PATTERNS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST AND USE
IN BEAVER, ALASKA
Valerie A. Sumida
Technical Paper No. 140
This research was partially supported by ANILCA Federal Aid Funds, administered through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anchorage, Alaska, SG -1-5 and SG-1-6.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence
Fairbanks, Alaska 1989
ABSTRACT
This report documents the pattern of fish and wildlife harvest by the
community of Beaver, Alaska during the mid-1980s and provides an overview of
the integrated subsistence and cash economy which presently exists in the
community. The research was conducted during 1985-86 and included surveys with
all community households, resource use area mapping, and informal interviews.
Beaver is a small community located on the north bank of the Yukon River,
amidst the broad, unroaded expanse of the Yukon Flats, approximately 60 miles
southwest of the community of Fort Yukon. It is accessible year-round by air, by
boat during open water seasons, and snowmachine during winter months.
Beaver’s population was 78 individuals in 31 households in 1985, 97 percent
Alaska Native. The community is composed of individuals of diverse and mixed
ethnic origin with residents of Gwich’in and Koyukon Athabaskan Indian, Inupiaq
Eskimo, Euro-American, and Japanese descent.
Like many remote, rural Alaskan communities the local cash economy is
fueled directly and indirectly by government monies. Wage employment in the
community is limited. Most employment was seasonal and 56 percent of the jobs
held during the survey year provided employment for 4 weeks or less. Households
averaged 29 weeks of employment. The average taxable income in Beaver was
$9,259 in 1985 (Alaska Department of Revenue 1988). Trapping was an important
source of cash in the community and the estimated potential income generated
through the sale of furbearers was approximately $3,400 per trapping household
during 1984-85. Cost of food items available locally were between 18 to 52 percent
higher than comparable items in Fairbanks.
During the survey year 100 percent of Beaver households harvested some
type of local fish, mammal, bird, or plant resource. Residents harvested a total of
56,938 pounds edible weight of resources during 1984-85, with a per capita harvest
of 730 pounds. Salmon comprised 56.8 percent of the total weight, big game was
17.7 percent, freshwater fish was 10.7 percent, and the remaining 14.8 percent
consisted of small game, edible furbearer species, waterfowl, and berries.
Approximately 37 percent of the overall harvest was used to feed dogs. The per
capita harvest of resources for human consumption was 459 pounds.
A relatively small percentage of households harvested the majority of fish
and wildlife resources. On average, households with high production levels were
larger, had more members over 16 years of age, owned more equipment, and had
more dogs than households with medium and low production levels. Patterns of
household harvesting and processing activities varied in the community.
Research findings demonstrate the importance of a variety of fish and
wildlife resources and the lands which support them to the residents of Beaver.
Subsistence production and the distribution of wild resources remain an integral
component of life in this remote community, integrated with participation in the
cash sector of the local economy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... vi
LIST OF TABLES . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Vlll
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study.. ................................................................................................................. 1 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Community Facilities and Services ................................................................................... 10 Population and Household Composition .................................................................... 12 Wage Employment and Income ................................................................................... 15 Household Equipment Holdings ................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 3. AN OVERVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST PATTERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Natural Environment .................................................................................................. 21 Contemporary Seasonal Round ................................................................................... 22 Household Participation in Harvest Activities ..................................................... 26 Harvest Levels and Composition of Harvest ..................................................... 30 Household Harvest Diversity ................................................................................... 34 Sharing of Fish and Wildlife Resources .................................................................... 40 Geographic Use Areas .................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 4. HARVEST AND USE PATTERNS ,.................................,.................. 49
Salmon Fishing ................................................................................................................. 49 Freshwater Fish Fishing .................................................................................................. 56 Moose Hunting ................................................................................................................. 58 Bear Hunting ................................................................................................................................ 60 Caribou Hunting ................................................................................................................. 60 Small Game Hunting ................................................................................................................. 61 Waterfowl Hunting ................................................................................................................. 63 Furbearer Trapping and Hunting ................................................................................... 65 Plant Resources ................................................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Beaver’s Mixed Economy .................................................................................................. 69 Land Management Issues .................................................................................................. 76
iv
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
APPENDICES
A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B. EDIBLE WEIGHTS OF SELECTED RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
C. COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF MAJOR RESOURCES USED BY BEAVER RESIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5
V
LIST OF FlGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5. Household Harvest Levels by Weight, Beaver 1984-85
Figure 6. Cumulative Percentage of Total Harvest by Households, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Map of the Yukon Flats and Surrounding Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Historical Population Trends, Beaver Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Seasonal Round of Subsistence Activities, Beaver 1985 . . . . . . . . 24
Percentage of Households Harvesting by Resource Category, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
. . . . . . . . 35
Relationship of Pounds Harvested to Number of Resources Harvested by Households, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Areas Used for Resource Harvest Activities by Residents of Beaver, Alaska (ca. 1930 to 1986) . . . ..I................................ 44
Areas Used for Resource Harvest Activities by Residents of Beaver, Alaska (ca. 1930 to 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Areas Used for Fishing by Residents of Beaver, Alaska (ca. 1930 to 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Mean Household Harvest of King and Chum Salmon, 1977-85, Beaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Proportion of Household Harvests Used for Dog Food, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Cumulative Household Harvests With and Without Fish Used for Dog Food, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
vi
Vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11. Fish Harvests Used for Dog Food, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 12. Distribution of Household Harvests by Edible Weight Range, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Comparative Prices of Selected Food Items in Beaver and Fairbanks, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Frequency of Household Sizes in Beaver, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Beaver Population Profile, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Employment Characteristics, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* 17
Household Equipment Holdings, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Percentage of Households Harvesting by Resource, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Percentage of Households Attempting to and Successfully Harvesting Resources, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...a. 29
Harvest Levels of All Resources, Beaver 1984-1985 . . . . . . . . 31
Harvest Levels in Pounds for Edible Resources, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Harvest Levels in Pounds by Major Resource Category, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Average Harvest in Pounds of Low, Medium, and High Producing Groups, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Comparison of Average Household Characteristics and Equipment Holdings of Low, Medium, and High Producing Groups, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Percentage of Households Receiving and Giving Selected Resources, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1
Salmon Harvests, 1977-85, Beaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Mean Salmon Harvests per Fishing Family, 1977-85, Beaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Estimated Value of Furbearers, Beaver 1984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
viii
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the residents of Beaver, Alaska for their
cooperation during the course of this study. Nora Billy, Randy Van Dyke,
Antoinette Pitka, and Paul Williams are extended a special thanks for their support
and assistance. Clarence Alexander of the Division of Subsistence was
instrumental in conducting the study and his assistance is greatly appreciated.
Cheryl Scott, of the Division’s Data Management staff provided invaluable support
in working with the data collected from surveys and reviewing the draft report.
As always, she was a pleasure to work with and a great source of moral support.
Thanks also go to Elizabeth Andrews and Robert Walker for their initial review of
the draft report and their comments and suggestions. Robert Wolfe deserves
special mention for his valuable contributions to this report. Betsy Sturm and
Gary Nichols drafted the maps included in the report.
X
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The intent of this report is to describe contemporary patterns of harvest
and use of fish and wildlife resources by residents of the community of Beaver,
Alaska in order to address a broad range of land management and resource use
issues affecting the area. The information is also useful in the context of the
economic development planning being undertaken by the community and for the
Yukon Flats region as a whole.
Among the land management concerns in the area are the policies of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities in the Yukon Flats
National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1987, 1988). Fire management policies for the area are
of concern to the community because of the direct impacts on lands and resources
that are important in both the subsistence and cash spheres of the local economy.
Another issue affecting the area is the possible transfer of lands along the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline utility corridor bordering the western edge of the Yukon Flats
from federal to state jurisdiction. Future management of these lands may result in
increased access, settlement, and development along the corridor (Bureau of Land
Management 1987). The proposed construction of the Trans-Alaska Gas System
(Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 1988), oil
exploration in the flats, and potential oil and gas development in both the Yukon
Flats and Arctic refuges are additional land uses that may affect the community.
Fish and wildlife issues relate to management planning for moose, furbearer,
salmon, and waterfowl populations in the area.
1
Patterns of land and resource use in neighboring Yukon Flats and upper
Yukon-Porcupine River communities have been documented in other Division of
Subsistence studies (Caulfield 1983; Caulfield et al. 1983; Sumida and Alexander
1985; Sumida 1988). This report presents background information on the
contemporary socioeconomic characteristics of the community of Beaver and a
summary of key components of the current pattern of fish and wildlife harvest
and use. It includes a description of the current seasonal round, household
participation in subsistence activities, fish and wildlife harvest levels, household
harvest diversity, the distribution of fish and wildlife resources, and the
geographic areas used for resource harvesting. Brief descriptions of harvest and
processing methods and other pertinent information is provided for individual
species or resource groups.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The project research objectives were:
1. to describe the fish and wildlife resources used by Beaver residents and the primary and occasional periods in which they were taken;
2. to describe methods of harvest and processing of resources;
3. to document community and household participation in hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering, and harvest levels for a recent 12-month period;
4. to document geographic areas used for harvest activities; and
5. to examine the relationship between socioeconomic characteristics of households and diffcrcntial patterns of harvest.
2
METHODOLOGY
A research design describing the purposes of the study and the methods to
be used was presented to the Beaver traditional council in May 1985 and approval
for conducting the study in the community was granted the following month.
Field research was conducted between July 1985 and June 1986 by a Subsistence
Resource Specialist II based in Fairbanks and a Fish and Game Technician III
based in Fort Yukon. A number of standard anthropological research techniques
were used to gather information including systematic interviews using a survey
instrument, individual mapping sessions, limited participant observation of harvest
and processing techniques, informal interviews on a variety of topics, and a review
of available background literature.
Demographic information for the community was collected at the beginning
of the study through the compilation of a community census. All households
resident in the community year-round were surveyed. Individuals that resided in
Beaver only periodically or seasonally were not surveyed, this included one of the
teachers and at least three other households. One household that had not been
resident in Beaver during the survey year but had moved to the community during
the study year was not interviewed and was not included in the community census.
Quantitative data on household fish and wildlife harvests during the
previous twelve months was collected through systematic interviews with one or
more household members using a survey instrument (Appendix A). The survey
instrument focused on whether a househoid had attempted to harvest a particular
resource, if they were successful the quantity harvested, and whether the resource
was given to or received from other households. Data collected through the survey
instrument were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) and Lotus l-2-3 programs. Harvest numbers of the edible resources were
3
converted into their edible weight equivalents. Edible weights were converted
from estimates of the “average” size and weight for species which were generally
determined through discussions with biologists familiar with the fish and wildlife
in the area (Appendix B).
The survey instrument listed 37 resources or resource types (i.e. the general
category “ducks” as opposed to mallards and pintails). Three of these, trout, sheep
and swans were found to be rarely, if ever, taken and for the purposes of this
study are not considered part of the resource base for the community. Separate
species of berries were combined for reporting purposes. Caribou, though not
readily accessible every year, is hunted when available and was included although
none were successfully taken during the survey year. This resulted in a total of 32
resources. A list of the common and scientific names of fish, wildlife, and plant
resources used by Beaver residents can be found in Appendix C. For presentation
and summary purposes, resources were further grouped into seven categories:
salmon (king, chum, and coho), other freshwater fish (whitefish sp., sheefish, pike,
burbot, sucker, grayling) big game (moose, bear, caribou), small game (snowshoe
hare, porcupine, squirrel sp., muskrat, grouse sp., and ptarmigan sp.), furbearers
(marten, mink, lynx, fox, wolverine, wolf, otter, and beaver), waterfowl (duck sp.,
geese sp., and cranes), and berries (sp.). Harvest quantities in pounds include the
edible furbearers of beaver and lynx.
The geographic areas used by households for hunting, fishing, and trapping
were mapped on individual blueline sheets based on U.S. Geological Survey
topographic maps at a scale of 1:250,000 that were enlarged to a scale of 1:125,000
to facilitate feature identification. Residents known to be active in subsistence
activities, dctcrmined in part by survey interviews as well as recommendations
from other community members, wcrc asked to participate in mapping sessions.
Most mapping sessions were conducted in the tribal building and members of 15
4
Beaver households (48 percent) mapped areas used for various activities during
their lifetime. Categories mapped include trapping areas, moose, caribou, bear, and
waterfowl hunting areas, fishing areas, and cabin and tent camp sites. A
composited map was presented at a community meeting for review in February
1986 and all additions and changes were incorporated in the final version of the
maps.
A few words on the limitations of the data presented is in order. Household
surveys depended on the recall of the harvest of a variety of species over a 12-
month period. Although considered to be a reliable method of data collection, it
appeared that the harvest levels reported for certain types of resources, such as
large mammals and furbearers, were probably recalled with greater accuracy and
precision than categories such as fish or bird species which tend to be rounded
estimates. However, it is believed that the estimated harvests reported for these
types of resources were within an acceptable range of accuracy. The information
presented on the amount of freshwater fish used to feed dogs is considered a
minimum estimate as processing and use of fish was not reported by all households
for all species.
For research purposes the unit of inquiry was the household and questions
on harvest activity appeared to be adequately addressed at the household level.
However, when it came to questions about the sharing of fish and wildlife
resources the pattern that emerged revolved around family units. In some cases it
appeared that distribution of resources to close kin (immediate family members
such as parents, children, and siblings), even those residing in separate dwellings,
was not considered in the same way as sharing with more distantly related or
unrelated persons. This may have resulted in the under-reporting of fish and
wildlife resource sharing.
Participation in subsistence pursuits and harvest levels can vary widely
from year to year and are affected by environmental conditions, socioeconomic
factors, and personal circumstances. In a study such as this which documents
harvesting activities for a one year period, the range of variability from one year
to the next is unclear.
Similarly, there is often variation in the sizes and weights of fish and
wildlife species harvested. The sex, age, and condition of a particular fish,
mammal, or bird as well as the season in which it is harvested and the processing
and preservation methods used produces variations in edible weight.
Finally, geographic use area information was collected from a sample of
households and may miss certain areas. Although the time period reflected areas
used over the lifetime of residents, use areas are also subject to dynamic
environmental, socioeconomic, and political influences and change over time,
expanding some years, contracting during others.
6
CHAPTER 2
AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY
This chapter briefly summarizes the historic background and the salient
socioeconomic and political features of the contemporary community. A
description of facilities and services in Beaver and information on population,
wage employment, income, and equipment holdings is included.
Beaver is situated on the north bank of the Yukon River amidst the broad
expanse of floodplain known as the Yukon Flats (Fig. 1). The area south of the
Yukon River and to the east of the present-day community of Beaver was part of
the traditional territory of Deendu or Birch Creek Gwich’in. The Dihaii Gwich’in
are believed to have occupied the hills to the north of the community (Slobodin
1981515516; Schneider 1976:106; Andrews 1977:103). The community of Beaver is
unique in that from its establishment in 1910 it has had a diverse, multi-ethnic
population that included Eskimo families originating from the arctic coastal plain
and the Kobuk River areas, Koyukon and Gwich’in Athabaskan Indians,
individuals of Japanese descent, and Euro-Americans.
Ethnographic sources on the Native groups represented in the community
include: Burch (1984), Clark (1974, 1975, and 1981), Loyens (1966), Nelson (1973
and 1983), Nelson et al. (1982), Osgood (1970), Slobodin (1981), Spencer (1984), and
Sullivan (1936, 1942). Caulfield (1983) provides information on both traditional
and contemporary patterns of resource use in neighboring Gwich’in Athabaskan
communities as does Sumida (1988) for the Koyukon Athabaskan community of
Stevens Village, downriver from Beaver. The historic context of the development
of Beaver along with life history information illustrating the varied backgrounds
of individuals originating from different geographic areas can be found in
Schneider (1976) and Cruikshank (1986).
8
The establishment of Beaver came about with the discovery of gold in the
Chandalar River drainage in the early 1900s. The Alaska Road Commission which
was formed around that time, proceeded to develop a trail between the mining and
trading camp at Caro and the Yukon River (Schneider 1976:158-159). The
settlement at Beaver was the river terminus of this trail and was a supply and
freighting point established by a group of Japanese traders, their Eskimo wives,
and a few other families from Barrow on the coast of the Arctic Ocean.
When mining activity in the Chandalar district diminished the population
declined although some Euro-American miners remained in the area and turned to
trapping for their livelihood. The community continued to serve as a seasonal base
and trading post for both the Native and non-Native population (Schneider
1976:159). A post office was established in Beaver in 1913 and by 1928 the federal
Office of Indian Affairs opened a school. A marked increase in school attendance
by the 1950s reflects the progressive centralization and settlement of the Native
population in the community (Schneider 1976:229).
Located approximately 60 miles southwest of the community of Fort Yukon,
the contemporary community of Beaver is accessible year-round by air, by boat
during open water seasons and snowmachine during winter months. The
community is surrounded by the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge managed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bordering the refuge to the south are the
federal Bureau of Land Management’s White Mountains National Recreation Area
and Steese National Conservation Area, The upper portions of Beaver and Birch
creeks are part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The community is
within the State designated Game Management Subunit 25(D) and Fisheries
Subdistrict Y5-D.
Beaver is an unincorporated village governed by a traditional council. The
community is a member of the Council o,f Athabascan Tribal Governments
9
(CATG), an organization cstablishcd by a coalition of communities in the arca that
promotes cooperative efforts in the areas of economic development, social and
educational scrviccs, and land managcmcnt. The Beaver Kwitchin Corporation
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; 85 Stat. 706)
selected 92,160 acres of land with an enrollment of 191 members.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
At the time of the study, 32 houses were occupied and at least five
additional dwellings were used periodically by individuals who did not live in the
community year-round. Homes were of log construction and a number of older log
buildings and cabins remain standing although not currently in use. Fourteen of
these log homes were constructed during 1956-57 by the Alaska Rural Devclopmcnt
Board (Gagnon 1959). During 1985-86 the face of the community was again
changing as 10 new cabins were under construction.
Electricity, provided by a community-operated generator, came to the
community in the early 1980s. All homes were heated with wood-burning stoves
and a few community buildings such as the clinic, safe water building, and school
had oil-fueled heating systems. There was no community-wide water and sewer
system and houses lacked indoor plumbing for running water or sewage disposal.
A safe water system developed in the 1970s was operated by the village council
and provided laundry and shower facilities as well as a central watering point.
Phone service was available to households in the community.
The original federal Indian school was established in 1928 by the Office of
Indian Affairs, which later became the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
Administration of the facility was transferred to the Yukon Flats School District
in 1984. A new school complex was built in 1986 to accommodate the growing
10
school-aged population and served grades 1 through 12. The initial work on a new
Episcopal Church was underway during the study year to replace the old church
which had been brought downriver from Circle during the 1940s. Other facilities
included the community hall which housed the tribal council office and was
commonly referred to as the “tribal building,” a community health clinic operated
by the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC), a post off ice, a power plant
maintained by the tribal council, a bulk fuel storage facility, and an Assembly of
God church. At the time of the study an Episcopal minister and his family resided
in the Episcopal Church parsonage and the Assembly of God mission house was
occupied by a household that was not involved in ministry and had recently moved
back to the community. The TCC office in Fort Yukon administered a number of
social service programs for the community.
A small grocery store provided a variety of canned and packaged goods,
frozen meat, and limited amounts of fresh produce. Price comparisons of selected
items are presented in Table 1. Prices ranged from 18 to 52 percent higher than
comparable goods in Fairbanks, in part reflective of shipping costs to the
community (Fairbanks North Star Borough 1985). Gasoline was available through
the store and the village corporation. During the study year another small store
was established and operated out of the residence of one household.
Fairbanks served as the commercial, medical, and social hub for the
community and travel between Beaver and Fairbanks was commonly undertaken.
Passengers, freight, and mail were accommodated by three Fairbanks-based air
service carriers that provided between one to three flights six days a week. During
summer months some residents traveled by riverboat to the Yukon River bridge
located approximately 112 miles downriver, completing the trip to Fairbanks by
road.
11
TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE PRICES OF SELECTED FOOD ITEMS IN BEAVER AND FAIRBANKS, 1985
UNIT COST IN COST IN PERCENT ITEM SIZE BEAVER FAIRBANKS* DIFFERENCE
Flour Sugar Oats Bread Eggs Butter Dried Kidney Beans Coffee Canned Peaches Canned Pears Canned Corn Potatoes Onions Ground Beef Chicken Pork Chops Soda Pop
10 lbs IO lbs 42 oz 1.5 lbs 1 doz 1 lb 2 lbs 2 lbs 16 oz 16 oz I6 oz 1 lb 1 lb 1 lb 1 lb 1 lb
6-pack
$7.10 $3.38 +52 8.44 4.78 +43 4.14 2.40 +42 2.19 1.35 +38 2.22 1.31 +41 3.79 2.35 +38 2.86 1.67 +42
14.69 9.34 +36 1.66 1.12 +32 1.60 1 .oo +38 1.33 .66 +50 .75 .56 +25 .75 .48 +36
2.87 1.40 +51 1.81 1.48 +18 4.21 2.31 +45 5.40 3.02 +44
* Fairbanks North Star Borough (1985)
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
Historical population figures for the community of Beaver are available
from 1930 to 1985 (Fig. 2). Sources of population information include Rollins
(1978), U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980), Alaska Department of Labor (1987), and
the present study. The population appeared relatively stable from 1930 to 1970 but
by 1980 a notable decline of one-third of the population had occurred. The
population had increased by 20 percent by the study year 5 years later. In 1980
Beaver had a total population of 66 persons in 23 households with an average
household size of 2.9 persons per household. The community was in the lowest
20th percentile by size in the state with a rank of 237. The ratio of males
12
130
120
110
100 70
60
50
--r-
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1930
19
40
1950
19
60
1970
19
60
1984
19
85
YE
AR
1
Fig.
2.
H
isto
rical
P
opul
atio
n Tr
ends
, B
eave
r A
lask
a
TABLE 2. FREQUENCY OF HOUSEHOLD SIZES IN BEAVER, 1985
HOUSEHOLD NUMBER OF SIZE HOUSEHOLDS
1 14 (45.2%) 2 3 (9.7%) 3 5 (16.1%) 4 3 (9.7%) 5 5 (16.1%) 6 1 (3.2%)
TOTAL 31 ( 100.0%)
to females was 2:1 with males comprising 67 percent and females 33 percent of the
population. Alaska Natives made up 98 percent of the community (U.S. Bureau of
the Census 1980). By 1984 the estimated population was 79 and the estimated 1985
population was 80 people (Alaska Department of Labor 1987).
For the survey period, the population was 78 people in 31 households.
Households ranged in size from 1 to 6 members with an average of 2.5 persons
(Table 2). Almost half of the households (45 percent) wcrc comprised of single
individuals. The population of 78 consisted of 51 males (65 pcrccnt) and 27
females (35 percent) with the ratio remaining about 2:1 (Table 3). Seventy-four
percent of the population were under 40 years of age and 40 percent were under
the age of 20. The oldest individual was 83 and the average age was 29.
A number of Beaver residents are of mixed ethnic origin and for the
purposes of the study individuals with any American Indian or Eskimo ancestry
were considered Native. Natives comprised 97.4 percent of the population, again
similar to the percentage reported in the 1980 census. Current residents are
descendants of families originating from the Yukon Flats communities of Stevens
Village, Fort Yukon, Venetic, and Chalkyitsik as well as from Arctic Village,
Rampart, Allakaket, Huslia, Ruby, Shungnak, and Barrow.
14
TABLE 3. BEAVER POPULATION PROFILE, 1985
AGE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL RANGE MALES FEMALES NUMBER
o-9 9 (11.5%) 4 (5.1%) 13 (16.7%) IO-19 11 (14.1%) 7 (9.0%) 18 (23.1%) 20-29 5 (6.4%) 3 (3.8%) 8 (10.3%) 30-39 14 (18.0%) 5 (6.4%) 19 (24.4%) 40-49 5 (6.4%) 1 (1.3%) 6 (7.7%) 50-59 2 (2.6%) 4 (5.1%) 6 (7.7%) 60-69 4 (5.1%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (5.1%) 70-79 1 (1.3%) 2 (2.6%) 3 (3.8%) 80-89 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%)
TOTAL 51 (65.4%) 27 (34.6%) 78 (100.0%)
WAGE EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
Wage-earning jobs were limited in Beaver and most steady, community-based
employment was provided through state and federal government monies, most of
which was channeled through regional entities such as the Yukon Flats School
District or Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. The Yukon Flats School District
maintained seven positions, six of which were filled by local residents. Other
positions included the community health aide, postmaster, safe water facility
manager, utility operations and maintenance personnel, and tribal council
secretary. Airport maintenance was provided by the state through a private
contractor and during the study year the position was not held by a resident of the
community as had been the case in previous years. Private sector employment
included local air service agents and store manager. There were no limited entry
permit holders for commercial salmon fishing in the community. Temporary jobs
were sometimes available through the village council, school district, or store.
Community projects such as the construction of the new school provided short-term
15
work for heavy equipment operators, carpenters, and laborers. Construction jobs in
other locales were taken by some residents when available and firefighting
provided seasonal employment during most summers.
Many households combined several types of available employment --
temporary, seasonal, year-round, full-time, and part-time positions. There were 39
individuals in 29 households that reported some form of employment during the
survey year. Nine households rcportcd two or more employed members.
Households held a total of 73 wage-earning jobs with a range of bctwcen I to 6
jobs and an average of 2.5 jobs per household with employed members.
Of the 65 jobs held by Beaver residents for which the number of hours per
week and number of weeks worked were known, almost 90 percent were temporary
or seasonal positions (Table 4). Of these, 38 (58.5 percent) provided employment
for 4 weeks or less and there were only 7 year-round jobs. The number of weeks
of household employment ranged from 0 to 107 with an average of 28.8 weeks per
household. Part-time positions of less than 30 hours per week comprised 30.8
percent of the jobs while full-time jobs of 30 or more hours per week constituted
69.2 percent of the positions (Table 4). Of the 45 full-time positions held during
the survey year, only 1 was year-round and this position was not based in the
community. The remaining six year-round positions were part-time.
The primary sources of cash in Beaver were wage employment, sale of
furbearers, and supplemental incomes provided through government social service
programs. The median household income for the community was $6,563 in 1979,
ranking in the lowest 20 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980). The average
taxable income in Beaver for 1983 was $5,644, for 1984 it was $9,469, and for 1985
was $9,259. The 1985 average taxable income for the state was $23,817 and Bcavcr
continued to rank in the lowest 20 percent of income lcvcls statcwidc with a rank
of 197 out of 237 (Alaska Department of Rcvenuc 1988).
16
TABLE 4. EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS, BEAVER 1984-85
PART-TIME FULL-TIME (LESS THAN (30 OR MORE TOTAL
30 HOURS/WEEK) HOURS/WEEK)
Seasonal (O-49 Weeks)
Year-round (50 or More Weeks)
14 (21.5%) 44 (67.7%) 58 (89.2%)
6 (9.2%) 1 (1.5%) 7 (10.8%)
TOTAL 20 (30.8%) 45 (69.2%) 65 (lOO.O%)*
* Total number of jobs for the community was 73, seasonality and hours per week were variable or not known for 8 positions.
The sale of furbearers provides an important source of cash in the
community and the estimated total potential cash value derived from trapping
during the survey year was about $64,000. Potential cash value of furs represents
the income that could have been earned if all furs were sold to outside markets at
the average market price in Beaver. Estimates of the contribution of furs to
household income ranged from a low of $50 to a high of almost $16,000 with an
average of $3,400 per trapping household (see Chapter 4). This amount is
approximately 37 percent of the average taxable income for households in 1985.
Some Beaver households received supplemental incomes through government
social service programs such as Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Permanently
Disabled, General Relief Assistance, Aid to Families with Dcpcndent Children, and
Food Stamps. The average number of food stamp recipients was 6.8 cases and the
average monthly allocation of food stamps was approximately $323 per case or
$2,198 for the community for the period July through December 1984. For the
period June through November 1984 there were on average 5.5 cases receiving
17
payments from the other programs mentioned above. Monthly payments totaled
$1,613 for the community (Alaska Dcpartmcnt of Health and Social Scrviccs 19843
and b).
HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT HOLDINGS
An inventory of selected types of equipment considered advantageous, or in
some cases, necessary for subsistence pursuits, was collected through household
surveys (Table 5). Snowmachines were the most widely owned type of
transportation in the community with 71.0 percent of households reporting
ownership of a total of 25 machines. Twenty river boats were reported by 58.1
percent of community households. Fewer households owned 3- or 4-wheelers (19.3
percent) or cars and trucks (6.4 pcrccnt). Thirteen households (41.9 percent)
reported ownership of 24 fish nets of varying mesh size and length. Ownership of
freezers was reported by 45.2 percent of Beaver households.
Overall equipment holdings have increased and a greater percentage of
households own such equipment since Schneider’s 1973-74 study when he reported
that 14 of 37 households (37.8 percent) owned 18 river boats and 23 outboard
motors. At that time there were 18 snowmachines owned by 12 households (32.4
percent) and 8 households (21.6 percent) owned a total of 8 fish nets (Schneider
1976:77-83). The lack of electricity in the community accounts for the absence of
freezers in Schneider’s inventory. Thus, the change in the mean equipment
holdings per household between 1974 and 1985 was as follows: riverboats 0.49 to
0.65 per household; outboards from 0.62 to 0.68; snowmachines form 0.49 to 0.71;
fish nets from 0.22 to 0.77; and freezers 0 to 0.52,
18
TABLE 5. HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT HOLDINGS, BEAVER 1984-85
MEAN PER NUMBER NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD
EQUIPMENT REPORTED HOUSEHOLDS (N=31)
Snowmachine River Boat Outboard Motor Freezer Canoe Fish Net 3 or 4-wheeler Car or Truck
25 22 (7 1 .O%) 0.81 20 18 (58.1%) 0.65 21 17 (54.8%) 0.68 16 14 (45.2%) 0.52 16 14 (45.2%) 0.52 24 13 (41.9%) 0.77 6 6 (19.3%) 0.19 2 2 (6.4%) 0.06
19
20
CHAPTER 3
AN OVERVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVEST PATTERNS
This chapter describes the contemporary pattern of fish and wildlife
harvest in the community of Beaver during 1985. A brief description of the
natural environment is followed by an overview of the contemporary seasonal
round of harvest activities. Survey data on household participation and harvest
levels for resources is presented along with estimates of the amount of fish used to
feed dogs. The variation in household harvest levels is examined in relation to
certain socioeconomic characteristics of individual households. Patterns of
resource sharing and household cooperation are briefly addressed. A description of
geographic areas used for harvest activities concludes the chapter.
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Beaver is located in the midst of the vast Yukon Flats in the northeastern
portion of interior Alaska (Fig. 1). The flats are a broad flood plain of the Yukon
River encompassing approximately 6.5 million acres of land composed of marshes
with numerous lakes, braided streams, oxbows, and sloughs. Elevations in the area
range from 300 to 900 feet and the flats are bordered on the north by the
Porcupine Plateau, by the White Mountains to the south, the Ogilvie Mountains to
the cast, and the Kokrinc-Hodzana Highlands to the west (Institute of Social and
Economic Research 1978:lO:l; Selkregg 1976:7).
The climate in the area is characterized as continental subarctic with
extreme seasonal variation in both temperature and daylight. Temperatures
recorded in the neighboring community of Fort Yukon have ranged from 100
degrees Fahrenheit to lows of minus 75 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual
21
precipitation rate averages bctwccn 7 to 10 inches, most of which is rainfall
occurring during late summer and early fall, with approximately 45 inches of snow
during winter months. The wetlands and lakes dominating the landscape arc
attributed to the low precipitation and evaporation rates combined with the
underlying permafrost in the arca (Institute of Social and Economic Research
1978:11-3; Selkregg 1976:16, 20-21; U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1974:27).
Vegetation in the area is characteristic of northern boreal forest
environments with closed forests of white spruce, balsam poplar, aspen, and birch
in lowland areas alternating with open muskeg areas of black spruce with a ground
cover of mosses, grasses, and shrubs. Shrubs such as willow and alder border rivers
and creeks.
The fish and wildlife present are typical of boreal forest environments.
Mammals include moose, brown bear, black bear, caribou, porcupine, and a variety
of furbearing spccics such as marten, lynx, fox, mink, wolverine, wolf, land otter,
beaver, muskrat, and snowshoe hart. Several species of waterfowl are present
seasonally and ptarmigan and grouse are present year-round. Three species of
salmon migrate through the area and several species of other freshwater fish occur
locally. These include various whitefish species, sheefish, northern pike, burbot,
suckers, and grayling.
CONTEMPORARY SEASONAL ROUND
Beaver residents harvest over 30 types of fish and wildlife in a cyclical
pattern rcpeatcd each year. The seasonal pattern incorporates knowlcdgc of
migratory movcmcnts of different species, environmental conditions, cfficicnt
methods of harvest, preferences for certain resource attributes, and more rcccntly,
state and fcdcral hunting and fishing regulations. This established seasonal round
22
guides when and where each resource is sought and how it is taken. Fig. 3 presents
a graphic summary of the primary and occasional periods of harvest of major
resources.
The migratory patterns of a number of fish and wildlife species is a major
determinant of seasons of harvest. The return of waterfowl in the spring signals
the shift towards increased hunting and fishing activity and the season is
characterized by the harvest of waterfowl and muskrats. White-fronted and
Canada geese are usually the first species to appear in the area, followed by a
variety of duck species such as canvasbacks, mallards, pintails, and wigeons.
Scoters or “black ducks” are generally the last arrivals, appearing in early June.
Once break-up occurs in mid-May, nets are set to harvest whitefish and pike
for human consumption and to feed dogs. Fishing for these species often continues
until the arrival of king salmon in late June and early July. Early summer is also
a preferred time for cutting house logs as high water facilitates their transport to
the village from logging sites upriver.
The harvest of waterfowl tapers off as birds begin to nest and summer
activity focuses on salmon fishing with set gill nets and fish wheels. Sheefish are
taken during summer months in fish wheels and nets incidental to salmon fishing.
Hooking or rod and reel fishing for pike occurs at this time. Nets are sometimes
set to harvest whitefish and other freshwater fish species. Black bears are
sometimes taken during this season. Summer is also the time for seasonal wage
employment such as firefighting or construction work as well as local house
building.
The summer run of chum salmon usually appears by the end of July or
early August, replacing the run of king salmon. At this time of year, molting
waterfowl are occasionally taken during the course of other activities. The fall
23
RESOURCE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
King Salmon
Summer Chun I I I I I I I MrnI I I I I Fall Chum I I I I I I I I amiss I i i Coho Salmon I I I I I I I I arniza I I i Whitefish (sp.) I I I ~i~i~imimimimimimi i Sheefish 1 1 1 1 1 glmImImI~I@g$Ig 1 1
Northern Pike I I I 81 imimimimimtmI i Burbot I I I 81 ID~l~~~~l~~lmlmImI 1 Longnose Sucker I I I I IgglmImImI 1 Grayling
Moose
Black Bear imimimi i i Caribou imiu I I I I I I imimi Hare imimi I I I I I I imimimi Muskrat I I simimi I I I I I I Porcupine I I I I I IgggglmImI Grout-d Squirrel 1 1 1 1 1 ImImImIml:gggq
Tree Squirrel 1 1 1 1 1 1 gilmImI
Beaver I I I I I I I I I Other Furbearers imimimi I I I I I I imimi Waterfowl (sp.) izzziimirni88z I I I Grouse (sp.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~lmlmI~~I~~~[
Ptarmigan (sp.)
Berries (sp.) i I I I I I i~aimi~i I i i
imi Primary periods of harvest
lg$$@l Occasional periods of harvest
Fig. 3. Seasonal. Fmund of Subsistence Activities, Beaver 1985.
24
chum and coho salmon runs occur in late summer towards the end of August. As
fall approaches certain species of waterfowl appear again along river corridors and
hunting of ducks and gecsc is again undcrtakcn.
Some households continue fishing for fall chum and coho salmon during the
fall. Smaller species of whitefish are often harvested in fish wheels while fishing
for these late-running salmon. The predominant activity shifts to the hunting of
moose and black bear. Black bear are hunted in fall as the accumulation of a
thick layer of winter fat makes them especially favored. Grouse hunting also takes
place or, like porcupine, grouse are encountered and harvested as people are doing
other things. Wood cutting for the initial supply of winter firewood is undertaken
at this time of year. Fall fishing with nets or fish traps for whitefish, pike,
burbot, longnosc suckers, and arctic grayling occurs, primarily for dog food.
Hooking for pike or grayling is sometimes pursued at this time.
As lakes and rivers begin to freeze, activity is temporarily halted as travel
is thwarted by the changing environment. Later, when the ice thickens and
conditions improve, fishing for whitefish, pike, and burbot resumes with nets set
under the ice or occasionally by hooking through the ice. Ptarmigan are taken in
the flats in late fall and early winter and during mid-winter can be found in the
surrounding hills. Snarelines are set for snowshoe hares (“rabbits”),
Preparations for the trapping and snaring of furbearers are made during
October and November. Hunting of moose and small game occurs in conjunction
with running traplines. In years when caribou migrate north of the village they
are hunted during early spring (March and April). By March trapping effort is
concentrated on the harvest of beaver and muskrat. By this time, the return of the
geese are eagerly anticipated and another seasonal round begins.
25
HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION IN HARVEST ACTIVITIES
During the 12-month period from November 1984 through October 1985, all
households in Beaver harvested some type of fish, wildlife, or plant resource. Fig.
4 presents the percentage of households that harvested fish and wildlife in the
seven resource categories of salmon, freshwater fish, big game, small game,
waterfowl, furbearers, and berries.
The percentage of households reporting successful harvest was greatest in
the resource categories of small game and waterfowl at 83.9 percent each.
Freshwater fish other than salmon were harvested by 64.5 percent (20 households),
61.3 percent (19 households) harvested furbearers, berries were harvested by 48.4
percent (15 households), 38.7 percent (12 households) harvested salmon, and 35.5
percent (11 households) harvested big game. Levels of household participation for
resources ranged from a high of 77.4 percent for snowshoe hare to a low of 6.4
percent for wolverine and arctic grayling (Table 6). For instance, of principal
species, the percentage of households harvesting was 74.2 percent for ducks, 71.0
percent for geese, 58.1 percent for pike, 41.9 percent for whitefish, 32.3 percent for
king salmon, and 29.0 percent for moose.
The overall participation of households in harvest activities increases if
unsuccessful attempts at harvest are considered. Attempts at harvest were
unsuccessful for at least one household in over 50 percent of the 32 resource
categories (Table 7). The greatest differences between attempted and successful
harvest occurred for the large mammal species of moose and black bear. Moose
hunting was undertaken by 21 households (67.7 percent) although only 9 households
(29.0 percent) successf’ully harvested a moose during the survey year. Similarly, 14
households (45.2 percent) hunted black bear with 3 households (9.7 pcrccnt)
26
SCllOH3SnOH d0 33V.lNXM3d
27
harvesting a bear. For certain furbearer species, between one to four households
were unsuccessful at their attempts to harvest these animals.
TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS kIARVESTING BY RESOURCE, BEAVER 1984-85
NUMBER OF PERCENT OF RESOURCE HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS
Snowshoe Hare 24 77.4 Duck (sp.) 23 74.2 Grouse (sp.) 22 71.0 Geese (sp.) 22 71.0 Marten 19 61.3 Northern Pike 18 58.1 Muskrat 15 48.4 Berries (sp.) 15 48.4 Lynx 14 45.2 Red Fox 14 45.2 Whitefish (sp.) 13 41.9 Mink 11 35.5 Ptarmigan (sp.) 11 35.5 King Salmon 10 32.3 Moose 9 29.0 Beaver 9 29.0 Sheefish 6 19.3 Summer Chum Salmon 6 19.3 Squirrel (sp.) 4 12.9 Crane 4 12.9 Porcupine 4 12.9 Fall Chum Salmon 4 12.9 Burbot 3 9.7 Longnose Sucker 3 9.7 Coho Salmon 3 9.7 Black Bear 3 9.7 Wolverine 2 6.4 Arctic Grayling 2 6.4
28
TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS ATTEMPTING TO AND SUCCESSFULLY HARVESTING RESOURCES, BEAVER 1984-85
PERCENT PERCENT SUCCESS RESOURCE ATTEMPTING SUCCESSFUL RATE
Moose 67.7 29.0 42.8 Black Bear 45.2 9.7 21.5 Porcupine 25.8 12.9 50.0 Wolverine 19.3 6.4 33.2 Wolf 12.9 0.0 0.0 Lynx 54.8 45.2 82.5 Red Fox 51.6 45.2 87.6 Ptarmigan (sp.) 41.9 35.5 84.7 Mink 41.9 35.5 84.7 Arctic Grayling 9.7 6.4 66.0 Snowshoe Hare 80.6 77.4 96.0 Grouse (sp.) 74.2 71.0 95.7 Marten 64.5 61.3 95.0 Squirrel (sp.) 16.1 12.9 80.1 Brown Bear 3.2 0.0 0.0 Caribou 3.2 0.0 0.0 Land Otter 3.2 0.0 0.0 Duck (sp.) 74.2 74.2 100.0 Geese (sp.) 71.0 71.0 100.0 Northern Pike 58.1 58.1 100.0 Muskrat 48,4 48.4 100.0 Berries (sp.) 48.4 48.4 100.0 Whitefish (sp.) 41.9 41.9 100.0 King Salmon 32.3 32.3 100.0 Beaver 29.0 29.0 100.0 Summer Chum Salmon 19.3 19.3 100.0 Sheef ish 19.3 19.3 100.0 Crane 12.9 12.9 100.0 Fall Chum Salmon 12.9 12.9 100.0 Coho Salmon 9.7 9.7 100.0 Burbot 9.7 9.7 100.0 Longnose Sucker 9.7 9.7 100.0
29
HARVEST LEVELS AND COMPOSITION OF HARVEST
Harvest levels (in numbers of fish or animals) are presented in Table 8,
including the range of household harvests, the total quantity harvested by all
households combined, and the mean household harvest. Whitefish and salmon were
harvested in the greatest quantity by number. Harvest quantities were converted
into pounds for edible species and harvests by weight for these species are
presented in Table 9, including the mean household and per capita harvests and
percentage of the total harvest. The community of Beaver harvested a total of
56,938.1 pounds of wild food during the survey year. By weight summer chum
salmon made up the largest percentage (23.2 percent of the harvest), followed by
king salmon (21.4 percent), moose (17.2 percent) and fall chum salmon (11.6
percent). Composition of the harvest by weight for 7 major resource categories is
presented in Table 10. Over one-half of the total amount (56.8 percent) was
comprised of salmon, mostly king and summer chum salmon. Big game species of
moose and black bear accounted for 17.7 percent of the total harvest by weight,
freshwater fish species made up 10.7 percent, and the remaining 15 percent
included waterfowl, small game, edible furbearers, and berries. The average
household harvest of edible resources was 1,836.7 pounds with a per capita harvest
of 730 pounds (Table 9).
Approximately 37 percent by weight of the overall community harvest was
used to feed dogs (Table 11). During the survey year 20 households owned a total
of 66 dogs. The number of dogs owned by households ranged from 1 to 17 with an
average of 3.3 per household with dogs. A significant proportion of the chum
salmon harvest was used for dog food, households reported using 95.8 percent of
the summer chum and 97.9 percent of the fall chum harvest for dog food.
30
TABLE 8. HARVEST LEVELS OF ALL RESOURCES, BEAVER 1984-85 (IN NUMBERS OF FISH OR ANIMALS, EXCEPT WHERE NOTED)
MINIMUM MAXIMUM TOTAL MEAN RESOURCE HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLD
HARVEST* HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST
Whitefish (sp.) 2 3,100 3,536 114.1 Summer Chum Salmon 50 1,000 2,870 92.6 Fall Chum Salmon 30 500 1,180 38.1 King Salmon 1 250 885 28.6 Muskrat 5 165 804 25.9 Marten 1 200 680 21.9 Duck (sp.) 2 100 669 21.6 Northern Pike 5 107 575 18.6 Geese (sp.) 2 50 484 15.6 Snowshoe Hare 1 80 468 15.1 Grouse (sp.) 3 48 290 9.4 Squirrel (sp.) 6 200 242 7.8 Red Fox 1 30 115 3.7 Ptarmigan (sp.) 2 22 85 2.7 Lynx 1 18 68 2.2 Coho Salmon 2 50 62 2.0 Burbot 1 50 54 1.7 Gallons of Berries (sp.) 1 12 51 1.7 Beaver 1 12 43 1.4 Mink 1 15 37 1.2 Sheefish 1 15 34 1.1 Arctic Grayling 5 28 33 1.1 Moose 1 3 14 0.4 Longnose Sucker 3 10 13 0.4 Crane 1 3 7 0.2 Porcupine 1 2 5 0.2 Wolverine 1 3 4 0.1 Black Bear 1 1 3 0.1
* Excluding unsuccessful households
31
TABLE 9. HARVEST LEVELS IN POUNDS FOR EDIBLE RESOURCES, BEAVER 1984-85
RESOURCE
TOTAL MEAN PER PERCENT COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLD CAPITA OF
HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST TOTAL VW (LBS) (LBS) (LB3
Summer Chum Salmon 13,202.O 425.9 King Salmon 12,2 13.0 394.0 Moose 9,800.O 316.1 Fall Chum Salmon 6,608.O 213.2 Whitefish (sp.) 3,058.O 98.6 Northern Pike 2,587.5 83.5 Geese (sp.) 2,420.O 78.1 Snowshoe Hare 1,263.6 40.8 Muskrat 1,206.O 38.9 Beaver 1,032.O 33.3 Duck (sp.) 1,003.5 32.4 Lynx 816.0 26.3 Black Bear 300.0 9.7 Coho Salmon 297.6 9.6 Sheefish 217.6 7.0 Berries (sp.) 206.0 6.6 Grouse (sp.) 203.0 6.5 Burbot 189.0 6.1 Squirrel (sp.) 96.8 3.1 Ptarmigan (sp.) 59.5 1.9 Crane 56.0 1.8 Porcupine 50.0 1.6 Longnose Sucker 29.9 1.0 Arctic Grayling 23.1 0.7
TOTAL 56,938.l 1,836.7
169.3 156.6 125.6 84.7 39.2 33.2 31.0 16.2 15.5 13.2 12.9 10.5 3.9 3.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3
730.0
23.2 21.4 17.2 11.6 5.4 4.5 4.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 * *
100.0
* Less than 0.1 percent
32
TABLE 10. HARVEST LEVELS IN POUNDS BY MAJOR RESOURCE CATEGORY, BEAVER 1984-85
RESOURCE TOTAL HARVEST MEAN HOUSEHOLD CATEGORY CBS) HARVEST (LBS)
Salmon 32,320.6 (56.8%) 1,042.6 Big Game 10,100.0 (17.7%) 325.8 Freshwater Fish 6,105.l (10.7%) 196.9 Waterfowl 3,479.5 (6.1%) 112.2 Small Game 2,878.g (5.1%) 92.9 Furbearers 1,848.0 (3.2%) 59.6 Berries 206.0 (0.4%) 6.7
TOTAL 56.938.1 (100.0%) 1,836.7
TABLE 11. FISH HARVESTS USED FOR DOG FOOD, BEAVER 1984-85
RESOURCE NUMBER EDIBLE POUNDS
PERCENT OF RESOURCE
FED TO DOGS
Summer Chum Salmon 2,750 12,650.O 95.8 Fall Chum Salmon 1,155 6,468.0 97.9 Whitefish (sp.) 3,020 1,560.O 51.0 Northern Pike 89 400.5 15.5 Sheefish 4 25.6 11.8 Longnose Sucker 10 23.0 76.9
TOTAL 7,028 21,127.l 37.1
33
Approximately 2,009.l pounds of freshwater fish was also used to feed dogs.
This is considered a minimum estimate as utilization of freshwater fish was not
consistently reported. Overall, about 21,127.l pounds of fish were used for dog
food, or about 320.1 pounds per dog in 1984-85. Quantitative data was not
collected on other resources that may have been used to feed dogs such as
furbearer carcasses or parts of large mammals that are not used for human
consumption. When harvest levels were adjusted to exclude the fish harvests used
to feed dogs, the total edible wild food harvest for human consumption was
35,811.O pounds with a per capita harvest of 459.1 pounds.
HOUSEHOLD HARVEST DIVERSITY
Household harvests varied widely as illustrated in Fig. 5. Household
harvests of edible resources ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 10,346.g pounds
per household. Table 12 presents the percentage of households harvesting within
specified weight ranges. Almost two-thirds of the households (61.3 percent)
harvested less than 1,000 pounds of edible resources, 29.0 percent harvested
between 1,000 and 5,000 pounds and 9.6 percent (3 households) harvested more than
6,000 pounds. The relative subsistence productivity of households is shown by
comparing the cumulative harvest of all households to the cumulative percent of
all households (Fig. 6). One-third of Beaver households accounted for 80 percent
of the total harvest. Two households produced one-third of the total community
harvest of edible resources.
The household harvest in edible weight appeared to be positively related to
the number of fish and wildlife species categories harvested. Fig. 7 presents a
scattergram of household harvest levels (in pounds) plotted against number of
34
I I I I I I I I I I 7 0 0-J TD b 7 - co m * M N - 0
. ul
(IHXMA EllBia3 sel> u3AavH aioH3snoH
35
TABLE 12. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD HARVESTS BY EDIBLE WEIGHT RANGE, BEAVER 1984-85
EDIBLE WEIGHT NUMBER OF RANGE HOUSEHOLDS
WW
o-999 19(61.3%) 1 ,ooo- 1,999 5(16.1%) 2,000-2,999 0 (0.0%) 3,000-3,999 2 (6.4%) 4,000-4,999 2 (6.4%) 5,000-5,999 0 (0.0%) 6,000-6,999 1 (3.2%) 7,000-7,999 0 (0.0%) 8,000~8,999 1 (3.2%) 9,000-9,999 0 (0.0%)
1 o,ooo- 10,999 1 (3.2%)
categories harvested. The regression line shows that as the number of resources
harvested by a household increased, the harvest quantity also increased.
Households were divided into three groups of similar size (the highest third,
middle third, and lowest third) based on household harvest levels to examine
factors that may account for the variation in household harvest productivity.
Table 13 presents mean harvest levels for the 7 resource categories for each group.
The group of low-producing households consisted of 11 households with overall
harvest levels ranging from 0 to 328.9 pounds with a mean of 151.5 pounds per
household. Ten medium-producing households had harvest levels ranging from
483.0 to 1,577.6 pounds averaging 858.4 pounds per household. The ten high-
producing households harvested between 1,797.6 to 10,346.9 pounds with an average
of 4,668.8 pounds per household. Low-producing households harvested ncithcr
salmon nor big game, the two resource categories noted earlier that nccountcd for
74.5 percent of the community harvest. Households in the high-producing group
36
100
100 90
- 1 .--
.._
_-_-
.- --
--
80
----
--
~.-_
_-.--
- --
.- --
-.-_.
70
---_
---.
- 1 ~~
--
___-
___.
.._
-_-
60
--...
.. ~
-.._
--.
..___
-_
.___
____
50
- --
-.-..
~--
._
40
---
--
.-. --
-
4o -t-
-i--
i I
--. ---
---.
I.---
Jp-.J
w--
--
-_ -
-
0 20
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
CU
MU
LATI
VE
PE
RC
EN
T O
F H
OU
SE
HO
LDS
Fig.
6.
C
umul
ativ
e P
erce
ntag
e of
To
tal
Har
vest
by
H
ouse
hold
s,
Bea
ver
1984
-85.
HOUSEHOLD HARVEST (LBS EDIBLE WEIGHT) (Thousands)
I I I I 1 I I I ! I
q
a
u
38
TABLE 13. AVERAGE HARVEST IN POUNDS OF LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH PRODUCING GROUPS, BEAVER 1984-85
RESOURCE CATEGORY
LOW MEDIUM HIGH PRODUCING PRODUCING PRODUCING
(n=ll) (n-10) (n=lO)
Salmon 0.0 305.9 2,926.2 Freshwater Fish 27.7 116.8 463.2 Big Game 0.0 160.0 850.0 Small Game 23.1 126.9 134.8 Waterfowl 91.0 89.2 158.8 Furbearers 7.6 50.4 126.0 Berries 1.5 9.2 9.8
MEAN HARVEST, TOTAL POUNDS 151.5 858.4 4,668.S
TABLE 14. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND EQUIPMENT HOLDINGS OF LOW,
MEDIUM, AND HIGH PRODUCING GROUPS, BEAVER 1984-85
HOUSEHOLD LOW CHARACTERISTIC AND PRODUCING EQUIPMENT HOLDING (n=ll)
MEDIUM HIGH PRODUCING PRODUCING
(n=lO) (n=lO)
Household Size 1.5 2.8 3.4 Age of Household Head 53.6 43.8 42.7 Members Over 16 Years 1.2 1.8 2.2 Employed Household Members .9 1.4 1.5 Weeks Worked by Household 17.1 36.4 34.1 Dogs .6 1.9 4.0 River Boat .5 .3 1.2 Outboard Motor .5 .3 1.2 Canoe .3 .4 .9 Snowmachine .5 .7 1.2 3 or 4-Wheeler .l .4 .l Car or Truck 0 0 .2 Freezer .3 .4 .9 Fish Net .2 1.0 1.2
39
had a substantially larger average harvest of both salmon and big game. All three
groups harvested freshwater fish, small game, waterfowl, furbearers, and berries.
These differences can be attributed to a number of socioeconomic factors as shown
below.
Selected household characteristics were examined to determine if there wcrc
differences between the three groups in socioeconomic factors such as household
size, age of household members, wage employment, and equipment ownership
(Table 14). Households in the high-producing group had, on average, larger
households, over twice the size of those in the low-producing group. The average
age of the head of household was lowest in the high-producing group and thcrc
were more members 16 years of age and older in this group. The average number
of household members employed during the survey year was also greater for the
high-producing group although the average number of weeks employed was greatest
for the medium-producing group. High-producers also maintained nearly seven
times as many dogs as the low-producing group. These households also possessed
more equipment, two to five times greater than low-producing households. The
implications of these differences are discussed in Chapter 5.
SHARING OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The sharing of fish and wildlife is another component of the pattern of
resource harvest and use by Beaver residents. Resources are typically shared with
relatives and elders in other households and with households in other communities
through ceremonial occasions such as community potlatches. Secondary lcvcls of
distribution arc common, with households sharing rcsourccs they have rcccivcd.
Table 15 lists the number and percentage of households receiving and giving
specific resources. King salmon, moose, whitefish, and waterfowl were the most
40
TABLE 15. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING AND GlVING SELECTED RESOURCES, BEAVER 1984-85
PERCENT PERCENT RESOURCE OF HOUSEHOLDS OF HOUSEHOLDS
RECEIVING GIVING
King Salmon 64.5 29.0 Moose 64.5 29.0 Whitefish (sp.) 45.2 19.3 Duck (sp.) 41.9 41.9 Geese (sp.) 41.9 48.4 Beaver 32.3 6.4 Black Bear 29.0 12.9 Northern Pike 22.6 25.8 Grouse (sp.) 22.6 29.0 Summer Chum Salmon 22.6 0.0 Fall Chum Salmon 22.6 9.7 Muskrat 19.3 25.8 Berries (sp.) 19.3 19.3 Sheefish 16.1 3.2 Snowshoe Hare 12.9 25.8 Ptarmigan (sp.) 9.7 0.0 Crane 9.7 0.0 Marten 9.7 9.7 Red Fox 9.7 9.7 Longnose Sucker 6.4 0.0 Burbot 6.4 3.2 Porcupine 6.4 12.9 Lynx 3.2 3.2 Arctic Grayling 3.2 0.0 Coho Salmon 3.2 3.2 Wolf 3.2 3.2 Mink 0.0 3.2 Squirrel (sp.) 0.0 6.4
41
commonly received resources whereas waterfowl, salmon, moose, small game
(grouse, muskrat, and hare), and pike were the resources given by the greatest
percentage of households.
Both fresh and processed king salmon are given to households within the
community. King salmon is a highly-valued resource and is distributed by fishing
households to relatives, elders, and friends. Fish are sent to relatives in urban
areas and communities where they are not as readily harvested. It is especially
desired by residents of other communities where king salmon are unavailable such
as Venetie and Arctic Village. In some cases, distribution is the “payment” for
assistance in fishing or processing activities. When a hunter is successful in
harvesting a moose, portions are often widely distributed to many households in
the community. Moose is a resource which is commonly redistributed by
households that receive large quantities of meat. Spring waterfowl is another
resource frequently distributed to a number of households by successful hunters.
Freshwater fish are generally shared with households owning dogs for use as dog
food.
Distribution of resources also takes place in the form of trading of fish and
wildlife. One household traded dried king salmon for caribou leg skins from
relatives in the Kobuk River region. Other households mentioned sending fresh
king salmon to Arctic Village in exchange for caribou meat. Another form of
cooperative sharing takes place when older residents or households with a steady
source of income who do not participate directly in subsistence pursuits, provide
equipment or monetary support to others in exchange for a portion of the catch.
42
GEOGRAPHIC USE AREAS
Most Beaver residents are aware of the general areas used by others in the
community and certain trails, hunting areas, and fishing sites are used in common.
However, many individuals maintain an intimate, detailed knowledge of a subset
of specific hunting and fishing sites, traplines, campsites, trails, and landmarks,
usually associated with traditional family use areas (Schneider 1976:456-468). Some
of these areas, especially traplines, are considered exclusive. This level of
knowledge is learned through experience from family members or in some cases,
unrelated hunting and trapping partners.
Information on geographic use areas was gathered from Beaver residents.
The maps represent areas used over the lifetime of a sample of residents from 15
households (48 percent) and covers seven broad categories of activity (Figs. 8, 9,
and 10). The harvest of small game such as hare, porcupine, and grouse is
conducted within the areas documented for other activities.
The areas used for the harvest of fish and wildlife encompassed the Yukon
River corridor from Fort Yukon downriver towards Stevens Village to Moose
Island and portions of the Hadweenzic, Hodzana, and Beaver river drainages. As
could be expected, the greatest land use coverage was associated with trapping
activities (Fig. 9). North of the Yukon River trapping took place along the
Hadweenzic and Hodzana river drainages, across the flats and the foothills to the
base of Lone Mountain and Nelson Mountain, and along the “government trail,”
which originally led to the Chandalar mining operations north of the community.
The Beaver and Lost creek drainages were also utilized by trappers and traplines
cxtcnded to the White Mountains along the slopes of Mount Schwatka. Moose, bear,
and waterfowl hunting were associated with river corridors, lakes, and meadows
43
I FIGURE 6 . AREAS USED FOR P==n”er= - 1 HARVEST ACTIVITIES BY RESI- 1.v.z wr ITWO AnLAB
I/ BEAVER. ALASKA (Cd. 1930 to 1966).
a YOO,L IlUllTlWa AIILAS
‘,.
44
FIGURE 9 . AREAS USED FOR RESOURCE HARVEST ACTIVITIES BY RESIDENTS OF BEAVER, ALASKA (Ca. 1930 to 1986).
w*ll!ncowL wuNTI*o ALILAa
,--\ ; : CURW!ARLR TRACCINO AND WNTlWQ AREAS ‘_#’
. CAWN8 AN0 TENT CAYC SW’lt)
45
w G . c 0 .
46
(Figs. 8 and 9). The hunting of caribou occurred exclusively along the “government
road” north of the village (Fig. 8).
Distinct trapping patterns of Indian and Eskimo residents in Beaver were
documented in a 1974 study (Schneider 1976:97-99). Trapping by Indian residents
took place up river systems whereas the trapping areas of residents of Eskimo
background were associated with the “government trail.” Trapping areas of some
residents seemed to reflect family origin. For example, a trapper that is a
descendant of people originally from Stevens Village maintains a trapping area
with a downriver orientation, overlapping to some degree, the trapping area of a
Stevens Village family to whom he is related (Sumida 1988).
Fishing activity was pursued in channels and sloughs of the Yukon River as
well as in many of the lake and tributary systems in the area (Fig. 10). Only a few
selected areas were used for salmon fishing, most of which were located relatively
close to the community. Salmon fishing also took place downriver near Whirlpool
Island and upriver near Lower Birch Creek slough. Most freshwater fishing
occurred in lakes and sloughs such as Elbow, Mud, and Twin lakes and Marten,
Howard, Elbow, and Joe Guay sloughs. The Hodzana and Hadweenzic rivers and
Beaver and Fish creeks were among the tributaries used for harvesting freshwater
fish.
As described earlier, other harvest activities were pursued in conjunction
with winter trapping such as moose hunting, snaring of snowshoe hare, and
ptarmigan hunting. Trapping areas generally encompassed lands used for the
harvest of many of the other types of resources. The maps also show that hunting
of moose, caribou, and waterfowl took place beyond the extent of the documented
trapping arcas.
47
48
CHAPTER 4
HARVEST AND USE PATTERNS
Chapter 4 describes some of the features of the harvest and use of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources taken by Beaver residents including when they are
harvested, the methods by which they are taken, a brief summary of the levels of
participation and harvest, and how the resource is used. Traditional and
contemporary harvest and processing methods are very similar to those described
for the neighboring community of Stevens Village (see Sumida 1988). The resource
groups discussed in this section are salmon, freshwater fish, moose, bear, caribou,
small game, waterfowl, furbearers, and plants.
SALMON FISHING
Three species of salmon: king, chum, and coho are available to Beaver
residents. King salmon usually arrive in the area between the final week of June
and the first week in July. The run lasts approximately one month, tapering off
towards the end of July when the first or “summer” run of chum salmon reach
Beaver. By late August “fall” chum salmon are found in the area. The run of coho
salmon usually coincides with the fall chum run during September. Run timing
and local nomenclature used to describe each species is similar to that documented
for Stevens Village (Sumida 1988:90-93). The generic term “salmon” often refers to
king salmon; summer chum salmon are known locally as “dog salmon”; fall chum
salmon are called “silvers”; and coho salmon are known as “chinooks.” Summer
chum spawning areas have not been documented by biologists in the upper Yukon
River drainage beyond the Hodzana River (which is downriver from the
community). Nevertheless, residents recognize summer chum runs to be distinct
49
from fall chum runs in the Beaver area, and harvests reported here reflect those
local distinctions.
In the past century, salmon were harvested by a variety of means including
gill nets and dip nets constructed from willow fiber or babiche and fish traps.
Since the early 20th century, fish wheels also have been used. Of these harvest
methods the two technologies currently employed for the harvest of salmon are
commercially-manufactured nylon gill nets and locally-constructed fish wheels.
Beaver residents commonly use 60-foot nets for salmon fishing, although 75 and
150-foot nets also were reported. Descriptions of these historical and contemporary
harvest methods can be found in Sullivan (1942), Osgood (1970), Nelson (1973) and
Sumida (1988).
Most salmon fishing was village-based during the study year. Nets and
wheels were located in relatively close proximity to the village, and fish were
brought back to the community for processing. The exception was one household
that fished with relatives from Venetie at their fish camp located about 30 miles
above Beaver. One household that usually fished at a site upriver was precluded
from doing so during the survey year because of mechanical problems with their
equipment and this household, as well as another household, set nets directly in
front of the village. A few households reported utilizing fish camps for the
harvest and processing of salmon during previous years but village-based fishing
has been the common pattern in Beaver at least since 1974 as it was in 1985
(Schneider 1976:241).
Of the twelve households participating in salmon harvest, five of these
households fished independently, although they were infrequently assisted by
members of other households. Of the remaining seven households, there were three
fishing groups comprised of two households each and one household that fished
with a related household from another community. These groups also received
50
occasional help from members of other households, for example, in checking a net
one morning or moving a fish wheel, but this sporadic assistance was not
considered equivalent to the more established and clearly defined cooperation of
the fishing groups mentioned above.
The role of various household members in the fishing groups varied. In one
case, a household with equipment (boat, motor, fish wheel) was affiliated with
another related household with drying and smoking facilities and the requisite
skills for processing salmon. In another case, a parent household with equipment
and facilities was assisted in both harvest and processing activities by members of
the household of an adult daughter. The third group consisted of two unrelated
households that cooperated by sharing in harvesting and processing activities using
a fish wheel belonging to the household in the first example.
During the survey year, a single fish wheel was utilized by four households
in two separate work groups. The ownership of the wheel was attributed to one of
these households. This household had worked cooperatively with another
household in the harvest and processing of king salmon but during the chum
salmon run the wheel was turned over to the other group which had a total of 24
dogs. The remaining households fished with gill nets. The number of fish wheels
used for harvesting salmon varies from year to year but seldom exceeds three for
the entire community.
Salmon comprised a large proportion of individual household harvests by
edible weight (Table 10). Ten households participated in harvesting king salmon
and household harvests ranged from 1 to 250 fish with an average harvest of 88.5
fish per household that harvested kings. Household harvests of summer chum
salmon ranged from 50 to 1,000 fish with an average harvest of 478.3 fish for the
six households that harvested summer chums. The average harvest of fall chum
salmon was 295 fish for the four participating households with individual
51
household harvests ranging from 30 to 500 fish. Coho salmon harvests ranged from
2 to 50 fish and the average for the three participating households was 20.7 fish.
The mean household harvest for all community households (including those that
did not fish) was 28.6 for king salmon, 92.6 for summer chum, 38.1 for fall chum,
and 2.0 for coho salmon.
The overall community harvest of salmon totaled 32,320.6 pounds. Summer
chum salmon comprised 40.8 percent of the total, king salmon 37.8 percent, fall
chum 20.4 percent, and coho salmon 0.9 percent. Salmon comprised 56.8 percent of
the total pounds of the edible species harvested by Beaver residents (Table 10).
As noted earlier, 8 of the 12 salmon fishing households were in the high-
producing category and the remaining four were medium producers. As a group,
households that fished for salmon had on average, larger household size, more dogs,
greater equipment holdings, and more weeks of employment than households that
did not fish for salmon.
Salmon harvests from 1977-84 for Beaver are presented in Table 16 derived
from post-season catch calendars and interviews (Alaska Department of Fish and
Game 1977-1984). The figures for the 1985 salmon harvest are based on survey
data from this study. Information on the number of fishing families and number
of dogs is included. Chum salmon harvest figures show extreme variability over
time with a high of 6,004 fall chum salmon caught in 1983 followed by a low of 0
harvest in 1984. The reported catch from the study year appears to be higher for
king salmon and for total chum salmon harvest than the previous eight years with
the exception of the anomalous 1983 harvest.
The extremes in chum salmon harvest in 1983 and 1984 cannot be accounted
for by changes in the reported number of fishing families or dogs from previous
years. Some of the variation in harvest lcvcls over time, especially rclativc to the
1985 figures, can be accounted for by variations in the numbers of fishing families
52
TABLE 16. SALMON HARVESTS 1977-85,* BEAVER
FISHING KING SUMMER FALL COHO TOTAL FAMILIES SALMON CHUM CHUM SALMON CHUM
YEAR DOGS SALMON SALMON SALMON
1977 7 21 299 694 22 0 716 1978 8 25 558 102 1,591 24 1,693 1979 7 21 394 34 1,792 0 1,826 1980 6 26 506 263 190 5 453 1981 6 30 552 146 735 0 881 1982 5 28 250 534 1,878 0 2,412 1983 6 18 220 100 6,004 0 6,104 1984 5 12 553 167 0 0 167 1985 12** 66 883 2,870 1,180 62 4,050
* ADF&G catch calendars 1977-84; 1985 figures from household survey, this study
** Number of fishing households
which completed and returned catch calendars. Harvest information for this study
was collected on a household basis and most salmon fishing appeared to be
undertaken by discrete household units operating independently. If a household
fished with another household, then the catch was divided between them. Unlike
some other Yukon River communities, salmon fishing was not undertaken by large
family work groups comprised of multiple households. For this reason the “family
unit” used by the catch calendar reporting system is believed to be comparable to
the “household unit” in this study. The number of families fishing during 1985
was double the average reported in the prior 8 years. The number of dogs reported
for 1985 is for the entire community as opposed to data from previous years when
the number of dogs is for fishing families only. This brings into question whether
all participating households or families were contacted for harvest information in
previous years and whether the harvest numbers presented accurately reflect the
overall community harvest.
53
SUMMER FALL TOTAL KING CHUM CHUM CHUM COHO
YEAR SALMON SALMON SALMON SALMON SALMON
1977 43 99 3 102 0 1978 70 13 199 212 3 1979 56 5 256 261 0 1980 84 44 32 76 1 1981 92 24 123 147 0 1982 50 107 376 482 0 1983 37 17 1,001 1,017 0 1984 111 33 0 33 0 1985 74 239 98 337 5
9-YEAR AVERAGE 69 64 232 296 1
TABLE 17. MEAN SALMON HARVEST PER FISHING FAMILY, 1977-85, BEAVER
The average household harvest for king and chum salmon based on the
reported number of fishing families is presented in Table 17. Fig. 11 depicts this
information graphically and shows that when the number of fishing families is
taken into account, harvest levels in 1985 are comparable to data from previous
years. The average household harvests of king salmon appear less variable than
chum salmon harvests ranging between 37 - 111 kings per fishing family, with a
mean of 69 fish. Chum salmon harvests show more variability (33 - 1,017 chums
per fishing family) but if the two extremes in 1983 and 1984 are considered
anomalies, the average chum salmon household harvest also appears to fall within a
more consistent range (76 - 482 chum per fishing family). Yearly fluctuations in
chum salmon harvest may be related to the total number of dogs in the community,
but this cannot be determined from the available information.
King salmon were used for human consumption whereas almost all chum
salmon were harvested for USC as dog food and processing methods used for each
54
1.1 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
J g-ye
ar
aver
age
chum
sa
lmon
ha
rves
t
0.2
g-ye
ar
aver
age
king
1977
19
78
1979
19
80
1981
19
82
1983
19
84
I985
q K
ING
SA
LMO
N
YE
AR
-I-
C
HU
M S
ALM
ON
Fig.
11
. M
ean
Hou
seho
ld
Har
vest
of
K
ing
and
Chu
m
Sal
mon
, 19
77-8
5,
Bea
ver.
species reflected this. King salmon were used fresh and were prepared by cutting,
smoking, and drying as “strips” and “dry fish” (see Sumida 1988). Other methods of
processing included freezing, canning, and salting. King salmon heads were
sometimes cleaned and frozen for later use. Salmon roe was cooked and eaten,
smoked and dried, or frozen for later use. Entrails were sometimes used to feed
dogs and backbones were commonly used in this manner.
Although some households used some chum salmon for human consumption,
97.9 percent of the fall chum and 95.8 percent of the summer chum harvest was
reported as being used for dog food (Table 11). Chums used for human
consumption were used fresh or were processed similarly to king salmon. Fish for
dogs were usually split and hung on racks to dry, usually without smoking, or if
caught late in the season, frozen whole.
FRESHWATER FISH FISHING
Several species of freshwater fish are available year-round to residents of
Beaver including whitefish, northern pike, burbot, sheefish, arctic grayling, and
longnose sucker (see Appendix C). Fishing for freshwater fish commences in
spring and continues intermittently throughout the summer and into early winter.
By the end of November fishing with nets under the ice is generally concluded and
freshwater fish harvest does not resume again until the following spring.
Traditional harvest methods for freshwater fish are described in Clark
(1974), Sullivan (1942), and Osgood (1970). Fish were harvested with basket and
keyhole traps used with fish fences or weirs, gill nets, dip nets, and hook and line,
all of which were constructed with local materials such as willow or sinew.
Contemporary methods include the use of set gill nets, traps, and hook and line.
56
Set gill nets are the most common means of harvest and are used during all
seasons freshwater fish arc sought, in open water and under the ice. Nets arc used
in creeks, sloughs, and lakes for harvesting whitefish, pike, burbot, and sucker and
are sometimes used to harvest grayling found in the upper Hodzana and
Hadweenzic rivers. Occasionally many of these species are taken incidentally to
salmon harvests in larger-mesh nets or fish wheels.
Fish traps are used in some of the smaller creeks to harvest whitefish and
pike, though other species are often taken incidentally. This method is commonly
used in the fall when water levels in lakes and sloughs recede and the fish migrate
downstream along tributaries towards the Yukon River. Fish fences are set up
across creekbeds and wire mesh basket traps or chutes constructed of wooden poles
leading to holding pens are placed along the blockading fence. Material used for
fences may range from willow or spruce poles to five-gallon gas cans.
Pike and grayling are taken with hook and line (including the use of rod
and reel) during summer and fall months. Hooking through the ice is sometimes
undertaken for pike, burbot, grayling, and whitefish but was more common in the
past.
The harvest of freshwater fish was undertaken by 64.5 percent of Beaver
households and the catch comprised 10.7 percent of the total community harvest by
weight (Table 10). Whitefish were harvested in the greatest quantity in terms of
numbers of fish, followed by pike, burbot, sheefish, grayling, and sucker (Table 8).
The mean household harvest by weight for all freshwater fish was 196.9 pounds.
Much of the fishing that took place throughout the year was aimed toward
providing food for dogs, for both immediate and later use. Although the extent to
which freshwater fish was used to feed dogs cannot be precisely quantified from
the survey data, the information available indicates that the majority of the catch
was used for this purpose. Many of the fish were used shortly after harvest to
57
feed dogs unless a large harvest warranted processing to preserve fish for later use.
Processing was similar to methods employed when using salmon for dog food.
Some residents thought that whitefish, pike, and burbot were fatter and in
better condition in the fall and that fish caught in the spring were “poorer” and
more suitable for dog food. One individual expressed a preference for eating lake-
caught whitefish over those caught in creeks or rivers. A few households reported
using whitefish and pike as bait when trapping.
MOOSE HUNTING
Moose hunting is the predominant subsistence activity undertaken in fall by
a large percentage of Beaver households. During the survey year 67.7 percent of
all households reported that they went out in search of moose (Table 7). Moose is
the primary source of wild meat for Beaver residents and is widely shared. Its
significant cultural value is demonstrated by the importance placed on having
moose meat for funeral and memorial potlatch ceremonies.
Traditionally, hunting was oriented towards the harvest of cow moose and
younger bulls as the condition of these animals was preferred. Although hunting
effort was concentrated in fall prior to the rut to provide winter stores of meat,
hunting also took place throughout the year. During the study year, regulations
allowed only the taking of bulls during open seasons in September, December, and
February.
Currently, most fall hunting for moose is conducted by small groups of two
or three hunters, most often related by kinship, Hunting parties were fluid in
composition, sometimes an individual hunted with different partners during the
course of the season if unsuccessful in their initial attempts. Hunting groups were
58
not always the same from one year to the next. During the survey period only one
individual reported hunting alone.
Hunting is conccntratcd in Scptcmbcr and hunting trips typically last
bctwecn two and four days with hunters camping away from the community. At
least one hunting party stayed out for at least two weeks because of the distance
traveled and the amount of time it took to spot and successfully harvest a bull.
Single day hunting trips were also undertaken but limited the distance and terrain
that could be covered. Winter hunting was pursued by households that were
unsuccessful during the fall season. Winter kills were often made by trappers
while traveling or checking their lines.
The success rate of Beaver households was 42.8 percent during the survey
year (9 households harvested out of 21 that hunted). Fourteen moose were reported
harvested, accounting for 17.2 percent of the total pounds of edible resources taken
by the community (Table 9). The average harvest was 316.1 pounds per household
or 125.6 pounds per capita.
Moose are sought at any time of year to provide meat for funeral potlatches.
On these occasions an entire moose is utilized in a brief period of time. Hunters
from Beaver have at times, provided moose meat for funerals in neighboring
communities. Regulations allow the taking of moose for funeral polatches with
certain reporting requirements.
As mentioned previously, moose meat is often widely distributed after a
successful hunt. Meat is sent to relatives in other communities as well as being
shared with other village households. A large proportion of the animal is utilized
including internal organs such as the heart, liver, and stomach. Moose heads are
often saved for moose head soup, which is prepared for special occasions. In the
past the brains were used to home-tan moose hides and portions of the stomach
were cleaned and dried for use as a storage bag.
59
BEAR HUNTING
The harvest and use of bear was more common in the past when families
resided in seasonal camps, At that time, den hunting was regularly undertaken
during fall. A good description of this activity is provided in Nelson et al.
(1982:46-47). Currently, bear hunting is more opportunistic and usually incidental
to other activities undertaken during open water seasons, although den hunting is
still conducted on occasion. Late summer and early fall are considered the best
time to harvest bear since they have developed a thick layer of fat for their winter
hibernation.
Black bear is the species most commonly taken. A few households hunt for
brown bear although some residents considered these bears to be inedible. During
the survey year three households each reported harvesting one black bear and no
brown bear were taken. Bear meat is eaten and their fat is sometimes rendered for
use in cooking or when eating dried fish or meat. Bear hides were kept by some
households.
CARIBOU HUNTING
Schneider (1976:111-112) reported that Beaver residents used to take
steamboats up to Circle to hunt for caribou around Charley Creek, transporting
their winter meat down to the village by raft. Residents reported that during the
late 1950s and early 1960s caribou frequently migrated north of the community.
Currently, caribou are available to Beaver residents during years when the
Porcupine Caribou Herd utilize the southwestern portion of their documented
60
range, traveling within 40 miles of the community along the Chandalar and upper
Hodzana drainages (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986).
Caribou again appeared in this area during the mid-1980s. Hunters using
the “winter road” or “government trail” north of the village found caribou tracks as
close as “36-mile” although no animals were harvested during the survey year.
Although not available on a consistent basis in recent times, caribou are desirable
and are hunted when known to be accessible.
SMALL GAME HUNTING
Small mammal species of snowshoe hare, muskrat, porcupine, ground
squirrel, and tree squirrel are harvested and used by Beaver residents. Although
comprising a small proportion of the overall harvest by weight, harvest numbers of
some of these species and the percentage of households harvesting are noteworthy.
Snowshoe hare, referred to as “rabbit,” are taken during late fall and
throughout the winter, generally with snare lines set on the outskirts of the
community or along traplines. Some are caught in traps set for other furbearer
species such as marten.
Hares were harvested by a large number of households in Beaver, 24
households or 77.4 percent reported successful harvests. Households reported
taking between 1 and 80 animals with a total community harvest of 468 hare
(Table 8). Hares were eaten, fed to dogs, or used as trapping bait.
The harvest of muskrat was a significant part of the traditional seasonal
round. Conducted as the spring extension of winter trapping activities, “ratting”
took place around lakes in traditional trapping territories of families. Later, as
consolidation of the village occurred and families developed a pattern of activity
based from the village, the annual migration to spring rat camp was conducted as a
61
separate activity from winter trapping with families moving from the village to
their traditional ratting areas for three to four weeks (Schneider 1976:239-240).
This level of involvement is no longer pursued and muskrat harvest is commonly
undertaken during briefer overnight trips in March and April. Initially caught
with traps, as the season progresses muskrat are harvested with low caliber rifles.
Fifteen households or 48.4 percent reported harvesting a total of 804
muskrat during the survey year (Tables 6 and 8). Muskrat comprised
approximately 2.1 percent of the total community food harvest by weight (Table 9).
Muskrat are generally harvested to bc eaten and to provide food for dogs.
Carcasses are sometimes preserved by drying for later use, again for feeding to
dogs. Muskrat pelts are used by some households as trim on gloves, moccasins, and
other locally-crafted items. The market for muskrat pelts varies from year to year
and during some seasons they cannot be sold. The low prices during the survey
year did not provide strong incentive for the harvest of furs for cash. Many
trappers commented on the low value of muskrat furs during this time, indicating
that they were not worth trapping except for food.
Porcupine are generally taken incidentally during the course of other
activities. They are considcrcd to bc best during fall months after the animals
have accumulated their winter fat. Porcupine are often shared with elders in the
community. During the survey year households reported seeing few porcupine in
the area and four households reported harvesting a total of five animals.
Harvested by a small number of households, squirrels are most commonly
caught in traps during late-summer, fall, and winter months. Ground squirrel arc
available during summer and early fall months prior to their winter hibernation.
Tree squirrels can be found throughout the winter and like hares are sometimes
incidentally caught in traps set for other furbcnrcrs.
62
Four households reported harvesting a total of 242 arctic ground and red
squirrels (Table 8). Squirrels are favored as food by older residents and are often
shared with elders. Neither species is generally harvested for their fur value
although one household was keeping ground squirrel pelts for a parka. Carcasses
arc also fed to dogs and used as trapping bait.
Three species of grouse and two species of ptarmigan are taken by Beaver
residents during fall and winter months (see Appendix C). Grouse are targeted
during fall months while ptarmigan are available in the flats in early winter and
again during late winter and early spring. They are found in the hills during mid-
winter months.
Grouse and ptarmigan were harvested by a notable percentage of Beaver
households. The harvest of grouse was reported by 71 percent of all households (22
households; Table 6). Household harvests ranged from 3 to 48 birds with a total
community harvest of 290 birds (Table 8). Taken opportunistically or with snares,
11 households or 35.5 percent reported harvesting a total of 85 ptarmigan with
household harvests ranging from 2 to 22 birds (Tables 6 and 8). The harvest of
grouse and ptarmigan totaled 262.5 pounds and comprised 0.5 percent of the overall
community harvest (Table 9).
WATERFOWL HUNTING
Three species of geese and at least ten species of ducks are taken by Beaver
hunters during spring, summer, and fall seasons (Appendix C). Many of these birds
nest in the Yukon Flats. The appearance of waterfowl by late-April is eagerly
anticipated and spring hunting is enthusiastically pursued. The harvest of goose
eggs was a traditional activity that is rarely undertaken today. Spring waterfowl
hunting is commonly conducted by groups of hunters who then share the harvest.
63
Birds taken at this time afford a welcome change in diet and are distributed to
other households.
Residents recognize a consistent order of arrival for certain species. For
example, Canada geese are among the first to appear while scoters or “black ducks”
are the last arrivals. Mallards are among the last ducks to leave the area in fall.
Certain species are best early in the season. White-fronted geese and snow geese,
locally known as “spreckled-breasted geese” and “white geese,” respectively, are
especially favored in the spring. Cranes are utilized by some households and arc
also considered best early in the spring when they are still fat. The harvest of
swans was uncommon in the past and arc still seldom taken. None wcrc taken
during the study year.
Waterfowl hunting was undertaken by a large majority of households, 74.2
percent (23 households) of Beaver households harvested ducks and 71 percent (22
households) harvested geese (Table 6). Four households reported harvesting cranes.
A total of 1,160 birds were taken during the survey period, resulting in an average
household harvest of 37 birds. By weight, waterfowl was about 6.1 percent of the
overall harvest (Table 10). The majority of the waterfowl harvested (73 percent of
the total number of birds harvested) were taken during the spring season. Of the
total number of geese harvested 79.3 percent (384 birds) were taken in the spring
while 67.7 percent (453 birds) of the duck harvest and 85.7 percent (6) of the
cranes were from spring hunting.
Waterfowl arc used fresh or are frozen for later use. They are commonly
roasted and are used to make soup. A few households collected the down from
plucked geese to be used in sewing projects.
64
FURBEARER TRAPPING AND HUNTING
The harvest of furbearing animals is the focus of winter activities in
Bcavcr. Preparations begin in fall and trapping usually commences during
November after adequate snowfall allows travel with snowmachines and colder
temperatures have promoted the development of thicker winter pelts. Trapping
continues throughout the winter months until early spring. Schneider ( 1976)
discusses changes in trapping patterns over time in Beaver and descriptions of
trapping patterns and harvest methods in neighboring communities that arc
applicable to Beaver can be found in Nelson (1973), Nelson et al. (1982), and
Sumida (1988).
Trapping was conducted by 61.3 percent (19 households) of the households
during the survey year. Marten, red fox, and lynx were the most frequently
harvested of the larger furbearing species available in the area (Table 8).
Household harvests for marten ranged from 1 to 200 with a total take of 680; 115
fox were taken, harvests ranging from 1 to 30 animals; and 68 lynx were reported
taken with a range of 1 to 18. The community harvests of other species taken were
43 beaver, 37 mink, and 4 wolverine (Table 8). Wolf and land otter are also
trapped although none were harvested during the survey year. The edible weight
of beaver and lynx together amounted to 1,848 pounds or about 3.2 percent of the
overall community harvest (Tables 9 and 10). Information on the harvest of
muskrat is included in the section on small game.
Furbearers served multiple functions in the economy of Beaver. Besides
being an important source of cash to many Beaver households, furs were also the
raw material used by local skin sewers who provided family members and other
residents with cold weather gear such as the marten caps or beaver mitts that were
utilized almost universally in the community. The sale of these items to other
65
residents of Beaver and neighboring communities provided a notable cash income
to proficient sewers. Beaver and lynx were utilized as food for human
consumption and were also fed to dogs. Other furbearer carcasses were used on
occasion by some trapping households to feed dogs.
The sale of furbearers has played a role in the local economy of Alaska
Native groups in the area even before direct contact with Euro-Americans in the
mid-19th century. After the establishment of trading posts at Nulato and Fort
Yukon the pursuit of furbearers became more extensive among the Native
population (Loyens 1966:128; Hosley 1981548). The actual contribution of trapping
income to the economy of Beaver is difficult to ascertain as fur prices fluctuate
widely during a single season and trappers have a number of different options
regarding sale of their catch. A rough estimate of the potential gross value of furs
can be calculated based on survey data and an estimate of the “average” price for
each species (Table 18). Assuming that all furs were sold at the average price, furs
contributed approximately $64,000 to the local economy. Estimates of household
earnings from furbearer salts ranged from $50 to almost $16,000, with an average
Of $3,400 per trapping household during the survey year.
PLANT RESOURCES
The importance of local timber resources to Beaver residents is evident in
the fact that all 31 houses were of log construction and every household heated
their home with wood. During the survey year households reported using a total
of 227 cords of firewood or about 7.3 cords per household on the avcragc. White
spruce, birch, poplar, and willow are the most commonly used species. Local
timber is also used in the construction of caches, smokehouses, drying racks, fish
fences used in conjunction with traps, fish wheels, and items such as canoe frames
66
TABLE 18. ESTIMATED VALUE OF FURBEARERS, BEAVER 1984-85
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PERCENT TOTAL AVERAGE POTENTIAL OF
SPECIES HARVEST PRICE* VALUE TOTAL
Marten 680 $50 $34,000 53.0 Fox 115 30 3,450 5.4 Lynx 68 350 23,800 37.1 Beaver 43 35 1,505 2.3 Mink 37 20 740 1.1 Wolverine 4 175 700 1.1
TOTAL $64,195 100.0
* Average prices based on estimates of local trappers
and sleds. Besides its use as a heating fuel it provides a means of preserving fish
and game through drying and smoking.
Most households cut and haul their initial winter supply of firewood during
fall prior to freeze-up. Additional cords of wood are cut as needed during winter
months and are hauled with snowmachines. House logs are often cut during spring
and summer months.
Wood cutting for both fuel and house logs is often conducted cooperatively
by members of two or more households and some households lacking the necessary
equipment work jointly with others to obtain their supply of firewood. Relatives
often provide firewood for elderly residents or cords can be bought for $100. Like
other resources, households with available cash sometimes subsidize others with
equipment, gas, and food to cut wood for them.
Berry picking was reported by 48.4 percent (15 households) of Beaver
households and a total of 51.5 gallons or 206 pounds of berries were gathered
(Tables 6 and 9). The berry harvest was comprised of lowbush and highbush
67
cranberries, two species common to the area. Other types of berries were not as
readily available and were not harvested during the survey year. Rosehips, wild
rhubarb, and Labrador or Hudson’s Bay tea were other local plants used on
occasion by residents.
Although providing domesticated rather than wild plant resources, gardens
were a source of fresh vegetables for 13 Beaver households during the survey year.
Potatoes wcrc the mainstay of most gardens although a variety of other vegctablcs
such as lettuce, cabbage, broccoli, turnips, squash, carrots, and tomatoes were also
grown. Information on the harvest quantities of locally-grown garden produce was
not collected.
68
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
BEAVER’S MIXED ECONOMY
Like many rural villages in Alaska, Beaver has a mixed subsistence-cash
economy, where the community relies on subsistence fishing and hunting for its
livelihood in addition to employment in activities which generate monetary income.
Beaver’s cash sector is particularly meager and is primarily fueled by government
monies channeled through the school district and the regional, non-profit Native
social services organization along with direct grants for capital projects. Monetary
jobs were commonly intermittent and of short duration. Households combined
cmploymcnt opportunities to earn the cash needed for housing, equipment, food,
and clothing. When available, temporary jobs such as local construction projects or
firefighting provided seasonal wage employment to a number of households.
During the study year, 89.2 percent of the jobs held were temporary or seasonal
positions (Table 4). Households with employment averaged 2.5 jobs during the
survey year and the average number of weeks of employment was 28.8.
Currently, furs were the only product produced in Beaver which could be
exported for generating income. Consequently, several households were active in
trapping to earn cash through the sale of furbearers. Trapping income provided a
substantial proportion of a household’s monetary income. An estimate of potential
income generated through the sale of furbearers was approximately $3,400 per
trapping household, which was about 37 percent of the average taxable household
income for 1985. This high reliance on fur trapping is characteristic of Upper
Yukon communities without large commercial salmon fisheries, such as Venetie,
Fort Yukon, and Chalkyitsik (Caulfield 1983; Nelson 1973). Other sources of
69
based on local resources included the sale of firewood and handcrafted items such
as marten hats or beaver mitts.
Income earnings in Beaver were among the lowest in the state with an
average taxable income of $9,259 per income tax return in 1985. Transfer
payments provided some households with supplemental incomes. The high cost of
imported items further diminished the monetary income in the area. In 1985-86,
grocery items in Beaver cost 18 to 52 percent higher than comparable goods in
Fairbanks, which are substantially higher than goods in the continental U.S.
Beaver could not maintain itself solely on the monetary sector. The
community was sustained, to a large degree, through traditional subsistcncc
activities -- fishing, hunting, and gathering of wild foods. All households in
Beaver harvested and used fish, mammal, bird, or plant resources the year of the
study. Of the 28 categories of resources harvested during the survey year, those
harvested by greater than 50 percent of households included snowshoe hare, ducks,
grouse, geese, marten, and pike (Table 6). Of the broader categories of resource
types, waterfowl and small game were each harvested by 83.9 percent of all
households, followed by non-salmon freshwater fish with 64.5 percent, furbearers
at 61.3 percent, and berries at 48.4 percent. Salmon fishing was undertaken by 38.7
percent of the households and big game was successfully harvested by 35.5 percent.
For many resources, the number of households attempting to harvest exceeded
those that were successful (Table 7).
During the survey year the community harvested a total of 56,938.l pounds
edible weight of resources. The average household harvest was 1,836.7 pounds and
the per capita harvest was 730.0 pounds. This amount was in keeping with the
high per capita harvests documented for other communities in interior Alaska
situated similarly to Beaver (cf. Andrcws 1988; Sumida 1988; Halpin 1987; Marcottc
1986; Marcotte and Haynes 1985). Of the total, salmon comprised 56.8 percent, big
70
game was 17.7 percent, freshwater fish was 10.7 percent, and the remaining 14.8
percent consisted of small game, edible furbearer species, waterfowl, and berries.
The five resources contributing the greatest amount to the total pounds harvested
by the community were summer chum salmon, king salmon, moose, fall chum
salmon, and whitefish (Table 9). The combined weight of these resources
accounted for 78.8 percent of the total for all resources.
Dog traction was an integral part of the economy and life of Beaver the
year of the study. Eight Beaver households (25.8 percent) reported harvesting fish
to feed dogs. The proportion of household harvests used to feed dogs is depicted
in Fig. 12. The minimum estimate of the total amount of fish used for dog food
was 21,127.l pounds or approximately 320.1 pounds per animal. The per capita
harvest solely for human consumption was 459 pounds, still a substantial amount
of locally-produced food and higher than many communities in the southeast,
southcentral, and southwestern regions of the state (Wolfe and Walker 1987). The
estimated per capita harvest of resources for human consumption was 578 pounds
for Stevens Village and 589 to 711 pounds for the community of Huslia (Sumida
1988:61; Marcotte 1986:63-64).
Food production in Beaver was a relatively specialized function of
particular families, if total productivity is considered. Part of this is due to dog
food production which increases output for families maintaining teams. When fish
harvests used for feeding dogs are eliminated from the total, the maximum
household harvest drops from 10,346.9 pounds to 6,356.8 pounds. However, there is
still a substantial range of variation between household harvests as depicted in Fig.
13. This graph shows that 33 percent of the households accounted for 80 percent
of the total harvest whereas 33 percent accounted for 75 percent of the harvest
when dog food is disregarded. Whether or not food for dogs is considered, a
relatively small percentage of households is harvesting the majority of resources.
71
HOUSEHOLD HARVEST (LBS EDIBLE WEIGHT) (Thousands)
72
This diversity in household production level in Beaver is similar to the findings
for Stevens Village and is typical in other rural Alaskan communities (Sumida
1988:71; Wolfe 1987).
One explanation for the disparity in harvest levels is related to the
developmental cycle of households and the resultant patterns of cooperation
between affiliated households. Thcsc production groups are often based around a
mature “core” or parent household that tend to be larger, have more older members,
own more equipment, and have more experience in subsistence pursuits than the
related households that assist them (cf. Wolfe et al. 1984:481-485; Wolfe 1987:9-l I;
Sumida 1988:73-74). The combination of these factors may enhance a household’s
ability to pursue subsistence activities and allow them to “specialize” in the harvest
of resources. The distribution of food resources between households assures that
households that do not “specialize” or no longer participate in subsistence
production still benefit from the availability of local resources.
In Beaver, high-producing households had, on average, larger household
sizes, older members, greater equipment holdings, and more persons employed.
Household heads tended to be younger than in low and medium-producing groups;
60 percent of the high-harvesting heads of households were in their mid-thirties or
younger. High-producing households operated independently or in conjunction
with another household related through kinship. This type of cooperative
partnership is another type of production organization which was more typical in
Beaver and occurred in salmon fishing, moose hunting, and furbearer trapping
activities.
The pattern of partnerships in subsistence production in Beaver may be
related to certain demographic characteristics of the community such as the high
perccntagc of residents in their 20 to 39 year age range (35 pcrccnt) compnrcd to
the 40 to 59 year age range (15 percent) and the significant number of single
74
person households (45 percent), many of which were middle-aged and older
residents. The paradigm of mature, parent household being assisted by related
households of grown children and their families was not prevalent in Beaver
during the study year.
Much of the difference between harvest levels in Beaver and the
neighboring community of Stevens Village with a per capita harvest of 1,139
pounds is related to the harvest of salmon. Many more Stevens Village households
participated in salmon fishing (73 percent compared to 39 percent in Beaver).
Salmon harvests comprised 81 percent of the Stevens Village harvest by weight and
57 percent of the overall harvest in Beaver. The total salmon harvest in pounds
for Stevens Village was 57 percent greater than the harvest for Beaver. A number
of factors may account for these differences, one of which is the relative location
of each community. Much of the salmon fishing conducted by Stevens Village
residents takes place in the upper end of the “canyon” where the Yukon River
converges to a single channel. This feature is thought to be more conducive to the
successful harvest of salmon compared to the multi-channeled riverine environment
around Beaver (Schneider 1976:241-242). Other factors may be the influence of
commercial fishery permit holders in Stevens Village, a more extensive customary
trade and barter network for fish, and the relative unavailability of other
resources such as moose, to Stevens Village residents.
When other resource categories are examined, Beaver households harvested a
greater quantity of resources by weight than Stevens Village. Using similar weight
conversions, Beaver households produced more non-salmon resources (by 30
pcrccnt) than Stcvcns Village households. Again, this may bc attributed, in part, to
local environmental conditions and the distribution and relative abundance of
certain fish and wildlife resources. Local reports indicated that there were more
moose available around Beaver than in the vicinity of Stevens Village and this was
75
later substantiated by radio-tracking studies conducted in the area (Nowlin, pers.
comm. 1986). Survey findings show that Beaver residents took twice as many
moose as Stevens Village residents.
LAND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The findings of the study are relevant to a number of land and resource
management issues affecting Beaver and the surrounding area. These include the
management of the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, fire suppression
policies, oil and gas exploration and development, placer mining, management and
allocation of Yukon River salmon between the U.S. and Canada, the management
of local moose and furbearer populations, and the regulation of spring waterfowl
hunting.
The management activities undertaken by the USFWS for the Yukon Flats
National Wildlife Refuge are of interest and concern to local residents.
Interagency fire management plans, policies relating to the building and permitting
of cabins on refuge lands, and the development of “step-down” plans such as a
fisheries management plan detailing management guidelines and research priorities,
all have potential effects on the subsistence activities undertaken by the residents
of the Yukon Flats. Placer mining in upper Beaver and Birch creeks and the
possibility of oil and gas development in the flats are additional land uses which
may conflict with subsistence pursuits. The documentation of lands used for fish
and wildlife harvest and an understanding of the significance of these resources to
the local economy can facilitate the development of land management strategies
that are compatible with subsistence.
Salmon is a significant subsistence resource along the entire Yukon River
drainage and comprised 57 percent of Beaver’s overall harvest in pounds edible
76
weight. The management and allocation of king and chum salmon arc of
particular concern to residents in the Yukon Flats. The decline of fall chum
salmon stocks has led to controversial debate about commercial fishing operations
along the Alaska peninsula and the Yukon River. The salmon stocks taken by
Yukon Flats residents are primarily spawned in Canada and are the subject of on-
going international negotiations between the United States and Canada.
Maintaining Alaska’s share of these fish is of critical importance to communities
like Beaver which rely heavily on this resource.
Other species of freshwater fish also make significant contributions to the
subsistence economy of Beaver. Large quantities of whitefish and pike are
harvested and used by the community, both in numbers of fish and pounds of
edible weight of food provided. The continued availability of these species is a
further consideration in fisheries management.
Moose are one of the few large mammal species consistently available in the
area and contributed 17 percent to the total edible weight of wild food resources
harvested during the study year. Currently, the hunting of moose for subsistence
is limited through a registration permit system established in 1983 in response to
the decline of moose populations in the area during the previous two decades.
Though moose numbers in the western Flats have increased, continued monitoring
of the moose population and conservative management of this resource may be
appropriate for maintaining opportunity for subsistence harvests.
Another big game species of concern to local residents is caribou. The
proposed opening of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
dcvclopment and the possible impacts on population numbers of the Porcupine
caribou herd may affect hunting opportunities of residents of Beaver and their use
of caribou received from other communities through traditional distribution
networks.
77
In response to a court ruling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has pursued
the establishment of regulations for subsistence hunting of waterfowl during the
spring season. Currently, only fall hunting is allowed by regulation. The
recognition of this traditional harvest activity is especially important in an area
like the Yukon Flats which contains some of the most productive waterfowl
breeding habitat in north America. Survey findings show that 73 percent of the
waterfowl harvest in Beaver was taken during the spring. At present, amendments
to international treaties relating to waterfowl management are being investigated.
Trapping was undertaken by over 60 percent of Beaver households during
the study year and the sale of furbearers made a significant contribution to the
local mixed subsistence-cash economy by providing cash, food, and clothing. The
The loss of trapping areas through wildfires and the establishment of the Council
of Athabascan Tribal Governments* fur cooperative have led to greater local
concern about research and management activities relating to furbearers and the
protection of their habitat.
Subsistence production and the distribution of fish and wildlife resources
remains an important component of life in remote communities like Beaver. The
protection of subsistence lands and resources is integral to maintaining the local
subsistence-cash economy, supporting social relationships, and promoting and
strengthening cultural continuity. Land use and development planning, resource
management policy, and regulations that recognize the importance of subsistcncc
and incorporate local knowledge and values can contribute to the maintenance of
this mixed economy while enhancing the effectiveness of the goals of planning and
management.
78
REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1977-85 Annual Management Report, Yukon Area. Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Anchorage.
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services 1984a Eligibility Information System Caseload and Issuance Report by Program,
Report MRO 13, May-December. Division of Public Assistance.
1984b Public Assistance Caseload and Expenditure, Report Broken by Villages of Districts 41 & 43 - Beaver by Caseload and Dollars Paid for OAA, ABL, APD, AFDC, GRM, GRA. Office of Information Systems, Statistical Support Unit, Juneau.
Alaska Department of Labor 1987 Alaska Population Overview 1985 Estimates. Research and Analysis
Section, Juneau.
Alaska Department of Revenue 1988 Federal Income Taxpayer Profile 1983-1985 by Alaska Community
and Income Level and Filing Status.
Andrews, Elizabeth F. 1977 Report on the Cultural Resources of the Doyon Region, Central Alaska.
Vol. 1, Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Occasional Paper No. 5.
1988 The Harvest of Fish and Wildlife for Subsistence by Residents of Minto, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 137.
Behnke, Steven R. 1982 Wildlife Utilization and the Economy of Nondalton. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Dillingham, Technical Report No. 47.
Burch, Ernest S. 1984 Kotzebue Sound Eskimo. h Arctic. David Damas, ed. pp. 303-319.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Bureau of Land Management 1987 Utility Corridor Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement with the Central Arctic Management Area Wilderness Study Supplement. Arctic District Office, Fairbanks.
Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1988 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Trans-Alaska Gas
System, Anchorage.
79
Caulfield, Richard A. 1983 Subsistence Land Use in Upper Yukon-Porcupine Communities, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 16.
Caulfield, Richard A., Walter J. Peter, and Clarence Alexander 1983 Gwich’in Athabaskan Place Names of the Upper Yukon-Porcupine Region,
Alaska: A Preliminary Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 83.
Clark, Annette McFadyen 1974 Koyukuk River Culture. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series,
Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 18. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.
1975 Upper Koyukuk River Koyukon Athabaskan Social Culture, An Overview. h Proceedings: Northern Athabaskan Conference, 1971, Vol. 1. A. McFadyen Clark, ed. pp. 147-180. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 27. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.
1981 Koyukon. In Subarctic. June Helm, ed. pp. 582-601. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Cruikshank, Moses 1986 The Life I’ve Been Living. Recorded and compiled by William Schneider
Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
Fairbanks North Star Borough 1985 Community Research Quarterly, A Review of Socio-Economic Trends.
Vol. VIII, No. 4, Community Research Center, Fairbanks.
Gagnon, Paul L. 1959 The Beaver Report. Alaska Rural Development Board, Juneau.
Halpin, Libby 1987 Living Off the Land: Contemporary Subsistence in Tetlin, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 149.
Hosley, Edward H. 1981 Environment and Culture in the Alaska Plateau. In Subarctic. June
Helm, ed. pp. 533-545. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Institute of Social and Economic Research 1978 Yukon-Porcupine Regional Planning Study, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks.
Loyens, William J. 1966 The Changing Culture of the Nulato Koyukon Indians. Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
80
Marcotte, James R. 1986 Contemporary Resource Use Patterns in Huslia, Alaska, 1983. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 133.
Marcotte, James R. and Terry L. Haynes 1985 Contemporary Resource Use Patterns in the Upper Koyukuk Region,
Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 93.
Morris, Judith Marek 1986 Subsistence Production and Exchange in the Iliamna Lake Region,
Southwest Alaska, 1982-1983. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 136.
Nelson, Richard K. 1973 Hunters of the Northern Forest: Designs for Survival Among the Alaskan
Kutchin. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1983 Make Prayers to the Raven, A Koyukon View of the Northern Forest. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nelson, Richard K., Kathleen M. Mautner, and G. Ray Bane 1982 Tracks in the Wildland, A Portrayal of Koyukon and Nunamiut
Subsistence. Anthropology and Historic Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Osgood, Cornelius 1970 [1936] Contributions to the Ethnography of the Kutchin. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology Number 14. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press,
Rollins, Alden M. 1978 Census Alaska: Numbers of Inhabitants, 1792-1970. Anchorage:
University of Alaska Library.
Schneider, William S. 1976 Beaver, Alaska: The Story of a Multi-Ethnic Community. Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Sclkregg, Lidia L. 1976 Alaska Regional Profiles Yukon Region. Anchorage: University of
Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.
Slobodin, Richard 1981 Kutchin. b Subarctic. June Helm, ed. pp. 514-532. Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 6. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Spencer, Robert F. 1984 North Alaska Coast Eskimo. b Arctic. David Damas, ed. pp.320-337.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
81
Sullivan, Robert J. 1936 The Ethnology of the Ten’a Indians of Interior Alaska. Master of Arts
dissertation. Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
1942 The Ten’a Food Quest. Ph.D. dissertation. The Catholic University of America. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Sumida, Valerie A. 1988 Land and Resource Use Patterns in Stevens Village, Alaska.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Fairbanks, Technical Paper No. 129.
Sumida, Valerie and Clarence Alexander 1985 Moose Hunting by Residents of Beaver, Birch Creek, Fort Yukon, and
Stevens Village in the Western GMU 25(D) Permit Moose Hunt Area, 1984-85. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 121.
U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980 1980 Census of the Population. Vol. 1, Characteristics of Population.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of the Interior 1974 Final Environmental Statement Proposed Yukon Flats National Wildlife
Refuge. Alaska Planning Group, Washington, D.C.
1986 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment Final Report Baseline Study of the Fish, Wildlife, and Their Habitats, Vol. I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Anchorage.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987 Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation
Plan, Wilderness Review, and Environmental Impact Statement. Anchorage.
1988 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Wilderness Review, and Wild River Plan. Anchorage.
Wolfe, Robert J. 1981 Norton Sound/Yukon Delta Sociocultural Systems Baseline Analysis
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Technical Paper No. 59.
1987 The Super-Household: Specialization in Subsistence Economies (Draft). Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, March 12 and 13, 1987.
Wolfe, Robert J., Joseph J. Gross, Steven J. Langdon, John M. Wright, Gcorgc K. Sherrod, Linda J. Ellanna, and Valerie Sumida
1984 Subsistence-Based Economies in Coastal Communities of Southwest Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau and Minerals Managcmcnt Service, Alaska Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage. Technical Paper No. 89.
82
Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert J. Walker 1987 Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and
Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):56-8 1.
83
84
APPENDIX A
BEAVER RESOURCE HARVEST
Household ID Y
AND USE SURVEY
Date
The puroose of this survey is to gather information about the fish and game re- sources your household harvested or used during the past 12 mnths. from !Jovember 1984 througn Octooer 1985. This information will helo us in understandino the imponance of these resources to hwseholds in the community. If you are unsure of the exact numbers of fish or animals taken, estimate t'le aoproximate quantity. All the information collected is confidential and will not be used for any en- forcement purposes.
Did your household harvest or use any fish during the east 12 months, from November 1984 through October 1985? YES NO
If no, did your household receive any of the followino fish from someone else? (Last column)
If yes, we would like to know if you tried to harvest different kinds of fish the approximate amounts you harvested, what kind of gear you used, and if you gave away or received any fish. (If the household tried to harvest a species but was not successful, put a zero showino the gear used.)
/SALMON I NUMBER AR ESTEU 0 Y I
1 TRIED TO 1 GEA; APE IGAVE AWAY [ RECEIVED )
lKING 1 HARVEST 1 NET 1 WHEEL IOTHER I FISH 1 FISH l I 1 I I
1 SALMON I YES NO I I I 1 YES NO 1 YES NO 1 l%lMMER CH M 1 I DOG SALM&I I YES
I I I NO I I I I YES NO I YES NO 1
IFALL CHUM I I I I SILVERS I YES NO I 1 1 YES NO / YES NO ] I\\ l CHINOOKS I YES NO I I 1 YES NO I YES NO 1
Of the fish you harvested, how many did you put up with each of the following methods?
I I PROCESSING METHODS FOR HARVESTEO FISH ISALMON INO. DRIED INO. DRIED I NO. I NO. I NO. I NO. I NO.
lFOR OOGS IFOR EATINGI STRIPS l FROZEN l CANNED 1 SALTED 1 OTHER 1 I I
1 SALMON I I I I I I I SUMMER CH M I
; DOG SALM:N I I I I I
I I I I I I FALL CHUM I
1 SILVERS I I I I I I I I I I I
ICOHO 9UlON 1 I I I I I 1 CHINOOKS I I I I I I I
Which household memoers were involved in harvesting or processing salmon? (Name or ID #)
85
[OTHER FISH 1 NUMutR HARvE-S-lED-B'7 GtAR IYI't 1 1 I
I TRIED TO I I MONTHS IGAVE AWAY 1 RECEIVED 1 I 1 HARVEST i NET I WHEEL IHOOKING~ OTHER ~HARVESTED i FISH I FISH /
I I I I I I I I I 1 WHITEFISH 1 YES NO I I I I I YES NO I YES NO I
1 WHITEFISH I I I 1 I I YES NO I I I I YES NO 1 YES NO 1
1 SHEEFISH I
I YES NO I I I I YES NO t YES NO /
I E
N~~KTEH RN 1 I
I YES NO I I YES NO I YES NO I
/ SUCKERS I YES NO I I T--z- NO NO 1 1 BURBOT I 1 LING COD 1 YES NO I I I I YES iii-L----; NO I l I I I
I GRAYLING I YES NO I
j----j---- I YES NO----' NO I
I I I I I I --T----I I iROUi I YES NO I
II -l-Y-i-
NO I
f---+5-
YES NO I I
NO I YES NO I I I
I I YES NO I I I I I 1 YES NO I YES NO / --
Of the fish you harvested how many did you put up with each of the following methods?
1------T- PROCtbSING MtiHODS mm-1 IOTHER FISH INO. DRIED /NO. DRIED I NO. 1 NO. I MO. I NO. I
1 IFOR DOGS IFOR EATING1 FROZEN ( CANNED I OTHER I OTHER 1
I I I
I WH1TEF1SH I I I
&T I SHEEFISH I
tKN ----l-k ---i--b
1 SUCKERS I T
I I BURBOT I I -+-+----4 I LING COD I I I I I I GRAYLING I\
-4-w I I
I I I I I TROUT I-y- ! -i- -!--t-f
I I I I I I I I I -
Which household members were involved in harvesting or processins these non-salmon fish? (Name or ID $1
2
86
Did your household harvest or use any game (excluding birds) during the past 12 months (November 1984 through October 1985)? YES NO
If no, did your household receive any of the following from another household? (Last column)
If yes, we would like to know which animals your household tried to harvest, the number harvested and the month when this occurred, and whether you gave away any of your harvest, or received any from another household.
I--TO I NUMBtR I IONTHS 1 MAMMALS I HARVEST (HARVESTED I H6RVESTED I GAVE AWAY1 RECEIVED ;
I I IMOOSE I YES NO I
IBLACK OR I
IDALL I I I I
I SHEEP I YES NO 1 I YES NO I YES I I I I
NO /
IPORCUPINEI YES ~0 l I I YES NO I YES NO I /SW;HOE 1 I
I YES NO I I NoI I JSQUIRREL l YES NO I I YES NO I YES Noi
1 I I YES NO I I I YES NO I YES NO I
I 1 I YES NO I I _ I YES NO I YES NO I
'Which household members were involved in hunting any of these animals? (Name or ID #)
3
87
Did your household harvest or use any birds during the past 12 months (November 1984 through October 1985)? YES NO
If no, did your household receive any of the following from another household? (Last column)
If yes, we would like to know which birds your household tried to harvest, the number harvested and the month when this occurred and whether you qave awav any of your harvest, or received any from another household.
/ BIRDS I TRIED TO I NUMBtR I MONTHS I I I HARVEST IHARVESTEDI HARVESTED I GAVE AWAY1 RECEIVED i
I 1 GROUSE 1 YES NO 1 I 1 YES NO 1 YES
I NO I
I’ I I IPTARMIGANI YES ~0 I I YES NO 1 YES NO I I I I -----l----l----I
1 YES NO I ---r--r--f-
I YES NO I YES NO I I I I
I YES NO I I YES NO I YES NO I I UM tR HARVE-S-TtD 1 Sp"RI:G 1
I FALL I
I I IDUCKS I YES NO I
Which household members were involved in hunting birds? (Name or ID #)
4
88
Did your household harvest or use furbearers during the past year (November 1984 through October 1985)? ES NO
If no, did your household receive any of these animals from another household? (Last column)
If yes, we would like to know which animals you tried to trap or shoot, the number you harvested, how many you used for food, and if you save any animals away or received any fran other households.
-1 I I IOk THost I I IHARVESTED
I I l HARVEST METHOD : NUMBER l NUMBER l IFURBEARERI TRIED TO I(Used traps, SnareslHARVESTED (USED FOR IGAVE AWAYIRECE IVED i
l HARVEST l or hunted) I I FOOD I I l-l-+-
1 YES NO I YES NO I I I
IMINK I YES NO I
-+-+--7-l-7 1 YES NO I YES NO I
ILYNX I YES NO I
IWOLVERINEI YES ~0 I j----j--
I YES NO I YES NO I II
1 YES NO l YES NO l ILAND I IOTTER I YES NO I
I YES NO I 1 YES NO l YES NO l I I I I 1 I I YES NO I I I YES NO I YES NO I
Which household members were involved in trapping or huntina these animals? (Name or ID #)
5
89
Did your household harvest or use any berries or wild olants durino the past year (1Jovember 1984 through October 19851? YES NO
If no, did your household receive any berries or plants from another household?
If yes, which types did you try to harvest? How much did you get? Did you give any away or receive any from another household?
I AmT / B;;;,WI;; & I TRIED TO I HARVESTED I GAVE
I IRECEIVED i
I HARVEST IGALS. QTS.1 AWAY I I
NO 1 YES NO 1 -----r------1
I YES NO I YES NO 1
1 YES NO 1 YES NO 1 I I I 4-l----l--l i i YES NO 1 1 1 YES NO I YES NO 1
I YES NO I YES NO 1 -
Which members in your household were involved in harvesting berries and olants? (Name or ID #)
How much wood and what kind did your household use during the past 12 months (November 1984 through October 19851?
Was this wood cut and hauled by the household, purchased, or received from another household?
Number of cords cut and hauled Number of cords Number of cords
by household purchased Received
Spruce -- --
Birch
Drift
Other
Did you have a garden last summer? YES NO
If yes, what did you grow?
- -
6
90
Does your household own any of the following equipment?
NUMBER EQUIPMENT OWNED
Type & Riverboat Length -- ---
Outboard Motor HP ___ ~ -
Canoe
Snowmachine
3-Wheeler
4-Wheeler
Car or truck
Freezer
Fishnets Type Mesh Length --
How many dogs does your household have? --
Did members of the household work for wages during 1984 through October 1985)? YES NO
If yes, who worked during the past year, what jobs worked, how many weeks were worked, and how many
the last 12 months (November
were held, which months were hours per week?
I NAME OR I I I ID NO. I JOB TITLE I WHICH MONTHS I WORKED PER WEEKI
I I I I
I I I I : I f
I --
I I I -I--- ---T- I
I
I I 1 _ I I
I
I I -1 I
I I I I /
What other sources of cash income does the household have?
7
91
APPENDIX B
EDIBLE WEIGHTS OF SELECTED RESOURCES
RESOURCE EDIBLE WEIGHT SOURCE
King Salmon 13.8 Summer Chum Salmon 4.6 Fall Chum Salmon 5.6 Coho Salmon 4.8 Whitefish 3.0 Cisco 0.5 Sheefish 6.4 Northern Pike 4.5 Burbot 3.5 Longnose Sucker 2.3 Grayling 0.7 Moose 700.0 Black Bear 100.0 Porcupine 10.0 Snowshoe Hare 2.7 Squirrel 0.4 Muskrat 1.5 Lynx 12.0 Beaver 24.0 Grouse 0.7 Ptarmigan 0.7 Ducks 1.5 Geese 5.0 Crane 8.0
ADF&G 1985 ADF&G 1985 ADF&G 1985 ADF&G 1985 Ken Alt pers. comm., 1985 Ken Alt pers. comm., 1985 Ken Alt pers. comm., 1985 Ken Alt pers. comm., 1985 Ken Alt pers. comm., 1985 Ken Alt pers. comm., 1985 Behnke 1982 Roy Nowlin pers. comm., 1985 Behnke 1982 Researcher estimate Researcher estimate Morris 1986 Howard Golden, pers. comm., 1985 Howard Golden, pers. comm., 1985 Howard Golden, pers. comm., 1985 Behnke 1982 Behnke 1982 Behnke 1982; Wolfe 1981 Wolfe 1981 Researcher estimate
93
94
APPENDlX C
COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF MAJOR RESOURCES USED BY BEAVER RESIDENTS
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
King Salmon Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Broad Whitefish Humpback Whitefish Round Whitefish Least Cisco Bering Cisco Northern Pike Shecf ish Burbot Longnose Sucker Arctic Grayling
Mammals
Moose Caribou Black Bear Brown Bear Snowshoe Hare Porcupine Arctic Ground Squirrel Red Squirrel Muskrat Marten Mink Lynx Red Fox Wolverine Land Otter (River Otter) Wolf Beaver
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus kisutch Coregonus nasus Coregonus pidschian Prosopium cylindraceum Coregonus sardinella Coregonus laurettae Esox lucius Stenodus leucichthys Lota Iota Catostomus catostomus Thymallus arcticus
Alces alces Rangifer tarandus Ursus americanus Ursus arctos Lepus americanus Erethizon dorsatum Spermophilus undulatus Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Ondatra zibethicus Martes americana Mustela vison Felis canadensis Vulpes vulpes Gulo gulo Lutra canadensis Canis lupus Castor canademis
Birds
Mallard Arias platyrhynchos Northern Pintail Anas acuta American Wigeon Anas americana Canvasback Aythya valisineria
95
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Common Goldeneye Green-winged Teal Bufflehead Oldsquaw White-winged Scoter Surf Scoter Northern Shoveler Greater White-fronted Goose Canada Goose Snow Goose Sandhill Crane Spruce Grouse Ruffed Grouse Sharp-tailed Grouse Willow Ptarmigan Rock Ptarmigan
Plants
White Spruce Paper Birch Balsam Poplar Willow (sp.) Bog Cranberry Highbush Cranberry Bog Blueberry Rosehips Wild Rhubarb Labrador or Hudson Bay Tea
Aythya marila Aythya affinis Bucephala clangula Anas crecca Bucephala albeola Clangula hyemalis Melanitta fusca Melanitta perspicillata Anas clypeata Anser albifrons Branta canadensis Chen caerulescens Grus canadensis Dendragapus canadensis Bonasa unrbellus Tympanuchus phasianellus Lagopus lagopus Lagopus mutt4s
Picea glauca Be&la papyrifera Populus balsami fera Salix (sp.) Vaccinium vitis-idaea Viburnum edule Vaccinium uliginosum Rosa acicularis Polygonurn alaskanum Ledum palustre
96
