THE LINKAGE OF TRAPPING WITH OTHER SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS

In most rural communities, running a trapline is a multipurpose activity, and the trail systems used a traplines serve multiple purposes. The trapline trail system serves as a winter transportation network for snowmobiles and dog teams traveling among settlements. The trapline trail system represents a "groomed" territory used for hunting, trapping, fishing, and wood gathering during winter. Products commonly produced while engaged in trapping include wood for fuel, wood for construction, and meat from moose, caribou, and game birds, depending upon the community. Trappers commonly hunt while checking their lines. Moose or caribou taken at these times are brought back to the community and distributed-providing fresh food to a seasonal diet of dried fish and meats. . . .

Most rural communities are supported by mixed, subsistence-cash economies (Wolfe and Walker 1987). Subsistence activities are not "cash-less" activities-they require cash and occasionally produce cash. During the year, a rural household typically engages in a seasonal cycle of traditional activities that produce subsistence foods and money. The household uses money to purchase equipment used in subsistence food production such as boats, outboard motors, snowmobiles, fishing nets, rifles, and ammunition. The ability to purchase equipment used in subsistence activities is contingent upon earning some money during the year. The monetary incomes earned typically in villages are not sufficiently large to support the family unless a portion is used in subsistence fishing and hunting. Trapping is one customary way of earning money for families who participate in this traditional, mixed subsistence-cash economy. . . .

In practice, trapping typically is viewed by trappers as an additional use of equipment, labor, and land that are already being used for other subsistence activities. Trapping is an incremental use of snowmobiles and trapping trails that otherwise would be underutilized during winter. Viewed this way, trapping is part of a larger complex of subsistence activities.

Most trappers recognize that the money netted by trapping is insufficient by itself to meet a family's annual monetary expenses. But, the trapping earnings can be important when combined with money from other seasonal, income producing activities. It is common for families to patch together several income streams during the year, such as commercial fishing, fire fighting, construction work, the permanent fund dividend, local public-sector wage employment, and trapping (see Stanek 1987, Sunmida 1988, and Sumida and Anderson 1990). The net earnings from trapping on some years may make the difference between a tight or more manageable yearly household budget. The money that comes from trapping also is earned during winter, a time of the year when other seasonal jobs are typically scarce. So, if a person did not trap, the person might not have any incoming money. On a very good year, with a combination of high fur yields and strong market prices, trapping may produce a "windfall" large enough to allow a trapper to replace or upgrade equipment, such as a snowmobile or an outboard motor. . . .

TRAPPING IN STEVENS VILLAGE: A CASE EXAMPLE

The role of trapping in the traditional economy and sociocultural system of rural Alaska communities can be illustrated with additional materials from Stevens Village (Sumida 1988). Stevens Village is a predominately Koyukon Athabaskan community on the Yukon River at the western edge of Yukon Flats. It. population was 90 people in 30 households during the study year (1984) and 102 people in 1990. Stevens Village represents a community which derives relatively modest monetary returns from trapping which is typical for most rural Alaskan communities during this past decade. Monetary incomes in Stevens Village are among the lowest in Alaska. During the study year, the average household income was $5,347 in Stevens Village. Only two residents had commercial salmon fishing permits

Trapping is part of a larger complex of hunting, fishing, and gathering activities that traditionally have supported Stevens Village. Most subsistence foods are harvested during the ice-free season, about May through October, primarily salmon (921 lbs. per capita) whitefish (53 lbs. per capita) and fall moose 54 lbs.). This is also the period that most seasonal wage employment is available. During winter, severe low temperatures and snow cover reduce availability of local wild species to furbearers (hare, beaver, muskrat, marten, otter, fox, wolf, mink, lynx) moose and game birds (ptarmigan and grouse). The primary productive activities from the land at this time are those conducted along trapline trails.

An extensive, complex network of trapline trails has been established and maintained by Stevens Village residents across the Yukon Flats. Active trails are brushed out annually by trappers. Cabins and sheltered campsites for canvas wall tents are maintained throughout the system. The subsistence use areas surrounding Stevens Village is considered the common property of the local group open to community members for subsistence uses following local customs. The rights to trap along pieces of the trail network are "owned" by particular trappers according to customary rules. Rights to traplines tend to be inherited, but also can be given, sold, or lost through inactivity.

Prior to the mid-20th century, families dispersed to winter camps for trapping. They gathered for mid-winter celebrations during which visits with Eskimo trading partners were made. The mid-winter gathering was followed by extended trips by families for hunting and trapping. Another move to "rat camps" was made in April to hunt muskrat. After mandatory public school attendance, families remained at Stevens Village during winter. Trappers traveled to traplines from the winter community, primarily with snowmobiles. Traplines varied in length from a few marten sets a short distance from the community, to traplines 80 miles long with 200 traps. Sumida (1984:161-162) describes this pattern in 1984:

[Y]oung adult males in the community often learned to trap from an older, experienced trapper, usually a close relative such as their father or uncle. In this way younger mend learned about the specific areas being trapped along with trapping techniques and animal behavior. This information was especially relevant as the younger man would someday inherit the trapping area.

In certain instances a trapper learned about another individual's trapline when a partnership was formed. When local trappers talked about the areas they trapped, they were careful to specify ownership of the trapline. Partnerships were sometimes relatively permanent and longstanding while others were temporary in duration. Partners often maintained separate lines in the same general vicinity of one another. They may have helped one another check lines but usually kept their caches separate. During the 1983-84 trapping season, ten Stevens Village trappers reported having a trapping partner, most commonly a related individual.

Trading posts, which were still common in the first part of the century, no longer operate to subsidize trappers on credit in exchange for their fur harvest. Instead, trappers sometimes shared expenses with a partner or were subsidized by another trapper with available cash in exchange for assistance in trapping activities. To undertake trapping required an initial cash outlay of up to several thousand dollars for the purchase of necessary equipment. Snowmobiles were currently the main mode of transportation, and commercial traps and snares were used. Annual expenditures were made for equipment repair, fuel, and other supplies. . .

Trapping areas extended north to Lone Mountain, west up Dall River towards the pipeline and Dall City, south to Rogers and Lost Creeks, and east towards the mouth of the Hodza and River[.] . . .

Once traplines were set up, most village trappers checked their lines once a week or every few days. A few trappers waited ten days to two weeks between trips. Depending upon the distance to be traveled and the length of the line, tending the lines took from a single day to one week. Traplines near the village were often reached by walking, whereas snowmachines were used for travel to more distant areas. A common pattern reported by trappers during the winter of 1983-84 entailed spending one or two days each week checking lines. Fifteen trappers reported traveling an average of 40 miles round trip to their trapping areas. Round trip distances from individual trappers ranged from 3 to 80 miles.

Sets were baited with a variety of material, including "green" or slightly decomposed fish with a strong odor, often whitefish or chum salmon. Fish eggs, carcasses of other furbearers, bird wings, beaver castor and commercial lures were also used as bait.

Beaver, lynx, and muskrat were commonly used for human consumption although these and other furbearer carcasses were sometimes fed to dogs, used as bait or were discharged. Trappers used both homemade and commercial stretchers for drying furs. After drying, furs were stored until they could be sold to fur buyers. Most households kept some furs which they home-tanned for use in sewing hats, mitts, mukluks, or parka trim [. . .].

In addition to their gross monetary values, trapping produces a number of social and cultural values to the community. Trapping is one important channel for socializing young adults into traditional subsistence patterns. This is especially true for families that use dog teams for travel along the winter trail networks. The daily work of keeping a dog team teaches a variety of responsibilities to young adults including traditional knowledge, skills, beliefs, and lore. These are socially important later on in the young adult's life. Trapping gets males out on the land where they learn the survival techniques that have traditionally sustained their social group. Purposeful, productive, and meaningful activity during winter helps create responsible adults who support the family and community. . . .