SURSISTENCEUSE OF FIS)! AND GAMERESOURCES
IEr ALASKA: CONSIDERATIONSIN FORMULATING
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
POLICIES
bY
Dennis D. Kelso
Technical
Paper Number 65
Prepared
For The
47th North American Wildlife
and
Natural Resources Conference
Special Session an Alaska
Portland,
Oregon
March 31, 1982
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division
of Subsistence
Juneau, Alaska
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .
The Subsistence Priority
in State and Federal
Law . . . . . .
1
1
.... .
2
Understanding the Nature and Significance of Current
Subsistence Uses of Resources In Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Research on Subsistence Uses and Their Importance
CONSIDERATIONS
IN SUBSISTENCE POLICY
FORMULATION
Cooperation Between Managers and Users in
Development of Reliable Data and Management
8
.. ....
9
Harvest Levels Based Upon the Ability of Resource
Populations to Sustain Take Rather than Upon
Arbitrary Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Management in Light of All Relevant Factors -Not Overemphasizing Harvest By Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Effective Mutual Education About the Desirability
Of
Management and the Significance Of Local
Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Meaningful Involvement of Users in Development
of Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . ..“...............................
CITED . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..............................................
22
26
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank Dr. Robert J. Wolfe and Linda J. Ellanna, Division of
Subsistence, Alaska Department
on the initial
draft of this paper.
of Fish and Game, for their comments
Any errors or omissions are my own.
SUBSISTENCE USE OF FISH AND GAME RESOURCES IN ALASKA:
CONSIDERATIONS
IN FORMULATING
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
POLICIES
Dennis D. Kelso
Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department
Box 3-2000, Juneau, Alaska 99802
of Fish and Game
ABSTRACT
Both the Alaska
statutory
Legislature
priorities
game under certain
research
and the U. S. Congress have enacted
for subsistence
circumstances.
Department
conducts
subsistence
the Division of Subsistence within
hunting
applied social science research
and fishing
Diverse
methods
ecology
and subsistence
ethnohistorical
are
used to
interviews,
economies
lives
investigate
the
of
on the role of
Alaska
residents.
questions
about
human
These techniques
may
include
li‘terature
surveys, participant-observa-
surveys, mapping,
and statistical
analyses.
in modern Alaska may be understood
systems of production,
the harvest,
in the
systems.
investigations,
tion methods,
facilitate
The State of Alaska
of Fish and Game.
The Division
Subsistence
of fish and
At the same time, the need for
data on these uses was recognized.
addressed this need by creating
codified
uses in the allocation
distribution
use, and exchange
and consumption
of renewable
as nonwhich
resources.
These systems have some cash flow, but the cash sector is generally
limited.
It has been suggested that the “commercial:
sectors of the economy are complementary
and “subsistence”
and mutually
supportive
in
many rural Alaskan communities”.
Although
reliable
data on subsistence
limited,
field
studies
essential
for effective
. Cooperation
reliable
l
and experiences
between
managers
Management
Effective
ponents
harvest
mutual
of all
education
include
derived
not
only
and
limits.
relevant
factors
-- not
about the desirability
over-
from
implementing
continued
populations
management
habitats
concerns
in local and regional
of regulations.
the suggested
opportunities
of subsistence
wildlife
of manage-
of local conditions.
of users in development
harvests but also more effective
continuation
to
by humans.
involvement
benefits
In addition,
of
of resource populations
than upon arbitrary
in light
Meaningful
Potential
components
and users in development
Harvest levels based upon the ability
ment and the significance
l
certain
data and management.
emphasizing
l
suggest
management:
sustain take rather
l
uses in Alaska are extremely
will
planning
for
subsistence
for non-subsistence
economies
continue
com-
uses.
may mean that
to
be important
of land and water
uses.
BACKGROUND
The Subsistence Priority
In 1978, the
subsistence
Congress
National
Alaska
Legislature
uses of Alaska’s
subsequently
Interests
in most respects
law.2
in State and Federal
enacted
adopted
legislative
to the definition
ANILCA
It is hereby declared
a statutory
priority
fish and game res0urces.l
Lands Conservation
In addition,
Law
language
Act (ANILCA)
and priority
provides,
for
In 1980,
for
the Alaska
which is similar
established
by state
in part:
to be the policy of Congress that --
(1) consistent with sound management principles and the
conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife, the
utilization
of the public lands in Alaska is to cause the
least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend
upon subsistence uses of the resources of such lands; . . .
(2) nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and
other renewable resources shall be the priority consumptive
use? of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska .
. .
This strong statement
require
impacts
1
2
3
4
is in keeping with the ANILCA
provisions which
that federal land use decisions include evaluation
on subsistence
of .potential
uses and resources.4
See Ch: 151, 1978 Alaska Session Laws.
See 16 U.S.C.A. $03113, 3114 (1980 Laws Special Pamphlet).
16U.S.C.A.
$3112 (11, (2) (1980 Laws Special Pamphlet).
16 U.S.C.A. 53120 (1980 Laws Soecial Pamohlet).
-l-
--Research on Subsistence
Both
state
and federal
research
on subsistence
directly
addressed
Department
Uses and Their Importance
subsistence
laws
uses of resources. 5
this
need
by creating
of Fish and Game.
Subsistence was necessarily
recognize
the
need for
The Alaska Legislature
a new
section
in
the
The task assigned to the Division of
broad because so little
data on subsistence were available.
The legislative
scientific
research
mandate stated in
part:
The section of subsistence hunting and fishing shall . . .
compile existing data and conduct studies to gather
information,
including data from subsistence users, on all
aspects of the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the
lives of the residents of the state.6
5 ANILCA
provides:
in
16 U.S.C.A.
53122
(1980
Laws
Special
Pamphlet),
The Secretary, in cooperation
with the State and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall undertake research on fish and
wildlife and subsistence uses on the public lands; seek data from,
consult with and make use of, the special knowledge of local
residents engaged in subsistence uses; and make the results of
such research available . . . .
6 AS 16.05.094 (1). Other duties described in the legislative mandate
require that the Division of Subsistence:
(2) quantify the amount, nutritional
value, and extent of dependence on food acquired through subsistence hunting and fishing;
(3) make information gathered available to the public, appropriate
agencies, and other organized bodies;
(4) assist the department, the Board of Fisheries, and the Board
of Game in determining what uses of fish and game, as well as
which users and what methods, should be termed subsistence uses,
users, and methods;
-2-
In addition
to conducting
of Subsistence performs
authority
applied social science research,
diverse policy-related
to make regulatory
enforce
regulations.
comprehensive
The Division
research
Game
to
regulatory
apply
the
is the only agency
exponentially.
the Alaska
subsistence
priority
Previously
1981)
decisions and also have been used extensively
major land and water management
Understandinq
the Nature
in
and the
Boards of Fisheries
(Thomas
or to
engaged
uses of resources,
has increased
data have enabled
roles but does not have
to manage resources,
on subsistence
demand for these studies
unavailable
decisions,
the Division
in
and
their
in evaluating
issues (Veltre and Veltre 1981).
and Significance
of Current
Subsistence
Uses of Resources in Alaska
The development
curate
Footnote
of subsistence
assumptions
policy
about the nature
has been hampered
of the resource
by inac-
uses involved.
(continued)
(5) evaluate the impact of state and federal laws and regulations
on subsistence hunting and fishing and, when corrective action is
indicated, make recommendations
to the department;
(6) make recommendations
to the Board. of Game and the Board
of Fisheries regarding adoption, amendment and repeal of regulations affecting subsistence hunting and fishing;
(7) participate with other divisions in the preparation of statewide
and regional management plans so that those plans [recognize] and
incorporate the needs of subsistence users of fish and game.
-3-
There
are some well-known
One is that
subsistence.
“primitive”
Another
myths
technologies
about
subsistence
fishing
activities
such as spears, bolas,
and hunting
are pursued
for
using
and bows and arrows.
myth is that subsistence refers to bare survival of persons in
rural settings.
A third myth is that the presence of cash transforms
subsistence
into something
and game.
These erroneous notions make rational
more difficult
which does not require
by obscuring
subsistence systems.
the true complexity
the harvest of fish
policy development
and adaptability
of
Research by the Subsistence Division is directed
toward providing a more accurate
portrayal
of current
subsistence uses
in Alaska.
Alaska’s
human history
resources.
related
Among northern
to patterns
key elements
western
is entwined
aboriginal
the use of wild renewable
peoples,
and cycles of resource
of sociocuItura1
society,
with
the harvest,
food and raw materials
have continued
nutritional,
cultural
communities
and households.
and
of fish and game traditionally
availability
differentiation.
distribution
social
adaptations
are among the
After
contact
and use of locally
to provide essential
benefits
For non-Native
has satisfied
to
directly
a large
with
available
economic,
number
of
residents as well, the use
similarly
important
needs.
Today both Natives
nomic systems.
and non-Natives
Within
distribution,
the harvest,
subsistence
and consumption
use, and exchange
economies,
produced are for direct
sale on external
in subsistence
These economies may be understood
systems of production,
facilitate
participate
local consumption
markets.
as non-codified
which effectively
of renewable
a substantial
portion
rather
eco-
resources.
of the goods
than for export
and
Modern subsistence systems have some cash
flow, but the cash sector is generally
limited,
seasonal, and tenuously
linked with exogenous economic systems (Lonner 1980). Even in towns
having
viable
subsistence
non-subsistence
production
sectors
and distribution
and vital
to the entire
community
especially
for subcommunities,
Alaska communities
of the economy
nevertheless
at certain
stantial
are complementary
community
and family
the absence of reliable
only stable economic
the town
and “subsistence”
and mutually
available
resources
self-sufficiency.
alternatives
base.
of the year,
Recent data suggests that in many
the “commercial”
uses of locally
may be functional
times
1981, pp. 88-96; Wolfe 1979, pp. 264-266; Ellanna
Subsistence
and exchange,
groups, or households within
which rely on subsistence harvests.
rural
of production
sectors
supportive
(Wolfe
1980, Vol I).
often
provide
sub-
In much of Alaska,
means that subsistence may be the
This is not to suggest that
should be viewed .as a less desirable
-5
alternative
subsistence
than the commercial
economies which typify
because connections
argued
that
most other areas in the United States.
to commercial
subsistence
economic
against the vagaries of inflation
(Lonner
are limited,
systems
tend
it has been
to be “buffered”
and other external
economic
effects
1980).
Use of locally
established
properly
available
resources
be viewed as integral
in effect,
Accordingly,
that
dynamic
-- is so well-
human communities
parts of the ecosystems
much of the Division’s
of human populations
current
as well
forms are viewed as beneficial
research
natural
environments
of
is,
The presence
as their
adaptations,
may
in which they
addressed to questions about human ecology.
and distribution
cultural
-- although
in many areas of Alaska
participate.
time,
markets
Indeed,
social
developed
fish
and
and
over
in
response
to
wildlife
resources
(Steward
1972; Cohen 1974; Vayda 1969; Lee and DeVore,
eds. 1968).
Ethnohistorical
data as well as information
use patterns
are important
relationships
over
subsistence
activities
in ‘developing
time. . Historic
provide
on .current
this picture
practices
of ecological
sites used for harvest
a chronicle
of relative
and
or other
resource
abun-
dance and movements (Fall 1981a and 1981b, pp. 3-8, Table 1, Map No.
1).
Traditional
names also provide
-6-
valuable
information
on resource
use (Kari cited
in Fall 1981b: Table 3).
name for Point McKenzie
Dilhi Tunts’del’ust
April
near present day Anchorage
Beydeqh (“hooligans
from the significant
subsistence
are transported
the Dena’ina
in Cook Inlet,
point’*) derives
trade in eulachon oil which occurred
and May (Fall 1981b, p. 8).
and activities
For example,
offer
keys
resource
Similarly,
names of sites, seasons,
understanding
to
here during
the
uses and, concomitantly,
annual
the
cycle
resources
of
upon
which the local economy depended.
In order
science
to assess current
methods
Division
uses, a variety
is employed
has conducted
surveys,
mail
surveys,
by the Division
research
tories, participant-observation
The
reviews,
his-
methods, informal
particular
selection
of index study communities,
comparative
designs, and other specialized
applications.
been gathered
descriptive
accepted
may
interview
require
stratified
approaches,
After
statistical
Quantitative
computer
information
programs.
longi-
data have
phic data are mapped in order to facilitate
decisions.
-7-
is evaluated
Where appropriate,
In
sampling,
in the field, analysis involves standard quantitative
treatments.
management
interviews,
oral
of these techniques.
addition,
tudinal
studies
social
of Subsistence.
using literature
and combinations
field
of well-established
and
using
geogra-
their use in land and water
CONSIDERATIONS
Reliable
research
limited;
indeed,
Nevertheless,
permit
effective
IN SUBSISTENCE POLICY
data on subsistence
comprehensive
generalizations
management
policy,
goal is to maintain
may continue.
certain
of subsistence
For purposes of evaluating
efforts
are just
to date and current
indicating
management
uses in Alaska are extremely
research
studies completed
FORMULATION
components
to be considered
In addition,
or limited
in formulating
involves
the use of locally
of
management
of the resource base so human use
to bare, physical
as part
for
I shall assume that the word **subsistence**
methods
earlier. 7 Although
essential
I shall assume that a fundamental
does not refer to resource uses which are characterized
consumption
field experience
resources.
the factors
the productivity
beginning.
the
available
complex
survival.
resources
economic
by **primitive**
Instead,
primarily
systems
subsistence
for local
described
other views of **subsistence** have been articulated
7 Alaska law provides a technical
definition:
‘[Sbbsistenc e uses’ means the customary and traditional
uses in
Alaska of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family
consumption
as food, shelter, fuel, clothing,
tools, or transportation, for the making and selling of handicraft articals out of
non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for
personal or family consumption . . . .
AS 16.0X940(26).
The definition
appearing in federal law is
substantially
similar but includes the limiting language, **by rural
Alaska residents**. 16 U.S.C.A. $3113 (1980 Laws Special Pamphlet).
-8-
based upon various configurations
of political
offered
of being consistent
here have the advantage
research data concerning
The following
periences,
resource
discussion
draws
and other current
subsistence
values, the assumptions
with
available
uses in Alaska.
upon research
developments
findings,
related
field
ex-
to diverse Alaskan
uses.
Cooperation
Between Manaqers and Users in Development
of Reliable
Data and Management
Effective
management
only if resource
cooperate
of wild renewable
managers
in the implementation
Of course, user cooperation
data on harvests
accurate
have reliable
resources
data and if resource
of the desired management
and other
aspects
of subsistence
harvest data are of only limited
utility
features
of the harvest are inconsistent
plan.
Neither
reliable
use.
if harvest
regimei
However,
timing
interests
are likely
are recognized
and their
uses are protected.
Because use of wild resources
important
to many communities
and households, unrealistic
compel uses outside the regulatory
-9-
or
with the management
data nor other types of cooperation
unless users are assured that their
may virtually
users
is necessary in order to obtain high quality
other
to result
can be achieved
is so
regulations
system (Collins 1982;
Stickney
1981).
If this occurs, the users may feel extremely
and reluctant
to provide
For example,
Robert
production
information.
J. Wolfe conducted
in a village
research
on food
near the mouth of the Yukon River
in 1978
residents
regulations
did not
activities,
such as
(Wolfe
1979).
Village
reflect
certain
characteristics
anonymity
on that
that
harvest
local representatives
at the outset,
portion
of the research
enforcement
to his conducting
Representatives
attention
if details
a different
Wolfe conducted
enforcement
consistent
policy
during
had moderated,
Limitations
waterfowl
were
feared adverse
use on the delta were
with this concern.
climate
research
to the
any research in the village
of waterfowl
regulatory
additional
with
of Yukon delta residents
and they took action
By contrast,
data dealing
insisted
in addition
which Wolfe had already built into his design.
(Wolfe 1982).
federal
of their
of confidentiality
imposed as preconditions
published
his initial
recognized
Accordingly,
spring take of waterfowl.
upon guarantees
uneasy’
existed on the delta when
1981.
In the
and proposals
interim,
to amend
8 This discomfort is not merely due to anxiety about possible arrest.
Many subsistence users strongly desire to comply with societal
standards but believe they cannot do so and still provide for their
families (Davidson 1974). In additiun, some rural residents attempt
to comply with ill-suited
regulations
simply from a sense of
absorbing significant
deference to the legal system, frequently
losses and hardships in the process.
-lO-
migratory
bird treaties
had been made.9
delta residents that information
birds
would
representatives
result
in
approved
There was less fear among
presented about their use of migratory
damage
to
the reporting
their
communities,
of important
and their
harvest and use
Y Migratory
birds are addressed in bilateral
treaties between the
United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the Soviet Union.
The most recent agreement, signed with the Soviet Union in 1976,
authorizes the United States to set seasons which permit the taking
of migratory
birds and their eggs by indigenous inhabitants of
Alaska for their own nutritional and other essential needs, but the
seasons must provide for the preservation and maintenance of the
migratory bird stocks. See Convention Concerning the Conservation
of Migratory Birds andTheir
Environment, Nov. 19, 1976, United
States - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 19 U.S.T. 4647, T.I.A.S.
No. 5604.
The treaty with Japan contains provisions allowing
harvests by Eskimos and Indians for food and clothing.
See
Convention for the Protection
of Migratory Birds in Dangerof
Extinction and Their Environment,
Mar. 4, 15172, United States Japan, 25 U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. No. 7990. The treaty with Canada
prohibits the hunting of most migratory
birds during spring and
summer, with certain exceptions.
See Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, Aug. 16,~16,
United States - Great
Britain (signatory for Canada), 39 Stat. 1702, T.S. No. 628. The
treaty with Mexico does not refer to subsistence hunting.
See
Convention
for the Protection
of Migratory
Birds and Game
Mammals, Feb. 7, 1936, United States - Mexico, 50 Stat. 1311, T.S.
No. 912.
When the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was emended to implement the
Soviet treaty, 16 U.S.C. $712 (Supp. III 1979), Congress indicated its
intention that the language of the Soviet treaty should be followed
in amending the treaties with Canada, Japan, and Mexico to provide
consistency among provisions covering subsistence. See S. Rep. No.
1175, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1978 U.S.-de
Cong. &
Ad. News 7641, 7645.
Negotiations with Canada produced a protocol amendment signed by
both parties on January 30, 1979. A request for negotiations on
similar amendatory language was made by the Department of the
Interior in late 1979. However, these negotiations have not been
concluded; nor has the protocol amendment with Canada been
ratified.
-ll-
data (Wolfe 1982).
The resulting
unavailable
into the complex
insight
research product provided previously
socioeconomic
systems
of the
Yukon delta (Wolfe 1981).
Subsistence
uses in rural
regardless
realities
of whether
communities
harvest
can be expected
regulations
Quite simply,
of local practice.
are consistent
practices,
or other limitations
they will be perceived
with
the
users will take the actions
they believe necessary to provide for their families
If seasons, bag limits,
to continue/
and communities.
are inconsistent
as irrelevant
with these
and are unlikely
to be
effective.
For example,
taking
the migratory
of most migratory
This would eliminate
and western
fall.
available
with
March
Canada prohibits
10 and September
all use of these resources
again at the time the treaty
Of the species
subsistence
without
violating
Similar
problems
regulations
birds between
virtually
nor commonly
Obviously,
treaty
Alaska because they are not present
and are migrating
in the
bird
excepted,
used throughout
use of migratory
many
prior
the
1.
in northern
to March
10
would allow harvests
are neither
readily
much of Alaska and Canada.
birds is not likely
to occur
of
between
these limitations.
have
arisen
-and social or cultural
because
inconsistencies
roles of subsistence.
-12-
For example,
the usual **bag limit”
concept in wildlife
hunter to fill his bag limit
more
animals.
responsible
Alaska,
not only for supplying
for a system of community
**overharvest** according
of the distribution
individual
one
hunter
his own immediate
may
family
be
but also
sharing with elders and others who need
with
to the bag limit;
those responsibilities
but when considered
among family and community
use may be well within
circumstances,
however,
A hunter
hunt.
allows a licensed
for the day or season and then to take no
In rural
meat but cannot
management
the regulatory
hunter and his social responsibilities
in light
members, the average
the established
intent
may
actually
bag limit.
In such
may be met but the
are in conflict
with the letter
of
the law (Skoog 1980).
Major
discontinuities
practices
between
management
may, in some instances,
management
effectiveness.
in some interior
shown great
produce
virtually
total
and
with
where regulatory
local practice,
local
lack
Our research suggests, for example,
Alaskan communities
inconsistencies
regulations
of
that
measures have
the regulations
are
considered to be applicable
only to other users; in fact, to follow such
regulations
from
the
would
make
would,
irrational,
since
it
ineffective
(Stickney
perspective
of
long-established
1981).
-13-
local
residents,
harvest
be
strategies
.
Instead,
intended
it is their
belief
the regulations
provisions
that
the Board of Game could not have
to apply
would have been drafted
of this discontinuity
. codified
An additional
Because
system of regulatory
restraints,
have direct
in controlling
or seasons are presumed
behavior.
proceeds
The practical
and enforcement,
shortcomings
modifying
and
managers arises if this divergence
most
managers
are accustomed
to a
it is easy to assume that regulations
harvests;
to produce
that
is, changes in bag
corresponding
Where this is not the case but management
without
effect
and social control.
for wildlife
is not recognized.
uses or else the
systems now exist:
regulations
local practice
problem
effects
differently.
is that parallel
management
. non-codified
limits
to subsistence
the
assumption,
serious
changes in
nevertheless
management
may result.IO
lUThe significance of this effect should not be overstated, however.
Harvest practices and cycles of activity
are long-established
in
many areas.
As a result, managers* assessments of population
status may unknowingly take into ‘account unreported harvest or
other use characteristics
that may affect resource abundance and
distribution.
-14-
-Harvest
Levels Based Upon the Ability
Sustain Take Rather
Than Upon Arbitrary
Because subsistence economic
dynamic,
systems
Populations
to
Limits
in Alaska
are both diverse and
demand for resources should not be regarded as a constant.
Indeed, variability
and long-term
in species selection
Demand for wildlife,
is affected
by many factors,
. the availability
term
and in food output over short-
cycles may be one defining characteristic
economies.
like other products,
is not static but
(seasonal, annual, or longer-
occur and populations
are often
by **non-consumers** such as industrial
expense, in time,
the relative
of subsistence
including:
of the resource;
fluctuations
impact
l
of Resource
effort,
subject
to
development);
and money, required
to
harvest a resource;
l
the relative
products,
l
utility
including
the relative
of resources
Each of these is influenced
groups, climatic
other
and geophysical
seasons, competition
conditions
-15
distances
for other species
income during a year, restrictions
and harvest
by a number
size, geographic
from a user group, levels of harvest
of harvest
with
need for the resource.
such as resource population
during a year, monetary
methods
in comparison
other species; and
perceived
(Wolfe 1979, pp. 214-244).
of other factors,
of a product
placed upon
among user
(such as ice conditions),
and other considerations.
year to year.
Many of these variables may fluctuate
It is clear that regulations
many cases not a significant
are only one factor,
one, affecting
from
and in
demand for resources and
harvest levels.
Because of these dynamics,
a sensible management
cycles of harvestable
If an arbitrary
distortion
resources
The net effect
potentially
it
may
lead
to inhibition
plans.
on resource
of both subsistence
An alternative
use patterns
approach would be based upon
harvest levels or ranges derived from longitudinal
populations
and harvests
approach
would allow for possible variation
affecting
the population
by humans.
in use without
Such an
adversely
base.
in Light of All Relevant
Factors -- Not Overemphasizing
Harvest
by Humans
Harvest
by people is only one of many variables affecting
and distribution
or
changes in other parts of the annual harvest cycle.
flexible
Manaqement
is not responsive to
associated with these resources and may
could be impairment
and management
have no place in
which often occur over long periods.
is imposed,
of harvest patterns
harvest limits
A static ceiling
program.
ceiling
cause unanticipated
data
arbitrary
of many species.
Wildlife
-16-
management
abundance
analyzes the
dynamics of a species by means of population
and composition),
fecundity
cluding losses to predation,
condition
(Skoog 1980).
harvest** factor
and recruitment,
disease, weather,
Overemphasis
mortality
and potentially
on the influence
evaluation
ineffective
and prediction
species.
over time
resource
demand
denigrate
the importance
limitations
for predicting
management
of the subsistence
Accurate
understand
than single
can provide
eco-
methods.
use component
harvest
much better
species harvest
data for
data.
indices
future
changes in subsistence
of
This is not to
of harvest data but merely to recognize
Mutual Education About the Desirability
the Significance
of the “human
Research on the dynamics of social and biological
systems interacting
Effective
(in-
of overall
of this harvest should not rely solely on quantified
particular
factors
and harvest), and habitat
may lead to a mischaracterization
system dynamics
Similarly,
data (census, distribution
its
practices.
Of Management
and
Of Local Conditions
subsistence
harvest
data
can be obtained
only
if users
the purposes for which the data are being sought and if
they preceive
those purposes as consistent
field work conducted
found repeatedly
with desirable ends.
in the
by the Division of Subsistence, evidence has been
that management
concepts, procedures,
-17-
and agencies
are poorly understood
in much of rural Alaska.
drawn between management
Fish and Wildlife
Protection
In addition,
Safety).
are
agencies such as the U. S.
Service; the Alaska Department
and the Fish and Wildlife
Public
or enforcement
Few distinctions
Division
of Fish and Game;
(Alaska Department
the processes by which regulations
of
are
developed, the uses of research data, and the reasons for management
choices tend to be much more mysterious
managers frequently
to local users than resource
assume.
Subsistence Division field staff have noted that taking of fish or game
frequently
occur outside
the regulations
-- not because participants
wish to break the law but because they perceive
are irrelevant
harvesters
reporting
may be only vaguely
requirements,
regulatory
choice;
to provide
education
understand
are not elements
of the regulations,
families
data.
is the major
is to be effective,
must be undertaken,
the orientation
This is particularly
aware
are known, some residents
for their
if management
In some areas the
practices.
or uses of management
requirements
cordingly,
mutual
to their long-established
that the regulations
important
-18-
have virtually
directive.
a sensitive
for their
where compulsory
of the indigenous
Even if the
culture.
common
no
Ac-
program
in which each party
of the other
harvest
of
seeks to
benefit.
rules and regulations
Meaningful
Involvement
of Users in Development
Regardless of the quality
of data gathered through field observations,
local users consistently
have additional
and exchange practices
and resource conditions.
information
have unique insight into what management
acceptable.
Because effective
upon voluntary
compliance,ll
of user experience
Cooperation
measures are likely
management
it is desirable
information.
fundamentally
creation
llIt
to be
depends
to build these dimensions
into the regulations.
by users in implementation
Effective
of management
participation
the
options.
of a formal
problem
means more than simply receiving
to be addressed
One potential
participation
measures also
role in formulating
Instead, it requires that user representatives
in understanding
management
about production
The users typically
is made more likely if the users have a meaningful
regulations.
of Requlations
component
be involved
and in identifying
of this process
role such as the local
is
advisory
is unrealistic
to assume that enforcement
activity
will be
adequate to assure compliance with regulations.
For example, the
Yukon-Kuskokwim
delta contains more than 55 separate villages and
many additional summer fish camps. Enforcement of fish and game
regulations throughout this large area is obviously impractical unless
most users comply voluntarily.
-19-
committee
and regional
Board of Fisheries
Another
council
system
established
by the Alaska
and Game.l*
opportunity
for strengthening
cooperative
relationships
be-
tween managers and users is the employment
of local field staff.13
this
in resource
way,
local
people
activities
which
provide
regulatory
authorities.
can
be involved
insight
After
into
regulations
field staff can make unique contributions
the
issues
of
In
assessment
concern
have been adopted,
to the implementation
to
local
phase,
lzDn March 1, 1982, there were 67 local advisory committees
recognized by the Boards; several petitions for new committees also
were pending.
The committees
perform a variety of functions,
including development and evaluation of regulatory proposals. See
5 AAC 96.050.
The Boards also have designated six regions within which operate
councils composed of advisory committee
representatives.
The
regional c buncils are intended to facilitate
communication
among
local committees, to provide a forum for resolving disagreements
about management issues, to make recommendations
to the Boards,
and to perform a variety of other authorized functions.
See 5 AAC
96.250.
The importance
of the regional council anddvisory
committee
system also is recognized by federal law.
See 16
U.S.C.A. $3115 (1980 Laws Special Pamphlet).
13The Division of Subsistence has enjoyed considerable success in
employing local and bilingual staff in professional resource specialist positions and in technical assistant roles. Their contributions
to field data and analysis have been substantial (See, 9,
Stokes,
The Division viewnhe
technician
J. and E. Andrews, 1982).
responsibilities
as valuable experience which may lead to higher
level program positions.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service also has employed local staff in
Copp, J. and M. Smith, 1981).
gathering subsistence use data
-2o-
in part
by conveying
information
to other
members
of the com-
munity.14
Local resource users have shown great interest
fish and game.
organizations
example,
In several instances, user representatives
to facilitate
coastal
their
communities
participation
which
utilize
formed the Eskimo Walrus Commission
information
two
studies,
In addition
matters,
under
mammals
a grant
For
have
to sharing
the Commission
from
for
the Alaska
on marine mammal use.
In support of the Commission,
(PWTC) was created
Service.
marine
of
have formed
in management.
(EWC).
and advising on management
years has conducted
Legislature,
in the management
the Pacific
Walrus Technical Committee
at the suggestion of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
The Technical
Committee
includes
scientific
and manage-
ment personnel from federal and state agencies as well as Commission
representatives.
to the
The PWTC provides technical
Commission.
Together,
information
and liaison
the EWC and the PWTC provide
a
l4 Management
approaches sometimes have encountered
resistance
because they attempt to impose unfamiliar forms of social control
which conflict with long-established local mechanisms.
Traditional
methods of encouraging
socially acceptable
behavior may help
provide effective limits for use in fish and wildlife management.
Indeed, it has been argued that such methods offer far greater
potential for success than the Anglo-American
codifications used in
the United States. (See Worl Associates 1978; Worl, R. 1979; see
also Hallowell, A.J. 1955).
-21-
direct
user-manager
discussions.
SUMMARY
a meaningful
a significant
management
initiative
by local users
role.15
AND CONCLUSIONS
Effective
wildlife
flecting
the realities
management
management
in Alaska
of today’s
requires
subsistence
inability
to manage.
to gather reliable
Because subsistence
Wildlife
has produced a substantial
benefits
include both better
execution
of management
re-
Otherwise,
data shortfall,
possibly
managers have a real
data and to achieve local cooperation.
use data have not previously
managers, even a relatively
an approach
way of life.
will be hampered by a significant
virtual
opportunity
and a means for shared management
They also represent
in developing
producing
dialogue
small investment
been available
in the necessary research
return of usable information.
management
to
The potential
decisions and more effective
programs.
150ther users have established organizations
with similar purposes.
The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission is involved directly
in
monitoring
bowhead whale harvest quotas, through a cooperative
agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Similarly, rural Alaskan users of the Porcupine
Caribou Herd have joined with their counterparts
in the Yukon
Territorv to form the International
Porcuoine Caribou Commission.
-22-
Short-term
results
resource
may include
base but also continuation
sistence
use.
Wildlife
from this improved
for
not only better
example,
projections
reliable
of take
of opportunities
In the context
harvest
which,
in turn,
could
surplus.
Plans for
and management
research
fective,
however,
thetical
or irrelevant
that
if users perceive
management
non-sub-
to their
will
produce
interests.
be effective,
could
lead
specific
to
accurate
will
be inef-
to be either
To increase
several
birds,
more
probably
management
directly
of migratory
and use data
assessments of harvestable
better
for
of the
users outside of Alaska may benefit
management.
more
maintenance
anti-
the probability
measures
have
been suggested:
l
Cooperation
reliable
l
between
managers
and users in development
of
data and management.
Harvest levels based upon the ability
sustain take rather
. Management
emphasizing
. Effective
than upon arbitrary
in light
harvest
mutual
of all
education
involvement
. These steps are mutually
relevant
to
limits.
factors
-- not
over-
by ‘humans.
ment and the significance
. Meaningful
of resource populations
about the desirability
of manage-
of local conditions.
of users in development
supportive
isolation.
-23-
of regulations.
and should not be considered
in
Because subsistence
economic
systems are dynamic,
should include all aspects of system functioning
data.
Only in that
way will
predictive
data alone, even when suggesting
identify
causal factors.
In addition,
most parts of Alaska to allow reliable
Even if such information
provide
an adequate
are not meaningful
The potential
will
resulting
estimates
would not
management
improved
harvest
policies for subsistence
communities
allocation
to retain
populations
theme of local and regional
management;
policies
the economic
nutritional,
To the extent these communities
be an important
As with
because current
Wise harvest
subsistence way of life, concern about wildlife
will
in
harvests.
base which best meets their needs -- including
components.
data are inadequate
for the future.
as well.
enable subsistence-reliant’
cultural
do not
data and analysis of sytem dynamics,
as projections
benefits
trends,
of current
basis for management
rewards of realistic
include long-term
since
estimates
were available,
levels, lacking both longitudinal
be developed,
historical
existing
data
-- not merely harvest
ability
harvest
research
social, and
continue
their
and habitats
planning
decisions.
users in Alaska and in other
places
The value of using fish and game as part of the self-sufficiency
base
stand to benefit.
is, at
best,
communities
difficult
to quantify,
and households
but
is clear.
-24-
its
importance
Managing
to Alaskan
in recognition
of
subsistence realities
the resource
can protect
populations
these opportunities
that all user groups value.
-25-
while maintaining
REFERENCES
CITED
Cohen, Y.A., ed.
The Cultural
1974
Man in Adaptation:
Aldine
Publishing
Co.
Chicago:
Present.
2nd Ed.
Collins, R.
1982
Upper Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
Testimony before the Alaska Board of Game, Anchorage.
Copp, J. and M. Smith
A Preliminary
Analysis of the
1981
Waterfowl by Yupik Eskimos
Anchorage:
Delta, Alaska.
Service, .Yukon Delta National
Davidson,
1974
Spring Take of Migratory
on the Yukon-Kuskokwim
U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife Refuge.
A.
Does One Way Of Life Have To Die So Another
Yupiktak Bista.
Bethel:
Can Live?
Ellanna, L.J.
1980
Bering-Norton
Petroleum Development Scenarios and Sociocultural Impacts Analysis, Volumes I and II. Technical
Bureau of Land Management,
Report No. 54. Anchorage:
Alaska OCS.
Fall, 3.
1981a
1981b
Hallowell,
1955
Patterns of
Ann Arbor:
Traditional
torical and
Subsistence,
Upper Inlet Tanaina Leadership, 1741-1918.
University Microfilms.
Resource Uses in the Knik Arm Area:
HisContemporary Patterns.
Juneau: Division of
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
A.J.
Culture and Experience.
Pennsylvania.
Lee, R. 6. and J. DeVore, eds.
1968
Man the Hunter.
Chicago:
Lonner, T.
1980
Philadelphia:
Aldine
University
Publishing
of
Co.
Subsistence as an Economic System in Alaska.
Juneau:
Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
-26-
Skoog, R.
1980
Letter to Keith Schreiner, Area Director,
Wildlife Service, May 23, 1980.
U.S. Fish and
Steward, J. H.
1972
Theory of Culture Change:
The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution.
Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Stickney,
1981
A.
Subsistence Resource Utilization:
Nikolai and Telida -Interim Report II.
Juneau:
Division of Subsistence,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Stokes, J. and E. Andrews
Subsistence Hunting of Moose in the Upper Kuskokwim
1982
Controlled Use Area.
Juneau:
Division of Subsistence,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Thomas, D.
1981
Norton Sound - Bering Strait Subsistence
Division of Subsistence,
Fishery.
Juneau:
partment of Fish and Game.
King Crab
Alaska De-
Veltre, D. and M. Veltre
1981
A Preliminary
Baseline Study of Subsistence Resource
Utilization
in the Pribilof Islands. Juneau:
Division of
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Wolfe, R.
1979
1981
1982
Food Production in a Western Eskimo Population.
Ann
University Microfilms.
Arbor:
Norton Sound/Yukon Delta Sociocultural Systems Baseline
Analysis, Technical Report No. 72. Anchorage: Bureau of
Land Management, OCS.
Personal communication,
March 15, 1982.
Worl Associates
1978
Alaska OCS SociotEconomic Studies Program, Assessment
of Change in the North Slope, Beaufort
Sea Region
Bureau of Land
Anchorage:
Sociocultural
Systems.
Management, Alaska OCS.
Worl, R.
1979
Sociocultural
Assessment of the Impact of the 1978
International
Whaling Commission Quota on Eskimo ComUniversity
of Alaska, Arctic
munities.
Anchorage:
Environmental
Information and Data Center.
-27-
LEGAL
REFERENCES
CITED
TREATIES
Convention Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their
Environment, Nov. 19, 1976, United States - Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, 29 U.S.T. 4647, T.I.A.S. No 5604.
Convention for the Protection
of Migratory
Birds, Aug. 16, 1916,
United States - Great Britain (signatory for Canada), 39 Stat. 1702,
T.S. No. 628.
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals,
Feb. 7, 1936, United States - Mexico, 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. No. 912.
FEDERAL
STATUTES
Alaska
National
Interest
Lands
Conservation
Act,
ANILCA,
16 U.S.C.A. 593112 (1) - (21, 3113, 3114, 3115, 3120, 3122 (1980 Laws
Special Pamphlet).
16 U.S.C. $712 (Supp. III 1979).
ALASKA
STATUTES
Ch. 151, 1978 Alaska
AS16.05).
Sess. Laws
(codified
in various
sections
of
AS 16.05.094.
AS 16.05.940 (26).
ALASKA
ADMINISTRATNE
REGULATIONS
5 AAC 96.050.
5 AAC 96.250.
LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY
S. Rep. No. 1175, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted
Cong. & Ad. News 7641, 7645.
-28-
h 1978 U.S. Code