Subsistence Salmon Schedules on the Yukon River in Alaska:

Cross-cultural communication and resource allocation

Jennifer Orlick

2005

University of California at Santa Cruz, CA

Prepared for an Internship with the

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska

Submitted to the Environmental Studies Department in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Bachelor of Arts Degree.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract iv

Preface v

Acknowledgements viii

1. Introduction 1

2. Methods and Data Collection 3

3. Biology and Management of Salmon on the Yukon River 5

4. History of Salmon Fishing and Management on the Yukon River 11

5. Significance of Chinook and Chum Salmon Population Crashes from 20 1998 - 2001 6. The Implementation of Subsistence Salmon Schedules 33

7. Institutional Structure Regarding Fishing Policies on the Yukon River 39

8. Working Group Responses to Windowed Schedules 45

9. Sport Fishing and Area M: Public Input and Its Affects in Two Cases 55

10. Management of Subsistence and Consequences of Subsistence Schedules 64

Thus Far 11. Discerning Impacts and Trends in Subsistence Practices Over Time 72

12. Conclusion 76

Bibliography 81

Appendix A: List of Interviewees 88

Appendix B: State Fishing Districts Along the Yukon River 99

Appendix C: Federal Fishing Districts Along the Yukon River 90

iii

List of Tables Table 1. Summer Chum Management Plan for 2004 8

Table 2. Fall Chum Management Plan for 2004 9

Table 3. Timeline of Major Events 12

List of Figures Figure 1. Yukon River Chinook Salmon Canadian Harvest 21 and Escapement 1982 – 2004 Figure 2. Summer Chum Salmon Pilot Station Passage for 1995 – 2004 21

Figure 3. Fall Chum Salmon Pilot Station Passage for 1995 – 2004 22

iv

Abstract

Subsistence salmon fishing schedules were implemented as a standard regulation for the Yukon River in 2001. This form of fishing management sets time frames along the coastal and middle reaches of the Yukon River in Alaska when salmon may not be harvested for subsistence uses. Regions closer to Canada are unrestricted because of the low numbers of salmon generally available to them. Salmon subsistence schedules were the result of State management taking action in response to Chinook and chum salmon population crashes in the years of 1998 – 2001, which remain largely unexplained. The subsistence schedules are currently being contested by the rural fishers who are restricted culturally and temporally by them. Subsistence users along the Yukon River are segregated into management regions that often coincide with pre-existing cultural barriers. Perspectives about the benefits or detriments of the subsistence schedules differ between regions and on a more general level between the public and the State and Federal fisheries managers. More informal communication forums are needed for subsistence users and government personnel to clearly understand regulatory language and the implementation of restrictions. Restrictions must be evaluated thoroughly to determine the best solution to upholding conservation and allowing subsistence cultures to thrive. This may include placing more closed fishing periods during the week, when rural users may be less likely to fish on their own. Communication is key in a situation where there are numerous stakeholders with conflicting views over a shared resource.

v

Preface

My interest in Alaska began in Dennis Kelso’s Alaska seminar class in winter quarter

of 2004 at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Dennis Kelso was a professor of

Environmental Studies at the university and had served the State of Alaska as

Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, Deputy Commissioner for Fish and

Game, and Director of the Division of Subsistence Hunting and Fishing in his past. He

co-taught the class with Jenny Anderson, the department’s Field Program Coordinator. I

became intrigued with environmental issues that crossed political, ecological, and cultural

boundaries in this class. I learned that Alaska is a place where such topics are still being

processed amongst user groups such as Alaskan Natives, who have maintained some

authority over their resource use. It was amazing to learn about the different ways that

Alaskan Natives’ authority and government interests corresponded or differed. I became

particularly interested in subsistence issues and resource allocation amongst users. I

wondered how conflicting views of land use were resolved amongst various stakeholders

in a seemingly polarized system of government and user interests. I was prompted to

explore Alaska for myself.

The lecture course had an associated field course to Alaska during the summer of

2004. Our class met with many academic and social figureheads involved with current

environmental issues in Alaska. I decided to pursue a senior project regarding

subsistence use after completing the summer field course. The course had inspired a

growing interest in environmental issues that incorporated a social aspect.

Dennis Kelso then referred me to Taylor Brelsford, an anthropologist working for the

Bureau of Land Management in Anchorage, Alaska. He informed me of a current

vi

conflict regarding subsistence salmon fishing regulations along the Yukon River

drainage. He suggested that I sort out the various stakeholders in the issue, research

regulation and communication forum history, discuss cultural aspects of subsistence

management, interview selected people, and write a summary of actions taken to date. I

was enthralled with the project assignment and have incorporated it into my

environmental studies and anthropology double major so that my senior thesis will cover

both the environmental and cultural aspects of this issue.

The project has helped me to explore different methods of gathering information. I

have found the interview process to be a dynamic and vital source of reference material.

It has provided me with a greater understanding of how to approach the study of a topic

when stakeholders hold differing views. I have come to rely on interviews as a necessary

supplement to my physical documents in order to give them context. Interviews have

also helped me to filter information so that I am more aware of what is most pertinent.

This has aided the process of evaluating the perspective of each stakeholder and has made

me more critical when comparing sources. I now feel more capable as a researcher and

more competent as a social scientist for having had the opportunity to look closely at a

complex issue.

The report is organized firstly by presenting an introduction to the subsistence

schedules. It then reflects on the methodology used in gathering research. The ecology

and management of salmon are explored in Biology and Management of Salmon on the

Yukon River. A general overview of the importance of salmon to the communities in this

region is the subject of History of Salmon Fishing and Management on the Yukon River.

Salmon fisheries management during the years of poor runs leading to the

vii

implementation of subsistence salmon schedules are outlined in Significance of Salmon

Species Population Crashes from 1998 – 2001. I then delve into the policy formation

involved with the subsistence salmon fisheries windows. Stakeholders with interests and

clout in the subsistence window conflict are discussed in Institutional Structure

Regarding Fishing Policies on the Yukon River. The Implementation of Subsistence

Salmon Schedules explains the basic intent of the windowed schedules and their

methodology for stabilizing salmon escapements and spreading out subsistence harvests.

Some of the results and commentary from stakeholders are analyzed in Consequences of

Windowed Salmon Subsistence Schedules Thus Far. Understanding Rural Communities

looks at some of the social complexities that exist in rural communities along the Yukon

River drainage and addresses recent trends in subsistence practices. The Conclusion

section gives some personal analysis of the situation at present and offers some

suggestions for more cooperative and inclusive dual management in the future.

viii

Acknowledgements

I must thank my advisors Dennis Kelso, Jenny Anderson, and Triloki Pandey for

helping me to realize the academic growth I have experienced through the completion of

this project. I thank Denny and Jenny for showing me the amazing opportunities Alaska

has to offer. Taylor Brelsford has been my absolute guiding light through the details of

this project, which has turned into something far greater than I envisioned. I give special

thanks to Jerry Berg and Tracy Lignau for providing me with added material and for

being very helpful with my queries. Additional special thanks go to Benjamin Fernandez

for the help in editing. I also give thanks to all of my interviewees for helping me to

understand this issue more fully.

ix

1

1. Introduction

“It was imposed on us, just like the schools.” Mary Gregory, RAC representative 2005 “If people on the river are willing to live with it, the regulators are not going to change it. If there is a push to change it from users, [and they] raise their voices loud enough, it will probably be changed.” Jerry Berg, Federal biologist for the Yukon River 2004 These two quotes illustrate the complexity involved in resolving a current subsistence

management regime conflict along the Yukon River in Alaska. Salmon subsistence windows

were implemented as a standard regulation for the Yukon River in 2001. This form of

fisheries management set time frames along the coastal and middle reaches of the Yukon

River when salmon were not to be harvested for subsistence uses. Windowed subsistence

schedules were the result of State and Federal management taking action in response to

Chinook and chum salmon population crashes in the years of 1998 – 2001. The subsistence

schedules are currently being contested by the rural fishers who are restricted culturally and

temporally by them.

The opinion reflected by Mary Gregory reveals a serious undertone taken by some rural

residents who feel that the windowed regulations are a projection of the colonial powers of

State and Federal agencies upon subsistence users. Jerry Berg shares an opinion that some

fisheries managers support, which is that user input is taken seriously and will shape

regulation in a meaningful way. These somewhat opposing views of power structure are

exemplary of the actions taken by management and subsistence users as this issue has

progressed. Complications in the relationship between governing bodies and subsistence

users can be partly examined through the proposals set forth by the Association of Village

Council Representatives and Tanana Chiefs Conference in 2004. These proposals requested

what would have been redundant regulatory language changes. The proposed redundancies

2

implied a lack of understanding and communication between subsistence users and

government agencies. These more broad trends in relations amongst stakeholders denote

shared conservation goals, but differing ideals of subsistence. The importance of salmon and

the necessity for salmon population viability is undisputed. The means toward resolving

conservation concerns through cooperation and coalescence amongst all stakeholders

remains an open area of conflict.

3

2. Methods and Data Collection

I began my preliminary research during fall quarter of 2004. This consisted of weekly

meetings with my advisors, background reading, and planning field research trips for the

winter of 2004/2005. Jenny Anderson and Dennis Kelso gave me guidance toward the type

of field research that would be most appropriate for conducting my study. This was further

collaborated with Taylor Brelsford, who gave me the necessary background material to

properly understand the current management regime of windowed subsistence fishing. I

contacted relevant persons who were recommended by Taylor Brelsford and arranged

meeting times with them for the winter dates. The persons were representative of different

organizations and agencies within State, Federal, and user groups. I gained background

information during the fall in order to prepare for my Alaska trips by reading through

Regional Council meeting transcripts and studying subsistence schedules from prior years.

This helped me to gain an idea of how the conflict regarding subsistence fishing windows

had evolved since 2001 and gave me a starting point with which to identify key players.

My fieldwork consisted of two trips to Alaska which took place from December 13-21,

2004 and from January 2-11, 2005. The trips gave me the opportunity to interview key

individuals involved with the policy formation and communication forums involved with

subsistence windowed fishing schedules, such as: Tanana Chiefs Conference, the Yukon

River Drainage Fisheries Association, and the Association of Village Council Presidents.

My December trip consisted of ten personal interviews and two phone interviews (see

Appendix – Interviewee List). These were done in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The main

purpose of the January trip was to observe the Federal Subsistence Board meeting in

Anchorage. I also obtained three more personal interviews and one more phone interview.

4

Interviews were done in an informal manner, although certain topics concerning the

background of the health of salmon stocks, decisions leading to the windowed subsistence

schedule, and relationships between stakeholders were covered regardless of the interviewee.

I continued intensive follow-up research during winter quarter of 2005. I gathered

supplementary materials from the Federal subsistence archives in Anchorage, found relevant

articles through newspaper databases, and transcribed interviews. These sources were sorted

into chronological categories based on stakeholder group and topic. I then assembled a

working history of subsistence windowed fishing regulations and sorted each stakeholder’s

position into a framework with which to understand the overall conflict. Transcribed

interviews were analyzed and compared to determine gaps in information. Interviewees were

contacted at this time for supplemental questions when necessary.

Transcripts of the audio files for the interviews (general guides, not verbatim) and the

audio files on CD are available at the Bureau of Land Management headquarters in

Anchorage, Alaska.

5

3. Biology and Management of Salmon on the Yukon River

A. The Unique Biological Role of Salmon

The full extent of the Yukon River runs 1900 miles through Alaska and Canada (Russ

Holder, pers. comm. 2004). The Alaskan portion of the Yukon River is 1200 miles long and

it covers 40 villages on the Alaskan side alone (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004). Salmon have a

vital part in the history and modern political atmosphere of this region. They are an

important aspect of Alaska Native subsistence culture and remain a pertinent food source for

rural Alaskans in general (KNA 2001). Salmon have also historically supported and continue

to support significant economic activities throughout the Yukon River region for Alaska

Natives and non-native peoples (Kron 2001). Chinook fisheries along the Yukon once

generated $10 million a year (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). Single fish were worth up

to $100 (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004).

Salmon have shaped many of the interactions between humans and nature along the

Yukon River. They continue to serve as a focal point for political struggles over resource

allocation and subsistence determinations. Their unique biology is shaped by and contributes

to the complex ecology of their habitat. Salmon have become vital to local cultures and

continue to mold government regulations in some of the most pristine salmon habitats left in

the U.S., if not the world (Montgomery 2003).

Salmon species share some basic characteristics that make their role as a food source

unique. All salmon species are anadromous (Montgomery 2003). This means that they

spend some part of their lives in the ocean, although they are born and die in freshwater

streams. The fact that a large portion of a salmon’s life is spent in the ocean holds significant

implications for their ecological role on land. Newly hatched salmon may spend years in

6

local streams and develop into behaviorally-distinct groups based on species. Young salmon

(fry) then travel out to sea where they gain 90% of their weight over a period of one to four

years (Montgomery 2003). The ocean nutrients are also vital for terrestrial and freshwater

organisms that depend on salmon when they return. Pacific salmon generally return to their

home streams to spawn and die (Montgomery 2003).

Spawning is followed by imminent death for Pacific salmon (Montgomery 2003). The

nutrients gathered in the open ocean are thus transferred to the spawning grounds. Many

freshwater and terrestrial organisms rely on salmon carcasses for sustenance (Willson and

Halupka 1995). More than 90% of the nitrogen found in Alaskan brown bears has been

traced to oceanic sources (Montgomery 2003). Salmon have been suggested to be keystone

species in some terrestrial communities (Willson and Halupka 1995). This indicates that

salmon are vital for the interactions inherent in the ecology of a region (Willson and Halupka

1995). Salmon certainly fulfill this role for the people of the Yukon River drainage.

There are five species of Pacific salmon that are recognized by ADFG as being native to

Alaska, not counting steelhead or cutthroat trout (ADFG 2005a). These are: Chinook or king

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye or red salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho or

silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink or humpback salmon (Oncorhynchus

gorbuscha), and chum or dog salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). They are biologically distinct

from one another and have evolved to become separate species mainly through geographic

isolation and physiological changes associated with spawning (Montgomery 2003). Each has

its own distinct size, shape, and spawning seasons during the year (Montgomery 2003).

Several of these salmon species are common to the Yukon River region: chum salmon, coho

salmon, and Chinook salmon (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004). Chinook are the largest and can

7

grow up to 100 pounds, while coho and chums average around 10 pounds each (Montgomery

2003). These different species have been organized into more general categories to provide

for easement of management along the Yukon River.

Salmon are vital to rural communities along the Yukon River and must be protected to

reach their spawning grounds for its entire length (Russ Holder, pers. comm. 2004). Chum

salmon runs have two distinct temporal components, and these are treated separately for the

purposes of management: summer chum salmon and fall chum salmon (Tracy Lignau, pers.

comm. 2004). Chum salmon are separated in this way to ease the pressure on the inseason

managers so that there is a summer inseason fisheries manager and a fall inseason fisheries

manager (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004, Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). Separating the

chum run in the middle of the summer also aids management by including Chinook salmon

with summer run chums and coho salmon with fall run chums. This makes the management

organization distinct.

Salmon runs are managed to allow for: escapement, subsistence, fulfillment of the

Canadian salmon agreement (see Canadian Escapement), commercial, and personal use

interests (Catherine Moncrieff, pers. comm. 2004, Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004).

Escapement, or spawning escapement, refers to the estimated size of the portion of the run

able to return to spawning grounds in a given year (ADFG 2001). The quality of salmon

escapement may be judged based on a number of factors, including: sex ratio of the incoming

salmon, age composition, initial timing of entry into the river, and distribution throughout

their spawning habitats upon entry (ADFG 2001). There are basic numeric goals for

escapement designated to each salmon species per year, above which other uses (subsistence,

commercial, etc.) may be considered (ADFG and USFWS 2001). Escapement goals are

8

meant to provide for sustained yield (ADFG 2001). A sustained salmon yield is a defined

yield of salmon that can be maintained throughout time, generally if escapement goals are

met year after year. Healthy salmon stocks are considered to be those that meet escapement

goals for each year and maintain a surplus in population which may be allocated to harvest

(ADFG 2001). Subsistence use refers to the non-commercial harvest of rural residents under

the Federal definition in Title VIII of ANILCA (Hull and Leask 2000). Commercial and

personal uses are authorized only when there are enough salmon in a given run per year per

species to cover escapement, subsistence, and the Canadian agreement for salmon passage

(Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004).

Management plans incorporate run size assessments in order to decide which uses are

most suitable for salmon allocation. The size determinations for summer and fall chum are

listed in Tables 1 and 2. Chinook salmon runs as of 2004 were not given formal size

classifications for use (ADFG and USFWS 2004). They are managed during the fishing

season to determine the best course of action.

Table 1. Summer Chum Management Plan for 2004

Projected Run Size Actions Below 600,000 No directed fishing by any user. Exceptions are made for

subsistence fishing in areas expected to meet escapement 600,000 to 700,000 Limited subsistence fishing. No directed commercial, sport, or

personal use fishing. 700,000 to 1 million Board of Fisheries subsistence schedule. No river-wide directed

commercial, sport, or personal use fishing. Fishing may be allowed if the particular area is expected to meet escapement.

Greater than 1 million Directed fishing for all users. ADFG and USFWS 2004

9

Table 2. Fall Chum Management Plan for 2004

Projected Run Size Actions Below 300,000 No directed fishing by any user. Exceptions are made for

subsistence fishing in areas expected to meet escapement 300,000 to 500,000 Variable subsistence fishing. No directed commercial fishing.

Personal use and sport fishing may be allowed if the particular area is expected to meet escapement and subsistence harvest needs.

500,000 to 600,000 Schedules return to the pre-2001 subsistence fishing schedule. River-wide personal use fishing. Sport-caught fish may be kept. Commercial fishing may be allowed if the specific area is expected to reach their escapement goal and subsistence needs.

Greater than 600,000 Directed fishing for all users. ADFG and USFWS 2004

B. Canadian Escapement Agreement

The US Canada Treaty regarding Pacific Salmon establishes an escapement and harvest

agreement between the Alaskan and Canadian sides of the Yukon River. This agreement has

been forged from 16 years of meetings between First Nations in Canada, Alaskan user

groups, and U.S. and Canadian fisheries managers (Dan Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004, Jill

Klein, pers. comm. 2004). It is generally believed by managers that the first salmon reaching

the mouth of the Yukon River are Canadian-bound (Dan Bergstrom, per. comm. 2004).

These are managed conservatively in a similar manner as salmon meant for the upper Yukon

River.

Users in Canada are also involved with the sharing of run information. They have been

represented on YRDFA teleconferences since 2002 (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). The

US/Canada Yukon River Panel agrees upon restricted harvests and escapements in years of

poor runs (ADFG and USFWS 2004). The spawning escapement for Chinook salmon was

initially set at 28,000 for 2001 (ADFG and USFWS 2001). This was adjusted in lieu of

extraordinarily poor runs to allow for a subsistence harvest for Alaskan and Canadian fishers.

10

It was lowered to 18,000 salmon for escapement with an agreement that subsistence users

would harvest no more than half of their average yield (ADFG and USFWS 2001). The

US/Canada Yukon River Panel agreed to a rebuilding escapement goal of 28,000 Chinook

salmon in 2004 (ADFG and USFWS 2004). This year also included an escapement

agreement for fall chum salmon, which was set at 65,000 fish (ADFG and USFWS 2004).

An agreement with Canada shows that managers and subsistence users are communicating

to ensure the health of salmon stocks throughout their entire range. It acknowledges the fact

that salmon are not restricted by international borders just as they are not restricted to State or

Federal designations. This process also addresses the notion of a shared resource. Salmon

are essential for the well-being of many users and cultural practices along their route in the

Yukon River and must be protected through treaties, legislation, and regulations. Having a

vested interest in salmon conservation throughout the extent of the Yukon River can help

build a broader awareness for local residents and fisheries managers by expanding the area

within which salmon must be taken into account.

11

4. History of Salmon Fishing and Management on the Yukon River:

A. Events Leading to Present Day Fisheries Management

Salmon have been and continue to be a vital resource for Alaskan peoples. The history of

salmon use and management related to subsistence practices is located in an abbreviated

format in Table 3. Alaska Natives utilized an entirely subsistence lifestyle prior to European

contact. This included the use of wicker fish traps, hook and line, spears, fish fences, and

nets made of natural fibers (Kron, 1999). Standards for harvest were set in place through the

ethical principles of elders in villages for an estimated 14,000 years before Western contact

(Kron 1999). Salmon populations throughout Alaska naturally fluctuated in numbers during

this time (Montgomery 2003).

Trends in climate have affected salmon populations and subsistence cultures in response

to their reliance on salmon in more recent times. Salmon population changes have been

observed to occur in association with temperature oscillations. Warmer temperatures in the

northeastern Pacific before 800 A.D. are comparable with lower salmon populations in

Alaska at this time (Montgomery 2003). Subsequent cooling of waters in this region based

on glacial advances in southeastern Alaska is associated with a rise in salmon populations.

This corresponds with an increase in the populations of Alaska Natives after 1200 A.D. and a

heightened reliance on salmon as a resource, perhaps as a result of salmon abundance

(Montgomery 2003).

Alaska Native autonomy over local resources along the Yukon River and elsewhere in

Alaska began to change with Russian exploration in 1741, which was soon followed by

colonization (Kron 1999). The constant presence of a foreign market led to the creation of

permanent fur trading camps on the Yukon River. Dried salmon was also bartered and traded

12

Table 3. Timeline of Major Events

Pre-1741 – Rural communities operate by subsistence technologies and utilize salmon extensively along the Yukon River. 1741 – First Russian exploration occurs and is shortly followed by colonization, permanent fur trading, and dried salmon bartering. 1876 – US purchases Alaska from Russia. 1898 – First commercial fisheries are created on Yukon River. 1919 – First Federal commercial fishing regulations. 1925-1931 – Commercial fisheries operating for the purposes of export are closed on the Yukon River. 1934 – Quotas for Chinook salmon are set at 100,000 per year. 1940 – Management changes hands from the Bureau of Fish to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 1959 – Alaska gains statehood and the State takes over fisheries management soon thereafter. 1960 – Temporal limitations of six days per week are instated along the Yukon River. 1961 – Commercial harvest limitations are removed for the lower Yukon River and are replaced with four day per week schedules. Subsistence restrictions are instated. 1974-1977 – Sale of salmon roe from subsistence catch is legalized along the Yukon River. 1971 – Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) brings settlement of native claims, but does not give specific language to subsistence rights. 1980 - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) establishes priority for subsistence, defined as “customary and traditional uses” in rural Alaska. 1989 - McDowell v. State of Alaska determines that the subsistence priority granted in ANILCA is contradictory to the state constitution. This is shortly followed by Federal dual management for fish and wildlife. 1990 – The Federal Subsistence Board is created to oversee subsistence management on Federal lands in Alaska. October 1999 – The Federal subsistence program expands to include management over subsistence fisheries on all rivers and lakes in National Refuges, Parks, and Forests.

1998 – 2000 – Record low escapement for chum and Chinook salmon for the Yukon River. 2001 – Subsistence salmon schedules are implemented along the Yukon River.

13

at this time (Kron 1999). The market for dried salmon grew immensely after the United

States’ purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1876. Market growth was due to the influx of

missionaries, fur traders, and gold miners, combined with the expansion of the use of winter

dog teams as a form of transportation (Kron 1999). Dog teams required use of chums as a

source of food (Kron 1999). The importance of salmon as a market commodity for Alaska

only expanded as settlers arrived in coming years.

Gold mining interests brought an increase in the Alaskan non-resident population. This

simultaneously raised transportation needs and brought an influx of cross-cultural

interactions (Kron 1999). Commercial fisheries were formed on the Yukon in 1898,

although these were not surveyed for their harvest numbers until 1914 by the US Bureau of

Fisheries (Kron 1999). Subsistence fisheries were also first accounted for during this time.

It was estimated in 1918 that about 1,400,000 small (type not specified) salmon were utilized

for subsistence harvest along the Yukon River (Kron 1999).

The first commercial fishing regulations for the Yukon were instituted in 1919 by the

Federal government. This was in response to the continued growth of the dried salmon

industry, which by 1920 was reported to Congress to be the main source of economic activity

along the Yukon (Kron 1999). Commercial fisheries on the Yukon operating for the purpose

of export were closed from 1925 to 1931 to provide for the subsistence needs of rural

Alaskans living along the Yukon (Kron 1999). This closure included a provision for dried

salmon to be available for use as food for dog teams. Subsistence fishers were thus enabled

to continue to utilize a technology that was unavailable to them before Western contact.

Commercial closures were disputed by fishers due to the increased use of airplane

transportation instead of dog teams, which was assumed to decrease the subsistence need for

14

chum salmon as dog food. Commercial fisheries for export on the Yukon were reinstated in

1932 (Kron 1999).

The emergence of commercial fisheries along the Yukon River was followed by a

movement toward sound management that continues to evolve today. A commercial harvest

quota in 1934 was set at 100,000 Chinook salmon and then lowered to 50,000 in 1936 (Kron

1999). This reflects a time when conservation management was recognized as being

necessary. This was less than half a century after the formation of the first commercial

fisheries on the Yukon, indicating the need for stringent guidelines in a booming industry.

This mirrors conservation efforts in now defunct native salmon stocks such as those in New

England, where the first river conservation laws were put in place in 1709 (Montgomery

2003). This was less than a century after the arrival of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock and

only a century before salmon on the eastern coast would become rare (Montgomery 2003).

Authority over management was transferred from the Bureau of Fisheries to the Fish and

Wildlife Service in 1940. Management was radically altered in 1954 when three subdistricts

were formed along the Yukon and subsistence fishing was reduced to 5 ½ days a week

during the commercial salmon season (Kron 1999). The commercial Chinook salmon

harvest limit was simultaneously raised to 65,000. Raising commercial limits at the same

time as subsistence restrictions were set in place marks the beginning of a

subsistence/commercial struggle for harvest opportunity along the Yukon River. Heightened

fishing restrictions also note a gradual alteration in governing the Yukon from a standpoint of

economic development to one of balancing conservation concerns with commercial interests.

This would be challenged in the coming years by the Alaskan statehood movement and the

intense reaction to the non-local commercial fishing interests.

15

Alaska became a state in 1959 and the state government took control over fisheries

management in 1960 (Hull and Leask 2000). The newly formed Alaska Department of Fish

and Game thus gained responsibility over fish and game management (Kron 1999). The

Alaska state constitution included guidelines toward governing fisheries and wildlife. These

were outlined in Article VIII and called for a “…maximum use consistent with public

interest” (Section 1), the “…utilization of conservation…for the maximum benefit of people”

(Section 2), that the resource would be “…reserved to the people for common use” (Section

3), and that resources would be “maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to

preference among beneficial uses” (Section 4). These guidelines set the stage for ambiguity

in determining the harvest limits necessary to maintain a sustained yield, the weight to allow

public input in regulatory decisions, and what conservation measures to impose amidst the

types of uses allowed.

The first years of statehood dramatically altered commercial and subsistence fishing along

the Yukon River. Commercial harvest restrictions for Chinook salmon were eliminated

along the lower Yukon in 1961 and were replaced with 4 day per week commercial

schedules. Yearly harvest of Chinook grew to 119,664 on the Yukon as a result of the quota

liberalization (Kron 1999). Four subdistricts were formed along the Yukon in 1962 for easier

management of fisheries. A shorter subsistence schedule of four days per week was initiated

along the Yukon River to occur during the commercial season at this time (Kron 1999). The

next few years brought a growth in the use of snow machines rather than dog teams.

Subsistence needs for chum salmon presumably decreased as a result and commercial

restrictions on chums began to be lifted in 1967 (Kron 1999).

16

Allocation of fishing time and harvest amounts amongst user groups was of increasing

concern to fisheries managers. Organization of management became crucial since

conservation policies were complicated by run timing and geography. Yukon River

subdistricts were further segmented into six regions in 1974. All six Yukon subdistricts tied

commercial seasons with subsistence schedules (Kron 1999). The sale of chum salmon roe

taken from subsistence catch was legalized from the years of 1974 through 1977 along the

Yukon River (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004, Kron 1999). Harvest limits for

commercially caught salmon were subsequently raised (Kron 1999).

The years following 1975 marked a time of increased conservation concern in response to

a “tragedy of the commons” scenario. Fisheries managers heightened restrictions on

commercial and subsistence fishing. Commercial permits were subjected to “limited entry”

along the Yukon River beginning in 1976. Fish wheels used for commercial purposes were

prohibited at this time in the lower Yukon and subsistence fishing was closed along the

northern streams crossing the Dalton Highway. Commercial and subsistence fishing times

were greatly reduced along the Yukon River in 1977. Subsistence fishing concurrent with

commercial Chinook fishing was limited to 3 days per week and subsistence fishing during

the commercial chum season was reduced to 3 ½ days per week. Subsistence fishing time

was further limited in 1979 to three days a week during commercial chum activity on the

lower Yukon (Kron 1999).

B. The Creation of a Subsistence Priority

The 1970s brought heightened debate between State and Federal interests in terms of

developing a subsistence priority. This revolved around the allocation of lands to State,

17

Federal, and native groups at first (Norris 2002). The Federal passage of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 brought a settlement of native lands entitlements,

but not the thorough language necessary to respond to subsistence needs (Norris 2002). A

National Park Service document in 1972 outlined more specific cultural language pertaining

to subsistence needs. However, formal regulatory language addressing cultural importance

would not be realized for several years by the State and remains a somewhat unresolved issue

in subsistence policy today (NPS 1972, as cited in Norris 2002). Cultural determinations and

their weight in regulatory decisions are particularly noteworthy in the case of subsistence

windows (see Consequences of Windowed Subsistence Schedules Thus Far). Subsistence

needs were recognized as a rural determination through the State Subsistence Act of 1978

(Kron 1999). This granted rural subsistence users priority over fish and wildlife during times

of need. Rural residents were finally given the clout necessary to uphold their subsistence

practices despite commercial and personal use interests.

This set the stage for Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

(ANILCA) in 1980, which gives rural subsistence users a priority on fish and wildlife uses on

all Federal lands. It also defined subsistence as a “customary and traditional” practice by

“rural Alaskan residents.” This recognized the cultural aspects of a subsistence lifestyle

(Hull and Leask 2000). Many Alaskan residents, primarily sportsmen, fervently opposed the

subsistence designations as they were enforced in subsequent years (Norris 2002). A

cultural priority showed a vested interest by the Federal government in the values of use that

extended beyond economic pursuits. A Federal interest also meant that rural Alaskans could

rely on a more stable foundation for their subsistence priority than if this was maintained

only through the State. Title VIII allowed the Federal government to intervene if this priority

18

were not fulfilled by the State (Hull and Leask 2000). ANILCA effectively gave the

subsistence-based communities of rural Alaska a buffer for if and when the State failed to

uphold their responsibility over the rural determination priority. This ensured, in legislation,

that their cultural practices were going to be supported through management decisions in the

foreseeable future.

State regulations met Federal requirements and implemented the subsistence priority

under ANILCA during the 1980’s. Commercial fishing activity continued to grow and

conservation measures were slowly coming to speed (Kron 1999). Record commercial

harvests of 158,018 Chinook and 477,736 chums were caught in 1981 (Kron 1999).

Guideline harvest levels were set for commercial salmon for all Yukon area subdistricts in

1982 and lower Yukon commercial times were set by emergency order. Subsistence fishing

schedules were also set by emergency order during the commercial seasons for 1983 and

1984 (Kron 1999). Negotiations with Canada began in 1985 to discuss a set allocation of

salmon that would be allowed to pass the Alaskan portion of the Yukon for the use of First

Nations (Kron 1999). Summer chum commercial harvest hit a record high of 1,148,650 in

1988 (Kron 1999).

The rural subsistence priority granted in ANILCA, as implemented by the State, became

an area of controversy and was ultimately challenged in court. The Alaska Supreme Court

decision in McDowell v. State of Alaska in 1989 concluded that the rural designation of a

subsistence priority in ANICLA was inconsistent with the constitution of Alaska (Hull and

Leask 2000). The constitution did not authorize the State to use residence as a means for fish

and game allocation (Hull and Leask 2000). The Federal government stepped in shortly

thereafter to implement a rural subsistence priority on Federal lands as detailed in ANILCA

19

(Hull and Leask 2000). A Federal Subsistence Board was established to directly manage

rural subsistence hunting on Federal lands in Alaska in 1990 and Federal control of fisheries

occurred in 1999 (Hull and Leask 2000). Members of the Federal Subsistence Board

include: the Alaska Regional Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the Alaska

Regional Director for the National Park Service, the Alaska State Director for the Bureau of

Land Management, the Alaska Area Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Alaska

Regional Forester for the USDA Forest Service, and a Chair that is appointed through

consensus between the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture (DOA et al.

2001). The Board is responsible for deciding which Alaska residents are eligible for

subsistence harvest of certain species, setting harvest seasons, managing harvest limits, and

setting gear restrictions for specific areas and species (DOA et al. 2001). Dual management

has been in effect since 1990 to ensure that this occurs (see Institutional Structure Regarding

Fishing Policies on the Yukon River).

20

5. Significance of Chinook and Chum Salmon Population Crashes from 1998 - 2001

A. The Disaster Years

From the years of 1998 through 2000 there were a series of crashes in the runs of

Chinook, summer chum, and fall chum salmon (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004, see Figures

1,2, and 3). Escapement numbers in prior years that produced the runs of 1998-2000 were

average. The lowered numbers of salmon were not realized until their returns. Chinook

salmon on the Yukon River showed the lowest runs in 2000 since Alaskan statehood (ADFG

and USFWS 2001). Chinook salmon harvest (commercial and subsistence) was 70% below

the average of the previous 10 years, summer chum harvest was 86% below average, and fall

chum harvest was 93% below average (ADFG and USFWS 2001). The fact that these runs

immediately followed normal-sized runs and good escapements was most troubling for

managers (Daniel Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004, Russ Holder, pers. comm. 2004). Returning

Chinook salmon were described as having, “large heads and thin bodies” (Russ Holder, pers.

comm. 2004). It was a fisheries disaster that would have lasting effects on the subsistence

activities and management of the Yukon River.

Concern over the health and open sea conditions for salmon have been called into

question to discern the reasons for the population downturns of 1998 - 2000. This has led to

a number of explanations, ranging from marine environment scenarios to salmon-borne

diseases. Marine conditions have often been blamed for the crashes of salmon stocks since

users argue that habitat along the Yukon River remains pristine (Mike Smith, pers. comm.

2004, Jack Reakoff, pers. comm. 2005). The anadromous nature of salmon would leave only

the open ocean as a plausible source of detriment. A coccolithophore bloom in 1998 in the

Bering Sea has been cited for reduced runs by some (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004, Mike

21

Smith, pers. comm. 2004). Coccolithophores are a type of phytoplankton that have a calcite

outer casing (earthobservatory.nasa.gov 2001). Their calcium content and increased density

Figure 1. Yukon River Chinook Salmon Canadian Harvest and Escapement 1982 – 2004.

(ADFG and USFWS 2005)

Figure 2. Summer Chum Salmon Pilot Station Passage for 1995 – 2004.

(ADFG and USFWS 2005)

22

Figure 3. Fall Chum Salmon Pilot Station Passage for 1995 – 2004.

(ADFG and USFWS 2005)

during years of blooms are said to contribute to a murky ocean environment (Tracy Lignau,

pers. comm. 2004). Although these forms of phytoplankton are not a major food source for

salmon, they may have led to their malnourished appearance in the years of decreased runs.

Malnourishment would have occurred if salmon were either unable to find their food through

cloudy waters or if the coccolithophores blocked sunlight from reaching other nutritious

phytoplankton (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). The beneficial phytoplankton would then

not have been in sufficient quantities for salmon growth.

Salmon hatcheries have also been blamed for the poor runs (Mike Smith, pers. comm.

2004). Hatchery fry could have utilized food resources necessary to feed Yukon River

salmon. If open ocean nutrients are limited, the release of enough hatchery fry could throw

the availability of suitable food out of balance. Hatchery salmon would thus have the same

effect as coccolithophores in restricting the amount of food available for salmon bound for

the Yukon River (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004).

23

Others have pointed to an increase in incidence of the disease ichthyophonus (Russ

Holder, pers. comm. 2004, Virgil Umphenour, pers. comm. 2004). This is a virus most

common to Chinook salmon and seen primarily in larger females (Virgil Umphenour, pers.

comm. 2004). Fall chum have been carriers for the disease in some cases (Rod Simmons,

per. comm. 2004). It appears as white spots on the liver, spleen, and flesh of infected salmon

(Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004). The full affects of the disease are unknown, but as many as

30% of Chinook salmon females are infected with the disease. It is said to have a role in the

deaths of some Chinook females prior to reproduction, and proliferates in the infected salmon

more as they travel upriver. Although the disease does not make salmon dangerous for

human consumption, many users have chosen not to eat diseased fish (Jerry Berg, pers.

comm. 2004).

B. The First Steps Towards Sound Management

Population crashes for Chinook and chums from 1998 through 2000 necessitated an

immediate conservation strategy. Management would have to be altered in order to retain a

balanced allocation of resources and maintain a sustainable salmon population. A disaster

declaration was signed for the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Norton Sound regions on July 19,

2000 (Knowles 2000). Managers on the State and Federal sides struggled toward a sound

management plan that would help recover stocks and reduce the impacts of subsistence and

commercial closures.

Initial requests were made to end all incidental catch through restricting Area M and other

Bering Sea fisheries. The governor called for 100% observer coverage for all fishing activity

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) surrounding Alaska (Knowles 2000). He also

24

requested that all fisheries in the region share in the conservation responsibility involved with

salmon run strength. This would include the Bering Sea pollock trawling fleet, which had

already been restricted in 1999 for the conservation of Chinook salmon caught incidentally

(Knowles 2000, Allen 2000). The governor quoted the sustained yield principle and a

recognized subsistence priority as the guidelines ruling his decisions (Knowles 2000).

Similar arguments would be used in coming years ironically against some of the management

strategies borne of these implicit conservation and subsistence concerns.

Requests were also made for improved harvest assessment and an expansion of marine

ecological research by the Federal Office of Subsistence Management (OSM) (Allen 2000).

The drop in salmon run health was unanticipated and warranted a pursuit of information so

that a greater understanding of salmon life histories could be obtained. OSM suggested that

more research into incidental harvest be conducted in order to gain the necessary information

to determine its effects (Allen 2000). The concern over monitoring of salmon run health and

need for research would later be written into policy for the maintenance of sustainable

salmon fisheries (ADFG 2001). This document states that scientific research should assess

the current conditions of salmon habitat, the effects of proposed changes to salmon habitat,

any degrading environmental impacts on salmon health, and any decrease in salmon numbers

due to habitat loss (ADFG 2001).

Management of the 2000 season was complicated by unprecedented low runs and showed

a scramble toward a working conservation scheme. Some fisheries managers believe that

runs were low enough to have warranted full closure of all salmon fishing along the Yukon

River drainage (Dan Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004). Such stringent limitations were not

25

utilized and managers opted for a more gradual approach to restrictions. They were

implemented over time as runs proved to be poor.

Conservation measures for the Chinook and chum runs affected commercial and personal

use fisheries more than subsistence practices. There were only three commercial openings

for the lower Yukon and none for the upper river in 2000 (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

This led to some contention from public sources over the allocation of commercial

opportunities. Some rural residents argued that ADFG had not taken ample time to properly

discern run size before opening commercial fishing (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

Subsistence fishing remained unrestricted throughout the summer season of 2000 until

ADFG and the Federal Subsistence Board issued the first set of restrictions on August 11,

2000 (ADFG and FSB 2000a). The restrictions placed windowed subsistence fishing

schedules on Districts Y4 through Y6 (see Appendix C). District 4 and Subdistrict 5D were

allotted one 24 hour period per week and Subdistricts 5A, 5B, and 5C were given two 12

hour periods per week. More stringent restrictions were taken when run sizes continued to

dwindle throughout the summer and into the fall season. This decision was based on run

assessments by the State and Federal biologists who discerned that runs for Chinook and

summer chums were at critically low levels. The restrictions were also cautionary steps

toward conserving the fall chum run, which was predicted to be too low to fulfill escapement

goals and unrestricted subsistence harvests (ADFG and FSB 2000a).

Concerns over chum populations came to a head during the fall season. Fall chums were

especially low in run size during the 2000 season. Run sizes for were low enough when

chums began returning to warrant fear that escapement levels would not be met along the

26

Yukon River for fall chum (ADFG and OSM 2000a). This led to drastic measures that

restricted subsistence users in order to ensure the basic health of the fall chum populations.

ADFG sent a joint news release in conjunction with FSB on August 21, 2000 to close all

subsistence salmon fishing on the Alaskan portion of the Yukon River. This news release

was made public just two days before the closures were to go into effect (ADFG and FSB

2000b).

The closure presumably allowed the few chums that were returning to safely reach their

spawning grounds. Management went as far as to close the tagging projects of the Lower

Yukon Test Fishery and Rapids/Rampart in order to save fall chums (ADFG and FSB

2000b). Subsistence salmon fishing was later reopened in Districts 1, 2, 3, and Subdistrict

4A on September 11, 2000 (ADFG and FSB 2000c). This was primarily for the purpose of

harvesting coho salmon, which were noted to be in abundance at that time. Opening of

subsistence salmon fishing was staggered along the river. This allowed for the majority of

fall chum salmon to have passed through each region before subsistence fishing for coho

salmon and other fish was opened to local residents. This option could be bypassed if a

region utilized a method that minimized the amount of fall chum caught (ADFG and FSB

2000c). Non-salmon subsistence fishing was allowed during the summer and fall seasons of

2000, although some gear restrictions were implemented (ADFG and FSB 2000b).

The implementation of a subsistence salmon fishing schedule at the beginning of the fall

season of 2000 was a novel event in management history for Alaska (ADFG and FSB

2000b). Subsistence users were dramatically impacted through the low runs and fishing

closures that led to the windowed subsistence schedules. The subsistence salmon fishing

harvests of 2000 were markedly low for Chinook and summer chum salmon. Chinook

27

subsistence harvests were 30% below the prior 10 year average, summer chum harvests were

38% lower, and fall chum harvests were 85% below average (ADFG and FSB 2001).

Commercial harvests for all three categories of salmon were at least 90% lower than the

average for the prior decade. Management did not suggest complete subsistence closures in

the future, but stated that restrictions could be altered if poor returns continued (ADFG and

FSB 2000a). The consequences of actions taken by management up to this point had to then

be dealt with for the sake of stability for subsistence users.

The closure of subsistence fishing after there had been commercial openings during 2000

in the lower parts of the Yukon River complicated relations among rural communities.

Upriver communities were affected most by the subsistence closures since they had to wait

longer for salmon to reach their areas and were unable in some cases to meet their

subsistence needs (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). The lack of this portion of subsistence

users’ livelihood was a difficult subject with which the government had to contend. Some

Federal subsidies were given to regions that were unable to benefit from the commercial

fishing season and lacked in their subsistence harvests. This was accomplished under an

emergency declaration by the Governor. Senator Stevens has been noted as a helpful

political figure in this case because of his persuasive efforts to get emergency relief funds to

rural areas during years of low salmon runs (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004). Subsidies

were often given in the forms of low interest loans for commercial fishers, but these were not

completely suitable to users since there were not necessarily additional opportunities to repay

these debts (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004, Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004). Jobs in rural

communities along the Yukon River can be limited and the market for fall chum salmon no

longer exists in the middle Yukon River (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004).

28

Some harvest practices observed during the years of low runs concerned fisheries

managers. The lack of subsistence fishing restrictions at the beginning of the runs meant that

downriver Yukon River fishers fished at normal levels when there were fewer salmon in the

river (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004). There is generally more fishing pressure put on the

early portions of the Chinook and chum runs because of a high demand for fishers in the

lower river to get their fishing done early for the purposes of drying (Mary Gregory, pers.

comm. 2004). This could create an imbalance of salmon allocation wherein lower parts of

the river have earlier access and fish harder in the first portions of the run than do upriver

communities. More fish may be taken from the lower parts of the river in proportion to the

salmon run size during years of poor runs. The level of unrestricted fishing in the lower parts

of the Yukon River at the beginning of the summer season of 2000 thus had a far-reaching

effect since salmon were taken before they reached their spawning grounds (Russ Holder,

pers. comm. 2004). This limited the amount of fish that would return to upriver tributaries,

thus increasing the fishing difficulty for upriver communities. Closures for subsistence use

late in the season added to the difficulties upriver communities faced since they may have

still been waiting for salmon to reach their regions.

Several years of bad runs and lack of sound management in response finally came to a

head in January of 2001. Decisions made during the 2000 crashes served as unexpected

models of what was to come. It had been determined by the State that low escapements

could jeopardize future runs and keep communities from meeting their subsistence needs

(USDA and DOI 2001). Run sizes showed no indication of increasing for 2001 and parties on

government and user sides were greatly concerned (ADFG and OSM 2001, Mike Smith,

pers. comm. 2001). The State Board of Fisheries (BOF) identified Chinook and chum

29

salmon as stocks of concern for the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers in their January meeting

of 2001 (USDA et al. 2001). This gave the State a foundation for the more conservative

management which is today a semi-permanent windowed subsistence salmon fishing

schedule.

Unpredictably low runs since 1998 generated fear for the future (FSB 2001a). Managers

adopted a series of more cautious conservation measures for 2001. Subsistence was a

primary focus of continued management restrictions. Yukon River subsistence residents

were faced with a formal windowed salmon subsistence fishing schedule that was adopted by

the State Board of Fish in their January meeting of 2001 along with many other regulations

aimed toward salmon conservation (USDA et al. 2001, Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004, Rue

2001). The Federal Subsistence Board cooperated with the windows and insisted upon

supporting the State as a show of dual management (FSB 2001a). The Board also designated

a reduction of Yukon River subsistence harvests by half (FSB 2001a). Area M was given a

60% fishing time reduction (Rue 2001). The Yukon River Summer Chum Salmon

Management Plan was altered so that chum run size assessments were done during the season

rather than before. Rod and reel bag limits and other provisions were also to be set by the

State for the Yukon River. Sport and personal use fisheries were to be managed by

observing run sizes at the beginning of June to gauge the plausibility of sport and personal

use openings (Rue 2001).

A formal guide for the maintenance of sustainable salmon runs was written by the State in

2001 (ADFG 2001). It laid the groundwork for various aspects of salmon conservation,

including: increasing the information base of salmon runs and life history, assessing

detrimental sources of habitat and population loss, creating sound management for run

30

health, maintaining a specific level of harvest, and utilizing a precautionary approach in

management decisions when dealing with uncertainty in salmon population assessment

(ADFG 2001). More research was called for to ascertain the ecosystem functions of salmon

and the effects of fishing technology on salmon populations (ADFG 2001). Salmon

monitoring projects were specified to assess salmon populations and address substantial

abundance changes to aid management decisions. Habitat was also to be monitored and

judged based on its present condition and restoration activities (ADFG 2001). Management

plans were directed to have specific goals, measurable objectives, and uphold a strict

conservation regime that addressed any new or expanding sources of salmon harvest (ADFG

2001). The document also noted that salmon stocks were to be allocated for harvest based on

the maximum sustained yield (MSY) principle (ADFG 2001). This is the consistent

achievement of an escapement goal throughout time that provides for the maximum yield

possible from a salmon stock (ADFG 2001). The document states that MSY must be

approached by taking ecosystem functioning and scientific uncertainty into account. MSY is

reliant upon the precautionary approach.

A precautionary approach is called for when management decisions concern any salmon

mortality due to human causes, including harvest management (ADFG 2001). This approach

could be utilized to avoid detrimental results when regulation is planned. The document

explicitly stated that consideration should be taken toward the necessities of future

generations such that “irreversible changes” are avoided. It placed the priority of

management on protecting the “productive capacity” of salmon when the effects of salmon

harvests are uncertain (ADFG 2001). This ensures the viability of salmon stocks in a basic

and vital way. The document as a whole addressed many pressing concerns over

31

management organization for salmon conservation, but the Federal government took added

steps soon thereafter to protect subsistence harvests.

Responding to requests from local subsistence users, the Federal government then set

separate restrictions on non-subsistence fisheries. This was done despite actions that

members of the State felt were sufficient for conservation concerns (Rue 2001). The Federal

Board adopted a 60 day closure (the maximum length for a closure) to all but Federally-

recognized subsistence users on the Yukon River for Chinook and chum salmon from June 1

to July 30, 2001 (USDA et al. 2001). This meant that only rural users could practice

subsistence harvesting of salmon on Federally-managed waters in their area. The closure to

non-rural users was to be maintained until fall chum run sizes were assessed to be strong

enough for escapement and subsistence, which was announced on August 6, 2001 (Manning

2001). Commercial fishing was also closed on Federal waters while the subsistence

restrictions were in place (USDA et al. 2001). The State responded acridly to the proposal,

noting that no formal assessments had been made on the possible benefits of such an action

(Rue 2001). The restrictions adopted by the Federal Board also created dissidence between

State and Federal management. This was suggested to have possible repercussions for

implementing the regulations because of the patchwork jurisdictions of the Federal and State

governments (Rue 2001, Appendixes B and C).

It was noted in the USDA et al. (2001) release that the restrictions set in place for

management were exceptions to the guidelines set in place by the Subsistence Management

Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska. The previous regulations for subsistence had set

seasonal limits and gear methods for salmon harvest, which the proposed limitations would

alter. The release explained that the restrictions were necessary out of an emergency

32

situation that prompted changes to be made to the prior guidelines for 2001. However, not

all subsistence users were in support of the Federal impositions.

Some rural residents were concerned about the Federal restrictions with regards to their

subsistence cultures (Johnson 2001). The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)

commented that some rural users moved between villages and may maintain strong ties to a

region where they did not currently live (Johnson 2001). Families were also noted in

ANILCA as implicated in the sharing of subsistence uses and were an integral communal

aspect to subsistence practices. ANILCA defined families as being related through means

that may include persons living away from the rural home base. This indicated that even

family members living outside of rural areas should still be included in the subsistence

lifestyle of permanent rural residents (Johnson 2001). AVCP’s disagreement would not be

the last debate over the “customary and traditional” definition of subsistence in Yukon River

salmon fisheries management.

Despite the many actions taken by State and Federal fisheries managers to resolve the

complications of the salmon run crashes of 1998 – 2000, subsistence conflicts remain

ongoing battles. The subsistence salmon schedules have been the most dramatic regulatory

changes to emerge from the salmon crashes and remain in use today. These continue to be in

effect on the middle and lower reaches of the Yukon River. Their methodology towards

building sound conservation is questionable and remains in contest by many fishers and rural

residents. Their merit as a management tool may not be as easily disregarded, although

upholding the subsistence priority as defined in ANILCA remains an overarching issue. The

next sections will further explain their specifics and what some initial responses and ongoing

concerns have been.

33

6. The Implementation of Subsistence Salmon Schedules:

A. The Methodology Behind Subsistence Salmon Windowed Schedules

The general intent of a “windowed” schedule is to establish periods of time when there is

no fishing in a given area in order for fish to pass through unmolested (Tom Kron, pers.

comm. 2004). Fishing schedules were set to be more restrictive toward the coastal regions of

the Yukon River and more lenient or unlimited as the river approached Canada (FSB 2001a,

FSB 2001c). This pattern was based on the general abundance levels of fish throughout the

drainage, since fish become more dispersed as they reach their home tributaries (Daniel

Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004). These designations for 2001 are listed in Table 4. Recent

schedules have appeared similar, although salmon fishing in Subdistrict 5A will operate on

two 48 hour periods per week for 2005 (ADFG and FSB 2005).

Organization of the specific temporal limitations were kept rigid overall. Days of the

week for each fishing period were set before the season began and were kept standard for the

whole season (ADFG and USFWS 2001). The schedules were set to be lifted during the

season at times when run sizes were deemed sufficient to meet escapements and other uses

(FSB 2005). The lifting of windowed schedules along the Yukon River were mandated to be

staggered so that downriver communities were opened to unrestricted subsistence fishing

first (Daniel Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004). This allowed stocks of concern to pass through

lower areas first so that they can reach their spawning grounds without heavy fishing

pressures (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004). Management of the salmon runs as they reached

the Canadian border were based largely on data provided from the sonar data collected at

Pilot Station on the lower Yukon River and is used to estimate the speed at which salmon

travel. This has given managers an idea of when fish will reach their tributaries and when

34

users upriver can expect to see fish. Such information has been pertinent in cases where

lower communities have their schedules lifted before upriver communities have seen the first

pulses of salmon (Fred Bue, pers. comm.). Information on run timing has been used to

ensure upriver communities that salmon would reach their regions although residents may

not have seen salmon at the time.

B. Conservation Motivations for Subsistence Salmon Schedules

Windowed salmon subsistence fishing schedules were initiated to serve several purposes

and have been viewed differently in terms of effectiveness by stakeholders. The State Board

of Fish and the Federal Subsistence Board jointly initiated a windowed schedule in order to

have salmon escapements of better quality and have a more balanced distribution of

subsistence harvests throughout the drainage (FSB 2001a). The two governing agencies also

supported the same scheduling regulations as a means of decreasing confusion amongst users

about the dual governing system (FSB 2001a). They released public press announcements

that included the State’s restrictions for all subsistence users on Federal lands, as well as joint

formal schedules that combined Federal and State announcements (ADFG and USFWS 2001,

FSB 2001a).

Windowed fishing schedules dealt with one of the most important concerns over salmon

management: run size estimation. Managers implemented schedules at the beginning of the

salmon run seasons since information on run strength was scarce until fish entered the rivers

(Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2001). Fishing schedules effectively slowed the harvests of users in

the lower parts of the Yukon (Russ Holder, pers. comm. 2004, Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004)

35

so that managers were given enough time to discern whether run strength warranted further

restrictions or fewer (ADFG and USFWS 2001, Rue 2001). Salmon management could thus

Table 4. Subsistence Fishing Schedules for the Yukon River in 2001

Regions Fishing Schedules Days of the Week for Schedules District 1 Two 36 hour periods per week Mon. 8pm to Wed. 8 am and Th. 8 pm to Sat. 8am District 2 Two 36 hour periods per week Sun. 8 pm to Tue. 8 am and Wed. 8 pm to Fri. 8 am District 3 Two 36 hour periods per week Sun. 8 pm to Tue. 8 am and Wed. 8 pm to Fri. 8 am District 4 Two 48 hour periods per week Sun. 6 pm to Tue. 6 am and Wed. 6 pm to Fri. 6 am Subdistricts 5-B, C

Two 48 hour periods per week Sun. 6 pm to Tue. 6 am and Fri. 6 pm to Sun. 6 am

Subdistrict 5-A Two 42 hour periods per week Tue 6 pm to Thu. Noon and Fri. 6 pm to Sun. Noon District 6 Two 42 hour periods per week Mon. 6 pm to Wed. Noon and Fri. 6 pm to Sun.

Noon Old Minto Area 5 days a week Fri. 6 pm to Wed. 6 pm Coastal District 7 days a week All days for 24 hours a day Koyukuk River 7 days a week All days for 24 hours a day Subdistrict 5-D 7 days a week All days for 24 hours a day

(ADFG and USFWS 2001)

be implemented through a more precautionary method than it had been during years when

subsistence fishing occurred without restriction at first and was limited later in the season

(Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2001).

An additional effect on salmon conservation was using windowed schedules to affect

stock composition, or quality (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004). This pertains to the sex,

age, and length ratios of salmon stocks (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004, Sundlov et al.

2004). These ratios were the focus of the Tozitna River report of 2004. Weir escapement

projects measured the sex, age, and length ratios for salmon on the Tozitna River in the

Yukon River drainage (Sundlov et al. 2004). The project reported that these ratios had been

dramatically altered such that female-to-male ratios were biased toward more males being

present in the river. Older and larger females were observed to be at particularly low ratios

on the Tozitna River (Sundlov et al. 2004). These effects were suggested to be the cause of

36

exploitative fishing practices that targeted larger (thus older) females through the use of large

mesh gill nets in the lower river. However, baseline data had not been collected for

comparison and the results were the most dramatic in comparison with other weirs along the

Yukon. This suggests that other factors may be the cause of the affects noted in the Tozitna

Report. The findings nonetheless warrant more extensive study into the causes of differential

sex and age-class ratios as observed between weirs along the Yukon River.

Local knowledge provided by fishermen also supports the conclusion that sex ratios for

salmon are being skewed toward small males (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004). This could

have effects on genetic composition by removing the most mature reproductive components

of a breeding population (Sundlov et al. 2004). Some members of salmon management have

responded to concerns over these effects throughout the drainage and believe that windowed

subsistence schedules will help balance sex and age class ratios (Rod Simmons, pers. comm.

2004). They are hopeful that the windowed schedules have brought better quality fish to

areas where their numbers have dwindled or changed in composition in recent years (Rod

Simmons, pers. comm. 2004).

Conservation of the various pulses of salmon entering the river was also a pertinent goal

of windowed subsistence fishing. Having time periods when fishing was not permitted

allowed the various stocks of salmon entering the rivers to be less affected overall by fishing

practices (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2001). The first portion of each stock of salmon is

generally thought to be headed the farthest, but is simultaneously the most coveted part of the

salmon run for users (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2001). This may be due to the high

temperatures in early June needed for properly drying salmon that coincide with the first

pulses of the summer runs (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2004). Schedules allowed these

37

salmon to have a better chance of getting to their home spawning grounds without heavily

impacting large portions of the run.

The windowed subsistence salmon fishing schedules were brought forward by the State

and Federal managers, but not without input from different stakeholders. This occurred with

user input from rural residents who would be most affected by the schedules. However, the

extent to which users felt their needs being met through the windowed subsistence schedules

remains an area of some controversy. The Federal government worked in conjunction with

the State in 2001 to get user communication and cooperation with the windowed subsistence

schedules (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004). Village council representatives were compensated

for their travel expenses in order to collaborate over the proposed management strategies.

Representatives are said to have felt uncomfortable making decisions on behalf of their

communities and may have been reluctant in agreeing with management (Jerry Berg, pers.

comm. 2004). The eventual concord over the implementation of subsistence schedules was a

reflection of the conservation concerns surrounding the salmon shortfalls (Alex Nick, pers.

comm. 2004).

Some users from the middle and lower portions of the Yukon River believed the

subsistence windowed schedules were a short-term management tool until runs began

rebuilding (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004, Tim Andrews, pers. comm. 2004). This arose

from the implementation of the schedules during historically low runs as a conservation

measure, implying that normal run sizes would reduce the need for subsistence schedules.

Some believe the initiation of windowed schedules was a usurpation of power by the State

over that of rural users (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2004). Technical arguments about when

to impose and when to lift subsistence schedule restrictions have also been a major point of

38

disagreements and vocal actions by users to change regulations (see Working Group

Responses to Windowed Schedules). Rural subsistence users along the middle portions of

the Yukon River have expressed a sustained concern over the timing of lifting the subsistence

schedules and opening commercial fishing in the lower parts of the river (Mike Smith, pers.

comm. 2004). There are also arguments that the windowed subsistence schedule is not

conducive to rural subsistence lifestyles (see Consequences of Windowed Salmon

Subsistence Schedules Thus Far). These are ongoing struggles that actively test the

subsistence priority definitions and the feasibility of State and Federal management goals.

39

7. Institutional Structure Regarding Fishing Policies on the Yukon River:

A. ANILCA Framework and Basis for Regulations

There is currently a dual management system that operates in overseeing subsistence uses

in Alaska. The State manages fish and wildlife on all State and private lands and waters.

The Federal government exerts control over subsistence harvests on Federal lands and waters

(Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). A substantial amount of land in Alaska still belongs to the

Federal government. Congress gave about 104 million acres to the state of Alaska upon its

creation in 1959 and 44 million acres to Alaska Native groups through the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 (Hull and Leask 2000). The Federal government

retains control over 242 million acres, or about 60% of Alaska. Of this, 151 million acres

have been designated as national parks, refuges, and national forests (Hull and Leask 2000).

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 included a

provision that designated a rural subsistence priority be provided by the State on all state,

private, and Federal lands in Alaska, provided the state comply with key requirements of the

Federal law (FSB 2005). This gave rural residents a designated priority over commercial and

sport users of fish and wildlife throughout the state (Hull and Leask 2000). The Alaska

Supreme Court decided in 1989 that the “rural designation” required in ANILCA was in

contradiction with the constitution of Alaska and removed the term from the State definition

of subsistence use (Hull and Leask 2000). This created a contradiction between State and

Federal definitions. The Federal government was then obliged to create the Federal

Subsistence Management Program in 1990 to directly implement the Federal rural

subsistence priority on Federal public lands (Brelsford 2005a).

40

A 1995 ruling by the United States Ninth Circuit of Appeals (Katie John v. United States)

designated public lands as defined by ANILCA to include navigable waters in and adjacent

to Federal conservation units. The Federal subsistence management program extended its

jurisdiction to subsistence fisheries on waterways where these had formerly been controlled

by the State (Hull and Leask 2000). This decision was delayed by Congress until October

1999 and the Federal government did not have a formal presence in regulations until 2000

(Hull and Leask 2000, Russ Holder, pers. comm. 2004).

There have been several techniques to form coalescence between State and Federal

bodies. These have attempted to transcend regulatory differences when they arise. Joint

news releases have been utilized to avoid some confusion on the part of users (Russ Holder,

pers. comm. 2004). State comments of Federal proposals are also included in Federal

Subsistence Board meetings (ADFG 2005a). These offer the State managers’ opinions

regarding Federal proposals and are considered with weight along with Federal staff and

subsistence user testimony (personal observation, 2005). The relationship between Federal

and State governing entities has been partially solidified through the Interim Memorandum of

Agreement (see State and Federal Split).

B. State and Federal Split

State and Federal entities work together to manage runs along the Yukon River. This is

difficult because each entity retains a slightly different set of priorities and management

systems. The State provides for escapement, subsistence, commercial, and sport uses

(Catherine Moncrieff, pers. comm. 2004). Federal managers are primarily concerned with

escapement and subsistence (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004). Escapement and

41

subsistence are shared by the Federal and State branches as the highest priorities. This

allows for regulations regarding those aspects to be more collaborative. Collaboration is

important in latitudinal areas of management such as the Yukon River, which stretches across

cultural and geopolitical boundaries.

The geographic setting complicates regulations since State and Federal lands often lie

adjacent to one another. This creates a patchwork of regions that may have differing

regulations depending on their designation as State or Federal lands (Fred Bue, pers. comm.

2004). The Federal government has the power to preempt State regulations in Federal

waters, which include all navigable waters adjacent to Federal lands (Fred Bue, pers. comm.

2004). Regulatory decisions must keep the larger geographic region in perspective when

making local changes.

Another problem with a dual management system is that many communities operate on a

cash and subsistence economy. This creates a conundrum for Federal managers who do not

have any authority over commercial harvests. Some Federal staff members maintain a rigid

definition of subsistence which labels any cash interaction as commercial (Russ Holder, pers.

comm. 2004). Such rationalizations ensure that salmon use is uniformly defined throughout

the drainage. Federally-qualified users with commercial permits are allowed to keep their

commercial catch as subsistence (FSB, 2005). This mainly benefits fishermen in the lower

parts of the drainage where users are more likely to have subsistence and commercial

opportunities available to them (Dan Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004).

Since dual management emerged in 1990, the State and Federal systems have also

differed in terms of policy creation and user input. Each now has a separate organization of

public advisory bodies that present public input to management. The Federal system

42

includes Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) that provide input to the Federal Subsistence

Board (FSB 2003). Title VIII of ANILCA provides for the creation of these councils such

that rural residents may be involved in the Federal subsistence management system (FSB

2003). New RACs were formally introduced by the Federal government in the April 1992

Record of Decision (Norris 2002). This was after the State had created its Local Advisory

Committees (ACs) because ANILCA required regional councils during the period of unified

subsistence management from 1980 – 1989 (Brelsford 2005). The new Federal RACs

effectively ended Alaska’s decade-old regional advisory system, although the State maintains

its ACs today (Norris 2002, ADFG 2003). The retention of both systems is confirmed

through the Interim Memorandum of Agreement as set in April of 2000 such that they each

continue to support public input in a meaningful way (FSB 2003).

The State system utilizes ACs, which serve a similar purpose as the RACs, except that

they provide recommendations to State Boards rather than the Federal Subsistence Board

(ADFG 2003). There are 81 localized ACs across Alaska (ADFG 2003). They meet at least

twice a year and include locally-elected members (ADFG 2003). ACs are capable of closing

local hunting, fishing, or trapping seasons (ADFG 2003). This gives the ACs essentially the

same purpose as the RACs, although RAC recommendations are mandated to be given

deference by the Federal Subsistence Board. Section 805 of ANILCA defines specific ways

that RAC recommendations can be overlooked (Brelsford 2005c). RAC recommendations

may only be deferred by the Board if the Board does not find there is substantial evidence for

support, if the recommendation violates principles of conservation, or if the outcome would

be detrimental to subsistence needs (FSB 2003). This level of consideration by the State is

not required specifically in terms of the ACs (Brelsford 2005c). Rural users (primarily on the

43

upriver portions of the Yukon River) consider the State to be less attentive to user

suggestions perhaps as a result (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2005).

RACs serve a similar purpose in regulations as the ACs. Alaska has ten regions within

which 10 or 13 local residents are appointed to the corresponding RAC (FSB 2003). Regions

were designated to reflect some of the major cultural and societal differences across Alaska

(Norris 2002). Councils meet at least biannually and have six major functions (Norris 2002).

These include:

• evaluate and actively comment on proposals dealing with subsistence uses of fish and

wildlife

• support a communication forum wherein users may have meaningful input on these

issues

• promote active input and collaboration from rural residents

• write an annual report on the council’s actions

• allocate council members to subsistence resource commissions

• make suggestions regarding determinations of customary and traditional use (Norris

2002).

Despite the many differences between the State and Federal systems, there have been

some recent formal steps to avoid divisive policymaking. The Interim Memorandum of

Agreement was set in place in April of 2000 to formally address dual management relations.

One of the document’s most important contributions in this effort was that it stated some

common goals. It notes that Federal and State standards for conservation are compatible and

that management should remain consistent across both systems to avoid duplication (FSB

2003). State and Federal signatories also agreed to share fish and wildlife data relevant to

44

subsistence harvests, utilize both scientific and local knowledge as permissible data,

encourage public input through advisory councils, and maintain a subsistence priority across

both systems. This was a vital step toward setting a foundation for collaboration across State

and Federal management systems.

45

8. Working Group Responses to Windowed Schedules:

A. Consultative Agencies for Policy Management on the Yukon River

There are several communication forums through which the State, Federal, and user

groups come together to discuss and deliberate subsistence issues. The main regional user

representative organizations are: the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA),

the Association of Village Council Representatives (AVCP), and Tanana Chiefs Conference

(TCC). There are also larger forums such as Federal Subsistence Board meetings, state

Board of Fisheries meetings, and informal interactions between different stakeholders. Each

group retains its own unique perspective relating to the same issues and may utilize differing

methods of communication to reach their decisions. Each group has something different to

offer its participants. Some offer more user input into eventual policy formation or change

(such as the RACs and ACs), whereas others may serve mostly as a communication forum

(such as YRDFA). The amount of interaction subsistence users from different regions have

with each other and the governing bodies also varies.

Differing levels of member involvement can have striking effects on the regulatory

system as a whole. Some persons may be involved with several groups simultaneously as

they are not mutually exclusive entities. This may lead to a burdensome responsibility on the

part of the members since meetings may be inaccessible to those without a convenient

method of transportation for what can be long distances. People wanting to participate may

not have the free time needed to attend meetings. The extent to which user involvement

affects change in regulatory language differs depending on the working group and the

perspective of each member. Some users feel it is in their best interest to continue

engagement (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2005), while others feel that the governing bodies

46

pay little more than lip service to their interests regardless of the forum (Mike Smith, pers.

comm. 2004). Each group may have a different opinion regarding the subsistence fisheries

windows. How they communicate and work together to create a comprehensive set of

management strategies has evolved over time. This effort has been further complicated

through the Federal and State dual management system, which may have alienated some

rural residents from interactive forums.

B. Association of Village Council Presidents

The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) serves 56 Federally-recognized

tribes in the western portion of Alaska (Johnson 2001). Services include: supporting a

Yup’ik cultural center, social services, realty services for native landowners, and aiding in

natural resources management through organizations such as the Kuskokwim River Drainage

Fishermen's Association (KRDFA) (AVCP 2005). It is an organization based in Bethel, one

of the most populated regions in southwestern Alaska with 6,000 people in the general area

(AVCP 2005). This region supports a predominantly Yup’ik Alaska Native community

(Wolfe et al. 1986). Cultural ties associated with a subsistence lifestyle continue to be

important for many residents.

Commercial fishing and work in the public sector have been historically dominant forms

of income for the inhabitants of Bethel (Wolfe et al. 1986). A survey of Bethel residents in

1980 showed that 70% participated in some form of subsistence activities (Wolfe et al.

1986). Subsistence activities remain an important aspect of the lifestyle of residents in

Bethel and users involved with AVCP (Tim Andrews, pers. comm. 2004, Mary Gregory,

pers. comm. 2005). This complicates sentiments toward the subsistence fishing schedules,

47

especially since they temporally restrict downriver communities that are a part of AVCP

most (ADFG and USFWS 2004).

AVCP has made several proposals to the Federal Subsistence Board in recent years to

somehow deregulate or reduce the windowed subsistence restrictions (AVCP et al. 2003,

FSB 2005). Most of these have dealt with complications that arose during the salmon fishing

seasons when managers made inseason decisions to lift the subsistence windowed schedules

on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers (AVCP et al. 2003, FSB 2005). Initial language that

guided how to lift the subsistence windows when run sizes were deemed strong enough for

subsistence was somewhat ambiguous. It appeared to managers that deciding there were

enough salmon for commercial openings was necessary prior to lifting the windowed

subsistence schedules (Daniel Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004). AVCP responded in 2003 with

two proposals, for the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers respectively, that would disassociate

commercial and subsistence harvest activity so that removing subsistence schedules did not

appear to rely on commercial openings (AVCP et al. 2003).

Prior to the adoption of the windowed schedules, subsistence regulations included short

closures before, closures during and short closures after commercial openings (AVCP et al.

2003). Downriver communities still had to contend with the two 36-hour openings per week

without commercial activity (AVCP et al. 2003). Their concerns were in response to the

2002 inseason management that placed area Y1 and Y2 residents on subsistence schedules

after commercial openings had been closed (AVCP 2003). This appeared to place

subsistence needs as a lesser priority to commercial needs. AVCP was also concerned about

their rural subsistence rights as outlined in ANILCA and whether these rights were contrary

to the subsistence schedules in principle (AVCP et al. 2003).

48

The regulatory language governing Kuskokwim River subsistence schedules was altered

in 2004 by the Board of Fish to allow subsistence and commercial determinations to be

separate (ADFG 2005a). It was changed so that lifting subsistence schedules would occur

when run sizes were large enough for subsistence and non-subsistence uses. Concerns over a

commercial priority were not fully addressed for AVCP on the Kuskokwim or Yukon Rivers

until the 2005 series of Federal Subsistence Board meetings in Anchorage (FSB 2005).

AVCP had two new proposals asking for the same language changes in subsistence schedule

regulations regarding commercial openings. FP05-02 and FP05-06 asked to lift subsistence

windows along the Yukon-Northern Area and the Kuskokwim River when run sizes were

sufficient to meet upriver subsistence needs and salmon population viability, rather than

when commercial openings were warranted (FSB 2005).

The State and the Federal Subsistence Board responded to both proposals in the same

manner. They agreed that actions taken in 2004 to alter language and clarify the abilities of

inseason managers addressed the present proposals laid out by AVCP (FSB 2005, ADFG

2005a). Managers’ duties explicitly stated that they had the power under emergency

authority to lift subsistence windows when the runs were appropriate for subsistence and

other uses. It was noted that the documentation stating these responsibilities (the Delegation

of Authority from the Board) is not common knowledge for most users. Further actions

beyond those taken in 2004 within the regulatory language were not enacted (FSB 2005).

Changes in the regulatory language have not altered the process of deciding when to

eliminate subsistence schedules during the salmon fishing seasons (Jerry Berg, pers. comm.

2004). These modifications to the regulatory language merely removed the specified

commercial determinations. Commercial opportunities continue to be the main concern

49

beyond allowing reasonable subsistence opportunities. The balance between providing

subsistence and commercial harvests when run sizes are still of concern is a complicated

matter. AVCP’s battle over a presumed commercial priority was resolved over a semantics

issue. However, this is not likely to change the sentiment held by some subsistence users that

State and Federal fisheries managers are more interested in economic pursuits than

subsistence needs.

C. Tanana Chiefs Conference

Upriver communities are more limited in the types of fish they can rely on for subsistence

(Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). This makes the availability of salmon a vital component of

subsistence living. Tanana Chiefs Council is an organization that covers 42 villages in

Interior Alaska (TCC 2003a). This includes over 10,000 Native Alaskans in a region that

covers 235,000 sq miles, or 37% of the state of Alaska (TCC 2003a). About half of the

native residents in TCC live in the greater Fairbanks area (TCC 2003a). It is a nonprofit

organization formed in 1962 to address Native issues in the interior regions. TCC presently

works on various social and health issues that are pertinent to its constituents. The services

provided by TCC are important to rural interior communities because of a lack of large-scale

infrastructure otherwise.

Subsistence salmon schedules have had a complicated impact on many members of TCC

as a result of the importance of subsistence for culture and livelihood. TCC members rely

mainly on subsistence lifestyles to provide for their needs, since unemployment can range

from 20% to 90% in these communities. Some managers have noted that the time allocations

for the windowed schedules may be insufficient for providing harvest needs to rural interior

50

residents relative to the amount of fish that are available to downriver Yukon fishers (Russ

Holder, pers. comm. 2004).

Subsistence schedules were formally addressed in response to the commercial openings

during the 2002 salmon fishing seasons (Brown 2002). TCC’s main concern was with

conservation protocol that was understood to be mandated by the State and the Federal

Subsistence Board (Brown 2002). Conservation principles were seen to be in contradiction

with management actions taken in 2002. This included a concern over meeting escapement

goals. TCC noted that escapement could not be met if the amount of Chinook salmon that

were available in the Yukon River when the lower river areas Y1 and Y2 were given

commercial openings (Brown 2002). TCC requested the closure of these openings, but was

refused by the Federal Subsistence Board (Demientieff 2002). This was justified through the

qualification that it was the inseason managers’ projections that subsistence and escapement

would be more than fulfilled for the season, thus allowing the opportunity for commercial

openings to occur (Demientieff 2002). TCC sent in a Special Action Request (SAR) the next

year to the Federal Subsistence Board when preseason management plans appeared to follow

the same trajectory (TCC 2003a).

What a subsistence priority means to rural communities when commercial activities take

place continues to concern users as demonstrated by the proposals and SARs that have been

submitted in recent years despite their continued rejections by the Board of Fish and Federal

Subsistence Board. Users may not have a good understanding of all management

documentation and how it is utilized in actuality when run sizes appear strong. A greater

attempt toward publicizing information is due, to the point where all or most subsistence

users are aware of how and when the schedules are implemented. Commercial openings

51

have begun to be pushed back farther into the season for conservation purposes (Jerry Berg,

pers. comm. 2004). This may address some conservation issues with TCC if their

subsistence schedules are lifted before these openings occur. The problems may run deeper.

TCC appears to be particularly concerned that commercial openings do not support

conservation practices for rebuilding runs. Rural resident working groups such as AVCP and

TCC are concerned that ANILCA requirements for a subsistence priority are overlooked

when commercial openings occur and rural communities are sill faced with subsistence

restrictions (Russ Holder, pers. comm. 2004). These issues are likely to return so long as

disparities occur along the river. State managers are required to provide commercial

openings when at all possible, but it is difficult to predetermine escapement success when

salmon have a lengthy migration and population sizes are difficult to discern until they enter

the Yukon River (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004, Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004).

D. Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association

YRDFA was created in 1991 by a group of fishermen located throughout the Yukon River

drainage area who felt that their needs were not being taken seriously by the State (Virgil

Umphenour, pers. comm. 2004, Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). It has been funded through

Federal sources through congressional appropriations, grants, and partly from its membership

base. YRDFA was created to serve as a public interest group to oversee projects which

benefit fishermen along the Yukon River drainage. Jill Klein has worked with the

organization since 2000 and now oversees it as director (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

YRDFA holds weekly teleconferences with fishermen, State, and Federal representatives

from along the Yukon River during the summer salmon runs. These include users on the

52

Alaskan and Canadian sides who share information to ensure that all users are aware of the

progression and strength of salmon runs. There are typically about 50 board members on call

each week who act as informants for their fishing regions (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

These members are voluntary representatives who uphold the responsibility to come to

weekly meetings and to serve an observational role in their communities. Members report on

run strength, timing, and the level of subsistence that has been reached in their community.

How they determine this varies between members and is the responsibility of each member to

discern on their own.

There are also State and Federal managers online for the weekly meetings (Jill Klein,

pers. comm. 2004). State inseason managers and Federal area biologists, along with other

ADFG and FSB agency members, discuss current regulations and their relevant knowledge

regarding run timing and strength. The decisions regarding opening and closing of

commercial seasons and lifting of windowed subsistence schedules are ultimately those of

the State and Federal managers. They utilize the information being shared in the YRDFA

teleconferences from board members in order to gain a more balanced perspective of the run

conditions. Government representatives from the State and Federal sides generally come to a

consensus on their view of the current management choices before the teleconferences take

place (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). State and Federal managers and area biologists provide

their management strategy based on current run outlooks. Information brought forward by

YRDFA board members serves to fill in gaps in understanding of run strength and

subsistence harvest levels among all parties (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). This can

then be used toward more cooperative management between government personnel and

fishers.

53

The teleconferences serve as an open forum for users to discuss their approval or

disapproval of management decisions in addition to sharing run information. Fisheries

managers will often take YRDFA board members’ opinions into consideration when

deciding future management strategies (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). The discussions

allow for a river-wide perspective to be formed amongst users and managers (Daniel

Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004). This gives a certain amount of clout to the users since they

have more involvement in regulatory decisions.

There are also inherent problems with the teleconferences. Some community

representatives do not or are not able to join in the conferences due to complications or

unavailability (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004). This leaves a void in information exchange

across the lengthy distance of the Yukon River. Some users thus alienate themselves from

the process of sharing information through YRDFA and the possible benefits they may

receive through this approach of integrated management. However, consistency in board

members on line each week is seen as necessary to keep YRDFA organized (Jill Klein, pers.

comm. 2004). Users who participate infrequently may not know the issues each week or

may utilize the forum as a venting opportunity toward inseason managers (Jill Klein, pers.

comm. 2004).

Some subsistence users believe that YRDFA does not serve their purpose since many of

the board members participate in commercial fishing (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004). This

creates a conflict with fishers who primarily subsistence fish since board members may not

be appropriate representatives of their communities if their commercial interests outweigh

their reliance on subsistence (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). There are also concerns that

some board members will bias their subsistence reports so that their communities will be

54

opened to commercial fishing earlier (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004, Tom Kron, pers.

comm. 2004). Managers must take these various concerns into account when deciding the

weight to give information supplied by board members.

55

9. Sport Fishing and Area M: Public Input and Its Affects in Two Cases:

A. Sport Fishing and Rural User Conflicts

Sport fishing has also been a subject of contention amongst subsistence users in light of

subsistence windowed fishing implementation. Sport and personal use fishing for Chinook

and chum salmon were closed midseason in 2000 by ADFG and OSM in light of low salmon

returns (ADFG and OSM 2000). This was a result of the State and Federal priorities which

provide for escapement and subsistence before other uses (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004).

Run sizes increased the following year and no initial attempts were made by the State or

Federal governments to close sport fishing. Users took it upon themselves to push for those

closures in 2001.

A special action request (SAR) was sent to the Federal Subsistence Board on March 21,

2001 by James Luke of Mountain Village to ask that Chinook and chum sport fishing be

closed on the lower Yukon River drainage (Luke 2001). This was in response to a concern

that subsistence needs would not be met along the Yukon River because of the windowed

fishing schedule. He made it clear that sport fishing would likely take fish vital for

subsistence users. Catch-and-release methods were also confronted in the SAR, stating that

many of these fish would perish upon release. In addition, Mike Savage of Lower Kalskag

sent in a separate SAR requesting the closure of Chinook and chum salmon sport fishing on

Federal waters in the Kuskokwim River (AVCP 2001). These actions attracted concern from

the Federal Subsistence Board and caused a great deal of backlash before the matter was

resolved. Some managers noted discontent amongst users in response to sport fishing (Jerry

Berg, pers. comm. 2001). It was observed that rural users resented outsider access to the

56

local salmon stocks, primarily when utilizing a practice that was seen as “playing with their

food” (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004).

AVCP wrote to the chair of the Federal Subsistence Board on April 27, 2001 strongly

supporting both SAR motions that requested sport fishing closures (AVCP 2001). They

noted the subsistence priority and cited the hypocrisy they felt when sport fishermen were

allowed to fish at the same time that subsistence users might be on a windowed portion of

their fishing schedule. Some Federal staff members believe that this reaction was caused by

cultural conflicts. Subsistence users may have been sharply opposed to outside fishers

coming into their home ranges to utilize resources during a time of heightened conservation

(Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). AVCP did note in their comments that they would prefer for

all non-Federally qualified subsistence users to be prohibited from fishing in Federal waters

(AVCP 2001).

There was a great effort at rebuttal for the SARs by private users and the State. The

fishing company Alaska Quest sent a letter of comment to the Federal Subsistence Board on

May 3, 2001 opposing the sport closure requests. They claimed there would be no effects on

subsistence and that catch-and-release fishing had not been proven to have an adverse effect

on salmon livelihood (Kroll 2001). It was also suggested that any sport closures would be at

the detriment of many rural areas as a result of a loss in jobs and economic interest in the

regions affected. ADFG was also compelled to write commentary letters to the Federal

Subsistence Board in opposition of the SARs. Their concerns appear to have rested upon the

Federal usurpation of regulatory power from the State. The Commissioner of ADFG sent a

commentary letter on April 17, 2001 listing the various steps the State had taken to provide

for salmon conservation along the Yukon River drainage. It was noted that sport fishing

57

accounts for a miniscule harvest (about 300 to 500 Chinook and chum salmon per year)

compared with commercial or subsistence takings (Rue 2001). Sport fishing was said to

have no overall effect on the health of salmon runs for the Yukon River drainage since these

small harvests occurred mainly in upriver regions where there was less harvesting for

subsistence (Rue 2001). The letter ended with an attempt at a compromise by the State:

ADFG would issue a preseason emergency order limiting sport bag limits to one Chinook or

chum salmon per day along the Kuskokwim River drainage. This would effectively cut sport

harvest by half in that area (Rue 2001). The chairman of the Alaska Board of Fisheries also

sent a letter opposing the SARs since there was a lack of evidence that cutting back on sport

fishing would save salmon (Coffey 2001). Collaboration rather than domination between the

State and Federal agencies was noted as an area of concern.

The Federal government conceded to subsistence user requests and closed all Chinook

and chum salmon fishing on all Federal waters in the Yukon River drainage to anyone except

Federally-qualified users prior to the 2001 fishing season (USDA and DOI 2001). This

addressed many areas of concern for salmon conservation amongst subsistence users. It

affected many regions where subsistence users and sport fishermen would overlap in their

harvest practices. The state then closed all Chinook salmon sport fishing by emergency order

except for that which occurred on the Tanana River drainage on June 20, 2001.

Sport fishing bag and possession limits were limited the following year on July 18 to one

Chinook or chum salmon on all Yukon River waters by the State (ADFG 2005b). Chum

sport fishing was closed entirely for the Yukon River on August 9, 2002. ADFG took similar

actions during the 2003 and 2004 seasons, but rescinded these restrictions toward the end of

the summer and fall seasons to allow for normal sport bag and possession limits. Sport

58

regulations are presently set to more relaxed bag and size limitations and there are no

scheduled emergency orders for 2005 as of the printing of this paper (ADFG 2005b).

B. Area M regulations

Area M became an area of contention between rural residents and State and Federal

managers because of its implicit connection to large commercial interests. Commercial

fishing is typically responsible for a larger (two to four times) amount of harvest on the

Yukon River than is subsistence fishing (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004). Some rural fishers

continue to blame the larger commercial fishing interests for the salmon population crashes

(Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004, Virgil Umphenour, pers. comm. 2004). This issue came to

a head with Area M, a region of commercial fishing located off the coast of the Yukon River

delta. A lack of substantial evidence prevented local recommendations from being

considered with regards to continuing restricted fishing in Area M. The conflicts that arose

from this political battle continue to linger in the minds of some subsistence fishers who feel

they have sacrificed more for the sake of conservation than commercial players who may

have had more influence on salmon populations (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004).

One of the ways commercial fisheries can impact other fishing activities is through fish

interception. Intercept fisheries operate in a similar manner to the “gauntlet” effect often

used to describe the Yukon River fishing activities. Fish are caught in the lower parts of the

rivers before they are able to reach their home tributaries and spawning grounds. This term

may also be used in marine settings, where fish are caught before they are able to return to

their rivers of origin.

59

Area M is a fishing area that encompasses the southern region of the Alaska Peninsula

and the areas of Stepovak, Beaver, and Balboa Bays (Burkey Jr. 2004). Many users in

Western Alaska believed that Area M intercepted salmon populations meant for the Yukon-

Kuskokwim regions when the crashes of 1998-2000 occurred (Jill Klein, pers. comm.

12/2004, Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 12/2004). Members of government were also concerned

with bycatch as a cause of reduced salmon numbers in Yukon-Kuskokwim fisheries. The

governor Tony Knowles noted that Bering Sea fisheries had a bycatch record of nearly

42,000 Chinook salmon and 57,000 other salmon (mainly chums) within the five years

before 2000 (Knowles 2000). These salmon may have been intercepted by Area M fisheries

through bycatch before returning to Yukon River tributaries.

A cap on fishing activity in Area M was put in place by the Alaska Board of Fisheries,

reducing fishing time by 60% in 2001 (Rue, Frank 2001a). This was in line with the

subsistence windowed regulations since Area M was being affected by policy restrictions in a

similar way as Yukon River residents (Mike Smith, pers. comm., 12/2004). However, these

restrictions were lifted in late 2003 by a new majority on the Alaska Board of Fisheries in

review of the same relevant studies that were used to enact these restrictions in 2001 (Taylor

Brelsford, pers. comm. 2005c). A number of newly-appointed State Fisheries Board

members concluded that the salmon species most affected by Area M bycatch were chum and

coho, which were not the main species (Chinook salmon) that the windowed subsistence

restrictions protected (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 12/2004). Chums in this category are thought

to be Bristol Bay or Asiatic stocks. The numbers of chum affected were deemed insufficient

to keep the regulations in place when the State Board reconvened on the issue. The State

Board’s decision was to take effect with the upcoming 2004 fishing season (Taylor Brelsford,

60

pers. comm. 2005b). Managers and area biologists do not currently view Area M as an

intercept fishery for salmon stocks meant for the Yukon River drainage (Fred Bue, pers.

comm. 12/2004, Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 12/2004, Dan Bergstrom, 12/2004).

Some subsistence user groups maintain the argument that Area M intercepts stocks meant

for the Yukon-Kuskokwim regions (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 12/2004). These users

continue to demand that restrictions be placed on fishing in the outer marine regions. This

stems from the rationale that the burden of regulation should extend to marine commercial

fisheries and interior subsistence communities in the same manner. Downriver users became

frustrated when their commercial or subsistence harvests were restricted and Area M

remained unrestricted (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 12/2004). This outcome appeared to be a

contradiction of interests on the part of State and Federal agencies supporting large

commercial fisheries and restricting rural subsistence/commercial users.

Public testimony by subsistence users in April of 2004 urged the Secretary of the Interior

to intervene after the 2001 restrictions on Area M were lifted (Rod Simmons, pers. comm.

12/2004, Taylor Brelsford, pers. comm. 2005). A technical analysis was prepared for the

meeting to discern whether Federal action was necessary. Data showing that some fall chum

salmon meant for western Alaska are caught in Area M were insufficient to demonstrate the

proportion of such stocks intercepted in Area M (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 12/2004). This

evidence would have had to prove a direct correlation between subsistence opportunities for

rural fishers along the Yukon River and Area M fishing activities. The Federal government

did not have the authority necessary to restrict Area M without conclusive evidence (Jerry

Berg, pers. comm. 12/2004). This would have to show a direct affect on salmon populations

through Area M activity. The staff technical analysis explained that Area M has not been

61

shown to have a direct or damaging effect on salmon populations headed for the Yukon

River drainage. On this basis, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced in May of

2004 that the Federal government would not intervene in the issue (OSM 2004).

Unrestricted activity in Area M did not appear to have an effect in the salmon run sizes

during 2004 and managers believe it unlikely to have caused the shortfalls in salmon during

the more dramatic reductions in run sizes of 1998 – 2000 (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004).

Lack of information and cooperation between parties was recognized as a major barrier to

managing salmon runs. These outcomes have led to increased friction between subsistence

communities and fisheries managers. The belief that State interests are governed by

influential political forces rather than the needs of subsistence users remains common (Mike

Smith, pers. comm. 12/2004, Virgil Umphenour, pers. comm. 12/2004) and contributes to a

lack of trust between stakeholders. This view also promotes users to view State and Federal

forces as completely separate governing bodies with different priorities (Mary Gregory, pers.

comm. 2005). Area M commercial fisheries continue their fishing activities without

restrictions on fishing time (Virgil Umphenour, pers. comm. 12/2004, Mike Smith, pers.

comm. 12/2004).

C. State and Federal Interactions with Subsistence Users

The sport fishing and Area M incidents were important milestones which helped to build a

working relationship between stakeholders in the early years of windowed subsistence

fishing. They were controversial topics that incited communication between individuals,

user groups, regional councils, and government agencies on the State and Federal sides.

Each laid the groundwork for determining the various issues involved with dual management

62

between the State and Federal agencies. The Federal government generally acted in concert

with State managers, and deliberated cautiously when asked to intercede to counteract State

actions.

Federal intervention in the case of sport fisheries exemplified the power that the Federal

government was willing to impose as a result of user input. It also contradicted the State’s

stance on the issue and created discord between the two management systems in the Yukon

River drainage. This has complicated relationships between the Federal government and the

State since the State did not view sport fishing as a salmon conservation concern. State

agencies did not consider the amount of harvest involved in sport fishing or public testimony

taken prior to the SARs to be sufficient evidence to enact closures. State agencies also

believed that the measures taken on their part were appropriate for the conservation of

salmon stocks. The closure of Federal waters to non-Federal subsistence uses in this case

was viewed as a usurpation of State authority. Allowing sport fishing closures offered

subsistence users the assurance that the Federal government would uphold the

responsibilities it had assumed through the State of Alaska v. Babbitt decision.

State regulatory restrictions imposed and later lifted on Area M were not challenged

through intervention by the Federal government. This confirmed the State’s predominant

authority within the regulatory system, particularly in relation to commercial fisheries. It

also reflected the Federal reluctance to take the extraordinary action of imposing

management outside of Federally-managed waters in a case where there was not sufficient

evidence to enact fishing closures.

Working relationships with subsistence communication forums were also developed

through these issues. The Area M issue provided a forum with which subsistence users

63

connected their resource use with that outside of the Yukon River boundaries. This allowed

them to address threats that they felt were partly at fault for weakened salmon runs (marine

conditions/exploitation) when the State and Federal managers were simultaneously

restricting subsistence use. The lifting of restrictions in area M has created added resentment

amongst Yukon River subsistence users who feel disproportionately burdened by the

subsistence fishing windows when they do not recognize themselves as a source of

conservation concern.

The Federal government’s support of subsistence users in one case and not the other

provides a somewhat confusing atmosphere for members of the public to communicate their

concerns. It has not necessarily been made clear in what instances there is enough evidence

to affect legislation over an issue. Many users and some fisheries managers continue to

believe that State interests are bound to commercial and private enterprises. Sport fishing

closures enacted by the Federal government may serve to support this mindset since only

small private owners of sport fishing companies were affected. Large corporations beyond

the bounds of Yukon River fisheries appear to have more clout when compared with the

efforts taken by subsistence users in both cases.

64

10. Management of Subsistence and Consequences of Subsistence Schedules Thus Far:

A. Determining Subsistence

Assessments of subsistence harvests are vital for understanding use patterns amongst rural

groups and the subsistence needs of users. Developing a reliable method of subsistence

harvest assessment has been a lengthy process and remains a collaborative one that includes

many sources of information (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). One of the fundamental

issues involved in this is cross-cultural communication. Subsistence users and fisheries

managers may have differing ideas as to how best to relate harvest information, how to use it,

and why harvest assessments are important (ADFG 1996). Managers utilize this information

for various purposes such as: documenting wildlife population fluctuations, recording fish

and game use, setting local levels of need for fish and game, and determining whether

harvest limits are needed. Users may be reluctant to share information about their

subsistence harvests since this is often considered to be a very personal inquiry. They may

also believe that commercial activities or habitat loss have a more detrimental effect on fish

and game populations than subsistence activities do (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004, ADFG

1996).

Subsistence harvests are not limited to an allocation for a set number of fish (Mike Smith,

pers. comm. 2004). They are rather managed through a set of guidelines, referred to as

“Amounts Necessary for Subsistence” in State management (Brelsford 2005c, Tracy Lignau,

pers. comm. 2004). Fisheries managers talk to fishers inseason and utilize information from

YRDFA to help estimate how well residents are doing in meeting their needs for subsistence

as the season progresses (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004). Additional input from

individual users is of particular importance for some managers rather than relying solely on

65

YRDFA information (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004). Managers may feel that YRDFA does

not fully account for users along the river (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). There are

members of rural communities who are less likely to participate in large forums such as

YRDFA, yet who can offer valuable subsistence information (Tom Kron, pers, comm. 2004).

This is especially true in the case of gaining information about elderly community members

who may need more time to collect their subsistence harvests than some of the commercial

fishers represented on YRDFA (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). Inseason communication is

vital since subsistence harvest data is not fully evaluated until six months after the summer

and fall salmon seasons (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004).

Individualized activity in subsistence harvesting is also an unknown in subsistence

management (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). Each person will obtain their harvest at their

own pace. Needs for each family and per person can vary depending on whether the user is

providing for their extended family (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2005). A generalized view

of total subsistence needs is thus difficult to acquire (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004).

Experience level in assessing subsistence needs met is considered important for management

decisions such as subsistence harvest allocation (Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004).

Fish and wildlife managers are very concerned when subsistence users assert that they

have not been able to meet their subsistence needs. Reasons for not meeting subsistence are

analyzed post-season and are not always the result of insufficient opportunity (Russ Holder,

pers. comm. 2004). This may be due to gear complications, health problems, and other job

opportunities during salmon runs. There is no exact method to identify the level of success

in meeting subsistence needs. It remains difficult to determine which of many possible

factors is responsible for shortfalls. A lack of a specific goal for subsistence harvest makes

66

management more flexible, but this can work against subsistence users if monitoring of runs

and harvest levels are not precise. Current subsistence harvests can only be compared to past

years and anecdotal evidence from fishermen obtained to discern normalcy in numbers taken

(Russ Holder, pers. comm. 2004).

B. Benefits of Windowed Schedules

Windowed subsistence schedules have had varied roles in affecting the subsistence

lifestyles of rural communities. Upriver regions of the Yukon River drainage have generally

voiced approval of the windowed schedules since they have been implemented partly to

provide for subsistence needs (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 12/2004). Various middle and upriver

communities were not meeting their subsistence harvest needs in the years before the

windowed schedules and did not see their needs being taken seriously by governing bodies

(Mike Smith, pers. comm. 12/2004, Jill Klein, pers. comm. 12/2004). Some rural fishers

claim to see subsistence opportunities now returning to normal in upriver regions with

windowed schedule regulations in place (Rod Simmons, pers. comm. 2004). Communities in

the lower parts of the Yukon River have also experienced some social benefits. Managers

have noted that some women involved in salmon processing labor appreciate the breaks

provided by the subsistence windows (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 12/2004).

The schedules have also helped bring forward a broader perspective of the inequalities in

fishing opportunities for upper and lower river users. Fishers involved with YRDFA serve as

an example through their communication of subsistence needs. The disparities in salmon

abundance for upriver and downriver fishers can be discussed openly. Some of those

involved with fisheries management conclude that the schedules have been beneficial overall

67

through providing a “good faith measure” for upriver regions (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

This could build awareness in the future about resource and economic differences along the

Yukon River and begin a more cooperative approach to subsistence management between

regions.

C. Do the Windowed Schedules Accomplish their Conservation Goals?

Escapements since 2001 have generally increased throughout the Yukon River drainage

for chum and Chinook salmon (Daniel Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004, see Figures 1, 2, and

3). Upriver residents have stated that more and larger fish are reaching their areas than they

have seen in years (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004), although communities in District 5

continue to voice difficulties in reaching subsistence needs at times (Jerry Berg, pers. comm.

2004)

. This is still an area of uncertainty for managers since it is unclear whether the observed

changes are due to windowed schedules or merely an increase in run sizes (Jill Klein, pers.

comm. 2004). Run sizes may be increasing due to natural fluctuations in the population or

because of other unexplained phenomena. A more thorough assessment of the effectiveness

of the windowed subsistence schedules may not be available until 2006 (Fred Bue, pers.

comm. 2004). This will have allowed an entire generation time for the salmon to have rebuilt

their runs from the first standardized windows schedules in 2001 (ADFG 2001).

The need for a precautionary approach as described in the State’s Policy for the

Management of Salmon Fisheries (ADFG 2001) is most striking for some users (Mike Smith,

pers. comm. 2004) since they feel it is not being applied in the implementation of subsistence

windows schedules. Mike Smith of Tanana Chiefs Conference stated that a maximum

68

sustained yield (MSY) principle is inappropriate for rebuilding run strength (Mike Smith,

pers. comm. 2004). The runs are currently managed to theoretically harvest every fish

available above escapement and subsistence (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004). One rural

leader noted that some greater buffer beyond minimum escapements should be set in order to

ensure that a sound escapement level is actually met consistently (Mike Smith, pers. comm.

2004).

Subsistence windowed schedules have been reduced or eliminated mid-season in recent

years as run sizes have increased (Daniel Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004). This reduction in

overall scheduled time is staggered along the river so that salmon pulses pass through

downriver communities before restrictions are lifted (Taylor Brelsford, pers. comm. 2005b).

Protecting certain pulses throughout the Yukon River ensures their return to native spawning

grounds. This may alleviate some concerns from users that the more intrusive forms of

subsistence schedules exemplified in 2001 are not the standard during years of favorable run

sizes (Daniel Bergstrom, pers. comm. 2004).

Perhaps the main accomplishment of the windowed schedules is to allow time for

management to assess run size early in the season. Some of those involved with fisheries

management feel that this characteristic of windowed subsistence management is vital

enough to support subsistence windowed schedules even during years with above-average

runs (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). Windowed schedules would thus exceed their initial

purpose in years of average or enhanced numbers in order to serve a more permanent

framework of conservation management. This trend represents a focus of management on

the quality of escapement, rather than sheer quantity (Virgil Umphenour, pers. comm. 2004).

69

This is perhaps a nod to the concerns over precautionary management since it allows

inseason fisheries managers a buffer with which to plan for the entire season.

D. Are the Subsistence Schedules Contradictory to a Rural Subsistence Priority?

Subsistence restrictions have been perhaps the most widely contested regulations to come

from the salmon crashes. This is partly because of their continued implementation after runs

have appeared to return to normal levels for Chinook salmon and are increasing overall for

chums (Tim Andrews, pers. comm. 2004, see Figures 1, 2, and 3). Subsistence schedules

have been alleged by some to impose upon local subsistence cultures (Mary Gregory, pers.

comm. 2004, Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004). The time restrictions which are vital to the

operation of a scheduled subsistence season have also had unforeseen effects on subsistence

lifestyles for rural residents. This issue is primarily relevant in lower and middle river

communities, since most upriver communities operate on a seven day-per-week fishing

schedule (ADFG and USFWS 2004).

Downriver communities are said to be obtaining appropriate subsistence harvest levels

regardless of decreased time for fishing (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). Fishers in the lower

regions of the Yukon River purportedly put more effort into the time given and achieve

similar harvest levels as they would reach otherwise. It is rather the quality of the fish and

the subsistence culture that are of concern. Rural residents argue that the first portion of the

run, when windows are now implemented, is the most important part of the salmon runs to

harvest for subsistence (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2005). This is particularly true for users

living in and around Bethel, where the first portions of the run come at a time which is best

for drying (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2005). These communities are also affected through

70

the time restrictions because of gear setup, which may take longer for elderly or disabled

persons (Alex Nick, pers. comm. 2004). The RAC organizer for the Yukon-Kuskokwim

Delta Region noted that one person from his region testified that they could not move fast

enough to set and pull their nets from the water in order to meet the scheduled restrictions

(Alex Nick, pers. comm. 2004).

Certain burdens were placed on subsistence users to gain the desired effects of

conservation management after the salmon population downturns. The variable run timing of

each stock complicated effects of the windowed schedules on subsistence fishers. Stocks of

salmon could enter the river in pulses, rather than as a constant flow of fish (Fred Bue, pers.

comm. 2001). This could result in the windowed schedule providing a subsistence fishing

opportunity at times when few fish were available (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2001). Lower

river communities could be especially affected because of weather events that have been less

common for upriver regions. These include: storm conditions, tides, or debris in the river

that could make fishing conditions unsafe or unpredictable (Fred Bue, pers. comm. 2004, Jill

Klein, pers. comm. 2004). Windowed schedules were sometimes altered inseason to allow

fishing when a pulse entered a region that was on a closed fishing period (Fred Bue, pers.

comm. 2001). This gave regions that may not have reached their subsistence needs prior to

the pulse the opportunity to take advantage of the salmon as they passed through.

Windowed schedules have also had an affect on the cultural practice of going to fish

camps. Some rural residents remember a time when fish camps would be utilized throughout

the summer with extended families (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004). This helped to

reinforce the notion of family and community relationships (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004).

Fish camp attendance during the summers has been noted as dwindling along the Yukon

71

River in recent years (Talbott 2001). Reasons for this are varied and rural residents have

noted the pursuit of city jobs or other non-local positions as a deterrent to coming to fish

camps during the summer months. Subsistence schedules have also been noted as limiting

the experience of fish camps since they restrict the amount of time and increase the

transportation costs for fishers to be at fish camps (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

Subsistence users argue that the cultural importance of fish camps should be a more vital

part of the rural subsistence priority (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004). This arises from the

“customary and traditional” aspect of Section 803 of ANILCA that supports a cultural basis

for subsistence (FSB 2004). “Subsistence uses” are defined in this section as “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 articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken

for personal or family consumption, and for the customary trade, barter or sharing for

personal or family consumption” (FSB 2004). This definition is broad and would technically

include the practice of going to fish camps and of having extended family members

participate in subsistence fishing. Managers may have to contend more with the cultural

implications of subsistence fishing schedules as time progresses and if salmon run strength

continues to increase. Fisheries managers will need to reiterate that the continued

conservation of salmon, which provides for a suitable escapement, is a higher priority than

subsistence. Subsistence itself must be balanced throughout the region, and the windowed

schedules provide at least a temporary and flexible solution to these problems. The argument

over cultural subsistence definitions remains a pertinent one for subsistence users (primarily

middle and downriver) and will undoubtedly shape management in coming years.

72

11. Discerning Trends and Impacts in Subsistence Practices Over Time

Communities within the Yukon-Kuskokwim region occupy the lowest income brackets of

Alaska (Leask et al. 2001). Stable jobs within the local areas are few and are mostly

composed of teaching or community-based development work (Fred Bue, pers. comm.

2004). Many communities rely on seasonal work to support families along with subsistence

(Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004). These jobs are often related to the tourist industry or

firefighting during the summer (Tom Kron, pers. comm. 2004, Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004).

Seasonal work is likely to take people away from their homes and may occur at the same

times that are best for subsistence fishing (Jill Klein, pers comm. 2004). These economic

opportunities may then limit community members’ abilities to participate in subsistence

culture and increase their reliance on cash incomes.

Subsistence windows further complicate a changing cultural atmosphere. Younger

generations may be more likely to pursue seasonal work during the summer if the costs of

going to fish camp outweigh the potential benefit of a subsistence harvest. This becomes

more likely when subsistence schedules restrict the opportunities that subsistence users can

use to catch their harvests for the season. Stories differ along the river. People in lower river

communities are perhaps more likely to continue subsistence reliance on salmon if they are

able to catch their harvest in one or two days (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 12/2004).

Subsistence users in the middle river communities see fewer fish and may be more

adversely affected by windows since they have fewer commercial opportunities than

downriver communities. The decrease in abundance of fish in the middle regions of the

Yukon River causes harvest times to take longer. This may require more trips and thus

73

become more expensive for users. The lack of a supplemental commercial market to aid in

the financial burden of these activities could pose further restrictions to subsistence activities.

Extended family support is also a concern. Subsistence fish are often used to supply

extended family members (Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 12/2004). Current subsistence

regulations do not take these needs into account for the middle and lower river communities

and may indirectly promote the pursuit of monetary benefits over subsistence lifestyles.

Economic burdens and a heightened motivation towards a stable financial base appear to

motivate many of the current changes in subsistence activities and community structure.

Many rural communities operate on a combined cash and subsistence economy (Tracy

Lignau, pers. comm. 2004, Buklis 1998). Some subsistence users in the lower and middle

portions of the Yukon River argue that commercial harvests help support their subsistence

lifestyle (Mike Smith, pers. comm. 2004). This has become prevalent over time as fishers

have invested in more efficient fishing gear, since commercial fishing gear can often be used

for subsistence purposes. It is more resourceful to own competitive commercial fishing

technology and utilize it for subsistence and commercial needs than to have separate fishing

gear for subsistence and commercial uses (Buklis 1998). Some fisheries and wildlife

managers view rural subsistence users as having changed their lifestyles over the years so

that they are now more dependent on cash incomes than subsistence harvests (Rod Simmons,

pers. comm. 12/2004). Managers may view younger generations of subsistence users as

being more likely to have jobs far from their homes and thus be less likely to rely purely on

subsistence for their needs (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004).

Some of those involved with fisheries management see this change as a possible factor in

lower subsistence harvests in recent years (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 12/2004). Lowered

74

harvests have been observed particularly in summer and fall chum salmon (Federal

Subsistence Board, 2004). Chinook subsistence harvests have remained at an average of

about 50,000 fish per year since 1988 on the Yukon River, although the fact that rural

communities have grown and harvest numbers remain the same suggests that the level of

dependence on this food source has dwindled (Federal Subsistence Board, 2004). Lowered

subsistence harvests were obvious for fall chum salmon before the downturn in run sizes and

have continued despite the return of higher runs in recent years (Federal Subsistence Board,

2004). There are no studies that currently show conclusive evidence as to why such drops in

subsistence harvests have occurred (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 12/2004).

Changing commercial opportunities may be a factor in the subsistence harvest numbers of

some communities, owing to the combined cash/subsistence lifestyle. Summer chum salmon

roe had a strong commercial market in the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region that began in

the late 1970s and ended abruptly when buyers looked to other sources of supply in 1997

(Buklis, 1998). This had an effect on subsistence harvests at the time since users would

harvest fish during commercial openings and use the roe for commercial sale. The fish

carcasses were then used as part of the subsistence pattern, often to feed dogs (Tom Kron,

pers. comm. 12/2004). There are few commercial incentives for summer chum fishing today.

Communities that once relied more heavily upon the roe market for financial gain are now

forced to look elsewhere.

Changing economic goals appear to influence some rural residents to migrate to urban

centers. Over 27,000 people migrated from rural to urban centers from 1970 to 2000 (UAA,

2004). However, people continue to maintain cultural and familial ties despite downturns in

rural economies. Many families stick together in the same locality if one or more family

75

members lose a job (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 12/2004). Subsistence opportunities may be

more restricted, but the reliance on a subsistence lifestyle continues in rural communities.

The composition of these rural communities is unlikely to change drastically in the near

future regardless of economic incentive that exists beyond local boundaries. This makes the

responsibility of creating sound subsistence and other local forms of regulatory management

a daunting one.

76

12. Conclusion:

A. Options for Other Management Tools

The windowed subsistence schedule currently in place serves a specific goal. The intent of

managers is to spread harvests of fish along the river while runs are doing poorly.

Management strategies may change or windows may become unnecessary if runs continue to

rebuild. Other management options may have to be considered if salmon runs return to low

population sizes. The windowed subsistence schedule operates on a temporal scale.

Alternate strategies may include: gear restrictions, commercial closures, additional research

into causes of poor run quality, or open sea/hatchery restrictions if the causes of poor runs are

determined (Russ Holder, pers. comm. 12/2004). Each policy tool has its own advantages

and drawbacks.

Users may be more likely to cooperate with certain types of restrictions yet have

reservations about others. Gear restrictions are thought to be opposed more often than time

restrictions because of the cost incurred by the user, primarily if the restrictions affect

commercial fishing capabilities (Russ Holder, pers. comm. 12/2004). Commercial closures

have been implemented in the years of the worst runs (ADF&G, 2001) and may be utilized

again if necessary. These also have a cost for the user since commercial fishermen will not

have the same financial opportunities. Further funding of salmon monitoring projects has

been suggested by some subsistence users as a necessity in fisheries management (Timothy

Andrews, pers. comm. 2004). A greater priority on monitoring salmon populations and

research could aid in forecasting run sizes and perhaps lessen the need for subsistence

schedules early in the summer. Fisheries management on State and Federal sides may have

77

to take these options into consideration if public discourse continues to disapprove of the

subsistence schedules as they are currently implemented (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004).

B. Comments on the Federal Board Meetings of 2005 and Cross-cultural

Communication

“Communication is only viable if it provides a unified front on issues, and I don’t think that occurs.” Mike Smith, Tanana Chiefs Conference Communication is by far the key issue in creating balanced and resourceful subsistence

management. Disparities even in the perceived agency of each stakeholder continue to

dominate regulatory forums. Subsistence users may feel encumbered by the regulatory

process and remain at a loss for how to properly present their concerns. Fisheries managers

on the State and Federal sides can indirectly purport an alienating façade of power that may

dissuade subsistence users from fully engaging in RAC or YRDFA forums. In more

dramatic scenarios, this may make subsistence users feel forced to make decisions that are

not seen to be in their benefit. The initial discussions and the formal regulatory process that

brought about subsistence salmon fishing schedules are now viewed by some as a form of

usurpation by government entities of rural clout (Jerry Berg, pers. comm. 2004, Mary

Gregory, pers. comm. 2005). This form of communication breakdown has most recently

been exemplified through the misinformation that prompted AVCP and TCC regulatory

proposals of 2005 to change subsistence schedule implementation.

A solution to the misconceptions of subsistence schedules that led to the proposals set

forth in the Federal Subsistence Board meetings of January, 2005, must be found. The

miscommunication or lack of communication that led to redundant regulatory language

proposals should be taken seriously when governing bodies decide public information

78

strategies. Rural users continue to feel disenfranchised in the regulatory process and their

misinformation in this case will only serve to elevate, rather than alleviate, those sentiments.

A more sound and inclusive method of communication between communities should be the

focus of regional management in the future. Both confidentiality and coalescence amongst

different cultural and governmental groups must be encouraged.

It is important to note that this project has revealed a cultural and ideological conflict

within user groups as well as government agencies. Coastal Yup’ik regions have important

cultural and lifestyle differences when compared to the interior Athabaskan regions that may

affect regulatory perspectives across Yukon River villages. State and Federal agencies also

differ in their methodologies and both sides have noted frustration with regard to dual

management. Some rural participants in the RAC system have recommended a river-wide

RAC organization that would help to build cooperation amongst users (Mary Gregory, pers.

comm. 2005). This would help create a greater sense of sharing a resource, a sentiment

which organizations such as YRDFA are already incorporating into their models. State and

Federal agencies must abide by their own Interim Memorandum of Agreement and keep the

same working goals in perspective when creating sound management. They must each

provide for subsistence priorities and involve the public as much as possible into the

regulatory framework. This includes creating sound methods of informing the public, rather

than prioritizing only the regulatory process and leaving the responsibility of communicating

information to the public itself.

Subsistence must be understood by the same terminology by all sides in order for more

complex regulatory processes to occur. This has to begin with a basic agreement on

definitions and communication goals. Organizations such as YRDFA have begun this

79

process, and many other important steps in helping rural communities build political clout.

Their focus on training and educating local residents to be more involved in the technical

aspects of fisheries management will build confidence within communities to address issues

in a common language as State and Federal personnel (Jill Klein, pers. comm. 2004). Local

knowledge and subsistence cultures utilized by rural residents should be taken into more

consideration by managers when deciding schedules and harvest limits. Surveys of regions

affected by windowed fishing schedules could be administered to determine if certain days

(such as weekends) would be more conducive to fishing activities in general for users. This

may allow more family members to participate in fish camp activities while giving managers

the same windowed schedule effect. Continuing the personal networks that some managers

hold with rural residents rather than relying solely on objective harvest data is also vital.

This can help build a sense of trust between residents and managers and help alleviate some

of the tension at regional meetings. Communication between different stakeholders must

begin at the ground level. This includes regional native organizations and RACs.

Differing communication styles across rural and governmental cultures should be

addressed in communication forums. This may help change the notion that some managers

hold of rural residents being difficult to collaborate with, as well as the notion that some

users hold of the governing bodies serving as colonial impositions (Daniel Bergstrom, pers.

comm. 2004, Tracy Lignau, pers. comm. 2004, Mary Gregory, pers. comm. 2005). Fisheries

managers traveling to rural regions for meetings rather than requiring rural residents to travel

to Anchorage is a step towards showing rural communities an interest in cross-cultural

forums. True collaboration will require the encouragement (not only the opportunity) for

user input in all stages of the regulatory process.

80

RAC meetings provide the opportunity for subsistence users and fisheries managers to

discuss pertinent information. Even at this stage, managers and users are often divided in

their perspectives of regulatory goals and in their understanding of technical language (FSB

2005b). Rural users must benefit from public information that is comprehensive, concise,

and clear. RAC members cannot be expected to discuss proposed regulations if the language

is ambiguous and the objectives are not considered to be in their interest. Time must be

taken to discuss technical language such that RAC members can feel more enabled in the

regulatory process. This effort could appear in different forms, such as: separate informal

informational meetings preceding regulatory discussions to ensure that common knowledge

is shared, informational packets that give basic point-by-point working definitions of

regulatory language and biological survey methods, and holding trainings for local residents

to become a part of survey teams and collect data. YRDFA currently undertakes some of

these tasks, and has made the inclusion of rural fishers in fisheries management a priority.

More work in this sector of community development is necessary for fishers to understand,

and thus have more meaningful roles in, fisheries management. Managers should also make

room for local knowledge to be shared so that they are also educated when local residents

discuss their views of salmon ecology. Basic communication forums are necessary so that

assumed notions of parallel definitions are broken down and a new framework of

commonality can be created.

81

Bibliography Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2005a Wildlife Notebook Series. ADFG. Electronic document,

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/notehome.php, accessed May 3, 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2005b Sport Fishing Regulations. ADFG. Electronic document, http://www.sf.adfg.state.a k.us/statewide/eonr/01reg3.htm, accessed May 23, 2005.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2005c Management Proposals for Federal Subsistence Board 2005 Meeting. Alaska: Office of Subsistence Management.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2004 Yukon Salmon Districts. ADFG. Electronic document, http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak. us/region3/finfis h/salmon/map s/ayk_yukon.php, accessed May 23, 2005.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2003 Advisory Committees. ADFG. Electronic document, http://www.boards.adf g.state.ak.us/advisory/index.php, accessed April 18, 2005.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1996 Understanding Harvest Assessment in the North. ADFG: Institute of Social and

Economic Research, Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska State Board of Fish 2001 Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries. 5 AAAC 39.222. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2005 Information Sheet: 2005 Yukon River Salmon Fisheries. ADFG and USFWS. Electronic document, http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/region3/finfish/salmo n/forecast/05yukstrat.pdf, accessed May 23, 2005. Allen, David 2000 “Salmon runs in Western Alaska, involving Kuskokwim and Yukon chum and

Chinook stocks, are experiencing the most severe failures on record.” Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Andrews, Elizabeth and Michael Coffing 1986 Kuskokwim River Subsistence Chinook Fisheries: An Overview. Technical paper for

Alaska Board of Fisheries. Electronic document, http://www.subsistence.adfg.s tate.ak.us/TechPap/tp146.pdf, accessed February 15, 2005.

82

Association of Village Council Presidents 2005 “Association of Village Council Presidents” Electronic document,

http://www.avcp.org/index.html, accessed April 18, 2005. Brelsford, Taylor 2005a Email Communication. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. Received

May 10, 2005. Brelsford, Taylor 2005b Email Communication. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. Received

May 16, 2005. Brelsford, Taylor 2005c Email Communication. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. Received

May 26,2005. Brown, Harold 2002 “It came to my attention yesterday that while subsistence fishermen on the middle

and upper Yukon River have been fishing under significant restrictions, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has decided to open the Y1 and Y2 regions on the lower Yukon River to two commercial openings for king salmon.” Federal Subsistence Board.” Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Bue, Fred, and Monty Millard 2001 “Subsistence fishing informational meeting.” Alaska Department of Fish and Game

and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Buklis, Lawrence 2004 Beyond Salmon: Study examines importance of non-salmon species to the Koyukuk

region. From Land and Water, Summer 2004. Electronic document, http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/news.cfm?nlr=1, accessed February 15, 2005.

Buklis, Lawrence 1999 Description of economic changes in commercial salmon fisheries in a region of mixed

subsistence and market economies. Arctic 52(1):40-48. Burkey Jr., Charles 2004 The Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Fishery of Area M, Through July 25, The

Time Period of the SEDM Salmon Management Plan. ADFG: Division of Commercial Fisheries, Kodiak, AK.

83

Caulfield, Richard 1980 Interim Report on the Survey of Permit holders in the Tanana River Subsistence

Permit Fishery (SUBUNIT Y6-C) 1980. Technical paper for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Electronic document, http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/TechPap/tp015.pdf, accessed February 15, 2005.

Coffey, Dan. 2001 The Alaska Board of Fisheries opposes the staff committee recommendations for

Special Action Requests 01 and 02, which ask for the closure of sport fishing for Chinook and chum salmon on the lower Kuskokwim and Yukon river drainages. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Demientieff, Mitch 2000 “This letter responds to your letter dated August 19, 2000, which petitioned the

Federal Subsistence Board for relief for your client, Mr. Richard O. Cook, under §804 of ANILCA.” Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Demientieff, Mitch 2001 This letter addresses two Special Action Requests (SARs) submitted to the Federal

Subsistence Board (FSB) asking for sport fishing closures on the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim drainages.” Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Demientieff, Mitch. 2002 “I am writing to report the Federal Subsistence Board’s action on your June 19, 2002

Special Action Request (FSA02-06) for Yukon River Chinook salmon.” Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Demientieff, Mitch. 2003 “The Office of Subsistence Management has given careful consideration to the two

regulatory proposals the Association of Village Council Presidents submitted for the 2004 regulatory cycle.” Untitled paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Federal Subsistence Board 2005 Management Proposals and Summary for 2005 Federal Subsistence Board Meeting.

Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Subsistence Management. Federal Subsistence Board. 2004 Management Regulations for the Harvest of Fish and Shellfish on Federal Public

Lands and Waters in Alaska. Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Subsistence Management.

84

Federal Subsistence Board 2001 “This Special Action provides for Federal subsistence fishing for salmon on Yukon

River Federal lands under an adopted fishing schedule created during the 2001 State of Alaska Board of Fisheries meetings.” Special Action May 31, 2001. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Federal Subsistence Board 2001(b) “This Special Action provides for Federal subsistence fishing for salmon on

Yukon River Federal lands.” Special Action June 12, 2001. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Federal Subsistence Board 2001(c) “This Special Action provides for Federal subsistence fishing for salmon on Yukon

River Federal lands.” Special Action June 13, 2001. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK

Federal Subsistence Board 2000 Federal subsistence board announces emergency restrictions to conserve Chinook and

summer chum salmon in the Yukon River Drainage. Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of the

Interior. 2001 Subsistence management regulations for public lands in Alaska, Subpart D;

emergency closures and adjustments – Kuskokwim and Yukon River drainages. Federal Register. 66:77. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Gay, Joel 2003 Coalition to Study Western Salmon; Project: State, federal and tribal agencies will

spend $15 million to solve mysteries of area fish declines. Anchorage Daily News, September 22, 2003. Electronic document, http://web.lexis-nexis.com, accessed February 15, 2005.

Gay, Joel 2004 Y-K salmon runs finally rebounding; Good Year: Strong returns of kings, chums ease

local tensions. Anchorage Daily News, June 19, 2004. Electronic document, http://web.lexis-nexis.com, accessed February 15, 2005.

Holder, Russell 2003 “As the delegated federal fisheries manager for the Yukon River drainage, I was

asked to respond to your Special Action Request dated June 20, 2003 and received June 23rd.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

85

Institute of Social and Economic Research 2004 Executive summary: status of Alaska Natives 2004. Alaska, University of Alaska

Anchorage. Huntington, Carol 1981 Issue Paper on Subsistence King Salmon Drift Gillnetting -- Yukon Area District 4A.

Technical paper for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Electronic document, http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/TechPap/ tp017.pdf, accessed February 15, 2005.

Ivan, Ivan and Lake, A. J. 2001 “The Association of Village council Presidents is writing to express it’s support of

two special action requests that are currently before the Federal Subsistence Board. Association of Village Council Representatives. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Johnson, Eric 2001. “I am an attorney for the Association of Village Council Presidents, the Bethel-based

Native regional non-profit for 56 federally-recognized tribes in western Alaska.” Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Knowles, Terry 2000 “On July 19 I signed a disaster declaration for the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Norton

Sound regions due to all-time low returns of Chinook and chum salmon to this region.” Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Klein, Jill 2004 A Message from the Director. Yukon Fisheries News, Fall 2004. Kroll, Gary 2001 Special Action Request to closed king and chum fishing in federal waters of Yukon

and Kuskokwim drainages. Alaska Quest. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Kron, Tom 1999 Some Historical and Regulatory Information Concerning Yukon River Salmon

Fisheries. Powerpoint Presentation. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management: Alaska.

Kuskokwim Native Association 2000 “The Kuskokwim Native Association’s Executive Committee passed a resolution at

their meeting on May 18, 2001 requesting that commercial sport fishing operations cease on the Kuskokwim River and its tributaries until escapement needs have been met.” Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

86

Leask, Linda, with Mary Killorin and Stephanie Martin 2001 Trends in Alaska’s people and economy: Prepared for the Alaska 20/20 partnership

bringing Alaskans together to chart our future. Alaska: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage

Lignau, Tracy and Fred Bue 2004 Information sheet: 2004 Yukon River salmon fisheries. Federal Subsistence Board

Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK. Luke, James 2001 Special action request to the Federal Subsistence Board. Untitled Paper. Federal

Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK. Manning, Elizabeth 2001 Feds lift Yukon chum restrictions. Anchorage Daily News, August 14, 2001.

Electronic Source. http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/658257p-701127c.html, accessed August 8, 2001.

Montgomery, David 2003 King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon. Colorado: Westview Press. Norris, Frank. 2002 Alaska Subsistence: A National Park Service Management History. National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior: Anchorage, Alaska. Regional Meeting Councils Meeting Transcripts. Electronic document, http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/racalt.cfm Rue, Frank. 2001 I am writing to express my concern regarding the Special Action Request (SAR)

submitted by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Federal Advisory Council.” Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Federal Subsistence Board. 2000 Yukon area fall season subsistence fishing announcement. Untitled Paper. Federal

Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK. State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Federal Subsistence Board. 2000 (b) Yukon Area Fall Season Subsistence Fishing Closure. Untitled Paper. Federal

Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK. State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Federal Subsistence Board. 2000 (c) Upper Yukon Area, District 4, 5, and 6 Fall Season Subsistence Salmon Fishing

Restrictions. Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

87

Sumida, Valerie and David Andersen 1990 Patterns of Fish and Wildlife Use for Subsistence in Fort Yukon, Alaska. Technical

paper for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Electronic document, http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/ TechPap/tp179.pdf, accessed February 15, 2005.

Talbott, Chris. 2001 A disappearing act: Where have all the fish gone? MediaNews Group, Inc, July 30,

2001. Electronic Source. wysiwyg://CONTENT.2/http://63.147.65.1/S-ASP-Bin/Ref/Index.asp?PUID=1258. Accessed 3/15/2005.

Tanana Chiefs Conference. 2003a “History of TCC.” Tanana Chiefs Conference. Electronic Source.

http://www.tananachiefs.org/corporate/history_tcc.html. Accessed 4/18/2005 Tanana Chiefs Conference. 2003b “It has come to our attention that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADF&G) has again adopted a preseason run outlook and plan to open the Yukon River to limited commercial fishing if the 2003 runs are similar to or better than last year’s runs.” Untitled Paper. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

Traditional Council, and Napaimute Traditional Council,. 2005 Notes for public meeting, January 11-13. Federal Subsistence Board of Alaska.

Untitled Document. Alaska, March 25. Federal Subsistence Board Archives: 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of the Interior 2001 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart D;

Emergency Closures and Adjustments – Kuskokwim and Yukon River Drainages. Federal Registrar 66:117, June 18, 2001. Federal Subsistence Board Archives 3601 C St. Suite 103, Anchorage, AK.

United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of the Interior 2000 News Release. Federal Subsistence Board Archives 3601 C St. Suite 103,

Anchorage, AK. Wolfe, Robert, with James Fall, Virginia Fay, Susan Georgette, James Magdanz, Sverre Pedersen, Mary Pete and Janet Schichnes 1986 The Role of Fish and Wildlife in the Economies of Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham,

Kotzebue, and Nome. Technical paper for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Electronic document, http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us /TechPap/tp154.pdf, accessed February 15, 2005.

88

Appendix A: List of Interviewees

Alex Nick – Regional Council Coordinator for the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta Region Carolyn Brown – Anthropologist - ADFG Division of Subsistence

Catherine Moncrieff – Anthropologist for Local Knowledge - YRDFA

Daniel Bergstrom – Yukon Area Fisheries Manager for ADFG

Fred Bue – Fall Inseason Fisheries Manager/Area Management Biologist – ADFG Division of Fisheries Jack Reakoff – Representative for the Western Interior RAC

Jerry Berg – Biologist for OSM – Reviews Fisheries Proposals

Jill Klein – Director of YRDFA

Mike Smith – Tanana Chiefs Conference

Rodney Simmons – USFWS Fisheries Service Representative

Russ Holder – Yukon Area Fisheries Manager for OSM

Tim Andrews – Association of Village Council Presidents

Tom Kron - Statewide Support Division Chief for OSM

Tracy Lignau - Summer Inseason Fisheries Manager for ADFG Division of Fisheries

Virgil Umphenour – Fish Processor, prior Board of Fish member

89

Appendix B. Map of Alaska Outlining State Salmon Districts Along the Yukon River.

(ADFG 2004)

90

Appendix C. Federal Yukon River and Fishing Districts

(FSB 2004)

91