Excerpted From Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Paper No. 223, July 1993

Trapping and Mixed Subsistence-cash Economies

. . . The economies of most rural interior communities in Alaska are characterized by few full-time jobs and high participation in wild food harvests for personal consumption (Wolfe and Walker 1987). Average household incomes are well below those in urban centers and frequently are pieced together from a variety of income sources consisting of several seasonal or part-time jobs.. Often, large proportions of household incomes are channeled into the purchase or maintenance of equipment such as boats, outboard motors, and snowmobiles that will allow participation in hunting, fishing, and trapping activities (Wolfe and Ellanna 1983). This general economic pattern is what is referred to here as the mixed subsistence-cash economy.

In many rural Alaskan communities, trapping still represents one of the few cash earning options during winter months and is an integral part of the mixed subsistence-cash economy. Trapping is especially important in the Yukon and Kuskokwim River drainages of interior Alaska where a wide variety of furbearers exist and where weather conditions produce prime quality pelts and relatively long trapping seasons. Wildlife harvest surveys have shown that the percentage of households participating in trapping frequently exceeds 50 percent in rural interior communities (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1992). . . .

Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of 23 trappers in 19 trapping households in the Yukon River community of Nulato were described in another study (Robert 1984). Trappers in this predominately Athabaskan community were generally males between the ages of 17 and 69 with an average among male trappers of 42. Two female trappers, both aged 49, assisted their husbands with trapping activities. Trapping households ranged in size from 1 to 11 members with an average household sized of 4.6. Of 15 trapping households responding to questions about annual income, 40 percent reported that household incomes from all sources totaled less than $10,000, and 87 percent reported incomes below $20,000. Thirty-eight percent of Nulato trappers trapped alone; while 62 percent used trapping parterships. Partnerships were generally kinship-based pairs such as husband and wife, father and son, or father and son-in-law. Traplines were generally patrolled using snowmobiles.

Other products and benefits derive from trapping in addition to money. Some furbearers represent important sources of meat for both human use and for feeding fogs. Beaver and muskrat, for example, are furbearer species that are commonly eaten. With the recent decline in prices paid for beaver pelts, the fur value of beaver is often considered secondary to the food value of beaver meat (Robert 1984). Some furs are retained rather than sold and used to make essential cold-weather clothing items such as hats, mitts, and parka trims. In addition to fur harvests, other subsistence activities such as hunting, fishing, and wood cutting are commonly carried out in conjunction with activity on the trapline.

In considering the value and importance of trapping, social aspects cannot be overlooked. The social value of trapping in rural communities is difficult to quantify. Being regarded as a good trapper still carries with it a certain respected social standing because it involves a variety of skills such as knowledge of animal behavior and tracking, and winter travel and survival. These skills are acquired largely through interaction and communication between young men and their elders (Nelson, Mautner, and Bane 1978). Trapping is also a way for individuals and families to reaffirm historical ties to specific locations and land-use areas. Trapping is an important part of the socialization of young males perpetuating knowledge, skills, traditions and beliefs, and systems of land tenure that contribute immeasurably to the general welfare of individuals and communities (Wolfe 1991). . . .