NAKNEK RIVER SUBSISTENCE AND PERSONAL USE FISHERIES - 1982

bY Judith M. Morris

Technical Paper Number 48

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence

King Salmon, Alaska November 1982

.-

TABLF OF CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*... ii

Introduction ................................................................ 1

General Background .......................................................... 1

Division of Subsistence Research in the Naknek River Area - 1982 ............ 3

Rackqround ................................................................ 3

tlethodoloqy ............................................................... 3

1982 Naknek River Subsistence Permit Fishery ................................ 4

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.....................*....*.............. 5

Harvest ................................................................... 6

1982 Naknek River Personal IJse Fishery ...................................... 7

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Harvest ................................................................... 7

Comparisons of Local and Non-local Residents' Else of Salmon in the Naknek River Area ................................................................. 8

Lenqth of Residency, Household Size, Length of Participation .............. 11

Involvement in Commercial Fishing ......................................... 12

Harvest Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Preservation Techniques ................................................... 17

Distrihutinq and Sharinq Salmon ........................................... 18

Summar.y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..........~...................................... 19

-i-

.

List of Figures and Tables

Fiqures

1 Naknek River Study Area Communities......................... 2

2 Cumulative Percentaqe of Reported Weekly Catch of Salmon Subsistence Fishermen on the Naknek River. 1980............14

Tables

1 Naknek River Subsistence Salmon Permits Issued and Harvest by Species 1971 - 1982 . . . ..*................................ 6

5

6

7 Number of Days on Which Salmon Were Harvested....,..........15

8 Composition of Local and Non-local Resident's Catches in the 1980 Subsistence Fishery . . ..*..........*.................... 16

9

10

11

12

Week of First Reported Subsistence Kin9 Harvest 1975 - 1982. 6

Place of Residence, Non-local Fishermen..................... 9

Number of Non-local Respondents Who Reported Participating in Subsistence Permit Fisheries Outside the Bristol T3a.y Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.................................... 10

Years of Alaskan Residency of Local and Non-local Participants In Naknek River Subsistence Permit Fisher.y..................ll

Number of Years Respondents Reported Participatinq in Naknek River Area Subsistence Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

198n Subsistence Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Species Composition of Local and Non-local Catches, 1980.,..17

Preservation Methods Used b,y Participants in Naknek River Subsistence Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Patterns of Distribution by Local and Non-local Partici- pants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

-j i-

INTRODUCTION

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has responsibility for pro-

viding information about the commercial, sport, subsistence, and personal

use fisheries of Bristol Bay to the Board of Fisheries, the fish and

qame advis0r.y system, and the public. The purpose of this report is to

provide information on the Naknek River non-commercial set qill-net fisher

ies which will assist in the process of considerinq management measures.

This report has the followinq objectives: 1) to review briefly the

1982 subsistence and personal use fisheries on the Naknek River; and 2)

to compare patterns of salmon use by non-local fishermen in 1980 (the

last year of non-local participation in the subsistence fishery) and

by local subsistence fishermen in 1982

GENERAL BACKGROUND

The Naknek River drains west from the northern part of the Alaska

Peninsula into Kvichak Bay. Three communities, Kinq Salmon, Naknek, and

South Naknek, are located on the banks of the river (Figure 1). Toqether

these communities form the Bristol Bay Borouqh, with a 1981 population of

671 (an additional 371 persons are stationed at the Kinq Salmon Air

Force Base). Commercial salmon fish'inq is the basis of the area's eco-

n0m.y. A number of federal and state aqencies and commercial enterprises

also are located in Naknek and Kinq Salmon.

All five species of salmon spattin in the Naknek drainaqe. Residents

of this area harvest all five species hy qill-net under subsistence fishinc

requlations. Throuqh 1980, an,y Alaska resident could participate in this

fishery.

In 1981, the Board of Fisheries determined that only uses h,y which

residents of the Naknek - Kvichak drainaqe qualified as subsistence uses

-l-

.

\ &

r .-.- i i i i -.L.-_ -. 1. \ 1 ‘U

-2-

in this area. In 1982, a personal use fishery was initiated, in which any

Alaska resident with a sportfishinq license could participate. z

DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE RESEARCH IN THE NAKNEK RIVER AREA - 1982

Backqround

The Division of Subsistence initiated research on the non-commercial

qill net fishery of the Naknek River in summer 1982. The purpose of the

study was to describe subsistence salmon fishinq oractices on the Naknek

River. One component of the study was to provide a baseline description

of salmon fishinq durinq the 1982 season b,y residents of all located on

the Naknek River. Kinq Salmon, Naknek, and South Naknek. The second

component of a described fishinq practices by non-local residents durinq

the 1980 season, the last year of non-local participation in the subsistence

permit fishery.

Methodoloqy

Information about the non-local participants was obtained throuqh

a mail-out survey questionnaire. There were 167 surveys sent to non-local

Alaska residents who received Naknek River subsistence fishinq permits in

198r-l. By 9 November 198'2, 35 permits had been completed and returned,

while thirty surve.v forms were returned as undeliverable. The 35 surveys

represent a 21 percent samole of the 1980 non-local permit holders. The

low return rate may in.iect some response bias, as the sample ma,y over

represent permit holders havinq qreatest familiarity with, and interest

in, the Naknek River subsistence fishery.

Ma.ior findinqs preliminary of the study are brief1.v discussed below.

These are based on preliminary analysis and may be revised. A more detailed

report is beinq prepared.

-3-

Information on uses by local participants in the 1982 subsistence

salmon fishery was obtained from a sample of individuals who obtained sub,

sistence permits. Since a list of permits from which to draw a systematic

sample was not available until the end of the season from participants

were initially selected opportunistic for interviewing. In August, after

all permits had been issued, a random 10 percent sample was selected

to compare with the opportunistic sample in order to to validate findinqs.

In 1982, 215 subsistence fishing permits were issued from the Kinq Salmon

Alaska Departament of Fish and Game office in 1982. The final sample of

local households included 73 or 34 percent of the permits issued.

1982 NAKNEK RIVER SIJBSISTENCE PERMIT FISHERY

The State of Alaska has regulated the Naknek River fisheries since

statehood. The general regulations for subsistence fishing in the Naknek

River in 1982 included the following provisions:

1. Subsistence salmon fishing permits:

a. Were required and limited to one per household, 5 AAC 01.330 (a> and (c)i

h. Were to be "issued only to those persons domiciled in the Naknek and Kvichak River drainaqes", 5 AAC 01.330(d);

c. I*lere to he issued only.throuqh the Department of Fish and Game office in Kinq Salmon, 5 AAC 01.330(a) and (d).

2. Set gill nets in the Naknek River were not to exceed 10 fathoms in lenqth, 5 AAC 01.320(a) (l), and were not to he used in that portion of the river upstream from Savonoski (leavinq about eiqht miles on the lower river open to fishinq), 5 AAC 01.325(h).

3. Fishinq was allowed "at an,y time" except durinq the period from June 23 throuqh 9:OO a.m. Ju1.v 17 (when fishinq was limited to two days per week). 5 AAC 01.310(b) (2).

Participation

Ilnder these quidelines, 215 subsistence permits were issued for the

1982 salmon season. Fifty-two percent of the 371 households in the area

-4-

received permits. Ry 28 October 1982, 106 permits (49 percent) had been

returned. *

Harvest

The 1982 preliminary reported catch is shown in Table 1. Naknek

River residents took about 13,500 salmon. Based on extrapolated fiqures,

an averaqe of 62.7 salmon were harvested per permit. Mean harvests per

permit were 4.5 kinqs, 49.0 socke.ve, 1.2 chums, 4.2 pinks, and 3.7 cohos.

The king run was later than us~~al in 1982. Records of past harvests indicate

that the 1 June arrival of the first subsistence cauqht kinqs was the

latest in the last eight years. The dates of arrival of the first kings

ranqe from as early as the week of 3 May to as late as the week of 31 May

(Table 2).

The relatively large number of sockeyes harvested probably resulted

from a combination of factors, includinq a stronq run and continuation of

subsistence fishing durinq a commercial fishinq strike. Pinks and chums

are less preferred species in comparsion with kinqs, cohos, and sockeyes.

They reportedly are used mainly for household consumption when caught

incidentally or unsold from commercial catches. There was a qood coho

run reported for the 1982 season.

-5-

.

TARLE 1

Naknek River Subsistence Salmon Permits Issued and Harvest1 by Species

Year

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1378

1979

1980

1981

198Z2 ,

# of Permits Issued

57

85

114

132

179

179

203

219

243

358

233

215

Kinqs

240

410

565

870

576

675

1,093

1,023

1,044

1,419

738

961

1971 - 1982

Sockeye

6,296

3,687

2,513

4,625

7,097

6,262

9,420

9,192

9,547

15,680

9,468

10,630

Chums Pinks Cohos Total

32 2 65 6,635

371 693 50 5,211

235 11 493 3,817

242 1,395 200 7,332

116 16 216 8,021

228 1,099 208 8,472

339 53 263 11,168

339 970 226 11,750

232 26 897 11,746

661 1,780 844 20,384

2n4 88 899 11,397

260 872 785 13,508

'l extrapolated harvest fiqures

* from 106 permits returned as of October 28, 1982

TABLE 2

Week of First Reported Subsistence Kinq Harvest 1975 - 1982

May 3 - 9...........

1982 NAKNEK RIVER PERSONAL USE FISHERY

In 1982 "personal use" was established as a new cateqory of fishinq,

in the Naknek district by the Alaska Roard of Fisheries. The personal use

fisher-y provides an opportunity for non-local residents to use set qill-

nets as well as dip nets, a new qear type for this area. The Naknek River

personal use fisher-y is opened when the hiqh end of the escapement qoal

for sockeye has been rret (900,MO). The personal use fishery is intended

to tarqet on sockeye. It is open to any person holdinq a valid Alaska

sport fishing license or to those exempt from licensinq requirements.

The permit were issued from the Kinq Salmon Fish and Game Office. A limit

of 75 salmon is allowed.

Participation

In 1982, 12 persons obtained personal use fishery permits. The

season was opened on 9 July and ended 31 July. Commercial .fisheries bio-

loqists designated 31 July as the end of the sockeye run.

Three applicants listed Kinq Salmon or rlaknek addresses. Residences

of the other nine applicants included. Anchorage, Fairbanks, Soldotna,

and Glenallen.

Harvest

As of 10 November, seven personal use permits had been returned.

On1.y four of these reported fishinq and none reported usinq dip-nets.

These three fishermen reported takinq the followinq numbers of

salmon:

Kinqs...............S

Sockeyes............207

Chums............... 1

-7-

Pinks ............... 2

Cohos ............... 0 *

Forty-two percent (5) of the people who obtained personal use permits

in 1982 had previously held suhsistenc- e fishinq permits for the Naknek

River. However, only 13 percent (4) of the non-local former participants

in the subsistence fishery who responded to the Division of Subsistence

survey indicated they kne\q ahout the personal use fishery.

CWIPARISON OF LOCAL ANTI NON-LOCAL RESIDENTS' USE OF SALMON IN THE NAKNEK RIVER AREA

In order to determine the deqree to which place of residency of

fishermen reflects differences among the uses of Naknek River salmon,

the following section compares the past resource use patterns of local

and non-local participants in the subsistence fishery. Three types of

data were used in this comparison: 1) 1980 harvest information for all

permittees; 2) a survey sent to all non-local 1980 participants in the

fisher-y and 3) information collected from the 1982 local resident study.

This report compares household characteristics, harvest levels, and patterns

of salmon use between these two qroups.

Characteristics of Non-local Fishermen

Table 3 lists the places of residence of non-local fishermen in the

1980 Uaknek subsistence fisher,y. Most of the non-local participants

(82 percent) cane from Southcentral Alaska, narticular1.y the Anchorage,

Faqle River, Matanuska-Susitna Borouqh, and i!enai Peninsula areas. The

remainder were distributed anonq eight other places (Table 3).

The main reasons non-local survey respondents qave for coming to the

Naknek River area were commercial fishinq (35 percent), visitinq friends

9- -,

(23 percent), sport fishing (16 percent), and business in the local area

(9 percent). Subsistence fishing was reported as a major reason for comirrg

to the Naknek River by only two of the 35 respondents, although others

mentioned that the opportunity to get salmon for household use was an '.

additional benefit from visiting friends or goinq sport fishing. People

who had lived in the Naknek River area in the past or who fished there

commercially were more likely to have friends there and to he familiar

with the subsistence fishery.

Table 3

PLACE OF RESII)ENCF:, NON-LOCAL FISHERMEN

Residence Reported Address on the in Sample of Permit Return of

1980 Permit Holders* 1980 Permit Holders (n = 32) (n = 148)

Anchorage

Eaqle River/Chuqiak

Kenai Peninsula

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Kodiak

McGrath

Ketchikan

Fairbanks

Cordova

McCarthy

34%

19%

19%

13%

3%

3%

3%

3 0, ,I)

57%

8%

12%

5%

3%

1%

1X

3%

1%

1%

Cold Ray/!lnal aska/ Dutch Harbor

Juneau/Douqlas

2%

49:

-9-

* An additional 31 surveys were returned as undeliverable by post office (mainly sent to military and Anchoraqe addresses).

* Non-local fishermen qenerally learned about the Naknek River fishery

from friends or co-workers. Fifty-three percent of the respondents to .,',

the 1982 survey reported that they learned of the fishery from friends,

while 24 percent mentioned co-workers as their main source of information.

Much smaller numbers mentioned family (9 percent), prior residence in the

area (6 percent), newspaper accounts (3 percent), or the Alaska Department

of Fish and Game (3 percent) as information sources.

A sizeable proportion (37 percent) of the respondents to the 1992

survey reported they had participated in subsistence permit fisheries in

other parts of the State, either before or after fishinq in the Naknek

River area in 1980. The Copper River subsistence fishery was mentioned

most frequently, followed by the Kenai Peninsula and three other areas

(Table 4). Most of these people had been involved in subsistence permit

fisheries for only two or three years. In interviews with Naknek River

residents, few reported subsistence fished outside the Bristol Ray reqion.

TABLE 4

NUMBER OF NON-LOCAL RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED PARTICIPATING IN SUBSISTENCE PERMIT FISHERIES OllTSIDE THE BRISTOL BAY AREA

(n = 34)

Subsistence Fishinq Location Number of Respondents

Copper River 8 Kenai Peninsula 2 Kodiak 1 Newhalen 1 Knik-Goose Bay 1

Non-local fishermen travelled to the Naknek River area and trans-

ported their fish home by air. Commercial air carriers were used by

56 percent of the survey respondents, while private aircraft. were used

by 35 percent. An additional 9 percent used compan,y aircraft, A round-

-1n-

trip commercial airfare from Anchoraqe to King Salmon in 1982 was $220.00.

Air freiqht, including waxed "fish boxes" for shippinq frozen salmon, *

cost about Q.40 per pound. ',.,

Lenqth of Residency, Household Size; Lenqth of Participation

Table 5 compares the lenqth of Alaskan residency of local and non-

local participants in the 1980 Naknek River subsistence fishery. 80th groups

include recent arrivals as well as lonqer term or life-lonq residents.

Seventy-two percent of non-local participants have been in the State 11

years or lonqer, sugqestinq that lonq State residenc,y ma,y be associated

with participation in the non-commercial qill net fisheries on the Naknek

River. Similar percentages of both qroups have lived in the state for at

least ten years, but a much higher percentage of local residents have

lived in Alaska for more than 25 years (Table 5). The mean lenqth of

residency in the. Naknek River area for 1982 subsistence permit holders

was 22 years.

TABLE 5

YEARS OF ALASKAN RESIDENCY OF LOCAL ANI NON-LOCAL PARTICIPANTS IN NAKNEK RIVER SUBSISTENCE PERMIT FISHERY

Year of Residency Percent of Local Percent of Non-Local In Alaska Participants (1982) Participants (lq80)

l- 10 Years 28% 29%

11 - 25 Years 20% 52%

25 or More Years 52% 20%

Household size was similar for both local and non-local samples.

Local residents had sliqhtly larqer households with a mean size of 3.8

compared to 3.5 for non-local respondents.

Table 6 compares the number of ,years that local and non-local permit-

tees had participated in the Naknek area subsistence fishery. Local resi-

-ll-

. .

dents demonstrated a significantly longer history of use than non-local

participants.

only one year,

contrasts with

year, while 60

More than half of the non-local 1980 permittees had fished

and only 3 percent had fished 10 or more years. This

local residents, amonq whom on1.y 4 percent had fished one

percent had fished ten or more years.

TABLE 6

NUMBER OF YEARS RESPONDENTS REPORTED PARTICIPATING IN NAKNEK RIVER AREA SURSISTFNCF FISHERY

Number of Local Non-local Years Fished n = 73 n = 34

1 Year 4”’ 10 539f ,o

2 - 3 Years 161 3 3%

4 - 9 Years 19% 12%

10 or more Years 60$ 3%

Involvement in Commercial Fishinq

Commercial fishing is a primary sector of the Naknek River area eco-

nomy. Local participants in the subsistence fishery are heavi1.y involved

in this industr.y. Forty-four percent of the local participants surveyed

in 1983 reported havinq a drift or set net limited entry permit in their

households. Many of the long-term local participants and their extended

families depend almost entirely on commercial fishinq for cash income.

Many non-local participants in the subsistence fisher.y also were involved

in commercial fishinq in 1980. Thirt.y-five percent of the surveyed sample

reported commercial fishing as a major reason for cominq to the Naknek

River area in 1980.

Involvement in commercial fishinq is frequently associated with do-

mestic household use of salmon for both local and non-local participants.

-12-

. .

Commercial fishermen have the opportunity, experience, interest, and

equipment to harvest fish for household use.

A..

i Harvest Patterns \ \ .-" While all five species of salmon were harvested by both local and

non-local fishermen in 1980, these two qroups displayed different fishinq

patterns. The timing of the harvest, the nunher of days fished, the number

of fish harvested, and the catch composition varied between local and

non-local participants.

Data collected from 1980 subsistence fishinq permits show that local

residents beqan fishinq earlier and continued fishinq later than did non-

local fishermen. The percentaqe of the total harvest occurrinq durinq

each week of the season is illustrated in Fiqure 2. Non-local fishinq was

concentrated in a three-week period heqinninq 28 (June and ending 18 Ju1.v.

As Fiqure 2 indicates, 85 percent of the reported harvest hy non-local

fishermen occurred between those dates. Local participants, on the other

hand, harvested only 55 percent of their salmon durinq this period. The

week 7-13 June marked the beqinninq of the non-local fishinq, compared

with 17-23 May for local users. Eight cohos (or .03 percent of their

total harvest) were the only fish reported taken by non-locals after 22

Auqust, while local residents harvested 3 percent of their total catch

after that date.

The nunber of davs fished also varied between the two groups. Fort,y-

seven percent of the non-local fishermen reoorteri takinq their entire

catch in a single day (Table 7). Another 25 percent harvested their total

catch in two days. Ry contrasts, only 12 percent of the local residents

reported their entire .yearl,y harvest occurred on a sinqle day. As Table 7

shows, 68 percent of non-locals took fish on more than three days. The

-13-

2.r

2 5

2 m

W - C-L CD

0 -l-l

W m -u 0 w + m 0

0

PERCENT

: . I r . i . . . I

W 4

-14-

lonqer fishing period may reflect the proximity of local residents to

the river and the fact that they have qreater flexibility in choosinq *

fishing times and locations. These factors allow local residents to be

more selective in timinq their fishing'to target desired species an'd in '

accommodating fishing with other economic activities.

TABLE 7

NUf4BER OF DAYS ON WHICH SALMON IJERE HARVESTED*

Number of Days on Which Harvest Occurred

Percentaqe of Percentaqe of Local Permits Non-Local Permits

(n = 82)"" (n = 53)**

1 12%

2 18%

3 - 10 54%

11 - 30 14%

100%

47x

25%

2fl%

7 0, 1

100%

* As reported on 1980 permit.

** Number of permits returned indicating specific days on which harvest occured.

The differences in catch composition for each group are illustrated

in Tahle 8. The two qroups harvested similar nunhers of sockeye per per-

mit. Local fishermen harvested qreater numbers of the other species, parti-

cularly kinqs and cohos. This occurred in part because local residents fish-

ed over a lonqer period of time, while non-local fishermen concentrated

their fishinq durinq a shorter time. Differences also may reflect diffe-

rences in preferences for species.

Local fishermen obtained 54 percent of the subsistence permits is-

sued for the Naknek River in 1980. Local and non-local permit holders

returned their harvest reports at the end of the season in similar pro-

-15-

.

portions (Table 9). However, local permit holders were far more likely

to fish than non-local permit holders, Of the 224 permits on which salmon

were reported, 63 percent were from local participants, while 36 percent

were non-local (Table 9). Table 10 compares the harvests of local and

TABLE 8

COMPOSITION OF LOCAL ANI-I NON-LOCAL RESIDENT'S CATCHES IN THE 1980 SUBSISTENCE FISHERY

Mean Number of Salmon Reported Harvested Per Permit and Percentaqe of Harvest

Species Local Residents

Kinq 6.6 9%

Non-local Residents

2.8 4.5%

Sockeye 52.7 74% 51.3 82.0%

Chum 2.7 4" IO 1.8 3.0%

Pink 6.5 9% 5.1 8.0%

Coho 2.9 4% 1.2 2.0% - -

Total 71.4 1nflq: 62.2 ll-lO%

non-local fishermen in 1980. Local fishermen accounted for 66.5 percent

of the total salmon catch, while- non-local fishermen harvested 33.5 per-

cent. Local fishermen cauqht 80 percent of the kinqs and cohos taken.

TABLE 9

1980 SUBSISTENCE PERMITS

Number of Permits Issued Local

212 Non-local

151

Percentaqe of total (58%) (42%)

Number of Permits Returned 170 114

Percentaqe of total (80%) (75%)

Number which reported not fishing from returned permits 28 32

Percentaqe of total (17%) (2B%)

Total 363

284

224

-16-

.

TABLE 10

SPECIES COMPOSITIT)N OF LOCAL ANIl NON-LOCAL CATCHES, 1980

Total Species

King

Socke.ye

ChUl-!l

Pink

Coho

Total

Local Harvest Non-local Harvest (n = 142) (n = 82) Total

.

944 (80%) 232 (213%) 1,176

7,480 (64%) 4,209 (26%) 11,689

389 (73%) 145 (27%) 534

928 (69%) 424 (31%) 1,352

410 (8O:J) 105 (20%) 515

10,151 (66.5%) 5,115 (33.%) l!i ,266

Preservation Techniaues

Table 11 summarizes the methods used to preserve salmon by local and

non-local fishermen. There is a siqnificant difference in the pattern of

preservation methods. Local fishermen tend to preserve their fish in a

larqer variety of ways than do the non-local participants. Fifty percent

of the non-local sample reported usinq only one or two preserving methods,

while most local residents use three of more methods. The freezinq method

was was used most frequently used by both groups. Smokinq was almost

as frequently used as freezinq by local fishermen but used by a little

over half of non-local fishermen. It is customary for older lonq-term

fami1.y members to dry fish and to distribute it throuqhout their extended

fami1.y. Saltinq and pickling are two techniques commonly used toqether.

Picklinq came with Scandinavian fishermen who settled in the area in the

early 1900s. It is a popular item at local celebrations such as weddings

and community suppers. Dryinq was reported only b.v local fishermen.

-17-

TABLE 11

PRESERVATION METHODS IISED BY PARTICIPANTS IN NAKNEK RIVER SUBSISTENCE FISHERY

Preservation Method

Freezinq

Smoking

Canning

Saltinq

Pickling

Dry i n q

Percentaqe of Households Usinq Each Method of Preservinq Salmon

Non-Local (n = 35) Local (n = 73)

80% 92%

57% 89%

54% 78%

29% 5c?l

20” .o 58%

0% 18%

Distribution and Sharinq of Salmon

Both local and non-local fishermen reported qivinq salmon to

relatives and friends. A hiqher proportion of the residents of the

Naknek River area are involved in networks of distribution. As Table

12 shows, 91 percent of the local fishermen reported sharing salmon

compared with GO percent of the non-local respondents.

TARLE 12

PATTERNS OF DISTRIBUTION BY LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL PARTICIPANTS

Local Non-local n = 74 n = 35

Percentaqe of Households Reportinq Givinq Salmon Away 91% 60X

Mean tlumher of Classes of People To Whom Salmon Were Given* 2.7 1.3

*Includes the follo\Jinq cateqories: famil,v, parents, in-laws, brother,

-18-

Loca 1 partit cinants also tended to share salmon with a qreater ranqe

children, qrandparents, aunt, uncle, cousin, older non-relatives, friends, co-workers, and church.

of relatives

reported qiv

did non-local

and friends than did non-locals. Table 12 shows that locals

nq salmon to people in twCce as many social cateqories'as

S. This appears to reflect basic differences in patterns

of soci,l orqanization and residency. Local participants tend to have

a qreater nunber of relatives livinq nearby, and exchanqes of salmon are

an important part of their relationships. Non-local households tend

to he comprised of nuclear families with fewer relatives nearb,y.

Local participants exchanqe salmon on a reqular hasis and in sub-

stantial numbers. Local customs involve consistent use of salmon throuqh-

out the year for such purposes as weddinqs, Lenten meals, servinq visitors

and supplyinq fish to extended family members. These exchanqes involve sal-

mon preserved or prepared in a wide variety of ways, as reflected hy the

ranqe of preservation methods in Table 11. The exchanges of fish and fish

products occur most frequently amonq extended family qroups. Non-locals

reported sharinq their salmon \*lith a more limited number of relatives,

particular1.y parents and immediate fami1.y. Limited sharinq with friends

also was reported. The types of products exchanqed are of a more restricted

variety: frozen and canned fish were the two most frequently exchanqed

products.

Summar.y

In summary, there are certain notable differences between the patterns

of salmon use by local and non-local participants in the Naknek River

subsistence salmon fishery. The most obvious difference is the continuous,

year-round association hetkleen local users and local resources and the

-19-

reflection of these in local social relationships. Non-local users come

to the Naknek River area for a short time, harvest their salmon, and take

it hone to use and share with a community of people physically removed

from the resource source.

The two qroups also differ in the'numbers of fish they take and the

composition of their catches. Salmon catches per permit are hiqher for

local participants. Local residents harvest a hiqher percentaqe of kinqs,

cotlos, chums, and pinks, while non-local catches show a hiqher percentaqe

of the most abundant species, sockeye. Local participants fish over a

much lonqer neriod of time than non-local fishermen, who catch most of

their fish during the peak of the sockeye run.

Local participants preserve and share their fish in a qreater variety

of ways than do non-local users. The characteristics that distinquish local

users have developed over years of association with the Naknek River and

its salmon resource. As new families come to the area, they tend to he-

come inteqrated into this system throuqh participatinq with earlier ar-

rivals in harvest and processing activities and distribution networks.

-2o-