Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Manokotak ... · harvest and use of wild fish, game, and plant resources, demography, and aspects of the local cash economy such as

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES BY RESIDENTS OF MANOKOTAK, TOGIAK,

AND TWIN HILLS, 1999/2000

By

Philippa Coiley-Kenner, Theodore M. Krieg, Molly B. Chythlook, and Gretchen Jennings

Technical Paper Number 275

Division of Subsistence

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska

April 2003

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT PUBLICATIONS STATEMENT

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information please write to:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203 or Office of Economic Opportunity U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240.

For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-2440.

ABSTRACT

Beginning in April 2000, researchers employed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s

(ADF&G) Division of Subsistence conducted 193 interviews with residents of Manokotak, Togiak, and

Twin Hills, in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. This study was designed to collect information about the

harvest and use of wild fish, game, and plant resources, demography, and aspects of the local cash

economy such as employment and income. Data were collected for the 12-month period from April 1,

1999, to March 31, 2000. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of Subsistence Management

funded the project. Information was collected during face-to-face interviews using a standard survey

form. The goal was to talk with all households in Manokotak and Twin Hills and all households in Togiak

with active hunters. Additionally, a random sample of other Togiak households was interviewed. Of all

households contacted, a large majority (91 percent) agreed to be interviewed. In Manokotak 90.0 percent

of households were interviewed, 56.8 percent in Togiak, and 52.2 percent in Twin Hills. Households were

also asked to map areas where caribou, moose, and bear were harvested in the past year and over the

past 20 years.

The population of the study area has grown in the last several decades, with a 34 percent

increase since 1980, according to the US Census. Estimated human population sizes for the study year

were as follows: 396 in Manokotak, 727 in Togiak, and 69 in Twin Hills. The Alaska Native segment of

their populations was 95.8 percent in Manokotak, 91.0 percent in Togiak, and 91.7 percent in Twin Hills.

The average length of residency in the study communities for household heads was relatively long,

ranging from a high of 31.6 years for Togiak to a low of 22.9 years for Twin Hills.

For 1999/2000 in all three communities, most adults had jobs. As in much of the Bristol Bay area,

much cash employment was seasonal; in no community did most adults work year-round. Commercial

fishing was especially important as a source of jobs and income in Manokotak and Togiak. Government

employment was an important source of jobs and income in all three communities, especially in Twin

Hills. Per capita incomes ranged from $8,510 in Togiak to $13,012 in Twin Hills. Alaska Permanent Fund

Dividends averaged 13 to 19 percent of total incomes in the three communities.

Almost all the households used wild foods and a large majority fished, hunted, or gathered

resources. In 1999/2000, as estimated in pounds usable weight, wild resource harvest levels ranged from

a high of 498 pounds per person in Twin Hills, followed by Manokotak at 355 pounds per person, and

Togiak at 246 pounds per person. The average number of different kinds of resources used per

household in 1999/2000 ranged from a high of 28.8 kinds in Manokotak, to 16.9 kinds in Togiak.

As expressed by a percentage of the total harvest, salmon ranked first in all communities but

Togiak, where large land mammals (primarily caribou and moose) ranked first. Subsistence gear

produced by far the largest number of salmon for home use. Salmon removed from commercial harvests

for home use provided less than 15 percent of the total harvest in all three communities. Rod and reel

harvests provided less than 5 percent of the total harvest in all three communities. In Togiak and Twin

Hills, chinook was harvested at higher levels than other salmon, while sockeye salmon was harvested at

the highest level in Manokotak, generally taken at Igushik fish camp on Nushagak Bay.

Moose and caribou were frequently used in the study communities, providing almost one third of

the wild resource harvest in each community. Most of the harvests took place near the communities and

up the major drainages (Togiak River drainage for Togiak; Togiak, Negukthlik, and Ungalikthluk rivers for

Twin Hills; and Igushik River drainage for Manokotak).

Non-salmon fish, such as trout, char, pike, whitefish, and smelt, were between 10 and 20 percent

of the total harvest in pounds usable weight. Marine mammals, such as seal and beluga, and wild plants

(mainly berries) added substantially to the total harvests. Next were birds and eggs, small land

mammals, and marine invertebrates at 1 percent of the harvest in Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills.

There have been household surveys done in Manokotak covering 12-month periods in 1973/74,

1985, and 1999/2000. In 1973/74 Manokotak harvested 406 pounds per person of wild resources, 384

pounds per person in 1985, and 355 pounds per person in 1999/2000, in pounds usable weight. In

1973/74 salmon and large land mammals contributed the most to the total harvest of wild resources (38

percent and 27 percent, respectively, of the total harvest). For comparison, salmon and non-salmon fish

were the largest resource categories in 1985, 36 percent and 22 percent, respectively, of the total

harvest. In 1999/2000 the main resource categories were salmon (33 percent) and large land mammals

(32 percent).

The per capita harvests at Manokotak in 1973/74 and 1985, when adjusted to include comparable

resources (i.e., when plants and marine invertebrates are removed from the 1985 data), are within forty

pounds (405.9 pounds and 365.4 pounds, respectively). Some resource categories were harvested at

almost the same levels in both survey years; for instance, salmon within 15 pounds per person, and

marine mammals within 10 pounds per person. Land mammals reflect the largest decline in per capita

harvest from 109.6 pounds in 1973/74 to 60.4 pounds in 1985. The lower harvest level in 1985 was

probably due to poor snow cover and traveling conditions and more liberal hunting seasons in the early

1970s, when people were given more time to harvest moose and caribou. The non-salmon fish harvest

level increased from 63.6 pounds per person in 1973/74 to 85.1 pounds per person in 1985 because

herring and herring roe use increased substantially due to the establishment of the commercial herring

fishery in the Togiak District and increased travel to the harvest grounds. The small land mammal harvest

level also increased between the two survey years as the harvest of beaver increased corresponding to

the resurgence of the beaver population in Unit 17 in the 1980s.

Comparing the 1985 and 1999/2000 survey data for Manokotak, four of the eight resource

categories have similar harvest levels, in pounds usable weight: salmon, marine invertebrates, birds and

eggs, and marine mammals. The harvest of small land mammals declined from 34.6 pounds per person

in 1985 to 8.4 pounds per person in 1999/2000, from 9 to 2 percent of the total harvest, as the value of fur

declined. The large land mammal harvest increased from 60.4 pounds per person in 1985 to 113.3

pounds in 1999/2000, increasing from 16 to 32 percent of the total harvest. The 1999/2000 harvest is

very near the 1973/74 level of 109.6 pounds per person. The decline from 1973/74 to 1985 was due to

regulatory season restrictions. The increase from 1985 to 1999/2000 was affected by increased

abundance of caribou and moose. The non-salmon fish portion of the Manokotak harvest has declined

from 85.1 pounds per person in 1985 to 37.3 pounds per person in 1999/2000, from 22.2 to 10.5 percent

of the total harvest. This is due to deceased per capita harvests of herring, herring roe, pike, and smelt.

The use of wild plants rose from 4 percent of the harvest in 1985 to 9 percent in 1999/2000. The berry

harvest increased from 12.4 pounds to 28.5 pounds per person from 1985 to 1999/2000 due to favorable

weather conditions and the movement of people to temporary camps in late summer and fall to harvest

and process other resources, such as salmon.

The Togiak harvest level determined by this study for 1999/2000, 246 pounds per person

harvested during the survey year, is on a par with the Dillingham harvests from 1973/74 and 1984.

Togiak was second only to Dillingham in population size and had begun to show some of the

characteristics of this hub community in the subsistence data. That is, the commercial sector based on

trade, transportation, and commercial fishing was growing. Togiak, as well as Manokotak and Twin Hills,

had a mixed subsistence-cash economy. When commercial contact with other communities, resource

regulations, and land use restrictions increase, the magnitude of the subsistence harvest tends to

decrease. A survey conducted in Togiak in the early 1970s would likely have revealed a higher

subsistence harvest level. The 1999/2000 Manokotak results, a wild resource harvest of 356 pounds per

person, is near the harvest levels of Clark’s Point and Aleknagik from surveys conducted in 1973/74 and

1989. Finally, Twin Hills at 499 pounds per person occurs a step above Manokotak, but below the

Nushagak River community harvest levels from 1973/74 and 1985. Those survey findings from the

Nushagak River are at the 600 pounds per person and above range.

In conclusion, while resource harvest levels were shown to vary from year to year in their

composition, for Manokotak the total harvest level has been fairly constant since the early 1970s. The

subsistence harvest in Manokotak in 1999/2000 was diverse including many different resources,

consistent with previous research. The harvest levels in Togiak and Twin Hills were demonstrated to

have similar diversity. A heavy reliance on subsistence resources existed in all three communities where

there were limited opportunities for cash employment.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ vii Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Objective ...................................................................................................... 2 Research Methods ............................................................................................................ 5 Community Approvals and Ethical Standards ......................................................... 5 Survey Instrument................................................................................................. 5 Mapping Methods ................................................................................................. 6 Sampling Procedures and Goals............................................................................ 6 Coding and Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 6 Community Review............................................................................................... 7 Limitations of the Data ...................................................................................................... 7 Chapter Two: Community Background, Demography, and Cash Economy ...................................... 9 Natural Environment ......................................................................................................... 9 Historical Ethnography ...................................................................................................... 10 Demography ................................................................................................................ 14 Manokotak ........................................................................................................... 14 Togiak ................................................................................................................ 16 Twin Hills ............................................................................................................. 16 Cash Employment and Income .......................................................................................... 16 Cash Employment ................................................................................................ 16 Cash Income........................................................................................................ 21 Food Expenses ................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter Three: General Characteristics of Resource Use............................................................... 31 Historical Seasonal Round ................................................................................................ 31 Contemporary Seasonal Round ......................................................................................... 31 Species Used and Levels of Participation ........................................................................... 35 Harvest Quantities ............................................................................................................ 40 Manokotak ........................................................................................................... 40 Togiak ................................................................................................................ 57 Twin Hills ............................................................................................................. 57 Resource Sharing and Receiving ....................................................................................... 58 Chapter Four: Salmon ................................................................................................................ 61 State and Federal Regulations........................................................................................... 61 State Subsistence Fishing Regulations................................................................... 61 State Sport Fishing Regulations ............................................................................. 61 Federal Subsistence Fishing Regulations ............................................................... 62 Species Harvested and Harvest Quantities ......................................................................... 62 Methods of Harvest ........................................................................................................ 64 Manokotak ........................................................................................................... 64 Togiak ................................................................................................................ 64 Twin Hills ............................................................................................................. 70 Chapter Five: Non-salmon Fish, Marine Invertebrates, and Wild Plants ........................................... 75 Non-salmon Fish .............................................................................................................. 75 State Subsistence Fishing Regulations................................................................... 75 State Sport Fishing Regulations ............................................................................. 75 Federal Subsistence Fishing Regulations ............................................................... 75

ii

Table of Contents (continued) Manokotak ........................................................................................................... 76 Togiak ................................................................................................................ 76 Twin Hills ............................................................................................................. 81 Marine Invertebrates ......................................................................................................... 89 Wild Plants ................................................................................................................ 89 Berries ................................................................................................................ 91 Other Plants ......................................................................................................... 91 Wood ................................................................................................................ 91 Chapter Six: Hunting and Trapping ............................................................................................... 93 Large Land Mammals ....................................................................................................... 93 State and Federal Regulations for the 1999/2000 Regulatory Year in GMU 17.......... 93 Moose ................................................................................................................ 98 Caribou ................................................................................................................ 100 Bear ................................................................................................................ 129 Small Land Mammals........................................................................................................ 129 Marine Mammals .............................................................................................................. 129 Round Island Walrus Hunt ..................................................................................... 130 Birds and Eggs ................................................................................................................ 131 Chapter Seven: Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................. 133 Changes in the Harvest Patterns in Manokotak: 1973/74, 1985, and 1999/2000 .................. 133 Comparing 1973/74 and 1985 Research Results .................................................... 133 Comparing 1985 and 1999/2000 Research Results................................................. 139 Comparison of the Study Communities with Others in the Region ........................................ 140 “Super Households” in Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills................................................... 142 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 148 References Cited ................................................................................................................ 151 Appendix A: Ethical Conduct ........................................................................................................ 155 Appendix B: Overview of Study Findings ....................................................................................... 157 Appendix C: Survey Instrument: Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills 1999/2000 .............................. 167 Appendix D: Edible Weights of Fish, Land Mammals, Marine mammals, and Plants......................... 195

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Survey Sampling and Participation Summary.................................................................. 7

Table 2. Historic Population of the Study Area, 1880-2000 ...........................................................13

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Households, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ..................15

Table 4. Selected Demographic Characteristics from the US Census, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................14

Table 5. Population Profile, Manokotak, April 2000 ......................................................................17

Table 6. Population Profile, Togiak, April 2000 .............................................................................18

Table 7. Population Profile, Twin Hills, April 2000 ........................................................................19

Table 8. Employment Characteristics, Study Communities, 1999/2000..........................................20

Table 9. Employment by Industry, Manokotak, 1999/2000 ............................................................22

Table 10. Employment by Industry, Togiak, 1999/2000 ..................................................................23

Table 11. Employment by Industry, Twin Hills, 1999/2000 ..............................................................24

Table 12. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes by Employer Type, Manokotak, 1999/2000..................................................................................................25

Table 13. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes by Employer Type, Togiak, 1999/2000........................................................................................................26

Table 14. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes by Employer Type, Twin Hills, 1999/2000....................................................................................................27

Table 15. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................29 Table 16. Estimated Annual Cost of Purchasing Food, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ...................28 Table 17. Percentage of Meat, Fish, and Birds from Subsistence Resources, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................30 Table 18. Resource Harvest and Use Characteristics, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ....................36

Table 19. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................38

Table 20. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................39

Table 21. Ten Resources Used by the Most Households, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ...............37

Table 22. Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Game, and Plant Resources, Manokotak, 1999/2000..................................................................................................41

Table 23. Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Game, and Plant Resources, Togiak, 1999/2000........................................................................................................46

Table 24. Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Game, and Plant Resources, Twin Hills, 1999/2000....................................................................................................51

Table 25. Percentages of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, Study Communities 1999/2000 ......................................................................................65

Table 26. Estimated Percentages of Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Manokotak, 1999/2000..................................................................................................67

iv

Table 27. Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Manokotak, 1999/2000 ................................... 68

Table 28. Estimated Percentages of Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Togiak, 1999/2000........................................................................................................ 69

Table 29. Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Togiak, 1999/2000.......................................... 71

Table 30. Estimated Percentages of Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Twin Hills, 1999/2000.................................................................................................... 72

Table 31. Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Twin Hills, 1999/2000 ..................................... 73

Table 32. Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Manokotak, 1999/2000.................................................................................................. 77

Table 33. Estimated Percentages of the Fish Other Than Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Manokotak, 1999/2000 ........................................................ 78

Table 34. Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear Type and Species, Manokotak, 1999/2000 ........................................................ 80

Table 35. Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Togiak, 1999/2000........................................................................................................ 82

Table 36. Estimated Percentages of the Fish Other Than Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Togiak, 1999/2000............................................................... 83

Table 37. Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear Type and Species, Togiak, 1999/2000............................................................... 85

Table 38. Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Twin Hills, 1999/2000.................................................................................................... 86

Table 39. Estimated Percentages of the Fish Other than Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Twin Hills, 1999/2000................................................................................ 87

Table 40. Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear Type and Species, Twin Hills, 1999/2000................................................................................ 90

Table 41. Moose Hunting Regulations for Alaska State Residents, GMU17, 1999/2000 Regulatory Year............................................................................................................ 94

Table 42. Caribou Hunting Regulations for Alaska State Residents, GMU 17, 1999/2000 Regulatory Year............................................................................................................ 96

Table 43. The Estimated Harvest of Moose by Uniform Coding Unit, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .................................................................................................................... 99

Table 44. The Estimated Harvest of Caribou by Uniform Coding Unit, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ....................................................................................................................129

Table 45. The Number of Walrus Tagged and Harvested, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ...............131

Table 46. Comparison of Harvest Composition, Manokotak, 1973/74, 1985, and 1999/2000.............134

Table 47. Comparison of Harvest Composition Excluding Marine Invertebrates and Wild Plants, Manokotak, 1973/ 74, 1985, and 1999/2000...........................................136

Table 48. Comparison of Freshwater Fish Harvests, Manokotak, 1973/74, 1985 and 1999/2000 .......................................................................................138

Table 49. Ten Resources Harvested at the Highest Levels, by Usable Weight, Manokotak, 1973/74, 1985, and 1999/2000 ......................................................................................139

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Generalized Land Status Togiak National Wildlife Refuge ............................................... 3

Figure 2. Historic Population Settlements of the Study Area........................................................... 12

Figure 3. Population Profile, Manokotak, April 2000 ...................................................................... 17

Figure 4. Population Profile, Togiak, April 2000 ............................................................................. 18

Figure 5. Population Profile, Twin Hills, April 2000 ........................................................................ 19

Figure 6. Annual Round of Harvest Activities by Residents of Togiak and Twin Hills........................ 32

Figure 7. Annual Round of Harvest Activities by Residents of Manokotak ....................................... 34

Figure 8. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ..................................................................................... 56

Figure 9. Salmon Harvest Composition by Weight, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ........................ 63

Figure 10. Percent of Salmon Harvested for Home Use by Gear Type, Study Communities, 1999/2000 ..................................................................................... 66

Figure 11. Manokotak Moose Use Area, Study Year and Last 20 Years ...........................................101

Figure 12. Togiak Moose Use Area, Study Year and Last 20 Years..................................................103

Figure 13. Twin Hills Moose Use Area, Study Year and Last 20 Years .............................................105

Figure 14. Estimated Harvest of Moose by Uniform Coding Unit, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................107

Figure 15. Estimated Harvest of Moose by Uniform Coding Unit, Manokotak, 1999/2000...................109

Figure 16. Estimated Harvest of Moose by Uniform Coding Unit, Togiak, 1999/2000 .........................111

Figure 17. Estimated Harvest of Moose by Uniform Coding Unit, Twin Hills, 1999/2000.....................113

Figure 18. Manokotak Caribou Use Area, 2000 and Since 1980.......................................................115

Figure 19. Togiak Caribou Use Area, 2000 and Since 1980 .............................................................117

Figure 20. Twin Hills Caribou Use Area, 2000 and Since 1980.........................................................119

Figure 21. Estimated Harvest of Caribou by Uniform Coding Unit, Study Communities, 1999/2000 .....................................................................................121

Figure 22. Estimated Harvest of Caribou by Uniform Coding Unit, Manokotak, 1999/2000 .................123

Figure 23. Estimated Harvest of Caribou by Uniform Coding Unit, Togiak, 1999/2000 .......................125

Figure 24. Estimated Harvest of Caribou by Uniform Coding Unit, Twin Hills, 1999/2000...................127

Figure 25. Comparison of Harvest Composition, Manokotak, 1973/74, 1985, and 1999/2000 ......................................................................................135

Figure 26. Comparison of Harvest Composition Excluding Marine Invertebrates and Wild Plants, Manokotak, 1973/74, 1985, and 1999/2000...........................................137

Figure 27. Noncommercial Wild Resource Harvests in Pounds Per Person, Western Bristol Bay Communities ..................................................................................141

Figure 28. Noncommercial Wild Resource Harvests by Community, Western Bristol Bay Communities ................................................................................................................143

Figure 29. Noncommercial Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Western Bristol Bay Communities ..................................................................................144

Figure 30. Distribution of Harvests by Percentage of Households, Manokotak, 1999/2000.................145

vi

Figure 31. Distribution of Harvests by Percentage of Households, Togiak, 1999/2000.......................146

Figure 32. Distribution of Harvests by Percentage of Households, Twin Hills, 1999/2000...................147

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people helped complete this report. James Fall with the Division of Subsistence, Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, read over several drafts and made many helpful comments that have

added substantially to the quality of the report. Also with the division, Jessie Mallery entered the

information on the survey forms into the statistical program. Gretchen Jennings processed this data for

publication. Cartographer Carol Barnhill with Habitat Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,

produced the harvest area maps. Cartographer Kim Milton with the US Fish and Wildlife Service

produced Figure 1, the generalized land status map. This research would not have been possible without

Anuska Sears, Elizabeth Myas, Laura Forsling, Vivian Maud, and Jack Kanulie in Togiak; Tommy Evon,

Barbara Moore, Amy Tugatuk, and Teresa Ayojiak in Manokotak; and Jewline Sharp and Wilbur Sharp in

Twin Hills. These people conducted most of the household interviews. Vicki Vanek with the Division of

Subsistence also conducted some household interviews. And finally, Hans Nicholson with the Natural

Resource Department, Bristol Bay Native Association, generously gave his support to the study and

conducted some household interviews. Without a doubt, the most important component of this research

was the many people who agreed to be interviewed, offering researchers their time and hospitality.

Quyanaqvaa.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The communities of Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills are located in the Bristol Bay region of

southwest Alaska (Figure 1). The Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA) Natural Resource Department

and the Division of Subsistence (the "division") of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

initiated this research because a comprehensive overview of wild resource harvests in Togiak and Twin

Hills had not previously been done. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Office of Subsistence

Management funded the project through ANILCA Section 809 Cooperative Agreement Number

701810J236. Much of the land and waters used by Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills for subsistence

activities are within the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (TNWR). Subsistence uses of natural resources

are a principal part of the economy and an important part of cultural and social life in the villages of

Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills (Fall et al. 1996, Gross 1991, Schichnes and Chythlook 1988, Social

Science Research Associates 1992, Wolfe et al. 1984, Wright and Chythlook 1985, and Wright et al.

1985).

Other projects have investigated the subsistence economy in these communities. Gasbarro and

Utermohle (1974) for a 12-month period in 1973/74 and Schichnes and Chythlook (1988) for the calendar

year 1985 conducted surveys of wild, non-commercial resource harvests and uses in Manokotak.

Another survey was conducted in Togiak by researchers with Social Science Research Associates

(SSRA) (1992). Because of methodological differences, results of the SSRA research are not

comparable to the results of ADF&G projects. Freshwater fish harvest and use information was collected

in 1995 for Manokotak and Togiak (BBNA and ADF&G 1996). Migratory bird harvest surveys, conducted

by BBNA, have documented harvests of birds and eggs by Togiak and Manokotak from 1995 to 2000.

The harvest of walrus on Round Island has been monitored by the USFWS and ADF&G . The division

conducted surveys of harbor seal, spotted seal, and sea lion harvests for the years 1992 to 1998 and

2000-2001 (Wolfe 2001). Subsistence salmon harvests were documented each year by the division

through administration of the subsistence salmon permit system. Subsistence hunters were required to

report their caribou and moose harvests to ADF&G by obtaining and returning harvest tickets or permits.

Results of the research described in this report will be useful to local residents, local Fish and

Game Advisory Committees, the Alaska Board of Game and Board of Fisheries, and the Federal

Subsistence Board when issues and regulatory proposals affecting subsistence resources in the

Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills areas are discussed.

2

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of this study was to document contemporary patterns of hunting, fishing,

and gathering wild renewable resources by the residents of Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills. In

addition to the collection of comprehensive resource use and harvest information, another purpose of this

project was to train local community residents in methods used to collect subsistence harvest and use

information. Through its contract with the US Fish and Wildlife, BBNA hired the following community

residents to assist with household interviews:

The goal was to interview all households in Manokotak and Twin Hills and all the households in

Togiak with active hunters. Additionally, a random sample of other Togiak households was interviewed.

The following information was collected through systematic, face-to-face interviews for a 12-month study

period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

Resource harvest and use information:

• Whether the household used, attempted to harvest, harvested, received, or gave away each resource during the study year

• Harvest estimates for each resource in appropriate units, such as numbers of animals or fish,

gallons, buckets, or usable pounds

• Removal of resources from commercial harvests for home use

• Areas used to hunt and harvest caribou, moose, brown bear, and black bear in the study year

• Areas used to hunt caribou, moose, brown bear, and black bear over the last 20 years

Togiak Manokotak Twin HillsAnuska Sears Tommy Evon Jewline SharpElizabeth Myas Barbara Moore Wilbur SharpLaura Forsling Amy TugatukVivian Maud Teresa AyojiakJack Kanulie

Others who participated in field work were:

BBNA Division of SubsistenceHans Nicholson Molly Chythlook

Ted KriegVicki Vanek

Page left blank

4

5

Demographic data:

For each household member: age; sex; relation to household head; birthplace; ethnicity; length of

residency in the study community; and involvement in hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and

processing wild resources during the study year.

Economic data:

• Type of jobs held by each adult (16 years of age or older)

• Employer types

• Cash income from each job

• Employment patterns, such as location of jobs and seasonality of employment

• Income from non-job sources (e.g. permanent fund dividend, transfer payments)

• Household expenses for food

RESEARCH METHODS

Community Approvals and Ethical Standards

The principal researchers with BBNA and the Division of Subsistence met with each community's

governing body to seek formal approval of the research plan. Under its research ethics guidelines

(Appendix A), the Division of Subsistence does not conduct a study such as this without approval from

the community. Additionally, each household had the option of declining to be interviewed, or declining to

answer any specific question. Participation was entirely voluntary. In addition, individual and household-

level responses to the questions are anonymous. No names are associated with the data and this

research will not be used for regulation enforcement purposes. The results are summarized at the

community level. The study communities were able to review and comment on the study findings before

they were published. The communities received copies of this report for their own use, and participating

households received a shorter findings summary (Appendix B).

Survey Instrument

The primary data gathering procedure was formal interviews using a standard survey instrument.

The interviews were conducted face-to-face. Respondents had the option of being interviewed in Central

Yup'ik by local research assistants hired to conduct interviews or in English. The survey instrument listed

each resource with Yup'ik and English names. A sample survey form is attached as Appendix C.

6

Mapping Methods

Information about areas used to hunt for and harvest large land mammals was collected for two

periods. Species mapped included moose, caribou, brown bear, and black bear. On clear mylar overlays

on a 1:250,000 scale base map, hunting households were asked to indicate the following using color

pens:

• Areas used to hunt each species in the study year, April 1999 to March 2000

• Locations of harvests (marked with an "X" within the hunting area), April 1999 to March 2000, and

• Areas used to hunt each species over the last 20 years while living in the study community to

update maps done in the early 1980s (Wright et al. 1985)

Sampling Procedures and Goals

At the beginning of the fieldwork phase in each community, researchers met with knowledgeable

village officials to list all permanent households. An attempt was made to interview every household in

Twin Hills and Manokotak. Because of Togiak's large size a list of households with at least one member

known to be an active hunter was drawn up. Attempts were made to contact all of these households.

From the list of remaining Togiak households, a random sample was selected and interviews were

conducted until 100 total households had been interviewed in Togiak. Table 1 summarizes survey

sample achievement. In Manokotak 81 of 90 households (90.0 percent) were interviewed. Researchers

were unable to contact five households and four households declined to be interviewed. In Twin Hills 12

of 23 households (52.2 percent) were interviewed, four were no contacts, and seven declined to be

interviewed. There were 176 total households in Togiak, and 56.8 percent were interviewed. In the first

stratum 62 hunting households were identified and 53 of these were interviewed. In the second stratum

47 households were randomly selected and interviewed from the 114 remaining households. In Togiak

15 households could not be contacted, and seven declined to be interviewed. For the project overall, the

refusal rate was a very modest 8.5 percent (18 of 211 households contacted).

Coding and Data Analysis

Division of Subsistence and BBNA field researchers and data management staff in Anchorage

coded the completed surveys. Data were entered for analysis using the SPSS (Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences) program in Anchorage. To assure accuracy, data from each survey were entered

twice into an Access 97 database. Harvest estimates in numbers, gallons, buckets, or whole weights

7

were converted into usable pounds using standard conversion factors (Appendix D). Carol Barnhill, a

Division of Habitat cartographer, entered map data using the GIS system of ArcInfo.

Community Review

A draft final report for USFWS, BBNA, and community review was prepared in December 2002.

The report was organized around a set of standard tables and figures for each study community, and

included maps of hunting areas for the study year and for the last 20 years. Comparisons were made

with other resource harvest data from the study communities and with other Bristol Bay communities.

After a two-month review period, the report was revised based on comments and completed in

March 2003 as part of the Division of Subsistence Technical Paper Series. The findings will also be

incorporated into the Community Profile Database (Scott et al. 2001).

LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA

Harvest surveys rely on retrospective recall and must be viewed as estimates rather than precise

figures, even though respondents are generally very cooperative with the surveys and try to recall their

yearly harvests as accurately as possible. After the reported harvests for each species of animal and

plant are expanded to the households not interviewed, the estimated community totals are considered to

be close to the actual community harvests. However, occasionally when the survey is complete, a

Table 1. Survey sampling and participation summary.

Type ofCommunity Sample

Manokotak Census 96 81 84.4% 11 4

Twin Hills Census 24 12 50.0% 5 7

Togiak Stratified Random 176 100 56.8% 15 7

Hunting - census 62 53 85.5% 7 2Other - random 114 47 41.2% 8 5

TOTAL 296 193 65.2% 31 18

Total IdentifiedHouseholds

SurveyedHouseholds

HouseholdsThat Declined

SurveyPercentof Total

HouseholdsNot Able to

Contact

8

number of factors can increase the uncertainty of the accuracy of the estimates in a particular community

and increase the statistical confidence intervals calculated when expanding the data.

Two factors were apparent when the Twin Hills surveys were completed and the estimated

harvest for the community calculated. First, not only was the sample fraction relatively low, 52 percent of

the total households were interviewed, but the total number, 12 households, was small. Second, there

was a high degree of variability in the size of the harvests from household to household. Therefore, the

confidenc e intervals for both the total harvests and the per capita harvests are large, larger than for the

other two communities in the study, Manokotak and Togiak (Tables 22, 23,24).

The Twin Hills harvest estimates presented in this report are still a useful tool, however, as they

are a snapshot of the subsistence use and harvest activities of half of the community. Additionally, the

data are accurate indicators of the magnitude of the community harvest in 1999/2000.

9

CHAPTER TWO: COMMUNITY BACKGROUND, DEMOGRAPHY, AND CASH ECONOMY

Manokotak is located on the Igushik River about 25 miles west of Dillingham, the regional center

of Bristol Bay, and 365 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city (Figure 1). The Igushik River

is the outlet of the Ualik and Amanka lake system and drains into Nushagak Bay. Manokotak’s salmon

fish camp, also named Igushik, is located at the river’s mouth. Manokotak sits between the east bank of

the river and a lone hill that rises to an elevation of about 850 feet. The Tuklung Hills are visible in the

background to the west.

The community of Togiak is located on Togiak Bay about two miles west of the mouth of the

Togiak River. It is 67 miles west of Dillingham and 395 miles southwest of Anchorage. The Togiak River

drains the Togiak lakes system. Most Togiakers can gain access to the river at any time because the

channel runs very close to the beach at the northern end of the village. However, access to the slough

(called Nasaurluq) that borders the northern and western half of the village is largely conditioned by the

tides. For a while in the 1990s a commercial salmon processing plant was located on the northern end of

the village and utilized the slough to unload fish tenders and fishing boats at high tide (Gross 1991:5).

Twin Hills is located about 1.5 miles inland on a branch of the Togiak River that breaks off from

the main channel about 12 miles upriver. This tributary is navigable during high tides. There is a road

connecting the cannery at Old Togiak with Twin Hills, but none of the three villages is connected to any

other village by road (Gross 1991:5). Access to all three villages is primarily by small aircraft and

secondarily by boat.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills are within a climatic transition zone and are affected by both

maritime and continental influences. Cloudy skies, mild temperatures, and moderately heavy

precipitation characterize the area. Average summer temperatures range from 40 to 70 degrees F.

Average winter temperatures range from 4 to 30 degrees F (ADCRA 1982:1). Tundra is the dominant

vegetation type in the area used for harvesting wild resources. Willows and scattered clumps of

cottonwoods grow along the rivers. Small patches of spruce grow in some areas. The land is dotted with

small ponds and lakes (Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:9).

Bristol Bay drainages are the world's most productive area for sockeye (red) salmon. Four other

species of Pacific salmon also spawn in Bristol Bay drainages, including chinook (king), chum (dog), pink

(humpy), and coho (silver). Marine fish present in the region include herring, smelt, halibut, and flounder.

Butter and razor clams and cockles are the primary marine invertebrates present in the general study

area. A variety of freshwater fish species, particularly rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, and

northern pike are common in many drainages. Lake trout, whitefish, burbot, and blackfish are also

present in the area (Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:9-10).

10

Two herds of caribou roam parts of the western Bristol Bay region. The Mulchatna Herd has

steadily increased from 20,618 caribou in 1981 to over 200,000 in 1999 (Hicks 1999). Its winter habitat

has expanded, and in recent years extended throughout Game Management Units 17, 19, and 9B,

absorbing the once distinct Nushagak Peninsula herd. Moose inhabit most of the study area in low to

moderate densities near willow and alder-lined stream banks. Brown bear are common and some black

bear are present. The area supports an abundant beaver population and numerous other furbearers are

present, including lynx, fox, wolf, land otter, muskrat, and mink. Small mammals include snowshoe and

arctic hare, porcupine, and arctic ground squirrel. Sea birds nest along the rugged coastline of the Togiak

area. Waterfowl and shorebirds are seasonally abundant. Ptarmigan are found in varying numbers

throughout the tundra and shrub habitats (Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:10)

The coastal waters are home to a number of marine mammal species. Harbor are very abundant

in certain locations and frequent Bristol Bay year round. Seals associated with the sea ice, such as

spotted, ringed, and bearded seals, are found in the northwest coastal areas in winter and spring. Walrus

occur at the ice edge in Bristol Bay in the winter, and males haul out on land in specific locations from

spring through fall. Several types of whales are found in Bristol Bay with beluga and gray whale most

common in near shore areas (Wright et al. 1985:16, Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:10-11).

HISTORICAL ETHNOGRAPHY

Little is known about the prehistory of the Togiak and Manokotak areas since only limited

archaeological work has been done in the region, and people were drawn into the fur trade before their

aboriginal way of life was recorded. An archaeological site on Round Island in Togiak Bay revealed

evidence of at least 2,200 years of intermittent occupation of a major village with perhaps 25 house pits

(Shaw 1986:7-8). An archaeological excavation of a midden at Old Togiak uncovered over 4,000 artifacts

(Kowta 1963:98-111).

English Captain James Cook explored Bristol Bay in 1778 followed by Russian explorers as early

as 1791. VanStone (1984:224-239) reported that at the time of the first European explorations of western

Alaska, three regional groups of Central Yup'ik-speaking Eskimos inhabited the Bristol Bay area. The first

Yup'ik Eskimo group was the Tuyuryarmiut (also known as the Togiagamiut) who lived along the Togiak

River drainage and the adjacent coast from Cape Newenham to Cape Constantine. In the early 19th

century, an influx of Aglurmiut (also known as Aglegmiut ) from the Lower Kuskokwim River region into the

Bristol Bay region is documented by ethnohistoric accounts (Dumond 1981:185). The general territory of

the Aglurmiut stretched along the coast from Nushagak Bay to the upper portion of the Alaska Peninsula.

The final Yup'ik Eskimo group in the region was the Kiatagmiut who inhabited the area along the

Nushagak River, the lower Mulchatna River, and the area to the north possibly including the Wood River

Lakes, upper Kvichak River, and the eastern end of Iliamna Lake (Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:11-12).

11

In 1818, Alexandrofski Redoubt was established at present-day Nushagak on eastern Nushagak

Bay drawing people from as far away as the Kuskokwim region for trade in furs. Population movements

began very early after the arrival of Europeans because of disease, trade, and other commercial

developments. These shifts have blurred the differences between the Kiatagmiut and Aglurmiut, but the

Tuyuryarmiut were relatively isolated from Russian entry into Bristol Bay during the early 1800s. The

Russian Orthodox Church never gained a solid foothold in the area and most residents of Togiak, Twin

Hills, and Manokotak are presently Moravian (Social Science Research Associates 1992:190-91). The

first commercial salmon cannery was established in 1883 at Kanulik in Nushagak Bay. People living in

the Togiak and Manokotak areas were largely unaffected by this early commercial fishery (Schichnes and

Chythlook 1988:114-115).

Togiak is dependent upon a mixed, subsistence and cash economy. Most of the residents are

Yup'ik-speaking Alaska Natives whose ancestors have long utilized the region. Many Togiak village

residents trace their ancestry to the inhabitants of Old Togiak, located across Togiak Bay to the east, and

to former villages located up the Togiak River. Many villagers were born and raised along the Togiak

River. People moved to the present site of Togiak from along the coast to the west, such as Osviak, now

used only as seasonal camps (Wolfe et al. 1984:96). The Togiak area has historically supported a large

coastal and riverine population (Figure 2 and Table 2). Although Oswalt (1967:8-9) considered Petroff’s

figure of 2,200 suspect, he still estimated a population as large as 1,000 in 1880 (Schichnes and

Chythlook 1988:19). Commercial salmon and herring fishing have provided a local source of cash

income since 1950 when a cannery was established there (Social Science Research Associates

1992:191). The population of Togiak began to significantly increase after 1950 with the building of this

cannery next to the site of Old Togiak on the eastern side of the bay, and the establishment of a Bureau

of Indian Affairs school. People began to move into what is now Togiak from small villages upriver as

well as small communities south of Togiak and north along the Kuskokwim River (see Wolfe et al. 1984

for more Togiak history).

Twin Hills consists primarily of Yup'ik speakers. The community was founded in 1965 by former

residents of Quinhagak and Togiak (Fall et al. 1996:28).

Established in 1947, Manokotak is also a recent community. The original Manokotak founders

came from the areas of Kulukak, Nushagak, and Togiak bays (Figure 2 and Table 2). Kulukak was a

permanent year-round community located on the southwest shore of the Kulukak River where it enters

Kulukak Bay. In 1911 a school was established at Kulukak for a short time. A reindeer station was

begun there the following year (Shields Field Notes 1978). Shields reports that by the 1940s no

permanent settlements remained in the Kulukak Bay area. Tuklung (Toqlung) was located on the

western shore of the Tuklung River, a tributary of the Igushik River, southwest of Manokotak (Schichnes

and Chythlook 1988:15).

Table 2. Historic Population of the Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills Area, 1880-2000

YearCommunity 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Igushik1 74 28 16

Tuklung2 39 30

Kulukak3 65 83 28 55

Manokotak 120 149 214 297 385 399

Insischamiut 42

Ungalikthluk4 68

Togiak5 298 108 91 71 56 108 220 383 470 613 809

Togiak River communities6 1,550 141 33Iqallulek 7 192 60Tunuyarpak 8 137Kassianmiut/Kassiachamiut/ Kashiagamut Village 615 50 33Nulatok/Nulochtagmiut 211 31Qissiangarmuit 9 181Annugannok 214

Twin Hills 67 70 66 69

Osviak10 130 90 63

Aleknagik11 78 153 462 128 154 185 221

TOTAL 2,185 381 0 0 174 166 301 411 831 792 991 1,249 1,498SOURCES: U.S. Censuses reported in Rollins 1978 and ADF&G 2001

1 Igushik includes Igushek and Igushik Village in census lists. 6 Incomplete census maps could not be used to include some village locations on Figure 2.2 Tuklung includes Tokelung Village in census lists. 7 Ikaliukha and Ikalinkamiut used in census lists.3 Kulukak includes Kulluk in census lists. 8 Tunniakhpuk used in census lists.4 Ungalikthluk includes Ooalikh in census lists. 9 Kissaikh in census lists.5 Togiak includes Togiagamute, Togiak Station, Togiagamiut, 10 Osviak includes Aziagvigamute, Aziavigamiut, and Uzavigiakamut Village in census lists. Togiak Village, and Togiak Bay in census lists. 11 Aleknagik includes Aleknagik Village, Aleknagik Lake, and Aleknagik Mission in census lists.

Most Aleknagik families were formerly from Kulukak and Togiak.

13

14

There is archaeological evidence of early 20th century settlements on Amanka (Amatmek ) and Ualik

(Qulliq) lakes, located north and west of Manokotak. At the time of earliest contact, Igushik (Iyuussiiq),

located at the mouth of the Igushik River at Nushagak Bay was one of four large settlements in Nushagak

Bay. Some of Manokotak’s earliest residents were from Igushik, and most Manokotak households

currently maintain summer fish camps there. The most recent group of Manokotak founders came from

western Bristol Bay, particularly the settlements of Togiak (Tuyuryaq) and Osviak (Asviryaq) as well as

sites reported near Goodnews Bay and Platinum (Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:18-19; see Schichnes

and Chythlook 1988:14-28 for more Manokotak history).

DEMOGRAPHY

Manokotak

Table 3 presents demographic characteristics of the study communities based on the survey

results. The estimated population of Manokotak based on the survey was 396 people. This is very

similar to the US Census population estimate for 2000 of 399 people, as shown in Table 4 below. Survey

results show that over 95 percent of the sampled population was Alaska Native, and the average length

of residency for household heads was 30.2 years. The average age of people in the community was 26.4

years. In 1985 the division conducted a similar survey in Manokotak and the estimated population was

308 people, comparing well with the Alaska Department of Labor population of 309 people (ADOL 1985;

Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:22). In 1985 one-hundred percent of the population in the sampled

households was Alaska Native (excluding teachers and school administrators), and the average length of

residency of household heads was 25.6 years. Average age is not available for the 1985 survey.

According to a survey conducted in 1995 in Manokotak by the division, the estimated population was 382

people (BBNA and ADF&G 1996:12).

Table 4. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills, 2000, from the US Census

AveragePopulation Occupied Household

Households Size Male Percent Female Percent Number Percent

Manokotak 399 93 4.3 215 53.9% 184 46.1% 378 94.7%Togiak 809 202 4.0 407 50.3% 402 49.7% 698 86.3%Twin Hills 69 24 2.9 31 44.9% 38 55.1% 58 84.1%

SOURCE: US Bureau of the Census 2002

Sex Alaska Native

Characteristics Manokotak Togiak Twin Hills

Sampled Households 81 100 12 Number of Households in the Community 90 176 23 Percentage of Households Sampled 90.0% 56.8% 52.2%

Household SizeMean 4.4 4.1 3.0Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 11 9 5

Sample Population 356 435 36 Estimated Community Population 396 727 69

AgeMean (years) 26.4 26.1 34.3Minimum 0.3 0.1 0.8Maximum 82.6 91.3 85.0Median 19.8 20.3 36.9

Length of Residency - PopulationMean (years) 17.2 19.9 16.9Minimum 0.3 0.2 0.8Maximum 79.0 92.0 38.0

Length of Residency - Household HeadsMean (years) 30.2 31.6 22.9Minimum 1.0 1.0 0.8Maximum 79.0 92.0 38.0

SexMales

Number 202 378 35Percentage 51.1% 52.0% 50.0%

FemalesNumber 193 349 35Percentage 48.9% 48.0% 50.0%

Alaska NativeHouseholds (Either Head)1

Number 84 154 21Percentage 93.8% 87.6% 91.7%

Estimated PopulationNumber 379 662 63Percentage 95.8% 91.0% 91.7%

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2000 1 A household was classified as "Alaska Native" if either or both of the household heads was Alaska Native.

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Households, Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills, 1999/2000

15

16

Table 5 and Figure 3 present a young population profile for Manokotak with a disproportionately

large drop in the population between 25 and 29 years old. This might be due to young people temporarily

moving to other communities to find employment or to marry. The sex ratio was similar to that reported in

1985, 48.9 and 46.8 percent female in 1985 and 2000, respectively (Schichnes and Chythlook 1988:22).

Togiak

The population of Togiak was 727 people in 2000, according to the survey (Table 3). The US

Census population was 809 people in 2000 (Table 4). Survey data indicate that Alaska Natives were 91

percent of the population. The average length of residency for household heads was 31.6 years, and the

average individual age was 26.1 years. Forty-eight percent of the population was female in 2000.

According to a survey conducted by BBNA and ADF&G (1996:12) in 1995 the estimated population was

735 people, excluding teacher households who were not long-time residents; 47.6 percent of the

population was female. The population profile presented in Table 6 and Figure 4 show a young

population that varies in many ways from that of Manokotak but demonstrates a similar disproportionate

drop in the population for those aged 20 to 29 years.

Twin Hills

This was the first systematic survey in Twin Hills by the division. The estimated population of the

surveyed households in 2000 was 69 people (Table 3, 7, and Figure 5), equal to the US Census estimate

in 2000 (Table 4). Alaska Natives were 91.7 percent of the population, and the average length of

residency for household heads was 22.9 years. The average person was 34.3 years old. Half the

population was female.

CASH EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME

Cash Employment

Table 8 presents study findings regarding cash employment in Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin

Hills. Over 70 percent of adults in each community were employed in the study year, 1999/2000, but in

Manokotak and Togiak less than a quarter of these jobs was year round. A majority of households,

around 90 percent, in all three communities had at least one employed adult. The mean number of jobs

per household was 3.6 in Manokotak, 2.7 in Togiak, and 3.0 in Twin Hills.

Figure 3. Population Profile, Manokotak, April 2000

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 2000

Table 5. Population Profile, Manokotak, April 2000

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTALNUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM.

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 - 4 17.78 8.79% 8.79% 24.44 12.64% 12.64% 42.22 10.67% 10.67%5-9 28.89 14.29% 23.08% 27.78 14.37% 27.01% 56.67 14.33% 25.00%

10-14 25.56 12.64% 28.16% 31.11 16.09% 43.10% 56.67 14.33% 39.33%15 - 19 21.11 10.44% 35.92% 17.78 9.20% 52.30% 38.89 9.83% 49.16%20 - 24 15.56 7.69% 40.78% 10.00 5.17% 57.47% 25.56 6.46% 55.62%25 - 29 4.44 2.20% 44.66% 7.78 4.02% 61.49% 12.22 3.09% 58.71%30 - 34 15.56 7.69% 47.57% 14.44 7.47% 68.97% 30.00 7.58% 66.29%35 - 39 17.78 8.79% 58.25% 14.44 7.47% 76.44% 32.22 8.15% 74.44%40 - 44 12.22 6.04% 66.02% 6.67 3.45% 79.89% 18.89 4.78% 79.21%45 - 49 7.78 3.85% 75.73% 7.78 4.02% 83.91% 15.56 3.93% 83.15%50 - 54 5.56 2.75% 84.47% 5.56 2.87% 86.78% 11.11 2.81% 85.96%55 - 59 6.67 3.30% 91.26% 7.78 4.02% 90.80% 14.44 3.65% 89.61%60 - 64 6.67 3.30% 92.23% 4.44 2.30% 93.10% 11.11 2.81% 92.42%65 - 69 6.67 3.30% 94.17% 2.22 1.15% 94.25% 8.89 2.25% 94.66%70 - 74 1.11 0.55% 97.09% 5.56 2.87% 97.13% 6.67 1.69% 96.35%75 - 79 3.33 1.65% 99.03% 1.11 0.57% 97.70% 4.44 1.12% 97.47%80 - 84 1.11 0.55% 100.00% 1.11 0.57% 98.28% 2.22 0.56% 98.03%85 - 89 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 98.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.03%90 - 94 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 98.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.03%95 - 99 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 98.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.03%

100 - 104 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 98.28% 0.00 0.00% 98.03%Missing 4.44 2.20% 100.00% 3.33 1.72% 100.00% 7.78 1.97% 100.00%

TOTAL 202.22 51.12% 193.33 48.88% 395.56 100.00%


-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 - 4

10-14

20 - 24

30 - 34

40 - 44

50 - 54

60 - 64

70 - 74

80 - 84

90 - 94

100 - 104Y

EA

RS

OF

AG

E

POPULATION

MALE FEMALE

17

Figure 4. Population Profile, Togiak, April 2000


Table 6. Population Profile, Togiak, April 2000



0 - 4 52.59 13.90% 13.90% 39.21 11.23% 11.23% 91.79 12.62% 12.62%5-9 51.25 13.54% 27.44% 51.25 14.69% 25.92% 102.49 14.09% 26.71%

10-14 44.23 11.69% 28.16% 45.57 13.06% 38.98% 89.80 12.35% 39.06%15 - 19 35.87 9.48% 35.92% 35.95 10.30% 49.28% 71.82 9.87% 48.93%20 - 24 16.72 4.42% 40.78% 19.06 5.46% 54.74% 35.78 4.92% 53.85%25 - 29 24.00 6.34% 44.66% 15.64 4.48% 59.22% 39.63 5.45% 59.30%30 - 34 26.08 6.89% 47.57% 20.14 5.77% 65.00% 46.22 6.36% 65.65%35 - 39 23.74 6.27% 58.25% 19.23 5.51% 70.51% 42.97 5.91% 71.56%40 - 44 24.08 6.36% 66.02% 31.10 8.91% 79.42% 55.19 7.59% 79.15%45 - 49 32.10 8.48% 75.73% 35.95 10.30% 89.72% 68.05 9.36% 88.51%50 - 54 10.79 2.85% 84.47% 3.60 1.03% 90.75% 14.38 1.98% 90.48%55 - 59 10.70 2.83% 91.26% 3.51 1.01% 91.76% 14.21 1.95% 92.44%60 - 64 5.93 1.57% 92.23% 7.10 2.04% 93.79% 13.04 1.79% 94.23%65 - 69 3.51 0.93% 94.17% 5.93 1.70% 95.49% 9.44 1.30% 95.53%70 - 74 5.93 1.57% 97.09% 4.85 1.39% 96.88% 10.79 1.48% 97.01%75 - 79 2.43 0.64% 99.03% 0.00 0.00% 96.88% 2.43 0.33% 97.34%80 - 84 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 2.43 0.70% 97.58% 2.43 0.33% 97.68%85 - 89 2.43 0.64% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 97.58% 2.43 0.33% 98.01%90 - 94 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 2.43 0.70% 98.27% 2.43 0.33% 98.34%95 - 99 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 98.27% 0.00 0.00% 98.34%

100 - 104 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 98.27% 0.00 0.00% 98.34%Missing 6.02 1.59% 100.00% 6.02 1.73% 100.00% 12.04 1.66% 100.00%

TOTAL 378.39 52.54% 348.97 47.46% 727.36 100.00%


-55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

0 - 4

10-14

20 - 24

30 - 34

40 - 44

50 - 54

60 - 64

70 - 74

80 - 84

90 - 94

100 - 104

YE

AR

S O

F A

GE

POPULATION

MALE FEMALE

18

Figure 5. Population Profile, Twin Hills, April 2000


Table 7. Population Profile, Twin Hills, April 2000



0 - 4 1.92 5.56% 5.56% 3.83 11.11% 11.11% 5.75 8.33% 8.33%5-9 0.00 0.00% 5.56% 3.83 11.11% 22.22% 3.83 5.56% 13.89%

10-14 7.67 22.22% 28.16% 3.83 11.11% 33.33% 11.50 16.67% 30.56%15 - 19 1.92 5.56% 35.92% 3.83 11.11% 44.44% 5.75 8.33% 38.89%20 - 24 0.00 0.00% 40.78% 1.92 5.56% 50.00% 1.92 2.78% 41.67%25 - 29 0.00 0.00% 44.66% 0.00 0.00% 50.00% 0.00 0.00% 41.67%30 - 34 0.00 0.00% 47.57% 1.92 5.56% 55.56% 1.92 2.78% 44.44%35 - 39 3.83 11.11% 58.25% 3.83 11.11% 66.67% 7.67 11.11% 55.56%40 - 44 1.92 5.56% 66.02% 3.83 11.11% 77.78% 5.75 8.33% 63.89%45 - 49 1.92 5.56% 75.73% 1.92 5.56% 83.33% 3.83 5.56% 69.44%50 - 54 3.83 11.11% 84.47% 0.00 0.00% 83.33% 3.83 5.56% 75.00%55 - 59 1.92 5.56% 91.26% 1.92 5.56% 88.89% 3.83 5.56% 80.56%60 - 64 3.83 11.11% 92.23% 1.92 5.56% 94.44% 5.75 8.33% 88.89%65 - 69 3.83 11.11% 94.17% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 3.83 5.56% 94.44%70 - 74 0.00 0.00% 97.09% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 0.00 0.00% 94.44%75 - 79 0.00 0.00% 99.03% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 0.00 0.00% 94.44%80 - 84 1.92 5.56% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 1.92 2.78% 97.22%85 - 89 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 0.00 0.00% 97.22%90 - 94 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 0.00 0.00% 97.22%95 - 99 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 0.00 0.00% 97.22%

100 - 104 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 94.44% 0.00 0.00% 97.22%Missing 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 1.92 5.56% 100.00% 1.92 2.78% 100.00%

TOTAL 34.50 0.5 34.5 50.00% 69.00 100.00%


-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

0 - 4

10-14

20 - 24

30 - 34

40 - 44

50 - 54

60 - 64

70 - 74

80 - 84

90 - 94

100 - 104

YE

AR

S O

F A

GE

POPULATION

MALE FEMALE

19

Table 8. Employment Characteristics, Study Communities, 1999/2000

Manokotak Togiak Twin Hills

All AdultsNumber 230 424 46Mean Weeks Employed 23.9 21.0 31.9

Employed AdultsNumber 171 301 35Percentage 74.4% 71.1% 75.0%

JobsNumber 307 423 63Mean 1.8 1.4 1.8Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 8 5 4

Months EmployedMean 7.4 6.8 9.8Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0Maximum 12.0 12.0 12.0Percent Employed Year-Round 23.4% 21.6% 50.0%

Mean Weeks Employed 32.1 29.5 42.6

HOUSEHOLDSNumber 90 176 23

EmployedNumber 84 156 21Percentage 93.8% 88.4% 91.7%

Jobs per Employed HouseholdMean 3.6 2.7 3.0Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 11 9 5

Employed Adults Per HouseholdMinimum 1 1 1Maximum 6 5 2Mean Employed Households 2.0 1.9 1.6 Total Households 1.9 1.7 1.5

Mean Weeks Employed 61.1 50.5 63.9


Characteristics

20

21

Tables 9, 10, and 11 present employment by industry in Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills in

1999/2000. In Manokotak commercial fishing and government employment combined generated over 80

percent of community income. Commercial fishing and government employment represent the greatest

number of jobs, employed households, and employed individuals. However, other common types of

employment are represented in the table. For example, almost 8 percent of Manokotak households sold

furs, and 5.3 percent of households manufactured products, such as bead and basketwork and skin

sewing products. Most government jobs were in the local school and local government (see Schichnes

and Chythlook 1988:28-40 for more on commercial fishing in Manokotak).

Togiak employment by industry is presented in Table 10. The overall picture is similar to

Manokotak's. The majority of jobs and income are in commercial fishing and government employment.

In Togiak the proportions of jobs, households involved, and individuals involved in commercial fishing are

greater than in Manokotak. However, the portion of community income from commercial fishing (28.6

percent) was less in Togiak than in Manokotak (42.9 percent). Significant numbers of jobs, employed

households and individuals, and income are in government employment, the majority of which is local

government and local education.

Table 11 presents employment by industry in Twin Hills. Almost half of all jobs, 48.5 percent,

were in government, and as in Manokotak and Togiak, most government employment was in local

government and local education. One hundred percent of households took part in some sort of

government work, as did 61.1 percent of individuals. Over half the community income was obtained from

government employment. Even though over half the Twin Hills households had at least one member

employed in commercial fishing, this category produced only 6.9 percent of the community income. More

income was obtained through cannery work, 15.1 percent, and a substantial portion of households were

involved in manufacturing through cannery work (27.3 percent) and other manufacturing, such as home

made arts, crafts, and clothing (9.1 percent).

Cash Income

As in other villages, household incomes in the three study communities vary considerably from

year to year and are generally much lower than those of urban Alaska. For example, the Manokotak

median household income from the 2000 census was $30,357, $28,500 in Togiak, and $20,625 in Twin

Hills; compared to the State median household income of $59,036 (US Census Bureau 2002). These

median incomes are not comparable to average incomes, reported below.

Tables 12, 13, and 14 present the community, household, and per capita incomes by employer

types for Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills in 1999/2000. In Manokotak the average household income

was $45,183, and the per capita income was $10,280. In Togiak the average household income was

$35,169, and the per capita income was $8,510. In Twin Hills the average household income was

$39,037 and the per capita income was $13,012.

Table 9. Employment by Industry, Manokotak, 1999/2000

Percentage ofJobs Households Individuals Income

Estimated Total Number 307 84 171

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 48.2% 77.6% 74.0% 43.2%Agriculture/Forestry 0.4% 1.3% 0.6% 0.2%

Agriculture 0.4% 1.3% 0.6% 0.2%Forestry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 47.8% 77.6% 73.4% 43.0%Hatchery/Enhancement 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Commercial Fishing 45.7% 76.3% 72.1% 42.9%Hunting/Trapping 2.2% 7.9% 3.9% 0.1%

Mining 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Construction 4.7% 14.5% 7.1% 2.7%

Manufacturing 2.2% 6.6% 3.9% 0.4%Cannery 0.7% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%Other Manufacturing 1.4% 5.3% 2.6% 0.4%Logging/Timber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Transportation, Communications, 2.9% 10.5% 5.2% 5.6%and Utilities

Trade 3.6% 13.2% 6.5% 2.9%Wholesale 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Retail 3.6% 13.2% 6.5% 2.9%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2.9% 9.2% 4.5% 2.4%

Services 9.4% 27.6% 15.6% 4.5%

Government 25.0% 53.9% 36.4% 38.4%Federal 1.1% 3.9% 1.9% 0.8%State 2.2% 7.9% 3.9% 0.1%Local 21.7% 51.3% 33.1% 37.5%

Local Government 9.4% 27.6% 14.9% 9.1%Local Education 12.3% 32.9% 20.8% 28.4%

Unknown 1.1% 2.6% 1.9% 0.0%


22

Table 10. Employment by Industry, Togiak, 1999/2000

Percentage of

Jobs Households Individuals Income


Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 51.0% 78.7% 65.3% 28.7%

Agriculture/Forestry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Agriculture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Forestry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 51.0% 78.7% 65.3% 28.7%

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0%

Commercial Fishing 50.2% 78.7% 64.8% 28.6%

Hunting/Trapping 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.1%

Mining 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Construction 1.2% 3.4% 1.7% 0.4%

Manufacturing 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3%

Cannery 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3%

Other Manufacturing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Logging/Timber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Transportation, Communications, 3.2% 6.7% 3.4% 4.3%

and Utilities

Trade 4.3% 11.2% 6.3% 6.0%

Wholesale 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Retail 4.3% 11.2% 6.3% 6.0%


Services 10.7% 23.6% 14.8% 12.1%

Government 28.1% 53.9% 38.6% 48.0%

Federal 2.8% 7.9% 4.0% 0.5%

State 2.0% 4.5% 2.8% 1.0%

Local 23.3% 46.1% 31.8% 46.5%

Local Government 12.6% 28.1% 17.6% 14.3%

Local Education 10.7% 23.6% 15.3% 32.2%

Unknown 0.8% 2.2% 1.1% 0.1%


23

Table 11. Employment by Industry, Twin Hills, 1999/2000

Percentage ofJobs Households Individuals Income


Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 21.2% 54.5% 33.3% 6.9%Agriculture/Forestry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Agriculture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Forestry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 21.2% 54.5% 33.3% 6.9%Hatchery/Enhancement 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Commercial Fishing 21.2% 54.5% 33.3% 6.9%Hunting/Trapping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mining 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Construction 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Manufacturing 15.2% 36.4% 27.8% 15.3%Cannery 12.1% 27.3% 22.2% 15.1%Other Manufacturing 3.0% 9.1% 5.6% 0.1%Logging/Timber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Transportation, Communications, 3.0% 9.1% 5.6% 1.1%and Utilities

Trade 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Wholesale 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Retail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Services 9.1% 27.3% 16.7% 21.2%

Government 48.5% 100.0% 61.1% 55.5%Federal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%State 3.0% 9.1% 5.6% 11.2%Local 45.5% 90.9% 55.6% 44.3%

Local Government 36.4% 72.7% 44.4% 22.2%Local Education 9.1% 27.3% 16.7% 22.1%

Unknown 3.0% 9.1% 5.6% 0.0%


24

Table 12. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Types, Manokotak, 1999/2000

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGETOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA

All Sources $4,066,466 $45,183 $10,280

Earned Income $2,923,334 $32,481 $7,390

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing $1,261,832 $14,020 $3,190Agriculture/Forestry $5,556 $62 $14

Agriculture $5,556 $62 $14Forestry $0 $0 $0

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping $1,256,276 $13,959 $3,176Hatchery/Enhancement $0 $0 $0Commercial Fishing $1,253,203 $13,924 $3,168Hunting/Trapping $3,073 $34 $8

Mining $0 $0 $0

Construction $77,550 $862 $196

Manufacturing $12,019 $134 $30Cannery $167 $2 $0Other Manufacturing $11,852 $132 $30Logging/Timber $0 $0 $0

Transportation, Communications, $164,000 $1,822 $415and Utilities

Trade $84,873 $943 $215Wholesale $0 $0 $0Retail $84,873 $943 $215

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $69,903 $777 $177

Services $130,327 $1,448 $329

Government $1,122,053 $12,467 $2,837Federal $24,556 $273 $62State $1,500 $17 $4Local $1,095,998 $12,178 $2,771

Local Government $267,187 $2,969 $675Local Education $828,810 $9,209 $2,095

Unknown $778 $9 $2

Other Income $1,143,132 $12,701 $2,890


25

Table 13. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Types, Togiak, 1999/2000


All Sources $6,189,799 $35,169 $8,510

Earned Income $4,243,865 $24,113 $5,835

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing $1,217,275 $6,916 $1,674Agriculture/Forestry $0 $0 $0

Agriculture $0 $0 $0Forestry $0 $0 $0

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping $1,217,275 $6,916 $1,674Hatchery/Enhancement $0 $0 $0Commercial Fishing $1,214,987 $6,903 $1,670Hunting/Trapping $2,288 $13 $3

Mining $0 $0 $0

Construction $16,368 $93 $23

Manufacturing $14,080 $80 $19Cannery $14,080 $80 $19Other Manufacturing $0 $0 $0Logging/Timber $0 $0 $0

Transportation, Communications, $183,322 $1,042 $252and Utilities

Trade $252,736 $1,436 $347Wholesale $0 $0 $0Retail $252,736 $1,436 $347

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $6,160 $35 $8

Services $514,283 $2,922 $707

Government $2,035,391 $11,565 $2,798Federal $22,484 $128 $31State $40,480 $230 $56Local $1,972,427 $11,207 $2,712

Local Government $607,547 $3,452 $835Local Education $1,364,880 $7,755 $1,876

Unknown AMT. UNK. AMT. UNK. AMT. UNK.

Other Income $1,945,934 $11,056 $2,675


26

Table 14. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Types, Twin Hills, 1999/2000


All Sources $897,857 $39,037 $13,012

Earned Income $649,654 $28,246 $9,415

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing $44,850 $1,950 $650Agriculture/Forestry $0 $0 $0

Agriculture $0 $0 $0Forestry $0 $0 $0

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping $44,850 $1,950 $650Hatchery/Enhancement $0 $0 $0Commercial Fishing $44,850 $1,950 $650Hunting/Trapping $0 $0 $0

Mining $0 $0 $0

Construction $0 $0 $0

Manufacturing $99,188 $4,313 $1,438Cannery $98,229 $4,271 $1,424Other Manufacturing $958 $42 $14Logging/Timber $0 $0 $0

Transportation, Communications, $6,900 $300 $100and Utilities

Trade $0 $0 $0Wholesale $0 $0 $0Retail $0 $0 $0

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $0 $0 $0

Services $138,000 $6,000 $2,000

Government $360,717 $15,683 $5,228Federal $0 $0 $0State $72,833 $3,167 $1,056Local $287,883 $12,517 $4,172

Local Government $144,133 $6,267 $2,089Local Education $143,750 $6,250 $2,083

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK

Other Income $248,203 $10,791 $3,597


27

28

Table 15 presents income other than earned income received in the three study communities.

Other income was $2,890 per capita in Manokotak, $2,542 in Togiak, and $3,587 in Twin Hills. The

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend was the most commonly received income in this table. Over 96 percent

of households in each of the three communities received at least one permanent fund dividend. The

permanent fund dividend was responsible for over 50 percent of other income per capita in all three study

communities. Native corporation dividends were commonly received, also. In all three communities,

other income was between 21 and 24 percent of all reported income.

FOOD EXPENSES

Interviewed households were asked to estimate their monthly cost of purchased food. Table 16

shows in the three study communities the annual cost of food per capita was between $1,900 and $2,244.

The percent of annual cash income spent on food was 18.5 percent in Manokotak, 27.3 percent in

Togiak, and 15.4 percent in Twin Hills. The Alaska Cooperative Extension of the University of Alaska

Fairbanks estimated the cost of food for a family of four with two children between age 6 and 11 in

Dillingham was 69 percent higher than in Anchorage in September 1999 (UAF 2002). Dillingham is the

closest community to the study communities surveyed by the cooperative extension service.

Each household was asked what percent of all the meat, fish, and birds eaten the household in

the past year was from wild resources (Table 17). Three quarters of Manokotak households (78.2

percent) reported getting at least half of this food from wild resources. In Togiak the majority (57.3

percent) of households said that least half of the meat, fish, and birds eaten by their households was from

wild resources. In Twin Hills half the households estimated that at least half their meat, fish, and birds

came from wild resources.

Table 16. Estimated Annual Cost of Purchasing Food, Study Communities, 1999/2000

Mean Household Cost of Cost of Food Percent of Annual CashAnnual Food Purchase per Capita Income Spent on Food

Manokotak $8,357.8 $1,901.6 18.5%

Togiak $9,584.0 $2,243.4 27.3%

Twin Hills $6,000.0 $2,000.0 15.4%

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Household Survey 2000

Table 15. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Study Communities, 1999/2000

OTHER INCOME SOURCE PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER

REPORTIN

Documents

Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Manokotak ... · harvest and use of wild fish, game, and plant resources, demography, and aspects of the local cash economy such as