Excerpted From Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Paper No. 149, August 1987

THE SEASONAL ROUND

The annual harvest cycle in Tetlin resembles a fine hunting tool that has been shaped and modified through generations. In response to the particular options and constraints of their surroundings, residents have refined a yearly schedule of activities that enables them to efficiently exploit local resources for their livelihood. The schedule, however, is no more rigid than is the environment from which it is derived. The yearly round must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate both short- and long-term changes, such as daily changes in the number of fish running, yearly changes in caribou range and abundance, or longer-term influences such as the introduction of fur traders, snowmobiles and supermarkets. Tetlin's seasonal round represents a continuum of respnses to a dynamic environment.

In addition to setting a routine, the harvest cycle plays an important role in establishing and reinforcing values and institutions. For instance, July is considered an important time of the year for harvesting fish. At this time, there is noticeable peer pressure to catch large quantities and store them for winter use, and recognition is awarded to those who do so. Knowledge of the seasonal round reveals more than the schedule of resource harvests; it gives insight into the cultural environment of the people who adhere to it.

The current seasonal round focuses on moose, furbearers, waterfowl, several species of freshwater fish, small game animals, and a variety of plants. Fall, winter, spring, and summer are recognized by seasonal landmarks such as freeze-up, ice ready to move, ice moving or breakup, greening of trees, fish starting to run, and moose in rut (Guedon 1974:37-39). The calendar is therefore not fixed in time, but is defined by real changes in the environment.

The harvest cycle follows this course: fall, which most people consider the beginning of the cycle, is characterized by harvest in preparation for winter, and is dominated by moose and waterfowl hunting. Much of the meat harvested is dried or frozen for later consumption. The period just before and after freeze-up constitutes an active fishing period. "Pickle'" or young pike are taken before the freezing of small sloughs and lakes, while burbot and large pike are harvested through the ice while it is still thin. The winter months are distinguished by trapping a variety of furbearers. By late winter, trapping effort shifts almost exclusively to muskrat. Following breakup, trapping ceases, and muskrat are taken by hunters with rifles on foot or in boats. Waterfowl begin arriving in the spring and congregate where there is open water. Some are harvested at this time as a welcome source of fresh meat. Fishing dominates summer activity. Whitefish are taken and dried in large numbers in Tetlin, and at fish camps at Last Tetlin and other areas. Also during the summer, a large variety of plants are gathered for food and handicrafts. By late summer and early fall, moose and waterfowl are again harvested, thereby completing the cycle. . . .

VARIATION IN PARTICIPATION AMONG HOUSEHOLDS

In the course of this study, it became apparent that certain households were more involved in resource gathering than others. Younger families, or younger individuals comprising a household, appeared less active. This seemed to be primarily a function of lack of equipment and labor, and in some cases, lack of interest. Such households infrequently initiated harvest activities, and instead joined in the activities of the parent household in what resembled a casual apprenticeship. In this way, the young adults gained access to the equipment and the greater knowledge of their older relatives. By assisting these more established households, younger households were able to secure wild resources for their own use.

Households with middle-aged household heads (35-65 years old) appeared to be more active than the younger, newly established households. This may be attributable, in part, to their being more stable and cohesive, and because they more often had the equipment and experience required for successful harvesting.

Households with a head older than aged 65 participated less directly in harvest activities. Many of the elderly Tetlin residents are no longer physically capable of harvesting sufficient resources to meet their needs. However, they are able to contribute to younger and more active harvesting households. For example, although elderly households comprised only one-third of the sample population and were among the least active harvesters, they owned more than half of the boats and more than one-third of the snowmobiles in the community. Loaning equipment to relatives and friends in exchange for a portion of their harvest was a common way to secure wild foods. Indeed, several elders did not operate their own equipment, but owned it principally for this purpose.

Although income levels were relatively low among elderly households, they generally were reliable and derived from such sources as Supplemental Security Income, Old Age Assistance, and the Longevity Bonus program. This, small but steady flow of cash often resulted in the recipients being called upon to purchase ammunition, gas, oil, and even pay for equipment repairs. This provided another vehicle for wild foods to be distributed within the community. For example, elderly persons often supplied younger boys with ammunition and guns for moose or duck hunting. One older woman who owned a gill net had someone else set it in the creek early in the summer. It was considered a "communal net" and was used by several households. By making her net available to others, the woman could count on receiving fish from those who used it--although she was too old to harvest fish from it herself. Another form of exchange used by the elderly involved direct cash purchases of wild resources from other Tetlin residents. Wood, berries, and "dry fish" were among the goods most often purchased in this way.

That a household does not participate actively in harvesting at one point in time does not imply that it will not assume an active role in the future. According to the project assistant, many of todays "active" middle-aged households were yesterday's less involved, sometimes less enthusiastic younger households. One might question whether "outside" observers are sometimes too quick to attribute differences in the attitudes and behaviors of the "younger generations" to rapid cultural change and sudden declines in interest in Native lifestyles. McKennan (1959) made similar observations of the "younger generations" in 1929. Changing patterns in activity level by age may, to some extent, reflect a natural progression and not one brought about entirely by "outside"influences. . . .

DIVISION OF LABOR IN HARVEST ACTIVITIES ' Beyond satisfying nutritional needs, harvest of wild resources serves an important function in establishing and maintaining social relationships in the community. Usher noted:

What is important about wildlife to native people is that it is the basis for the maintenance of the social relations that characterize the traditional mode. It is the relations among people that wildlife harvesting generates, not simply the relations between man and wildlife, which are important [Usher 1981:61].

Traditions regarding the division of labor in the various harvest activities continue to guide many aspects of daily life in Tetlin. . . . .Rules did not appear to be rigid, and some variation should be expected.

In general, male-oriented activities tended to center around the actual pursuit of wild resources, while women were more involved in preparation of resources for consumption. This applied most notably to large game and waterfowl. Although women were prepared to and had killed moose, it was more likely to occur incidental to some other activity, and not in deliberate pursuit. The exception to this was when women accompanied their spouses on hunting trips. However, hunting groups usually consisted of several males--father and sons, or male members of different households.

Muskrat trapping at "family camps" appeared to be largely a woman's responsibility, while hunting them in open waters involved both men and women. Preparation of muskrat pelts was a shared task; women skinning the animals, and men stretching the furs onto wooden mounts. Trapping of larger fur animals was reported to be a male-dominated activity; though several women indicated they accompanied their spouses on the trapline. The trapper was responsible for skinning and mounting his own furs.

Fishing for grayling and pike, or ice fishing in fall involved both sexes. Setting nets and harvesting whitefish was done by both men and women, although processing fish for drying was almost exclusively women's work. Other female dominated activities included rabbit snaring, and plant gathering. Plant foraging trips were social occasions, most often involving a small group of women, though occasionally large groups of ten or more.

Harvest activities that were common among younger people (i.e., high school age) were waterfowl hunting and some trapping among the boys and rod and reel fishing and small game hunting among both sexes. Some parents commented that the timing of school prevented their older children from participating in activities such as trapping and helping with the processing of wild game.

MECHANISMS OF SELF-REGULATION AND CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES

Rules and regulations that constrain the quantity of resources taken are not limited to "white man law", as residents sometimes refer to the body of state and federal fish and game regulations. Many customary harvest practices have built-in mechanisms which, intentionally or not, serve to conserve the resources upon which the Upper Tanana economy has depended for many centuries. This is not to suggest that over harvest never occurs, but that mechanisms are present which make it less likely. This section discusses some deliberate measures taken to conserve wild resources, as well as some of the unintentional or naturally functioning mechanisms, which have the effect of conservation. These are:

1) Limits of demand 2) Optimal foraging behavior to maximize efficiency 3) Processing costs and limited storage capability 4) Definite of property rights 5) Cultural rules--"Chief's Rules", "Village Rules", taboos and social mores

Limits of Demand

A person is unlikely to spend time and energy hunting waterfowl or fishing for pike that he or she does not need. Absence of "waste" of resources in Tetlin attests to this. Demand saturation hence sets an upper limit to resource quantifies taken.

Before white contact, and the absence of commercial export markets for resources such as furs, there appears to have been little incentive among upper Tanana Athabaskans to take more than what was needed for consumption within the local group, and small-scale trade with neighboring groups. This continues to be the case today with most resources, where demand is still limited to the amount a harvester and extended family themselves consume. . . .

Optimal Foraging Behavior

If certain resources are in high demand and as such are subject to heavy predation, it still remains unlikely that harvest by Athabaskan hunters and gathers would deplete them. This is suggested on the basis of "optimal foraging behavior" (Smith 1983) a theory derived from concepts in neoclassical economics (Marginal Value Theorem). In simple terms, the theory predicts that as local resource populations get smaller (i.e., as they are removed by harvest), it often becomes increasingly more difficult to harvest the next animal or plant belonging to that population. For example, as local numbers of waterfowl decrease as a result of harvest, the hunter must expend more effort to seek out and shoot the next duck. It is also likely that as the hunting season progresses, behavioral changes that make the ducks more evasive will add to the search time. If a hunter's goal is to retrieve resources with the least amount of effort, he or she would be encouraged to shift effort to another locale where resources are more plentiful, or to a different prey type altogether. With the exception of resource populations in the immediate vicinity of a permanent camp or settlement, it is unlikely for reasons of efficiency, that Athabaskan harvesters would seriously deplete or exterminate local wildlife populations.

Results of such a practice might be different for species that congregate in large numbers where it is possible to harvest many of them without great increases in the effort expended to harvest each additional individual. In such a case, other factors seem to prevent their over harvest. This is discussed in the next section.

Processing Costs and Storage Limitations

As has been mentioned, demand or harvest effort required for some species may not be the limiting factor in quantities taken. Rather, burdensome processing requirements or storage capabilities often appear to be more of the controlling factor. For whitefish, for example, behavioral characteristics (e.g., a tendency for fish to congregate in large numbers at predictable times and places) combined with a very efficient harvest technique (net combined with weir) suggest the potential for depletion of the stock. However, cutting and drying fish is time consuming, and it is commonly this processing time that limits the number of fish taken. When a woman cannot "keep up" with the number of fish passing through the nets, the nets are taken out of the water or loaned to other households. Circumventing the time consuming process of cutting and drying fish and meat is not currently an option for most households in Tetlin. Only two of the twenty households sampled owned freezers in 1984.

Property Rights

With the introduction of a commercial market for furs following white contact in the late 1800s, the potential for over exploitation of fur resources was greatly increased. It appears that competition for furs among members of the band was sufficient to warrant the establishment of formally recognized family traplines. Though family trapping areas might have existed in some form before the establishment of a commercial fur market, recognition of a narrowly defined area within which a family has exclusive rights to furbearers was only traced back two or three generations. Traplines defined property rights, and helped prevent conflict among trappers. More relevant to this discussion, however, traplines created stronger incentives for conservation. A trapper likely assumed greater responsibility for conserving fur animals, as he alone incurred the most harm if they were depleted. In a letter from an administrator for the Bureau of Education who visited Tetlin in the late 1920s:

The natives have their own rules and regulations with reference to conservation of the furbearing animals. The chief of the village assigns them to various grounds, and in this way, the fur is not depleted. [Beck 1930:31].

Families usually maintain more than one trapline from which they alternate use, so as not to exert too much pressure on any one area. . . .

Cultural Rules

. Historically, the "Chief" appears to have been an influential figure in the regulation and conservation of resources for the benefit of his band. Beck (1930:31) noted, " . . . when rats have been trapped heavily in one lake in the spring, the following spring that area is closed by the Chief's orders, and another area is used." Another comment by an older resident in Tetlin evinces the chief's persuasive role in regulating the harvest. "Dad passed away in 1919. No beaver. Chief Peter saw first one in flats area --told everyone. In 1946 beaver come back. Said nobody kill first ones, let them go by. Now lots of beaver."

Today, instead of the "Chief's rules", residents refer to some of the customary laws and traditions as "village rules." For example, a "rule" against the killing of non-edible species, or taking in excess of what one needs, helps to guard against waste. An attitude of reference exists toward the young, whether it be a wild animal, a puppy, or human baby. All "babies" are accorded special treatment (i.e., young children are "spoiled. ' And puppies are given a lot to eat and allowed to stay inside the house until a certain age when they are no longer viewed as babies and are expected to fend on their own. With regard to wild animal populations, this attitude appears to be manifested in informal rules that discourage taking animals with young and the young themselves under most circumstances. Several people commented, "we take care of our babies" in reference to the wild animals on Tetlin lands. Refraining from taking animals during the breeding season is a basic strategy in biological management and appears to have been recognized to a large degree as a worthwhile sacrifice to the Upper Tanana Athabaskans to sustain animal resources. Activities that might disrupt important harvest animals or their habitat are also discouraged. For example, people are discouraged from building or overnight camping on the Western shores of Tetlin Lake, which is considered important moose habitat.