HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2059THE USE OF MOOSE ANTI OTHER WILD RESOURCES
IN THE TYONEK AND UPPER YENTNA AREAS:
A BACKROUND REPORT
James A. Fall/Daniel J. Foster/Ronald T. Stanek
Technical Paper Number 74
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Subsistence
Anchorage, Alaska
March 1983
.I
ABSTRACT
This report contains background information on the use of moose and
other wild renewable resources by the residents of the village of Tyonek
(population 239) and the Upper Yentna area (population 145), both of
which lie in Game Management 16B. The data derive from two Division of
Subsistence research projects which have been investigating resource uses
in these areas in order to provide data for area and regional plans, and
to the Board of Fisheries and Game for their review of proposals for
regulatory change. Several proposals to reestablish a November moose
hunting season in GMU 16B will be considered by the Board of Game during
its Spring 1983 meeting. This report supplements an earlier Division
paper on the use of moose by Tyonek residents (Foster I982a).
Research methodologies have i,ncluded interviewing, participant-obser-
vation, and mapping. Data were collected from 52 percent of the Tyonek
households and 82 percent of the households in the Upper Yentna Area.
An annual round of resource harvests and a map of the geographic areas
used for these harvests are provided for both areas. In addition, harvest
quantities for 43 resources or groups of resources are reported for the
Upper Yentna area. In both areas, residents harvest a wide range of
resources. At Tyonek, the three year average subsistence catch of salmon
has included 1,900 kings and 250 reds. Fifteen moose were taken by
Tyonek hunters in September 1981. In 1982, Upper Yentna households
harvested an estimated maximum of 1,630 salmon, 1,800 freshwater fish,
and 30 moose for local use. Travel to hunting and fishing areas in the
Tyonek area is primarily by pickup truck along a network of roads built
for timber harvesting, by boat along several rivers, and by ATV. In the
roadless Upper Yentna area, travel is by boat, snowmachine, ATV, and
dogsled along rivers and trails and is highly dependent on weather con-
ditions.
The preservation of most meat and fish in both areas is accomplished by
methods not requiring electricity, including smoking, canning, and freez-
ing outdoors.
Over the past three years, an average of 59.6 percent of the households
in the Upper Yenta area harvested at least one moose; most unsuccessful
households received moose meat from other households. Harvest levels in
Tyonek were monitored in 1981 only. While sharing was extensive, the
total of fifteen moose harvested was said to be insufficient to meet
village needs. Of the Tyonek households interviewed, 73 percent expressed
a preference to reopen a November or December moose season.
Residents in both areas have few sources of wage employment and utilize
a variety of sources of monetary income, most of which are seasonal,
for the purchase of non-locally produced commodities. The use of local
harvests of wild, renewable resources has historically played a major
role in the economic and sociocultural systems of this region.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*........... iii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Methodology
Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Susitna Basin Resource Use Study . . . . . . . ..*....................... 3
Results
Patterns of Wild Resource Use in Tyonek .......................... 6
General Characteristics of the Upper Yentna Area................1 3
Settlement Patterns .............................................
Population Characteristics ...................................... :i
Wage Employment and other Monetary Incomes......................1 6
Annual Round of Resource Harvest ................................ 20
Characteristics of Moose Harvest by Upper Yentna Residents......2 6
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...................... 29
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Upper Yentna area in which households were
interviewed.
Figure 2. Geographic area of resource harvest used by Tyonek
residents 1978 to 1982.
Figure 3. Seasonal round of harvest activities by Tyonek
residents--1978-1982.
PAGE
4
Figure 4. Areas used for moose hunting by Tyonek residents
during the 1981 moose season, representing a com-
posite of individual hunting areas. 10
Figure 5. The percentage of sampled Tyonek households which
participated in resource harvest during the period
of 1978-1982. 12
Figure 6. The length of residency in the Upper Yentna area
for the longest residing member of each household
in 1982. 17
Figure 7. The length of residency in Alaska for the longest
residing members in Upper Yentna households in 1982. 18
Figure 8. The age/sex structure of Upper Yentna households
in 1982. 19
Figure 9. The number of sources of monetary income of Upper
Yentna households in 1982. 21
Figure 10. The annual round of resources harvested, percentage
of households harvesting, and estimated quantities
harvested by Upper Yentna residents in 1982. 22
Figure 11. The number of resources harvested per household
in the Upper Yentna area in 1982. 23
Figure 12. Geographic area currently used for resource harvest
Upper Yentna residents indicating levels of use. 25
Figure 13. The three year moose harvest characteristics for
Upper Yentna households 1980-1982. 27
Figure 14. The household moose harvest for Upper Yentna households
during 1982. 28
Figure 15. The methods of meat preservation used by Upper Yent-
na households during 1982. 30
i Figure 16. The amounts of moose meat preserved by various
. methods by Upper Yentna households in 1982. 31
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 17. The geographic area currently used by Upper Yentna
residents for moose hunting.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD LAND ACQUISITION
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
PAGE
32
14
15
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors received valuable input and assistance from a number of
individuals during the preparation of this document. Bob Wolfe, Research
Director, gave his valuable aid in reviewing data and commenting on the
text. Linda Ellanna, Deputy Director, also provided her comments.
We are especially thankful to.Jim Bitney, Joe Delia, and Vern Logan
for introducing us to area residents, providing transportation, and
advising during the field work.
As always, our sincere thanks go to the support staff of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game who assisted in typing and compiling this
report.
PURPOSE
This report describes the uses of wild resources and socioeconomic
characteristics of the residents of portions of Game Management Unit 16B.
It provides a background for the Board of Game's consideration of several
proposals for regulatory change which would open a November moose season
in that GMU.
The data derive from two ongoing Division of Subsistence research
projects. The first, the "Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use Study,"
commenced in 1980 and will conclude in 1984. The second, the "Susitna
Basin Resource Use Study," began in December 1982. One purpose of both
of these projects is to gather data on the current patterns of resource
uses by local residents of each area which may be incorporated into area
and regional land use plans. These data may aid in our understanding of
the potential effects of land disposals, timber sales, road construction,
and the development of nonrenewable resources such as coal, oil, and
gas. To date, the Division has been able to comment on several potential
resource development projects (such as Oil and Gas Lease Sales 33 and 40;
coal leases; geothermal leases) and, in addition, has provided data on
land use patterns for the Department of Natural Resources' Susitna Area
Plan.
A second major purpose of these projects is to provide information on
local uses of fish and wildlife to advisory committees, regional councils,
and the Boards of Fisheries and Game which may inform their consideration
of fish and game regulations. Accordingly, as particular regulations
have been subjected to review and modification, the Division has period-
ically prepared reports based on ongoing projects (Foster 1981; Stanek,
Fall, and Foster 1982). The current paper is an example of such a report.
While based in part on preliminary data describing only portions of the
unit under consideration, the paper depicts the general patterns of
resource use by residents of this area. This description can serve as a
context for understanding the use of moose.
Additionally, the paper will .also introduce the new Board of Game
members to the Division's research program in the Cook Inlet area and,
especially, outline the scope of our recently initiated work in the
Susitna Basin.
METHODOLOGY
Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use Study
Research methodologies for the "Tyonek Comprehensive Resource Use
Study" have included formal interviewing with the aid of survey instru-
ments (Foster 1982a: Appendix B; 1982b:60-61)) informal discussions, map-
ping, and participant observation. Data specific to the use of moose by
Tyonek's 239 residents were gathered in the fall of 1981. Of 48 identi-
fied moose hunters, 40 were interviewed. Hunting trips by several Tyonek
residents were also observed. Using United States Geological Survey
(USGS) 1:63,630 topographic maps, local residents indicated the areas
that they had hunted in 1981. From these maps, the researchers prepared
a composite map of the village moose hunting area. The complete results
of the research on 1981 moose harvests in Tyonek are discussed in Foster
1982a.
During the spring and summer of 1982, data were collected on the cur-
rent annual round of resource harvests in the Tyonek area. With the aid
2
of several key respondents, the researcher chose of a sample of 39 house-
holds representing 52 percent of the village households for intensive in-
terviewing. This sample included those households most active in resource
harvesting. Respondents were asked to indicate the resources which they
had regularly harvested within the last five years. The results of this
research included an annual round of hunting and fishing activities, an
estimate of the percentage of Tyonek households participating in harvest
activities, and a series of maps of harvest areas (Foster 1982b). The
major findings of this research are summarized below.
Susitna Basin Resource Use Study
Data on resource uses in the Upper Yentna study area (Figure 1) were
primarily collected through household interviews with the aid of an inter-
view guide (Appendix A) and in field notes. Prior to conducting household
interviews, Division staff discussed the proposed research, including its
purpose, objectives, and methods, with area residents at a public meeting
in Skwentna.
In a population census survey conducted by Schulling (1982) in the
same geographic area as this study, 145 full-time residents were identi-
fied. With the aid of local key informants, Division staff mapped the
approximate locations of homes of Upper Yentna residents. During a five
week period in December 1982 and January and February 1983, the Division
researchers attempted to interview as many of the households as possible.
At the end of the study period, 38 households, with a total population
of 126, had been interviewed. This provided a sample of 87 percent of
the census population.
Several factors influenced the choice of households to contact,
3
,(\KK-fAT?iA'RIi'ER \\x\\‘
STUDY AREA h\
SCALE iSbis
MILES
Figure 1. The Upper Yentna area in which households were interviewed.
4
including the availability of household members for interview, logistical
constraints such as availability of transportation, prevailing weather
conditions, and time limitations. There was a tendency to select those
households which were the most active users of local resources, such as
trappers, hunters and fishermen, and guides, although other residents who
used resources to lesser degrees were not systematically excluded. An
effort was made to include in the.sample as many long-term residents as
possible.
Questions on the interview guide asked for household information ap-
propriate to 1982 use levels. When discussing harvest levels, many house-
holds were unable to recall exact harvest quantities for particular spe-
cies. This was particularly true for fish. In such cases, a range was
estimated. For big game and furbearers, respondents generally were able
to recall exact harvest levels.
The researchers attempted to arrange interviews before visiting each
home. This allowed residents to decide in advance whether they wanted to
participate and to prepare for the discussion. Interviewees were given
the option of not answering questions with which they felt uncomfortable.
Two researchers were present for each interview. One researcher asked
questions from the interview form and recorded data pertinent to each
question, and the other researcher recorded additional information from
ensuing discussions.
All household members were encouraged to participate in the inter-
views. Since most interviews were prearranged, the persons most knowl-
edgeable about particular subjects were present to reply to specific
questions. In addition, this approach proved beneficial in reaching a
consensus on harvest quantities, seasons, or locations, In all inter-
views, open discussion of resource use activities was encouraged in order
to elicit any qualifiers to specific interview responses.
Mapping of resource use areas followed each interview. The research-
ers used the list of resources generated earlier as a guide in mapping
use areas, which was done on 1:63,630 USGS topographic maps. Because
mapping of use areas for a single year might not realistically represent
the area generally used, interviewees were asked to draw a line encompas-
sing the area they currently use to harvest each resource or category of
resources. Resource use areas were grouped into fishing, trapping, moose
hunting, wood gathering, berry picking, small game hunting, and bear
hunting areas.
RESULTS
Patterns of Wild Resource Use in Tyonek
The uses of wild resources by the residents of the village of Tyonek
have been described in detail in several Division reports (Stickney 1980;
Stanek and Foster 1980; Stanek, Fall, Foster 1982; Foster 1982a, I982b).
In this regard, the reader should refer to Foster (1982a), Foster (I982b:
32-54), and Fall (1982). This section briefly summarizes these earlier
findings.
The geographic area utilized by Tyonek residents for the harvest of
resources from 1978 to 1982 is depicted in Figure 2. The harvest and
utilization of fish and game in the Tyonek area proceed according to an
annual round of activities (Figure 3). A new round begins each April as
groups of villagers travel south in dories to Redoubt Bay to harvest
razor clams and three other species of shellfish. These trips are usually
6
BELUGA LAKE
UEST FORElAND
&Arthur RlverFk
\ I .--. -3 ISLANO I{ KALGII
COOK INLET
TYONEK RESOURCE HARVEST AREA
Figure 2; Geographic area of resource harvest used by Tyonek residents 1978 to 1982
7
SUSONAL RWJNIJ OF HARVt;ST ACTIVITIES FOR SELECTED SPECIES. TYUNEKJK. 1978-1982
Species APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE MAR
Razor Clam - e-w-
Butter Clam -- ---w
Redneck Clam- --w-
Cockle -- ---v
Ho01 i gan
Herring
King Salmon
Red Salmon v--w
Coal
Harbor Seal ----
blukha ----
Black Bear ------------
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
Silver Salmon
Berries
Edible Plants
Medicinal Plts.
Ducks ---------
Geese -B--B---
Moose e--v-- e--w----
Brown Bear ------------- -
Tomcod
Spruce Grouse- ----------
Porcupine --------------- ----------------
Wood
Snowshoe Hare ---------
Ptarmigan
Mink
Marten
Fox
Coyote I
Beaver ------------
Otter
Rai nbcw Trout
Dolly Varden
,
Key: Usual period of harvest effort; ---m-v Occasional period of harvest effort.
Figure 3 . Seasonal round of harvest activities by Tyonek residents (Foster
1982b:34)
8
organized by older, more experienced men with boats and motors. The vil-
lage harvest of 2,000-3,500 clams is distributed throughout the community.
Preparation for subsistence and commercial salmon fishing takes place
in late April and early May. During the summer months, the majority of
Tyonek households take salmon for local use with set gill nets from 28
fish camps. Many camps also have smoke houses and other fish processing
facilities, although most Tyonek families now cut and smoke their salmon
in the village. Over the last three seasons, the subsistence catch at
Tyonek has averaged about 1900 kings and 250 reds. Additionally, approxi-
imately 25 households fish commercially at the same camps. Harbor seals
and belukha are also harvested during the summer months. About 37 percent
of Tyonek households regularly participate in the harvest of these marine
mammals. As with clams, the products of these hunts are widely distributed
in the village. Salmon fishing, especially for silvers, continues into
the fall.
Each September, approximately 50 Tyonek residents hunt moose. Figure
4 depicts the general area used by Tyonek moose hunters in 1981. The
area hunted in 1982 was similar. Access to hunting areas is along the net-
work of local roads first constructed in the early 1970s for a commercial
logging operation, or by dory to several rivers south of the village.
About 87 percent of Tyonek households harvested moose regularly over the
past five years (Fall 1982). While considerable time and effort were
expended by Tyonek hunters in September 1981, the harvest of 15 moose was
considered by the villagers to be inadequate to meet their needs. The
1982 fall harvest was of a similar size. Traditionally, moose hunting
in the Tyonek area, as well as the Susitna Basin, continued throughout
the winter months (Fall 1981:146-49, 188, 197). Tyonek residents have
I d
10
. I
indicated a desire to reopen a November or December season (Foster
1982a:25).
In addition to moose, Tyonek residents take bear, waterfowl, and
small game in the fall. Although winter harvest activities are not as
intense as those of spring, summer, and fall, a few individuals run trap
lines, and others hunt small game and fish through the ice for trout.
The percentage of Tyonek households which generally participate in the
harvest of various resources is shown in Figure 5.
Social relationships, especially kinship, structure the harvest,
processing, and distribution of fish and game in Tyonek. Hunting and
clamming parties, as well as fishing groups, are normally composed of
relatives. Fish and game harvests are widely distributed throughout the
village, and facilities such as fishcamps and smokehouses are extensively
shared. For example, while only 15 hunters successfully harvested moose
in September 1981, over 90 percent of Tyonek's 75 households received
moose meat. Resources which require special skills and equipment for
their harvesting, such as marine mammals or clams, are taken by a limited
number of individuals in the village, but these products are distributed
almost village wide. . Village elders and the ill, as well as kin, are
included in this resource sharing.
c
In summary, the use of wild resources provides an important economic
base for the majority of Tyonek residents. Wage employment opportunities
in the village are relatively few and household .incomes are well below
Alaska's average (Fall 1982). In addition, harvesting and utilizing fish
and game tie the community together and are a basis ,for group identity
and community stability.
11
mu mrmn
N3awA A-ma , NCUWSWlllO*
NM MAlIS l
NCUWS YNId l
NWlVSOM-
NW-M 9NCl -
12
c General Characteristics of the Upper Yentna Area
The Upper Yentna area is located in the Susitna basin along the upper
reaches of the Yentna River. The focal point for the area's residents is
Skwentna, which is located near the confluence of the Yentna and Skwentna
Rivers approximately 55 air miles northwest of Anchorage.
Travel in the area is by boat or airplane during summer months and
fall months, and by snowmachine, airplane, dogsled, and ATV during the
winter months. Especially, travel in fall and spring is highly dependent
upon the weather and the freezing and thawing rivers, lakes, airstrips,
and trails.
Settlement Patterns
The aborginal inhabitants of the Yentna River drainage, the Upper
Inlet Dena'ina, had greatly declined in population by the early twentieth
century, most due to diseases. Subsequently, a few scattered households
of trappers and prospectors comprised the permanent population until,
within the past 30 years, human settlement again increased as a a result
of State and Federal land disposal programs. Consequently, concentrations
of households have appeared in areas along rivers or bordering lakes.
This is the current pattern around the mouth of Lake Creek, at Skwentna,
and in the Whiskey and Hewitt Lake areas.
The means by which local residents acquired their land included
purchase from previous owner (36.8 percent), State open-to-entry programs
(21.0 percent), State remote parcel programs (18.4 percent), and a variety
of other State and Federal programs (Table 1).
L Population Characteristics
A summary of interview findings regarding households member charac-
13
TABLE 1.
UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD LAND ACQUISITION
Purchased From Previous Owner
State Open-To-Entry (OTE) Program
State Kemote Parcel Program
Federal Homestead
State Homesite Program
Borough Housing
Federal Cabin Site
Kental
Purchased from State
Other
14
14
TABLE 2.
CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
Mean Range
Number of Persons/Household . 3.3 l-7
Age of Heads of Households 42.9 25-70
*Number of Years in Alaska 16.4 3-41
*Number of Years in Upper Yentna Area 7.9 l-33
*Indicates number of years for the longest
residing household member.
15
. .
teristics appears in Table 2. Household size varied from one to seven
members and averaged 3.3 persons.
The results of interview questions asking about length of residency
appear in Figures 6 and 7. The range of time that household members had
been in Alaska was 3-41 years. The average length of time in Alaska 'was
16.4 years. Residency in the Yentna area ranged from .5 to 33 years, and
averaged 7.9 years. Overall, most residents have resided in the area for
less than 10 years.
The age/sex structure of the population, depicted in Figure 8, re-
flects this immigration of most families into the area. The few individ-
uals over 50 years of age are mostly males. Middle aged couples (ages
31-50) and their children (ages 11-20) comprise most of the population.
The age/sex profile also reveals that there are few children under ten
years of age and few young women in prime child-bearing years (ages
21-30). This suggests that the population is not yet reproducing itself;
individuals must still find mates from outside the area.
Wage Employment and Other Sources of Monetary Income
Full time wage employment opportunities in which the sample of 126
Upper Yentna residents were involved during 1982-83 included positions
as school teacher (3), weather reporter (2), equipment operator (I),
postmaster (l), and facilities engineer (1). The remaining sources of
cash income were seasonal, part time, and/or temporary. Some people
worked outside the area on a seasonal or part time basis. Examples of
local seasonal jobs include guiding hunters and fishermen (8), trapping
(18), freighting (Z), consulting (Z), assisting at lodges (7)$ operating
16
L
17
L
Y m
sa7omnoH do ti3awnN
18
OF UPPER YENTNA RESIDENTS
66-70
61-65
56-60
51-55
46-50
41-45
a
: 36-40
;
3
31-3s
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
AGE/SEX PROFILE
MALE
..:: ..:: ..:.. . . ...’ . . ...’ .-.... . . . . . . ..:.. . . . . . .
. (I
. . . . . . . .,. .: :: i:
FEMALE
N= 38 HOUS E HOLD:
126 PEOPLE
O-5
PERCENT
Figure 8. The age/sex stwcture of Upper Yentna households in 1982
19
the store (4), running river boats (3), and operating saw mills (2).
Examples of nonlocal employment include commercial fishing (Z), North
Slope oil field work (Z), and road and housing construction (2). Some
people were retired and received longevity payments and retirement bene-
fits.
Fifty-two percent of the households had three or more sources of
cash income during a single year (Figure 9). Forty-eight percent had one
to two sources of income. Thirty-one percent had four to seven sources
of cash income.
Because of the small numbers of full-time jobs in the area, most
households need several seasonal or part time sources of cash income in
order to purchase food staples, fuel, equipment and parts, building
materials, air transportation, and other commodities not produced locally.
Annual Round of Resource Harvest
The range of wild resources harvested by residents of the Upper
Yentna area during 1982 is indicated in Figure 10, along with estimated
quantities, timing of harvest, and percentages of households participat-
ing in the harvests. The number of resources taken by each household
varied considerably, with 91 percent of the households harvesting from 6
to 25 individual or groups of resources (Figure 11). Following is a
summary of the annual round of resource uses in the Upper Yentna area as
reported by area residents for 1982. Although the harvest of resources
occurs continuously throughout the year, the month of April was used as a
convenient starting point for this discussion.
When the ice on rivers and lakes started to melt in April, harvesting
of rainbow trout, grayling, whitefish, and northern pike began. This
20
c
24% 24% ( N-38 HOUSEHOLDS (
18%
3% .‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘. ::::::::::::::::::::: .~.~.~...~.~,~.~.~.~. .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. ..:........:..:... .‘.......‘.‘.........
II
::::.::y(::*:.:.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.‘. . . . . . . . . . . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.>:.: :::::::::::::::::::::
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NUMBER OF SOURCES OF MONETARY INCOME
OF UPPER YENTNA HOUSEHOLDS
Figure 9. The number of sources of monetary income of Upper Yentna households
in 1982 21
.,
ANMJU Row0 d RESCURQS WAJlVEmD BY UPPER VENTMA RESIOENYS 1982
Ponmlt or Estirt84
lbus4mi4r @Imel ty
SDaci es API NAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Nov DEC JAI4 FE3 MM llwvest1nq mUrrwto4
SD o . . . .oa..*~O..w.
.*a . . .
. oe . . .
. . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .
.I. .
..............
.............
................
................
. . . . . . . . .
................
................... ..................
I23
3%
1%
1%
US bn 36s 6% US 14s 50s 6x 7% us m 3%
US 1% 22s
14s
as
n
6s
3s
SOS as
4% m 22s
19%
14%
3%
1%
16%
33s
17s
11%
14%
17%
6%
1%
2%
972
462-520
3GUfS
45-61
1003-1461’
13
252-279
54Go-5929
200
1
155
156160 4%
141-m
413-470
623-531
42
131-144
7
331-361
94427
124
431.446 m.
16.000 105
1
1
141~1n
30
1s146
4
85
174
20
296
9
126
62
3
20
1
8
0
195
120
211.268-
367-*27-
Key: Usual period of harvest effort; e..... Occasional period of harvest effort.
*Razor, steamer, fresh water clams. ** Cords of birch, spruce, and cottonwood used as
firewood for heating and cooking. l ** Number trees of spruce and some birch used in
construction of homes, outbuildings and furniture.
Figure 10. The annual round of resources harvested, percentage of households har-
vesting and estimated quanities harvested by Upper Yentna residents in
1982
22
26% 26x
23%
6-10
N= 38 HOUSEHOLDS
16%
3% . . . . . . . . . . . .‘.‘.‘.‘............_ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :::::::::::::::::::: ‘...._._._..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
El
::::::::::::::::::::: . . . . . . . . . .._.:... ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . . . . . . . . . . . .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . . . . . . . . . . .
31-35 16-20 21-25
NUMBER OF RESOURCES
Figure 11 The number of resources harvested per household in the Upper Yentna
area in 1982
23
.
l continued through September. The percentage of households harvesting each
species was as follows: rainbow trout--72 percent; northern pike--47
percent; grayling--39 percent; whitefish--l9 percent. For a short period
in May and June, hooligan and suckers were included in the harvest. Near-
ing the end of May and continuing through November, five salmon species
were harvested: king salmon were harvested by 67 percent of the house-
holds, red salmon by 78 percent, and silvers by 75 percent. At this time
lake trout were harvested by 17 percent of the households. Burbot was
said to be a highly desired species for eating, and was taken by 36
percent of the households.
Plant species including edible mushrooms, berries, fireweed, and fid-
dlehead fern, were gathered from spring through fall. Wood was taken
throughout the year. During February and March, when snow conditions
were favorable for travel, wood was stockpiled for the following year.
Among the mammals taken in April and May were muskrat and beaver, which
were trapped primari,ly for fur and dogfood by 14 and 39 percent of the
households respectively. Brown and black bear were taken by 11 and 44
percent of the households respectively, usually as nuisance animals,
although black bear meat and hides were used by many people.
During the fall, moose were harvested by 83 percent of the house-
holds, waterfowl by 42 percent, and spruce grouse by 50 percent. When
cold weather and freeze-up arrived around November 1, trappers began
setting out their traplines. A wide variety of furbearers including
marten, mink, weasel, and otter, was taken throughout the winter months
by 40 percent of the area households.
The geographic area currently used by Upper Yentna residents for all
resource harvest activities is shown in Figure 12. The number of house-
holds indicating use of a particular area varies depending upon the
24
c.
25
proximity of the area to local residences, accessibility of the area by
rivers, streams, and trails, and the variety of resources present.
Characteristics of Moose Harvest by Upper Yentna Residents
Information about moose harvest was requested for the past three
years (Figure 13). In 1980, 63 percent of the households harvested a
moose locally, 2.6 percent (one household) harvested a moose nonlocally,
21 percent were unsuccessful in their attempts locally, and 13 percent
did not hunt moose. In 1981, the success rate dropped to 52 percent and
the portion of unsuccessful households increased to 34 percent; no one
travelled out of the area for moose and the percent of those who did not
try remained the same. The success rate for 1982 returned to 1980 level,
and fewer households (7.9 percent) did not try. It should be noted that
in 1980 and 1982 the success rate among local households which hunted
moose was 80 percent. In 1982, the number of moose harvested per house-
hold ranged from one to three (Figure 14).
A significant aspect of the harvesting of moose is the relationship
between the timing of the harvest and how the meat is distributed. The
meat of any moose taken during warm weather was distributed by the suc-
cessful hunter to other households in order to prevent spoilage. No area
households had freezers large enough to freeze all the meat from one
moose, and there is no continous source of electricity to run freezers
throughout the warm weather during the summer and fall. By distributing
meat among several households, the smaller portions could be consumed
before they spoiled, frozen in small quantities, or processed by canning,
drying, pickling, or making sausage.
Hunting moose during colder weather was said to be preferrd over Sep-
tember seasons for several reasons. Preservation of meat by freezing
26
0
00
ds d
3-e - . d lrldSS333flSNn N
WOlNON ltlziSS333nS
iv307 indss333ns
w
-----e-w------
Atil ION ax
z
mss333nsNr
m m 0” WlOlNON wss333n:
it1307 mss333n:
In
AH1 ION au
s .‘...:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.‘.~.~.~.~.~ :.‘.‘.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.~.; .w; z ., . :.:.: ;:.:.::.:.:::::;:: . . . . . :.:.:;.:.::.x:::;:y indss333nsNI
g ‘1:: . I;: lW30lNON ln~ss333m d N . ..'
64
iv307 lruss333rr
S(IlOH3SflOH 40 lNI3U3d
27
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pi=38 HOUSEHOLDS
0 1 2 3
NUMBER OF MOOSE HARVESTED
PER HOUSEHOLD IN 1982
Figure 14. The household moose harvest for Upper Yentna households durirlg 1982
28
,
outdoors is possible, and snow and/or ice conditions make hauling of the
meat easier and, in most instances, possible. At this time, the lack of
foliage makes selecting the desired size of moose easier. As previously
mentioned, moose harvested before freeze-up usually are shared with other
households and another animal would be needed later in the year to replen-
ish the meat supply. Depending on the year, moose may not move into the
local area from higher elevations. until December or January. People
cannot afford to fly to Anchorage to purchase domestic meat whenever they
need it and keeping large quantities is impossible during warm months.
The methods of preserving moose meat used by area residents are indi-
cated in Figures 15 and 16. The largest percentage of meat was preserved
by freezing out-of-doors (48 percent). Nearly twice as much meat was
preserved by this method than by either canning or freezing in a freezer.
The greatest percentage of people used canning as a method of storage
than any other method, although only 21 percent of the moose meat was
actually preserved this way.
Geographic areas used by Upper Yentna residents for moose hunting are
shown in Figure 17. Moose hunting areas most heavily used were those in
the vicinity of residences and along waterways.
DISCUSSION
The results of research on the uses of wild resources in two por-
tions of Game Management Unit 168 have demonstrated that harvests of a
wide variety of fish and game species play significant roles in the local
socioeconomic systems of both areas. Residents of the village of Tyonek
and the Upper Yentna area harvest local wildlife resources in substantial
29
.S.........‘..... ..i...........‘. g ~;g$:;$
‘I
z 5 @z&X :::::::::y::::: 0 0 0 cd ::::::::::::::::: u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ ;;r
bp .:.I:.:.~:.:.:.:‘:.:.:. ...... ......... ...................... w
m ................................ . . . ................... y ................. . .......... . . . . ._._.,.,., ‘.;‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.:.:.: 0 =z
::
................ .......... . . . . .. x 0 c3
q-
..~.................~.~.~.~ .: v, .................. . . .......................
30
ws y wo 5 di 2
* ;
l/l
+:.:.:.:.:. $ y:>Z< yy::.:.:. . x:::t$::: 5 t-9 ;.....V... *:..:..:. ,..... Et
bp i:i:i~:i:i:~i:i:5~:~~~~~:~~:~~~::~~~~::~~::~.~:.:.:.:.:::~~:~: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.: . . . . . . . . ..I . . . . . . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:
~~~~~~ $
I w
31
32
,
quantities according to an annual round of activities. In Tyonek, five
species of salmon, clams, waterfowl, freshwater fish, moose, and several
species of small game comprise most of the harvest. Marine mammals and
black bear are also taken. Harvest and distribution of these resources
are organized on a kinship basis; these uses provide an economic base for
village households and bind village residents in networks of sharing and
support. In the vast area surrounding the community of Skwentna, house-
holds take moose, small game, salmon, freshwater fish, furbearers, and a
host of other species. These harvests serve as a focus of family activi-
ties, and the sharing of big game, for example, ties households to others
of the region.
For both study populations, the uses of fish and wildlife resources
generally represent one component of an overall socioeconomic pattern that
includes seasonal or part-time wage employment. In both areas, full-time
year-round employment opportunities are scarce. Tyonek residents fish
commercially, find seasonal construction jobs, or work on temporary
village projects supported by state or federal funds in order to obtain
cash. In the Upper Yentna area, about 40 percent of the households
obtain some income from trapping. Other kinds of seasonal work, often
resource related (such as guiding, and logging,) are combined to supply
households with adequate cash incomes. In both areas, some residents
obtain non-local employment for several months, but most people in each
population reside at their homes for most of the year.
Historically, fish and game harvests have been extremely important
to residents of the western Susitna Basin and the western Cook Inlet
area, the area now encompassed by Game Unit 168 (Fall 1981, Cole 1982).
The aboriginal inhabitants of the area, the Upper Inlet Dena'ina, utilized
all of this area for fish and game harvests until diseases reduced their
33
, numbers early in this century. While some Dena'ina continued to use
portions of the Upper Yentna area seasonally into the 194Os, most former
Native residents of the area and their descendents now reside in Tyonek.
The area currently used by these and other Tyonek people has been harvested
for fish and game by the Dena'ina since before recorded history. During
the twentieth century, a small number of prospectors and trappers replaced
the Dena'ina in the Upper Yentna area. In the 1900s and 191Os, many
newcomers arrived or passed through the area to exploit the Cache Creek
or Sunflower Basin mining districts. A few stayed on to hunt and trap.
While there has been no subsequent industrial or other development in
this region, in the last several decades state and federal land policies
have resulted in the introduction of a small, permanent population in the
area. As the findings of the first phase of the "Susitna Basin Resource
Use Study" have demonstrated, these households have developed a pattern
of hunting and fishing which in some ways resembles the historic resource
use patterns of the area.
One component of the historic and contemporary resource patterns of
the residents of Tyonek and in the Upper Yentna area is the use of moose.
In the past, moose have been harvested throughout the fall and winter,
generally as needed and as accessible, with a preference for hunting when
temperatures permit preservation by freezing outdoors and when travel is
convenient.
Findings of this report have demonstrated the widespread use of
moose in both areas today. About 87 percent of Tyonek households have
harvested moose over the last five years, although only 15 hunters were
successful during the September 1981 season. In the Upper Yentna area,
about 63 percent of the households reported a successful moose harvest in
1982. Residents cited the possibility of outdoor preservation, ease of
travel, and accessibility as reasons for post-freeze up harvests. In
34
* ', both Tyonek and the Upper Yentna areas, the majority of hunters have
expressed their desire to reopen a moose hunting season in November in
the vicinity of their homes.
35
LITERATURE CITED
Cole, Terrance
1982 Historical Survey of the Talkeetna/Susitna River Drainage. In
Cultural Resource Assessment: Talkeetna-Lower Susitna RGer
Basin, Southcentral Alaska. Glenn Bacon, editor, pp. 65-93.
Alaskarctic, Consultant Archaeologists: Fairbanks.
Fall, James
1981
1982
Foster, Dan
1981
1982
Arthur
Patterns of Upper Inlet Tanaina Leadership, 1741-1981. Ph. D.
Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Tyonek: Resource Uses in a Small, Non-Road Connected Commun-
ity of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. In Wolfe, Robert J., and
Linda J. Ellanna, compilers. 1982. Resource Use and Rural-
Urban Concepts: Case Studies of Fishing and Hunting in Alaskan
Communities. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. November, 1982.
Tyonek Moose Utilization 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
The Utilization of King Salmon and the Annual Round of Resource
Uses in Tyonek, Alaska., Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
Schulling, Rodney
1982 Revised 1982 Sample Census Results. Memorandum #A.M. 82-365,
10/22/82, to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Asembly, Palmer,
Alaska.
Stanek, Ronald and Dan Foster
1980 Tyonek King Salmon Subsistence Fishery 1980 Activities Report.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Stanek, Ronald T., James Fall, and Dan Foster
1981 Subsistence Shellfish Use in Three Cook Inlet Villages, 1981.
A Preliminary Report. Alaska Department
Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
of Fish and Game,
Stickney, Alice
1980 Report on the Survey Conducted in Tyonek 1980. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska.
36
I.D. NUMBER
DATE
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWER
LOCATION
1. Did you or any member of your household hunt, fish, trap, or gather wild
resources in 1982? Yes No
2. Did your household use any wild resources harvested by other people
in 1982? Yes No
3. I’d like to ask you some questions about your uses of wild resources in
1982. 1’11 review a list of resources. Please let me know if you harvested
or used the resource in 1982. If 1982 was not a typical year, please tell
me what is typical for your household. I’m also interested to know the
methods you use to harvest resources, how much you harvest, and the time
of year you harvest resources. I would also like to map your general
harvest areas while we discuss these resources. As we conduct the interview
one of us will go through the survey and record your responses to the questions.
The other person will record any other information you wish to provide. We
are interested in any observations and ideas which you may have about resources
and their use in this area.
37
APPENDIX A CONT.
DID YOU TRY TO
HARVEST THIS IN 1982
QUANTITY HARVESTED
IN 1982?
AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
I
3THER HOUSEHOLDS .
YETHOD OF HARVEST?
jMETHO0 OF TRANSPOR-
I
TATION?
RESOURCE USE? (TRADED,
CONSUMED, SOLD, ETC.)
I I I UANTITY CONSUMED?
ISTANCE TRAVELED TO
ARVEST RESOURCE?
JECEMBER
38
APPENDIX A CONT.
(’
DID YOU TRY TO DID YOU TRY TO
HARVEST THIS IN 1982 HARVEST THIS IN 1982
!;A;;;;?' HARVESTED !;A;;;;?' HARVESTED
. .
AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
OTHER HOUSEHOLDS OTHER HOUSEHOLDS
METHOD OF HARVEST? METHOD OF HARVEST?
METHOD OF TRANSPOR- METHOD OF TRANSPOR-
TATION? TATION?
RESOURCE USE? (TRADED, RESOURCE USE? (TRADED,
CONSUMED, SOLD, ETC.) CONSUMED, SOLD, ETC.)
I QUANTITY CONSUMED? QUANTITY CONSUMED?
DISTANCE TRAVELED TO DISTANCE TRAVELED TO
HARVEST RESOURCE? HARVEST RESOURCE?
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
I I OCTOBER OCTOBER
I I NOVEMBER NOVEMBER
DECEMBER DECEMBER
c
39
APPENDIX A CONT.
AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
OTHER HOUSEHOLDS
METHOD OF HARVEST?
RESOURCE USE? (TRADED,
CONSUMED, SOLD, ETC.)
QUANTITY CONSUMED?
DISTANCE TRAVELED TO
HARVEST RESOURCE?
JANUARY
FEBRUARY I
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
I SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
40
APPENDIX A CONT.
I would now like you to think back a couple years about moose. Did you
harvest a moose in 1982, 1981, 1980?
4. 1982
Yes, locally
Yes, nonlocally
No, but tried
No, didn't try
Not resident of area
5. 1981 6. 1980
Yes,, locally Yes, locally
Yes, nonlocally Yes, nonlocally
No, but tried No, but tried
No, didn't try No, didn't try
Not resident of area Not resident of area
7. If the household did not harvest a moose in the last 3 years, when was the
last time they harvested one locally?
Year
Not a resident
Never while a resident
8. How do you preserve your moose meat? Estimate the percentage.
Frozen (freezer) %
Frozen (outdoors) %
Smoke/Dry %
Can/Jar %
Corn/Pickle I
Salt X
Fresh X
Other 96
41
APPENDIX A CONT.
9. In the past year, about how many households have given your household:
Game
Fish
Furs
Berries
Food Plants
10. In the past year, about how many households has your household given:
Game
Fish
Furs
Berries
Food Plants
11. Which of the following best describes how you get most of the resources
you harvest?
12. Please approximate what percent of your household meat, fish , and fowl in the
past year has been from wild resources. %
13. Does your household raise a garden? yes no
14. (If yes) Please estimate the percentage of your produce which comes
from your garden % None bought in store?
47.
APPENDIX A CONT.
15. Does anyone in your household engage in loggi
this area? yes no
16. Does anyone in your household participate in
17. Do you own any of the following?
ng as a business in
mining? yes no - -
item yes/no approximate value
boat
snowmachine
airplane
ATV
dogteam
automobile
freezer
smokehouse
generator
trapping cabin .
Which of the following are sources of household monetary income?
location: town GMU
guiding
trapping
canmercial fishing
logging
mining
construction
other
other
other
19. In terms of income, which of the above is most important?
43
APPENDIX A CONT.
20. What kinds of resources/supplies must you get outside the area?
21. How many people live in this household?
ages
I males -- ,z-=--t --
22. Please indicate the longest time any household member has been in
Alaska
Skwentna area
23. How many months did you stay in the Skwentna area in 1982?
Explain prolonged absences.
months.
24. How did you acquire your property/home (e.g. what program or through sales)
Homestead Other
Subdivision
Homesite
Purchased from previous owner
25. What are your ideas on a winter moose season in this Game Management Unit (168)?
44