~,londnlton residents in 1980 and 1981.
A substantial proportion of the moose and caribou harvest was produced by a
subset of Nondalton hunters. For example, in 1981 four families or 21 percent
of households surveyed accounted for 60 percent of the reported harvest. Forty-
·two percent of the households surveyed in 1981 and 57 percent of the households
surveyed in 1980 did not harvest any moose. However, these households utilized
moose and caribou as meat was shared by successful households in the village.
Significant limitations on moose and caribou harvests were imposed by environ-
mental conditions, including weather and snow conditions, the costs of hunting,
lack of freezers in Nondalton, and by residents' abhorrance of waste. All of these
factors appear to interact to limit Nondalton residents' moose and caribou
harvests from year to year. Hunting regulations appear to play a relatively minor
role in determining harvest levels by Nondalton residents.
-72-
[
cr~
[
[
[/
[
b
[
c
c~
[
[
[
[
[
[
r~
c~
[
[
[
r~
t )
"-----/
n
L
E
[
[
[
[
c
c=;
c
c
[
[
[
[
[~,. L\
[
['
-·
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1978 Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series.
1980 Bristol Bay Annual Management Report.
Fisheries.
Behnke, Steven R.
Division of Commercial
1978 Resource Use and Subsistence in the Vicinity of the Proposed Lake
Clark National Park, Alaska and Additions to Katmai National Monu-
ment. Occasional Paper No. 15. Anthropology and Historic Preser-
vation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
1979 Dena 'ina and the Land. The Impact of Changing Patterns of Land ancl
Resource Jurisdiction Upon Subsistence Options in an Alaska Village.
M.A. Thesis, McCill University, Montreal.
Gasbarro, Anthony
1974 Unpublished data from Bristol Bay Community Subsistence Survey,
1973.
Anthony and George Utermohle Gasbarro,
1975 A Study of Subsistence Activities in Bristol Bay. Man in the Arctic
Program. Institute of Social, Economic, and Government· Research,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Unpublished draft.
Kari, James
1975 A Classification of Tanaina Dialects. Anthropological Papers of the
University of Alaska 17(2):49-53.
1977 Dena'ina Noun Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center,
University of Alaska.
Vari, Priscilla Russell
1977 Dena'ina K'et'una: Tanaina Plantlore. Anchorage, Adult Literacy
Program, University of Alaska.
Langdon, Steve
1981 The 1980 Season and Bristol Bay Native Fishermen: Performance and
Prospects. Dillingham: Bristol Bay Native Association.
Osgood, Cornelius
1937 The Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology 16. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Russell, Richard
1980 Fisheries Inventory of Waters in the Lake Clark National Monument
Area. Alaska Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service.
-73-
Schmidt, John L. and Douglas L. Gilbert (eds.)
1978 Big Game of North America: Ecology and Management. Harrisburg,
Virginia: Stackpole Press.
Skoog, Ronald 0.
1968 Ecology of the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Tenenbaum, Joan
1975 Nondalton Tanaina Noun Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native
Language Center, University of Alaska.
Townsend, Joan B.
1965 Ethnohistory and Culture Change of the Iliamna Tanaina. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
1966 Tanaina Athapaskan Cultural Traditions . • • Persistence through
Change. Unpublished paper presented to 37th International Congress of
Americanists, Argentina.
1970 Tanaina Ethnohistory: An Example of a Method For the Study of
Culture Change. In Ethnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and Southern
Yukon. Margaret Lantis, ed., pp. 71-102. Lexington: University of
Kentucky Press.
1973 Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Eskimo and Indian Movements in
Southwestern Alaska. Unpublished paper presented to the Society for
American Archeology Annual Meetings, San Francisco. May, 1973.
Williamson, Francis S. L. and Leonard J. Peyton.
1962 Faunal Relationships of Birds in the Iliamna Lake
Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, No. 5.
Research Center, Public Health Service, Anchorage.
Area, Alaska.
Arctic Henlth
Winterhalder, Bruce P.
1977 Foraging Strategy Adaptations of the Boreal Forest Cree:
Evaluation of Theory and Models From Evolutionary Ecology.
Dissertation. Cornell University, New York.
Wolfe, Robert J.
An
Ph.D.
1979 Food Production in a Western Eskimo Population. Ph.D. Dissertation in
Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1981 Norton Sound/Yukon Delta Sociocultural Systems Baseline Analysis.
Technical Report No. 72. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program,
Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office, Bureau of Land Management,
and Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
-74-
[
cr
[
[
[
-
[
b
[
c -
c-,
L
[
[
[
[
[
[
c!
L
L
XION3dd\t
J
J
) '-J
J
J
J
J
J
J
cJ
J
J
J
]
r1
'-'
J
l
'-'
[ ·'
r~,
\ __
[
[
[
[
c
[
c
[~
[
[
[
[
[
[
~-,
L --L\
[
r~
l~
Appendix I
Calculation of Edible Weights of Fish and Wildlife Species
Harvested by Nondalton Residents
Since the fish and game reported taken in the harvest surveys were not weighed,
nor have any actual weights of the portions used after butchering has been made,
it has been necessary to estimate average weights in order to convert numbers of
animals taken into pounds of meat. A number of sources were used to estimate
reasonable average live weights and factors for converting live weights to edible
product. These sources are citetf below. The term "live weight" refers to the·
assumed average weight of fish and game harvested by Nondalton residents.
"Edible weight" refers to the portion used for human consumption, except in the
case of sockeye, where it also refers to fish used for feeding dogs. The live
weights and edible weights of each species is provided below.
A conversion factor of 60 percent is used to derive the edible portion of moose,
caribou, and blackbear. This is felt to be conservative; conversion factors of up
to two-thirds are often assumed for domestic beef. As noted in this report, the
Dena 'ina use almost every part of moose and caribou, including intestines, head,
nose, and leg bones.
The conversion factor of • 70 used for calculating the edible portion of fish specie:;
assumes relatively complete utilization of flesh as well as common use of heads
for food. Since a large percentage of the remaining 30 percent ("waste") is used
as dogfood, actual weights of fish used are understated. In the case of most fish,
for example, backbones, and rib sections, and the flesh remaining on them after
the fish are filleted, are commonly dried and stored for use as dogfood.
Moose ---
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
900.00
.60
540.00
The age-sex composition of the Nondalton moose harvest is not known. A large
proportion are harvested in winter and a high percentage are cows. For purposes
of this calculation, it was assumed that the average weight of moose taken by
Nondalton residents would be slightly less than the average weight of an adult cow
moose. The greater weight of adult bulls taken should roughly compensate for the
smaller size of younger animals harvested. A. W. Franzmann reported that the
average October weight of 17 Alaskan cow moose was 987 pounds. Adult males
ranged up to 1,310 pounds. Moose 16 -18 months old (both sexes) average 614
pounds (Schmidt and Gilbert, 1978).
-1-
Caribou
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
250.00
.60
150.00
As with moose, the age-sex composition of caribou taken by Nondalton residents
is unknown. Most harvest occurs in winter and presumable is skewed toward
females. The average live weight of 19 caribou (13 females, 6 males) from the
Alaska Peninsula in the post-rut period (October -December) was 254 pounds
(Skoog, 1968, 26). Caribou of the Mulchatna herd, harvested by Nondalton
residents, are assumed to be of comparable size. Palmer (1926 reported in Skoog,
1968, 36) reported that the average live weight of 17,000 reindeer from western
Alaska was 260 pounds, and that the average dressed weight of these animals was
150 pounds. As is the case with moose, Nondalton Dena 'ina make very complete
use of the caribou carcass' and a conversion factor of 60 percent is felt to be
conservative.
Black Bear
Li vc Wei gilt
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
16'J.()()
.60
100.00
An "average" adult male in summer weighs about 180-200 pounds and may be 20
percent heavier in fall. Females are usually smaller (Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, 1978). Little information is available about sex ratio of bear harvested
by Nondalton residents.
Brown Bear
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
400.00
.25
100.00
Most mature males weigh between 500 and 900 pounds. Females weigh one-half
to three-quarters as much (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife
Notebook Series).
The people of Nondalton have harvested only a small number of brown bear in
recent years, and mainly make use of the fat and a small amount of meat. A
small amount of hide is used for crafts, such as skin boot soles.
-2-
L
cr:
[
E
[
[
b
[
c
C2
[
c
[
[
[
[
r~ c-
L
L
-,
'
~-
~ ..
,.,
....,
[
c
[
c
[J
~ i
l;,
n
I .....
"
.__df
J
.__;
~L~'
'-'
~-)
1:3eaver
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Ldible Weight
40.00
.50
20.00
Winterhalder (1977, 210) cited the estimated average weight of northern Canadian
beaver as forty to fifty pounds. Beaver caught in the Lake Clark and Newhalen
River drainages appear to fall in this range. Most Alaskan adult beaver weigh 40
to 70 pounds (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978, Wildlife Notebook
Series). The lower end of the range was chosen as an average weight to
compensate for kits harvested.
Porcupine
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978.
estimated at 15 to 18 pounds.
Arctic Hare
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
16.00
.50
8.00
Average weights of porcupine are
8.00
• 70
5.60
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978. Average weights of arctic hare are
estimated at 6 to 12 pounds.
Snowshoe Hare
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
3.50
.60
2.00
Average weights of snowshoe hare are estimated at 3 to 4 pounds (Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, 1978).
Ptarmigan
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978.
-3-
1.00
.70
.70
Sockeye Salmon
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
5. 70
• 70
4.00
Naknek-Kvichak district sockeye average weight, 1969 -1980 (Alaska Department
of Fish and Game 1980).
Lake Trout
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
3.80
• 70
2.70
Average of 368 lake trout, Lake Clark; Alaska Department of Fish and Game
files, Records of 1964 Commercial Test Fishery at Lake Clark.
Whitefish
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
1.40
.7U
1.00
Average of 2, 713 whitefish (assumed to be both humpback and round) harvested
at Lake Clark. See above.
Pike
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
4.00
• 70
2.80
Size of pike taken by Nondalton residents varies greatly, and depends on area,
time, and methods of fishing. This average greatly underestimates weight of
spring-caught pike in Chulitna Bay, for example, which may go as high as 20
pounds. Four pike caught in the 1964 Lake Clark test fishery averaged 3.5
pounds. (See above).
-4-
[J
cr·
[
c L
[
[
[
c
c
c~
[
[
[
l
[
[
r~,
c·'
L
[
[
l ~--.. \__.I
r
t~
[
[
[
[
[
c
[J
c
[
[
[
[
[
[~, c_;
[
[
Arctic Char, Dolly Varden, Rainbow Trout
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
2.00
. 70
1.40
The average weight of fish of these species taken by residents of the Nondalton
area was assumed to equal approximately one-third the maximum weights of char
(5 lbs, 4 oz); dolly varden (5 lbs, 3 oz); and rainbow trout (5 lbs, 2 oz) reported
by Russell (1980, pp. 48, 69, 98) taken in the Lake Clark, Mulchatna and upper
Stony River drainages.
Grayling
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
1.00
• 7[)
.70
Nondalton residents reported average weight of grayling taken through the ice
near the village to be about one pound. The maximum live weight reported by
Russell (1980, 57) for Lake Clark -Mulchatna region was 1 pound, 14 oz.
Burbot
Live Weight
Conversion Factor
Edible Weight
1.50
• 70
1.00
The maximum live weight of 3 pounds reported for burbot in Russell (1980, 64)
was reduced by 50 percent to provide an assumed live weight for burbot taken in
the vicinity of Nondalton.
-5-