UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Integrating the needs of rural subsistence economies into regional land use planning : Tenakee springs,… Leghorn, Kenneth S. 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1987_A6_7 L44.pdf [ 7.2MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0096968.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096968-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096968-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096968-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096968-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096968-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096968-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

I N T E G R A T I N G T H E N E E D S OF R U R A L S U B S I S T E N C E E C O N O M I E S INTO R E G I O N A L L A N D U S E P L A N N I N G : T E N A K E E SPRINGS, A L A S K A By K E N N E T H S. L E G H O R N B.A . Williams College, 1978 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R S OF S C I E N C E in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A October, 1987 (c) Kenneth S. Leghorn, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6(3/81) 11 A B S T R A C T This thesis develops a rationale for natural resource planning in southeast Alaska which fosters the maintenance of rural, mixed subsistence-cash economies, and wjiich integrates the needs of these communities for an adequate resource base with the needs of larger scale resource development projects. Operating under this rationale, natural resource planners would recognize the role that subsistence activities play in rural community stability while acknowledging the need for cash earnings and infrastructure development brought about through natural resource exports. Besides addressing the desires of rural residents to continue subsistence-oriented lifestyles, the benefits of this type of planning would be improved long term regional stability as well as increased concensus (and less litigation) over resource development projects. This research was undertaken because a growing body of literature in Alaska and Canada has shown that subsistence economies, far from being a primitive form of human enterprise which needs replacing, represent an adaptive, productive, stable, and rational socioeconomic system worthy of protecting. However, as increasing industrialization and modernization of northern regions occurs, it is evident that subsistence economies need to be better understood if they are to be maintained. This issue is important to analyze from a planning perspective because inter-disciplinary skills are needed when addressing an issue such as subistence which involves a mix of anthropology, economics, natural resource management, and fish and wildlife biology. More importantly, planning methods and planning solutions must be applied to the issue of how subsistence and mixed economies can be maintained in order to prevent their replacement by boom-bust cycles of hinterland resource development. A case study is included to present in-depth research undertaken on one rural community in southeast Alaska. Tenakee Springs was chosen as representative of a small (population 100), isolated northern community in a resource-rich area which has experienced a moderate level of recent timber harvesting. It has a largely non-Native population, consisting of many older, retired, first or second generation white settlers and an increasing number of younger families and individuals, all of whom are attracted to the tranquil, independent, and subsistence-oriented lifestyle of this island community. This population illustrates that subsistence economies are not only present in Native cultures. Detailed information on Tenakee is used to give a complete picture of modern-day mixed subsistence-cash economies, to demonstrate that the pursuit of subsistence activities represents a viable economic strategy which enhances rural communities located in resource-rich settings and which can be negatively impacted by industrial resource development. Conclusions are also presented on the land, resource, and cash income needs of subsistence users. This case study, sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, utilized state-of-the-art research methods to address the above issues. Community meetings were made an integral part of the research. Researchers conducted meetings before the study began (to introduce the community to the methods and purposes of the research, and gain feedback and approval), during the course of the research (to present initial results and composite maps of community harvests for verification), and at the draft report stage (for review and comments). Secondly, a literature review was conducted of all pertinent demographic, economic, historical, and resource development information on Tenakee. Thirdly, 11 active resource harvesters in the community were chosen to act as "key respondents" for the purposes of intensive interviewing and mapping of their lifetime resource harvesting activity. Next, using information from these key respondents, a questionnaire was made and administered to a random 50 percent (24) of all households in Tenakee. This permitted the compilation of data on 450 variables relating to 1984 community fishing, hunting and gathering activities and socioeconomic characteristics. Finally, the random survey of 24 households also included questions on historical and current deer hunting in four areas in which a variety of timber harvesting and road building activities have occurred. The results verified that Tenakee does have an economy typical of the model for mixed subsistence-cash socioeconomic systems. There is high participation in resource harvesting, with 48 percent of all residents (including young children and people in their 80s and 90s) engaging in hunting, and 56 percent in fishing. There is a wide diversity of resources (42 species or groups of similar species) harvested, and the harvest occurs throughout the year in repeating seasonal patterns. In 1984, there was an average harvest of 500 pounds per household, or 250 pounds of wild resources for every resident. There is a network of non-commercial distribution and exchange of these resources, in which actively harvesting households give resources to non-active households, and there is a high degree of barter and trade. The cash sector of Tenakee was found to be dependent on government transfer payments, largely consisting of social security from past employment, on government employment, and on seasonal and part time work. Limited cash earnings are used, among other things, to buy resource harvesting technologies such as skiffs, motors, guns, and nets. In general, Tenakee residents are pleased with the good life they lead. Some have said the main industry in Tenakee is "taking life easy," yet residents are quick to respond to threats to their peaceful community. The Town Council is currently engaged in 3 legal actions against the US Forest Service to stop implementation of road building and logging plans in Tenakee Inlet. Results from data analysis on this issue showed that subsistence activities may be significantly effected by logging and road-building, and that the long term effects may be negative. Road building was found to result in increased deer harvests by shifting users away from the beach zone and into the upland forested areas, and by increasing the number of out-of-town hunters using an area. This made it easier for some residents to obtain deer, but others were displaced by the increased competition. Habitat alteration after logging was found to result in good deer habitat and hunting conditions for several years following clear-cutting. After approximately 10-15 years, dense regrowth may inhibit 'u deer hunting. It is likely that over the long term, increased timber harvesting will result in a lowered deer population and more difficult hunting conditions. These results were found to have immediate application in three management arenas. First, the data was used to show that Tenakee does qualify for the subsistence protection and priority allocation provisions of Alaska law. This is an important step in maintaining subsistence opportunities for Tenakee residents. Secondly, specific information on salmon and deer harvests may be used to propose new regulations for Tenakee Inlet which restrict commercial fishing, and limit deer hunting to local residents. Thirdly, the results are being used in the impact assessment process for forest planning. Since all federal forest plans must consider their effects on subsistence uses of the forest, and because Tenakee is completely surrounded by National Forest lands, subsistence data will be of great use in community attempts to modify timber harvesting plans. A more far-reaching result of this and other studies is that the timber plans of the entire Tongass National Forest are being questioned for not having complied with subsistence assessment procedures. The thesis concludes by suggesting that planners should not just provide information so that a choice can be made between subsistence protection and resource development, but rather that planners should help formulate alternatives which allow for both goals to be achieved. A framework for a federal land use plan for the Tenakee area which balances subsistence usage of resources with larger-scale development is presented for consideration in the 1989 revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan. Current forest planning procedures in Alaska would permit such a process to unfold; it is up to professional planners and managers and interested citizens, especially from rural areas, to see that it happens. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abst rac t i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of F igures • v i i i Acknowledgement x CHAPTER I. Introduct ion 1 A. Overview 1 B. Rat ionale 2 C. Def in ing Subsistence 6 0. Regional Planning in Southeast Alaska 10 CHAPTER II. Subsistence in the Economy of Tenakee 15 A. Study Background 15 B. Methods 16 C. Tenakee and Environment 24 D. The Tenakee Economy: Cash Sector 35 E. The Tenakee Economy: Subsistence Sector 46 F. E f f e c t s of Timber Harvesting on Subsistence A c t i v i t i e s 73 G. Summary and D iscuss ion 87 CHAPTER III . I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Legal Context f o r Tenakee Subsistence Research 98 A. State F i s h and Game Management 98 B. Alaska Native Hunting and F ish ing Rights 102 C. Federal Subsistence Law: P ro tec t ion through Impact A n a l y s i s 103 CHAPTER IV. Integrat ing Subsistence Concerns into Regional Planning 108 A. Recap i tu la t ion 108 B. Planning of the Tenakee Area in the Review of TLMP 108 C. Conclusions 113 B ib l iography 115 Appendix I. 1985 Survey Instrument 121 Appendix II. Household use, harvest , g iv ing and r e c e i v i n g of f i s h and w i l d l i f e resources by random survey households, Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) 137 v i i LIST OF TABLES Page Table I. Deer Harvests in Tenakee Inlet by Residency of Hunter, 1980, 1982, 1983 . 70 Table II. Percent of Households Using 10 Resource Categories i n 1984 in Four Southeast Alaska Communities 90 Table I I I . Timber Harvest Summary and Predicted Decl ine in Deer Populat ion f o r Tenakee Inlet VCUs 97 vi i i LIST OF FIGURES Page F i g . 1 Map of Southeastern Alaska and study communities 22 F i g . 2 Resource use areas examined i n 1985 survey of Tenakee households 23 F i g . 3 U .S . Forest Serv ice Land Use Designations for Tenakee In let 29 F i g . 4 Populat ion p r o f i l e , Tenakee, 1920-1984 30 F i g . 5 Age by 10 year increments, Tenakee, 1985 survey 33 F i g . 6 Years Residency in Tenakee by the o ldes t r e s i d i n g member of each household, 1985 (N=24) 34 F i g . 7 Household gross income, Tenakee, 1985 (N=14) 36 F i g . 8 Household income by income source, Tenakee, 1985 37 F i g . 9 Tenakee Inlet timber harvest h is to ry 41 F i g . 10 Seasonal round of resource harvests by Tenakee res idents . . 48 F i g . 10 (cont inued, page 2) Seasonal round of resource harvests 49 F i g . 11 Household p a r t i c i p a t i o n in using and harvest ing 8 resource c a t e g o r i e s , Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) 50 F i g . 12 Household p a r t i c i p a t i o n in using and harvest ing the 10 most used resources types , Tenakee, 1984, (N=24) . 51 F i g . 13 Percent of households harvest ing mul t ip le resource types (breadth of ha rves t ) , Tenakee, 1984 52 F i g . 14 Mean household harvest ( l b s . per household) f o r 8 resource c a t e g o r i e s , Tenakee, 1984 53 F i g . 15 Household harvest composition by weight, Tenakee, 1984 . 54 F i g . 16 Household harvest con t r i bu t ion by land and marine resources , Tenakee, 1984 55 F i g . 17 Percent of deer harvested by habi tat type in 1983 and 1984, Tenakee (1983, N=55; 1984, N=39) 59 ix LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Page F i g . 18 Number of deer harvested per household, 1983 and 1984, Tenakee 60 F i g . 19 Mode of t ranspor ta t ion owned and used f o r resource harvest ing by Tenakee households, 1984 (N=24) 66 F i g . 20 Household p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rece iv ing and g iv ing 8 resource c a t e g o r i e s , Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) 67 F i g . 21 Percent of ac t ive Tenakee hunters using Corner Bay and Ten to F i f t e e n Mi le Spi t by y e a r s , 1960-1984 77 F i g . 22 Percent of Act ive Tenakee hunters using Indian River and South Passage Point by y e a r s , 1960-1984 78 F i g . 23 Percent of ac t ive Tenakee deer hunters using the beach f r inge and roaded areas in sample areas in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s 79 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The sponsorship of the Alaska Department of F ish and Game f o r the research conducted on Tenakee Spr ings i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. In p a r t i c u l a r , I wish to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to Rob Bosworth, Southeast Regional Superv isor f o r the D i v i s i o n of S u b s i s t e n c e , for h is help and suppor t . Many s i n c e r e thanks are a lso due to my s u p e r v i s o r , Wi l l iam Rees, fo r his unending good cheer , pat ience and promptness, and above a l l f o r h is c o n s t a n t l y he lp fu l i n s i g h t s and s t i m u l a t i n g i d e a s . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to acknowledge the people of Vancouver, who make t h i s the best c i t y in the world in which to l i v e whi le a t tending u n i v e r s i t y . 1. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview Subsistence-based socioeconomic systems are the foundation of most of the 350 human settlements in Alaska and of many of the villages and towns across northern Canada. In these communities, the harvesting of fish and game resources for family consumption plays a critical role in the community's economic, social and/or cultural life. Recent research indicates that subsistence-based socioeconomic systems are a sustainable, productive mode of human enterprise, and when combined in modern times with a cash sector from other economic activities, producer a "mixed economy" of great stability (see next section). Yet current local and regional planning efforts in southeast Alaska and other northern regions focus on the development of natural resources for export and virtually ignore the contribution of on-going subsistence economies and their natural resource needs. Many industrial developments in these northern regions over the last two decades have increasingly threatened to displace subsistence patterns of use, and thus disrupt community economic patterns. Although subsistence opportunities are protected by federal and state law in most of southeast Alaska (see Chapter III), such considerations have not become part of regional planning efforts, and local desires to continue or stengthen subsistence economies are not being realized. This thesis develops a rationale for natural resource planning in southeast Alaska which fosters the maintenance of rural, mixed subsistence-cash economies, and which integrates the needs of these communities for an adequate resource base with the needs of larger scale resource development projects. Operating under this rationale, natural resource planners would recognize the role that subsistence activities play in rural community stability while acknowledging the need for cash earnings and infrastructure development brought about through natural resource exports. The benefits of this type of planning 2 would be long term stability for local communities as well as increased concensus (and less litigation) over resource development projects. The introductory sections which follow explain why this thesis was selected, introduce the concept of a subsistence economy, and present background information on regional planning in southeast Alaska. Chapter II presents the results of research undertaken on the subsistence economy of one town in southeast Alaska. Tenakee Springs (hereafter referred to as "Tenakee") is used as a case study to give a more complete picture of a modern-day subsistence-oriented comrnmunity. This research demonstrates that the pursuit of subsistence activities represents a viable economic strategy which is "good" for rural communities in resource-rich settings and which can be negatively impacted by industrial resource development. Conclusions are also drawn from this study listing the land use, resource, and cash income needs of subsistence users. Chapter H I describes the applications of subsistence research on Tenakee in a variety of management settings, and shows how subsistence in Alaska has already been judged worthy of protection by state and federal management agencies. This constitutes further reason for incorporating subsistence issues into regional planning, and one federal mechanism for doing so through impact analysis is described. Chapter IV outlines the framework of a federal land use plan for the Tenakee area which shows it is possible to balance subsistence usages of resources with larger-scale development. The final section concludes by suggesting how results from this thesis can be incorporated into regional planning throughout southeast Alaska. B . Rationale This section addresses three basic questions relevant to this work: 1) why the issue of subsistence is important to study in general, and how it applies to the fields of natural resource and community development planning specifically; 2) why subsistence should be studied from a planning perspective; and 3) why a case study approach is utilized. 3 1. Why Study Subsistence Subsistence-based and mixed subsistence-cash socioeconomic systems (as shown below, the two terms can be used interchangeably in North America) are referred to in this report to include both Native and non-Native communities living on the periphery, or hinterlands, of modern industrial societies such as the United States and Canada. The study of such systems in the past has largely been the purview of anthropologists, and derives from the literature on hunter-gatherer societies (e.g. Sahlins, 1974; Riches, 1982). Subsistence research in North America is increasingly the subject of economic, resource management, and sociological inquiry. It attempts to understand how rural communities whose populations are traditionally dependent on high levels of Fish and game harvesting (either through cultural heritage, as with most Native villages, or through more recent historical usage, as with many frontier non-Native communities) function as a cohesive and stable society of positive value to its individual members. Since even the most northern and isolated of these communities experience some contact with the industrial, market-based society, subsistence research virtually always includes an analysis of how the two quite different systems articulate (e.g. Salisbury and Tooker, 1984; Dimitrov, 1985; Harris, 1985; LaRusic, 1982; Langdon, 1981). Such research is important in understanding how social change is occurring in these communities, particularly in light of growing evidence that for many communities subsistence socioeconomic systems represent the "best" type of social organization and productive enterprise. For example, in Alaska, Wolfe (1985) concluded that "in this period of declining oil revenues, the most sensible development paths for many rural regions are those which enhance mutually-supportive cash-subsistence relationships in the region's economy" (p. 12). In Canada, Weinstein (1976) conducted ground-breaking research on the James Bay Cree which demonstrated the critical role that subsistence harvests traditionally played, and argued that these opportunities should be maintained and strengthened following industrial hydro-electric development in the region. Subsequent studies have verified the positive community 4 development which transpired there as a direct result of advance planning to strengthen the traditional subsistence economy in conjunction with well-managed resource development (Scott, 1984; Salisbury, 1986). Until two decades ago when northern industrial development began in earnest, subsistence resource harvesting was little understood and more misunderstood (Dosman, 1975). It was regarded as primitive by most non-anthropologists, and its productive element ignored. A growing volume of subsistence research such as the studies cited above have shown how subsistence economies can be stable, sustainable, significantly productive, and even considered "affluent" (e.g. Scott, 1984). As Usher (1976) has stated, the importance of subsistence economies to many northern communities is not likely to decline in the foreseeable future, and such economies have shown a high level of adaptability and tenacity in surviving despite threats posed to them by increasing industrialization and its attendant cycles of boom-bust economic activity (Rees, 1986). These threats to stable subsistence-based communities, and the opportunity to withstand them or benefit from the changes, form the impetus for conducting subsistence research and injecting its findings into northern community and natural resource development planning. 2. Why Study Subsistence from a Planning Perspective First, it is important to undertake subsistence research from a planning perspective in order to make the information obtained of immediate use for current planning needs. Good planning is based on the availability of information at several levels, both in order to acknowledge constraints at the outset, and to generate and assess alternatives throughout the process (Leghorn, 1985). In addition, the study of subsistence is multi-disciplinary, involving theories and findings from anthropology, economics, and natural resource management. For the results of subsistence research to be useful in solving problems and aiding mankind, its application to social problems is best undertaken from a cross-disciplinary and generalist planning perspective. 5 Perhaps most importantly, planners should address subsistence research because subsistence economies raise land use issues at the heart of many of modern society's most pressing political and philosophical conflicts: minority vs. majority users, indigenous peoples vs. neo-colonialists, renewable vs. non-renewable resource extraction, urban vs. hinterland development, self-sufficiency vs. dependency, smallness vs. bigness, and production for use-value vs. production for exchange-value. The goal of subsistence research and management is not just to highlight these trade-offs so that society as a whole can choose between them; ultimately is is to foster the adaptation of all of these elements in a manner that accentuates the positive opportunities for each. It is my hope in pursuing a planning education and in selecting this thesis topic that such an effort is best undertaken from a planning background. 3. Why Use a Case Study Approach A case study approach is used to address the thesis goal for three reasons. First, from a theoretical viewpoint many planning exercises suffer from heavy reliance on the normative and lack of basis in actual situations (Banfield, 1959, Schon, 1983). A case study is an excellent means of grounding a planning problem in a real-world situation. Secondly, from a practical viewpoint a single case study permits focussed and in-depth research which can provide useful results with efficient allocation of time and money resources. Thirdly, from a utilitarian viewpoint, a well-chosen case study will provide immediate benefits in terms of feedback to the researcher concerning the relevance of the work, useful information to the people or situations examined, a basis for the broader study, and understanding of similar situations elsewhere. A l l this was certainly true for my case study on the community of Tenakee (see Chapter III), and provided the impetus for my interest in the project. The small, isolated settlement of Tenakee Springs on the shores of Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska was chosen as representative of a community with a mixed subsistence-cash economic system, a largely non-Native population, and a twenty year history of 6 moderate timber harvesting in the area. A community with a non-native population was chosen to illustrate that subsistence does not need to be ethnically or racially defined, which indeed would be unconstitutional to do in the United States. Additionally, the community of Tenakee Springs has indicated a strong desire to preserve opportunities for subsistence harvesting, as evidenced by numerous Town Council resolutions, local fish and game advisory panel recommendations, and three recent legal actions against the U . S . Forest Service. Southeast Alaska was chosen as a region with clear geographical boundaries and a federal land use plan which covers over 80 percent of land in the region. C. Defining subsistence The term subsistence is variously referred to as sustenance, personal consumption, traditional use, country food harvesting, Indian food fishing or hunting, informal economy, domestic use, production for use-value, and others. In this thesis I adopt the definition of subsistence use appearing in Alaska Statute: "the noncommercial customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources by a resident domiciled in a rural area of the state for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation... and for the customary trade, barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption" (AS 16.05.940). Although this definition incorporates activities such as berry-picking, firewood gathering and collecting grasses and bark for basketry as part of the subsistence rubric, in this report "subsistence use" will generally refer only to the harvest and consumption of wild fish and game resources since it is these resources which are of chief management concern. "Subsistence-based socioeconomic system" is a bulky term used to describe a general pattern of productive enterprise where subsistence harvests play a key role in a community's economic, social and/or cultural life (e.g. Wolfe, 1984). In this report, the simple term "subsistence" refers to subsistence-based or mixed subsistence-cash economies. The term "mixed economy" is also frequently used since it accentuates the fact 7 that subsistence-based communities throughout Alaska and Canada articulate to some extent with the industrial, cash-based economy. The more complete term "socioeconomic system" is useful to understand at the outset since it refers to the fact that subsistence harvests play a much broader role in certain communities than that of simply "filling the pot." Subsistence is best understood as representing a community system of livelihood and social life, rather than as strictly an individual or family activity. Wolfe (1984) has identified seven characteristic features of subsistence-based socioeconomic systems which explain how wild food harvesting is incorporated throughout a community's social structure. These features are listed and described below: 1) A domestic mode of production. In the modern industrial state, productive enterprise is carried out by corporations, made up of individual workers, which operate at a level of production dictated by market selling conditions and organized in such a way as to maximize surplus profits. In subsistence-based communities, production (i.e. food harvests; preparation and related activities) is organized into family units at a level determined by the needs of the family or local sharing network. These needs are often far below the level at which the family is capable of producing. This observation has led to the coining of the anthropological term "original affluence" in reference to the extra leisure time obtained by so-called "primitive" groups who stop producing when their basic needs are met (Sahlins, 1974), and was also noted by political economist Weber in his 1930 comparison of traditional versus capitalistic workers. Thus the domestic mode of production for use-value present in subsistence economies is markedly different than that of the capitalist mode (production for exchange-value) which operates in industrial market economies. 2) High participation by household members in resource harvesting. Participation rates in subsistence harvesting are usually based on the percentage of households in a community which actively harvest a certain resource, since the household rather than the individual is 8 seen as the major economic unit. Household participation rates of 50 to 90 percent for a variety of harvested resources are commonly found in communities studied by the State of Alaska Division of Subsistence (e.g Behnke, 1982; Fa l l et al. 1983). Such high rates of fishing and hunting activity, in combination with an active distribution and exchange network (see below), result in consumption of wild resources throughout the community. 3) High outputs of harvested resources. Along with high participation rates in resource harvesting in subsistence communities goes the production of high quantities of resources consumed. Whereas the average American consumes roughly 255 pounds of meat, fish and poultry each year, wild fish and game harvests in Alaska often contribute 500 or more pounds to the annual diet of villagers (Wolfe, 1986). These substantial outputs from subsistence activities greatly lessen the dependence of households on cash earnings. 4) Non-commercial distribution and exchange. It is the widespread sharing and trading of wild resources between families that makes subsistence best understood at the community level. Although an individual household may satisfy all other characteristics of a subsistence-based economic unit, the non-commercial distribution of resources throughout a community helps ensure that all households are participants in the subsistence economy. For example, older residents may no longer be able to directly harvest resources themselves, and may depend on sharing networks for a large proportion of their consumption. Other households may obtain high quantities of a certain resource such as salmon or crab, and exchange some of these with households harvesting other resources. 5) Community-wide seasonal round of harvest. Although households may obtain greater quantities of certain resources over others, wild fish and game harvests in subsistence communities follow a general pattern of seasonal activity. Each season brings with it opportunities for certain species to be harvested, which a high percentage of households will focus on obtaining. Other species may be harvested throughout the year. In either case, there is definable pattern of subsistence harvesting throughout the year to which most households conform. 9 6) Traditional land use and occupancy. This characteristic of subsistence economies is present mainly in communities with a Native Indian or Eskimo population, in which the location of hunting and fishing sites is determined by traditional use, usually along kinship lines, rather than through laws or regulations. Land use and occupancy has been studied most extensively in Canada and has been a useful way of examing overlapping Native land claims and evaluating the impacts of industrial developments on Native hunting and fishing activities (e.g. Freeman, 1976; Brody, 1981; Harris, 1984; Weinstein, 1976). 7) Mixed Economy. As mentioned above, the term mixed economy is appropriate when addressing subsistence economies in North America because all rural communities here have at least some element of a commercial sector in which goods and services are exchanged for cash. In subsistence communities this cash can come from the sale of fish and game or their by-products (e.g. commercial fishing or trapping) or from wage employment in the private or public sector. Cash is a necessary component in subsistence communities for the purchase of resource harvesting technologies such as rifles, fishing gear, skiffs, engines, snowmobiles and fuel. As mentioned previously, one of the goals of this thesis is to outline ways in which the cash and subsistence sectors of rural communities in southeast Alaska can continue to be mutually enhanced. These seven characteristics give a fuller understanding of what is meant by a subsistence-based socioeconomic system, and will be referred to later when analyzing the resource harvesting activities of Tenakee residents. Such an in-depth understanding of subsistence is needed in order to appreciate how this type of socioeconomic system can contribute to overall stability and quality of life in a rural community otherwise dependent on government employment, transfer payments, or the development of natural resource export markets. 10 D. Regional Planning in Southeast Alaska 1. Background Southeast, or the "Panhandle," is a distinct geographic region of Alaska. Separated from British Columbia on its eastern edge by a series of icefields and the Coast Mountain ranges, Southeast stretches over 600 miles from north to south. It is a region of tall mountains with glaciers and permanent icefields, dense spruce and hemlock forests, and thousands of islands. The 38 towns and villages range in size from the tiny fishing village of Elfin Cove with 28 residents, to the capital city of Juneau with over 20,000 residents (1980 U.S . Census). Approximately 20 percent of the region's inhabitants are Native Indian. Virtually all towns are situated along the shores of the mainland or on an island, and transportation between towns is chiefly by the state-operated marine ferry system or by airplane. Only the towns of Skagway, Haines, and Klukwan are connected by road to the rest of the state, a factor which adds to the unique, marine-oriented lifestyle of many communities. Since the granting of statehood in 1959, the State of Alaska has received conveyance of less than one third of the land in Alaska. In southeast Alaska, the federal government still has jurisdiction over 96 percent of all lands, with 2 percent under State jurisdiction and 2 percent under private (largely Native) ownership. Federal lands are chiefly comprised of Glacier Bay National Park in the northern part, and the Tongass National Forest. The 17 million acre Tongass contains 80 percent of all lands in southeast Alaska, and includes lands adjacent to nearly every community in the region. There is no formal regional planning body for Southeast. Planning at the local level is done by each community, and is largely confined to land use and local economic and infrastructure development issues. Regional transportation planning is done by the State of Alaska in cooperation with the federal government. The Tongass Land Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service, 1979) and a variety of smaller sub-regional Forest Service plans serve as the major regional planning initiative in that a majority of public lands in 11 the region are affected by these plans. In addition, an informal collective of mayors, industry leaders and other interested individuals from around Southeast have recently initiated symposia and meetings aimed at generating increased economic development, with the goal of shaping the region's future development in a more integrated fashion than has occurred previously. In the absence of any formal regional planning body which integrates plans of the above-listed land management agencies, the Forest Service is the agency most directly involved with subsistence hunting concerns. This is because most hunting in the region occurs on the Tongass forest. The Forest Service also becomes involved with subsistence fishing and shellfishing activities to the extent that federal actions governing industrial development effects fishery or shellfish habitat. Indeed, as the major land manager in southeast Alaska, there are few facets of the region's economy and no communities which are not affected by Forest Service planning decisions. 2. Planning on the Tongass National Forest The 1960 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act established that all federal forests must be managed to serve a variety of uses such as watershed protection, ecological protection,recreation, mining, and, of course, timber harvesting. Thus, despite its origins within the Department of Agriculture and an early history based on the tree-farm concept of Gifford Pinchot, the U . S . Forest has become a multiple-service agency to reflect changing demands for forest resources. The Wilderness Act of 1964 added "wilderness" as another resource to fall under management of federal forest lands. Multiple use management was reinforced in 1973 by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act and in 1976 by the National Forest Management Act. These laws addressed the need to incorporate advance planning for multiple use in all federal forest management. The process by which forest planning was made open to the public was slowly established as all such planning efforts began to comply with requirements for preparation of environmental impact statements under the broad-reaching National 12 Environmental Protection Act passed in 1969. Now every forest management action, from major ten year plans to minor permits granted to recreational guides, must go through at least the rudiments of an environmental assessment. Public participation is an integral part of all such assessments, and is greatly strengthened by the 1971 Freedom of Information Act which guarentees public access to all planning and decision-making deliberations of any public agency. The public may participate in several stages of Forest Service planning, from the initial identification of issues and concerns to the development of alternative actions. The public may also request information on, comment on, an eventually take the agency to court on the basis of faulty procedural compliance with all key steps in forest planning: data collection, cost/benefit analyses, assessment and selection of alternatives, etc. (Sierra Club et al. 1981). The Tongass Land Management Plan of 1979 (TLMP) was the first ten year plan in the country to be passed under the 1976 National Forest Management Act. Although this plan still revolved around timber harvesting, it was a far cry from the original plan of the late 1950s, which called for the quickest possible conversion of virgin old growth forest to second growth stands through an annual allowable cut in excess of 800 million board feet (Sandor and Weisberger, 1958). T L M P provided for management of about 35 percent of the land base as Wilderness (most of which, however, was either non-forested mountains, rock, or non-commercial forest), and for enough timber harvesting to maintain current timber-related employment in southeast Alaska (approximately 450 million board feet per year). Other goals addressed recreation, tourism, scenery, wildlife protection, roads, and mineral and hydroelectric development (USFS, 1984). The basis for T L M P as a planning exercise was to divide the entire region into 867 watershed management units, compile an in-depth resource inventory for each watershed, rate each resource on a scale of low to high value, and then assign each unit to one of four land use categories. These Land Use Designations determine the type of activities that may be permitted as a result of more detailed subsequent management plans for each area. 13 Because of the extent to which most people in southeast Alaska rely on national forest lands for some part of their employment, recreation, or subsistence needs, T L M P (pronounced " T - L U M P " ) has become a household word throughout the region. Hunters, sport and commercial fishermen, subsistence users, loggers, tourism operators and Forest Service personnel are all affected to some degree by actions sanctioned under T L M P . Much attention on national forest planning has also come from the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), which is a coalition of approximately a dozen local environmental groups representing large and small communities. With the revision of T L M P for another ten year planning period due in 1989, even higher levels of public concern and participation can be expected to help shape this plan than was present in the late 1970s. Thus conditions will be well-suited for the injection of new information and goals concerning subsistence management. However, two major constraints exist to prevent making significant changes in the T L M P revision. First, two 50 year timber contracts were signed in the late 1950s in order to induce pulp mills to become established in Ketchikan and Sitka. These unusual contracts, the first and only such agreements ever made on federal timber lands, guarenteed 50 year supplies of timber to the two mills at low stumpage fees and gave unprecedented leeway to the pulp companies in selecting acreage to be harvested. There is some possibility that this constraint could be removed through legal action or Congressional reform, which would significantly broaden the scope of possible changes to be made in the T L M P revision. The second major constraint to forest planning is contained in another piece of federal legislation, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ( A N I L C A ) . Passed in 1980 after a decade of political debate, A N I L C A contains two sections of prime importance to Tongass planning. The section on subsistence use will be addressed in Chapter III. The other, Section 705, directs that the Forest Service will spend at least 40 million dollars each year in order to supply the industry with 450 million board of timber. This unusual appropriation of federal dollars, which is mandated by law and thus falls outside of any 14 annual Congressional review or appropriations process, was included because of intense lobbying by the timber industry. The industry maintains that without such a subsidy, large scale clearcutting in the Tongass would not be economically feasible, and timber-related employment could not be maintained. Legislation currently before Congress (the Tongass Timber Reform Act) would amend ANILCA by removing Section 705 and return any subsidy to the annual appropriations process. Thus another major constraint to land use planning on the Tongass could be removed. In summary, the 1979-1989 Tongass Land Management Plan is the most substantive regional planning process to be undertaken in southeast Alaska. As a land use plan, TLMP outlines the extent of natural resource development (primarily clearcut timber harvesting) that may occur on over 80 percent of all lands in the region. Although many agencies, organizations, individuals, and businesses engaged in the TLMP planning process in the late 1970s, it is expected that greater public participation will occur when the plan is revised in two years (indeed, the first public newsletter on the revision process was released in mid-1987). There is a possibility that two significant constraints to revising TLMP -the 50 year timber supply contracts, and timber supply mandate of ANILCA legislation- may be removed before the next ten year plan is finalized. If this happens, considerable more attention to the needs of subsistence users and the habitats upon which they depend could be realized in Tongass planning. 15 C H A P T E R n S U B S I S T E N C E I N T H E E C O N O M Y O F T E N A K E E A . Study Background This research on the subsistence economy of Tenakee was sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, as part of an on-going project entitled Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast  Alaska Communities. The aim of this project is to obtain baseline information on subsistence harvest and use of fish and wildlife resources, and to investigate the effects of timber harvesting on the uses of these resources in a sample of southeast Alaska communities. Much of the information contained in this chapter was published in the Division's Technical Report series on subsistence (Leghorn and Kookesh, 1987). Originally a Tlingit winter village, Tenakee became settled by miners seeking respite from the harsh northern winters during the Alaska and Yukon mining era of the late 1800s (Figure 1). From 1917 until 1974 a series of fish and shellfish processing businesses operated out of the area and the population grew to approximately 400. Sporadic highgrade timber harvesting occurred along the shores of Tenakee Inlet from about 1910 until the 1960s, when Alaska Pulp Company began large-scale timber harvesting in several drainages adjacent to or near the town. Today, Tenakee is a quiet community of about 140 residents, many of whom are retired. Younger families are also moving in, attracted by the slower pace of life and opportunities for "living off the land." As documented in this chapter, natural resource harvesting currently plays a significant role in the overall Tenakee economy, and is engaged in throughout the year by a majority of residents. 16 As stated in Chapter I, this case study has four central objectives: 1) to give a more complete and accurate picture of the social, economic and resource harvesting elements of a modern-day subsistence economy than usually comes to mind when hearing the term "subsistence"; 2) to demonstrate that a mixed subsistence-cash economy can be a productive, stable form of rural community development; 3) to document ways in which industrial developments such as large-scale timber harvesting can negatively impact these economies; and 4) to determine the basic elements of a healthy subsistence-oriented community development strategy which need to be considered in regional planning if such opportunities are to be maintained. B . Methods Household information in this case study was obtained from fieldwork conducted in Tenakee between December 1984 to March 1985 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In December, 1984, contact was made with the city clerk and chairman of the local Fish and Game Advisory Committee who arranged a public meeting to discuss the possibility of Subsistence Division research being conducted in Tenakee. The community was receptive and supportive of the project. The basic field work, described below, consisted of interviews and mapping sessions with selected active harvesters in the community, followed by administration of a detailed survey to a random sample of 50 percent of the year-round households. 1. Literature review This study began with a review of the literature that is relevant to the subject of aboriginal occupation and settlement of the north and the economics of hunter-gatherer societies generally. Important sources included Dimitrov (1984), Freeman (1976), Harris (1985), Krause (1956), Oberg (1973), Olson (1967), Riches (1982), Sahlins (1972), and 17 Salisbury (1962). This was followed by a review of information more directly related to the history and settlement of Tenakee Springs, described below. The issues related to timber harvest economics, assessment of timber harvest-related impacts, and the socioeconomic implications of timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest were explored with the aid of literature from both the U . S. and Canada, including Harris and F a i r (1974), Schoen et al . (1981), Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau (1984), B . C . Forest Service (1983), Bunnell (1981), Bunnell et al. (1984), Doyle et al. (1984), Gates (1962), McNay et al . (1984), and Willms (1971). Although the community of Tenakee has not been as extensively studied as some others in southeast Alaska, several documents provided useful background information. Both DeLaguna (1960) and Goldschmidt and Haas (1946) mention past use and occupancy of Tenakee Inlet by several Tlingit groups, and these sources provided background material for the history section of Chapter II. In 1975 the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs published a study titled The Socio-Economic Implications of Logging  Operations on Tenakee Springs, and Tenakee Inlet, Alaska. This report was the first to document subsistence use of Tenakee Inlet by residents of Tenakee, and to address the potential conflicts between these activities, commercial fishing, recreational fishing and hunting, and the development of logging activities. Portions of that study are referenced in this report, including sections on community history, timber harvest history, deer harvest statistics, fishing and crabbing activities, and background information on the Hoonah-Tenakee road connection issue. The Department of Community and Regional Affairs' 1984 publication, Tenakee Springs Community Plan, presents information on the recent history, demography, and economy of the community. 2. Key respondent interview and mapping Initial visits to Tenakee during December 1984 led to the identification of 11 particularly active resource harvesters in the community. While the ages of the respondents varied, all but one had lived in Tenakee for over ten years, with several having hunting and fishing 18 experience dating back to the 1930s. On the average, about 10 hours were spent with each key respondent, conducting semi-structured interviews. It is important to note that key respondents were not chosen solely on the basis of current resource harvesting activities. A n active harvesting history spanning at least 10 years of residency in Tenakee was a more important selection criterion than current levels of harvest. Thus several of the key respondents were older residents who were not currently as active in resource harvesting as they had been in past years. The key respondent interview utilized an open ended questionnaire which included three parts: 1) an auto-biographical or personal history of the individual; 2) employment history; and 3) a history of resource harvest in the region. The lengthy key respondent interview sessions were conducted to provide both 1) non-parametric data and 2) some estimates of quantitative data not available from other sources. Non-parametric data include information about specific events in Tenakee's recent history, personal accounts of subsistence harvesting activity, descriptions of areas used for subsistence harvesting, accounts of harvest methods used, descriptions of seasonal rounds of harvesting activity, and similar types of data. Key respondent interviews are a primary method for gathering this type of information, which may not be available from other sources. Key respondents also provided important quantitative estimates on changes in harvest success, harvest levels, subsistence harvest composition, seasonal rounds, relative abundance of harvestable species, and similar data. Mapping of resource harvest areas used by key respondents over their lifetimes was conducted as part of the interview sessions.. Initially, mapping was accomplished at a scale of 1:63,360. These detailed maps were later converted to a scale of 1:250,000 for the purpose of illustrating community-wide harvest patterns. Information from these maps is summarized in this chapter, but the maps themselves are not included. Mapping each key respondent's lifetime resource use areas was performed according to the methodology first used by Freeman in Canada's Northwest Territories (Freeman, 19 1976). Each key respondent was asked to record on a map the areas used during their lifetime for the harvest of deer, salmon, furbearers, intertidal species, waterfowl, and seal. Each resource category received a different colored marking. Time series information was recorded in notes during each mapping session. The result of each session was a "map biography" of the lifetime use areas for resource harvesting of each key respondent. The use areas for each resource category were then aggregated for all eleven individuals, both to protect the confidentiality of individual use areas, and to provide a community-wide picture of harvest geography. During a two-day open house, and subsequent City Council contacts, community members were encouraged via public notice and word of mouth to stop in and review the composite maps for completeness. No new use areas were identified during the public review. A major assumption of this mapping methodology is that information on the geographical extent of resource harvesting by the community's most active resource harvesters can be considered as representative of the entire community. In this study, the 11 key respondents represented 8 percent of all individuals in Tenakee. The process of community validation of the maps provided assurance that they accurately depict community harvest areas. 3. Resource Use Random Survey Based on key respondent information from Tenakee and the other study communities, a survey instrument was developed with technical assistance from the U S F S Forestry Sciences Laboratory (Appendix I). The survey was designed to collect information from households in Tenakee on the 1984 harvest, use, distribution and exchange of resources; the areal extent of harvest activities over time; household demography; and household economic characteristics. The Tenakee city clerk identified and confirmed 47 permanent households in Tenakee as of January, 1985, and a total Tenakee population of 100. Several households that had previously been considered as part of the community's population were absent from town 20 during the winter for a variety of reasons. Structures not considered permanent households were vacation homes, vacated buildings, community buildings and private businesses. The survey was administered to a random sample of 24 households, or 50 percent of the total households residing at that time in Tenakee. The sampled households contained 48 people, or 48 percent of the population, equally divided between males and females. Seven alternate households were later included in the sample when some of those initially selected were found to be unavailable. Included in this random selection were 6 of the 11 key respondent households. During the random household surveys, information on deer harvests was gathered for two years, 1983 and 1984. This was because the 1984 hunting season was severely restricted in Tenakee due to major damage incurred to boats and property during the Thanksgiving Day storm that year. Community members stated that the 1983 deer harvests were more representative of the community's normal patterns. In this chapter, these deer harvest data as well as those gathered with annual harvest ticket surveys are clearly identified by year and source. The survey asked questions on 19 individual geographic areas used for resource harvesting, shown in Figure 2. These areas were delineated based on key respondent information and from informal personal contact with community members. Respondents were asked to indicate the years when they had used each area for hunting, fishing and gathering. These questions about specific geographic units enabled collection of information on changes in resource use areas over time. Additional detailed information was collected on four of these areas: Indian River, Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit, Corner Bay, and South Passage Point. These areas were chosen to represent a spectrum of timber harvest histories in places traditionally and currently used for subsistence by Tenakee residents. 21 4. Verification and limitation of findings Composite maps of resource use areas from the key respondent mapping sessions were verified for accuracy during a two-day review period held in Tenakee in July of 1985. During the review period, many Tenakee residents who had not participated in the original mapping sessions had the opportunity to determine whether the maps were consistent with their own experience and knowledge. Although some minor boundary adjustments were made at this time, no new areas for resource harvesting within Tenakee Inlet were identified. This suggests that the areal extent of use maps derived from key respondents may be relatively complete. It is not intended that information gathered on one half of the Tenakee households for a one year period can be used to generalize all subsistence activities for the entire community over time. Participation levels and quantities harvested may vary each year. In general, it is likely that the harvest quantities and household participation rates listed here are conservative estimates of community averages. For instance, use of pink and chum salmon was not reported by any surveyed households, but is known to occur by some households, in the community. In addition, deer hunting and winter crabbing activities were sharply curtailed in 1984 due to the Thanksgiving Day storm in Tenakee, which destroyed many boats and homes. For example, the 1984 harvest of 39 deer for the 24 households surveyed was 41 percent lower than the 1983 harvest of 55 deer. Thus, if there is a systematic bias in the 1984 data, it is probably toward an underestimate of the community's resource use patterns. 22 F i g . 1 Map of Southeastern Alaska and study communit ies. areas examined in 1985 survey o f Tenakee households 24 C. Tenakee and Environment 1. Historical setting Tenakee is located on the north shore of Tenakee Inlet on east Chichagof Island (Figure 1). Tenakee is one of three incorporated communities on the island, the others being Hoonah and Pelican. It is the only community on Tenakee Inlet. Tenakee is 52 air miles from Juneau to the northeast, 24 air miles from Hoonah to the north, and 34 air miles from Angoon to the east. Chichagof Island is the second largest island (after Prince of Wales Island) in the Alexander Archipelago, the 66 island chain extending 280 miles through southeast Alaska. Chichagof has 742 miles of coastline, and covers 2,104 square miles (Alaska Geographic, 1978). Tenakee Inlet provides the main focus of resource gathering activity for both residents and visitors to Tenakee. The Inlet is 35 miles long and between three to four miles wide, with the community of Tenakee situated 10 miles from the entrance of the Inlet at Chatham Strait. The north shore is fairly straight and backed by steep forested slopes rising to a 3,000-4,000 foot high ridge of mountains. Indian River, the largest watershed on this side of the Inlet, drains a long and low valley behind town, and empties into the Inlet about one mile east of town. B y contrast, the south shore of the Inlet contains 10 major bays and several smaller ones. Each of these bays is headed by a river or creek of varying size, with associated tidal flats, estuaries and meadows (Figure 2). Both shores of Tenakee Inlet are characterized by mature western hemlock and Sitka spruce forests up to timberline at about 1,500 feet. The area's old growth forests provide habitat for a number of bird and animal species, including deer, brown bear, bald eagles, marten and other furbearers. Similarly, the intertidal estuaries and offshore waters of the Inlet sustain abundant populations of waterfowl, marine invertebrates and fish, of which dungeness crab, various shellfish, halibut and salmon figure most importantly as food resources. Streams in the Inlet are spawning grounds for pink, chum, and coho salmon. 25 The pink salmon run at Kadashan Creek is considered one of the most important such runs in the northern Panhandle. King salmon are occasionally taken in the Inlet, but do not spawn in local rivers. Sockeye salmon are also fished outside of the Inlet in Basket Bay and Freshwater Bay, where they are the focus of a substantial subsistence fishery. As in other island-based communities in the northern Panhandle, Tenakee's climate is characterized by cool summers, mild winters, and substantial rain and snow. From 1969 to 1979 annual precipitation averaged 66 inches, and snowfall averaged 124 inches per year. Winds are usually from the southeast, and are generally mild inside Tenakee Inlet. However, the town is exposed to strong winter storms which regularly restrict small boat activity in the Inlet. A major storm damaged the boat harbor in 1976. The "Thanksgiving Day Storm" of 1984 destroyed over 15 homes and buildings on Tenakee's waterfront, and resulted in the loss of 30 boats. Although major storms of this magnitude are infrequent, strong southerly prevailing winds combined with a long fetch in Chatham Strait greatly restrict small boat movement outside of Tenakee Inlet throughout the year. The community of Tenakee is situated along a single trail that parallels the shore for approximately ten miles. While most homes are concentrated along the two-mile stretch of trail in the center of town, other homes are situated along the full length of the trail. Most homes are built on pilings over the beach, although in recent years the inland side of the trail has been developed for homes and other buildings. Since the town is backed by a steeply-sloping hillside, expansion is occurring through extension of the trail in both directions. Due to this geography, Tenakee remains a strictly shoreside community. 2. Historical overview Tenakee Inlet has long been used by the Tlingit people. "Tenakee" is derived from the Tlingit language, and has been interpreted to mean either "twin cities" or "bay on the other side." The original winter village site was located in the vicinity of the present day boat harbor, with a summer village site across the Inlet at Kadashan Bay. Tenakee Inlet was originally owned by the Decitan tribe, who ceded the region to the Woosh K i Taan in 26 settlement for a murder (Goldschmidt and Haas, 1946). The hot springs at Tenakee was called "Daay A x a " and the name for Indian River was "Klaa Gu Woo Aan Heen." The site of the present day 100 yard portage between the head of Tenakee Inlet and Port Frederick was frequently traveled by the Tlingit. The name and legends surrounding the portage,.called Kitgunt or "killer whale crossing," indicates this thin neck of land may have been almost submerged in earlier times. The Basket Bay area was also heavily used by the Tlingit, being owned by an Angoon branch of the Decitan. A village site, the remains of several smokehouses, and numerous legends are testimony to the rich historic use of Basket Bay, a use which continues today. In the early 1800s, prospectors and miners in the region came to the village to wait out the cold winter months and take advantage of the hot springs. Local legend attributes Tenakee's first non-Native resident to be an injured Finnish sailor, left behind by his shipmates to rest for the winter. Healed by the hot springs, this Finn reportedly chose not to leave when this ship returned for him the following spring. The hot springs attracted further growth until the community became a winter resort town for miners throughout Alaska and the Yukon, complete with pool hall and card rooms. Life in the frontier town of Tenakee was at times rough and unlawful, with the community at one point earning the nickname of "Robber's Roost" (DCRA 1984). In 1895, the springs were enlarged by blasting the rock to form a large tub, and today remain a public bathhouse, a community attraction for visitors, and an important part of the town's social life. Various salmon and crab canneries operated in the Tenakee region from as early as 1916 until 1974. Today all that remain are empty buildings and stories of the large population that once served these canneries. Following closure of the Columbia Salmon Company cannery in 1929, the population declined from a high of about 400 residents to an estimated 300. With the closing of the Superior Cannery in 1953, the last major wage employer in Tenakee disappeared. The community became known as a pleasant retirement community for the core of older residents who remained. Continued population 27 decline resulted in a 1980 census population of 138. Recently, however, the retirement community image may be changing somewhat, as younger families have moved to Tenakee attracted to its quiet pace of life and opportunities for a lifestyle based on subsistence, gardening, and cottage crafts. Tenakee's municipal services are largely undeveloped. There is no community water or sewer system. Most residents draw their own water from nearby streams. Outhouses are positioned on pilings over the beach, where strong tidal action removes all wastes. Cans are gathered for recycling, and other garbage is burned and then left on the beach to be disposed of by the next high tide. Some aspects of the community infrastructure are, however, becoming increasingly modernized. Telephone lines are now available to homes in the city center, and the 2 generator diesel powerhouse built in 1981 now provides electric power to the core of the community. Although firewood is available in the inlet, substantial effort is required to get the wood to a residence and so oil stoves predominate as the winter heat source. The community is serviced by a floatplane dock, helicopter pad, and by the State of Alaska Marine Highway system. Ferries arrive once or twice a week in Tenakee, and are an important means of bringing supplies into the town. Since there is still no road in Tenakee outside of the central trail, the ferry dock is limited to the unloading of supplies and foot passengers only, not vehicles. Heavy supplies are usually then loaded into skiffs, hand carts or onto small trailers hauled behind 3-wheeled all-terrain vehicles. Barge service from Seattle, several times a year, also accommodates a large volume of freight. 3. Land status The municipality consists of 7,280 acres of uplands, of which 41 percent are owned by the City of Tenakee Springs, 40 percent by the federal government as Tongass National Forest L U D HI lands, 14 percent by the State of Alaska, and 5 percent in private ownership (DCRA 1984). 28 Lands outside the municipality in Tenakee Inlet are part of the Tongass National Forest, and are managed by the U.S . Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. As outlined in Chapter I, the Tongass Land Management Plan of 1979 set the general management objective for all Tongass lands for the next decade. The "Land Use Designations," or L U D s , for Tenakee Inlet are shown in Figure 3. The four categories of land use are wilderness (LUD I), roadless ( L U D IT), multiple use, including roads, timber harvest and recreational development (LUD TU), and intensive timber harvest (LUD IV). With the exception of Long and Seal Bays, all of the shore and associated uplands of Tenakee Inlet have received L U D ffl-iV designations and are to be managed for eventual timber harvest. More specifically, areas receiving the most intensive focus on timber harvest (LUD IV) are Trap, Corner, Crab, and Saltery bays and much of the northern shoreline of the Inlet. Areas receiving the multiple use designation (LUD III) are the Kadashan River drainage, the three Goose Flats and northwestern corner of the Inlet, and the shoreline east and west of Tenakee including the Indian River drainage behind town. The Tongass Land Management Plan is due to be revised in 1989 for the next ten year period. In 1983 the Alaska Department of Fish and Game classified all lands on the Tongass National Forest according to their value for fish and wildlife habitat. Two areas in Tenakee Inlet received the Class 1 highest valuation: the Kadashan River drainage and estuary, and the Indian River drainage plus associated shorelands on each side of town. 4. Demography The population of Tenakee has gone through large fluctuations in its 100 year history as a non-Tlingit community. Figure 4 shows a 1920 population of about 400 residents shrank with the decline of the commercial fish processing plants to a 1970 low of only 86 residents. Growth during the next decade resulted in a 1980 Census population of 138 (DCRA 1984). The age structure of Tenakee changed significantly during the past decade as measured by the U . S . Census. Between LUD I LUD II LUD \\\ LUD /V N * i v e Corporation l a ^ S e i e c t , 0 n L a n d of timber yi°£ ******* U.S. F ° r e s t Servi- ce I n l e t . 31 1970 and 1980 the median age for men fell from 59.6 years to 31.5 years, and for women from 54 years to 38.3 (DCRA 1984). The population 19 years and younger grew by 169 percent in that period, whereas the over 55 cohort declined by 4 percent. Thus the 1970 age structure, characterized by half the population being over the age of 50 and very few children or women in child-bearing years, changed to a more stable structure in 1980 in which there were proportionately more children, more couples in their 20s and 30s, and fewer retirement-aged people. The July, 1984 census conducted by the City of Tenakee Springs reported a population of 144, with an average of 1.9 persons occupying a total of 77 households. Six months later, during the Division of Subsistence research in January, 1985, the City Clerk helped identify 47 currently-occupied households, with a total population of 100. There are several reasons for the apparent decline in population. The City Clerk of Tenakee Springs states that the population, as in many southeast Alaska communities, regularly undergoes wide fluctuations. This occurs primarily between winter and summer months due to changing economic opportunities and a variety of miscellaneous factors. The Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984, just two months before the Division of Subsistence conducted its population survey, destroyed many homes and resulted in several families temporarily relocating outside of Tenakee. Tenakee's year-round population may also be in actual decline again. Local employment opportunities in logging have become non-existent, and several logging families have moved out of town. The Tenakee commercial fishing fleet has also declined, and even those commercial fishermen remaining conduct most of their fishing away from Tenakee Inlet. Once again it appears that older residents remain the core of Tenakee's population base. However, given the high degree of variability in Tenakee's population from one season and year to the next, no firm conclusions can be made about recent population trends. A total of 48 persons, or 48 percent of the 100 resident population at that time, were included in the 1985 survey of 24 randomly selected households. Of these 48 people, 4 (8 32 percent) were Tlingit, 41 (85 percent) were Caucasian, and 3 (6 percent) were Filipino. Males and females were equally represented with 24 each. Ages ranged from 2 to 93 years, with a median age of 60 (Figure 5). Compared to the 1980 U.S. Census, the 1985 sample population (extrapolated to 100 residents) had 24 fewer males and 18 fewer females, 22 of whom were in the 25-34 age cohort. Nineteen fewer people were in the under 24 age cohort, while 9 more people were in the over 65 bracket. Thus the 1985 population was both significantly smaller and older than that recorded in the 1980 census. Household size varied from one to six people, with a mean of 2.0. There were 9 single-occupant households, 12 households with 2 people each, and one household each with 4, 5, and 6 people. The lack of households with children is suggested by these figures. The average length of residency for the longest residing member of each household is sixteen years (Figure 6). Twenty-seven percent of household members previously resided in the lower 48 states, 29 percent in Juneau, and the remaining 44 percent previously resided elsewhere in Alaska. Seventy-one percent of all household members were born in the lower 48, 8 percent were born in Tenakee, and 19 percent were born elsewhere in southeast Alaska. Tenakee Springs displays an unusual demographic pattern for Alaska communities. It is characterized by a large elderly segment of the community (52 percent of the 1985 population 60 years of age or older), and a more recently-arriving younger segment (25 percent between ages 20-39) with children (18 percent under age 20). The middle age ranges are almost entirely lacking (4 percent between ages 40-59). Mean household size is 2.0, compared to the average for the region of 3.0 people per household. Differences between the 1970 and 1980 federal census figures, the 1984 City census, and the 1985 Division of Subsistence survey suggest that the population profile of Tenakee is dynamic and subject to rapid change. However, the predominant characteristic of Tenakee Springs as an isolated, rural retirement community has not changed over the last few decades. F i g . 5 Age by 10 year increments, Tenakee, 1985 survey . CO Percent of Households 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50 and over Years i n Residence F i g . 6 Years Residency in Tenakee by the o l d e s t r e s i d i n q member o f each household, 1985 (N=24J CO 35 D. The Tenakee Economy: Cash Sector Tenakee's economy is based on a combination of cash income and the harvest of wild resources for home use. This section presents information on household earnings from commercial employment and transfer payments, from the 1985 household survey. The following section describes the subsistence portion of the community's economy. 1. Employment and Income The 1980 census reported a mean household income in Tenakee of $13,243 for 1979, and a median household income of $9,583. For survey respondents, the 1984 median income was $10,000 and the mean was $14,999, indicating a slight increase over 1980 levels. Household income ranges are shown in Figure 7. These estimates are based on a sample of 19 households (not all survey respondents answered this question). Household income by income source is shown in Figure 8 (also based on a sample of 19 households). The largest proportion of income in 1984 came from transfer payments (42 percent), followed by government employment (24 percent), fishing (12 percent), construction (11 percent), logging (6 percent) and "other" (largely various types of small-scale private enterprise). Transfer payments include money received from retirement and unemployment benefits, social security, food stamps, and aid to families with dependent children. Government employment includes federal, state and city government, and the school district. Sixty-three percent of the sampled households received income from transfer payments in 1984, while 53 percent of households received income from government employment. Fishing, construction, and logging provided income to 21 percent, 21 percent and 11 percent of the households, respectively, whereas miscellaneous "other" income was somewhat more widely distributed among 26 percent of the households. These figures point to several major characteristics of Tenakee's cash economy. The majority of Tenakee households rely on transfer payments, often in combination-with some Percent of Households Gross Income (thousands of d o l l a r s ) F i g . 7 Household gross income, Tenakee, 1985 (N=14) CO cn 70 n Percent of Households fH Percent of Households D e r i v i n g Income 0 Percent of T o t a l Household Income Transfer Government F i s h i n g Construction Logging Income Source Other CO F i g . 8 Household income by income s o u r c e , Tenakee, 1985. 38 type of employment, for the major share of their yearly income. Fishing, construction, and logging jobs each provide income for less than one quarter of the households and altogether provide roughly 29 percent of the total community income. Small-scale private enterprise and other miscellaneous income contributed only 5 percent of community income which was distributed among one quarter of all households. Government-related employment provided the most earned income and the most job opportunities to the sampled households in 1984. Of the 10 households reporting income from government-related work in 1984, the percent this income contributed to total household earnings was one household each at 5 percent, 30 percent, 33 percent and 34 percent, and three households each at 50 percent and 66 percent. Thus, of all households surveyed, government employment contributed no more than two thirds of total household earnings for any one household. Transfer payments, on the other hand, which were received by 12 of the 19 households reporting income information for 1984, accounted for 100 percent of earnings for three of the households, and for 50 percent or more of total earnings for another six households. Therefore, of the 19 households, 9 households (or 47 percent) relied on transfer payments for at least one half of their total earnings. Employment in commercial fishing in the Tenakee area has fluctuated greatly in recent years. For example, in 1974 nine salmon hand troll permits were owned by Tenakee residents as compared to eighteen in 1984, three of which were fished that year. In all , 51 permits were owned in 1984 by 30 Tenakee residents. Twenty permits were fished by Tenakee residents in 1984: 3 salmon handtroll, 2 salmon power troll, 1 miscellaneous finfish handtroll, 1 Bristol Bay gillnet, 8 halibut longline, 2 dungeness crab, 2 king crab, and 1 tanner crab. The 20 permits were fished by 12 Tenakee residents, yielding an estimated gross earnings of $274,375, or $22,865 gross per fishing resident (Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission statistics). In the 1985 random survey, five households trolled commercially for salmon in 1984. Most of their fishing was done outside of Tenakee Inlet. Of these five households, one 39 reported earning 90 percent of its household's total annual income from commercial fishing, two reported 50 percent, and one reported earning 34 percent from fishing. The fifth declined to provide income information. Reasons stated locally for fishing outside of Tenakee Inlet were the lack of a buying facility and a decline in available salmon. This decline is locally attributed to an increase in seining in the inlet, which takes place by "outside" vessels. This led the City Council in 1978 and 1981 to pass resolutions requesting a closure of commercial seining in Tenakee Inlet. The Commercial Fisheries Division of Alaska Department of Fish and Game has established a closed commercial zone for the waters of Tenakee Inlet west of Corner Bay. The zone is usually opened to commercial fishing one to three weeks each summer as deemed appropriate by the Department. Even during closed periods inside the Inlet, key respondents reported that the narrow entrance to Tenakee Inlet outside the closed zone is sometimes so crowded with commercial seine boats that local fishermen have difficulty avoiding the nets when entering Chatham Strait. A marked decrease in the availability of salmon in Tenakee Inlet over the last decade is locally thought to be due to these commercial seining activities in and immediately outside Tenakee Inlet. Logging jobs decreased around Tenakee after the initial logging along Indian River was finished in the early 1980s. A nearby logging camp at Corner Bay does not currently employ any Tenakee residents. Some residents have left Tenakee to find jobs in the logging industry. A local sawmill operated off and on until it was destroyed in the 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm. Of the two households reporting income from logging activities in 1984, one earned 70 percent and the other 50 percent of their annual income from logging jobs outside of Tenakee. A more detailed discussion of the logging history of Tenakee Inlet follows below. Six full-time and six part-time jobs in small business existed in the community in 1984. Four sampled households reported earnings from construction activities which contributed from 34 percent to 70 percent of their total household income in 1984. Of the five 40 households reporting income from "other sources," the percent contribution of these earnings to total household income ranged from 5 to 50 percent. In addition, a hmited number of cottage industry businesses sold such items as eggs, milk, vegetables, and arts and crafts. A t present, Tenakee is attracting a few new businesses. A hotel is being built, and more people are doing wood work, carpentry, and various arts and crafts. Also, a few individuals are attempting to diversify the commercial fishing in Tenakee Inlet, exploring possibilities for harvesting shrimp and bottom fish. 2. History of the Timber Industry in Tenakee Inlet Before the 1970s, timber harvesting in the Tenakee area was characterized by small clearcutting and highgrading operations along the shore in which only the highest quality trees were selectively cut and hauled a short distance to the beach for transport by water. According to information compiled by Kirchhoff (1985), the first area to receive any sizable amount of logging was the shoreline near the town of Tenakee, extending west to five mile spit. A thin margin here was first cut in approximately 1915-1919. Other small areas were clearcut in the next two decades in coastal areas on both sides of the town. During this same period timber along the north shore of Tenakee Inlet west of Tenakee for a distance of up to 20 miles from town was high-graded to provide pilings for cannery construction. This logging was accomplished by handloggers, living either in Tenakee or in camps along the Inlet. Harvesting was not regulated at this time, and anybody was free to cut wood for building fish traps, wiers, docks, homes, and other construction purposes. In the 1950s and 1960s the scale of logging operations increased due to the activities of logging companies in the Inlet. Large areas were cut across the Inlet from Tenakee in Crab, Saltery and Kadashan bays. Timber at the head of Seal Bay was harvested once in 1967. Freshwater Bay north of the Inlet received some cuts between 1959 to 1966. Larger areas of timber were also harvested from the steep hillsides off the beach on the north shore of the Inlet. Fig. 9 Tenakee Inlet timber harvest history. 42 Reconstruction of the areas cut and date of cuts (Kirchhoff, 1985) are summarized in Figure 9, which depicts the timber harvest areas around Tenakee Inlet from the early 1900s until 1984 along with their approximate dates. A s shown in the Figure, there were no major roads built in association with the cuts prior to the 1970s. One key respondent was active in logging this area in the 1960s as an employee of Island Logging Company out of Sitka. He reported that the Sitka pulp mill operated a camp in Tenakee Inlet. The camp consisted of small homes on floats for families and two larger bunkhouses which were all rafted together into one large floating camp and moved from bay to bay. A t one time the camp contained about 30 workers, ten of whom lived there with their families. The camp was moored at various times in Saltery Bay, Long Bay (for logging the north shore of the Inlet), and near Tenakee. Life in the floating camp was described as being very enjoyable. Gardens were kept on shore, and the fishing and hunting were described as excellent. The camp was considered a good environment for raising children, and high levels of cooperation was reported among residents in both work and play activities. As of 1970 approximately one half of the north shore of the Inlet, extending from East Point through town to a distance of about 20 miles west of town, had received some degree of timber harvest. Across the Inlet, Seal, Crab, Saltery and Kadashan Bays had also received limited cutting. The three tidal inlets at the northwest end of Tenakee Inlet (known locally as upper, middle and lower Goose Flats), Long Bay, and Corner Bay had not received any cutting as of 1970. Outside of Tenakee Inlet, isolated spots at the heads of Freshwater, Basket, and Little Basket Bays had also been subject to timber harvest. B y the early 1970s the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company was a major operator in northern Southeast Alaska. The company's original proposal for its 1976-1981 operating period in the Tenakee area called for a harvest total of 280 million board feet (mmbf) in the following watersheds: Indian River, East Cannery Cove, Kadashan River, Crab Bay, Trap Bay, Seal Bay, Saltery Bay and Long Bay. However, public and agency comment 43 received during the early stages of this plan caused the target volume to be reduced to 155 mmbf, and harvest sites were limited to Indian River, East Cannery Cove, 10 Mile Creek, South Crab Bay, Fog Creek, and areas in between (DCRA 1975). Although the City of Tenakee had been receptive to loggers and logging activity prior to the 1970s, with the arrival of large-scale cutting operations in the mid-1970s the mood in town began to change. Several residents protested that logging activities in Corner Bay were affecting their use of the area. In 1975, the City Council requested Governor Jay Hammond to investigate the effects of the major industrial timber activities being proposed for the Inlet on the residents of Tenakee. This resulted in the 1975 report by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, The Socio-Economic Implications of  Logging Operations on Tenakee Springs, and Tenakee Inlet, Alaska. This report was the first to examine the role of subsistence in the economy of Tenakee. Its calculations showed that the 1973 deer harvest (250 estimated deer for a community population of about 74) contributed food equivalent in value to one half of the total community income. The report went on to state: "Unlike the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [of the A L P C 1976-81 Operating Plan], this Department must conclude (as did the residents of Tenakee) that  any lowering of the subsistence resource would result in deleterious effects on the Tenakee  standard of living" (page 7, original emphasis). However, the report did commend the decision to maintain a logging camp at Corner Bay rather than establish a new camp near the City, at Indian River. The report concluded by urging that the Forest Service planning process examine potential long-term negative impacts on subsistence, commercial and recreational use of fish and wildlife resources by Tenakee residents. Road construction began in Corner Bay in 1973. A logging camp was also established then near the shore of Corner Bay and still serves as the basis of operations for most timber harvest activity in the Inlet. Six miles of road construction followed in south Crab Bay and along the Indian River in 1977 (Figure 9). Since then these areas have been the site of clearcut logging advancing in successive stages up the respective valleys as road 44 building continued. Today, the Indian River valley behind the town of Tenakee is roaded for a distance of approximately 14 miles, with a spur road heading west around the base of Redwing Mountain for another four to five miles. The road from Corner Bay up Corner Creek now extends seven miles to connect with Kook Lake (and almost back to the coast at Basket Bay), with spur roads continuing south into two smaller watersheds. Several miles of road were built at Inbetween (between Seal and Saltery Bays) in 1981, where logging was begun in 1986. Further roading and cutting occurred in 1984-1985 at the northeast end of the Inlet along an extension of the Salt Lake Bay logging operation. This road leads from Salt Lake Bay onto the hillsides above Tenakee Inlet but does not reach tidewater in the Inlet. According to key respondents, approximately one dozen residents of Tenakee were employed at the Corner Bay logging camp during the 1970s, some of whom moved across the Inlet to live at the camp. In the late 1970s some workers were boated across the Inlet each day to work on the Indian River road. This road was strongly opposed by the City and some residents in Tenakee, both due to its proximity to town and the eventuality of its being extended to provide road connection with Hoonah on the other side of the island. The road connection issue remains a strong point of contention between the City and the Forest Service today, with the City and nearly all residents strongly opposed to completion of the final few miles of road which would complete the intertie with Hoonah. The D C R A 1975 report addressed this road issue, stating, " A Tenakee-Hoonah road connection appears unwarranted, wasteful of public funds and undesired by a majority of Tenakee residents... Specifically, we recommend that the Indian River logging road  network not be converted into an all-weather permanent highway link between Tenakee  Springs and Hoonah" (page 12, original emphasis). A logging road was begun up the Kadashan river valley in 1984, but the Forest Service was enjoined to cease further construction through a temporary injunction issued by the Ninth District Court of Appeals in a case filed by the City of Tenakee Springs and the 45 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. The legal issue revolves around whether the Forest Service needs to prepare a specific Environmental Impact Statement before it can proceed with roading and logging activity in this area. As of 1985, logging activity was occurring along the Corner Bay - Kook Lake road system, the Salt Lake Bay extension, Indian river, and at Inbetween. No Tenakee residents were employed in logging operations in the Inlet. The Alaska Pulp Company Draft EIS for the 1986-90 operating period is under review, and will determine which areas in Tenakee Inlet will be identified for additional roading and timber harvesting in the next five year period. Identified for harvest in the Forest Service's preferred alternative are areas from Trap Bay around So. Passage Point towards Basket Bay, portions of Gypsum, Wukuklook, and Iyouoktug Creeks, and areas along the shore by East Point (Supplemental Draft EIS, 1986) . In summary, from the early 1970s to 1984 logging has been conducted in the Indian River valley, at East Cannery Point, and in south Crab, Corner, and Basket Bays (Figure 12). Little or no logging has ever occurred in the three Goose Flats, or Long, Seal, upper Crab and Trap Bays. Although the north shore of Tenakee Inlet was the site of logging activity along the beach fringe and adjacent hillsides prior to 1970, no large scale timber harvesting has occurred there recently. In the past 10 years, approximately 40-50 miles of logging roads have been constructed from the shores of Tenakee Inlet at Indian River, Corner Bay, Kadashan River, Crab Bay, and Inbetween. As of 1980, 5,287 acres of old growth timber had been harvested in watersheds surrounding Tenakee Inlet (VCUs 219-239) (U.S. Forest Service 1979). This comprised 4.8 percent of the inventoried commercial forest lands in these watersheds, or approximately 9 percent of the 60,105 acres scheduled for harvest in the next 100 years (Schoen et al. 1985). Whereas small-scale logging and logging-related employment provided jobs for Tenakee residents from the early 1900s to the late 1970s, current industrial logging operations in the Inlet are conducted with little or no employment of Tenakee residents. 46 E . The Tenakee Economy: Subsistence Sector This section describes the non-cash, subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering element of Tenakee's economy. Detailed information is presented on 1984 household participation rates in subsistence activities and on quantities harvested of 42 resources taken from Tenakee Inlet and surrounding areas. Information is also summarized on transportation modes used in resource harvesting, the geography of harvest activities, the sharing of resources, and the subsistence use of Tenakee Inlet by residents of other communities. 1. Seasonal Round of Harvesting Activity The seasonal round of yearly harvests of subsistence resources by Tenakee residents is shown in Figure 10. This information is based on interviews with three active community harvesters and verified in a later community meeting. The seasonal round is a general representation of Tenakee subsistence activities; however, this information does not reflect all harvesting activities of all residents. The seasonal round represents the season of harvest of 42 types of subsistence resources used by Tenakee residents. Certain resources are harvested throughout the year, including seal, clams, cockles, chiton, octopus, shrimp, crabs, king salmon, halibut, sea bass, red snapper, and firewood. Thus, fishing, crabbing, and intertidal gathering provide a constant background of activity throughout each month of the year. Winter is characterized by the trapping of land mammals and intertidal gathering and fishing. In the spring, many intertidal resources and land plants are actively gathered. Fishing for dolly varden and cod is added to the on-going harvests of winter fish species. Fishing activity greatly increases in the summer and on into the fall as successive runs of king, chum, coho, pink and sockeye salmon enter Tenakee Inlet and nearby portions of Chatham Strait. B y mid-summer, the gathering of land plants is replaced by berry picking, which continues into the early fall. The primary fall activity is deer hunting, with some hunting effort directed toward ducks and Canada geese. 47 2. Resource Use and Harvest Figures 11-20 summarize the harvest quantities and numbers of Tenakee households using, harvesting, giving, and receiving a variety of key resources in 1984, based on the 1985 random survey of 24 households. A difference between "use" and "harvest" of resources is made in these figures. "Harvest" refers only to the actual taking of a resource (whether or not it is consumed by the harvester), whereas "use" refers to the end use of a resource for consumption as food. Therefore, a household may report "use" of a resource either through harvesting it or receiving it from others. Appendix H contains complete information on all 33 resources reported in the random survey. Eleven resources were utilized by half of Tenakee households: king salmon, sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, halibut, red snapper, basket cockles, butter clams, dungeness crab, king crab, deer, and berries. Figure 11 shows that of eight borad categories of resources, five are used by over 80 percent of all households: shellfish (including crab, octopus, and shrimp), salmon, other fish, land mammals, and berries/land plants. Marine plants, marine mammals, and birds and eggs were used by a much smaller proportion of households. Figure 11 also shows that of the eight resource categories, berries/plants were harvested by the greatest number of households (83 percent), followed by shellfish (67 percent), salmon (63 percent), other fish (58 percent), land mammals (54 percent), and marine mammals, marine plants, and waterfowl (all at 4 percent). Thus more than one half of Tenakee households engage in the harvest of five broad resource categories. Figure 12 illustrates use and harvest of the 10 most frequently used resource types (either species or groups of related species). A l l ten resources are used by over 50 percent of households, indicating that these resources are both generally desired and available. Dungeness crab and halibut are used by virtually all households (92 percent), followed by deer (83 percent), berries (83 percent), king and sockeye salmon (79 percent), clams (71 percent), king crab (67 percent), and Dolly Varden and red snapper (54 percent). 48 Apr May Jun Jul Aug- Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar M A M M A L S Deer Seal Land Otter Mink Weasel Marten I N T E R T I D A L AND  O T H E R G A T H E R E D R E S O U R C E S Clams and Cockles Mussels Sea Urchins Chiton Scallops Octopus Shrimp Herring Eggs Crabs Kelp Sea Weed Berries Wild Rhubarb Indian Celery Ferns F i g . 10 Seasonal round of resource harvests by Tenakee r e s i d e n t s . 49 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Roots Hudson Bay Tea Goose Tongue Beach Asparagus Mushrooms Firewood FISH King Salmon Sockeye Salmon Chum Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon Halibut Cod Bass Dolly Varden Herring Red Snapper BIRDS Ducks Canada Goose F i g . 10 ( cont inued , page 2) Seasonal round of res ource h a r v e s t s . F i g . 11 Household p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n using and harvest ing 8 resource c a t e g o r i e s , Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) o n O too-, P e r c e n t of Households Halibut Dungeness Deer Berries Sockeye King Clans King Crab Red Dolly Crab Saloon Salmon Snapper Varden Resource Type F i g . 12 Household p a r t i c i p a t i o n in using and harvest ing the 10 most used resource types , Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) F i g . 13 Percent of households harvest ing m u l t i p l e resource types (breadth of h a r v e s t ) , Tenakee, 1984. Fig . 14 Mean household harvest (lbs. per household) for 8 resource categories, Tenakee, 1984. Other 4% (23 l b s . per HH) 15 Household harvest composit ion by weight , Tenakee, 1984. Land-based harw 28% (140 lbs per HH) rine-based harvests % (360 lbs per HH) F i g . 1 6 Household harvest c o n t r i b u t i o n by land and marine r e s o u r c e s , cn Tenakee, 1 9 8 4 . 56 Figure 12 also shows that all resources except berries are harvested by fewer households than use them (berries are used by the same number of households as use them). In particular, king and sockeye salmon and king crab are harvested by a much smaller number of households than use them, indicating that a relatively few number of harvesters distribute these resources widely throughout the community. The same difference between percentage of households using and harvesting the eight broad resource categories was shown in Figure 11, where roughly 20 to 30 percent fewer households harvest each resource category than use the resources (again, excepting berries). Therefore, harvest figures alone underestimate the percentage of households using resources in Tenakee. Figure 13 shows the breadth of resource harvest among households, indicated by the number of different resource types harvested by each household. Thirteen percent of the households harvested no resources at all , 33 percent engaged in the harvest of one to five resource types, and 54 percent of the households harvested between 6-11 resource types. Therefore, resource harvesting is fairly broadly based among a variety of resources for half the households in Tenakee, and for approximately another third of the households harvests are limited to a few key resource categories. Tenakee households harvested a mean of 500 pounds of wild resources per household in 1984 (Appendix II). Since the average household size was 2.0 persons, the mean per capita harvest in 1984 was 250 pounds per person. Expanded to the 1984 winter population of about 100 residents, there was a total of approximately 25,000 pounds (12.5 tons) of wild resources harvested by the community of Tenakee Springs in 1984. Of all resources, salmon was harvested in the greatest quantity, with a mean household harvest of 142 pounds, or 28 percent of all resources harvested (Fig. 14,15). Deer (130 lbs) and shellfish (122 lbs) followed, comprising 26 percent and 24 percent of the total harvest. Other fish (84 lbs) contributed 17 percent of the total pounds harvested, and 57 miscellaneous resources (berries/plants, marine mammals and plants, and birds) together contributed 4 percent. The information on harvest and use of resources shows substantial use of marine resources by Tenakee residents, especially dungeness crab, halibut, clams and cockles, and king and sockeye salmon. Deer constitute the most widely utilized land resource. Of the total reported harvest, 72 percent was obtained from marine resources and 28 percent from land resources (Figure 16), 93 percent of which was deer. Although these figures substantiate the high degree of dependence of Tenakee harvests on marine resources, in comparison to other southeast communities Tenakee residents obtain a relatively high percent of harvests from the land. Twenty-eight percent of the Tenakee resource harvest was land-based, compared to Angoon (29 percent), Klawock (21 percent), and Yakutat (19 percent) (Division of Subsistence data files). One household included in the random survey had a very high harvest of 5,350 pounds of edible resources, representing 45 percent of the total reported harvest of the entire sample. This multiple-person, non-Native household participated extensively in the harvesting of salmon and other fish, dungeness crab, and deer, and was active in sharing and trading many resources with others, especially senior citizens. Similarly, in the key respondent group, there were two households which harvested over 1,000 pounds, representing 53 percent of the key respondent's total output. It is frequently the case in rural communities throughout Alaska that a few active households account for a large proportion of the community's total harvest (Wolfe 1987). These highly productive households share or exchange much of their harvests within the community, and are an important support for many less active households. 3. Deer Hunting Tenakee Inlet is in Game Management Unit 4. Since 1974 the Unit 4 deer hunting season has opened on August 1 and has closed on December 31. The bag limit for this five month season is four deer. 58 The 1985 survey collected deer harvest data for two years - 1983 and 1984. In 1983, 55 deer were taken by 13 households in the sample who hunted deer, for an average take of 4.2 deer per hunting household, or 2.3 deer for all households. Seventy one percent of the deer were taken with use of a skiff, and the rest by foot or all terrain vehicle (ATV). Fifty three percent of deer were taken along the beach in 1983, 20 percent along roads, 11 percent in clearcuts, 9 percent in the forest, 5 percent in muskeg areas, and 2 percent in the alpine (Figure 17). Based on Division of Subsistence census data, with 47 households surveyed, 108 deer were harvested by community residents in 1983. In 1984 only 39 deer were taken by 12 households in the survey who hunted that year, for an average harvest of 3.3 deer per hunting household, or 1.6 deer for all households. The total estimated community harvest thus was 76 deer in 1984. The decline in deer hunting from the previous year (108 deer to 76 deer) was reported by residents to be due to the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984, in which many residents lost homes and/or skiffs. In 1984, 87 percent of deer were harvested using skiff access to the hunting site, the rest by foot or all terrain vehicle (ATV). Forty-six percent of the deer were harvested on the beach, 31 percent in clearcuts, 15 percent in the forest, 8 percent along roads, and none in muskeg or alpine regions (Fig. 17). In 1984, 23 of the 48 household members surveyed, or 48 percent of the sample, participated in deer hunting. Figure 18 shows the differences among households in the range of deer harvests in 1983 and 1984. In 1983, of the 13 households harvesting deer (54 percent of the total households surveyed), 2 harvested one deer, 3 harvested two deer, 1 harvested three deer, 4 harvested four deer, and 3 harvested more than seven deer. In 1984, of the 12 households that did not harvest deer, 3 households went hunting but had no success. Of the 12 successful households, 6 harvested one deer, one household each harvested two and three deer, 3 households harvested four deer, and one harvested 16 deer. This last household, which also reported the largest deer harvest in 1983, distributes a large amount of deer meat to older residents in the community. F i g . 17 Percent of deer harvested by hab i ta t type in 1983 and 1984, Tenakee (1983, N=55; 1984, N=39) F i g . 18 Number of deer harvested per household, 1983 and 1984, Tenakee. o 61 As discussed above, most hunting is done using skiffs for transportation. Hunters commonly cruise the beach or hike along or near the beach on foot. Hunting may take place with partners, family groups or by individuals hunting alone. A skiff sometimes is used to transport an A T V to take advantage of logging roads in the area. Use of logging roads has increased dramatically in recent years (see next section). Most local hunters reported sharing their deer among members of a hunting party and with older people who can no longer hunt. Survey data supported these reports: whereas 54 percent of households harvested deer in 1983, 42 percent of households gave deer, and 58 percent received deer, resulting in the use of deer for food by 92 percent of all households. Similarly, in 1984 50 percent of households harvested deer, 42 percent gave deer away, 58 percent received deer, and 83 percent of all households used deer. In general, therefore, the deer harvested by approximately half of the households in Tenakee are distributed throughout the community, resulting in the consumption of deer meat by nearly all households. Changes in the way deer are hunted have occurred since the introduction of large scale logging operations and associated road systems in Tenakee Inlet. These changes are discussed with respect to specific deer hunting areas in the next section. 4. Fishing Fishing activities by Tenakee residents consist primarily of salmon fishing and bottom fishing for halibut and snapper or rockfish. A more limited harvest of Dolly Varden, steelhead, hooligan, herring, herring roe, and cod also occurs. Appendix II gives a complete breakdown of the percent of households using, sharing, and harvesting all fish species, and provides means, maximums and totals of the harvest quantities. Fifty-six percent of household members surveyed participated in fishing in 1984. Tenakee residents harvest salmon with three different types of gear: beach seine, rod and reel, and commercial gear such as troll gear. Fishing with gill nets takes place at Basket Bay, under the terms of subsistence fishing permits. The areas fished when using rod and 62 reel include waters throughout the study area and parts of Chatham Strait. The salmon harvested from commercial catch and taken for home use are primarily from Tenakee Inlet and Chatham Straits. Only three species of salmon were reported harvested or used by Tenakee residents: king, coho, and sockeye. Although chum and pink salmon are available in Tenakee Inlet, they were not the focus of any harvesting activity by survey respondents. Several households spoke distainfully of pink and chum salmon, and indicated a desire for only the "higher quality" salmon species. However, key respondents did report that both chum and pink salmon are harvested locally by some households. Relatively few salmon are removed from the commercial catch for consumption at home. Of the 24 households sampled one reported using commercially-caught king and sockeye, and one household reported using king and coho salmon for personal home use. The total number used was 17 salmon, or approximately 200 pounds. Subsistence salmon fishing, on the other hand, is actively pursued by a majority of residents. Sixty-three percent of all households participated in harvesting at least one of the three salmon species: 42 percent harvested king salmon, 33 percent harvested sockeye, and 21 percent harvested coho salmon. A high degree of sharing salmon between households resulted in consumption of at least one species of salmon by 88 percent of the households. The total subsistence salmon harvest by Tenakee residents in 1984 was 134 pounds per household (67 lbs per person). Sockeye salmon contributed the majority of this harvest (64 percent of all salmon), followed by king salmon (31 percent) and coho (5 percent). Subsistence net fishing for sockeye salmon with a permit has increased dramatically since 1979. In 1979 only two subsistence fishing permits were issued to Tenakee residents, but in 1982, 22 permits were issued, followed by 32 in 1984. It is likely that this does not represent an actual increase in subsistence sockeye fishing, but an increased compliance with the permit system. In 1984, the mean sockeye harvest was 85 pounds 63 per household. For the 8 households which actually harvested these fish, the mean harvest was 256 pounds per household. The maximum number of sockeye caught by any one household was 220 fish, or approximately 1232 pounds. Basket Bay is the area closest to Tenakee Springs for which subsistence sockeye fishing permits are issued. One long time resident said that sockeye fishing occurred in the Pavlof Harbor area in the 1950s but this area is no longer used. Sitkoh Bay is another area near Tenakee that is available for subsistence sockeye salmon fishing but is not easily accessible by boat. Competition and accessibility are two factors that Tenakee residents consider before fishing for sockeye salmon. Another consideration is that fishing permits are issued for two week periods and weather may not always permit travel to fishing areas. These factors combine to restrict the participation of Tenakee residents in local subsistence fisheries. Both Basket Bay and Sitkoh Bay are considered quite dangerous to travel to because of the limited harbors in route to these areas. Both areas are also heavily used for subsistence fishing by residents of other communities. For example, of the 300 subsistence sockeye permits issued in 1984, 11 percent were to residents of Tenakee, 19 percent to Hoonah residents, 31 percent to Juneau residents, and 36 percent to Angoon residents (Commercial Fisheries Division, unpublished data). King and coho salmon are also caught for local use, but in much lower quantities than sockeye salmon. Mean household harvests were 42 lbs. for kings and 7 lbs. for coho. As discussed earlier, commercial seining is largely blamed by local residents for the small catch of subsistence king and coho salmon. Many key respondents indicated that during the 1960s and into the 1970s, both king and coho salmon were readily available throughout Tenakee Inlet. One respondent reported that during the 1970s he and his wife were able to catch at least one or two fish each evening as they trolled from town back to their house. Now they feel that too much feed (herring) is removed from the Inlet during the winter, and too many fish are harvested at the mouth of the Inlet during the summer by commercial fishermen. 64 Bottom fishing for halibut, red snapper, and pacific cod takes place predominantly with rod and reel. Most bottom fishing occurs in Tenakee Inlet, with the majority taking place in front of town. In 1984 surveyed Tenakee residents harvested 63 pounds of bottom fish per household, of which 55 pounds were halibut and 8 pounds were red snapper. Other fish harvested in smaller quantities than salmon and bottomfish in 1984 were Dolly Varden (25 percent, or 6 households), hooligan (one household), and pacific herring (3 households). 5. Shellfish Shellfish (including crab, clams, shrimp, octopus, and gumboot) are used by more Tenakee residents than any other resource category. In 1984, 96 percent of the survey sample used shellfish, derived from harvests by 67 percent of the households. One half of the households surveyed engaged in setting subsistence pots for dungeness crab. Dungeness are also widely distributed, resulting in consumption of dungeness by 92 percent of all households. In 1984, the mean household harvest was 20 dungeness crab or 49 pounds per household (based on the average weight of whole crab). Among those 12 households harvesting dungeness, the average catch was 98 pounds. The maximum dungeness crab taken by one household was 150 crab (375 pounds). King crab harvesting requires crab pots that are larger, more expensive, and more difficult to handle than dungeness crab pots. Consequently, king crab was harvested by only 13 percent (3 households) of the surveyed households. One of these households caught the bulk of the harvest (200 king crab, or 1400 pounds) and distributed it widely among 50 percent of the households, resulting in consumption of king crab by 67 percent of the surveyed households. The total king crab harvest of 63 pounds per household was greater than the dungeness harvest. Clams and cockles are also widely harvested in tidal flats throughout Tenakee Inlet. Fifty eight percent of households harvested butter clams, and a total of 71 percent of all households consumed them. One household gathered 33 five-gallon buckets of clams, or 66 65 pounds of usable clams. The average household harvest was 2.8 five-gallon buckets, or 6 pounds. Cockles were harvested by 38 percent of households and consumed by 50 percent (4 lbs per household). Shrimp, octopus and black gumboot were also used by Tenakee residents, although none were harvested by households surveyed. Shrimp was reported received by 38 percent of the surveyed households, and used by 46 percent, indicating that other households outside of the survey harvested shrimp and distributed it widely throughout the community. 6. Transportation to Harvest Sites Resource use by Tenakee residents occurs throughout the entire 30 mile long Tenakee Inlet, north and south of the Inlet along the shores of Chatham Strait for approximately 10 to 15 miles, and in other isolated locations accessible by water. In and near Tenakee Inlet, use appears to be concentrated in each of the bays, along the entire beach fringe back to a distance of roughly one mile, and up each of the major creek and river valleys for several miles. Respondents indicated that weather is a major factor that is considered when contemplating resource gathering trips that go outside of Tenakee Inlet. They say that since the Inlet and nearby adjacent shores provide adequate resources to fill their needs, further travel at higher expense, safety risk, and time is not generally necessary. Access to resource harvest sites is predominantly accomplished by foot or by skiff, although all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are increasingly being used for hunting (Fig. 19). In 1984 skiffs were owned by 75 percent of the households. Boats owned ranged from 10 to 31 feet long, with the average boat being a 17 foot open skiff with a 30 horsepower engine. No snowmobiles or airplanes were reported owned by survey respondents. The lack of roads in Tenakee is reflected in the fact that only 3 of 24 households indicated they owned an automobile in 1984, and none of these were used for hunting or fishing. One household in the sample owned a truck, which also was not used for hunting or fishing. One key respondent outside the sample reported having used a truck in the past on the Corner Bay and Indian River logging roads to access 100-| 90-Percent of Households Mode of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i g . 19 Mode of t ranspor ta t ion owned and used for resource harves t i r by Tenakee households, 1984 (N=24). F i g . 20 Household p a r t i c i p a t i o n in r e c e i v i n g and g i v i n g 8 resource c a t e g o r i e s , Tenakee, 1984 (n=24). 68 deer hunting areas. The main "trail" through Tenakee supports the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), which can also be transported by skiff for use on logging roads across the Inlet or in the Indian River valley. Forty-six percent of Tenakee households reported owning one or two A T V s in 1984; 64 percent of these households used this equipment for hunting or fishing. A T V s are also used along the main trail through town to transport household items to and from the ferry dock and mercantile. The high percentage of A T V s used for hunting or fishing (29 percent of all households) indicates substantial acceptance of this fairly new technology as a productive element in resource harvesting. 7. Distribution and Exchange of Resources Resources are commonly shared in Tenakee between harvesting and non-harvesting households. Figure 20 shows the percent of households receiving and giving resources from eight broad resource categories. In all categories except berries and plants many more households receive resources than give them away. Indeed, all four major resource categories (salmon, other fish, shellfish, and land mammals) were received .by over 50 percent of the households surveyed, whereas less than 50 percent of households participated in giving away these resources to others. These figures indicate that a majority of Tenakee households are dependent upon a smaller number of actively harvesting households for at least some of their subsistence needs. Sharing of resources played a key role in the distribution of several resources. For example 63 percent of the households harvesting sockeyes gave this resource away to other households, resulting in the wide consumption of sockeye by 79 percent of all households. By contrast, only 1 household of the 5 harvesting coho salmon gave this resource away, resulting in its consumption by only 33 percent of all households. This appears to be due in large part to the difference in harvest quantities available for exchange: 2,044 total pounds of sockeye versus only 157 total pounds of coho for the sample of 24 households. The same relationship existed for halibut. Households which 69 gave halibut to others harvested an average of 164 pounds, while households which did not give any away harvested an average of 32 pounds. With a population size of only three native households in the survey sample, it was not possible to examine the effect of ethnicity on resource exchange in a statistically valid manner. However, it is interesting to note that all 3 Native households received four or five of five key resources examined (dungeness crab, king salmon, halibut, deer, and berries), whereas non-Native households received an average of two of these resources. This may indicate a higher degree of resource sharing among Native households. A larger sample size is needed to statistically verify this apparent trend. Exchange of resources in Tenakee takes place in a variety of ways between relatives, friends and neighbors. Although the random survey did not investigate distribution and exchange networks, several key respondents reported widespread sharing of harvests. For example, one key respondent said "I never crabbed on my own, because I got all the crab I needed from others." Another commented "I let my friends use my gillnet in exchange for sockeyes." These examples typify the variety of barter, trade, and sharing arrangements that occur on a daily basis in a small community such as Tenakee. 8. Use of Tenakee Inlet by Residents of Other Communities Tenakee Inlet is the site of substantial hunting and fishing activity at various times throughout the year by residents of other southeast Alaska communities. Fishing for sockeye salmon by subsistence permit in Basket Bay takes place by residents of Angoon, Hoonah, Sitka, Juneau and other southeast towns. Indeed, as was shown previously, most of the people using Basket Bay for sockeye fishing are not from Tenakee. Tenakee Inlet is also becoming increasingly popular among residents of other towns, principally Juneau, for crabbing and non-commercial salmon fishing. However, the chief use of Tenakee Inlet by non-local residents is for deer hunting. Table I shows 1980, 1982, and 1983 deer harvests for Tenakee Inlet by residency of hunter, based on a sample of harvest ticket holders (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Table I. Deer Harvests in Tenakee Inlet by Residency of Hunter, 1980, 1982, 1983 Residency Success f u l Hunters Total Deer Harvest of Hunter 1980 1982 1983 1980 1982 1983 Juneau 83 95 173 172 184 402 Sitka 27 19 32 67 32 91 Tenakee 13 17 21 34 38 63 Hoonah 16 23 18 23 46 27 Angoon 2 0 0 4 0 0 Gustavus 0 0 9 0 0 18 Haines 4 9 6 9 28 19 Petersburg 8 0 6 13 0 12 Ketchikan 0 5 0 0 5 0 Wrangell 4 5 6 8 10 6 Other Alaska 11 5 7 16 5 13 Nonresidents 1 6 0 1 6 0 TOTAL 169 184 278 347 354 651 Tenakee Residents as Percent of Total 8% 9% 82 82 112 102 Sources: Game Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. 71 statistics). This table shows that hunters from Tenakee comprise between 7 to 11 percent of the total successful hunters using Tenakee Inlet, and that they harvest 10-12 percent of the total number of deer taken out of the Inlet. B y far the largest number of deer are taken by hunters from Juneau (62 percent of deer in 1983). Hunters from Sitka and Hoonah also equal or outnumber those from Tenakee in all years. The rest of the non-local deer hunters in Tenakee Inlet come chiefly from other small communities around southeast Alaska. The 1983 harvest ticket estimate of 63 deer for Tenakee Inlet by Tenakee residents (Table I) is substantially lower than the 108 deer figure obtained in the household survey. For 1984 the two methods yielded closer results (75 deer from harvest ticket holders and 76 deer from the household survey). This variance in the data can be explained by the data gathering methods used. A survey administered in person to 50 percent of Tenakee households probably produces more accurate harvest figures than a mail-out questionnaire. A harvest ticket survey is more likely to record only the legal maximum of four deer per individual hunter. The household survey method is more likely to include those situations where one very productive hunter provided deer for an entire household or several households (yet where the average harvest for the entire household is still less than the four-deer-per-individual legal limit). Assuming, however, that the relative rate of return of harvest tickets has not changed for residents of different communities between 1980-1984, the data listed in Table 2 does give an accurate representation of the relative rates of deer use in Tenakee Inlet. Four principle modes of transportation are used by outside hunters to get to Tenakee: airplanes, small skiffs, large seine/crab boats, and the state ferry system. The ferry system appears to be the most popular method for transportation into and out of Tenakee. Local residents estimate that from 40-60 deer are taken out of Tenakee Inlet by ferry on many weekends during the hunting season. A majority of hunters stay in the vicinity of Tenakee, the most accessible area being the Indian River drainage. Skiff and cabin rentals are available in Tenakee and occasionally skiffs are borrowed from friends living in Tenakee. Many Tenakee residents expressed concern with the large number of deer being taken by out-of-town harvesters, and are worried about the future deer population. 73 F . Effects of Timber Harvesting on Subsistence Activities This section reviews changes in subsistence activities in three areas traditionally and currently used by Tenakee residents for hunting and fishing, and examines several factors that appear to be responsible for these changes. The three areas discussed are "Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit", "Indian River", and "Corner Bay" (see Figure 2). Information on use of the "South Passage Point" area is also briefly presented. These four areas have been subject to varying degrees of logging and road building and provide examples of the types of effects that timber harvest activities may have on subsistence fishing and hunting, at least in the near term of less than 20 years. Information for these examples derives from the random survey and from key respondent interviews. The random survey included questions asking each head of household to indicate the dates he/she used the four areas for hunting and fishing since 1960 (Figures 21,22). In addition, survey respondents were specifically asked about changes in deer hunting activities in the Indian River, Corner Bay and South Passage Point areas (Figure 23). Information on changes in deer hunting strategy was also obtained from key respondents during the interviews and mapping sessions, and is presented below. 1. Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit "Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit" is the local name used to describe the area between two points of land along the shore 10 and 15 miles west of Tenakee (Figure 2). In some instances, key respondents included the beach for several miles east of Ten Mile Spit in this same use area. The upland area is characterized by steep slopes adjacent to the beach, rising to an alpine ridge at approximately 2500 feet. As of 1980 approximately 30 percent of the commercial forest along this section of Tenakee Inlet's north shore had been harvested (USFS 1980, unpublished land-type timber inventory data for V C U 221). Nearly one half of the harvested areas are now in the seedling stage of regrowth ( 6 - 2 5 years) since being clearcut from 1966 to 1970, while the remainder is young saw timber (76 - 150 years old) 74 which had been hand-logged earlier this century (exact timber harvest figures are not available for this use area since its boundaries overlap with V C U s 221 and 222). Unlike some other drainages in the Inlet, no roads have been built in this area to access timber stands since trees were yarded directly to tidewater. Resources identified by local residents as being harvested and used from this area and associated shore lands and waters include deer, mink, otter, marten, bear, berries, clams, cockles, salmon and herring. Access to the area by most hunters traditionally has been by skiff or by hiking along the beach from town. In recent years a few hunters have begun using A T V s for access via the Indian River logging road system. From the road they walk to the summit of Red Wing mountain and then hike down to the beach at Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit, hunting as they go. Logging activities reportedly had no effect on use of marine resources in this area by key respondents. Commercial salmon fishing and herring seining were both mentioned as being more detrimental to local use of marine resources along this section of shore than were timber harvest activities. Five of the six key respondents commenting on this area stated that deer hunting has been less successful in the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area since the 1960s, compared to prior years. Habitat alteration due to logging was considered responsible for the observed decrease by four of these hunters, and the other was unsure of a reason. The sixth respondent did not indicate whether or not hunting success had changed over his seven years of hunting in the area, but said that hunting the margins of clearcuts was sometimes productive. One of these respondents commented: "...there's not as much deer. It's impossible to walk through [the regrowth]." Whereas one other hunter used to get his limit of deer in this area in the 1960s, he reported that he now needs to travel further because the beach hunting between the spits has been unproductive since the area was cut. This conclusion 75 was backed by a third respondent, who reported that the deer became more scarce along this section of shore two to three years following logging in the late 1960s. One respondent was very specific about the changes in his hunting and trapping patterns before and after logging occurred. In the 1960s he hunted throughout the forest in this area, and ran productive traplines along the entire beach fringe. In more recent years productive traps could only be set in the unlogged sections and in the buffer zone of trees left standing along the beach fringe; the logged areas were abandoned for trapping purposes. In recent years he hunted deer in the unlogged areas, above the clearcuts and along the buffer zone left between clearcuts. These observations by five key respondents are consistent with predictions made by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) deer population model developed by Schoen, Kirchoff, and Thomas (1985). This model evaluates changes in habitat capability for Sitka black-tailed deer resulting from change in habitat composition caused by logging (using T L M P timber inventory data). Using U . S . Forest Service timber type inventory data for Value Comparison Unit 221, in which Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit is largely located, the model predicts that currently during periods of intermediate snow fall (15 to 20 inches of snow on the ground) this area should support 72 percent of the deer population it supported before logging. During months with deep snow (up to three feet of ground snow), the reduction in critical winter deer habitat results in a predicted 50 percent reduction in deer carrying capacity for this area. The location of clearcuts in this area adjacent to the beach may be a contributing factor in reducing deer hunting opportunities along the shore. Most deer make seasonal migrations within the same watershed from higher elevations in the summer to lower elevations in the fall and winter (Schoen and Kirchoff, 1985). It is possible that deer may be impeded from reaching the beach at Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit by the presence of dense regrowth areas near the shore. 76 Figure 21 shows the percent of active deer hunters in the random household survey using the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area in the years 1960 to 1984. Between 50 - 60 percent of hunters used this area in the early 1960s. There was a sharp reported decline in hunting activity from 1968 to 1972, followed by a sharp rise to nearly the previous level. Since 1978 use has again been steadily declining. Figure 30 also shows dates for timber harvest activity and subsequent regrowth in this area. The initial decline in hunting coincides with the period of active logging. During the first five years of regrowth following logging, when deer browse typically is plentiful and visibility for hunting in or along the margins of clearcuts is excellent, hunting activity increased. Based on key respondent comments, the subsequent decline in hunting from 1978 to present is apparently due to the high density of regrowth in the clearcuts after reaching the seedling stage (over 6 years old) and to the perception of a decline in deer numbers, especially along the beach zone. In summary, according to key respondents, overall hunting and trapping success has decreased in the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area, attributable apparently to near-shore logging in the late 1960s. Results from the random survey show variations in use of the area that can be correlated with stages of logging, early regrowth and later regrowth. Approximately one half as many of the active deer hunters in the' random survey now use Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit as did so in the early 1960s. Since the random survey did not attempt to quantify the deer harvest in each use area prior to 1983, further research would be needed to determine how hunting success rates may have changed in this area, and whether any decline might be due to difficulty of hunting in and around the older cut areas or to an actual decline in deer numbers. According to the key respondent comments and predicted deer population figures reported above, both explanations could be important factors influencing hunter success. For those still using the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area, the mode of access (by skiff or on foot) has not changed, with the exception of it now being possible for hardy individuals to c s c I 0 > 3 c 0 a. e 0 *» c I > o < c 0 a. Corner Bay 77 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% -4 0% PERIOD OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND TIMBER CUTTING (1973-1984) i i 1 r 1960 1 1965 - i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1970 1975 1980 I I i Year 1 0 - 1 5 Mile 100% 50% -40% -30% -20% -10% -0% PRE-LOGGING PERIOD PERIOD OF YOUNG REGROWTH (1970-1975) PERIOD OF SEEDLING GROWTH (1976-1984) PERIOD OF TIMBER CUTTING (1966-1970) i i i i I I I I 1960 1965 1970 i i i I i i i i 1 i i 1975 1980 Year F i g . 21 P e r c e n t o f a c t i v e T e n a k e e h u n t e r s u s i n g C o r n e r Bay and Ten t o F i f t e e n M i l e S p i t by y e a r s , 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 8 4 . Indian River 78 100% - j — — 90% -PERIOD OF 80% -ROAD BUILDING & PRE-LOGGING PERIOD TIMBER CUTTING 7055 -(1977-1984) 0% | i 1 1 r - 1 1 I i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 1 | I 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Year South Passage Point 100% - i — 90% -80% -0% -j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 ' 1 1 • 1 ' 1 ' 1 I — 1 — 1 1 1 1900 1965 1970 1975 1980 Year F i g . 22 Percent of a c t i v e Tenakee hunters using Indian River and South Passage Point by y e a r s , 1960-1984. Indian River Corner Bay South Passage Point F i g . 23 Percent o f a c t i v e Tenakee deer hunters using the beach f r i n g e and roaded areas in sample areas in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. 80 hike to the area over Red Wing mountain from the Indian River logging road. 2. Indian River The Indian River watershed is a major drainage running more than six miles down a low, wide, and heavily-wooded valley, emptying into Tenakee Inlet one mile east of town (Fig. 2). The area is principally used by Tenakee residents for deer hunting, along with some salmon fishing and crabbing at the mouth of the river. There is a trail from town to the river valley, that runs parallel to the shoreline. Due to its proximity to town, the Indian River area has always been extensively used by residents as well as visitors to Tenakee, although the pattern and intensity of use has shifted dramatically in the last seven years. Logging road construction was begun in 1977 in Sunny Cove, just east of the mouth of the Indian River. The road was extended several miles up the east side of the drainage that year, and cutting operations began shortly thereafter. By 1981 approximately 15 units of various sizes had been cut at intervals along the road. The logging road now extends roughly 14 miles up the valley, with a several mile fork leading across the river to the west Figure 9). As of 1980 2.4 percent of the commercial timber in this watershed had been recently harvested, while another 3.6 percent near shore was cut earlier in the century, presumably for town and cannery construction (USFS, 1980, unpublished land-type inventory data). Timber harvest figures for 1980 - 1984 were not obtained. The percentage of active Tenakee hunters using the Indian River watershed steadily increased from the early 1970s until 1983, when 50 percent of the hunters were using the area (Fig. 22). A s discussed below, this increase in use is largely attributable to the increased ease of access provided by logging roads. The 10 percent drop-off in use shown in 1983 and 1984 is not explained, and may represent only a short term fluctuation. (In addition, destruction to homes and skiffs by the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984 may have curtailed some hunters' use of this area.) Figure 23 shows the areas reported hunted by key respondents within the Indian River and two other watersheds (Corner Bay and South Passage Point) over the last three 81 decades. In the Indian River watershed during the 1960s, deer hunting reportedly occurred equally in the beach fringe, upland forested areas, and muskegs. Access was by skiff or on foot along the trail from town, with deer hunting occurring primarily close to the shore. A few hunters hiked further up the drainage, sometimes reaching the alpine zone for hunting early in the season. During the late 1970s, however, none of the respondents were using the beach area at Indian River for hunting, reportedly due to the construction of the log transfer facility at Sunny Cove, just east of the mouth of Indian River, which began in 1978. Two thirds of the hunting activity in this decade was concentrated in the upland forest zone, and one third in the muskegs. In the 1980s, following completion of the log transfer facility and several miles of logging roads, more key respondents began hunting in the Indian River valley. Since 1980 only eight percent of Tenakee hunters have used the beach fringe and upland forests of the drainage, whereas 83 percent have hunted along the road system and 73 percent have hunted along the young clearcuts (Fig. 23). In 1984 hunters commonly transported A T V s by skiff to the log transfer facility and, using logging roads, quickly gained access to the upper portions of the valley. Others simply hunted by walking from the beach up the road. Nearly one third of the active hunting households interviewed in 1984 indicated they had acquired A T V s specifically for use in hunting along the Indian River road. One household used a logging company vehicle to hunt deer along the road. The change in land use pattern for hunting deer in the Indian River watershed during the past three decades contrasts with hunting patterns in the South Passage Point area, where roading and logging have not yet occurred. Overall use of South Passage Point has remained fairly constant over the past twenty years (Figure 22). A l l random survey respondents hunting South Passage Point since the 1960s reported use of the beach fringe (Figure 23). The consistent use of these beach fringe areas over the past three decades suggests that in the absence of roading or logging this hunting strategy is still followed. 82 As discussed earlier, the beach is still the most productive hunting zone used by Tenakee residents, providing 53 percent (1983) and 46 percent (1984) of the deer harvested during the two years covered by the survey. However, the logging roads and recent clearcuts around Tenakee Inlet are being increasingly used as more areas are roaded, so that in recent years logging roads have provided 20 percent (1983) and 8 percent (1984) of the deer harvested, and clearcuts provided 11 percent (1983) and 31 percent (1984) of the deer harvested by Tenakee residents. Among Tenakee residents, attitudes are mixed about changing hunting patterns in the Indian River area. Some hunters express their desire to use the area now because of the easier access provided by the roads, while others are worried about the increase in competition and resulting pressure on the deer population. In most households the road is perceived at present as having a larger impact on hunting patterns than are the actual timber harvesting activities or habitat alterations. Two households in the random survey sample stated that the roads benefited older people, whose hunting activities would otherwise be more restricted. However, an older key respondent stated that he has recently stopped using the area because of "traffic" (three-wheelers) along the roads. Two key respondents expressed the view that the Indian River road system has taken hunting pressure off the rest of the Inlet by focusing more hunter attention in that area. Another key respondent has stopped using Indian River, stating that despite increased ease of access there was too much competition from other hunters (especially non-Tenakee residents) to make the area worth hunting. One respondent stated he no longer used the area because major sections of it have been clearcut. However, the nature of his objection to clearcuts was not stated. For non-residents of Tenakee, the Indian River area appears to have become an especially attractive place to hunt. One resident reported that early in the hunting season people from other towns come to the area every weekend, and that later in the season it becomes much harder for local people to hunt deer successfully. A major concern of many 83 hunters is that if a road connection is made between Hoonah and Tenakee, linking the Indian River road system with the Game Creek logging road network, this area will receive still greater hunting pressure, and it will become even more difficult for Tenakee residents to compete for deer. In general, hunters indicated that the deer population had remained strong in the Indian River watershed. Only one survey respondent felt that the population was now declining due to overhunting. Several hunters, however, expressed concern about the future deer population. This concern is especially great among older hunters, who fear that another harsh winter with heavy snow accumulation such as was experienced in the early 1970s will result in the crash of a deer population already under stress from high hunting pressure. These observations are again backed by the A D F & G deer population model developed by Schoen et al. (1985). Given the 2.4 percent of the commercial forest logged in the Indian River watershed by 1980, the model predicts only a 3 percent decline in deer numbers during winters with intermediate snow cover, and a 5 percent decline in deer numbers during periods with more severe snow cover (20 to 36 inches). However, i f the 66.7 percent of commercial forest in the Indian River watershed currently scheduled for harvest is actually harvested, the model predicts an eventual decline of approximately 83 percent of the deer population given conditions of intermediate snow depth (Table HI). -During winters with heavy snow accumulation the deer losses could be substantially greater. In general, fishing and intertidal gathering along the shore of the Indian River area was not mentioned by key respondents as having been greatly affected by logging. Two households stated that they were no longer able to obtain crabs after the Sunny Cove log transfer facility had been in place for several years, but otherwise, offshore fishing and crabbing activities by Tenakee residents appear to be following the same pattern before and after timber harvesting in the Indian River area. 84 In summary, road construction, log transfer facility development, and logging in the Indian River watershed from 1978 to 1981 created a new set of conditions to which hunters from Tenakee and other southeast Alaska communities were quick to respond. Access into the area shifted dramatically over a few years time from traditional skiff and foot access along the beach fringe to use of inland logging roads on foot and by motorized vehicle. The road opened portions of the valley to hunting that had previously been too far from shore to receive much use. Hunting of the beach fringe fell to low levels, perhaps due to the log transfer facility and related vehicle activities on the shore and to the shift to road and clearcut hunting. Attitudes of Tenakee hunters towards the road and timber activities in the Indian River area are mixed. Opinions range from those who favor use of the roads because they create easier access to good hunting areas, to others who believe the logging roads create conditions for increased hunter competition, by concentrating local residents' efforts and by attracting use by hunters from other communities. Most respondents reported that the area is still productive for hunting, but many are concerned that too much hunting pressure along the road corridors throughout the valley will ultimately result in lower deer levels. Changes in hunting patterns and in intensity of use of the Indian River area, due to logging road construction, is evident from this case study. However, timber harvesting has occurred too recently in this area to determine if some of the longer term, habitat-related changes manifested in the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area also may be taking place in the Indian River watershed. 3. Corner Bay Corner Bay and the Corner Creek watershed use area are directly across Tenakee Inlet from Tenakee (Figure 2). Corner Creek extends eight miles from the beach up a valley which is two to three miles wide and is heavily forested. Corner Bay is approximately four miles across the inlet from Tenakee, making it easily accessible by skiff except during 85 periods of high winds. This area has always been used by Tenakee residents and visitors, as well as by people living and working in the Corner Bay logging camp. In addition to its primary use for deer hunting, the Corner Bay area also has been used by Tenakee residents for trapping furbearers and for harvesting crab, clams, cockles, ducks, geese, trout, bottom fish and salmon. Figure 21 shows consistent use of the Corner Bay area by approximately 30 - 40 percent of all Tenakee deer hunters since 1970. Road building and logging in the Corner Bay area began in 1973 along with construction of a logging camp near the shore of the bay. A U.S . Forest Service administrative site adjacent to the logging camp was completed in 1982. B y 1980 extensive clearcutting had taken place throughout the valley along seven miles of road, for a total harvest of approximately 22 percent of the available commercial timber in that V C U (USFS 1980, unpublished land-type timber inventory). Access to the Corner Bay use area by Tenakee residents traditionally has been by small skiff. Since the construction of logging roads, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are frequently loaded into skiffs and transported to the beach flats or log transfer site at Corner Bay. Three respondents had access to trucks on the Corner Bay road system which they had purchased from the logging company there. Additionally, the logging camp and U.S .F .S . administrative site have some year round residents who hunt primarily along nearby beaches and logging roads. Some employees use company vehicles to hunt on the way to or from work. In addition, visitors from other communities sometimes fly into Corner Bay and stay with friends at the logging camp. Beach fringe hunting at Corner Bay in the last three decades varied between 25-60 percent of hunters. This may be due to the large perimeter of the beach along Corner Bay, much of which has been unaffected by the logging camp and road construction. However, forest hunting has declined from 75 percent participation by active hunters using the area in the 1960s to none reported in the 1970s (0 percent) and little in the 1980s. Hunting along the logging roads and clearcuts shows a corresponding increase following the 86 beginning of timber harvesting activities in the 1970s, with 40 percent of hunters using the roads and 20 percent using the clearcuts in that decade. In the 1980s this participation had grown to 57 percent of the active hunters using both roads and clearcuts for deer hunting. These trends in road and beach hunting are summarized in Figure 23, which shows consistently moderate levels of beach hunting and a growing level of road-accessed hunting. The fall deer hunting season and four-deer bag limit remained unchanged throughout this time period. Responses by surveyed Tenakee respondents about effects of Corner Bay logging activities on hunting practices are varied. When asked the question: "Has logging in the Corner Bay area changed your hunting practices?", five random survey respondents answered "no." Three of these said they now use the logging roads for deer hunting. However, five other surveyed households said the logging camp and presence of loggers have disrupted or ended their use of the area. A l l four key respondents commenting on Corner Bay voiced concerns about the logging activities. One respondent indicated that logging activities near the shore caused him to abandon his hunting and trapping use of this area. Another stated that he has never used the area because of the presence of the logging camp, while a third respondent has stopped using the area since 1978 because "people live in the area and use the road systems." The fourth respondent still uses the area, but said he has stopped hunting in certain areas which have been logged and are now "too brushy" to use. Although most hunters in the random survey reported that deer populations remain strong in the area, concern was expressed regarding the consequences of increased hunting pressure and the possibility of a severe winter leading to a crash in the population. A s in the previous cases cited above, these concerns may be viewed in light of the deer population model developed by Schoen et al. (1985). The model can be used in this case to evaluate the effects of the reduction in critical winter deer habitat that has resulted from the harvest (as of 1980) of 23 percent of the commercial timber in the Corner Bay area 87 ( V C U 236). The deer population model predicts a decline in deer numbers of 28 percent under moderate snow conditions and 49 percent under deep snow conditions. Deer population effects due to additional logging that has occurred since 1980 have not yet been evaluated by the model, and further logging is scheduled for the future (Table HI). In summary, road construction and logging in the Corner Bay watershed since 1973 have created conditions somewhat resembling those previously described for the Indian River Area. The construction of logging roads has allowed easier access to the area by hunters using A T V s and skiffs, and overall use of the area has increased. In addition, the development of a large logging camp with some year round residents has created a new user group that has reportedly caused some Tenakee residents to avoid the area. In general, it appears that the logging roads have tended to increase the use of the Corner Bay area by certain hunters, while the presence of logging trucks and loggers have led to decreased use of the area by others. G. Summary and Discussion of Tenakee Case Study In many respects Tenakee is unique among rural Alaskan communities. Its population is small, fluctuating between 100-150 residents, and largely non-native. The median age of year-round residents is high (60 years in 1985), and the mean household size of 2.0 is low compared to the average for the rest of the southeast region of approximately 3.0. Despite a recent influx of younger families, Tenakee is still largely a retirement community, with 63 percent of households deriving some income from government transfer payments, which in 1985 contributed to 42 percent of the total community income. This section summarizes hunting and fishing activities of Tenakee households and briefly compares Tenakee with three other communities in southeast Alaska. These figures show that resource harvesting makes important contributions to the overall economy of Tenakee, providing a significant and reliable source of food to a majority of residents. In addition, information is summarized concerning deer hunting by Tenakee residents and reviews how deer hunting has changed since clearcut logging and associated road-building 88 have taken place in Tenakee Inlet. Long term implications for deer hunting of replacing old growth forests with second growth stands throughout watersheds surrounding Tenakee Inlet are identified as areas of future concern. 1. Tenakee's Economic Base In the context of Alaska, the term "mixed economy" is often used to describe subsistence-based socioeconomic systems in which the market, or cash, sector of a community's economy is integrated with and complementary to a subsistence sector (Wolfe and Ellanna 1983). In Tenakee, cash incomes are low ($9,583 median annual income in 1980), and heavily dependent on government transfer payments consisting largely of retirement and social security benefits. Year-round jobs in Tenakee are few, and most households combine several types of part-time or seasonal wage incomes. Monetary income is used by a majority of households to allow participation in the harvesting of fish and game resources. In 1984, 67 percent of Tenakee households owned a skiff which they used for hunting and fishing. Nearly one third of the households had recently purchased an A T V to aid in deer hunting. Each household participating in hunting and fishing in 1984 made use of purchased technologies such as skiffs, engines, rifles, shotguns, and various fishing equipment to procure needed food resources. Thus, Tenakee appears to have an economic base that fits the above description of the mixed economy, not unlike many other communities in the state. In Tenakee the subsistence and cash sectors are closely linked, with the overall economy being a mixture of these elements. A part of the relatively limited cash earnings of Tenakee residents are used by a majority of households to purchase the equipment needed to engage in successful hunting, fishing and gathering activities. Wage employment in recent decades has not provided a long-term, stable source of income for residents of Tenakee. The crab canneries and fish processing plants came and went in the early part of the century. Opportunities for involvement in the timber 89 industry also have been highly variable. Even the commercial fishing fleet has recently dwindled to just a few permanent boats. Hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods, on the other hand, continues to provide a significant return of wild resources. In this longer term historical context, the use of locally available foods appears to have played a particularly important economic role. Quantitative harvest data illustrate the contemporary significance of game and fish harvests in supplementing the monetary incomes of Tenakee residents. In Southeast Alaska, the annual Tenakee harvest of 250 pounds per capita ranks above all communities studied to date except Yakutat (369 lbs). Other Southeast Alaska communities for which comprehensive harvest data are available include Haines (114 lbs), Sitka (141 lbs), • Klukwan (174 lbs), Hoonah (209 lbs.), Kake (212 lbs.), Angoon (216 lbs), and Klawock (223 lbs) ( A D F & G Division of Subsistence, unpublished data). Participation rates of Tenakee residents in hunting and fishing activities are also fairly high, with 48 percent of household members engaging in hunting and 56 percent in fishing, in 1984. Sharing of resources is widely practiced, with older, inactive residents often receiving fish and deer meat from actively harvesting households. Table II compares the percent of households in Tenakee, Yakutat, Angoon and Klawock engaging in the harvest of several wild resources. This table shows that whereas Tenakee ranks last among these four communities in household use of marine plants, marine mammals, birds/eggs, and berries, it is second only to Yakutat households in use of marine fish, shellfish, and land mammals other than deer, and second only to Angoon households in use of deer. Tenakee households harvested an average of 1.6 deer per household in 1984 and 2.3 deer per household in 1983, higher than the 1.6 deer per household in Klawock, but lower than the reported harvest of 3.13 deer per household in Angoon ( A D F & G Division of Subsistence, unpublished data). Table I I . Percent of Households Using 10 Resource Categor ies in 1984 in Four Southeast A laska Communities Resource Category Klawock Yakutat Angoon Tenakee Salmon 89 96 79 88 S h e l l f i s h 83 100 87 96 Deer 81 20 90 83 Other Land Mammals 14 70 5 25 Marine Mammals 14 50 32 13 Marine Fish 83 98 90 92 Marine Plants 36 44 50 17 Freshwater Fish 61 64 34 54 Flora 78 94 74 83 Birds/Eggs 19 66 18 . 4 Source: unpubl ished d a t a , Subsistence D i v i s i o n , Alaska Dept. o f F i s h and Game. 91 2. Resource Harvesting The overall harvest area for Tenakee residents includes virtually all of the waters, shores, and upland areas of Tenakee Inlet, and extends along the shoreline and adjacent forests north and south of the Inlet a distance of approximately 12 miles. Areas outside this contiguous use zone that are also used by Tenakee residents include some watersheds and alpine ridges on Admiralty Island, the beach zone of Pleasant Island, Whitestone Harbor north of Tenakee Inlet, and the lower portion of Game Creek in Port Frederick. It is likely that within this overall use area, certain places are more or less intensively used than others, and it is possible that Tenakee residents would place relative degrees of importance for hunting and fishing on various portions of the total use area. Such distinctions were not possible from the information gathered with this study, but might be gained from further community involvement, and would be a useful step to take prior to the Tongass Land Management Plan revision. Compared to other communities in Alaska, the overall area used by Tenakee residents for subsistence hunting and fishing is relatively small. For example, caribou hunting in the north slope village of Kaktovik extends across an area up to 150 miles long and 50 miles wide (Pedersen and CofTing 1984). The contiguous subsistence use area for residents of the coastal town of Tyonek in Cook Inlet extends over 100 miles of shoreline and 30 miles inland (Fall et al. 198-1). Several factors combine to concentrate most subsistence hunting and fishing activities of Tenakee residents within the boundaries of Tenakee Inlet. The 35 mile length and 4 mile width of the Inlet make most of its bays and watersheds accessible by skiff during a day's journey from town. The waters of the Inlet are usually protected from the southerly prevailing winds, unlike the exposed waters of Chatham Strait, outside the Inlet. Since afternoon winds often make these outside waters unsafe for skiff travel, most residents make limited use of these areas unless traveling by larger boat. Perhaps the most important reason, however, for why Tenakee residents predominantly restrict 92 their subsistence activities to Tenakee Inlet is because the richness of marine, intertidal, and land resources in the inlet makes further travel unnecessary. Respondents repeatedly referred to the fact that they can satisfy most of their subsistence needs close to Tenakee. The major exception to this is salmon. Because salmon fishing has reportedly declined in the Inlet over the last decade, many residents must now travel further to get their supply of fish. The Basket Bay subsistence sockeye fishery south of Tenakee Inlet is particularly important in this regard. Information presented earlier reflects the importance of deer harvesting to Tenakee residents. Harvest data from the random survey shows an estimated 108 deer killed in 1983 and 78 in 1984, the difference largely being attributed to the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984, which curtailed the hunting season for many households. Deer harvests of Tenakee residents represent approximately 10 percent of the total deer taken annually in Tenakee Inlet, with the majority of non-local hunting being conducted by hunters from Juneau. Because of a high degree of sharing deer among households, a total of 83 percent of Tenakee households consumed deer in 1984 and 92 percent consumed deer in 1983. Deer harvests constitute a greater percentage of the total community harvest in Tenakee than in Klawock, and even represent a greater percentage of the total resource harvest than do moose harvests in Yakutat. 3. Timber Management Concerns In 1975 the issue of the potential impacts of industrial logging on uses of fish and game resources in Tenakee was first raised (DCRA 1975). Since then, the town council of Tenakee Springs has engaged in a series of dialogues with the U.S . Forest Service concerning the council's desire to limit the amount of roading and clearcutting occurring in Tenakee Inlet, and has joined lawsuits aimed at stopping logging road construction in the Kadashan and Game Creek drainages. The research presented here is the first attempt to 93 explicitly examine any changes in game and fish harvest patterns that may be related to the relatively short history of industrial-scale logging activities in the Inlet. The examples reported in section F illustrate some of the kinds of changes in hunting patterns that appear to have resulted from logging and associated road development. The impacts of these activities on fishing and intertidal gathering are less evident, and in Tenakee appear to be limited to reports of declining crabbing and other intertidal gathering activities in the near vicinity of log transfer facilities. Several trends concerning the effects of timber harvesting and related activities on deer hunting in Tenakee Inlet emerge from the case studies. As shown in the South Passage Point area, in the absence of any timber management activities the use of the beach zone for most deer hunting has remained stable over the past three decades. Changes in hunting patterns following timber management activities were identified in other areas. These changes are summarized below by distinguishing between the effects of habitat alteration due to timber harvesting and the effects of road and L T F construction. a) Effects of Habitat Alteration on Hunting Clearcutting is postulated to initiate a sequence of forest regeneration stages, and deer have been found to react in different ways to these stages (Alaback, 1982; Schoen and Kirchhoff, 1985). Linkages between habitat change, changes in deer use and changes in hunter use are illustrated by the Tenakee case study. Up to 10 years following clearcutting, in portions of Tenakee Inlet, hunting is reported to have been good along margins of cut units. This reportedly is due to the availability of deer browse in combination with good visibility across open spaces. During that time period, hunters have used the edge of clearcuts, or a forested corridor between two cuts, with good success. Ten to fifteen years after clearcutting in the inlet, hunters decreased use of clearcut areas due to dense regrowth, which was reported to be impenetrable by both deer and hunters. It has not been possible to document effects beyond this fifteen year span in Tenakee Inlet, due to the relatively short history of logging. 94 This sequence of forest regeneration-deer hunting changes is primarily supported by information on historic uses of the Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit area. In this area, traditionally productive for deer hunting, use declined during logging activity and then increased for several years while the clearcuts were still in the young regrowth stage. After approximately 10 years, use again declined, reportedly in response to lower deer numbers and difficulty of travel and hunting in areas of dense regrowth. In the case of the Indian River and Corner Creek watersheds, few clearcuts were ten or more years old. While these areas do illustrate the phenomenon of increasing hunter use in the early stages of regrowth, the types of deer hunting changes that may result from older stages of regrowth were not in evidence. b) Effects of Road Construction on Hunting Survey data and case histories strongly suggest that logging road construction has been an agent of change in the hunting patterns of Tenakee residents. Roads have affected hunting areas used, hunting success rates and perceived competition among hunters. Immediately following road construction in the Tenakee Inlet area, the number of local hunters using roaded areas increased (while use of other areas showed a corresponding decrease), reportedly due to ease of access. According to respondents, non-local hunters also began to increase their use of roaded areas. Use of the beach zone for hunting by skiff declined and the use of upland forested areas and the clearcut edges made accessible by roads increased. Hunting strategies changed from predominant use of the beach zone and near forested areas by skiff and on foot, to use of ATVs and in some cases trucks in conjunction with walking along roads in upland regions. Competition for deer among hunters is reported to have increased along roaded areas. In the case of Tenakee Inlet, this competition is not currently manifested as an overall decrease in deer harvests per hunter. Rather, competition appears to take the form of perceived crowding, the possibility of an increased cost of hunting (in the form of added time or distance costs), or displeasure with motorized hunter access. Some traditional 95 users of an area (notably the Corner Bay area) were displaced from traditional hunting areas because of this perceived competition, c) Longer Term Changes Additional socioeconomic or other employment-related effects of logging on hunting and fishing activities in Tenakee were not revealed in the course of this study. This may be a consequence of the fact that relatively few residents of Tenakee have been employed in the logging industry in the past decade. As a rule the cash income used for purchase and maintenance of skiffs, ATVs, and other hunting and fishing equipment continues to be derived from a mix of non-logging related sources. The Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit deer hunting area, with its 15-year time depth of logging and regrowth, provides a revealing case of habitat change and subsequent change in hunter behavior that may have implications for other areas in the inlet, including Indian River and Corner Bay. The evidence from Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit suggests that the regrowth of timber and understory vegetation can inhibit use by deer and deer hunters. Undoubtedly, design considerations for roading and clearcutting are important factors that condition, and possibly mitigate, this effect. This finding points to the need for timber harvest planning that identifies the design features that provide for optimum continued hunter use, and timber sales that incorporate these features (see last chapter). This may be particularly important near communities, like Tenakee, that make extensive use of deer. Any decline in the availability of deer in the Indian River area due to factors such as those described for Ten to Fifteen Mile Spit could require Tenakee hunters to travel farther to hunt deer or to find substitutes for the deer now taken from there. Since any change in use of the Indian River area would probably increase use somewhere else in the inlet, a decline in hunting success in this drainage may eventually increase the use and competition for deer in other areas. If deer populations decline relative to hunters, this could lead to increasingly stringent harvest regulations. 96 Research results from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Game Division, raise concerns for longer term impacts of clearcut logging on deer hunting. According to the ADF&G deer population model (Schoen et al. 1985), if all timber that is now (under the terms of TLMP) scheduled for harvest in Tenakee Inlet is actually harvested, the remaining old growth forests in place one hundred years from now will support an average of less than half the current deer population during periods of intermediate snowfall (Table ni). During heavy snow years, the combination of deep snow in the clearcuts and inadequate browse material in the second growth stands are predicted to result in seriously depleted deer populations. In conclusion, research undertaken in Tenakee has shown that this modern-day community in a relatively developed region of Alaska still conforms to the description of a subsistence community presented in Chapter I. Furthermore, the mixture of highly productive subsistence activities with the cash economy of the greater region has resulted in a stable lifestyle which residents are eager to maintain in future years. The following chapter establishes a framework for how this can be accomplished within the next regional forest plan for this area. Table III. Timber Harvest Summary and Predicted Populat ion fo r Tenakee Inlet VCUs. Decl ine in Deer Percent Percent Percent CFL b CFL Deer Already Scheduled Remainii Harvested For A f t e r 11 vcu a Number Harvest Years P t . Cannery 219 6.1 69.1 25.5 Tenakee Springs 220 2.4 66.7 17.5 Whip S ta t ion 221 13.0 50.8 26.6 Sand S ta t ion 222 6.7 66.6 21.3 Goose View 223 0.0 48.2 49.2 Tenakee In let 224 7.1 42.3 61.2 L i t t l e Goose F l a t s 225 0.0 51.4 44.7 Goose F l a t s 226 0.0 49.2 39.5 Hub S ta t ion 227 0.0 58.4 26.5 Beth S ta t ion 230 2.6 71.2 29.6 Sa l te ry Bay 231 3.5 61.8 32.3 Crab Bay 232 5.9 67.0 32.5 South Crab Bay 233 0.0 59.7 38.0 Inbetween 234 0.0 81.1 12.5 Kadashan 235 1.1 64.1 24.0 Corner Bay 236 21.9 66.7 22.2 Trap Bay 237 2.7 63.0 18.1 South Passage 238 0.0 55.0 27.3 Kook Lake 239 12.2 39.6 58.7 L i t t l e Basket Bay 240 0.0 43.6 44.5 Source: Schoen et a l . 1985. a Value Comparison Unit (U.S. Forest Serv ice system fo r naming watersheds) b Commercial Forest Land (greater than 8,000 board fee t of t imber per acre) 98 C H A P T E R m . I N S T I T U T I O N A L A N D L E G A L C O N T E X T F O R T E N A K E E S U B S I S T E N C E R E S E A R C H This chapter presents ways in which the preceding information on the subsistence economy of Tenakee is useful to natural resource and development planning concerns of Tenakee residents. Descriptions of various subsistence management settings also serve to demonstrate the value that state and federal legislators have placed on continuing subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans. Although results of the case study on Tenakee have only been available in draft form since January, 1987, it is apparent that the subsistence data generated is of significant value in three major settings: state fish and game management, Alaska Native fishing and hunting rights, and federal land use planning. In order to lay the groundwork for alternative regional planning in Chapter IV, particular attention is paid in this chapter to the existing and potential role that subsistence information has in the Forest Service planning process in the area. A . State Fish and Game Management 1) Management Overview and the State's Subsistence Law Although the federal government owns most of the land in southeast Alaska, the State has responsibility for all fish and game harvesting regulations, including those on federal and Native lands (with the exception of certain endangered species, marine mammals, and migratory birds, which come under federal jurisdiction). The Alaska Constitution established a common property basis to fish and game resources, stipulating their protection for "beneficial uses" by the people. Regulations governing all fish and game harvesting are established by the Boards of Fish and Game. Members of each Board are citizens appointed by the Governor, with approval by the legislature. The Boards rely on information from several sources: the Alaska 99 Department of Fish and Game (which conducts research and supplies biological information to the Boards), the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection (enforcement agency), local fish and game advisory councils, and the public at large. Regulations adopted by the Boards are subject to State laws, as interpreted by the courts. Due to increasing competition among user groups and subsequent threats to traditional native subsistence activities, the State passed a law in 1978 which determined "... it is in the public interest to clearly establish subsistence use as a priority use of Alaska's fish and game resources" (Alaska Statutes, Title 16). In implementing this priority, the Joint Boards of Fish and Game ruled that in circumstances when the sustained yield of a fish or game stock is in jeopardy (such as from overharvest, predation, habitat loss, etc.), all "practicial options" for restricting nonsubsistence harvests will be exercised before subsistence harvests are restricted by regulation (5 A C C 99.010 2(f)). This ruling has the potential of restricting all commercial, sport and other personal use of a fish or game resource before any subsistence use is affected. Although this has not been done since the regulations were adopted in 1978, and probably would not represent a "practical option," this provision has been a major factor in fueling continuing attempts of mostly urban hunters and sport fishermen to overturn the subsistence priority law. In 1986 the subsistence law was amended to address only "rural" residents in order to comply with federal law (see Section C). Such a distinction between rural and urban residents is viewed by a number of urban sportsmen as additional reason to abolish the State's subsistence priority law. However, this is not likely to occur, since without a State law protecting subsistence uses the federal government would be obliged to assume this management role. The subsistence law defines subsistence uses as the "noncommercial customary and traditional uses in Alaska of wild, renewable resources" for a range of purposes, including personal and family food consumption and customary trade or sharing. To study these uses and provide data for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations to be adopted by the 100 Boards of Fish and Game, the 1978 law also established a research arm of the Department of Fish and Game. The Subsistence Division conducts research activities throughout the state on the past and current subsistence activities of Alaskans, including Natives and non-natives, with an annual budget of approximately $3 million. As noted in Chapter n , the Subsistence Division funded and sponsored the case study on Tenakee Springs which is incorporated into this thesis. 2. Results of Tenakee Subsistence Research a) Subsistence Protection under State Law The Alaska Boards of Fish and Game met in early 1987 to determine whether Tenakee and other towns in southeast Alaska qualified as "rural" communities in accordance with state law. As described above, such a determination is essential i f Tenakee is to gain the protection for subsistence activities and priority subsistence resource allocation which is provided by these laws. The data generated in the case study report formed the basis for showing that the community of Tenakee, though containing a 89 percent non-native population, meets the requirements of a subsistence-based community under state regulation. More specifically, subsistence research was used by the Boards to determine that the community of Tenakee meets the following criteria established by the Boards (5 A A C 99.010): 1) a long-term consistent pattern of use; 2) a use pattern recurring in specific seasons of each year; 3) a use pattern consisting of methods and means of harvest which are characterized by efficiency and economy of effort and cost; 4) the consistent harvest and use of fish or game which is near the user's residence; 5) the means of handling, preparing and storing fish or game which has been traditionally used by past generations, but not excluding recent technological advances; 6) a use pattern which includes the handing down of knowledge from generation to generation; 101 7) presence of a non-commercial distribution and exchange network; 8) a use pattern which includes reliance for subsistence purposes upon a wide diversity of the fish and game resources in an area. The identification of subsistence uses is made on the community basis rather than for individual people. A "rural" determination is based not on place of residency, individual income or need, but on the general role that use of fish and wildlife plays in the economy of communities (ADF&G 1986). As can be seen from examining the eight criteria listed above, in-depth subsistence research such as that utilized in the case study on Tenakee is needed for such a determination to be made. However, it is unlikely that every community in a region would need similar study, since the patterns of use present in one community can be readily identified in similar communities within the region. The research undertaken in Tenakee was significant in showing that a predominantly non-Native community could be classified as having a subsistence-based economy under state law. One interesting result of this determination is that other mostly non-Native communities throughout southeast Alaska, including small permanent logging camps, have been classified as falling under the subsistence protection umbrella, b) Fish and Game Regulation Another key use which will be made of subsistence research on Tenakee is that of providing detailed information to the Boards of Fish and Game in order to regulate commercial, sport, and subsistence activities in Tenakee Inlet. The local Fish and Game advisory committee and members of the Town Council have expressed interest in using the data to show that commercial salmon fishing at the entrance to Tenakee Inlet should be restricted in order to allow a greater subsistence catch inside the Inlet. The case study also raised the possibility that for the first time in southeast Alaska, a proposal may be made to the Board of Game to limit deer hunting in an area to local residents. Currently, all sport and subsistence deer hunting regulations are the same; hunters from any community may hunt anywhere in any game management unit in southeast Alaska. 102 However, the competition for deer by outside hunters described in the case study, which results in only 10 percent of the deer taken in Tenakee Inlet going to local hunters, may lead local residents to push for a limitation based on the subsistence priority law. Although there currently appears to be ample deer populations for all current hunters, local residents are concerned that over-hunting coupled with habitat alteration due to logging could result in a dramatic decline in deer numbers. This would be of special concern if the current string of mild winters are followed by another severe winter, as weather data indicates (Chapter n). Further monitoring of deer hunting opportunities in Tenakee Inlet is needed to see if such a restriction is justified, and planning efforts must take into account such a scenario. B. Alaska Native Fishing and Hunting Rights 1) The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Unlike Native land claims in Canada, where Native hunting and fishing rights and management regimes are given great consideration (e.g. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, 1975 and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, 1984), the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) makes virtually no mention of these issues. Indeed, as shown below, the Act extinquished any Native rights to fish and game resources which might have existed by virtue of their aboriginal claims. This leaves uncertain the question of whether federal trust responsibilities for Alaska Natives remain intact, and if so, whether that includes protection of traditional hunting and fishing rights (Langdon, 1984). A N C S A section 4(b) states that " A l l aboriginal titles, if any, and claims of aboriginal title in Alaska based on use and occupancy... including any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights that may exist, are hereby extinquished." This clause has led to the conclusion that Alaskan Natives no longer retain any claim to preferential treatment for hunting and fishing rights. However, a question remains of whether such preference may still be included as part of the federal government's fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of 103 all American Natives. A N C S A section 2(c) can be interpreted to indicate that the federal-native relationship remains undiminished as a result of the settlement: "no provision of this Act shall., relieve, replace or diminish any obligation of the United Staes or of the state of Alaska to protect and promote the rights or welfare of Natives..." A large body of legal evidence exists which could substantiate the notion that Alaska Native subsistence fishing and hunting rights are still protected by federal law, and the case may eventually be decided in federal court (see below). If the courts uphold the existence of a federal trust responsibility for the maintenance of a subsistence culture for Alaska Natives, then subsistence research undertaken in Tenakee and other communities will be used to document whether the government has breached this responsibility by allowing subsistence opportunities to decline (Alaska Legal Services, 1987). Two Natives from the town of Hoonah, on the other side of Chichagof Island from Tenakee, have appealed the Forest Service's 5 year timber sale operating plan in that area. Part of their argument, as stated by Alaska Legal Services attorneys in the appeal, asserts that by proposing timber sales that would restrict their subsistence deer hunting activities on Chichagof Island, the Forest Service has violated its trust responsibility (ibid, p. 46). If this appeal is successful, Natives throughout southeast Alaska could make similar charges concerning hunting lands proposed for logging. Federal planners should take this possibility into account before committing the government to a course difficult to reverse or for which it may be costly to compensate. C. Federal Subsistence Law: Protection of the Tenakee Subsistence Economy Through Impact Analysis The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) was introduced previously because of the timber supply provisions of Section 705. This law also included several sections on subsistence use of federal lands which strongly reinforced the state law and added one key provisions: all impacts of federal actions on subsistence use of resources must be evaluated and minimized. 104 A N I L C A reinforced State subsistence policy by stating that continuing subsistence opportunities are "essential to Native physical, economic, traditional and cultural existence and to non-Native physical, economic, traditional and social existence" (Section 801). Subsistence use was further protected by section 802, which stated "It is hereby declared to the the policy of Congress that... the utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of the resources of such lands..." The procedural requirement of how subsistence protection would be implemented has taken subsistence management out of the realm of fish and game regulations and caused it to become a key component in Alaska land use planning. The law provides that in determining whether to permit any use or disposition of federal lands, the responsible federal agency "shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy or dispostion on subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved, and other alternatives..." (Section 810). The law further states that no such use of public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected until the federal agency 1) gives notice to the State and local fish and game advisory committees; 2) holds a public hearing in the area involved; and 3) determines that the restriction of subsistence use is necessary for sound management of public lands, wil l involve the minimum amount of land needed, and that mitigative steps will be taken to reduce adverse impacts upon subsistence. Since this language is very similar to that contained in the National Environmental Protection Act of 1979 (NEPA), which led to the establishment of the current environmental impact assessment process in the United States, it is not surprising that Section 810 has been interpreted to mean that all major federal actions in Alaska must be preceded by an environmental assessment of their impact on subsistence uses ( A L U C , 1984; U S F S , 1985). These so-called "810 determinations" have thrust subsistence considerations into every federal planning and management decision-making process in Alaska since 1980. 105 Although A N I L C A dictates a procedural requirement only (and still allows the head of a federal agency to ultimately make a decision which does restrict subsistence uses), experience with N E P A and the environmental impact assessment process has shown that such a procedural requirement is of significance for three prime reasons: 1) it aids the decision-making process considerably by forcing more information-gathering and alternative-generation; 2) it permits other agencies or members of the public to challenge a decision based on lack of adequate research and environmental impact assessment, and can lead to court decisions to temporarily halt federal actions until an adequate E A is prepared (such N E P A suits have swelled the nation's courts and resulted in the delay and often reversal of hundreds of federal actions); and 3) it provides a legal imperative to allow local subsistence users the opportunity to become involved in the decision-making process. Therefore, despite the fact that A N I L C A does not legally mandate that subsistence uses must always be protected above all other uses of public lands, the law does ensure that better public planning will result by including more research and information gathering, by mandating the generation of more alternatives to consider, and by demanding public notification followed by the opportunity for public participation. By demonstrating that timber harvesting may have an impact on subsistence activities, the case study on Tenakee could have far-reaching implications for all forest planning in Alaska; To date the Forest Service has consistently denied in its Section 810 subsistence assessments that timber harvesting has any impact on subsistence. Rather, Forest Service conclusions are that subsistence hunting and fishing activities continue undiminished on federal lands despite any federal actions. For example, the massive research and planning effort that went into the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1986-1990 Operating Plan for the Alaska Pulp Company (which includes cutting areas throughout Tenakee Inlet - see Chapter II) concludes that there will be no adverse impacts on subsistence uses by residents in any of the nearby local communities, including Tenakee. 106 This background provides the context for understanding why this case study on Tenakee is of immediate relevance to forest planning in southeast Alaska. The conclusions that subsistence harvests are likely impacted by timber harvesting, and that these impacts may be negative when long range and cumulative effects are considered, are of immediate application in questioning planned logging activities for Tenakee Inlet. Perhaps even more significant are the implications this research has for all on-going and future forest plans in southeast Alaska, for the results raise the possibility that Forest Service research into subsistence impacts has been inadequate. In short, the Forest Service position on subsistence has left it open to a series of legal actions based on forest planning procedures established by N E P A and A N T L C A . The Town Council of Tenakee Springs is currently a plaintiff in two lawsuits against the agency; one concerning plans to build a logging road in the Kadashan river drainage across from Tenakee, and the other to build a logging road which would complete a network of roads linking Tenakee with the village of Hoonah. The case study research conducted on Tenakee is being sited in court to show that subsistence use in the Kadashan drainage wil l be impacted by a logging road, and to show that a road connection with Hoonah may have dramatic consequences to Tenakee's subsistence economy. In addition, the final decision in the 1986-1990 Alaska Pulp Company harvest plan mentioned above has been appealed by four groups, with plaintiffs including several local town councils, a coalition of environmental groups, the professional Alaska Chapter of the American Wildlife Society, and Alaska Legal Services Corporation. Each of these appellants are using information contained in the Tenakee case study since it is the first research to conclusively demonstrate adequate cause for concern. This in turn led the Forest Service to send the draft technical paper on Tenakee out for agency review and to attempt to discredit the report's findings in court and with the State of Alaska. The final report was issued in September, 1987 (Leghorn and Kookesh, 1987) and is nearly identical to the draft report, thus indicating a strong level of support for its findings from within the sponsoring agency, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Therefore, it is imperative on legal grounds that the Forest Service gives more serious consideration to subsistence concerns in future timber sale plans and in the review of the Tongass-wide management plan that has currently been the case. 108 CHAPTER IV. INTEGRATING SUBSISTENCE CONCERNS INTO REGIONAL PLANNING A. Recapitulation The first three chapters of this thesis have provided a rationale for integrating the needs and desires of rural Alaskans engaged in a subsistence lifestyle or culture into regional forest planning efforts. Research conducted in Tenakee shows that subsistence activities engaged in by a majority of households represent a productive and stable mode of enterprise. Furthermore, these activities significantly add to the low cash incomes of most residents and result in a significantly higher standard of living than could otherwise be enjoyed. Community residents are proud of their lifestyle of "living off the land," and are quick to defend it, as evidenced by numerous town council resolutions and legal challenges to perceived disruptions. Chapter i n demonstrated the value that federal and state legislators have placed on preserving subsistence opportunities, and indicated some of the legal implications of not addressing subsistence concerns in regional planning. The final question to be addressed is "are the goals of residents in subsistence-oriented towns such as Tenakee compatible with other regional development goals, including those of the more urban towns such as Ketchikan, Sitka, and Juneau?" The following section presents elements of a development plan for the Tenakee area within the National Forest planning process which suggests the answer is yes. If so, then a strong case will have been made for including subsistence concerns in all regional planning efforts, which simply stated is that subsistence is alive and well in rural southeast Alaska, it is protected by law, and it's continuation is compatible with other resource development goals. B. Planning for the Tenakee Area in the Review of TLMP The Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), described in Chapter I, is about to be revised for the next ten year period. This plan will set the direction for land use allocation 109 in 80 percent of southeast Alaska, including virtually all of Tenakee Inlet and surrounding lands. The plan's impact on life in Tenakee will be substantial. The TLMP planning process, in conforming to practices established under the National Environmental Protection Act, provides ample opportunity for public notice, participation, and the generation of alternatives. However, the final plan will only be as good as the information upon which it is based and the alternatives made available to decision-makers. Therefore, it is up to the residents of rural southeast Alaska and other concerned parties to ensure that good information and sound alternatives are injected into the planning process. This section outlines what such information and alternatives for the Tenakee area should be put forth. 1. Needs of the Subsistence Economy. Based on the research presented in Chapter II, the following issues and needs for the continuation of a healthy subsistence economy in Tenakee can be summarized: a) Resource Base - adequate populations of key species such as salmon, king and dungeness crab, clams, halibut, and deer; - long range protection of habitat upon which these species depend; - proximity of these resources to town: due to time and weather constraints, land and water resources need to be within skiff access of Tenakee, which includes all waters of Tenakee Inlet plus waters north to Freshwater Bay and south to Basket Bay; b) Limited Competition- for Resources - no road connection to other towns (i.e. Hoonah); - no road from the town of Tenakee to the popular hunting area of the Indian River watershed (which would attract large numbers of outside hunters); - careful management of fishing and hunting regulations for the Tenakee Inlet area; 110 c) Adequate Local Economic Base - availability of cash income to supply basic housing, clothing, health, etc., plus to buy the technologies needed to harvest resources (e.g. skiff, engines, rifles, fuel and ammo, fishing gear, ATVs) ; - jobs which complement resource harvesting activities, either in terms of skills required or season of the year (e.g. commercial fishing, fish or shellfish processing, logging). 2. Creation of an Alternative Vision for Tenakee Inlet Prior to the formulation of a specific alternative management plan for the Tenakee area, town residents and other concerned parties should have in mind a future vision for what they want to see happen locally. One such vision, which incorporates the needs summarized above, is offered below. The resource harvesting needs of Tenakee residents would be given top priority in the Tenakee Inlet area, as is currently provided by State law. Salmon, crab, other shellfish, and deer populations in particular would be monitored closely, and appropriate seasons and bag limits established. The Indian River drainage might become a subsistence hunting area for local residents only, for at least a portion of the hunting season. Logging plans for the Inlet would be substantially altered. There would be no question of ignoring local desires to keep Tenakee non-road-connected to other communities. Logging would still occur in most of the drainages identified in T L M P , but clearcut size would be reduced and placed to permit greater deer habitat protection, especially in winter months. This would increase the cost of timber sale preparation and operation to the federal treasury, but would also result in higher local employment (Darr et al . , 1977). The logging moratorium would continue in the Kadashan watershed across from town, and large-scale logging would be restricted or eliminated in the Indian River drainage behind town (both areas being close to town and identified as possessing the top category of fish and wildlife values). However, the Indian River drainage would be an ideal location to initiate local logging efforts, either for commercial firewood harvest or to supply local I l l rough cut lumber needs, since the area is already roaded and easily accessed by residents. A local hire initiative would be part of the contract for operating the Corner Bay logging camp, so that residents already possessing logging skills could have employment without leaving town, and training positions would be available to others. The same would be true for logging road constuction crews. Furthermore, some of the federal timber subsidy dollars which now go towards pre-roading and other timber sale preparation uses would be re-directed to allow more intensive forestry and/or selective logging to be practiced on areas that are logged inside the Inlet. Silvicultural techniques such as thinning would be used to both mitigate the effects of second growth timber on deer populations and hunter access as well as to employ local work crews. Modern selective logging practices could be introduced (subsidized equally to the pulp mill contracts if need be) to allow export of top quality wood with a minimum of habitat impact (Darr et al . , 1977). In this way logging which does occur inside the Inlet would work towards residents' advantage in two ways which are not currently available. 3. Implementing an Alternative Vision The above vision is completely contrary to what now occurs in Tenakee Inlet. Current efforts by Tenakee residents to engage in planning for the area outside of townsite boundaries is limited to opposing Forest Service timber harvest and road building plans for Chichagof Island in order to protect their rural, subsistence lifestyle. A t the same time, planning efforts for needed services and employment within municipal boundaries are severely constrained by lack of funds and the perceived inability to improve the local cash economy. However, the Tenakee Community Plan (DCRA, 1984) presented a series of goals for the community's economic and natural resource development, some of which could be incorporated into a revision of T L M P . These included the following: - creation of at least half a dozen permanent local jobs through projects such as tourism development, seafood processing plant, salmon hatchery, providing local wood to the local 112 sawmill to satisfy community needs, and providing opportunity to obtain fuel wood from adjacent federal timber lands; - advocate community preferences in regional resource decision-making (i.e. federal timber sales); and - maintenance of the character and stability of the community. In other words, the basic elements for advancing a more active community role in the revison of the area-wide Tongass plan are already in place. Now it is up to community residents to begin asserting their views in all regional planning forums. The Forest Service, as described in Chapter I, is presently under two major constraints which effect the agency's ability to manage land for other than large-scale clearcutting. Unless the 50 year timber supply contract with the Alaska Pulp Company in Sitka is cancelled (either by the courts or Congress) and the timber supply provision contained in Section 705 of A N I L C A is repealed, the Forest Service will still be obliged to provide major timber cutting opportunities on the Tongass. Lands not scheduled for harvest in Tenakee Inlet will have to be provided elsewhere, in some other community's "backyard." However, considerable latitude does exist in the agency's detailed timber planning; the amount of high volume old growth timber to be cut, location of clearcuts, and placement of logging roads are al l factors under Forest Service control. These factors affect the habitat for subsistence fish and wildlife resources used by rural residents, the geography of subsistence harvesting activities, and the degree of competition from non-resident sportsmen and subsistence hunters. And if the timber supply constraints are removed by the courts or Congress, then substantial more flexibility could be achieved to meet the needs of local communities. In any event, the agency should be taking a leadership role in balancing the needs of small and large communities in southeast Alaska. Areas surrounding towns such as Tenakee could be managed with greater flexibility to preserve the salient aspects of a mixed economy without detriment to the region as a whole. Federal timber subsidy dollars 113 could be re-directed to provide for economic opportunities for independent operators. One Forest Service study has shown that even if both regional pulp mills were closed, the lost jobs and income could be compensated for by an increase of $105 million in tourism expenditures (Maki et al . , 1985). Clearly, a variety of policy alternatives are available for consideration in regional planning.. C. Conclusions This research has shown that a subsistence-based or mixed subsistence-cash economy can be a stable and viable development strategy for Tenakee and other northern communities in modern times. As subsistence research continues to show how a domestic mode of production can be successfully integrated with the predominant industrial mode, a great opportunity exists to improve northern natural resource and community planning. To the extent that industrial development activities such as large-scale timber harvesting produce adverse impacts on otherwise viable subsistence economies, subsistence research backed by protective legislation such as exists in Alaska can be used to delay or ameliorate the impact. However, opportunity exists now in southeast Alaska to substantially improve the effects of regional planning on rural community stability. As stated earlier, regional plans will only be as good as the information upon which they are based and the alternatives made available to decision-makers. The participation of residents from rural communities, the injection of information from subsistence research, and the creation of new, broadly-scoped alternatives (rather than just alternative timber sale locations) are needed in order to take full advantage of the federal timber planning process offered in the up-coming ten year revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan. Similarly, greater consideration of the needs of rural Alaska can become part of the nascent planning sessions of groups such as the Southeast Forum, an informal assembly of local municipalities and business leaders seeking to integrate the economic development goals of southeast Alaska communities. But this will happen only if people from rural communities participate. The same is true for 114 formulation of the State's transportation plan for southeast Alaska. Besides meeting the wishes of rural residents, regional planning which incorporates subsistence concerns would result in greater consensus and less litigation over regional development proposals and enhanced long term rural (and thus regional) stability. The objective of this thesis is to provide impetus towards such planning. 115 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). 1975. The Socio-economic Implications of Logging Operations on Tenakee Springs, and Tenakee Inlet, Alaska. Juneau: D C R A . 1984. Tenakee Springs Community Plan. Juneau: D C R A Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1986. Alaska's New Subsistence Law. Juneau: A D F & G . Alaska Legal Services Corporation. 1987. Appeal No. 1898 Before the Chief, U .S . Forest Service. Vance Sanders and Janine Reep, attorneys. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Geographic Society. 1978. Southeast, Alaska's Panhandle. Volume 5(2). Anchorage, Alaska: Northwest Publishing Co. Behnke, Steve. 1982. Wildlife Utilization and the Economy of Nondalton. Technical Report No. 47. Dillingham, Alaska: Div. of Subsistence, A D F & G . Boothroyd, Peter. 1985. Lecture notes. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. British Columbia Forest Service. 1983. Reservation of Old Growth Timber for the Protection of Wildlife Habitat on Northern Vancouver Island. Vancouver: Ministry of Forests. Brody, Hugh. 1981. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier. Vancouver: Douglas and Mclntyre. Bunnell, Fred. 1981. Wildlife and Land: The Vancouver Island Example. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, School of Forestry. Bunnell, Fred, Scott McNay, and Chris Shank. 1984. Trees and Snow: The Deposition of Snow on the Ground - A Review and Quantitative Synthesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, School of Forestry. Darr, David, R. Glass, J . Ellis, and D. Schmiege. 1977. A n Overview of Some Economic Options for Southeast Alaskan Timber. Working Draft. Juneau, Alaska: U.S . Forest Service. de Laguna, Frederica. 1960. The Story of a Tlingit Community. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 172. Washington, D.C. U .S . Government Printing Office. Dimitrov, Peter. 1984. A Northern Indian Band's Mode of Production and its Articulation with the Multinational Mode. M.Sc. Thesis. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. 116 Dosman, E . J . 1975. The National Interest: The Politics of Northern Development 1968-1975. Toronto: McCelland and Steward Limited. Doyle, D. and R.S. McNay. 1984. Black-tailed Deer and Intensive Forestry Interaction: A three year data report. Victoria: Ministries of Forests and Environment. Ellanna, Linda and George Sherrod. 1986. (draft) Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast Alaska Communities: Klawock, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Technical Paper #126. Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Ellanna, Linda, George Sherrod and Steve Langdon. 1985. (draft) Subsistence Mapping: A n Evaluation and Methodological Guidelines. Technical Paper #125. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . Fal l , James A . , Dan J . Foster and Ronald T. Stanek. 1983. The Use of Moose and Other Wild Resources in the Tyonek and Upper Yentna Areas: A Background Report. Technical Paper No. 74. Anchorage: Div. of Subsistence, A D F & G . 1984. The Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Tyonek, Alaska. Technical Paper #105. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . Freeman, Milton (ed.). 1976. Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project, Volume I. Land Use and Occupancy, Volume H . Supporting Studies, Volume HI. Land Use Atlas. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Gates, Rodd Bryan. 1962. Deer Food Production in Certain Serai Stages of the Coast Forest. Vancouver: Univ. of Brit ish Columbia. Goldschmidt, Walter and Theodore Haas. 1946. Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeastern Alaska. (Unpublished report.) Washington, D.C. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Government of Quebec. 1976. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Ottawa: Government of Quebec. Harris , Arland S. and Wilbur A . Farr . 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. No. 7, Forest Ecology and Timber Management. Portland: U S F S , Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Harris, Yvonne. 1984. Choices for Change: A Study of the Fort Ware Indian Band and Implications of Land Settlements for Northern Indian Bands. M . A . Thesis. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. Herbert, D . M . (n.d.) Implications of Forest Tenure for Wildlife Management in Coastal Ecosystems. Nanaimo, B .C . : Fish and Wildlife Branch. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Agreement. Ottawa: I N A C . 1984. The Inuvialuit (Western Arctic) Final 117 Jones, Will iam. 1971. Aspects of the Winter Ecology of Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus  hemionus columtianus Richardson) on Northern Vancouver Island. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Kirchhoff, Matthew 1985. A Timber Harvest Atlas for Selected Areas in Southeast Alaska (unpublished) Juneau: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . Krause, Aurel . 1956. The Tlingit Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Krieger, Herbert W. 1927. Indian Villages of Southeast Alaska. In U . S . National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. Annual Report, pp. 467-494. Washington, D.C. Langdon, Steve. 1984. Alaska Native Subsistence: Current Regulatory Regimes and Issues. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Native Review Commission. LaRusic, P. 1982. Income Security for Subsistence Hunters. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Leghorn, Ken 1985. Subsistence Land Use Mapping in Canada and Alaska: A Comparative Review of Research Methods, Applications, and Policy Contexts. Unpublished manuscript. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning. 1985. Planning for Fairness: A n Evaluation of the Canadian Native Claims Settlement Process. U B C Planning Paper #7. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. Leghorn, Ken and Matt Kookesh 1987. Timber Management and Fish and Wildlife Utilization in Selected Southeast Alaska Communities: Tenakee Springs, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 138. Juneau, Alaska: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mak i , Wilbur, D. Olson, and C. Schallau. 1985. A Dynamic Simulation Model for Analyzing the Importance of Forest Resources in Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: U .S . Dept. of Agriculture. Ministry of Forests, British Columbia. 1983. Reservation of Old Growth Timber for the Protection of Wildlife Habitat on Northern Vancouver Island. Victoria: Ministry of Forests. McNay , R.S. and R. Davies. 1984. Black-tailed Deer and Intensive Forestry Interactions - A Problem Analysis. Nanaimo: B.C. Ministeries of Forest and Environment. Niblack, Albert P. 1980. The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia. In U . S . National Museum, Annual Report, 1888, pp. 225-386. (Reprinted in 1970 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.) Washington, D.C. Oberg, Kalervo 1973. The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 118 Olson, R. L . 1967. Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit in Alaska. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pedersen, Sverre and Michael Coffing. 1984. Caribou Hunting: Land Use Dimensions and Recent Harvest Patterns in Kaktovik, Northeast Alaska. Technical Paper #92. Fairbanks: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Petroff, Ivan 1884. Alaska: Its Population, Industries and Resources. 10th Census of the U . S . Vol . 8. Washington, D. C. U . S. Printing Office. Rees, William. 1984. The Potential Role of Public Hearings in Impact Assessment. Social Impact Assessment 90/92 Summer. 1986. Stable Community Development in the North: Properties and Requirements. U B C Planning Paper #13. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. Riches, D. 1982. Northern Nomadic Hunter-Gatherers. London: Academic Press. Rochelle, Arthur James. 1980. Mature Forests, Litterfall and Patterns of Forage Quality as Factors in the Nutrition of Black-tailed Deer on Northern Vancouver Island. Bellingham: Washington State University. Sahlins, Marshall . 1972. Stone age Economies. New York: Aldihe Publishing Co. Salisbury, Richard. 1986. A Homeland for the Cree: Regional Development in James Bay, 1971-1981. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Salisbury, Richard and Elizabeth Tooker (eds.). 1984. Affluence and Cultural Survival: 1981 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Washington D.C. : American Ethnological society. Sandor, John and J . Weisberger. 1958. Timber Management Plan, Tongass National Forest, 1958-1967. Juneau, Alaska: U .S . Forest Service. Schoen, John and Matthew Kirchhoff. 1985. Seasonal Distribution and Home-range Patterns of Sitka Black-tailed Deer on Admiralty Island, Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(1): 96-103. Schoen, John, Matthew Kirchhoff and Michael Thomas. 1985. Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use by Sitka Black-tailed Deer in Southeastern Alaska. Juneau: Division of Game, A D F & G . Schon, Donald 1983. The Reflective Practicioner. New York: Basic Books. Scott, Colin. 1984. Between "Original Affluence" and Consumer Affluence: Domestic Production and Guaranteed Income of James Bay Cree Hunters. In Salisbury and Tooker, 1984. pp. 74-85. 119 Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, National Audubon Society, and Natural Resources Defense Council. 1981. A Conservationist's Guide to National Forest Planning. Washington, D.C. Stevenson, Susan. 1978. Distribution and Abundance of Arboreal Lichen and their use as Forage by Black-tailed Deer. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau, Alaska. 1984. Logging in Southeast Alaska and Its Relationship to Wildlife, Fisheries, and Economics. Unpublished report. Juneau: Territorial Sportsmen of Juneau, Alaska. U.S . Forest Service 1978. The Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities. Agriculture Handbook No. 453. Washington D.C. U .S . Dept. of Agriculture (USDA). 1979, 1980. Tongass Land Management Plan, land type timber inventory data (unpublished). Juneau: U S D A . 1984 Tongass Land Management Plan Evalutation Report. Alaska Region: U S D A . 1986 1986-90 Operating Period for the Alaska Pulp Corporation Long-term Sale Area, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau: U S D A . Usher, Peter. 1976. Evaluating Country Food in the Northern Native Economy. Arctic 29:2:105-120. Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin. Weinstein, Mart in . 1976. What the Land Provides: A n Evaluation of the Fort George Subsistence Economy and the Possible Consequences on it of the James Bay Hydroelectric Project. Montreal: Grand Council of the Crees. Wilderness Society. 1986. America's Vanishing Rain Forest: a Report on Federal Timber Management in Southeast Alaska. Washington D.C. Willms Walter David. 1971. The Influence of Forest Edge, Elevation, Aspect, Site Index, and Roads on Deer Use of Logged and Mature Forest, Northern Vancouver Island. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Wolfe, Robert J . 1983. Subsistence-based Socioeconomic Systems in Alaska: A n Introduction (unpublished). Juneau: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . 1985. Impacts of Economic Development on Subsistence Productivity: Western Region and Copper Basin Cases. Paper presented at the Alaska Anthropoligical Association meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 1985. 1986. Economic Overview of Fish and Wildlife: Statewide Overview of Subsistence and Other Local Use (unpublished). Juneau, Alaska: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . 120 1987. The Super-household: Specialization in Subsistence Economies. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . Wolfe, Robert J . and Linda J . Ellanna (compilers). 1983. Resource Use and Socioeconomic Systems: Case Studies of Fishing and Hunting in Alaskan Communities. Technical Paper #61. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, A D F & G . APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLD SURVEY: TIMBER MANAGEMENT AND FISH AND WILDLIFE UTILIZATION IN SELECTED SOUTHEAST ALASKAN COMMUNITIES Community: Tenakee Springs Household ID#: ; 121 Interviewer: Date Time 1st v i s i t 2nd v i s i t 1. HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION 3rd v i s i t replaced by household # length of interview A . Please complete the fo l lowing information for each person in your household. (# = respondent) RELATION TO RESIDENCE OF YEARS RESI- PREVIOUS ID# M/F HOUSEHOLD BIRTH MOTHER WHEN DED IN THIS RESIDENCE ETHNI-HEAD DATE YOU WERE BORN COMMUNITY (PLACE) CITY 1 household head 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B. Using Person Id#'s from the t ab le above, p lease i n d i c a t e which household members p a r t i c i p a t e d in harvest ing a c t i v i t i e s during 1984:: hunting f i s h i n g 122 C. Do you have p a r e n t s o r c h i l d r e n i n o t h e r S o u t h e a s t A l a s k a communities? If so , please l i s t communities below. D. Did you own or use any of the fo l lowing equipment in 1984? NUMBER DO YOU USE FOR TYPE OF EQUIPMENT OWNED HUNTING/FISHING? OR USED YES NO Automobile Truck S k i f f Purse Se iner /Cab in C r u i s e r / T r o l l e r Snow Machine ATV A i rp lane For each s k i f f owned, please ind icate length , type , and motor s i z e : S k i f f #1: S k i f f #2: ; 2. EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION P l e a s e comple te the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a l l j obs (cash employment) held by household members during 1984: ID# FROM JOB TITLE TABLE IN #1 # OF MONTHS # OF HOURS WORKED PER YEAR WORKED PER WEEK 123 3. FISH Did your household t ry to harvest or did you give or rece ive any type of f i s h , s h e l l f i s h , or beach food in 1984? Yes No If y e s , please complete the fo l lowing t a b l e s : A. Use of Salmon From Commercial Catch NUMBER REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL TRIED TO CATCH FOR HOME USE SPECIES USED* HARVEST** power hand g i l l yes no yes no seine t r o l l t r o l l net King (chinook) Chum (dog) Pink (humpies) Red (sockeye) S i l v e r (coho) Other or Unknown * Used salmon from your commercial catch? * * T r ied to harvest commercially? B. Use of Salmon From Non-Commercial Catch # HARVEST NON-COMMERCIALLY SPECIES TRIED TO BY GEAR TYPE: # OF USED* HARVEST** rod & g i l l spear RECVD GAVE SALMON yes no yes no seine t r o l l ree l net / g a f f other yes no yes no DESIRED, P B King (chinook) Chum (dog) Kokanee Pink (humpies) Red (sockeye) S i l v e r (coho) Other or Unknown * Used salmon from a non-commercial catch? * * T r i ed to harvest non-commercially? * * * Spec i fy purse seine or beach se ine . * * * * Dragg ing a l i n e & hook from a moving b o a t , rod & r e e l means everything e l s e . C. Fresh Water F ish SPECIES Trout Other Freshwater F i s h D. Marine F ish Smelt Herr ing Sturgeon Eels TRIED TO NUMBER USED HARVEST HARVESTED yes no yes no 124 RECD GAVE yes no yes no Cutthroat Dol ly Varden Rainbow Steelhead Other or Unknown Grayl ing Northern Pike Whitef ish Other or Unknown TRIED TO AMOUNT SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED yes no yes no (uni ts) Candle F i s h (Capelin) Hooligan (Eulachon) Surf Smelt ( S i l v e r Smelt) Other or Unknown P a c i f i c Herring Herring Eggs Herring Eggs On Kelp* Other or Unknown Green White Other or Unknown Blenny (Pr ick le Back) P a c i f i c Lamprey Other or Unknown RECD GAVE yes no yes no # HARVESTED * or other substrate 125 TRIED TO NUMBER SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED RECD GAVE yes no yes no yes no yes no Flounders Flounder Sole Hal ibut Hal ibut (#) ( lbs) Cod Ling Cod P a c i f i c Cod (Gray Cod) Rock Grenl ing Tom Cod Whiting (SlmJm or WllEydPick) S a b l e f i s h (Black Cod) Other or Unknown Rock F i s h Blue Rockf ish Red Snapper Sea Bass (Black Bass) Sea Perch Other or Unknown Skates Skate Sharks Dog Fish Salmon Shark Other or Unknown Tuna and Blue F in Mackerel Mackerel Other or Unknown S c u l p i n Buf fa lo (bullhead) Scu lp in I r i sh Lord Other or Unknown Other Mari ne F ish E . M a r i n e I n v e r t e b r a t e s 126 TRIED TO 5 GALLON SPECIES USED HARVEST BUCKETS RECD GAVE y e s no ye s no HARVESTED y e s no y e s no Clams B a s k e t C o c k l e and C o c k l e s H e a r t C o c k l e B u t t e r Clam B l u e M u s s e l Geoduck Horse Clam R a z o r Clam O t h e r o r Unknown Crab Box Crab Dungeness Crab K i n g Crab Tanner Crab O t h e r o r Unknown NUMBER HARVESTED 5 GALLON BUCKETS HARVESTED O t h e r A b a l o n e S h e l l f i s h B l a c k Gumboot ( B l a c k C h i t o n ) Red Gumboot (Red Ldy S l p r ) L i m p e t N e e t s (Sea U r c h i n ) Rock O y s t e r (Rock S c a l l o p ) Whelks ( S n a i l s ) O t h e r o r Unknown Marine Invertebrates Cont. 127 TRIED TO AMOUNT SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED RECD GAVE yes no yes no (Units) yes no yes no Other Octopus (#) Invertebrates (Devil Fish) Sea Cucumber (5 gal (Yen) bckt) Sea Sca l lops Shrimp Squid (#) Other or Unknown F. Marine Plants TRIED TO AMOUNT SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED RECD GAVE yes no yes no (Units) yes no yes no Seaweed Black Seaweed Sea Ribbons Other Seaweed Kelp Bul l Kelp Other or Unknown 128 MAMMALS Did your household t ry to harvest or did you give or rece ive any type of mammals in 1984? Yes No If y e s , please complete the fo l lowing t a b l e s : Deer Did you use deer las t year? Yes No How many deer did a l l members of your household take ( to ta l ) l as t year? How many of these deer were taken on the . . . ( ind ica te # harvested O t r i e d without success blank=did not t ry ) SKIFF ACCESS BEACH MUSKEG ALPINE FOREST CLEARCUT ROAD CABIN CRUISER/TROLLER/SEINER ACCESS BEACH MUSKEG ALPINE FOREST CLEARCUT ROAD AUTO/TRUCK ACCESS BEACH MUSKEG ALPINE FOREST CLEARCUT ROAD OTHER ACCESS (speci fy ) BEACH MUSKEG ALPINE FOREST CLEARCUT ROAD Did you receive any deer from another household? Yes No Did you give any deer to another household? Yes No Did you use deer parts fo r anything besides food? Yes No Did you use or give deer fo r a p o t l a t c h , par ty , or other ce lebra t ion? Yes . No If there were no l i m i t a t i o n s set by r e g u l a t i o n , about how many deer would your household have harvested l a s t year? (# of deer) B. Marine Animals TRIED TO NUMBER NUMBER USED SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED FOR RECD GAVE yes no yes no FURS FOOD yes no yes no Belukha Fur Seal Harbor Seal Sea Lion Sea Ot ter Other C. Land Mammals TRIED TO NUMBER NUMBER USED SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED FOR RECD GAVE yes no yes no FURS FOOD yes no yes no Moose Black Bear Brown Bear Mountain Goat Wolf Coyote Red Fox Lynx Wolverine Land Otter Beaver Porcupine Muskrat Marmot Weasel Mink Marten Hare (Rabbit) S q u i r r e l Other 130 5. BIRDS/EGGS Did your household try to harvest or did you give or rece ive b i rds or b i r d eggs during 1984? Yes No If y e s , please complete the fo l lowing t a b l e : TRIED TO NUMBER SPECIES USED HARVEST HARVESTED RECD GAVE yes no yes no yes no yes no Upland Ptarmigan Bi rds Grouse Eggs Other Geese Black Brant Canada Emperor Snow White Fronted Eggs Other or Unknown Swans Whist l ing Swan Trumpeter Swan Eggs Other or Unknown Cranes/ Great Blue Herons Heron Sandhi l l Crane Eggs Other or Unknown Ducks/ Ducks Sea Ducks Eggs Seabirds G u l l s Terns Cormorants Grebes Loons Puf f ins Eggs Other 131 PLANTS A. Did members of your household harvest or give or rece ive b e r r i e s in 1984? Yes No If y e s , how many quarts did you harvest? give? receive? B. Did members of your household harvest or give or rece ive p lants in 1984? Yes No If y e s , how much did you harvest? give? rece ive? C. Did members of your household gather wood during 1984? Yes No If y e s , how much did you gather? Firewood (cords) House logs (number of logs) Other (speci fy ) (cords) MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS A. P l e a s e c i r c l e the range below which best r e p r e s e n t s y o u r household's annual gross income: a. $ 0 1. $ 50,000 - 54,999 b. $ 1 - 4,999 m. $ 55,000 - 59,999 c . $ 5,000 - 9,999 n. $ 60,000 - 64,999 d . $ 10,000 - 14,999 0. $ 65,000 - 69,999 e. $ 15,000 - 19,999 P- $ 70,000 - 74,999 f . $ 20,000 - 24,999 q. $ 75,000 - 79,999 g- $ 25,000 - 29,999 r. $ 80,000 - 84,999 h. $ 30,000 - 34,999 s . $ 85,000 - 89,999 i . $ 35,000 - 39,999 t . $ 90,000 - 94,999 $ 40,000 - 44,999 u. $ 95,000 - 99,999 k. $ 45,000 - 49,999 V. $100,000 or over B. Approximately what percent of your t o t a l household income in 1984 came from each of the fo l lowing c a t e g o r i e s : (should t o t a l 100%) commercial f i s h i n g r e t a i l business logging const ruct ion longshoring t rans fe r payments government serv ices other Supplement # 4 132 TENAKEE 1. Indian River A. How did you hunt deer in the Indian River area during these time per iods? BEACH FOREST- MUSKEG ALPINE ROAD CLEAR DIDN'T WOOD CUT 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S B. Has logging in the Indian River area changed your hunting p r a c t i c e s ? Please e x p l a i n . C. How would you descr ibe the deer populat ion in the Indian River .area during these time per iods? GOOD DEER FAIR DEER POOR DEER DON'T KNOW POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S 2. Kadashan A. How d id you hunt deer in the Kadashan area during these time per iods? BEACH FOREST- MUSKEC ALPINE ROAD CLEAR DIDN'T WOOD CUT HUNT 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S Supplement 4 contd . 133 TENAKEE B. Has logging in the Kadashan area changed your hunting p r a c t i c e s ? Please e x p l a i n . C. How would you descr ibe the deer populat ion in the Kadashan area during these time periods? GOOD DEER FAIR DEER POOR DEER DON'T KNOW POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S 3. Corner Bay A. How did you hunt deer in the Corner Bay area during these time per iods? BEACH FOREST- MUSKEC ALPINE ROAD CLEAR DIDN'T WOOD CUT HUNT 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S B. Has logging in the Corner Bay area changed your hunting p r a c t i c e s ? Please e x p l a i n . Supplement # 4 cont . 134 TENAKEE C. How would you descr ibe the deer populat ion in the Corner Bay area during these time periods? GOOD DEER FAIR DEER POOR DEER DON'T KNOW POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S 4. South Passage Pt . A. How did you hunt deer in the South Passage Pt . area during these time per iods? BEACH FOREST- MUSKEC ALPINE ROAD CLEAR DIDN'T WOOD CUT HUNT 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S B. Has logging in the South Passage Pt . area changed your hunting p r a c t i c e s ? Please e x p l a i n . C. How would you descr ibe the deer populat ion in the South Passage Pt . area during these time p e r i o d s . GOOD DEER FAIR DEER POOR DEER DON'T KNOW POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S Supplement #1 TENAKEE (Show respondent map, and ask q u e s t i o n s . ) 1. Which areas have you ever used? (For each areas used . . . ) 2. During what years have you used fo r harvest ing resources? 3. If you have stopped using , why? 4. What d i f f e r e n t ways have you accessed during the years you used AREA USED Y N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Fa lse Bay/ Iyoukeen Cover Freshwater Bay East Point H i l l Point -Town Indian River 10 Mi le Spi t -15 Mi le S o i l Red Wing Mt. Head of Tenakee Inlet Goose F la ts Long Bay Seal Bay -L i t t l e Seal Bay Sa l te ry Bay Crab Bay Kadashan Corner Bay Trap Bay South Passage Point Basket Bay -L i t t l e Bsket Bay Moore Mt. Supplement #1 TENAKEE (Show respondent map, and ask quest ions . ) 1. Which areas have you ever used? (For each areas used . . . ) 2. During what years have you used " for harvesting resources? 3. If you have stopped using , why? 4. What d i f f e r e n t ways have you accessed during the years you used AREA USED Y N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Town to 15 mi . Sp i t Town to East Point APPENDIX II. Household u s e , h a r v e s t , g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g of f i s h and w i l d l i f e resources by random survey households, Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES RESOURCE HARVEST LEVELS E d i b l e Pounds CATEGORY Us i ng P e r c e n t of R e c e i v i n g Households G i v i n g H a r v e s t i n g No. Harvested Per Household • MEAN MAX I MUM E d i b l e Pounds Harvested Harvested Per Household MEAN MAX TOTAL Harvested Per A c t i v e HH MEAN # HH NON-COMMERCIAL SALMON King 79 63 13 <»2 3 35 578 1007 101 10 Sockeye 79 k6 21 33 15 220 85 1232 256 8 Si 1ver 33 13 <• 21 1 7 7 61 157 31 5 SALMON RETAINED FROM COMMERCIAL CATCH King - - 8 * 5 6 83 H 9 75 2 Sockeye <» - - <• 6 1 3*» 3i» 3<» 1 S i l v e r h - ' - <t * 2 1 17 17 17 1 TOTAL SALMON 88 71 38 63 H 2 1232 3<t07 227 15 OTHER FISH D o l l y Varden 5<» 33 8 25 5 <»0 7 56 171 2<» 6 Ste e l h e a d k <t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hoo l i g a n Pac. H e r r i n g H e r r i n g s Eggs it 0 0 <t 1 15 1 15 15 15 1 <t6 33 8 13 H 300 H 300 3<»0 113 3 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H a l i b u t 92 71 33 5k 55 500 55 500 1309 101 13 Red Snapper 5*» 25 <• 29 3 25 8 75 189 27 7 P a c i f i c Cod 4 - - *» - - - - - - 1 CATEGORY TOTAL 92 83 58 8<» 931 202<« 135 U Notes: A dash ( -) i n d i c a t e s u n a v a i l a b l e or m i s s i n g d a t a , a s t e r i s k (*) I n d i c a t e s 1 ess than one. Harvests recorded i n pounds. A c t i v e Household i s one which h a r v e s t e d t h e s p e c i e s . APPENDIX II ( c o n t i n u e d , page 2 ) . Household use , ha rves t , g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g of f i s h and w i l d l i f e resources by random survey households, Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES RESOURCE HARVEST LEVELS P e r c e n t of Households U s i n g R e c e i v i n g G i v i n g H a r v e s t i n g CATEGORY No. Harvested Per Household MEAN MAXIMUM E d i b l e Pounds Harvested Harvested Per Household MEAN MAX TOTAL E d i b l e Pounds Harvested Per A c t i v e HH MEAN « HH SHELLFISH 2 Basket c o c k l e s B u t t e r clams^ 50 8 17 38 2 33 it 66 98 11 9 71 13 13 58 3 33 6 66 136 10 1<» Horse clams <• k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dungeness c r a b 92 58 29 50 20 150 it9 375 1173 98 12 K i n g c r a b 67 50 <« 13 9 200 63 1U00 1519 506 3 Tanner c r a b 8 0 k * 1 * 2 2 2 1 Octopus 8 - - - - - - - - - -Shrimp ^ <»6 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B l a c k gumboot 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CATEGORY TOTAL 96 79 38 67 122 1907 2928 183 16 MARINE PLANTS^ B l a c k seaweed it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B u l l k e l p 8 - - it * It 3 80 80 80 1 Other 8 - - - - - - - - - -CATEGORY TOTAL 17 <> 0 it 3 80 80 80 1 MARINE MAMMALS Harbor s e a l 13 13 it * 2 8 180 180 180 1 Notes: A dash (-) I n d i c a t e s u n a v a i l a b l e o r m i s s i n g d a t a , a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s l e s s than one. 2 H a r v e s t s r e c o r d e d In 5 g a l l o n b uckets. A c t i v e Household Is one which h a r v e s t e d t h e s p e c i e s . APPENDIX II ( c o n t i n u e d , page 3) . Household use , harves t , g i v i n g and rece iv ing of f i s h and w i l d l i f e resources by random survey households, Tenakee, 1984 (N=24) HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES RESOURCE HARVEST LEVELS E d i b l e Pounds Pe r c e n t of Households No. Harvested E d i b l e Pounds Harvested H a r v e s t e d Using R e c e i v i n g G i v i n g Harvest!ng Per Household Harvested Per Household Per A c t i v e I H HH CATEGORY MEAN MAXIMUM MEAN MAX TOTAL MEAN » HH LAND MAMMALS Deer 83 58 «i2 50 2 16 130 1280 3120 260 12 Moose 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown bear *» k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mink <* 0 0 *» 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 Marten *» 0 0 i* * 5 0 0 0 0 1 CATEGORY TOTAL 88 63 ki 5*» 130 1280 3120 2<<0 13 BIRDS Canada goose 0 0 i* * 1 * 5 5 5 1 Ducks 0 0 <t * 2 * 3 3 3 1 CATEGORY TOTAL k 0 0 <» * 8 8 8 1 PLANTS AND BERRIES P l a n t s 33 <• 0 33 28 28 83 10 8 B e r r i e s 83 13 25 83 7 50 7 50 158 8 20 CATEGORY TOTAL 83 17 25 83 10 50 2*»1 12 20 TOTAL ALL RESOURCES 96 92 71 88 <»99.5 5350 11987 570.9 21 Notes: A dash (-) i ndi c a t e s u n a v a i l a b l e or m i s s i n g d a t a , a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s l e s s than one Har v e s t s recorded i n q u a r t s . A c t i v e Household i s one which h a r v e s t e d the s p e c i e s . 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items