Fishing

General Patterns

Fishing is an important subsistence activity in the Upper Koyukuk region, with fish comprising a substantial portion of the diet among residents of Allakaket, Alatna, and Hughes. Salmon, the major species harvested in these communities, are not nearly as abundant in the Bettles/Evansville area. Fish comprise a relatively smaller, but still important, component of the Bettles/Evansville diet as a consequence. . . .

Fishermen eagerly awaited the clearing of river ice on the Koyukuk River after the spring breakup, usually about early May, so nets could be set for sheefish, whitefish, suckers, and pike. Fishing for these species occurred during May and early June preceding the arrival of salmon. June was also the time when fishing equipment was repaired or mended for the new season. The first king salmon were caught in late June, which signaled the beginning of a busy salmon fishing season. By September, effort shifted to moose hunting; however, some nets remained active, and many people caught grayling with a hook and line. Between moose season and freeze-up on the river, usually about late October, trips were made to favorite seining sites for sheefish and whitefish. There was almost no fishing for burbot through the ice after freeze-up during the winter of 1982-83. Several fish species were typically caught with a single gear type. Fishermen did not stress the importance of a single target species for most fishing activities since all fish caught were a welcome addition to the household food supply.

Historically, the fisheries resources have been one of the most stable and consistent food sources for the people of the Koyukuk River. Elders recall a time before 1930 when moose were not found in the area, when seasonal caribou migrations were unreliable, and when the major food sources were salmon, small game, and black bear. . . .

In 1981 and 1982, fish were either consumed by people or used as dog food. Fish were eaten fresh or preserved by drying, freezing, or canning. Air-dried fish were lightly smoked over a dry balsam poplar or willow fire, then stored in a cache or smokehouse. Most households (88 percent overall) used freezers, and in 1983, the city of Allakaket started building a community freezer facility. Some king salmon, whether in dried strips or pieces, were preserved by canning in quart jars.

Most of the fish harvested was used by the groups that harvested it. However, sharing of fish with others outside the work group commonly took place. For example, 23 percent of Allakaket households and 47 percent of Hughes households that harvested king salmon gave some of the harvest to other households.

Boats used were generally 16- to 20-foot aluminum riverboats powered by 25- to 40-horsepower outboard motors. The distance to salmon fishing net sites ranged from directly in front of town to 25 miles up or down river. Sheefish and whitefish were caught by beach seines at fishing sites 30 to 50 miles up the Alatna River. The Bettles/Evansville pattern differed somewhat, with residents placing less emphasis on salmon fishing and focusing more on grayling fishing, and with some residents using air travel to reach trout fishing sites.

Patterns of fish camp use and travel to net sites may have changed in recent years. Some respondents indicated their use of a fish camp has decreased in favor of staying in town. Checking the net during short day trips, and bringing the fish home for processing. On trips taken to help fishermen check their nets, several dormant camps were observed. No fish camps were used for the entire 1982 salmon season. Some respondents commented that jobs in town prevented them from staying away from the community for extended periods. One Allakaket woman explained that her two older children were no longer willing to stay in camp for long and miss a chance of going out with the local Bureau of Land Management firefighting crew.

As with other resource harvesting activities, fishing occurred primarily among immediate family members living in the same or separate households. Family members residing in different households commonly fished cooperatively. This generally involved sons and daughters living in their own households who still fished with their parents.

Among Hughes salmon fishing groups, for example, 13 (72 percent) were composed of household members only. In the remaining five salmon fishing groups (28 percent) family members from two different households fished together: three groups were households linked by a parent-child relation, one group had two households of siblings, and one group had two households linked by "cousin" relationship. Eight Hughes households (45 percent) fished for non-salmon species as a household unit. An additional six households (30 percent) fished with parents and siblings living outside the household and five (25 percent) fished with friends.

Fishing tasks were shared among fishing group members according to the time and resources available. For instance, one 28-year-old Hughes man assisted his elderly parents by performing some of the more physical chores, such as setting up the tent and camp, and cutting a supply of dry balsam poplar wood for smoking fires. His parents tended the net and processed the fish on a daily basis. In one Allakaket salmon fishing group, two brothers in their early thirties and living in separate households had taken over most of the fishing from their parents. In addition, both pursued other summer activities in the village. On alternate days, one of the two brothers traveled the 20 miles to check the net and remained overnight at the family fish camp. The fish they harvested were shared among the three households.

Cooperation among households is also illustrated by one elderly Allakaket couple whose fish net site was close to town and was particularly productive. After they had processed enough king salmon and summer chum salmon for their own eating needs, they turned the site over to another local fisherman who had a large dog team to feed, and whose own net site was less productive. . . .

Hunting

General Patterns

Hunting is a major harvest activity throughout the year and provides a substantial portion of the diet in the study communities. Moose was commonly reported to be the largest single source of protein for a household, although on average more pounds of salmon were eaten by a household. In recent years, few caribou have been found in the area, which is reflected in the low caribou harvests. However, they remain an important resource to people in the Koyukuk River area, and would be harvested in greater numbers with higher caribou population levels. . . . Hare and ptarmigan were actively hunted throughout the winter months until the end of April. Black bear were taken at their den sites in May. Black bear also were taken throughout the summer and early fall, but more commonly in August, September, and October. Sheep were taken in August and early September. September was the primary moose hunting season, although occasional harvests occurred through fall and winter. Moose were also taken during a 10-day season in March for a portion of the study area. Beginning in September, there was an increase in the hunting of hare, waterfowl, grouse, and ptarmigan. During the study period, harvests of brown bear and caribou occurred too infrequently to provide a basis for describing a general pattern. Brown bear were occasionally taken, however. As noted above, local caribou populations have been extremely low during the past 10 years. . . .

In general, a high percentage of households harvested or used moose, waterfowl, hare, and black bear in 1981 and 1982. The highest proportion of community households harvesting or receiving game resources generally occurred in Hughes, while the lowest percentage was recorded in Bettles/Evansville. Waterfowl was used by all community households in Hughes, as well.

The low participation in caribou harvests (about 5 to 20 percent) is a reflection of the current scarcity of caribou in the area. Many residents commented that caribou migrations have failed to pass through the area during the last decade. Residents attribute this either to the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline, large forest burns, or hunting pressure on caribou herd leaders. Biologists attribute the scarcity in Hughes, relative to Bettles/Evansville is possibly due to higher moose populations near Hughes.

Waterfowl harvests were reported by a majority of households in Allakaket, Alatna, and Hughes. Although waterfowl hunting began as early as late April when geese and ducks first began to arrive at local lakes and sloughs, it was during May when over half of the hunting took place. No geese or ducks were reported harvested in July , and only a few in June and August. Hunting resumed during September when the geese and ducks aggregated. September hunting of geese was made difficult by their increasing wariness. The Canadian goose, mallard, oldsquaw, pintail, and widgeon were species most commonly taken through the year. In each community, the young adult and teenage males were most active in waterfowl hunting, although sometimes entire household groups would participate in a hunting trip. Geese and ducks were considered a highly prized food source and were especially welcomed during the late spring when they provided a new source of wild food in the local diet.

Hunters used whatever means of travel was practical for conditions during the particular season. Snowmobile travel was possible from November through April and boat travel possible on the rivers from May through October. Airplanes were used year-round. Travel is especially difficult during breakup season in early May and freeze-up in late October. . . .

Moose hunting was an activity pursued primarily by related individuals in Allakaket and Alatna. All 26 parties hunting moose during the September season included adult males. Eighteen (69 percent) involved only members of one household, while eight (31 percent) counted members from two households. Of the 18 cases where only a single household was represented, 14 (78 percent) included all household members. Of the eight cases where two households were represented, the primary connecting relationships were: brother (3), brother-in-law (2), son (1) cousin (1) and nephew (1).

Several Allakaket and Hughes respondents commented that their high school aged children were unable to accompany them on September moose hunting trips. In Hughes, where there is no high school, and in Allakaket, where school goes to the 10th grade only, students leave the community to finish high school and are unable to participate in harvest activities during much of the year.

Caribou hunting involved longer trips from the community and was an activity shared by members from several households. Black bear were hunted either by individuals, by groups during moose hunting, or by several men in observance of a bear party or kitlakka, a ritual sharing of the animal (Clark 1970b). At least three bear parties occurred in 1983, two in Allakaket and one in Hughes. Small game and waterfowl were taken by household members or related individuals. . . .

Trapping

General Patterns

Trapping is a major activity during winter for many Upper Koyukuk households. In addition to having economic value as a source of cash (through fur sales) food, and local sewing materials, the trapping activity itself has numerous cultural dimensions. Local land-use rights and family ties to the land are exercised while trapping, and social ties are affirmed through sharing furs and food. Trapping also provides younger persons an opportunity to learn important traditional skills associated with uses of the land from older and more experienced community members. As a major activity during winter, trapping is an important part of the annual harvest cycle. . . .

Trapping begins early November as soon as freezing of lakes and river permits safe travel to trapping areas, and continues throughout the winter and into spring as long as the furs are in good condition. Beaver were caught primarily during February and March. Muskrats were taken in April and May, often near spring camps. . . .

A high percentage of households trapped or received marten and beaver in Allakaket, Alatna and Hughes. Secondarily, fox and lynx were trapped. Few households harvested wolves during this time.

Bettles/Evansville residents displayed a generally lower level of participation than the other communities for all furbearers, except wolverine, although Department of Fish and Game sealing records show that the actual hares levels are comparable. Much of the terrain in the Bettles/Evansville area is characterized by fewer lakes an more hills than is the case near Allakaket and Hughes, which affects furbearers habitat and distribution. Allakaket, Alatna, and Hughes also displayed a slightly higher diversity of species than Bettles/Evansville. . . .

Plant Gathering

Plant resources fill a variety of food and material needs of people in the Koyukuk River area. Nearly all homes in the study area communities were constructed of and heated with locally cut spruce. Community buildings, smokehouses, and food caches were also built of local logs.. Smaller diameter spruce poles were used for wall tents, fish drying racks, and for general purposes. Birch was used for firewood and in constructing basket sleds, toboggan sleds, and snowshoes. Dry balsam poplar was the primary wood used for smoking fish and for campfires, although willow is used by some. Firewood was cut primarily during the fall and throughout the winter months.

Households in the survey sample harvested substantial quantities of wild berries during the summer of 1982. Adult females and children were the most active in berry picking. Harvesting normally occurred in July, August, and early September, generally during day trips from the community. Lowbush cranberries, high bush cranberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, cloudberries, and rosehips were all harvested. The berries, eaten fresh or stored in freezers, were used in cooking, in making Indian ice cream, and served at potlatches. . . .

Social Dimensions

Family relationships underlie the organization of most resource harvesting activities and of the distribution and consumption of those resources. Particularly, in Hughes, Alatna, and Allakaket, most, if not all, members of the community belonged to a sharing network. Indeed, the extensive pattern of sharing was to much a part of everyday life that many respondents had difficulty with survey questions which sought to quantify amounts of harvest shared among households. For example, salmon typically were harvested through the cooperation of related individuals residing in more than one household. Processed fish from the summer's effort was stored in a smokehouse identified with one household and available for use by other households included in the production unit.

There are two general patterns of resource sharing. The first results in an equal distribution or equal use. This occurs when individuals from different households either share equipment or effort as part of a hunting activity. In this case, the product of the subsistence activity is shared more or less equally. For example, if two brothers now residing in separate households go moose hunting together and return with one moose, the moose meat normally is shared evenly between the two households. The second type of sharing occurs in cases where equipment or effort are not shared in the subsistence activity. In these cases, the sharing tends to be more variable and based on need or availability. Examples of this are when food is given to the elderly or to relatives living outside the community.

The survey form used in this study focused on the household, which, in most cases, represented only a portion of the larger family network that served as the significant arena for subsistence activities. The communities were not simply a sum of household units, but rather a complex network of households integrated through kinship. Each individual's participation in resource harvest and use is continually influenced by his or her responsibilities and social obligations within this larger kinship network. This emphasis on the kinship network exists to a lesser extent in Bettles/Evansville, largely due to a preponderance of individuals and families that have moved there from other places in recent years.

Young children commonly accompany adults during harvesting trips away from the community. With age, they acquire responsibility commensurate with their abilities. September moose hunting trips often are family events. During school vacations, boys are taught trapping skills from fathers or grandfathers during several day trips. Respondents frequently emphasized the importance of these skills being taught at home and in the camp. Males in their late teens and twenties often accounted for substantial game harvests. Once an animal was brought home, other family members, typically females, took charge of processing. . . .