A STUDY OF TRADITIONAL USE OF BIRDS’ EGGS BY THE HUNA TLINGIT 

EUGENE S. HUNN 

DARRYLL R. JOHNSON 

PRISCILLA N. RUSSELL 

THOMAS F. THORNTON 

Technical Report NPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-2002-02 

NPS D-113 

National Park Service 

Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

College of Forest Resources 

Box 352100 

Seattle, Washington 98195-2100 

i
ii

The NPS Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (NPS PNW CESU) is 

located in the University of Washington (UW) College of Forest Resources. The NPS 

PNW CESU is part of a larger partnership involving 7 federal agencies, 12 universities 

and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The PNW CESU was created in October 

of 2000 to provide research, technical assistance and education to enhance management 

of natural and cultural resources on public lands in the Pacific Northwest. The applied 

social science program associated with the NPS PNW CESU has been operating out of 

the UW College of Forest Resources since 1970 when it was a part of the Cooperative 

Park Studies Unit (CPSU). 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cascadia Field Station (previously known as the 

USGS University of Washington Field Station) also traces its history to the NPS CPSU 

established by cooperative agreement between NPS and UW in 1970. In 1997, the CPSU 

was transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey and administered out of the Biological 

Resources Division (BRD), Forest Rangeland Ecosystem Center (FRESC) located in 

Corvallis, Oregon. The mission of FRESC and that of Cascadia Field Station is to work 

with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the 

sound management and conservation of our nation’s biological resources. Cascadia Field 

Station programs are developed to provide the appropriate depth and breadth of objective 

science to meet the information needs of resource managers who encounter complex 

environmental problems driven by myriad biological, physical, social, and economic 

forces. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by NPS, USGS, or any of the other agencies or institutions 

associated with this research. The contents of the report do not necessarily reflect the 

views and policies of the USGS, NPS or any of the agencies associated with this report. 

Copies of this Technical Report are available from: 

Technical Information Center 

Denver Service Center 

National Park Service 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225-0287 

Phone: 303-969-2130 

Cover Photograph: Seven-year old Phyllis Mills on South Marble Island in 1959. 

“Mom’s little helper” is holding two gull eggs. Photo courtesy of the Pat Mills family. 
A STUDY OF TRADITIONAL USE OF BIRDS’ EGGS 

 BY THE HUNA TLINGIT 

EUGENE S. HUNN 

DARRYLL R. JOHNSON 

PRISCILLA N. RUSSELL 

THOMAS F. THORNTON 

With Assistance by 

KATHY FALK 

Technical Report NPS/CCSOU/NRTR-2002-02 

NPS D-113 

September 2002 

Cooperative Agreement No. 1443 CA-9000-95-0019 

Subagreement 1, Modification 3 

National Park Service, University of Washington 

This research was supported by Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, the USGS/ 

BRD/ FRESC Cascadia Field Station and the NPS Pacific Northwest Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Unit. The USGS Cascadia Field Station and the 

Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit are housed 

in the University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 

iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLES............................................................................................................................ X

MAPS ...............................................................................................................................XI

PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................................... XII

LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HOONAH INDIAN ASSOCIATION

........................................................................................................................................XIII

LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF GLACIER 

BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE ............................................................ XIV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... XVII

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1

Administrative Background of the Project...................................................................... 1 

Project funding............................................................................................................. 7

Project personnel ......................................................................................................... 7

Research Objectives and Questions................................................................................. 8 

II. RESEARCH METHODS......................................................................................... 11

Researchers' Interaction with GBNPP Staff and the Hoonah Community ................ 12

Selection of Consultants................................................................................................ 14 

Semi-structured Interviews............................................................................................ 14 

Interviews and Transcriptions ....................................................................................... 15 

Two fieldwork periods................................................................................................ 15

Interview transcriptions............................................................................................. 16

Consultants' review of transcriptions......................................................................... 16

Analysis of the Data ...................................................................................................... 16 

Limitations of the Interview Data.................................................................................. 18 

III. A SKETCH OF HUNA TLINGIT SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND 

SUBSISTANCE PRACTICES PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GLACIER 

BAY NATIONAL PARK ............................................................................................... 23

Who are the Huna Tlingit? ............................................................................................ 23 

A Sketch of Huna Tlingit History ................................................................................. 32 

Huna Tlingit Subsistence in Glacier Bay: An Historical Perspective .......................... 35 

Huna Tlingit Subsistence Patterns................................................................................. 40 

v
Seasonal Harvest Patterns.............................................................................................. 45 

Bird Egg Harvests and Traditional Land and Resource Rights..................................... 49 

“Traditional Egg-Harvesting Practices of the Huna Tlingit” ........................................ 53 

IV. SUMMARY OF THE BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE CONCERNING THE 

POPULATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RELEVANT BIRD SPECIES 

WITHIN THE HUNA TLINGIT TRADITIONAL TRIBAL TERRITORY ........... 55

CHARADRIIFORMES................................................................................................. 60 

LARIDAE: GULLS AND TERNS ............................................................................... 60 

Glaucous-winged [Larus glaucescens] and Herring Gull [L. argentatus].............. 60

Mew Gull [Larus canus] ........................................................................................... 66

Black-legged Kittiwake [Rissa tridactyla]............................................................... 66

Arctic [Sterna pardisaea] and Aleutian Tern [S. aleutica]...................................... 67

CHARADRII: “SHOREBIRDS” .................................................................................. 68 

HAEMATOPODIDAE.................................................................................................. 68 

Black Oystercatcher [Haematopus bachmani] ........................................................ 68

ALCAE; ALCIDAE ...................................................................................................... 69 

Tufted Puffin [Fratercula cirrhata] and Horned Puffin [F. corniculata] .............. 69

Marbled Murrelet [Brachyramphus marmoratus] and Kittlitz’s Murrelet [B. 

brevirostris]................................................................................................................ 70

Pigeon Guillemot [Cepphus columba]...................................................................... 70

Common Murre [Uria aalge]................................................................................... 71

PELICANIFORMES..................................................................................................... 72 

PHALACROCORACIDAE: CORMORANTS............................................................. 72 

Pelagic Cormorant [Phalacrocorax pelagicus] ....................................................... 72

ANATIFORMES........................................................................................................... 73 

ANATIDAE: DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS........................................................... 73 

Canada Goose [Branta canadensis] ......................................................................... 73

Mallard [Anas platyrhynchos] .................................................................................. 74

Other Duck Species.................................................................................................. 74

GALLIFORMES ........................................................................................................... 75 

PHASIANIDAE: GROUSE AND PTARMIGANS...................................................... 75 

V. HUNA TLINGIT EGG-HARVESTING STRATEGIES, INCLUDING TIME, 

PLACE, AND MANNER OF HARVEST..................................................................... 77

vi
Egg-gathering Sites ....................................................................................................... 77 

Gull Egg-gathering Site Selection................................................................................. 82 

Productivity of the site ............................................................................................... 83

Accessibility of the site ............................................................................................... 83

Accessibility of eggs................................................................................................... 84

Quality of eggs ........................................................................................................... 85

Attachment to site....................................................................................................... 85

Spiritual significance of site....................................................................................... 86

Timing of Birds Egg Harvests....................................................................................... 87 

Family Outings to Glacier Bay for Egg Gathering........................................................ 88 

A time for children and families................................................................................. 89

Harvesting Eggs While Commercial Fishing ................................................................ 90 

Teaching Children How to Harvest Eggs and to Respect Nature ................................. 91 

Individual thanksgiving rituals .................................................................................. 94

Consequences of not respecting nature...................................................................... 96

Gathering the eggs..................................................................................................... 97

Harvesting other foods while gathering eggs ............................................................ 98

Summary of Huna Egg-harvesting Traditions............................................................... 99 

Huna Tlingit Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Gull Egg Laying and Migrations100 

Gull egg laying timing.............................................................................................. 102

Gulls as migratory species....................................................................................... 102

Harvest and Conservation Practices............................................................................ 103 

Varied strategies for taking eggs from the nests...................................................... 104

Summary and discussion of egg-harvesting strategies ............................................ 107

Leaving one or more eggs in the nest....................................................................... 110

A Discussion on the Potential Impacts of Leaving Eggs in Nests .............................. 111 

Taking eggs without developed embryos: the “water test” ..................................... 112

Desire for eggs with or without developed embryos affects harvesting practices... 112

Clearing brush to maintain nesting ground............................................................. 114

Number of people or parties who could gather eggs not normatively limited......... 114

Factors limiting Huna Tlingit gull egg gathering.................................................... 115

Analysis of Factors Known to Have Affected or Suspected of Affecting Gull Nesting 

Success ........................................................................................................................ 118 

vii
The impact of vegetative succession on Glaucous-winged Gull nesting sites ......... 118

The impact of Huna egg harvesting on Glaucous-winged Gull nesting success ..... 119

The impact of non-human predators........................................................................ 123

Sustainability of Marble Islands Harvests................................................................... 124 

How many gull eggs did the Huna people take before being stopped by federal 

intervention, and how many do they use today? ...................................................... 124

Estimation of gull egg harvests prior to NPS enforcement...................................... 126

Were Gull Egg Harvests by the Huna Tlingit “Sustainable”?..................................... 129 

VI. PATTERNS OF CONSUMPTION OF GULL EGGS BY HUNA TLINGIT, 

INCLUDING PREPARATION, PRESERVATION AND DISTRIBUTION......... 131

Transporting Gull Eggs to Hoonah and Their Distribution......................................... 131 

Sharing eggs............................................................................................................. 132

Were enough gull eggs available from Glacier Bay for widespread distribution in 

Hoonah?................................................................................................................... 134

Cooking and preparation ......................................................................................... 137

Preservation of eggs................................................................................................. 138

Medicinal uses of gull eggs...................................................................................... 141

Gull eggs and potlatches.......................................................................................... 142

Trading of gull eggs................................................................................................. 143

Permission given to non-Huna Tlingit to gather eggs............................................. 144

Estimates of the Nutritional Contributions of Bird Eggs to the Huna Tlingit Diet..... 144 

VII. THE IMPACT OF REGULATION OF BIRDS’ EGGS HARVESTS ON THE 

HUNA TLINGIT........................................................................................................... 147

Migratory Bird Treaty Act........................................................................................... 147 

NPS Management and the Huna Tlingit, 1925 to 1974............................................... 149 

Huna Gull Egg Harvesting and Federal Enforcement of Harvesting Prohibitions ..... 152 

Belief that NPS or Coast Guard Destroyed Gull Eggs................................................ 153 

Reactions by Consultants of the HTEES to the Prohibition of Harvesting Certain Food 

Resources from Glacier Bay - with Emphasis on Gull Eggs....................................... 155 

VIII. HUNA TLINGIT GULL EGG HARVEST STUDY CONCLUSIONS......... 165

Gathering sites as cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties .................. 167 

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 169

viii
APPENDIX 1: SUBAGREEMENT, RELEVANT SECTIONS ONLY.................. 179

APPENDIX 2: HUNA TLINGIT EGG COLLECTING INTERVIEW GUIDE.... 183

APPENDIX 3: HUNA TLINGIT CONTACTS......................................................... 187

APPENDIX 4: SITES USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUBSISTENCE EGG 

HARVESTS BY HUNA TLINGIT PEOPLE............................................................. 189

APPENDIX 5: SCIENTIFIC AND TLINGIT SPECIES NAMES ......................... 195

APPENDIX 6: MAP OF HUNA TLINGIT TRIBAL TERRITORY, 

GOLDSCHMIDT AND HAAS.................................................................................... 199

ix
TABLES 

Table 1. Some Huna Tlingit "Settlements," "Villages" and "Forts," Past and Present

.................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 2. Huna Population Estimates 1740-1938, from de Laguna (1990:205), Boyd 

(1990) and Catton (1995). ......................................................................................... 32

Table 3. Huna Tlingit/Glacier Bay Historical Timeline. .............................................. 33

Table 4. Species of Aquatic Birds Known to Nest or Suspected of Nesting in Glacier 

Bay National Park (Checklist, GBNPP 1986).*....................................................... 56

Table 5. Numbers of Nesting Seabirds Along the Outer Coast Between Lituya Bay and 

Lisianski Inlet (area 010) During a Boat Survey in 1982 (Sowls et al. 1982). ....... 58

Table 6. Bird Species with Eggs Reported or Suspected to Have Been Harvested by the 

Huna Tlingit. ............................................................................................................. 59

Table 7. Sites within Traditional Territory Huna Used for Egg Harvests. .................. 81

Table 8. Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) for Southeastern Alaska, 1997 (American 

Birds: Ninety-Eighth Christmas Bird Count, pp. 95-101)..................................... 103

Table 9. Distribution of Egg-gathering Strategies Reported by Huna Tlingit 

Consultants.............................................................................................................. 108

Table 10. Last Reported Egg Harvests......................................................................... 125

Table 11. Estimates of Huna Marble Islands Egg Harvests....................................... 128

Table 12. An Estimate of the Nutritional Value of Various Eggs per 100 grams (3.5 

ounces)..................................................................................................................... 146

Table 13. Cross References for Common Names, Tlingit Names and Scientific Names 

of the Various Species Mentioned in this Report................................................... 195

x
MAPS 

MAP 1: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Regional Perspective ............... 2

MAP 2: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve with Historical Monument 

Boundaries .................................................................................................................. 5

MAP 3. Sites within Traditional Huna Territory Used for Egg Collecting.............. 79

xi
xii

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Cover Photograph: Seven-year old Phyllis Mills on South Marble Island in 1959. 

Photograph 1. Village of Khart Heenee [Ghatheeni], Bartlett Cove c. 1888............ 27

Photograph 2. Village of Hoonah c. Early 20th Century. ........................................... 29

Photograph 3. Glaucous-winged Gulls......................................................................... 61

Photograph 4. North Marble Island, c. 1998............................................................... 64

Photograph 5. South Marble Island - Boat Access Points, c. 2002............................ 78

Photograph 6. Sea Lion Haul-out, South Marble Island............................................ 78

Photograph 7. Glaucous-winged Gull Nest with Three-egg Clutch on Cliffs, South 

Marble Island c. 1998............................................................................................... 84

Photograph 8. Gilbert Mills Sr. and Tom Mills “Fixing Lunch”, North Marble 

Island c. 1960. Photo courtesy of the Pat Mills family......................................... 90

Photograph 9. Katherine B. Mills and Gilbert Mills Jr. North Marble Island, c. 

1960. Photo courtesy of the Pat Mills family. ....................................................... 92
LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE 

HOONAH INDIAN ASSOCIATION 

xiii
LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF 

GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE 

United States Department of the 

Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

P.O. Box 140 

Gustavus, AK 99826-0140 

Tel: 907-697-2230 

Fax: 907-697-2654

March 14, 2003 

Dear Reader: 

Among the many rich resources of Glacier Bay National Park, the large, brown-speckled eggs of the 

glaucous-winged gulls are a prized food and a vital part of the traditional culture of the Huna Tlingit 

people. These eggs, once joyously harvested by family groups during their first spring outings, are now 

also a touchstone for a strengthening relationship between the National Park Service (NPS) – charged with 

managing all the resources and values of Glacier Bay – and the Huna Tlingit people for whom Glacier Bay 

is homeland. 

I am very pleased to introduce “A Study of Traditional Use of Birds’ Eggs by the Huna Tlingit,” a 

publication that documents the cultural significance and historic use pattern of bird eggs by the Tlingit 

community of Hoonah within the Glacier Bay National Park and environs. This document coalesces the 

efforts of many including the University of Washington, the Huna Tlingit, and the NPS. I especially wish 

to thank the people of Hoonah, who openly and willingly shared their traditional knowledge and patiently 

worked with project and NPS staff to ensure that the study accurately and fully reflects the Tlingit practice 

of egg harvest. I also very much appreciate the professionalism, expertise, and insights of the authors and 

other University of Washington staff who spent many months gathering, sifting through, and synthesizing 

ethnographic and biological information related to this practice. The resulting report is the sole published 

documentation of Native gull egg harvest in Southeast Alaska and contributes greatly to the growing body 

of knowledge regarding Huna Tlingit culture. 

The National Park Service initially became interested in the traditional practice of gull egg harvest when an 

NPS-sponsored 1997 workshop involving tribal officials and a council of elders identified legal access to 

gull eggs as the highest-priority desire of the Huna Tlingit. At that workshop, NPS pledged to work with 

the federally recognized tribal government of the local Tlingit Natives, the Hoonah Indian Association, to 

explore ways in which this tradition might legally resume. The resulting working group, called Woosh’ 

ge’een (Tlingit for “Working Together”) outlined a step-by-step process for moving toward this goal 

including the completion of: 1) an ethnography to document Tlingit traditional knowledge regarding egg 

collecting in Glacier Bay, 2) a biological study designed to model the potential effects of egg harvest on 

glaucous-winged gull colonies at South Marble Island, the principle collection site for the Huna Tlingit, 

and 3) a framework for resolving legal and/or regulatory aspects of the issue. 

xiv
This publication amply fulfills the first step in the process. A biological study contracted for by NPS has 

also been completed; publication is pending, but preliminary results indicate that some level of egg harvest 

can be sustained at South Marble Island. While we now understand that the collection and consumption of 

gull eggs is an integral part of the Tlingit people’s heritage and have scientific evidence that limited harvest 

can occur without affecting park gull populations, we also recognize that legal and regulatory hurdles must 

still be resolved. The NPS will complete an Environmental Assessment analyzing the potential effects of 

egg harvest on all park purposes and values and will continue to work with the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Department of Interior, and the Alaska delegation to pursue any necessary legal and regulatory 

processes. 

I am confident that the process we embarked upon in 1997 – the process of “working together” as 

scientists, anthropologists, managers, native people’s, and members of the public to combine both 

traditional and scientific knowledge in park management – will bring sound solutions to this and other 

critical park issues. I believe that this effort signals a new era of cooperation and understanding between 

all involved and look forward to future collaborative efforts aimed at fostering and strengthening the Huna 

Tlingit ties to their ancestral homelands in Glacier Bay – a tie that is, in itself, one of many rich resources 

of Glacier Bay. 

We hope that you enjoy – and learn from – “A Study of Traditional Use of Birds’ Eggs by the Huna 

Tlingit.” 

Sincerely, 

Tomie Patrick Lee 

Superintendent 

xv
xvi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Don Callaway, Wayne Howell, and Mary Beth Moss of the National Park Service 

provided helpful review comments on various drafts of the report. Wayne Howell 

provided helpful guidance and assistance in coordinating the project in Hoonah. Mr. 

Howell’s input was especially beneficial in preparing the section of the report discussing 

the history of the National Park Service and its interaction with the Huna. Theodore 

Catton, Robert Bosworth, and Robert Schroeder provided peer review for the final draft 

report. Stephani Zador provided very helpful guidance in identifying and interpreting 

relevant research articles in the area of gull biology and also provided review comments 

on the final draft. Jane Swanson assisted with the coding of interview data used in Table 

9. 

Robert Corbett and Kevin Hackett copy-edited versions of the report draft. 

Ivonne Ortiz, Kristin Anderson and Cherry Johnson assisted with word-processing, 

editing and formatting. Bette Welles performed myriad administrative and clerical tasks. 

For the final report Tracy Woodman provided editorial proofing, and Kelley M. Duffield 

performed layout, graphics, and print production tasks. 

 Finally, the authors acknowledge with great respect the contributions the Huna 

people made to this report, which includes many hours spent in interviews and reviewing 

the draft report. 

xvii
xviii
I. INTRODUCTION 

This report describes the Huna Tlingit’s traditional use of birds’ eggs, focusing on 

Glaucous-winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens). It discusses the cultural and nutritional 

significance of these harvests; compares traditional ecological knowledge pertaining to 

Glaucous-winged Gulls of the Huna Tlingit with existing biological literature; and maps 

locations of sites used by the Huna Tlingit to gather birds’ eggs. The data reported were 

collected as part of a larger study: The Huna Tlingit Egg and Ethno-ornithology Study 

(HTEES). Special emphasis in this report is placed upon harvests of gull eggs within the 

boundaries of what is now Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GBNPP). (See Maps 

1 and 2.) The ethnographic information reported herein was collected in an extensive 

series of interviews conducted in the village of Hoonah, Alaska, throughout the months 

of May, June, October, and November of 1998. The research findings are intended to be 

relevant to GBNPP managers and to the people of Hoonah in ongoing discussions 

regarding the traditional and contemporary use of natural resources within GBNPP by the 

Huna Tlingit. It should also serve National Park Service interpreters in their efforts to 

educate park visitors about the cultural relevance of Glacier Bay to the Huna Tlingit. 

Administrative Background of the Project 

In September of 1997, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve conducted a twoday facilitated workshop at Bartlett Cove titled "Traditional Ecological Knowledge." In 

attendance were twenty representatives from Hoonah (including leaders from all of the 

Huna clans and board members of the Hoonah Indian Associations), a representative 

1
MAP 1: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Regional Perspective 

Map derived from Catton 1995. 

2
from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), six National Park Service 

(NPS) employees, and professional anthropologists who have worked in Hoonah. 

Although the original intent of the workshop was to discuss ways in which traditional 

ecological knowledge could be gathered and used in park management, from the outset 

the meeting became a forum for a much-needed dialogue between the NPS and the Huna 

Tlingit. Over the course of two days, the Huna Tlingit expressed various concerns about 

their lack of access to important traditional resources in GBNPP. Some resources they 

identified, such as berries, seaweed, fish, and shellfish, may be collected under current 

regulations. Many Huna were uncertain about what is allowed and what is prohibited 

under current regulations, and so the group discussed ways to make pertinent information 

available in Hoonah. 

Ultimately, the Huna representatives were unwilling to provide traditional 

ecological knowledge to GBNPP until there was movement on several resource access 

issues, including gull egg harvesting. At the end of the two-day meeting, the Huna 

Tlingits and NPS generated a prioritized list of those critical resources. Gull eggs were at 

the top of that list. A seven-person committee was chosen from the workshop 

participants to explore the issue of gathering gull eggs, an important Huna Tlingit cultural 

activity. This committee was comprised of four Hoonah representatives, two clan elders 

and two tribal government officials, and three NPS employees. The committee, which 

chose to call itself “Woosh'ge'een” (Tlingit for "Working Together"), identified the first 

step in this process: ethnography of Huna Tlingit bird egg gathering. 

3
4
MAP 2: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve with Historical Monument B

Map derived from Catton 1995. 

5
6
Project funding 

Funding for the HTEES was provided by the NPS Cultural Resource Preservation 

Program through Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Monies were transferred to 

the researchers through a cooperative agreement between the NPS, Cascadia Support 

Office, and the University of Washington. The research itself was performed through the 

United States Geological Survey, Biological Research Division, Forest Range Ecosystem 

Science Center (USGS/BRD/FRESC) Cascadia Field Station at the College of Forest 

Resources, University of Washington in Seattle. 

Project personnel 

 Darryll R. Johnson, Research Sociologist, Social Sciences Program at the 

USGS/BRD/FRESC/Cascadia Field Station, was Project Leader. Johnson has 

administered social-science projects associated with the National Park Service for over 

twenty years. He has also conducted several research projects associated with the 

interaction between national parks and rural communities in Alaska. In January of 2002, 

Johnson resigned his position with USGS and accepted the position of Research 

Coordinator with the NPS Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (PNW 

CESU). He has continued his involvement in the project since accepting the PNW CESU 

position. Eugene S. Hunn, Professor, University of Washington Anthropology 

Department, is the Principal Investigator for this project. Hunn has achieved 

international recognition for scholarly contributions in the areas of ethnobotany and 

ethnozoology. Thomas F. Thornton, at the time this research was initiated, was 

7
Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Southeast. He 

is currently Associate Professor, Department of Global Studies, St. Lawrence University. 

He has published an extensive body of research pertaining to the Huna Tlingit and has 

considerable field experience in Hoonah. Priscilla N. Russell, an independent scholar 

from Homer, Alaska, has extensive experience working with Native American 

communities in Alaska. Russell also has substantial research experience in the areas of 

ethnobotany and ethno-ornithology. Kathy Falk was a graduate student in anthropology 

at the University of Washington at the time of the research. 

Research Objectives and Questions 

The research objectives and work elements reported in this document are 

identified in Cooperative Agreement No. 1443 CA-9000-95-019, Subagreement No. 1, 

Modification No. 3, between the University of Washington and the National Park 

Service. Wayne Howell, Mary Beth Moss, and Don Callaway of NPS proposed the 

project and drafted the original research questions. After negotiation with the research 

team, the research questions were finalized and formalized in the aforementioned 

subagreement modification. 

HTEES objectives focus narrowly on Huna harvests of birds’ eggs as set out in 

the cooperative agreement. The study was not funded to, nor do the authors generally 

attempt to, discuss these harvests in relevant broader academic contexts, such as, the 

traditional ecological knowledge, ethno-ecology and common property literatures, 

Migratory Bird Treaty discussions and reports, or the wealth of empirical community 

resource data available through Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

8
Subsistence.1

 The authors will publish future articles from this study in the peerreviewed literature that discuss the relevance of this research from broader academic 

perspectives (Hunn et al. n.d.). 

The portions of the above Subagreement Modification pertinent to the research 

findings reported herein are attached as Appendix 1. This report does not sequentially 

discuss the research questions in the order they are listed in Subagreement 1, 

Modification 3. To aid readers in locating parts of the report that discuss the stated work 

elements, the authors have listed within footnotes the pertinent tasks and research 

questions discussed in every major section of the report. 

 

1

 Several studies conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game document Native participation in bird egg harvesting and 

provide estimates of total numbers of eggs taken by several Alaska communities. For example, see Wolfe, et al. 1990; Fall, et al. 

1998; and Paige, et al. 1996. Wolfe, et al. 1990 observe that the “largest subsistence harvest of bird eggs occurred in communities of 

the Aleutian Peninsula.” Where types of eggs harvested were reported, the great majority were gull or other sea bird eggs. 

9
10
II. RESEARCH METHODS 

Two research methods were used to accomplish the study objectives. These are: 

semi-structured qualitative interviewing (including the use of primary informants) and 

library research. An interview schedule with standardized questions was seen as 

inappropriate for most of the HTEES objectives for several reasons. 

First, few details were known about Huna Tlingit egg gathering and processing, 

either historically or currently. Most of the HTEES field research questions focused on 

recording detailed information about these activities. For example, actual egg-harvesting 

practices needed to be identified so that an appropriate strategy for posing questions on 

an iterative basis could be developed. The purpose of this approach was to avoid 

prematurely narrowing the focus of the research questions. 

Second, the HTEES research objectives requiring field data are descriptive. The 

goal was to record this information in the words of Huna consultants and from their own 

perspectives. To avoid imposing external ideas and concepts on the study data by the 

way specific questions were asked, images and descriptions of Huna Tlingit life and 

culture were solicited directly from the Huna themselves. 

Third, the study’s core research objectives have to do with memories of life 

experienced more than 35 years ago. It was anticipated that people would not be able to 

recall this information with sufficient spontaneity and detail to complete a lengthy 

structured questionnaire. Rather, the approach chosen was to start interviewees thinking 

about egg harvests and the use of wild birds' eggs. Next, they were encouraged to talk 

about these subjects in a conversational manner, which was aided by occasional prompts 

11
or questions from the interviewer. In some cases, long interviews were required with 

return trips to verify information or to ask additional questions that might have arisen 

through interviews with other Huna. 

Fourth, the prohibitions on harvesting certain foods in Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve generates considerable resentment among the Huna Tlingit people, many of 

whom believe a grave injustice has been done to them. Part of the study’s objectives 

(Task 1, Nos. 15 and 16) involve solicitation of reactions to these prohibitions. In order 

to obtain this information, Huna people wanted opportunities to talk about their feelings 

on this subject in their own way and, within reason, in their own time. 

Fifth, the goals of the project did not require mathematical generalization to the 

entire community of Hoonah. In fact, because many of the objectives relate to 

reconstruction of the cultural context surrounding behaviors that have not occurred on 

any regular basis since the early 1960s, not everyone in the community was a potential 

subject for interviewing. The circumstances required reliance on people who were old 

enough to have experienced gathering, consuming, and preserving gull eggs. This type 

of situation is not only ideal for ethnographic methods but in most respects requires them. 

The methods employed are discussed below in more detail under the heading "Selection 

of Consultants." 

Researchers' Interaction with GBNPP Staff and the Hoonah Community 

On May 26, 1998, Johnson, Thornton, and Russell traveled to Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve to review the project objectives and research questions with 

Moss and Howell, employees of GBNPP. This trip also involved a field visit to the 

12
Marble Islands via boat. Hunn, who was unable to be there, met with park personnel on 

June 8 after spending a week in Hoonah.

Before the field research started, a meeting involving Howell, Hunn, Thornton, 

and Russell and interested members of the Hoonah community was held on May 31, 

1998 at the Hoonah Indian Association (HIA) offices in Hoonah. The meeting was 

chaired by Mary Rudolph, president of the HIA. Representing the Huna Tlingit on the 

“Working Together” committee were Richard Dalton, Sr., Wilbur "Jumbo" James, and 

Pat Mills. Frank Wright, Jr., was unable to attend. Also present were Edith Bean, 

George Obert, Beatriz Brown, Ken Brown, Wanda Culp (HIA Natural Resources 

Director), Maureen Obert (HIA Cultural Resource Director), Winnie Smith, and Lily 

White. Wayne Howell represented Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Eugene 

Hunn, Priscilla Russell, and Thomas Thornton of the research team attended. (Darryll 

Johnson had to return to Seattle before the meeting.) 

Howell began by describing the background and goals of the study, noting in 

particular the role of the "Working Together” committee of Huna and GBNPP park staff 

formed the previous year. Next, Hunn introduced the research team, emphasizing its 

independence as university-based researchers. He promised that all materials and results 

produced by the project would be made available equally to the Hoonah community and 

to the National Park Service for review and comment. Hunn briefly outlined the research 

methods and invited those present to offer suggestions or to ask questions. Thomas 

Thornton and Priscilla Russell then introduced themselves, describing their experience 

working with Alaskan Native communities and subsistence issues. 

13
The following Hoonah community leaders then spoke in response: Richard 

Dalton, Sr., George Obert, Jumbo James, Edith Bean, Wanda Culp, and Winnie Smith. A 

central concern expressed was that the report not “gather dust on a shelf at the Park 

office,” but rather have some real impact. 

Selection of Consultants 

A list of potential consultants was suggested initially by Thornton. (Thornton has 

extensive experience within the Hoonah community researching traditional aspects of 

Huna Tlingit culture, including natural resource harvests.) This list was reviewed by Ms. 

Maureen Obert of the Hoonah Indian Association and Mr. Albert Dick, Mayor of 

Hoonah, both of whom suggested additional individuals who had specific knowledge 

relevant to the project. Finally, during the interviews, consultants were asked to identify 

any persons in the community not on the list that they believed should be interviewed, 

given the study objectives. There were two instances in which people contacted Russell 

asking to be interviewed. In total, 45 people served as consultants to the egg-gathering 

portion of the HTEES (see Appendix 3). All consultants participated in the project on a 

voluntary basis and were paid. 

Semi-structured Interviews 

Subsequent to reviewing the available literature pertinent to the research 

objectives and after the Hoonah community meeting, a semi-structured interview form 

was designed on-site (see Appendix 2). This form served as a guide to ensure that 

consultants were asked about similar topics and that all relevant topics were eventually 

covered. When uncertainties arose during the interviews, more detailed questions were 

14
posed until the interviewer judged that responses to the various question items had been 

exhausted. With the permission of consultants, all interviews were recorded and 

completed interview tapes were duplicated for use at the USGS University of 

Washington Field Station office (now Cascadia Field Station). HIA also requested 

copies of the interviews leading to additional written permissions from the interviewees. 

Interviews and Transcriptions 

Two fieldwork periods 

There were two fieldwork periods in Hoonah. The first was scheduled from May 

30 to June 12, 1998, and was intended to introduce the study to Hoonah residents, refine 

the interview protocol, and to complete as many interviews as possible. These interviews 

focused primarily on gull egg gathering and secondarily on ethno-ornithology. Hunn 

accompanied Russell and Thornton on several interviews and performed one interview 

himself. Satisfied that the interviewing was going well, he departed from Hoonah on 

June 3, 1998. Thornton returned to Juneau on the same date and continued to interview 

Huna Tlingit consultants living in Juneau who had at one time gathered eggs or had 

special knowledge of bird egg gathering. Russell remained in Hoonah interviewing 

consultants there and departed on June 13, 1998. 

The second fieldwork period was from October 20 to November 6, 1998. This 

effort was intended as a follow-up to the first period. This allowed more information to 

be gathered for subject areas where it was deemed lacking and, importantly, enabled the 

delivery of transcribed interviews to consultants for their review. Any available time 

after the aforementioned tasks were completed was to be spent working on the ethno15
ornithological tasks in a separate research report. Russell was the only interviewer 

during the second field work period. 

Interview transcriptions 

Falk transcribed interviews, creating electronic files. Those parts of the 

interviews Falk had difficulty understanding were marked so that the interviewees could 

clarify the intended meaning. Issues dealing with the Huna language were resolved in 

coordination with Thornton or marked for review by consultants. 

Consultants' review of transcriptions 

Respondents in Hoonah were given several days to review the interviews during 

the second fieldwork period. They then met with Russell to discuss their concerns and 

suggestions. At this time, she asked about any items that were unclear and in many cases 

conducted additional interviews, either gathering more data about egg harvesting or the 

ethno-ornithological objectives reported in a separate research report. The corrected and 

edited interview documents were then forwarded to the Cascadia Field Station for 

modification. These modified interviews constitute the database from the fieldwork. 

Analysis of the Data 

Each of the researchers read all the interviews. In preparing the report, each 

person was assigned specific responsibilities in creating the initial drafts. Subsequent 

drafts were reviewed by each member of the research team, then modified and reviewed 

again until the Principal Investigator and second author were satisfied that consensus had 

been reached on the substance of the report. Several draft reports were submitted to 

Hoonah residents for review during the summer of 2001. 

16
Consultants with extensive experience gathering eggs were shown USGS 

topographic maps (scale 1:250,000) of Hoonah traditional lands and waters. They were 

then asked to identify sites where they had harvested eggs while living in Hoonah. The 

methodology produced an exhaustive list of sites known to the living Huna Tlingit, 

within the limits of their ability to recall areas where eggs were gathered. Sites were 

identified by their English and Tlingit names where possible. (Information on Tlingit 

place names was also gathered from previous research conducted by Thornton in 

conjunction with the National Park Service, Hoonah Indian Association, and the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game.) Interviewers recorded species of birds' eggs gathered at 

each site and inquired about other activities that took place at the time of harvesting at or 

around the harvesting areas. Other special features of the site were also recorded, 

including comments about the site's accessibility, productivity for egg gathering, recent 

ecological changes, etc. 

After reviewing and coding the interview data, sites were numbered and plotted 

on USGS 1: 250,000-scale maps. In total, 42 sites were identified within traditional 

Hoonah territory. Numbers coded with circles designating gull egg-harvesting sites and 

squares designating sites where eggs from species other than gulls were harvested. Table 

7 summarizes the mapping data. Appendix 4 contains a complete listing of all sites 

identified, along with detailed information about the sites. The 42 egg-harvesting sites 

are plotted on Map 3. 

Because a comprehensive sampling strategy for documenting egg-harvesting sites 

was employed, the researchers were able to enumerate additional egg-harvesting sites not 

identified in earlier studies with fewer samples. At the same time, because not all egg 

17
harvesters who have resided in Hoonah were interviewed, it is possible that there are 

additional egg-harvesting sites that were used historically which are not documented. 

However, the authors believe that there are very few unidentified sites, and that they were 

not widely used in the 20th century. 

Limitations of the Interview Data 

As noted above, the HTEES fieldwork used an ethnographic approach relying on 

semi-structured interviews with paid, voluntary Huna Tlingit consultants who were 

knowledgeable on subjects related to the research objectives. The research findings are 

subject to any and all limitations inherently associated with this research method. Four 

methodological issues that should be kept in mind while reading this report are briefly 

noted below. 

First, no attempt was made to proportionately sample the residents of Hoonah or 

to create a database that would allow mathematical generalization to the community at 

large. As such, the HTEES findings are most reliable in describing cultural phenomena 

such as the ideal cultural context of bird egg gathering during the times when such 

gathering was relatively free of legal enforcement and allow the formation of conclusions 

about the range of individual behaviors associated with such gathering. The HTEES 

database cannot be used to make statistical inferences to the universe of Huna egg 

gatherers neither now nor in the past, for any purpose, including estimates of the 

distribution of individual behaviors or attitudes associated with bird egg gathering. 

However, reasoned intuitive conclusions are possible. 

Second, interviewer bias is a potential limitation in any qualitative research. The 

interviewer sets the tone for the interview, asks the questions, and follows up with more 

18
latitude than when only structured questions are asked. In the case of the HTEES, this 

issue was managed by extensive review and discussion of the project objectives and 

research questions prior to the fieldwork among the research team. The principal 

investigator also accompanied the interviewers on several interviews to ensure that 

questions were being asked objectively and that all questions were understood. In 

addition, the project interviewers both have extensive experience working in Alaska 

Native villages. Finally, the HTEES research design included more than one interviewer. 

Having more than one interviewer helps in assessing interviewer bias in that results from 

the two interviewers can be compared. 

Third, issues concerning validity are difficult to manage in qualitative research 

designs like those used in the HTEES. In the most general sense, concerns over validity 

can be expressed by the question: Do the research operations measure the concepts that 

are intended to be measured? In the HTEES, an intended purpose of the design was to 

allow consultants to freely describe their practices with minimal constraints from 

question or response formats. In such qualitative research, the possibilities that different 

consultants will use the same terms in different ways, or that researchers may 

misinterpret the consultants’ responses, make it difficult to demonstrate validity.2

 

Validity issues were addressed in the HTEES by the following elements of the research 

design. 

1. Efforts were made to ensure the interviewers understood the research 

questions. Prior to entering the field, the questions were discussed and 

key research articles were shared among the research team. 

 

2

 Quantitative and structured approaches to social-research methods allow more precise definition of the terms and issues related to a 

particular research question, and are thus less subject to some concerns about validity than is qualitative research. However,

quantitative approaches are of little use in studies such as the HTEES, where not enough is known about the phenomena of concern to 

formulate appropriate questions. 

19
2. The community meeting gave researchers and the residents of Hoonah an 

opportunity to discuss the research questions and assess congruent 

understanding of the key questions. 

3. The semi-structured protocol helped to ensure that key concepts and 

language were used consistently. 

4. All interviews, as noted above, were read by four people and the 

transcriber. In cases where questions arose about what individuals were 

saying about substantive issues, the researchers were able to re-read the 

appropriate sections and discuss interpretation of the data. 

5. Interviews were transcribed and read, then sent back to the consultants for 

review. This process not only allowed consultants an opportunity to 

examine their comments but also gave the researchers an opportunity to 

clarify points that were vague and to re-examine issues that might have 

been misunderstood. 

Fourth, anthropological research that utilizes key actors (i.e., key informants) and 

qualitative interviewing may rely heavily on one or two knowledgeable people. As a 

result, there can be an over-reliance on incomplete, or even biased, information. Such 

studies may yield overly simplistic descriptions of complex social phenomena, and 

results can sometimes be intentionally biased by informants. The HTEES research 

design purposely attempted to overcome this limitation by interviewing a large number of 

consultants - essentially attempting to exhaust the number of eligible respondents in 

Hoonah who were able or willing to contribute to the project at the times designated for 

data collection. This approach (i.e., using chain referral or snowball sampling and 

saturating the amount of information gathered on the research questions by interviewing 

several people) was also thought to be essential to minimize inherent memory problems 

associated with research that seeks to describe behaviors and other aspects of social life 

that occurred in the distant past. 

The large number of consultants represented in the HTEES database should allow 

construction of a more accurate picture of the range of egg-gathering behaviors and of 

20
individual interpretations of the cultural context of these behaviors, than if the 

researchers had relied on a very small number of consultants. The comparatively large 

number of consultants also helps to resolve issues of validity in instances where one or 

two key people might be approaching a subject differently than other people in the 

community. 

Despite the limitations mentioned above, the researchers are confident that the 

HTEES interviews represent the most detailed and accurate record of Huna Tlingit bird 

egg gathering available. 

21
22
III. A SKETCH OF HUNA TLINGIT SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 

AND SUBSISTANCE PRACTICES PRIOR TO THE 

ESTABLISHMENT OF GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK3

Who are the Huna Tlingit? 

The Huna are one of thirteen kwaan or “tribes” (contemporary Huna prefer 

Kaawu, as in Huna Kaawu, as their self-designation) of the Alaskan Tlingit language 

group or nation. The Huna of today include members of four major clans with original 

ties to Glacier Bay as well as members of a few additional clans. The village of Hoonah 

across Icy Strait from Glacier Bay is now and has been since earliest recorded history 

their primary permanent settlement. Before the 20th century, however, the Huna 

occupied additional winter village sites, but these have been abandoned in favor of 

residence at Hoonah. 

The historical process of residential consolidation at the present site of Hoonah is 

poorly understood and beyond the scope of the present research. However, it is relevant 

to a proper understanding of how Huna Tlingit strategies for harvesting gull eggs may 

have changed since the pre-European contact period, and to the question of the effect the 

establishment of GBNPP had on prior gull egg-harvesting practices. In the 19th century 

Huna Tlingit people apparently occupied perhaps as many as a dozen "villages," 

"settlements" and "forts" distributed throughout their recognized territory (de Laguna 

1990; Goldschmidt and Haas 1998). Sites identified in these two sources as 

"settlements," "villages," or "forts" are listed in Table 1. 

 

3

 This section of the report addresses Task 1, Research Questions 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 14, in part. See Appendix 1. 

23
24

These village sites were staging areas for subsistence harvest activities within the 

Huna Tlingit tribal territory. Abandonment of villages was in part a response to 

depopulation due to introduced disease epidemics, to the founding of commercial stores 

in Hoonah, to involvement in the commercial fishing industry and to pressure from 

Protestant missionaries (Langdon, 2001:106, 112, 121, 195-196). However, several 

villages and camps were abandoned as a direct result of forced exclusion by whites; in 

particular, fox farmers are reported to have preempted Huna village lands and forcibly 

excluded residents of those villages (e.g., Inian Islands and Drake Island). A former 

fishing camp and possible village site at Bartlett Cove appear to have been preempted by 

the GBNPP administration but the sites were not in use at the time the Glacier Bay 

National Park administrative center was built (Langdon, 2001:104-121). Statements by 

many Huna Tlingit people indicate that they associate their exclusion from traditional 

settlements within Glacier Bay with the establishment of Glacier Bay National 

Monument. 
Table 1. Some Huna Tlingit "Settlements," "Villages" and "Forts," Past and Present

English name 

TLINGIT 

NAME

Clan territory Type of 

site 

Current status 

Comments 

Hoonah Gaaw T’ak 

Aan 

all clans village present 

Taylor Bay Asgutu.aan T’akdeintaan village abandoned “There were no houses except smokehouses there duri

lives there now....” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:56) 

Inian Island Chookaneidi village abandoned “There were many houses at a village on the island. Th

houses and the T’akdeintaan had two. ... The village w

the present buildings of the fox ranch. The Native peopthe fox farm was created and the whites would not let peven to pick berries.” “... [inhabited] until a fox farm 40 years ago [ca. 1906]....” (Goldschmidt and Haas 19

Dundas Bay L’istee T’akdeintaan village 

& fort 

abandoned “There were three big houses at L’istee, and these are n

continued to go there in recent years, but recently a whhas chased us away. Fred Lawrence [a native of Hoonaa gun, and he came back and warned the people not to (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:55). Western Fisheries CDundas Bay [in 1900]. 

Lemesurier Island 

T’akdeintaan village 

& fort 

abandoned “[This was] a winter village with permanent houses.... 

have a fox farm there.... For a time, we were not allowcan again pick wild currants in the fall” (Goldschmidt 

Pt. Carolus Chookaneidi village abandoned three dwellings and a large smokehouse (or two); “now

“Point Carolus was a permanent settlement for hunting (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:55). “Mrs. Oscar Williamgarden at Watdakhéen [Carolus River] in Glacier Bay closed by the Department of the Interior.” (Goldschmid

Drake Island T’akdeintaan Fort abandoned “[F]ox farmers forced them out, tore down the fort and 

old people who lived there were run off and their hous(Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:55). 

25
26

Table 1. Continued

English Name 

Tlingit Name 

Clan territory Type of

site 

Current status 

Comments 

Berg Bay Chookanhe

eni 

Chookaneidi Fort abandoned “...smokehouse with caved-in roof there [1946]” (Gol

1998:55); “We used to have houses right below the strBay,... We have all been in those houses ourselves.” (1998:132) 

Pt. Adolphus /Mud Bay 

Chookaneidi village abandoned “There used to be a house west of Pt. Adolphus, but w

anymore.... There were houses at Mud Bay.... There wThe posts still remain” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:5

Bartlett Cove 

Ghatheeni all clans village abandoned “The most important area in Glacier Bay was Bartlett C

once been a village, and up to the time the National Mthere were smoke houses... and gardens and a summer (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:55) 

Village Point Lulxágu Wooshkeetaan village abandoned abandoned 1911 (de Laguna 1990:204); “I lived at a p

with my uncles and other relatives during the winter...Village Point, but stopped living there when the old pe

years ago [ca. 1896]” (Albert Jackson as quoted by Go1998:134); 

"Grouse Fort" 

Kax’noowu Kaagwantaan village abandoned "settled by people from Glacier Bay, abandoned about 

1990:204); according to Huna legend, their ancestors wGlacier Bay by the advance of a glacier, and subsequenInlet, Grouse Fort (Kaagwaantaan), and Spasski Bay (Cby Amy Marvin in Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1987:

Couverden Island 

trading post 

abandoned 
Photograph 1. Village of Khart Heenee [Ghatheeni], Bartlett Cove c. 1888. 

A summer village of the Hoonah Kow [Kaawu] on Lester Island at the entrance to Glacier Bay, c. 1888. “Khart Heenee” [Ghwater (also the Tlingit name for the Salmon River). Photograph by G.T. Emmons. Used courtesy of the American Museum of New York, N.Y. 

27
28
Photograph 2. Village of Hoonah c. Early 20th Century. 

Photo used courtesy of the Alaska State Library. The Case and Draper photograph collection, 1898-1920, PCA 39-405. 

29
30
Huna Tlingit traditional tribal territory includes virtually all of Glacier Bay 

National Park as well as adjacent areas. This territory was identified by Goldschmidt and 

Haas in the mid-1940s during their investigation pursuant to the Indian Claims 

Commission Act (1998:xv). Their description is quoted below: 

Taking into consideration the evidence from Krause, Niblack, and 

Swanton, and in the light of the statements made by witnesses, the 

following territory may be assumed to have been recognized as that of the 

Hoonah people: The mainland coast from approximately Point Howard on 

Chatham Strait westward around Cape Spencer and northward on the 

Pacific coast approximately to Cape Fairweather; on Chichagof Island 

from Point Augusta westward to Point Urey on the Pacific coast including 

the head of Tenakee Inlet reached by portage; all the islands in Icy Straits 

and Cross Sound. There is some doubt as to whether all of Yakobi Island 

and the west coast of Chichagof Island was Hoonah or Sitka territory in 

1884 and earlier... (Goldschmidt and Hass 1998:53) 

GBNPP falls within the traditional territories of two Tlingit groups: the Huna 

Tlingit and the Dry Bay Tlingit. The Huna Tlingit are now largely centered in the village 

of Hoonah, while Dry Bay people are now largely consolidated at Yakutat. Collectively, 

the traditional territories of the Huna clans are referred to as Huna Kaawu, which is 

perhaps best translated as “Huna Peoples’ Country.” The boundaries of this territory are 

outlined in Appendix 7 (from Goldschmidt and Hass 1998). Appendix 7 also delineates 

traditional territorial boundaries of the major clans (save for the Kaagwaantaan) that stem 

from Glacier Bay as Huna informants believed them to exist at the time of the 

Goldschmidt and Hass study. As noted above, clan possessory rights over a territory 

generally did not preclude other Huna residents of Huna Kawoo from harvesting. As 

consultant Pat Mills put it, “...People from other places had to get permission, but if you 

were from Huna and knew the place you could just go.” Relatives and friends from other 

31
communities, such as Angoon, Tenakee, and even Metlakatla, were welcome, as long as 

there were enough eggs and they went with a local family. 

The Huna Tlingit may have numbered some 1,500 before the arrival of European 

explorers and settlers, who brought disease in their wake (see Table 2). The Huna 

aboriginal population and its decline are documented in the “Northwest Coast” volume of 

the Handbook of North American Indians. 

Table 2. Huna Population Estimates 1740-1938, from de Laguna (1990:205), Boyd 

(1990) and Catton (1995).

Year 1740 1839 1840 1861 1880 1885 1890 1910 1938‡ 

Pop. Est. 1596† 782# 450* 1332* 908 600-800# 592 625 734 

†Estimated by multiplying 782 by 0.49, the ratio of Boyd’s Tlingit totals estimated for 1839 and precontact. 

‡U.S. Census (Catton 1995:105) 

#These totals include only Hoonah village. 

*These totals include figures for Lituya Bay. 

More recent U.S. Census population estimates for Hoonah show the 1980 Huna 

population as 680 and the 1990 village population as 915, of which 622 (68%) were 

Tlingit. It is important to bear these figures in mind in assessing the past and future 

impacts of Huna Tlingit gull egg harvests. 

A Sketch of Huna Tlingit History 

To place the Huna egg-harvesting tradition into historical context, the following 

timeline chart (Table 3), incorporates relevant key events in Huna Tlingit and Glacier 

Bay histories. 

32
Table 3. Huna Tlingit/Glacier Bay Historical Timeline.

8230±800

B.C. 

Ground Hog Bay site #2 NE of Hoonah across Icy Strait (Carlson 1990:67; 

Ackerman et al. 1979:98-201); earliest documented human occupation; 

characterized by microblade technology. 

4000 

B.C. 

Date of basket fragments excavated on Prince of Wales Island at the Silver 

Hole site identified as “statistically Tlingit in style” (Croes, 2001:145, 148). 

1020±70 

AD 

Archaeological materials indicating Northwest Coast Tradition, including 

Tlingit. 

Ca. 1100 

AD 

“Little Ice Age” begins, Huna expulsion from Glacier Bay by ice follows 

(Thornton 1999). 

Earlymid 

1700s 

Oral histories of sighting of ships of Europeans (so-called “People from the 

Clouds”) in Lituya Bay. 

1741 First Old World contacts with Russians (brief but hostile). Chirikov 

expedition lost two longboats of men in Cross Sound region (Gunther 1972; 

De Laguna 1990:223). Tlingit oral history suggests they sought asylum and 

were adopted. 

1775 Spanish ships of Bruno de Heceta bring smallpox (de Laguna 1990:223). 

Estimated 30% mortality reduces Tlingit population from an estimated precontact value of 14,820 to an estimated 9,980 (Boyd 1990:137). 

1794 Vancouver sails into Icy Strait; glaciers block entrance to what is now 

Glacier Bay (Thornton 1999). 

1799 Russian fort at Sitka est. by Aleksandr Baranov (De Laguna 1990:223). 

1825 Sea otter nearly extinct in southeastern Alaska (De Laguna 1990 210). 

1836 Second smallpox epidemic causes estimated 27% mortality among Tlingit, 

reducing the total Tlingit population to about 7,255 (Boyd 1990:140-41). 

1845 Glaciers retreat past the Marble Islands. 

1867 U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia. 

1877 C.E.S. Wood enters Glacier Bay with Tlingit guides; encounters several sealand goat-hunting parties. 

1878 Salmon salteries/canneries first established at Klawock and Sitka. 

1879 Glacier Bay visited by John Muir, guided by Tlingit. 

1880s Tourism begins in Glacier Bay with arrival of steamships. 

1884 Organic Act guaranteed that the Natives would “not be disturbed in the 

possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by 

them,” but acquisition of title subject to future congressional action. 

33
Table 3. Continued

1890-91 Bartlett Bay Packing Company, hand packing 4,300 cases of salmon, is built 

in 1890 but does not operate in 1891 because of ice (Kurtz 1995). 

1898-99 Gold rush through Chilkat-Chilkoot territory (de Laguna 1990:224). 

1899 Harriman Alaska Expedition brings prominent scientists to Glacier Bay, 

where several shared a meal of "gulls’ eggs, boiled marmot, and seal" 

(Goetzmann and Sloan 1982). 

1900 Western Fisheries Co. builds a cannery in Dundas Bay; American Saltery 

established in Icy Strait at Bartlett Cove “in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s”. 

1902 Tongass National Forest established. 

1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act 

1912 Alaska Native Brotherhood established (Alaska Native Sisterhood in 1923). 

1924 Alaska Natives enfranchised by federal law (de Laguna 1990:225). 

1925 Glacier Bay National Monument established (see Map 2). 

1939 Boundaries of Glacier Bay National Monument expanded to include 

important egging areas (Bosworth 1987, 1988). 

1939 Hoonah Indian Association incorporated under Indian Reorganization Act. 

1944 Village of Hoonah burns to the ground. 

1946 Hoonah incorporated as First Class city. Goldschmidt and Haas report notes 

Huna dissatisfaction with Glacier Bay National Monument regulations. 

Huna subsistence use of Glacier Bay is documented in BIA report that 

mentions seal, goat, marmot hunting, gull egg collecting, trapping and 

catching salmon. 

1947 Lowell Sumner report argues for closure of upper portions of Glacier Bay to 

Native seal hunting and prohibition of gull egg harvests. 

1949 Canadian Pacific steamer S. S. Kathleen inaugurates schedule of eight cruises 

into the bay each summer. 

1966 Glacier Bay Lodge is constructed at Bartlett Cove. 

1968 Tlingit and Haida Land Claims Settlement Act compensating Tlingit and 

Haida Indians for Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National 

Monument. 

1969 The cruise ship Mariposa enters Glacier Bay beginning a modern trend 

leading to the extensive use of the area by such vessels. 6,300 recreational 

visits to Glacier Bay National Monument. 

1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

34
Table 3. Continued

1972 Marine Mammal Protection passed by U.S. Congress; provides for some 

subsistence uses by Native people. 

1974 Sealaska Regional Corporation and Huna Totem corporation formed. 

1974 Huna aboriginal hunting privileges dating from an agreement in 1939 

rescinded (Catton 1993). Limited entry commercial fishery decreed. Inian 

Islands closed by State of Alaska to seine fishing. 47,800 recreational visits 

to Glacier Bay National Monument. 

1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) passed by U.S. 

Congress; Glacier Bay National Monument becomes National Park 

1982 Huna Totem Corp. signs timber contract with Timber Pacific. 

1988 Hoonah Traditional Tribal Council established. 

1995 Memorandum of Understanding signed with GBNPP. 

1997 TEK workshop held at Bartlett Cove; work on gull egg issue begins. 

Proposed regulations phase out commercial fishing from the bay over a 15-

year period. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve has 336,226 

recreational visits; 306,216 of these are people aboard cruise ships. 

1999 U.S. and Canada announce formal agreement to a protocol amending the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This agreement allows both countries to 

comparatively manage subsistence uses of migratory birds and their eggs, 

including harvests in spring and summer. 

Huna Tlingit Subsistence in Glacier Bay: An Historical Perspective 

The first mention of Glacier Bay in the historic records comes from the 

Vancouver expedition of 1792 (Vancouver 1801). Although Vancouver’s shore party 

described Glacier Bay as a massive wall of ice fronting the turbulent berg-choked waters 

of Icy Strait, they nonetheless encountered a Native group camped near the mouth of the 

bay (likely at Point Carolus) and seemingly at home in the inhospitable environment 

(Menzies 1993:148-151). 

Almost 85 years passed before the next mention of Glacier Bay in the historic 

record. In 1877, U.S. Army officer Charles Wood explored the region with the help of 

35
Tlingit guides and reported his adventures in the then popular Century Magazine (Wood 

1882). Interestingly, Wood describes an encounter with a seal hunting party equipped 

only with stone tools and lacking metal, an indicator of the relative isolation of Glacier 

Bay at that time. A year later naturalist John Muir ventured into the bay, also with 

Tlingit hunters as guides, on his quest to understand glacial dynamics (Muir 1915). 

Glacier Bay captured Muir’s imagination, and his effusive writings and public 

presentations prompted others to follow. Within several years of Muir’s first visit, 

Glacier Bay became a regular stopover for steamships carrying an assortment of 

scientists, explorers and adventuresome tourists. All accounts by these early visitors 

mention the presence of Huna Tlingits actively involved in traditional activities 

throughout Glacier Bay. Camps were reported in the middle and lower reaches of the 

bay, and the Native village and cannery in Bartlett Cove was a regular stopover for 

steamships (Scidmore 1893). 

Muir’s early interest was followed by a long period of scientific inquiry at Glacier 

Bay, with several expeditions launched to study the bay’s glaciers, geology, and plant 

and animal life (Kurtz 1995). In 1899, the last great American scientific expedition of 

the 19th century, sponsored by railroad magnate Edward Harriman, passed through 

Glacier Bay with an assortment of eminent scientists, artists and photographers, 

confirming Glacier Bay as a natural laboratory of unsurpassed importance (Goetzmann 

and Sloan 1982). One party from the expedition encountered a group of Huna Tlingits in 

Berg Bay where they were invited to share a meal of “gulls eggs, boiled marmot and 

seal” (Ibid.). 

36
Through the diligence of William S. Cooper, a student of the emerging field of 

ecology, an effort to protect the natural laboratory of Glacier Bay was cast in the national 

spotlight. Following a lobbying effort by the Ecological Society of America and an 

intense political battle pitting preservationists and scientists against business interests and 

settlers, Glacier Bay was designated a national monument by presidential proclamation 

on February 26, 1925. 

Tlingit society underwent profound changes during this period. Following the 

purchase of Alaska in 1867, missionaries arrived and established churches and schools, 

influencing Tlingits toward a more centralized and settled way of life. Prospectors, 

trappers, homesteaders and fox farmers competed with Tlingits for land and resources. 

The burgeoning commercial salmon industry brought about sweeping changes beginning 

in the late 1870s. In a few short years, salmon, the foundation of the Tlingit economy, 

was transformed into common property, and Tlingits were reduced from proud owners of 

streams and fish resources to wage labor fishers and cannery workers (Langdon 1989). 

Within several decades the combination of these forces moved the Tlingit away from 

dispersed settlements and seasonal harvest rounds to increased aggregation, sedentariness 

and reliance on the cash economy. A vague federal land policy initially acknowledged 

Native ownership but failed to convey title, with the exception of the Native Allotment 

Act of 1906, which allowed individuals to apply for 160 acre “homesteads.” Natives 

found themselves increasingly isolated within their principal villages, cutoff from many 

traditional subsistence sites that were being settled by non-Natives or included in federal 

land management units, including the Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National 

Monument. In the face of powerful pressure to assimilate, many Tlingits were able to 

37
integrate these societal changes with their traditional subsistence way of life. For 

example, the summer’s commercial fishing activities were dovetailed with subsistence 

fishing, hunting and gathering outings, and the transition to gas-powered boats meant that 

many of the traditional locations for these activities could be swiftly accessed and 

continued to be important. 

Following establishment of Glacier Bay National Monument in 1925, the 

National Park Service had very little direct involvement in managing the monument until 

the late 1930s. When NPS representatives began to arrive on annual summer visits 

beginning in 1939 (the year the monument was expanded to include lower Glacier Bay), 

they encountered a host of non-Native homesteaders, miners, trappers, commercial 

fishers and fox farmers. They also describe a Native culture in a state of transition, 

although still very much connected to the Glacier Bay landscape. The Huna were clearly 

involved in cash-oriented activities such as trapping, seal hunting for hides and bounty, 

commercial fishing, and prospecting. Officials also noted smokehouses at the mouths of 

productive fish streams, and parties actively involved in excursions to gather berries and 

gull eggs (see Traeger 1939 and Been 1940). 

As NPS officials began to implement laws and regulations governing parks and 

monuments, the nature of the mixed Huna economy (described in detail in Catton 1995, 

1997) presented a management dilemma. On the one hand, officials moved to eliminate 

certain uses among all users, Native and non-Native alike, such as trapping and hunting 

of land animals. Gathering of birds’ eggs, which was technically illegal in accordance 

with provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and federal regulations, was eliminated 

in the Monument during the early 1960s. This action strained relations between Huna 

38
Tlingits and the NPS since the only place where the prohibition was enforced regionally 

was in Glacier Bay National Monument, effectively cutting Huna Tlingits off from their 

most favored and productive gathering sites. However, other activities were allowed by 

the NPS to continue. Seal hunting for bounty was allowed to continue because of its 

important role in the Hoonah economy until it too was legally terminated in 1974. 

Commercial fishing also continued to be allowed within the Monument, although the 

Huna seine fishery occurred primarily in outside waters. Subsistence activities often 

continued at favored locations following the commercial fishing season, such as Dundas 

River where the seine fleet would anchor so people could pursue berry picking and 

subsistence fishing at traditional sites (Richard Dalton pers. comm. 1999). 

As time went on, even authorized uses began to decrease because of tension 

between Huna people and the NPS. However, recent research and several law 

enforcement episodes indicate that Huna Tlingit use has nonetheless continued at some 

minimal level. For example, Schroeder (1995) shows that Huna Tlingit use, although 

diminished in intensity, continued throughout all areas of the park well into the 1980s, 

even though technically illegal. Davis (1999) demonstrates that seal hunting continued at 

least through 1994 in most areas of the park, albeit at fairly low levels. In addition, NPS 

law enforcement actions resulting from Huna Natives collecting gull eggs in the park in 

1999 indicates that this favored activity has continued as well. 

In summary, the historical records indicate that Huna Tlingits have utilized 

Glacier Bay for subsistence activities throughout the historic period despite legal 

sanctions, which technically preclude many of these activities in recent decades. Huna 

Tlingits thus maintained their connection to Glacier Bay with varying degrees of success 

39
by continuing to participate in permitted activities, such as fishing and berry picking, 

while at the same time conducting other activities out of sight of park officials. At the 

root of this perseverance is the deep spiritual connection of the Huna Tlingits to their 

homeland, their recognition that the most effective and meaningful way to maintain this 

integral connection is through subsistence activities, and their ability to adapt subsistence 

strategies and technologies within an ever changing social and legal framework.

Huna Tlingit Subsistence Patterns 

Tlingit subsistence, and Huna Tlingit patterns in particular, are described in the 

following sources: Catton (1995, 1997), de Laguna (1960, 1972, 1990), Emmons (1991), 

Goldschmidt and Haas (1998), Jacobs and Jacobs (1982), Krause (1956 [1885], edited by 

E. Gunther), Moss (1993), Newton and Moss (1984), Oberg (for Klukwan, Sitka, and 

Wrangell 1973), Schroeder (1995), Schroeder and Kookesh (1990), Swanton (1908), 

Trager (1939), and Thornton (1995a, 1997a, 1998, 1999). Latin and Tlingit names for all 

species mentioned are listed in Appendix 5. 

It is essential to note that for the Huna people, subsistence was far more than an 

economic activity; it was also a “moral and religious occupation” (de Laguna 1990:209). 

For example, “The hunter had to purify himself [before hunting] by bathing, fasting, and 

continence, [and] to refrain from announcing what he hoped to kill ...” (de Laguna 

1990:210). “No animal ... should be slain needlessly, nor mocked, nor should the body 

be wasted” (de Laguna 1990:209). “Fish had to be treated with respect and the offal 

returned to streams or burned to insure their reincarnation” (de Laguna 1990:210). 

Berries were believed to have an “inner form” or spirit (yeik), which must be treated with 

respect (Thornton 1999:36). 

40
Traditional practice included explicit conservation provisions. For example, 

“Kake people hunted sheep at three places but were careful not to visit the same place for 

two years, to conserve the game” (de Laguna 1990:210). “Patchy” resources of critical 

importance, such as salmon spawning areas, halibut-fishing grounds, and berry patches 

were owned by families who monitored such resources and controlled access to them. A 

number of key resources were cultivated by weeding (strawberries), fertilizing (berries), 

and transplanting (soapberries, salmon, deer). (Thornton 1999:4; Herman Kitka pers. 

comm. June 5, 1998; Pat Mills pers. comm. Nov 6, 1998). In all these activities, sharing 

was of the essence: “Each woman marked her fish with distinctive cuts and kept her 

bundles separate in the cache, taking pleasure in sharing them with housemates or 

visitors” (de Laguna 1990:210). 

Fish were the primary resource category of traditional Huna Tlingit subsistence. 

According to Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas (1967:106), fishing (including shell fishing 

and marine-mammal hunting) accounted for between 56% and 65% of Tlingit subsistence 

dependence; hunting of large land animals (trapping and fowling) accounted for between 

26% and 35%; while gathering of plants and small land animals (possibly including 

birds’ eggs) accounted for the remaining 6% to 15%. These Ethnographic Atlas 

estimates reflect the relative emphasis placed on each resource category in the 

ethnographic records of the Tlingit, “with special reference to the Chilkat” (Murdock 

41
67:33).4

 However, the proportions are probably systematically biased to emphasize male 

harvest activities (Hunn 1981; Moss 1993), exaggerating somewhat the importance of 

hunting at the expense of gathering. Thornton (1999) has shown that the quantitative 

contribution of a resource to Tlingit subsistence does not necessarily reflect the cultural 

significance of that resource for local people. For example, berries have profound 

spiritual and social significance for Huna Tlingit people despite their low ranking in 

Murdock’s scale. Nevertheless, the quantitative predominance of fish in the Huna Tlingit 

diet is undeniable. 

Outstanding fish species were the five salmon species (each with its own Tlingit 

name) and halibut, with Pacific gray cod, red snapper, herring and eulachon also 

noteworthy. Herring provided eggs in spring and an early salmon run in July was 

followed by a series of runs by several species from September through November. 

During these months, Huna families camped at their respective sockeye streams (Newton 

and Moss 1984:4). They caught returning salmon in weirs and by gaffing. Laterspawning fish were preferred for smoke drying (Newton and Moss 1984:5-6), and a large 

supply of dried fish provided insurance against winter shortages and supplies for winter 

potlatches. Herring were also abundant in the fall and were rendered for their oil. By 

contrast, halibut, and cod were targeted in late winter and early spring, and hooked in 

 

4

 Regarding harvest proportions and biases, one could also cite the differences between island and mainland groups (the former being 

typically more dependent on bottomfish and sea mammals than the mainland groups, such as the Chilkat; Yakutat being an exception 

with regard to sea mammals) and also note that contemporary ADF&G harvest estimates for Southeast Alaska rural (both Native and

non-Native) communities show similar proportions in harvests (but also similar biases towards fish and game). A cursory check of 

the ADF&G Community Profile Database (now online) shows the following harvest proportions for 1996 in Hoonah, their most recent

and “most representative” year; estimates are rounded to the nearest tenth, with the most significant items under each category in 

parenthesis: Salmon, 30.4% (6 to 8% for each of the five species, with pinks commanding just over 1%); Non-Salmon Fish, 18% 

(halibut 7.7%); Land Mammals, 21.7% (deer 20%); Vegetation, 8% (berries 6.6%, seaweed 1%); Marine Invertebrates, 15.7% (crabs 

5.5%, clams 4.3%, cockles 4.3%); Birds and eggs, 0.2% (with eggs 0.02%). ADF&G-CPDB. 2000. Community Profile Database. 

Juneau: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

42
deep water. Because food supplies could be scarce during this season, halibut and cod 

were critical seasonal resources but uncertain, as poor weather might sharply reduce the 

harvests. Herring spawn in April and Hunas collected their eggs on hemlock branches 

placed in shallow water (de Laguna 1990:211). 

Fish, often in abundance, were prepared in a variety of ways. If carefully smokedried (over fires of dry hemlock and green alder [Newton and Moss 1984:5]), the supply 

would last through the winter without spoiling. Dried salmon was a valuable trade item 

exchanged with inland groups for eulachon grease or mountain goat meat. Virtually all 

parts of the fish were eaten, including the heads, which could be “pickled” by burying 

them in the tidal zone sand for several weeks (Newton and Moss 1984:8-9). 

Hunting was mostly a late fall activity, though bears were preferred in late winter 

or early spring, when their hides were in prime condition (de Laguna 1990:209), and 

seals in mid-summer. Sitka black-tailed deer were hunted in the mountains south of 

Hoonah from September through November. Deer were in prime condition at this time, 

fat and with thick coats (Newton and Moss 1984:13). Toward the end of the season, deer 

were leaner and thus could be more readily dried for winter. At the same time, 

“Mountain goats... were hunted for their fat... their horns, and the goat wool for 

blankets” (de Laguna 1990:210). 

Harbor seals were targeted in summer. Huna people were considered “expert 

sealers, exporting skin and oil to other Tlingit” (de Laguna 1990:210). Glacier Bay was 

one of the best sealing grounds in southeastern Alaska (de Laguna 1990:210). Seals 

provided meat, hides and oil. Two hundred harbor seals were said to have been 

harvested annually by Huna hunters (cf. Wolfe et al. 1993). Fur seals, sea lions, sea 

43
otters and porpoise might also have been hunted, though by 1825 sea otters were locally 

extirpated (de Laguna 1990:210). Huna Tlingit also trapped mink on the Inian islands, 

and both mink and river otter on Yakobi and Chicagof islands. Hoary marmots 

(“mountain whistlers”) and porcupines were hunted at Bartlett Cove; marmot, marten, 

wolverine, and wolf were hunted in Beartrack Cove. Birds were also hunted, e.g., ducks 

and geese at Mud Bay. Contemporary resources for Huna Tlingit families include 

commercial and subsistence fishing and the harvest of shrimp and crab, including 

Dungeness, Tanner, and King. 

As noted, fall was a time of abundance, providing skilled and provident families 

ample dried fish, oil, and meat for winter. In contrast, late winter and spring was a period 

of relative scarcity (Newton and Moss 1984:1). However, in addition to halibut and cod, 

shellfish and a variety of roots and greens were widely available. Cockles, butter clams, 

horse clams, littleneck clams, mussels, abalone, chitons (“gumboots”), limpets (“Chinese 

slippers”), sea urchins, and several seaweed species could be harvested along sheltered 

interior shores from winter through the “grouse month,” that is, roughly April, when the 

calls of grouse signaled the onset of dangerous “red tides” making consumption of certain 

harvested shellfish questionable. Small clams were eaten raw in winter to “clean out the 

system.” Wild sweet potatoes, wood fern rhizomes, nettles, Indian celery (Heracleum 

lanatun), Indian riceroot (Fritillaria camschatcensis) Indian rhubarb (Polygonum 

alaskanum), and the sweet inner bark of the hemlock were harvested in quantity in 

spring. These contributed scarce carbohydrates, sugars, and vitamins A and C to the diet 

(Newton and Moss 1984: Table II; 25, 41). Following European contact, potatoes, 

carrots, and rutabagas planted in spring gardens supplemented these wild vegetable 

44
foods. Huna people harvested a great variety (nineteen species) and abundance of berries 

in summer and fall, many of which were dried for later consumption. Berries eaten with 

fish or seal oil were a delicacy at winter feasts, with soapberry or “Indian ice cream” 

most highly prized (Thornton 1999:29-30). 

Gull eggs had their place among this abundance of traditional riches. Though gull 

eggs were not notable in terms of their quantitative contribution to the diet, nor were they 

of outstanding ritual significance, they were highly appreciated and are now fondly 

remembered with respect both for how they marked a turning point in the subsistence 

year and for the way they brought families together. 

For many hunting-gathering peoples, food species symbolically represent the 

particular places where they are harvested (Hunn 1996; Thornton 1997b; Thornton 1999). 

This is especially true among the Huna Tlingit, who harvest each resource with and for 

family, house, clan, and tribe, and for whom harvest places are elements of a sacred 

landscape. Huna people today view gull egg harvests as exceptionally important, not just 

for food values, but for their power to define who the Huna are as a people and to sustain 

their ties to their ancestral lands and waters in and around Glacier Bay.

Seasonal Harvest Patterns 

Hunting-gathering subsistence economies are characterized by a “seasonal round” 

in which families move across their traditional terrain in response to the maturation and 

movements of plant and animal resource species. Catton summarized the traditional 

seasonal round for the Huna Tlingit as follows: 

When stores ran low in early spring, a Tlingit family group would pack 

the canoe and venture out of the village, beginning with a seal hunting 

expedition of several weeks’ duration. By April, the group could be 

45
gathering green plants and edible roots or the potatoes they had planted on 

some sunny hillside the previous year. In May they might go on a trading 

expedition, followed in June by berry picking,5 and gathering birds’ eggs. 

In late June and July, during the first salmon run, the men fished and 

hunted seal while the women dried the meat and sealskins and rendered 

the seal oil. August was devoted to more food storage and in September 

they followed the second salmon run. Late fall was the time for hunting 

and trapping. Finally, as winter approached, they returned to the village 

for a season of potlatches, trading expeditions, crafts, and repairing of 

fishing gear. (1995:18) 

Tlingit people themselves describe these seasonal patterns in Newton and Moss 

(1984). Henry Katasse of Petersburg notes: 

There are seasons for vegetables, greens, seasons for fat, seasons for 

shellfish, and seasons for many things when it’s time for us to eat and 

enjoy them.... We never bothered anything out of season.... (Newton and 

Moss 1984:1) 

George Jim of Angoon elaborates: 

In September, October, and November, it is the time of contentment and 

happiness among the Tlingit people, for it is harvest time. Deer, goat, 

sheep, bear, king salmon, herrings, every species of salmon is fat, ready to 

be harvested, and plentiful.... (Newton and Moss 1984) 

Walter Williams of Kake adds: 

Times could be rough for my people in the early spring. If you are 

inclined to be lazy you go hungry.... Your winter supply of dried fish is 

gone, the weather is bad, and your entire food supply is pretty low.... 

(Newton and Moss 1984) 

Thus, the first spring harvests of gull eggs, herring eggs, and seaweed were very 

welcome and defined the transition from a season of confinement and scarcity to a season 

of movement and abundance. 

Timing of harvests required close observations of environmental changes, as 

Lydia George of Angoon notes: 

 

5

 According to Thomas Thornton, who has written widely on the Tlingit use of natural resources in Glacier Bay, the earliest berries 

were not mature until July. 

46
One person was delegated to be responsible for the fish. Every day, he 

watched the ocean beach for fish jumps and kept track of all movements 

of the fish. No one was allowed to kill fish before they came upstream to 

spawn, they believed if the fish was bothered and disturbed during their 

migration upstream to spawn, they would turn back and go up another 

river....” (Newton and Moss 1984:4) 

Hunting was also seasonal, as Henry Katasse explains: 

In the month of September, deer meat is at its prime.... [L]ater, in 

November, the deer loses some of its fat and this was the time to smoke 

and dry them for winter.... During the fall of the year, the hide is thicker; 

you can make soles out of the hide from the neck area.... (Newton and 

Moss 1984:13) 

George Jim adds: 

Around the first part of September men prefer to climb mountains in order 

to obtain their venison. The deer feed on deer cabbage or deer lettuce and 

other favorite foods ... the meat is at its best at this time. (Newton and 

Moss 1984:13) 

Winter harvests of some shellfish (not including cockle) were halted in early 

spring to avoid shellfish poisoning. George Davis of Hoonah explains: “[W]hen the 

grouse hoots, it is time to stop eating clams. In Tlingit, this is called Nakt, ‘grouseclams,’ Newton and Moss (1984) note that, “[a]ccording to the southeastern Tlingit, 

whenever the herring spawn, it is time to stop eating all shellfish.... Everyone just 

accepts it and leaves all seafood alone [probably referring to shellfish only]. Clams are 

mostly dug in the winter months” (Newton and Moss 1984:17). 

Early spring is also seaweed season. Henry Katasse says: “When alder leaves are 

fully grown, it is time to go after lak’úsk [black laver, Porphrya sp.] for winter use....” 

(qtd. in Newton and Moss 1984:18). Katasse likewise reports on another important 

terrestrial plant food: 

The dead leaves are usually laying on top of the ground when tséit

[Potentilla anserina, Pacific silverweed] are dug – usually as soon as the 

47
snow melts in the month of March – before the plants start growing... this 

is when they are tasty and sweet. (qtd. in Newton and Moss 1984:20) 

William Nelson suggests a somewhat later harvest season: “Tséit is picked in the 

spring while tender, in April and May” (Newton and Moss 1984:21). Even trees cut for 

totem poles and canoes had their season. Henry Katasse notes: 

The first of February was the time to fall [sic.] trees – red cedar and 

yellow cedar were spotted during summer because during the winter there 

was plenty of snow...wood for totem poles and canoes will not check this 

time of year. (qtd. in Newton and Moss 1984:26) 

Newton and Moss summarize for the Tlingit as a whole: 

The Tlingit people were quite mobile. The principal village was where 

the winter was spent, this was the time to manufacture and maintain all the 

tools and household goods used throughout the year. Shellfish beds close 

to the village were harvested for fresh meat as people drew upon their 

cached provisions.... In late winter people might venture out on the water 

for deep-sea fishing and seaweed collecting. Later, it was time to collect 

herring spawn, different seaweeds, and a variety of plants. People might 

take a break from food procurement in early summer, taking advantage of 

the good weather to travel and visit distant relatives. By mid-summer, 

salmon fishing had begun in full force. Finally, in the fall, the families 

moved to their fish streams where intense harvesting and processing of 

salmon, meat, and berries took place. (1984:32) 

De Laguna (1990:206) cautions that “[n]o one annual cycle of activities was true 

for all the different local groups, and every community offered a choice of occupations at 

any given time, so that different families might follow different pursuits during the same 

period." 

Huna Tlingit gull egg harvests fit into the local pattern of seasonal harvests. Gull 

eggs were taken during a brief window of opportunity between mid-May and mid-June, 

during the initial egg-laying phase at the gull colonies. The timing of these harvests was 

critical. Given the tight synchronization of egg laying in the gull colonies (described in 

48
more detail below), optimal harvests with maximum numbers of fresh eggs were possible 

only for a very limited time. Gull egg collecting trips heralded the arrival of good travel 

weather and release from the period of late winter and early spring food shortages. For 

Huna people, it was a particularly exciting time, especially for children, who participated 

actively in the gull egg harvests. 

Bird Egg Harvests and Traditional Land and Resource Rights 

There are four main matrilineal clans in the present-day Huna Tribe that stem 

from Glacier Bay. Thornton notes (1999:34): 

Tlingit history relates that Glacier Bay was settled originally by what are 

today four distinct matrilineal clans of two reciprocating moieties: the 

Chookaneidi (“People of Chookanhéeni” or “Beach Grass Creek,” a 

reference to Berg River/Bay; spelled Tcukanadi on Map 1), the 

Kaagwaantaan (“People of the Burned House”; not indicated on Map 1), 

and the Wooshkeetaan (“People with Houses on Top of One Another”; 

spelled Wuchitan on Map 1) of the Eagle/Wolf moiety; and the 

T’akdeintaan (“People of the T’akdein Satan [a village name]; spelled 

Dakdentan on Map 1) of the Raven moiety. A fifth group, the Kuyeikeidí 

(People of Kuyeik [Excursion Inlet]), also of the Raven moiety but now 

extinct (or perhaps transformed into the Lukaax.ádi of Haines...), 

reportedly dwelled at Excursion Inlet. 

Catton (1995:14) observes disagreement among ethnographers on the number of 

Huna clans: “John R. Swanton listed six clans, three of each moiety, in 1904. Frederica 

de Laguna named nine clans. Theodore H. Haas and Walter R. Goldschmidt ... in 1946 

... subdivided the area into just three clan territories....” (see Appendix 6). It is the 

judgment of the authors that these apparent disagreements, which are no doubt partly a 

reflection of the dynamic and shifting constitution of multi-local clans and the historical 

exigencies of Tlingit settlement and migration patterns, are of no significance to the issue 

at hand. 

49
Specific clan claims are asserted in part by legendary accounts. Catton 

summarizes: 

The Glacier Bay story of the Tcukanadi (= Chookaneidi) ... recalls a time 

when the basin [of the east arm of Glacier Bay] held a glacier and 

freshwater lake at one end, from which a large river flowed to the sea. 

Geologists have found evidence of such a lake... while ecologists have 

discerned from relic tree stumps the prior existence of a lowland spruce 

and hemlock forest. The clan legend tells of an ancestral village in this 

valley where the Tcukanadi, together with three other clans, enjoyed an 

abundance of all kinds of salmon. Their occupation of this place came to 

a swift end when a teenage girl of the village, weary of her confinement 

during menstruation, whistled through some charmed fish bones to beckon 

the glacier’s spirit. Once set in motion, the glacier was unstoppable.... 

The four clans [then] separated, and while three established villages at 

points along Icy Strait, the fourth clan, the Tcukanadi, went to the present 

site of Hoonah. (1995:16-17) 

Niblack (1890), speaking of Haida and Tlingit, asserts “each [egg-harvest] location is 

preempted by particular families, and considered hereditary property, which is handed 

down from generation to generation.” However, in Glacier Bay, where the Chookaneidi 

and Wooshkeetaan clans claimed territories, and all clans occupied the villages in Bartlett 

Cove, this was not the case. There is no evidence that members of other clans resident at 

Hoonah were ever excluded, nor that they had to obtain explicit permission from 

Chookaneidi leaders to harvest eggs at sites in their territory. Elder Frank Wright 

explains: 

... as far as owning it, no. The only ones that claim it is Chookaneidi. 

Only because of [the legendary girl] Kasteen. A lot of us came out of 

there. Chookaneidi, they lived on one side of that river [when Glacier Bay 

was above sea level] .... And Kaagwaantaan, some of us lived on this 

other side, just up, further up. But they still claim the whole thing.... We 

never asked them. They know themselves [that we are] all out from there. 

So we don’t have to ask their permission.... Probably from the other 

towns, like Angoon or Haines or Klukwan, any other town, they have to 

ask permission.... That was in the old days. (personal interview) 

50
Thus, the right to harvest eggs in Glacier Bay is essentially a “tribal” (kwaan) 

right, since parties from Angoon or Sitka would not presume to harvest there without 

explicit permission of the Huna, or, in particular, from a Chookaneidi. It is possible that 

ownership was expressed differently before the 20th century consolidation of clans at the 

Hoonah village site. By contrast, key berry patches in Glacier Bay were recognized as 

the property of families (or matrilineages) who had the right to regulate access to those 

sites. No such ownership is asserted for any seabird colony, with the possible exception 

of Boussole Head on the outer coast where a large Black-legged Kittiwake colony 

symbolized the T’akdeintaan clan’s original settlement in the region and they claim 

ownership for the place, crest and stories. (The kittiwake, a.k.a. kh’éikh’w or “sea 

pigeon,” is a T’akdeintaan clan crest.) 

Salisbury’s statement (1962) that, “each clan [has] their own special preserve [for 

‘seafowl’ egg harvests]” may be true on Forrester Island, but does not accord with local 

Huna testimony regarding the Marble Islands. Under what conditions might one expect 

clan-based (or individual) territoriality with respect to resource access versus "open 

access" (to all members of some regional grouping, in this case)? Forrester Island is 

much larger, supports a much greater total resource base, and was used by Klawock 

Tlingit and Kaigani Haida groups. As far as the authors can judge, the Marble Islands 

egg-gathering territory was not restricted by clan ownership (though berry patches in 

Glacier Bay might have been). The authors hypothesize this did not happen because the 

gull egg resource on the island was not sufficiently abundant to allow territorial 

partitioning among the Huna clans (Dyson, Hudson and Smith 1978). A closer analog to 

the Huna use of the Marble Island colonies may be Haenke Island in Yakutat Bay (see de 

51
Laguna 1972:395). Here a single, concentrated, high-quality resource site was located 

close to the village. It was used by all the villagers. Certain other islands in Sitka Sound 

similarly served as a communal source of eggs for all clans dwelling in Sitka, even 

though the surrounding body of water was claimed by one clan (Thornton pers. comm. 

1998). 

Tlingit property rights over bird egg-harvesting sites and other key resources 

areas were not static but rather flexible and adaptive to the material conditions of 

economic and social life. The evidence from contemporary Hoonah residents suggests 

that rights to harvest eggs at a particular locale extended to all members of clans dwelling 

in that particular region or kwaan (i.e., Huna Kawoo or territory), and that non-local 

Tlingits could gain access to egging sites through local kin ties or at the discretion of 

local groups. Historically, it is possible that more exclusive clan rights were exercised 

over specific egging sites, but the authors hypothesize that in Huna territory, the benefits 

of partitioning and defending such small resource patches generally were outweighed by 

the costs in the contemporary era. More generally, it is important to note that in the 20th

century kwaan-level rights have become increasingly important due to the consolidation 

of Tlingits into permanent villages and their organization into tribal governments 

basically along traditional kwáan lines (see Thornton 2001). The matrilineal clan and 

house group remain foundational social units in Tlingit society, and their prerogatives 

over material resources and other property are still forcefully articulated and respected, 

even in places such as Glacier Bay where occupancy of traditional lands has ceased. 

52
“Traditional Egg-Harvesting Practices of the Huna Tlingit” 

 By the 1960s the Glacier Bay National Monument administration began to 

more effectively enforce the prohibition on gull egg harvests within the park. 

This is not to say that clandestine harvests did not and do not take place. 

However, these harvests are performed by individuals acting surreptitiously. 

They have no formal community support and therefore cannot be construed as 

cultural practices of the Huna community, despite the fact that there may be 

considerable understanding within the Huna community as to why people are 

motivated to behave in this manner and sympathy for those who harvest eggs 

surreptitiously. Furthermore, the need for secrecy likely precludes applying the 

"traditional" harvest management strategies that we document here. 

 With the exception of legally permitted egg harvests in the Inian Islands in 

2001 and 2002, “traditional” Huna egg-harvesting practices are those recognized 

as legitimate by Huna Tlingit people prior to the 1960s. These practices varied 

through time as a consequence of changing environmental and social 

circumstances. This research details traditional practices reported by living 

Tlingit adults who participated in family egg-collecting expeditions primarily 

during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and the early 1960s. A consensus as to how 

those harvests were properly conducted is described in detail in this report as well 

as several less frequently described alternative practices. 

It is clear that earlier generations of Huna Tlingit must have acted somewhat 

differently in harvesting gull eggs compared to that which we have described. In 

particular, we infer that the following historic changes in the context of this 

practice are relevant: 

1) Before the modern era of commercial seine fishing, Huna collecting 

parties would not have been able to use large powerboats to transport 

family members to harvest sites. This fleet in Hoonah dates to the 1920s 

and reached a peak of ca. 50 seine boats in the 1950s, but the fleet has 

since declined to four or five active boats. (It has been significantly 

reduced in number recently due to the dynamics of the commercial fishing 

industry in southeastern Alaska.). Before large mechanically powered 

craft were widely available, egg-harvesting parties would have traveled 

by canoe and would have had to camp either on the gull nesting islands or 

nearby. Gull egg harvests would most likely have been less concentrated 

at regionally outstanding sites due to the greater effort involved in getting 

to, and staying at, the harvest sites. 

53
54

“Traditional Egg-Harvesting Practices of the Huna Tlingit, continued” 

2) In the 19th century the local Tlingit population was not concentrated in a 

single winter village but dispersed among several sites. These various 

winter villages were likely strongly linked to particular clans. Given this 

early historic settlement pattern and the absence of powerboats, harvests 

would most likely have been less concentrated at the Marble Islands. 

Colonies in Icy Strait and on the outer coast would likely have been only 

exploited by nearby villages instead of all local Tlingit focusing on the 

primary regional colony. 

3) Since Glacier Bay’s glaciers have been in rapid retreat since ca. 1800, the 

location of gull-nesting colonies, their topography and overall abundance 

have also been in flux throughout the historic period. Of particular note 

are the demise of the Strawberry Island colony and recently the North 

Marble Island colony (since ca. 1972) and the somewhat earlier demise of 

colonies in the Beardslee Islands and on Willoughby Island. It is likely 

that these recent changes in the availability of gull eggs are due to natural 

succession of the vegetation at these locations rather than to human 

disturbance. At the same time new gull colonies have been established, 

they are less accessible to Huna people (being far up Glacier Bay and on 

inaccessible cliffs) than the defunct colony sites. As a consequence, the 

number of nesting gull pairs subject to regular Huna traditional harvest is 

now less than in the past, despite the fact that gull populations throughout 

southeastern Alaska have been increasing as indicated by Christmas count 

data. 

4) The introduction of refrigerators and freezers has lessened the importance 

of earlier food storage techniques. This, and the reduction in gull nesting 

colonies due to ecological succession, has made obsolete the long-term 

storage of gull eggs in seal oil and by other means described in detail later 

in the report. 

These and perhaps other changes in the social, political, and natural 

environment should be kept in mind when assessing what is “essential” to Huna 

Tlingit traditional egg-harvesting practices. 

Eugene Hunn
IV. SUMMARY OF THE BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE 

CONCERNING THE POPULATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF 

RELEVANT BIRD SPECIES WITHIN THE HUNA TLINGIT 

TRADITIONAL TRIBAL TERRITORY6

 

Resources consulted for general information on bird-species distributions in 

North America and Alaska include the 7th edition of The A.O.U. Checklist of North 

American Birds (AOU 1998), Kessell and Gibson (1978), and Armstrong (1983). 

Information on nests, eggs, and reproductive behavior for the relevant species is from A. 

C. Bent’s classic life histories (for gulls, 1963 [1921]); Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye 

(1988); Verbeek (1993); and Baicich and Harrison (1997). References consulted for 

studies relevant to optimal clutch sizes in gulls and effects of disturbance at gull colonies 

include Bosch et al. (2000); Drent and Daan (1980); Ickes, Belant, and Dolbeer (1998); 

Kennedy (1991); Monaghan and Nager (1997); Nager, Monaghan, and Houston (2000); 

Olijnyk and Brown (1999); Reid (1987); Shugart and Scharf (1976); and Wanless et al. 

(1996). Zador’s recent research at the South Marble Island Glaucous-winged Gull 

colony (Zador and Piatt 1999; Zador 2001) is most valuable in this context. For 

waterfowl information, Madge and Burn (1988) was consulted. Winter bird distributions 

are suggested by the Christmas bird censuses published by the National Audubon Society 

(e.g., NAS 1997). 

The Glacier Bay National Park Bird Checklist (hereafter, the Checklist), revised 

1986, lists 223 species known to have occurred in the GBNPP since formal bird 

 

6

 This section of the report covers Task 1, Research Questions 2, 3, 6, and 7, in part, and is also pertinent to Task 2 of th 

subagreement that authorized the research. See Appendix 1. 

55
observations began. The Checklist also indicates in what part of the park the species 

occurs and whether it is known to nest or is suspected of nesting (see Table 4). This list 

is used to determine which species might have been targeted for their eggs and to rank 

those species in terms of the likely subsistence value of their eggs to the Huna Tlingit. 

Table 4. Species of Aquatic Birds Known to Nest or Suspected of Nesting in Glacier Bay 

National Park (Checklist, GBNPP 1986).*

Species NS A Tlingit name Nesting pattern 

Common Loon ? c kaghit dispersed 

Red-throated Loon n u yeekagháaxhi dispersed 

Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel n - ghanook colonial, in burrows 

Leach’s Storm-Petrel ? - ghanook colonial, in burrows 

Pelagic Cormorant n a yookh colonial 

Double-crested Cormorant ? - xh’adaaxh’aan ? colonial 

Great Blue Heron n r laxh’ colonial 

Canada Goose n u t’aawákh colonial 

Green-winged Teal n u atsik’íye ? dispersed 

Mallard n c kindachooneit dispersed 

Pintail n u no name recorded dispersed 

Northern Shoveler ? r s’elasheesh ? dispersed, rare 

Lesser Scaup n r atsik’íye ? rare 

Common Eider n v no name recorded dispersed 

Harlequin Duck n c s’ús’ dispersed 

Long-tailed duck ? u yaa.aa.uné / aa.aa.uné dispersed 

Barrow’s Goldeneye n c hinyikgáaxu dispersed, cavity-nester 

Common Merganser n c salxúts/ shalxwáts dispersed, cavity-nester 

Red-breasted Merganser n u chaaxh/ khaaxh ? dispersed 

Semipalmated Plover n u sedaadakh’éedaa dispersed 

Killdeer ? r no name recorded dispersed 

Black Oystercatcher n c ługún concentrated 

Greater Yellowlegs n u no name recorded dispersed 

Lesser Yellowlegs n r no name recorded dispersed 

Solitary Sandpiper n r no name recorded dispersed 

56
Table 4. Continued

Spotted Sandpiper n c no name recorded dispersed 

Least Sandpiper n u hinxhukadzéedzi dispersed 

Common Snipe n u lu.áadaa dispersed 

Parasitic Jaeger n u lawuxh dispersed 

Mew Gull n c kootl’éet’aa/ kool’éit’áa loosely colonial 

Herring Gull n u kéidladi colonial 

Glaucous-winged Gull n c kéidladi colonial 

Black-legged Kittiwake n c kh’eikh’w colonial 

Arctic Tern n c kichyaat colonial 

Aleutian Tern n v no name recorded very rare 

Common Murre n u kéel colonial 

Pigeon Guillemot n a xj'adaaxh'aan concentrated 

Marbled Murrelet ? a ch'eet dispersed 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet ? u ch'eet dispersed 

Tufted Puffin n u xhík colonial, in burrows 

Horned Puffin n r lugwáach’/ lugk’wát colonial, in burrows 

* NS = nesting status: n = known to nest; ? = suspected of nesting. A = abundance during the nesting 

season: a = abundant, c = common, u = uncommon, r = rare, v = very rare, “-“ (minus sign) = not listed. § 

Nesting patterns are abstracted from information in Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye (1988) and Baicich and 

Harrison (1997). Species in bold provided eggs for harvest. Blanks indicate information could not be 

confirmed. 

Though 39 species of aquatic birds may nest in Glacier Bay National Park and 

Preserve, most populations were too small, dispersed, rare, or their nests too difficult to 

access for their eggs to have been harvested in significant numbers (see Table 4). Eight 

of these species are unambiguously identified as providing harvestable eggs. In addition, 

one terrestrial species, the blue grouse, might be added to this list. All species with eggs 

known to have been harvested by Huna people (indicated in boldface type) are rated as 

abundant, common, or uncommon on the latest GBNPP bird checklist (GBNPP 1986). 

Why have eggs of other equally common nesting species not been harvested? One factor 

57
appears to be that colonial nesting species are favored over species that disperse to nest, 

such as loons, many ducks, shorebirds, and the Parasitic Jaeger. 

Historically, the location, size, and species composition of Glacier Bay seabird 

nesting colonies must be inferred from park staff and visitors’ incidental observations. 

The most valuable of these is Superintendent Been’s notes of his 1940 tour of 

southeastern Alaska. Patten’s studies in 1972 and 1973 of breeding Glaucous-winged 

and Herring Gulls on the Marble Islands in Glacier Bay were the only detailed 

observations of local nesting colonies until Zador’s recent work (Zador & Piatt 1999; 

Zador 2001). Sowls et al. in 1982 surveyed seabird colonies in the outer coastal portion 

of the Huna Tlingit territory. Ten of a total of eleven seabird colonies surveyed in area 

010 (from Cenotaph Island in Lituya Bay south to Lisianski Inlet) contained a total of 

1,494 nesting Glaucous-winged Gulls (747 nests) (Sowls et al. 1982) (see Table 5). 

Table 5. Numbers of Nesting Seabirds Along the Outer Coast Between Lituya Bay and 

Lisianski Inlet (area 010) During a Boat Survey in 1982 (Sowls et al. 1982).

Species numbers of individuals nesting number of colonies 

Storm-petrel unknown 1

Glaucous-winged Gull 1,494 10

Black-legged Kittiwake 2,182 8

Pelagic Cormorant 224 3

Tufted Puffin 64 3

Horned Puffin 22 2-3

Of those species reported to have been exploited for their eggs, Glaucous-winged 

Gull eggs were more frequently harvested than all the other species combined. This 

makes sense in light of the large size of Glaucous-winged Gull colonies, the accessibility 

of the nests, and the size of the eggs. Only the Canada Goose has larger eggs than this 

58
gull and, of the rest, only the puffins come close to it in size.7

 Though Canada Geese lay 

an average of five to seven eggs per clutch, compared to three for the Glaucous-winged 

Gull, they do not nest in dense colonies and they hide their nests well (see Table 6). 

Table 6. Bird Species with Eggs Reported or Suspected to Have Been Harvested by the 

Huna Tlingit.

Species length x width 

(mm)* 

cc/egg§ volume ratio - 

to chicken egg 

modal clutch 

size 

Pelagic Cormorant 59 x 37 38.45 0.95 3-5

Canada Goose, race fulva 83 x 55 119.51 2.95 5-7

Mallard 58 x 41 46.41 1.14 10-12

Blue Grouse 50 x 35 29.16 0.72 6-8

Black Oystercatcher 56 x 39 40.54 1.00 2-3

Mew Gull 57 x 41 45.61 1.13 3

Herring Gull 70 x 48 76.77 1.89 2-3

Glaucous-winged Gull 73 x 51 90.85 2.24 3

Black-legged Kittiwake 56 x 41 44.81 1.11 2

Arctic Tern 40 x 29 16.01 0.39 2

Pigeon Guillemot 61 x 41 48.81 1.20 2

Marbled/Kittlitz’s Murrelet 60 x 36 37.01 0.91 1

Tufted/Horned Puffin 72 x 49 82.29 2.03 1

domestic chicken † 56 x 39 40.54 1.00 -

*Egg sizes are as reported in Baicich and Harrison (1997), except for the Canada Goose, which is 

estimated by proportional interpolation between sizes of “large” and “small” races. § Egg volume is 

calculated from length and width according to the formula Volume = 4.76 x length x (width)2/10000 

(Zador 2001:6). †Cited for comparative purposes. 

The following is a review of the biological literature pertaining to bird species of 

interest to the Huna in their traditional use area. Prior to 1999 there was limited 

 

7

 Herring Gulls are not distinguished from Glaucous-winged Gulls in this discussion. The Herring Gull is closely related to the 

Glaucous-winged Gull and may freely hybridize with the latter where their breeding ranges overlap. However, just ten Herring Gull 

pairs were noted in the North Marble Island colonies in 1972 and fifteen in 1973, which constitutes a mere 1.0% to 1.5% of the 

Glaucous-winged Gulls at the colony (Patten 1974:18). One “typical” Herring Gull pair was noted, together with seventeen mixed

pairs, of a total of 452 pairs sampled in 1972 and 1973 (Patten 1974:22). There is no evidence that Huna Tlingit distinguish between 

these two very similar species, which is not surprising, since pure Herring Gulls are far outnumbered by the hybrids, which show 

every combination of intermediate characteristics. 

59
biological data on Glaucous-winged Gull nesting in and near Glacier Bay. In 1999 and 

2000, however, the research funded by NPS and conducted by Stephani Zador and John 

Piatt on the South Marble Island population (Zador & Piatt 1999; Zador 2001) provides 

essential information—especially about the effects of egg loss caused by both human and 

avian predators. In addition, information on bird distributions in Glacier Bay was 

provided to Hunn by GLBPP staff in June 1998.8 The remainder of Chapter IV provides 

species accounts that complement the information provided above. 

CHARADRIIFORMES 

The Charadriiformes includes the suborder Lari (family Laridae: gulls and terns), 

the suborder Charadrii or “shorebirds” (various families), and the suborder Alcae (family 

Alcidae, the alcids). These groups are treated in sequence below. 

LARIDAE: GULLS AND TERNS 

Glaucous-winged [Larus glaucescens] and Herring Gull [L. argentatus]

These are known in Tlingit as kéidladi. Respondents questioned with respect to 

the difference between Glaucous-winged and Herring Gulls did not appear to recognize 

any distinction. Herring Gulls are greatly outnumbered by Glaucous-winged Gulls in the 

Glacier Bay colonies. Occasional hybrid pairs occur (Patten and Weisbrod 1974). 

Glaucous-winged Gulls (Photograph 3) are colonial nesters, preferring to nest on 

“coastal cliffs, grassy slopes, bare flats esp. on small islands” (Ehrlich, Dobkin, and 

 

8

 Glacier Bay NPS staff members interviewed by Eugene Hunn in June, 1998 were Rusty Yerxa, Mary Dralovec, and Elizabeth Hooge. 

60
Wheye 1988:176). Egg laying within a colony is tightly synchronized. Patten suggested 

that “colonial nesting and synchronization of egg-laying have an anti-predator function” 

(1974:38). He notes that at the North Marble Island colonies, “[I]ncubation did not begin 

until after the clutch of three was completed, about a week after the first egg was laid. 

The onset of incubation was also synchronized in all colonies, and began immediately 

after the peak egg-laying week” (1974:40). 

Photograph 3. Glacous-winged Gulls. 

Baicich and Harrison state that a full clutch of Glaucous-winged Gull eggs is 

“usually 3, often 2, rarely 4” [of which the latter may represent nests tended by two 

females (Reid 1987:8)]; a Herring Gull clutch is “usually 2-3” (1997:155, 157). Patten’s 

study of 353 nests at North Marble Island Glaucous-winged Gull colonies reported the 

average completed clutch to be 2.80 in 1972 and 2.96 in 1973 (1974:27). He noted that 

61
“the optimum clutch size in the Herring, Glaucous-winged and Western Gulls is 

evidently around three but as in other species there is probably some variation in the 

optimum number from locality to locality as well as from year to year” (Patten 1974:41-

42). Zador (2001:24) reported that the control sample laid a higher percentage of threeegg clutches in 2000 (74%) than in 1999 (64%). She also observed that: “Gulls began 

laying eggs an average of 6 days earlier in 2000 than in 1999... and laid significantly 

more eggs on average in 2000” (Zador 2001:13). Combining data from non-manipulated 

nests for 1999 and 2000 (n = 291), she observed that 68% laid 3-egg clutches, 20% 2-egg 

clutches and 11% 1-egg clutches. 

Glaucous-winged Gull eggs average 73 x 51 mm, compared to 70 x 48 mm for 

Herring Gulls (Baicich and Harrison 1997:155, 157). Freshly laid Glaucous-winged Gull 

eggs on North Marble Island averaged 97.6 gms (N = 142; Patten 1974:46). Verbeek 

(1993) reports statistically significant differences in egg mass between the first two eggs 

of a three-egg clutch and the third egg laid. The first eggs averaged 95.7 gms, the second 

eggs 95.0 gms, while the third eggs averaged just 87.8 gms (1993:9). Verbeek also 

reports that the empty shell weighs on average 6.7 gms (1993:9). Thus the edible portion 

of an egg laid first or second is ca. 90 gms, of the third egg ca. 80 gms. 

Large gulls are “indeterminate layers,” that is, they “respond to the loss of eggs 

by laying more” (Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye 1988:165, cf. Kennedy 1991; Zador 

2001:2). Gull population control experiments indicate that Glaucous-winged Gulls will 

initiate a new egg-laying cycle approximately 12 days following the destruction of a 

completed clutch (Ickes, Belant, and Dolbeer 1998; Stephani Zador pers. comm. Nov. 5, 

62
2001). Extensive re-nesting after heavy predation by red foxes (Vulpes fulva) in a 

Michigan Herring Gull colony has been documented (Shugart and Scharf 1976). 

With regard to the impact of disturbance and predation on nesting activities, 

Patten reports that he “found no adverse effect on eggs hatching resulting from 

interrupted incubation due to my presence [about once every four days]” (1974:40). He 

notes that, “The loss of eggs through predation was the principal factor influencing 

hatching and fledging rate in both years” of his study (1974:43), the principal predator 

being other gulls in the colony, though he observed predation on eggs by ravens, crows 

and eagles. “[Bald] Eagles disturbed the North Marble Island gull colonies repeatedly. 

The approach of an eagle caused immediate high-intensity alarm calls and flight of the 

entire colony at once” (Patten 1974:52-53). Zador and Piatt (1999:4, 13-14) noted 

significant Bald Eagle predation on gull eggs, concluding: “Bald Eagles appear to be the 

primary predators of nesting Glaucous-winged Gulls on South Marble Island.” 

Despite the disturbances by predators, Patten measured an average fledgling 

success rate for the North Marble Island colonies of 1.75 and 1.80 per nest, which may be 

compared with an estimated 0.92 chicks fledged per nest as “sufficient to maintain a 

stable population” of Herring Gulls at another colony (Patten 1974:64). Patten concludes 

that, “The gulls on North Marble are reproducing with more than enough fledging to 

sustain the population.... [T]he high reproductive success accounts for dispersion of 

young breeding adults to recently deglaciated areas and colonization of marginal sites. 

The gull population in Glacier Bay certainly possesses the potential for rapid expansion” 

(Patten 1974:64). Zador (2001) reports similar hatching rates in un-manipulated nests of 

63
1.61 (n = 151, 1999) and 1.81 (n = 140, 2000); however, she did not report fledging 

success rates. 

Trager noted in 1939 that, “[g]ulls nest in very large numbers each spring in the 

southern part of the area, particularly on North and South Marble islands and the small 

islands of Geikie Inlet.” Been also noted, visiting North and South Marble Islands in 

August of 1940, that each, “has been a nesting place for seagulls for many years. 

Gaucase wing gulls [sic.] predominated to inclusion [sic.] of nearly every other gull 

except a few haring [sic.]” (Been n.d. [1940]:38-39). 

Photograph 4. North Marble Island, c. 1998. 

 

Jewett (1942) estimated 100 pairs each on North and South Marble Islands on 

July 14, 1941. Five hundred nesting pairs were estimated on North Marble Island in both 

1972 and 1973 (Patten 1974:18). Though Patten does not estimate the number of nesting 

64
pairs on South Marble Island, he and other observers suggest that the colonies on the two 

islands are similar in size, as are the islands themselves. Together, the Marble Island 

colonies were “by far the largest in Glacier Bay” (Patten 1974). Paige (1975) noted that 

North and South Marble Islands supported by far the largest gull colonies in Glacier Bay 

in 1975 – a year in which nesting failed completely. He estimated 1000 nests on North 

and South Marble Islands together (Zador and Piatt 1999:20). In 1999 and 2000, Zador 

(2001:5) estimates approximately 700 Glaucous-winged Gulls nesting on most of the unforested area of South Marble Island. Presumably, due to ecological succession, North 

Marble Island no longer supports significant numbers of nesting Glaucous-winged Gulls. 

Zador and Piatt (1999:20) counted only 25 birds on the grassy slope on the southwest 

corner of this island on May 24, 1999. Furthermore, Zador (2001:27) notes that the 

forest on “South Marble Island appears to facilitate eagle predation.... Gulls often 

mobbed the eagles in the air, but usually stopped when the eagles landed in the trees.” 

Thus, ecological succession may also increase predation on eggs at the surviving 

colonies. 

Other colonies past and present in Glacier Bay include: Johns Hopkins Inlet; 

Tlingit Point; Margery Glacier (E. Hooge pers. comm. June 5, 1998); Lone Island (big 

colony, 1991-1996+); Drake Island (1995-1996) (see also Been n.d. [1940]:29, on a 

Drake Island colony); Riggs Glacier (above the kittiwakes colony, young seen in 1996); 

Kashoto Glacier in Johns Hopkins Inlet (just north of the kittiwake colony); Muir Inlet 

shore (E. Hooge pers. comm. June 5, 1998); “scores” on an island near the head of Muir 

Glacier (Been n.d. [1940]:32); Triangle Island, Beardslee Island, Wolf Point, off 

McBride Glacier (B. Paige pers. comm. June 5, 1998); NE corner (R. Yerxa pers. comm. 

65
June 5, 1998). A complete list of colonies reported by scientists and/or by local 

consultants is included in Table 7. 

Mew Gull [Larus canus]

The Tlingit name is perhaps kootl’éet’aa/ kool’éit’áa. Ehrlich, Dobkin, and 

Wheye (1988:172) state that three eggs (57 x 41 mm) is the normal clutch. Mew Gulls 

nest “in small colonies or as solitary pairs.” Nests are a “scrape in highest part of habitat: 

river bar, dry land, or marsh.... Alternatively ... in top of low-growing spruce, on stump, 

piling....” Mew Gulls nest on cobble beaches, especially glacial outwash. This fits the 

evidence from Glacier Bay, where Mew Gulls are reported to nest at Rendu Inlet, Queen 

Inlet outwash, McBride Glacier (on the outwash flat), Wachusset, Tidal, and Hugh Miller 

inlets (M. Kralovec pers. comm. June 5, 1998); also at Queen Inlet outwash and Adams 

Glacier, next to a jaeger colony (M. Kralovec pers. comm. June 5, 1998). They often 

nest in association with Arctic Terns (M. Kralovec pers. comm. June 5, 1998). 

Black-legged Kittiwake [Rissa tridactyla]

The Tlingit name is kh’éikh’w, which apparently imitates the bird's call. Ehrlich, 

Dobkin, and Wheye state that two eggs (57 mm long) is the normal clutch. Black-legged 

Kittiwakes nest in large colonies on “island, steep coastal cliff... [of] mud-cemented onto 

narrow ledge” (1988:176). Nests were noted on a cliff adjacent to Margerie Glacier in 

Tarr Inlet (below a Glaucous-winged Gull colony); on Hugh Miller Island; and on 

Gloomy Knob with Pelagic Cormorants (GBNPP staff pers. comm. June 5, 1998). The 

southernmost colony known for the species in the eastern Pacific is at Yakobi Rock on 

the outer coast (Sowls et al. 1982). This is one of eight colonies noted by the survey 

66
team (Sowls et al. 1982) in the area between Cenotaph Island in Lituya Bay and Lisianski 

Inlet. At these eight colonies, Sowls et al. (1982) reported a total of 2,182 nesting birds 

(1,091 pairs). Kessel and Gibson (1978) reported more than 200 pairs in Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve, all established since 1967. Zador and Piatt (1999:19) 

reported a maximum count of 261 on June 10, 1998 and of 131 nests that year on South 

Marble Island. They refer to Streveler (1989) and note that the colonization of South 

Marble Island by the kittiwakes is very recent, dating to 1989. 

Arctic [Sterna pardisaea] and Aleutian Tern [S. aleutica]

The Tlingit name of the Arctic Tern is kichyaat. According to Baicich and 

Harrison (1997), a normal clutch is “usually 2, sometimes 3 or 1 [40 x 29 mm]” (164-65). 

Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye (1988:106) say that this species is “usually colonial,” and 

that it breeds on “gravel, sand, or shell beaches, occ on grassy portions of islands and salt 

marshes.” Sealers’ Island and Reid Glacier were closed to camping because of tern nests, 

resulting in a resurgence of the tern population at these locations. Arctic Terns are also 

reported nesting at McBride Glacier spit (M. Krolavec pers. comm. June 5, 1998). 

The Aleutian Tern is locally endemic. According to the American Ornithologists' 

Union (1998:202): "Breeds in Alaska from the Chukchi Sea coast ... south along the 

western coast to the Aleutians ... and Alaska Peninsula, and east along the southern coast 

... to Glacier Bay [sic.]; and in Asia on the east coast of Kamchatka and Sakhalin. 

Winters at sea, range unknown.” It nests commonly south to Dry Bay (several hundred 

with eggs, 1977), north of the region under consideration in this report (Kessel and 

Gibson 1978:50-51). Kessel and Gibson (1978:50) note that the species might nest at 

Lituya Bay, as 12 birds were seen just offshore on May 29, 1971. In fact, nesting was 

67
first recorded there sometime between 1979 and 1986, as it was noted in the 1986 edition 

of the Glacier Bay bird Checklist, but not in the 1979 edition. The 1986 Checklist lists 

the Aleutian Tern as “very rare” late May through early August. Ehrlich, Dobkin, and 

Wheye (1988:186) say that it nests, “on small offshore islands and grassy or mossy 

coastal flats near lagoons or river mouths.... Nests in loose colonies, oft assoc with 

Arctic Terns. Easily disturbed in breeding colony, readily flee nests; ... Will not re-nest 

if first clutch destroyed.” 

CHARADRII: “SHOREBIRDS” 

The 1986 edition of the Checklist lists 35 species of shorebirds for the Park and 

Preserve. Of these, eight are known to nest there. However, of these only the Black 

Oystercatcher is mentioned as having been exploited by Huna Tlingit for its eggs. The 

other nesting species are all considerably smaller and only the oystercatcher and the 

diminutive Spotted Sandpiper are rated “common” during the nesting season. 

HAEMATOPODIDAE 

Black Oystercatcher [Haematopus bachmani]

The Tlingit name is lugún, which means literally “fire-nose.” Baicich and 

Harrison (1997:128-129) state that the clutch is “usually 2-3”; eggs average 56 x 39 mm. 

Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye (1988:106) say that they nest by preference on “Rocky coast 

and island; occ on sand beaches, [with] nest usually above high tide line in weedy turf, 

beach gravel, or rock depression.” As “feeding territories [are] defended year-round” 

according to Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye (1988:106), nests of this species will be widely 

scattered. The Checklist indicates that they are commonly encountered throughout 

68
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in appropriate habitat and that they are 

“common” from mid-April through mid-August. Patten counted six and eight nesting 

pairs in 1972 and 1973, respectively, on North Marble Island (1974:18). They were also 

noted at Adams Inlet, with young (GBNPP staff pers. comm. June 5, 1998; see also Been 

1940). Zador and Piatt (1999:11) noted 12 pairs on South Marble Island in 1999. 

ALCAE; ALCIDAE 

Alcids occur throughout the northern oceans. They are strictly marine; many nest 

on offshore islands, often in burrows. One egg per clutch is typical of the family 

(Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye 1988:196-214). The Pigeon Guillemot is an exception, 

typically laying two eggs per clutch (ibid. pg. 202). Ten species are recorded on the 

Checklist. Four are known to nest in the GBNPP, with two more species suspected of 

nesting there. These six species are described below. 

Tufted Puffin [Fratercula cirrhata] and Horned Puffin [F. corniculata]

The Tlingit name for the Tufted Puffin is xhík. Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye 

(1988:214) state that one egg (72 mm long) is the normal clutch. They nest on “Coastal 

slopes, headland, rocky island with cliffs.... On turf-covered slope or on clifftop; 

shallow, 2’-9.5’ tunnel ending in chamber. Occ lays egg on simple pile of grass and 

feathers. Also in rock piles, rarely under matted veg...”; three colonies were noted in 

area 010, from Cenotaph Island in Lituya Bay south to Lisianski Inlet, for a total of 64 

nesting Tufted Puffins (32 pairs) and 22 Horned Puffins (11 pairs) (Sowls et al. 1982) 

(see Table 5, above). Patten (1974:18) counted 25 and 30 Tufted Puffin nesting pairs in 

1972 and 1973, respectively, on North Marble Island. He counted in addition one pair of 

69
Horned Puffins there in 1973 (but three pairs each season on South Marble Island). 

Sumner noted puffins nesting at the Marble Islands in 1947. Zador and Piatt (1999:12) 

reported up to 18 Tufted Puffins and a single Horned Puffin in the vicinity of South 

Marble Island in 1999. Puffins shed the colorful horny covering of their beaks each fall. 

Tom Mills noted that people picked up shed puffin beaks to use for rattles or on "aprons 

and stuff" while gathering eggs on the Marble Islands.9

Marbled Murrelet [Brachyramphus marmoratus] and Kittlitz’s Murrelet [B. 

brevirostris]

The Tlingit name is ch'eet. Baicich and Harrison (1997:171-172) state that one 

egg (60 x 36 mm) is the normal clutch for both murrelet species. Ehrlich, Dobkin and 

Wheye (1988:202-204) state that the Marbled Murrelet nests “in conifer forest near coast, 

inland lakes ... on n[orth]-facing open ground on islands or well inland.... Also nests in 

rock crevices and high in trees.... Nests usually solitary.” The Kittlitz’s Murrelet nests 

“in coastal mountains, oft near glaciers ... [w]ell inland, usu on n-facing slope. Oft a 

base of slope, also cliffs and barren ground on coasts, ledges and talus above timberline.” 

The Checklist lists both types of murrelets as “suspected” of nesting. However, Kessel 

and Gibson (1978:51) state that the Marbled Murrelet is an “abundant to common 

probable breeder [in southeastern Alaska].” 

Pigeon Guillemot [Cepphus columba]

The Tlingit name is xj'adaaxh'aan. The Pigeon Guillemot most often lays a twoegg clutch (61 x 41 mm) (Baicich and Harrison 1997:171-172). It is considered an 

 

9

 Stephani Zador (pers. comm. November 20, 2001) states Tufted Puffins shed their beaks after the breeding season, probably at sea, 

making it unlikely that they would be found at the nesting island. 

70
“abundant” nester in Glacier Bay. Guillemots “nest in small colonies,” on “coastal cliff 

or cave, rocky island.... [placing nest] under loose rocks or boulders” (Ehrlich, Dobkin, 

and Wheye 1988:202-204). Patten (1974:18) estimated 50 and 60 nesting pairs of Pigeon 

Guillemots in 1972 and 1973, respectively, on North Marble Island. Sumner also 

reported them nesting there in 1947. Zador and Piatt (1999:8-9) censused guillemots on 

South Marble during the 1999 nesting season. They recorded a maximum of 171 

individuals on May 24 and monitored 33 likely nesting sites (cf. Zador 1999). 

Common Murre [Uria aalge]

The Tlingit name is kéel. Schroeder and Kookesh (1990) state that eggs of 

murres were harvested by Huna Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

However, it is unlikely that many of them were actually taken because the Common 

Murre is rated on the 1986 Checklist as “rare” in the nesting season. Patten (1974:18) 

tallied eight and 18 nesting pairs on North Marble in 1972 and 1973, respectively. The 

Sowls et al. 1982 survey reported none at the 11 outer-coastal colonies visited. Common 

Murres lay a single large egg (81 x 50 mm) (Baicich and Harrison 1997:169-170). They 

nest colonially on “coastal cliff, offshore rocky flat island.... Mostly on lower or middle 

cliff face, rarely in rock crevice” (Ehrlich Dobkin, and Wheye 1988:196). Zador and 

Piatt (1999:11) noted up to 17 Common Murres on the water adjacent to South Marble 

Island and up to 12 on cliffs there during the 1999 nesting season. However, nesting 

could not be confirmed. They also noted single Thick-billed Murres (Uria lomvia) on or 

near the island July 20 and 26, 1999 (pg. 12). 

71
PELICANIFORMES 

PHALACROCORACIDAE: CORMORANTS 

These are long-necked diving birds related to pelicans. Four species occur on the 

Pacific coast of Alaska, though just two species are listed for the Park and Preserve 

(GBNPP 1986). Only the Pelagic Cormorant is known to nest there. 

Pelagic Cormorant [Phalacrocorax pelagicus]

The Tlingit name is yookh, which no doubt would be applied to the less common 

Double-crested Cormorant as well. Baicich and Harrison (1997:59) report that 3 to 5 

eggs (59 x 37 mm) constitute a normal clutch. Ehrlic, Dobkin and Wheye (1988:28) state 

that Pelagic Cormorants nest on “rocky seacoasts and island cliffs.... On highest, 

steepest, least accessible cliffs facing water.” Patten (1974:18) found three pairs on North 

Marble in 1972, but 30 pairs in 1973. In Glacier Bay they also are reported to nest on 

Gloomy Knob with kittiwakes and near Composite Island (GBNPP staff pers. comm. 

June 5, 1998). Sowls et al. (1982) found three colonies containing a total of 112 nesting 

pairs on the outer coast in the area they surveyed between Cenotaph Island in Lituya Bay 

and Lisianski Inlet. They are sometimes known locally as "Norwegian Turkeys" and, 

according to one HTEES consultant, "are good for nothing." Zador and Piatt (1999:12) 

counted up to 201 Pelagic Cormorants at South Marble Island during the 1999 nesting 

season. Two pairs constructed nests but did not attend these regularly. They noted up to 

three Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) among the Pelagics May 24 

and 31. 

72
ANATIFORMES 

ANATIDAE: DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS 

Thirty-five species of this family have been recorded in the Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve (GBNPP 1986). Of these, just 11 are known to nest locally. Three 

nesting species are rated “rare” or “very rare” by the Checklist. Eggs of the Common 

Eider (“very rare”) were said by Dufresne of the Alaska Game Commission (1939) to 

have been taken by Tlingits in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Catton 

1995:121). If so, it must have been a rare event. Patten (1974:18) reported a single 

Common Eider nesting pair on North Marble Island in 1972. Of the remaining more 

common nesting species, one is a goose, three are dabbling ducks, two are diving ducks, 

and two are mergansers. 

Canada Goose [Branta canadensis]

The Tlingit name is t’aawákh, which is most likely onomatopoetic. Baicich and 

Harrison (1997) state that they lay “usually 5-6” eggs. There are numerous Canada 

Goose subspecies which vary in size. The subspecies that nests in Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve is a medium-sized, dark-breasted form, the non-migratory Vancouver 

Canada Goose (B. c. fulva). By interpolating from linear measurements published in 

Madge and Burn (1988:147) the authors calculate that B. c. fulva eggs should average 83 

x 55 mm. Ehrlich, Dobkin, and Wheye (1988:58) note “nests built on flat ground in short 

grass near water." 

73
Mallard [Anas platyrhynchos]

The Tlingit name is kindachooneit, which clearly applies first of all to this 

species. Baicich and Harrison (1997) and Ehrlich, Dobkin and Wheye (1988:60) agree 

that 8 to 10 eggs (58 mm) is the normal clutch, and that nests are built on flat ground in 

short grass near water. 

Other Duck Species 

Common nesting species of the Anatidae in addition to those mentioned above 

include two dabbling ducks (Green-winged Teal and Northern Pintail), two diving ducks 

(Harlequin Duck and Barrow’s Goldeneye), and two mergansers (Common and Redbreasted Merganser). (See Table 4) Ehrlich, Dobkin and Wheye (1988:64-94) describe 

nesting habitat preferences as follows: Green-winged Teal: “densely vegetated inland 

freshwater lake, marsh, pond, pool, shallow stream.... Well concealed in clump of tall 

grass, forbs, brush, or at base of log or shrub”; Northern Pintail: “grassland, cultivated 

field, tundra, sandy flat, island in boreal forest lake, marsh, pond.... Occ far from water, 

concealed in grass, stubble, etc.”; Harlequin Duck: “rocky coastal islets, forested 

mountain streams with fast flowing water.... Usu under shrub 60’-90’ from water”; 

Barrow’s Goldeneye: “near densely vegetated lakes and ponds with abundant aquatic 

vegetation.... In live or dead tree”; Common Merganser: “lakes and rivers in 

mountainous and forested areas.... Usu cavity in decid tree”; Red-breasted Merganser: 

“rivers, ponds, lakes, coasts, usu on small islands of inland waters with low shrubby 

veg.” The goldeneye and the Common Merganser nest most often in cavities in trees. 

Thus their eggs are largely inaccessible. The remaining four species hide their nests 

74
beneath vegetation. None are colonial nesters. It seems likely that eggs of these species 

were not harvested in any numbers. 

GALLIFORMES 

PHASIANIDAE: GROUSE AND PTARMIGANS 

One species of grouse and three ptarmigan species have been recorded in the Park 

and Preserve. All four species are year-round residents. However, the three ptarmigan 

species are all rated “rare,” and all are restricted to the most arctic-alpine portions of the 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GBNPP 1986). The Blue Grouse, by contrast, 

is “common” and often seen in more accessible portions of the area. In any case, none of 

these species are colonial and locating nests with eggs would have been difficult. Blue 

grouse were more often hunted for their meat. 

75
76
V. HUNA TLINGIT EGG-HARVESTING STRATEGIES, 

INCLUDING TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF HARVEST10

Egg-gathering Sites 

As noted previously, the researchers identified 42 sites in traditional Huna 

territory where birds' eggs were harvested by the Huna people; 33 of these are within the 

boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Thirty-two of the 42 sites were 

used for gathering Glaucous-winged Gull eggs; of these, 25 are within GBNPP 

boundaries. These sites are listed and described in Table 7, identified in Map 3, and 

described in further detail in Appendix 4. 

All interviewees either remembered harvesting eggs on South Marble Island or, if 

they were too young to have participated, hearing stories about those harvests. Less than 

half of the HTEES consultants mentioned any other site, with Middle Pass Rock in the 

Inian Islands (outside the GBNPP) the next most frequently mentioned. Thus, this 

report’s ethnographic description of Huna Tlingit egg-harvesting strategies emphasizes 

how those strategies were applied on the Marble Islands -- especially South Marble 

Island. Access to the South Marble Island gull colony was by way of shallow gullies 

leading up from the gentle southern shoreline (Photograph 5). The northern shoreline has 

recently become a Steller’s sea lion haul-out, which raises concerns about future access 

to the colony (Photograph 6). The eastern shore is a near-vertical cliff. Of the other sites 

identified as Glaucous-winged Gull egg-harvesting sites, nine were mentioned by one 

person; six by two people; eight by three, two by four, and one by five people. 

 

10 This section of the report covers Task 1, Research Questions 1- 8, 10-12, 14, and Task 3, in part. See Appendix 1. 

77
78

Photograph 5. South Marble Island - Boat Access Points, c. 2002. 

Photo illustrates two locations where boat access is close to primary gull-nesting sites. 

Photograph 6. Sea Lion Haul-out, South Marble Island 
1 Point Carolus 

2 Young Island 

3 Beardslee Islands 

4 Flapjack Island 

5 Goose Island (= Eider Island) 

6 Strawberry Island 

7 Boulder Island 

8 Willoughby Island (formerly) 

9 Francis Island 

10 Leland Island 

11 South Marble Island 

12 North Marble Island (formerly) 

13 Drake Island 

14 Sturgess Island 

15 Sebree Island (at Tlingit Point) 

16 Garforth Island 

17 Sealers Island 

18 Tidal Inlet (islands? GD) 

19 Triangle Island (Queen Inlet) 

20 Russell Island rocks 

21 Composite Island 

22 Skidmore Bay Islands 

23 Hugh Miller Inlet (islands) 

24 Lone Island 

25 Geikie Rock 

26 Shag Cove Rock (Geikie Inlet) 

27 Grouse Fort 

28 Sister’s Island 

29 Pulizzi Island (Spasski Bay) 

30 Inian Islands: Middle Passage Rock 

31 Greentop (local name) 

32 George Islands (outside Elfin Cove) 

33 Table Rock (aka “Bird Rock”) 

34 Pt. Lucan-Column Pt., rock between 

35 Surge Bay rocks 

36 Yakobi Rock 

37 Graves Rocks: Egg Island 

38 Libby Island, rocks inside 

39 Dixon Harbor: lake 

40 Boussole Arch 

41 Astrolabe Pt. 

MAP 3. Sites within Traditional Huna Territory Used for Egg Collecting

42 Lituya Bay: Centotaph Island 

79
 

80
 

Table 7. Sites within Traditional Territory Huna Used for Egg Harvests.

Sites * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a b size/ 

kmxkm 

area/

km2 

map latitude 

N 

longitude 

W 

1 Point Carolus x x * F:B1 58.23 136.025

2 Young Island x ?

3 Beardslee Islands <x> x x x x J:B6

J:C6

58.325 135.555

4 Flapjack Island <x> x x x

5 Goose Island (= Eider Island) x J:C6 58.305 135.56

6 Strawberry Island <x> x x * * F:C1

J:C6

58.31 136.00

7 Boulder Island <x> * * ?

8 Willoughby Island (formerly) <x> x x * * 3.7x1.6 4.44 F:C1 58.35 136.07

9 Francis Island x .6x.2 0.09 F:C1 58.375 136.11

10 Leland Island <x> x * * .75x.25 0.14 J:C6 58.39 135.595

11 South Marble Island x x x x x * * .35x.2 0.05 F:C1 58.38 136.03

12 North Marble Island (formerly) <x> x * * .4x.25 0.08 F:C1 58.40 136.04

13 Drake Island x * * 3.1x1.3 3.02 F:C1 58.4 136.14

14 Sturgess Island <x> x .6x.3 0.14 F:C1 58.43 136.03

15 Sebree Island (at Tlingit Point) x * * 1.7x.5 0.64 F:D1 58.455 136.095

16 Garforth Island x * * .6x.2 0.09 F:D1 58.47 136.045

17 Sealers Island x * * .25x.1 0.02 F:D1 58.57 136.075

18 Tidal Inlet (islands? GD) 

19 Triangle Island (Queen Inlet) x * * F:D3 58.575 136.32

20 Russell Island rocks x * * F:D3 58.55 136.45

21 Composite Island x 1.6x.8 0.96 F:D2 58.53 136.34

22 Skidmore Bay islands x F:D2 58.48 136.37

23 Hugh Miller Inlet (islands) x x * * .9x.3 0.20 F:D2 58.46 136.32

24 Lone Island x * * F:C1 58.43 136.18

25 Geikie Rock x * * F:C1 58.415 136.19

26 Shag Cove rock (Geikie Inlet) x * * F:C2 58.39 136.205

27 Grouse Fort x

28 Sister's Island x

29 Pulizzi Island (Spasski Bay) x x

30 Inian Islands: Middle Pass Rock x x * * F:B1

F:B2

31 Greentop (local name) x

81
 

Table 7. Continued

Sites * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a b size/ 

kmxkm

area/

km2

map latitude 

N 

longitude 

W 

32 George Islands (outside Elfin Cove) x x ?

33 Table Rock (aka “Bird Rock”) x * F:A2 58.1 136.25

34 Pt. Lucan-Column Pt., rock between 

Lisianski Inlet and Port Althorp. 

x * F:A2 58.08 136.25

35 Surge Bay rocks x F:A2 58.005 136.33

36 Yakobi Rock x F:A2 58.05 136.34

37 Graves Rocks: Egg Island x x * * F:A3 

F:B3 

58.145 136.45

38 Libby Island, rocks inside x * * F:B3 58.17 136.46

39 Dixon Harbor: lake x x x F:B3 58.22 136.52

40 Boussole Arch x x F:B3 58.225 136.56

41 Astrolabe Pt. x x

42 Lituya Bay: Cenotaph Island x x 0.50 F: 58.38 137.35

<x> indicates historic sites that are no longer active. 1=Glaucous-winged Gull, 2=Blacklegged Kittiwake, 3=Arctic Tern, 4=Pelagic Cormorant, 5=Canada Goose, 6=Mallard, 

7=Other duck species, 8=Black Oystercatcher, 9=Tufted Puffin, 10=Grouse & ptarmigan, 

a= Mapped in Schroeder and Kookesh (1990), b= Mentioned in project interviews. *Sites 

in bold are within GBNPP. 

Gull Egg-gathering Site Selection 

Glacier Bay and its environs have many names in Tlingit -- names with descriptive force 

that characterize its geomorphology (e.g., Sít' Eeti Gheey, or “The Bay Taking the Place 

of the Glacier,” and S'é Shuyee, or “End of the Glacial Silt”), its resources (e.g., S’íx’ 

Tlein, or “The Big Dish,” and Tleikhw Aaní, or “Berry Land”), and other outstanding 

features. Significantly, one name applied to islands of Glacier Bay was K’wat’ Aaní, or 

“Egg Land,” a reference to the many bird eggs that dot this landscape each spring and a 

reflection of the Huna Tlingits’ interest in these eggs. The Marble Islands, and especially 

South Marble Island, were particularly popular for their accessible, abundant and early 

eggs. The majority of egg-harvesting sites identified by informants for this study, like 

82
 

those identified in earlier studies (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998; Schroeder and Kookesh 

1990), lie within Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (70%) and especially within 

Glacier Bay proper (62%). The HTEES produced a significant amount of information on 

why certain egging sites were preferred over others. A number of biological and cultural 

factors come into play in deciding where to harvest eggs. Some of the most important of 

these factors are discussed below. 

Productivity of the site 

Sites that consistently produced large quantities of eggs were preferred. Glacier 

Bay is recognized as having the most productive sites with the Marble Islands considered 

especially productive. One group estimated harvesting as many as 600 eggs from a trip 

to these locales around 1970, and when they left, the gulls were already beginning to relay (Pat Mills, HTEES interview). Many of the smaller islands, due to size, plant growth 

and other variables, were not as productive. 

Accessibility of the site 

This consideration includes proximity to Hoonah and sites of associated activities 

(e.g., fishing), shelter for landing and anchorage, traditional and modern land rights, 

regulations, and so on. A distinction is made among the Huna between those sites in 

exposed “outside” waters and those in protected inland waters, like Glacier Bay. South 

Marble Island, for example, was considered one of the closest egg-gathering sites and 

one of the safest for landing (Photograph 5). Its accessibility combined with its 

productivity made it the most popular egg-gathering site for Huna Tlingits. Informants 

frequently contrasted its easy access with that of sites on “the outside,” such as Middle 

83
 

Pass Rock in the Inian Islands, where “you get ocean swells...[that] can make it kind of 

difficult. You got to time it every time the ocean comes up -- waves come in then go out. 

You gotta time it to jump off” (Walter Smith, HTEES interview). 

Regulations also affect access. South Marble Island again serves as an example, 

as it is currently among the most restricted landforms in GBNPP, with humans generally 

forbidden to come within 100 yards due to its status as a marine-mammal haul-out and 

bird rookery. South Marble Island is now the wildlife viewing area most visited by 

recreationists in GBNPP. 

Photograph 7. Glaucous-winged Gull Nest with Three-egg Clutch on Cliffs, South 

Marble Island c. 1998 

Accessibility of eggs 

A site may have an abundance of eggs and even be accessible from the water, yet 

the eggs themselves can be dispersed, obscured by overgrowth, or beyond reach on cliffs 

84
 

or precipices. Competition from other predators, including bears, mink, otters, eagles, 

ravens, crows, etc., is also a consideration. 

Quality of eggs 

Some consultants suggested that the quality of the eggs was influenced by the 

local habitat. For example, it is asserted by some Tlingits that gull eggs can be 

“polluted” by a “garbage” diet (Frank See, HTEES interview). Glacier Bay eggs, as well 

as other foods harvested in Glacier Bay, were often esteemed as rich and pure. 

Attachment to site 

Attachments to sites are built up in myriad ways -- through material, social, 

spiritual, and other means. As de Laguna (1972:58) points out, 

The human meanings of the landscape are more than the mythological 

dimension recognized by Malinowski.... They involve not simply places 

visited and transformed by Raven in the mythical past, but places 

hallowed by human ancestors. For individuals, of course, the world has 

special meanings, for there are places about which their grandparents and 

parents have told them, spots they have visited in their youth, or where 

they still go. None of these personal associations are completely private; 

all are intermeshed through anecdote or shared experiences. Not only is 

the world the scene of happenings long ago, yesterday, and tomorrow, but 

it has human significance for what it offers in food resources, scenery, 

easy routes for travel, or places of danger.... All of these experiential 

channels serve to increase local knowledge and personal sentiments 

toward places, which in turn influence individual choices about where and 

how to collect foods. Thus an egg gatherer may prefer a certain island 

because that is where his family always collected, where his grandfather 

taught him how to land the boat, where to find the nests and how many 

eggs to take from them, and where the family enjoyed spring picnics each 

year. Conversely, he may look upon unknown landscapes with trepidation 

or even fear. 

The importance of place and attachment to place among the Tlingit in general and 

Huna Tlingit in particular has been explored in detail by Thornton (1995, 1997a, 1997b, 

85
 

2000, 2002) and among other Native Americans by Basso (1996), Hunn (1995), and 

others. This literature shows the power of place in individual and collective identity and 

how cultural constructions of place reflect human perceptions of, interactions with, and 

feelings towards specific landscapes. The importance of place in sociocultural life is also 

emphasized within the NPS, under the rubric of cultural and ethnographic landscapes and 

Traditional Cultural Properties (see Gathering sites as cultural landscapes and 

traditional cultural properties, Chapter VIII of this report). 

Spiritual significance of site 

Reflecting strong attachment, most of the HTEES consultants emphasized that 

going to Glacier Bay was more than just getting food for a special treat. It was a return to 

the ancestral homeland. People were happy and joyous, and for many there was a 

spiritual component to the trip. Maureen Obert talks about her first experience in Glacier 

Bay: 

I felt it. I felt everything ... the spirits were so strong. I was just so alive. 

I just felt it through my whole body. My dad was born here. My dad told 

me stories. I couldn’t tell anyone how I felt. It was just like a big shining 

light. 

Johanna Dybdahl speaks to the point that gathering gull eggs in Glacier Bay was 

more than just obtaining food. 

I think it was connection to your seasons. To ...progress in your life. To 

continuity. To sharing in the community. To everyone coming together 

and you know doing this one thing.... And the difference between an egg 

inside Glacier Bay and an egg outside Glacier Bay is Glacier Bay is our 

traditional homeland. That’s where our heart and soul is. That’s what 

ties us to our land. Our food that comes out of there is directly responsible 

for our strength, our knowledge, our inner peace, as compared to anything 

that’s outside of the traditional homeland is food. 

Elder George Obert enlarges on Glacier Bay’s spiritual significance for the Tlingit: 

86
 

Glacier Bay is [the] sacred ancestral homeland for us, the Huna Tlingit, 

who are a spiritual people. Every living being has a spirit including the 

flora and fauna. By the act of God we were pushed out of Glacier Bay due 

to the advancement of the glacier. And now we are not allowed to return 

because Glacier Bay was made a National Monument. 

Frank Wright, Jr., explains why the Marble Islands and Glacier Bay are favorite places to 

gather eggs: 

The reason is because it’s the home country of the Huna Tlingit people ... 

spiritually and because we have a lot of stories that come out of Glacier 

Bay [that are] important to our people. And you know that the food that 

we gathered there is part of the spiritual part of the Bay. So going to 

Glacier Bay is more important than going out into the other areas like 

Inian Islands or in that area where we also get eggs. 

Speaking especially about Glacier Bay’s spiritual importance, elder Lily White says: 

We were taught [that] the place where we get our food was always sacred, 

and the food we ate, everything had spirit in it that we respected.... 

Everything we got from up there was sacred because when people were 

living up there ... it was just like the Garden of Eden.... Everything they 

touch[ed] was beautiful. People were happy. That was the second thing 

to the Garden of Eden. 

Referring to gathering food in Glacier Bay and Excursion Inlet, Pat Mills explains its 

significance in more cultural, as opposed to spiritual, terms: 

And this is how we have come to love our country the way our fathers and 

uncles did. We also felt that we were part of somebody and somebody 

special when our families took us on these trips. We were taught this is 

who we are and that this is how it’s going to be. 

Timing of Birds Egg Harvests 

Because birds’ eggs were among the first fruits of the year (marked by a release 

from “winter” confinement in the villages), and thus eagerly anticipated and craved, sites 

that yielded eggs early were favored. It is recognized that sites “on the inside” (i.e., in 

Glacier Bay) consistently yielded eggs one to two weeks earlier than those on the outer 

coast. The Marble Islands were said to be the earliest due to the “incubating” effects of 

87
 

the heat-retaining rock (Sam Hanlon, HTEES interview). Other activities -- such as 

halibut fishing, salmon trolling, plant and marine invertebrate gathering, and seal and 

mountain goat hunting -- might also be coordinated with the timing of the eggs at 

particular harvest sites (see Table 7 for a list of sites). 

The “moon” or month named ‘Going to Get Eggs Moon’ in Huna Tlingit 

corresponds to the period mid-May through early June. One indication that it is a good 

time to harvest eggs is the disappearance of gulls around Hoonah. According to George 

Obert, 

You’d see all the seagulls would be gone from this area [Hoonah]. And 

one of our uncle’s boats would take off. Would take the whole family up 

to Glacier Bay to gather eggs.... 

After nesting, gulls disperse in search of food concentrations, and human 

settlements provide abundant offal for gulls throughout much of the year. While nesting, 

however, all but non-nesting subadults stay within ca. 20 km of the nesting colonies in 

order to attend to eggs and young. Another consultant mentioned that the quality of the 

gulls' voices changed as the nesting season approached. Others noted that when Indian 

celery (H. lanatum) reached a certain height at Hoonah, it was time to head for Glacier 

Bay to harvest eggs. This typically coincides with the onset of warmer weather shortly 

after the middle of May. Historically, sealing and fishing parties also returned from 

Glacier Bay at this time to report on the state of the nesting colonies. 

Family Outings to Glacier Bay for Egg Gathering 

Although gull eggs were taken at both South and North Marble Islands, as a 

potential egg-gathering location for families, South Marble Island was particularly 

88
 

favored as a place to introduce children to this traditional activity because it provided 

easy landing sites and ready access to the nesting areas. It is just 80 km by boat from 

Hoonah and is sheltered from the strong currents and heavy swells that make access 

difficult and dangerous to colonies in Icy Strait/Cross Sound, (e.g., Middle Pass Rock 

and Table Rock in the Inian Islands) and on the outer coast, as at Surge Bay Rocks, 

Yakobi Rock, the Graves Rocks area/Egg Island, Libby Island, and Boussole Arch. In 

fact, no real alternative exists at present to the South Marble Island Glaucous-winged 

Gull colony as a primary site for Huna Tlingit egg harvests involving families. 

A time for children and families 

Sometimes people just came for the day. More often they slept overnight on the 

larger boats, camped on the beach at South Marble Island, or camped nearby (e.g., in the 

Beardslee Islands), where they also took eggs of other bird species such as geese and 

ducks. Parties usually ranged in size from six to twelve participants.11 

Elder Lily White remembers these trips, saying: 

Gathering eggs in Glacier Bay was something especially the family looked 

forward to. It was like Easter. Family and cousins gathered up there and 

we collected eggs, and it was a joyous occasion.... 

Pat Mills explains: 

We did not go as a group of men or a bunch of people here or another 

bunch there. We went as family.... 

Participating in the event was something that even the youngest could do. Tom Mills 

remarks on his own experience: 

 

11 Confirming the extensive involvement of families in egg gathering, Trager (1939) reports; "One activity of the natives is robbing 

the nests of gull eggs. On these egg-taking expeditions the natives travel in gasoline launches; the whole family usually makes the 

trip." 

89
 

I remember carrying some of my little sisters and brothers on my back 

when we were going up there and doing this. 

Elder Ida Kadashan relates how it felt to gather her first gull eggs while still a child: 

I sure want to find those seagull eggs. Sometimes I find one. I feel like 

I’m ... great.... 

Photograph 8. Gilbert Mills Sr. and Tom Mills “Fixing Lunch”, North Marble 

Island c. 1960. Photo courtesy of the Pat Mills family.

Harvesting Eggs While Commercial Fishing 

Some egg gathering in Glacier Bay was done by halibut fishermen and salmon 

trollers who consumed eggs on the boats and/or took them back to Hoonah. For example 

George Obert says: 

...[W]e'd halibut fish in Glacier Bay. When it was time ... to pick eggs, 

they'd pick all the eggs they could. They'd pack 'em in ice and they'd 

bring 'em for their families.... 

90
 

Wilbur Skeek, answering the question about when they harvested eggs, says: 

Skeek: Well, usually [we were] trolling and then we stopped there and 

[left] right after. Stopped there a couple hours. 

Interviewer: So you didn't have your family with you then, because you 

were trolling? 

Skeek: No 

Maureen Obert remembers her father’s egg gathering: 

The seagull egg was... important. I remember my dad bringing them 

home. And he'd talk about storing them in moss and grass on the boat.... 

Usually when he went up there for halibut fishing, after the halibut trip 

they would bring the eggs home. 

Teaching Children How to Harvest Eggs and to Respect Nature 

Under the supervision of older relatives including siblings, young children were 

allowed to harvest gull eggs. According to elder Lily White, Tlingit people considered 

seven as the age when children started learning their peoples' history and the traditional 

skills associated with living in the area. Elder Jim Austin talks about male children going 

out with their maternal uncles: 

As soon [as you] were big enough, you go to your uncle, and the uncle 

was responsible to teach and train the kids. 

George Obert says: 

And one of our uncles' boats would take off ... would take the whole 

family up to Glacier Bay to gather eggs.... [The children would be let off] 

on the hillsides with our uncles making sure we didn't go too far off the 

edge. 

The danger was very real. Tom Mills recalls the death of one of his uncles. 

...[O]ne of my uncles on my dad's side, William Mills ... fell off of one of 

the Marble Islands and had his lungs and liver all lacerated with his 

broken ribs, and he died in my dad's arms over in Swanson Harbor when 

my Dad was trying to get him to the hospital in Juneau. 

91
 

As important as safety was, children learned much more. Parents, grandparents, 

aunts, uncles and other relatives, including older siblings, played important roles in 

passing traditional knowledge and values to children. An important theme involved 

respect for the environment and the sacred nature of Glacier Bay. Johanna Dybdahl 

states: 

[any time] that you harvest food or you're in the sacred homeland, you are 

being watched by every elder that is accompanying you. 

Elder Lily White recalls: 

Dad took us up there to gather eggs, and before we went to get the eggs 

while we're on our way up on the boat, they would instruct us about how 

many eggs to take, to respect it and not try to play with it. And like I said, 

it was just like a spiritual food.... 

Photograph 9. Katherine B. Mills and Gilbert Mills Jr. North Marble Island, c. 

1960. Photo courtesy of the Pat Mills family. 

92
 

Although egg-gathering occasions are remembered as times when children would 

expend a lot of energy, most children were instructed to watch their step, to avoid 

breaking eggs and to walk on defined paths.12 Karl Greenwald explains: 

You did not want to even bother or touch any place, because the gull 

knows more about it than you do, so you always left the nest alone. You 

did not disturb it. You just took the eggs and stepped around it. Children 

were also taught to only take what was needed or what they could use. 

Tom Mills said that as children they were always taught to keep everything clean 

and not to leave messes for others. Elder Winnie Smith reinforces this point: 

The whole Glacier Bay was respected. Always when you left there, you 

had to pick up your garbage from wherever you're at. You put that away 

or you burn it in the fire. You don't just leave it. 

In the course of these outings and other experiences associated with the land, 

most children were taught the Huna perspective of the natural world. They learned that 

everything has a spirit. The belief that all living things have a willful and watchful spirit 

underlies the moral basis for respectful interactions in harvesting all natural resources. 

Hilda See explains: 

[E]verything ... has a spirit, even a rock and a tree, so we never make fun 

of an animal, ... especially bears. 

Elder Jim Austin explains further: 

We consider a lot of things people. We talk to them [referring to the 

glacier, gulls, and other natural entities and confirming that each has its 

own spirit]. We believe there is a spirit. We [don't] know how he looked 

or anything. We only know he existed somewhere. Probably existed in 

the rock or in the mountains, in the animals in Glacier Bay or whatever. 

We do know he exists. 

Elder Sam Hanlon remarks: 

Everything ... that has life, they say, has a spirit. And when our older 

people back in, well let's just say back in the twenties, when they're gonna 

 

12 It is likely that, where some families were strict about their children’s behavior while egg-collecting, others were not. 

93
 

fall a tree, they would look for one that they need. And they would talk to 

that tree to say that you have been created for our use, so we're gonna cut 

you down, and we're gonna use you to keep our family warm as wood.... 

you're talking to the spirit of the tree. When it comes to our culture of the 

totem pole, they would tell the tree you're gonna stand for our history, for 

our culture.... 

Individual thanksgiving rituals 

Although some respondents did not remember whether their parents had 

explained to the gulls why they were taking the eggs and apparently had not been taught 

to do so themselves, many indicated that egg gatherers performed private ceremonial acts 

before, during, and/or after the taking of gull eggs. Some said these rituals were ongoing 

throughout the gathering, while others indicated that they occurred at specific times. 

Elders Eva Davis and Jennie Lindoff said that before they took the eggs, people asked the 

gulls’ permission and explained that they needed to use them. They would say to the 

gulls: 

Give us some of the food that you have laid on this island so we can 

survive. So be kind to us as we're being kind to you. 

Elder Adeline St. Clair recalls what her grandfather did: 

I only remember my grandfather would put the egg up like this, looking towards 

Heaven and thanking the birds for the food that he found.... He'd call the birds 

just like they were people,... and he said, “Thank you for letting me find the egg 

for my meal today.” 

Regarding respect and thanking nature, Tom Mills offers an explanation: 

Mills: [In everything we do,] like gathering eggs and the same with 

salmon.... We were always taught that whenever we cut the fish's head 

off, that we had the whole body facing up-creek so that the fish's spirit can 

continue going up the creek and spawn too.... [We do that] so the creek 

[will] continue being prosperous forever, and will keep on giving us 

salmon. 

Interviewer: And giving thanks to the gull? 

Mills: We always thanked everything. You always thanked all your 

animals.... [T]hey say [that] your Tlingit spirit can be transformed into 

94
 

just about anything after they leave the human form. So it could be your 

relative that you're going to catch, that you're taking food from. It could be 

another person's relative.... [E]verything has a spirit and has to be 

respected. 

Johanna Dybdahl remembers: 

I always remember anytime that we participated in food gathering when I 

was growing up. It was always very important to the elders and to my 

mother [that] you know how to behave and not to ... be disrespectful ... 

[Y]ou didn't ever make fun of a food or be disrespectful when you were 

harvesting it. You were always thankful to the plants or animals that you 

were taking. I can remember being slapped upside the head for being 

disrespectful just in ... talking about getting fish or “ooh, I don't like it, it's 

very slimy. Yuck!” 

Speaking also of the respect that the Huna have for the natural world, Glacier Bay, and 

the gulls, Pat Mills says: 

We have this inner feeling amongst ourselves that we're part of ... Nature, 

that we're part of every living thing that's here on this earth. To offend 

one living thing is to offend them all. I cannot just go and take their eggs 

and say: "Thank you. That was good." I think all of my uncles said these 

words, "I'm sorry if I took your life. I have no intention of inflicting 

disrespect upon your life.... I'm only trying to feed my family." Because 

of these words we've become natural conservationists.... We felt as if we 

were walking in one of the greatest chapels in the world.... 

Dan Neil explains respect, how it is shown while gathering eggs, and what it all means to 

him: 

Dan Neil: If we disrespect Nature, Nature is going to kick us in the ass 

and disrespect us. So I have respect for [all that which is Nature even a 

rock] like Marble Island. I give thanks to that rock for holding me up. 

And I give thanks to the seagulls before I leave the island. I give thanks 

when I come on there and see eggs. I give a Tlingit prayer and I face the 

four corners of the Earth which are the posts of the earth ... Nature's four 

corners, and give a prayer of thanks that I am going to take this portion of 

the eggs to nourish my body.... My parents taught me what we've been 

doing for thousands of years, that we walk on Earth with total respect for 

even the rock that holds you up. And it isn't just that.... I respect you 

because you are a human being. I respect everything and the possibilities 

are [that negative repercussions] will only be on ... individuals that [have 

a lack of respect]. I was born into this world with respect and I was taught 

respect.... I will leave it with nothing but respect, and that is what I try to 

pass on to my son... 

95
 

If I don't pray I have a life of disrespect for myself. The creator of Earth 

created [a means] for us to be comfortable and for thousands of years our 

people have been comfortable here.... When I enter Glacier Bay I have 

this overwhelming feeling of home. [And I say] thank you, Lord.... This 

is my home. This is me.... 

Interviewer: So when you say your prayers, are you speaking to the spirit 

of the seagull; the seagull mother? 

Dan Neil: I'm speaking to my grandfathers that have gone before me 

[saying that] I walk in all respect here and ask them to help, to protect me 

that I don't slip, that I don't fall and that I do not get overzealous.... [This 

is part] of what I am. [It is] my culture, my identity, and my past. 

Besides offering prayers, some people used the first egg they found to aid them in 

finding more eggs. Elder Sam Hanlon explains that people in his family rubbed the first 

egg found on their foreheads: 

To be led where the eggs are [and then placed it on their eyes]. So you 

will be able to get a clear vision of where the eggs are at. 

Consequences of not respecting nature 

Part of the reason respect is so important to the Huna Tlingit is that lack of respect 

was believed to result in punishment by the spirits, which might include consequent lack 

of success in finding food. Mayor Albert Dick talks about this issue: 

If we respect it, we'll always have an abundance of food. And if you 

abuse it, the spirits will go against you and then next time you go, there 

won't be any.... So you always have to respect it or something bad will 

happen to you or a family member. You'll be punished for being 

abusive.... So that's what they taught us. 

The Huna Tlingit also believe that the natural world may punish a disrespectful 

person. Elders Eva Davis and Jennie Lindoff told us: 

Something happens to them.... If you don't listen to what you're told, you 

either break your arm or leg or you fall off [the cliff]. 

96
 

Most of the Huna people were serious about appropriate behavior while gathering 

gull eggs. Elder Sam Hanlon said that if a child broke the rules he "just wouldn't get any 

eggs." Elder Frank White recalls his brother once being reprimanded by his father, 

grandfather and uncle for picking too many eggs with chicks. He also remarks that: 

We were also told that if people broke the rules established by the elders 

they might not ever be asked to go again. 

Other respondents mentioned that when they picked eggs with developed 

embryos, which was determined by whether they floated in water (explained below), they 

were reprimanded and told to put them back. Still others asserted that one should not 

replace an egg that one had touched or the adult gulls would sense this and abandon the 

nest. 

Gathering the eggs 

Many people recalled wearing loose sweatshirts or sweaters that could be filled 

with 20 to 40 eggs. Others carried three- or five-gallon pails, filling one or two. People 

of both sexes and all ages participated in the gathering. Grass and moss were frequently 

collected in the nesting areas to cushion the eggs in the buckets and to protect layers of 

eggs. Some people mentioned using skunk cabbage leaves to line containers and to keep 

eggs cool. Ernestine Hanlon talks about egg containers and liners: 

We'd use the moss that was right there on the rocks. My dad would make 

special five-gallon ... coffee cans ... cut the top off and he'd make a 

backpack with [them]. So then he'd layer the bottom with moss and we'd 

put the eggs on there and put another of moss and the eggs. So we'd just 

have layers of moss and eggs. 

97
 

In earlier times, the eggs were placed in finely woven spruce-root, grass-stem, or 

cedar-bark baskets which were made in a variety of shapes and sizes, including ones that 

served as backpacks (large woven baskets are called taal in Tlingit). Less frequently 

mentioned are small bentwood boxes with handles for transporting. Referring to baskets 

crafted from roots, elder Adeline St. Clair says: 

They could make big ones and have handles on there and use that to berrypick and gather eggs. It was woven so tightly you [could] pack water in it. 

Elder George Obert says: 

They had baskets, woven baskets. Some were woven out of grass, the 

creek grass, and the other baskets were woven out of spruce roots. They 

were always prepared. We even had to pack bags to be filled with the 

eggs, and we just packed ... pillowcases and bread bags (flour used to 

come in them) in the bread bags. 

Occasionally men used ropes or halibut lines to rappel off the edges of cliffs to 

retrieve eggs that were otherwise inaccessible. Wilbur Skeek explains how this practice 

started: 

... [W]e didn't start doing that until after we came out of the [U.S. 

military] service. We learned to jump over cliffs in the service. Utilize[d 

this skill] picking eggs. 

Harvesting other foods while gathering eggs 

Some people mentioned harvesting other foods while on gull egg-gathering trips 

in Glacier Bay. Elder George Obert talks about taking eggs from birds other than gulls: 

... [T]he Beardslee Islands would be the first ones that they’d go to and 

take duck eggs and geese eggs and what they call oystercatcher and all 

those birds that land on the island. 

Tony Mills recalls: 

When we went after seagull eggs, we didn't only get those. We went after 

king salmon, sockeye, halibut, the ribbon seaweed off Strawberry Point.... 

98
 

We would get everything all at once. And all those blue mussels, 

something like a clam. We used to get those by the tubful. 

Remembering trips to Glacier Bay as a child when eggs were taken, Elder Ester Kaze 

also recalls obtaining other food: 

We didn't only collect seagull eggs there. We got other food from up there 

at the same time. 

Interviewer: You got other food as well? 

Ester Kaze: Yeah, we got ... black bear and we had seal. At the same 

time we picked seaweed, sea ribbon, and we got seal. So we were gone 

like two weeks up there. 

As noted elsewhere, some parties took seals during these trips but others said they 

did not. For example, Alfred McKinley said seals were sometimes taken, but generally 

not, because they had their pups at this time. He also said that if you shoot a seal in the 

summer, there is a greater chance it will sink, because they are not as fat as they are 

toward fall. 

Summary of Huna Egg-harvesting Traditions 

Gull eggs were and continue to be considered a delicacy by the Huna Tlingit. 

They were among the first foods taken in the spring and as such brought an anticipated 

change in the diet in earlier times. Traditionally, egg gatherers typically showed respect 

to both the gulls and the eggs by explaining the reasons for their harvest, similar to the 

ways that respect was shown for almost all natural resources taken for personal and 

family use. There do not appear to have been institutionalized rituals associated 

specifically with egg gathering, either in Glacier Bay or elsewhere.13 Beyond the 

 

13 Jeff Skaflestad, a local science teacher, who was also born and raised in Hoonah, but who is too young to have gathered eggs in 

Glacier Bay, states: “The way I’ve understood it to be in the stories I’ve heard is it wasn’t a ritual type thing, it was a seasonal food 

gathering activity. I didn’t understand it as being some special event [where people] only went there once in awhile and [took]... the 

eggs [needed] for some certain event. 

99
 

spiritual significance of taking and consuming Native foods in general, the importance 

associated with egg gathering is linked specifically to the taking of eggs in Glacier Bay 

because of its status as the Huna Tlingit ancestral homeland. In this regard, the act of egg 

gathering and consumption is a symbolic connection to ancestors who sustained their 

bodies in the same way with identical food from this sacred place. The social 

significance of family outings to gather gull eggs is of key importance in explaining the 

Huna Tlingit attachment to this activity. Egg gathering was one of the few foodharvesting activities that families could do together, and is very salient in the minds of 

people with nostalgic memories of their childhood. 

Huna Tlingit Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Gull Egg Laying and Migrations 

The HTEES interviews indicate that Tlingit people of several generations ago 

understood the basic characteristics of gull egg-laying. Elder Charles Jack explains: 

My grandfather used to tell me about seagull eggs ... if you take the 

[seagull egg from her when she first lays the eggs] she won't miss it. 

She'll come back and ... she'll replace it. I don't know how many eggs 

they can replace, but they'll replace. [My grandfather] said they've taken 

two and then they replace the two. But you have to get it at the right time. 

If you wait too long, then the ability changes ... to replace another ... egg. 

Pat Mills also states: 

And they lay up to eight eggs. So when you take even four, [there are] 

still four left. So this is why my mom always said, "You take the eggs out 

of the nest, go back tomorrow to the same nest, and there’ll be another one 

there." 

These observations are consistent with knowledge obtained through Western Science that 

indicates that Glaucous-winged Gulls are “indeterminate layers” (Ehrlich, Dobkin and 

Wheye 1988:165, 176). An experimental study of Lesser Black-backed Gulls and 

Herring Gulls (both closely related to Glaucous-winged Gulls) showed that these gulls 

100
 

"were capable of producing, on average, almost three times the normal clutch of three 

eggs." Specifically, the mean number of eggs induced was 8.59 +/- 0.61 eggs over a 

period of 23.5 +/- 1.9 days. One individual laid 16 eggs (Nager, Monaghan, and Houston 

2000:1343). C. W. Townsend reports for the Herring Gull that, “Only one brood is 

raised, but when the nests are frequently robbed the birds are kept laying all summer” 

(Bent 1963). A gull population control experiment indicated that repeated "[r]emoval of 

eggs... did not cause colony abandonment during the 3 years of treatment; herring gulls 

continued nesting until late June or early July each year...." (Ickes, Belant, and Dolbeer 

1998:272). 

Glaucous-winged Gulls nest in dense colonies in which egg-laying is tightly 

synchronized. For example, on North Marble Island, 59% of all eggs were laid in a 

single week, 5-12 June 1972; 74% in a 10-day period, 20-30 May 1973 (Patten 1974:38-

39). “The onset of incubation [sometime after the second egg is laid] probably causes 

developing follicles to atrophy... and ovulation to cease....” (Kennedy 1991:110).14 

Therefore, emphasis that consultants place on the importance of the timing of the harvest 

is well founded. The narrow “window of opportunity” for harvesting large numbers of 

fresh eggs focuses harvesting effort and thus facilitates the successful use of the strategy 

of harvesting eggs from incomplete nests to induce continued laying of eggs. Accurate 

“intelligence” about the timing of egg-laying is critical to the success of the strategies 

described. Hoonah residents observe the departure of wintering gulls from the village, 

changes in the quality of the gulls’ vocalizations, and the maturation of indicator plant 

 

14 Zador (2001: 2) cites Parsons (1976) as having shown that the onset of incubation causes “complete degeneration of the fourth 

follicle in the closely related herring gull” (Larus aregentatus). 

101
 

species (e.g., Indian celery) to refine their timing. They also relied on fellow villagers 

checking the progress of nesting at the Marble Island colonies and reporting what they 

had observed upon their return to Hoonah. 

Gull egg laying timing 

Most HTEES consultants report that gulls nest about two weeks later on the outer 

coast than in Glacier Bay.15 According to elder Frank See: 

I would say ... about two weeks later ...[Referring to Middle Pass; he 

continues,] we'd go picking seagull eggs first part of June in Glacier Bay. 

There were no eggs until about the ... very last ... of June. Then you'd 

find eggs on that island.... And while we're fishing in Inian Islands, one 

of us would go ashore and pick eggs in July up on ... like Middle Island. 

And they were still fresh. 

Pat Mills recalls when gull eggs were ready to pick on the outer coast: 

It came around June 15th and I remember that date. It was later. I don't 

know why it was later, but it was approximately two weeks later. 

Gulls as migratory species 

Several consultants complained that Glaucous-winged Gulls are not migratory 

birds, and thus that it was inappropriate to prohibit the harvest of their eggs under the 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). (This 1918 law implemented the 

1916 treaty, which prohibited the taking of nests and eggs of all migratory birds as well 

as those of many other non-migratory species, except for scientific purposes [Ehrlich, 

Dobkin and Wheye 1988:295].)16 Christmas Bird Count totals for southeastern Alaska 

indicate that a substantial number of gulls (9271 total for 10 sites), well over half of 

 

15 Some respondents recognized no difference in timing between Glacier Bay colonies and those on the outer coast. One consultant

asserted that gulls nested earlier outside the Bay. However, not all respondents had experience with outer coastal colonies or had 

only limited experience. Thus, this disagreement may reflect limits to individuals' knowledge and memory. 16 The MBTA was recently amended to allow the subsistence use of eggs, including gull eggs, in Alaska. The MBTA is discussed 

further in Chapter VII. 

102
 

which are most likely Glaucous-winged Gulls (since most of the “other gull spp.” noted 

are most likely this species also), winter in the region (See Table 8). Some of these may 

have bred farther north, while some portion of those that nested in the Glacier Bay region 

likely moved south in search of food. According to Verbeek (1993:2), "Many are 

resident, others disperse following the breeding season." “Partially migratory” would be 

a more accurate term. 

Table 8. Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) for Southeastern Alaska, 1997 (American Birds: 

Ninety-Eighth Christmas Bird Count, pp. 95-101).

CBC Mew 

Gull 

Herring 

Gull 

Thayer's 

Gull 

Glaucous-winged 

Gull 

other gull 

spp. 

Totals 

Chilkat 3 0 5 2 10

Craig/Klawock cw 0 0 240 42 282

Glacier Bay 877 4 18 487 96 1482

Haines 18 61 0 76 0 155

Juneau 267 6 1 1602 15 1891

Ketchikan 42 67 112 985 289 1495

Mitkof Is. 7 0 1 774 0 782

Sitka 14 157 7 244 1637 2059

Tenakee Springs 0 16 0 0 120 136

Wrangell Island 370 1 0 557 51 979

Totals 1598 312 144 4967 2250 9271

Count week observations indicated by “cw”. 

Harvest and Conservation Practices 

HTEES interviews exhibit recurrent themes that gull eggs should not be overharvested, that people should take only what they need, eggs are not to be wasted, and 

that eggs and the gulls are to be respected. Many people also said that some elders 

consumed eggs with developing embryos and considered them special. However, most 

respondents stressed a personal preference for fresh eggs, and the strategies cited to 

103
 

collect them (including timing of harvest) appear, in part, designed to increase the 

chances that harvested eggs will be fresh. Some basic knowledge of gull egg-laying 

biology is reflected in almost all gull egg-harvest strategies reported by HTEES 

consultants. Yet, not everyone used the same strategy in harvesting gull eggs. 

Varied strategies for taking eggs from the nests 

The most common strategy reported by far was to collect only from nests with up 

to two eggs and to take them all (41%). 

What I was taught, if there was one or two eggs in there, that was good to 

take, you take them. If there was three or more in there, you know, 

they’re already starting to form so the party I was with said don't touch 

them. 

We only picked one or two eggs. If there were three eggs in the nest we 

were told to leave it alone because there was usually birds in there. 

...[W]hen you'd go up there to Marble Island, you walk around and look 

for [a nest], and then when you see it, you look at the eggs. Some of them 

have one egg. That's good. If it's got three to four eggs, you leave it 

alone. 

And we didn't pick any eggs off the nest that had already three eggs. If 

they had three eggs in there, then they had an embryo.... [I]f there was 

one egg, two eggs, you could pick them, but if there were three eggs, then 

we stopped. 

There were two variations reported by those harvesting eggs from nests with up to 

two eggs. The first of these was to take only one egg from one or two egg nests (2 

consultants, 5%) and the second (2 consultants, 5%) was to leave one egg from nests with 

2 eggs and not take from nests with one egg. 

[We were] instructed... that we are not even to touch nests that have three 

eggs in it. Nests that have two, you can take one. 

If there was just two eggs, leave one. Even if there was one, we were told 

not to touch ‘em. 

104
 

We always left one.... [And never took eggs from nests with three or 

more eggs.] 

Five respondents (13%) reported taking eggs only from nests with one egg in it. 

...[Y]ou only pick the nest that has one egg in it. 

And the old timers would say ... when you go picking seagull eggs, just 

like pick a nest what has just one egg in it. If there’re two, there might be 

little chicks coming.... 

Nine respondents (23%) reported egg-harvesting strategies in which eggs were 

taken from nests of up to three eggs. There was considerably more variation in the 

details of individual approaches among this group than among those who took from nests 

of only one or two eggs.17

So, three eggs on down that's when I pick them and out of three eggs, I'll 

take two eggs, but when you have four eggs there's already little ones in 

there, because there's one egg that's laid early and I don't know which one 

it is.... 

...we used to take two and leave one or something like that. And then 

[later] you start taking only one. 

And then, uh, they taught us that when you pick seagull eggs, you actually 

pick at least three in a nest. Not more than three. But when you get four in 

a nest, usually they’re about ready to hatch, so they wouldn’t let us pick 

eggs that had four in the nest.... 

...as a rule, my dad used to tell us not to pick where there’s four or five, 

you see in the nest. Probably some has already turned into chicks. Just 

leave them alone.... ...so when there’s, uh, three or two, one, we pick 

those, and he said there they’re good. Just recently laid 

... 4 to 5 eggs, you know, you just leave it alone.... and you never take 

them all either. Then the bird comes back to its nest, there’s nothing there, 

they just leave it. But if they come back, there’s one, then they’ll lay one 

or two more. 

The following quotes illustrate the idea of leaving some eggs in the nests. 

 

17 Several consultants qualified strategies involving harvesting from nests with three or more eggs by noting that if the season is late, 

eggs should be float-tested. This subject is discussed in more detail in upcoming pages. 

105
 

My mother used to say there’s three or four eggs in there, she said, just 

take the three and leave one there. She said, never take all of it. 

Like if they have 4 in there, we’ll take 2 and leave 2. Or if they have 5 in 

there, maybe we’ll take 2 and leave 3. 

Finally, one couple reported that an older relative told them of a strategy in which 

all eggs in a nest were destroyed so that the gulls would return to lay fresh eggs. Nests 

where eggs were destroyed would then be marked. The gatherers would return to those 

nests to harvest the eggs. 

They’d go find the eggs if they wanted fresh eggs, and then they’d mark 

the nests and throw the eggs out. And the seagull would come in and lay 

fresh eggs. 

Trager (1939:4) confirms this strategy. 

...“Two methods are used in taking the eggs. One is to rob only nests 

containing three or less eggs. The other method is more destructive. 

Upon landing on the island, all eggs present in the nests are destroyed. 

Then three or four days later, all nests are robbed of all eggs which they 

contain, thus eliminating the possibility of taking partially hatched eggs.” 

Such a strategy might work from an egg collecting perspective. Though 

Glaucous-winged Gulls raise a single brood, they may re-nest if their clutches are 

destroyed during the incubation period (Bent 1963; Stephani Zador pers. comm. 2001). 

Nonetheless, the majority of HTEES consultants described the “proper” strategy as one 

that leaves alone nests that on average are complete. Throwing out eggs to induce relaying has been described as “wasteful” or “destructive” and is seen as such by many 

Huna Tlingit, who explicitly reject it. Destroying eggs and returning requires more 

human effort, because one must first remove the eggs (and probably also mark the nests 

so treated), then return several days later in hopes of finding fresh eggs. Given that 

106
 

Zador (2001:31) observed that from 38% to 57% of females changed nests when three 

eggs were taken from nests, eggs from considerably more nests than were intended for 

harvest would have to be raided to reach target harvests. The authors believe that the 

strategy of throwing eggs out of the nest was rarely practiced. It was certainly not part of 

the familial egg-harvesting tradition valued by the vast majority of HTEES consultants. 

Elder Eva Davis emphasized that purposely destroying all eggs to induce relaying was not a traditional Huna practice. And, Elder Wilbur James states: 

I've never heard of Huna Tlingit people deliberately destroying all the 

eggs. To me it has never been a traditional method to destroy all the eggs. 

On the contrary, we did our best to preserve some of the eggs because our 

subsistence way of life depended on the seagulls laying eggs in the future. 

Summary and discussion of egg-harvesting strategies 

Of the 39 consultants responding, a majority (64%) reported taking eggs from 

nests with one or two eggs only. (Two of these respondents also reported that the proper 

strategy is to leave one egg behind.) Reinforcing the appropriateness of harvesting from 

nests of one or two eggs, two prominent Huna leaders issued the following statement to 

the research team: 

There are a significant number of people that know the right way to collect 

eggs. That is one or two from a nest. Seldom three are taken and then 

only if people want to eat the developing chick. There are enough able 

tribal members that can hand down the knowledge to the younger people. 

Table 9 presents frequencies for the various egg-gathering strategies as reported 

by HTEES consultants. 

107
 

Table 9. Distribution of Egg-gathering Strategies Reported by Huna Tlingit 

Consultants.

Strategy N % 

Nests with 1 Egg 

 Only take from nests with 1 egg 5 12.8 

Nests with up to 2 Eggs 

 Take all eggs from nests with 1 or 2 eggs 16a 40.9 

 Take 1 egg from 1 or 2 egg nests 2 5.1 

 Take 1 egg from nests with 2 eggs (none from 1 egg nests) 2 5.1 

Nests with up to 3 Eggs 

 Take all eggs from nests with up to 3 eggs 2 5.1 

 Take 1 egg from nests with up to 3 eggs 2b 5.1 

 Take all eggs from 1 or 2 egg nests, take 2 eggs from 3 egg nests 3c 7.7 

 Take eggs from 2 or 3 egg nests, but always leave 1 egg 1 2.6 

 Take 2 eggs from 3 egg nests (none from 1 or 2 egg nests) 1d 2.6 

Nests with more than 3 Eggs 

 Take all eggs from nests with up to 4 eggs 1 2.6 

 Take eggs from nests with 2 to 4 eggs, but always leave 1 egg 1 2.6 

 Take two eggs from nests with 4 or 5 eggs (none from 1, 2, or 3 egg nests) 1 2.6 

Leave one egg 1 2.6 

 Throw out eggs / mark nests / return and take all eggs 1 2.6 

Total with Strategy 39 100.0 

a One respondent indicated that later in the season all eggs were checked to see if they floated (i.e., had a 

chick developing). 

b Respondent indicated that eggs from nests with 2 or 3 eggs were checked to see if they floated. 

c Respondent indicated that eggs from nests with 3 eggs were checked to see if they floated. 

d Respondent indicated that all eggs were checked to see if they floated. 

Because three eggs is the normal full clutch for Glaucous-winged Gulls (Zador 

2001:24),18 and especially early in the season, nests with one or two eggs are more likely 

to be incomplete and, therefore, the eggs more likely to be fresh (one egg is normally laid 

every two days). Given limitations on the number of follicles present at the time of the 

 

18 As noted previously, Zador 2001 reports that of 291 un-manipulated Glaucous-winged Gull nests observed in 1999 and 2000 on 

South Marble Island, 68% had three-egg, 20% had two-egg, and 11% had one-egg clutches. 

108
 

egg harvest, if one or both of recently laid eggs is removed, the female is likely to return 

and to continue laying additional eggs until the clutch is complete.19

Harvesting from nests with up to three or more eggs was reported by 36% of 

HTEES consultants, and Traeger (1939) confirms Huna harvest of nests with three eggs. 

Empirical research indicates that four-egg clutches are extraordinarily rare, thus reports 

of harvesting from nests with four or more eggs may reflect distortions in information 

due to the passage of time (cf. Patten 1974; Reid 1987). [Zador (2001:24) reports one 

clutch with four eggs in a total of 291 nests in her control group in 1999 and 2000.] It 

can be hypothesized that if all eggs harvested were taken from three-egg nests and it was 

done on a wide scale, sustained harvest would be problematic, especially if practiced 

anytime except in the early parts of the season. The authors note, however, that all but 

three of the HTEES interviewees who reported harvesting from clutches of three or four 

eggs included a strategy of leaving one or more eggs in the nest. Conclusions about the 

impact of such a harvest tactic on fledging and its ultimate impacts on the gull 

populations are difficult to make. And, unfortunately, there are no experimental data to 

assist in making such judgments. Zador (2001:15) reports that the probability of gull renesting among predated gull egg nests increased with earlier predation dates. She also 

experimentally removed clutches of three eggs from nests on South Marble Island in 

1999 and 2000 (Zador 2001:17-18) and observed: 

“I removed the clutch on the day the third egg was laid in 17 nests in 1999 

and 24 nests in 2000.... Most (93%) gulls from these laid replacement 

 

19 Although consultants did not appear to be aware of it, the first two eggs laid in a clutch of three are 11% heavier than the third egg 

(Verbeek 1993:9). Thus targeting the first two eggs provides some slight gain in harvesting efficiency. One experimental study 

demonstrated that if the first egg is removed before the third is laid, it is the fourth egg (the final egg in such a clutch) that will be 

reduced in size, not the third (Reid 1987:18). Thus, it would appear that the preferred traditional Huna harvest pattern should not 

result in smaller and less viable eggs on average in completed clutches. 

109
 

clutches of 1 to 3 eggs (Table 2).... Pairs replaced their clutches with 3-

egg clutches in 82% of the cases (Table 2). In 2000, 2 nests were 

depredated within 2 days of when the first and second eggs were laid, so I 

do not know what the final clutch size would have been if predation had 

not occurred. The proportion of replacement clutches that contained 3 

eggs did not differ from the proportion of un-manipulated clutches that 

contained 3 eggs. ... This pattern remained the same when depredated 

nests were excluded from the analysis. Pairs with their clutches removed 

laid on average 2.71 (in 1999) and 2.01 (in 2000) more eggs than those in 

the un-manipulated group, but there was no difference in the number of 

eggs that hatched in either year....” 

Unfortunately, her data do not allow conclusions regarding fledging, winter survival and 

future success in reproduction. 

Leaving one or more eggs in the nest 

As noted above, most consultants reporting a harvest strategy involving nests 

containing three or more eggs described strategies that involved leaving an egg or eggs in 

the nest. In total, 14 respondents (36%) described such tactics. One person described a 

strategy involving leaving eggs in the nests based on the time of egg collection in the 

nesting season. 

In the early part [of the season] you... take all of them. At a later date you 

start becoming selective even though it’s pretty hard to tell which one is 

which.... ...we used to take two and leave one... And then you start 

taking only one. 

What are the potential impacts of leaving eggs in nests from a sustainability 

perspective? Stephani Zador (pers. comm. November 5, 2001) was asked to discuss this 

matter with regard to fledging success. Her response is in the following boxed text. The 

researchers conclude that the effect of leaving eggs in nests is dependent upon a complex 

set of variables but is likely highly associated with timing. 

110
 

A Discussion on the Potential Impacts of Leaving Eggs in Nests 

...I did not do any experimentation beyond hatching success [in Glacier Bay], so 

any inferences I can make about fledging success [must be] based from the 

literature. 

We know that in most cases the gulls will not continue to lay eggs when they have 

already been incubating one or more. (The process of incubation coincides with 

the regression of egg-production capabilities). So, if 1 egg is left, they will be able 

to fledge one chick at the most (assuming all other conditions are favorable). If the 

gulls are induced to re-lay, they may be able to incubate and fledge an entire clutch 

of three (assuming all other conditions are favorable). We can see in the literature 

that, for example, later-laid eggs are less likely to give rise to fledged chicks, but 

the exact probabilities for these gulls are as yet untested. Given that the gulls can 

fledge up to 3 chicks in a good year, if many pairs were left with only 1 egg to 

incubate and brood to fledging, it is logical that overall fledging success would be 

reduced. In fact, fledging success would be limited to 1 chick/pair, even in the best 

of conditions. 

In Glaucous-winged Gulls, incubation starts with laying of 2nd egg (Shultz 1951, 

James-Veitch and Booth 1954) but full incubation not until clutch is complete 

(Vermeer 1963, Verbeek 1988). Once incubation begins, re-forming eggs after 

complete egg loss takes about 12 days (my data). As long as eggs are taken before 

the clutch is complete, the birds should physiologically be able to continue to lay 

eggs. However, some birds complete a clutch at 1 or 2 eggs. If a gull has laid 3 

eggs, the clutch is (usually) complete. In the situation...[where] there were three 

eggs and two were taken within hours after the third was laid, the female would 

generally need to resume follicle growth to form the replacement egg(s). But it 

will not do so if meanwhile it is incubating the egg left in the nest. 

Although I did not test this experimentally, I do believe that taking of a partial 

clutch before clutch completion/incubation would induce laying more eggs until 

the final clutch size is reached -- in other words, taking 1 egg from 2 in a nest 

where the female was preparing to lay a third. However, if the female did not have 

a third follicle on the way, then she would not continue to lay. In some of my nests 

where I removed 1 egg... 5% did not continue to re-lay. I assumed that these eggs 

were from what would have been 1 egg clutches, similar to the 4% of the unmanipulated clutches that were composed of 1 egg. So I would predict that some 

proportion of gulls that lost 1 single egg from a 2 egg clutch would not lay a third. 

Although much of this is physiologically constrained, there are other factors that 

influence when/how many eggs are laid. 

 Stephani Zador

111
 

Taking eggs without developed embryos: the “water test” 

As noted above and particularly among people taking eggs from nests of three or 

more, if there were questions about whether eggs were too developed, they were tested 

by a “float test.” If the egg sank, it was "fresh"; if it floated, it was "too far gone." 

Trager notes, “Some of the Indians are less destructive in collecting eggs; their practice is 

for each member to carry a small pail of seawater and test all eggs by placing them in this 

water. Those that float are replaced in the nest, and those that sink are collected” (Trager 

1939:4). This practice is referred to as the "water test" by HTEES consultants. 

Elder Sam Hanlon talks about how to avoid gathering eggs with developing 

chicks throughout the harvest season. 

And the first time that we go up there, which is the last week of May, by 

that time the climate is warming up so the seagulls start laying their 

eggs.... But anyway, they picked only a single egg in each nest. They 

can clean the whole island, you know. The next day, you would find more 

in that nest you just cleaned out... a single egg. There's still no limit. You 

can spend two-three days picking one egg at a time. And you can get as 

much as a hundred, two hundred eggs real easy. So now it comes to two 

and three eggs. By this time it's June. So the climate is so warm, in a day 

or two the eggs that has been laid two or three days ago, they already had 

chicks in there. So when it comes to that, our people used to carry a 

bucket of warm water, and they would take one egg at a time from the nest 

if there's two or three, and they would put it in warm water. The 

temperature of the warm water should be [only] warm enough so you're 

not cooking the eggs.... And when it floated, it's telling you one thing - 

that there's a chick in there. So we put it back to let it hatch. Pick another 

one.... We don't want to kill the whole population of seagulls off. (italics 

are authors’) 

Desire for eggs with or without developed embryos affects harvesting practices 

In part, the individual harvest strategy adopted may have depended on whether 

the gatherers wanted only fresh eggs or eggs with partially developed chicks. Some 

respondents indicated that eggs with chicks were not considered appropriate food for 

112
 

younger people. Pat Mills says that his grandmother favored eggs with partially 

developed chicks: 

To her, it was a treasure and she loved it ... [and] there were other 

people... elderly people who ate eggs with the birds in them. 

Elder Esther Kaze comments on the partially developed gull egg: 

I liked [them]. We ate those too.... [W]e just set them to one side and we 

cooked them. 

Elder Charles Jack, Jr., gives the following description: 

My grandfathers, after we picked all the eggs we need, they'd go around 

and pick some for themselves and go listen to the seagull. And they'd say, 

well this one is too young. Put it back. And this one is the right age... by 

listening they could tell by the noise it's making. So they'd pick that and 

they'd eat the chicks out of the shell, but they didn't eat the whites though 

because it was too tough.... The chick is a whole chick [but] there was no 

bones ... the bones hadn't formed yet. 

Elder George Obert also says eggs with developed embryos were delicacies for some 

elders: 

...[I]t was a delicacy for some of our elders. When you showed up [with 

one with a developed embryo], they'd take it from you and just [Obert 

makes the sounds of someone eating quickly], and then give you back the 

white. Here, you can have this. When you're old enough you can have 

this one. 

On the other hand, egg-gathering parties generally exerted significant effort to 

avoid collecting eggs with embryos. Elder Katherine Grant says: 

The old-timers liked [eggs with chicks in them] [But my mother used to 

tell me to] watch out for it. If there's chick in there, we don't eat it.... 

Elder Eva Davis gives this account: 

Davis: If you come down from the island and come down to where the 

sand is and you have a bucket, you put water in there. And then you can 

sit there and test them. If they're floating, they're no good. If they're sunk, 

they're OK. 

Interviewer: Then you put them back? 

113
 

Davis: No, they don't put it back. They put it on the grass [i.e., discarded 

the egg].... 

Clearing brush to maintain nesting ground 

Several people were asked whether the Huna ever cleared brush to enhance gullnesting habitat. The answers were universally that they did not. Tom Mills says: 

There was no brush to clear off.... The only place we ever had to clear 

any brush was off in Dundas Bay when we were going to and from nagoon 

berry patches. 

Elder Lily White responds to a question as to whether brush was ever cleared from the 

nesting areas: 

No, there's no brush there where they lay their eggs. 

Elder Charles Jack says that he never noticed anyone doing anything to keep the area 

clear of brush, but remarks: 

Well, nobody's been going there. See, I think at the time when we were 

doing it just the people walking over the terrain a lot had a lot to do with 

maintaining the brush area. 

Number of people or parties who could gather eggs not normatively limited 

Given that they are a finite resource and the extent to which gull eggs seem to 

have been valued, a logical question is: Was any restriction placed on the number of 

people who could harvest eggs or the number of people gathering eggs at one time at any 

egg-gathering location? From these data, it does not appear that such limits were 

employed. Most of the time there was only one party at an egg-gathering site. There 

were times, however, when more than one party would be present. The occasion most 

frequently mentioned is provided in the quotations below. 

Interviewer: Did they used to try to limit the number of people that went 

there [referring to South Marble Island]. 

Lily White: No. Anybody went when they wanted to. It was open then. 

114
 

Jumbo James: I think one time there was seven seine boats and the wives 

and the kids [at] Marble Islands. 

Factors limiting Huna Tlingit gull egg gathering 

If the local community did not restrict the number of people harvesting gull eggs 

by explicit normative regulation, how is it possible that serial Huna harvests appear to 

have been limited, particularly in the era of motorized access? It is likely that informal 

communication within the Hoonah community would have affected the time and place of 

gull egg harvests. If a party planning an egg-harvesting trip knew that another party had 

just returned from a specific location with a large number of eggs, and that the site had 

been visited several times previously, they would alter their harvest plans. Given the 

strong interest in gull eggs, information concerning the prevalence of eggs with 

developed embryos or the number of eggs in the nests at a particular colony would also 

have circulated throughout the community. Conservation aside, such information would 

have been used to maximize the probability of success in harvesting a good supply of 

fresh eggs. Because eggs were shared widely, some people with access might have 

decided not to go at all if they were given enough eggs to meet their needs and/or the 

indications were that gathering conditions were marginal. 

The authors hypothesize that four other factors together, in combination with the 

circulation of above informal communication, functioned to limit the number of gull eggs 

taken during traditional Huna Tlingit egg harvests. First, Huna people were 

knowledgeable about key aspects of gull reproductive biology. They knew that gulls 

would re-lay if eggs were taken from their nests, and that there was a limit in terms of the 

period in which re-laying would occur and the number of times a gull might re-lay. 

Second, although some people ate eggs with developing chicks and considered them a 

115
 

delicacy, the clear preference was for fresh eggs. Most people exerted substantial effort 

to maximize the proportion of fresh eggs taken. No consultant, whether they liked 

partially developed eggs or not, described an egg-harvesting strategy that purposely 

targeted partially developed eggs in quantity. Third, and related to the first hypothesis, 

the Huna people recognized that there was a narrow time window for easily gathering 

large numbers of fresh eggs, emphasizing the importance of the timing of the harvest. 

Fourth, egg gathering, although highly important for family interaction when done in 

Glacier Bay, has never been a major food-gathering activity in terms of the amount of 

time and energy expended in relation to the amount of food acquired. 

Accordingly, the authors believe that Huna gull egg gatherers during most of this 

century (especially after access was motorized and non-Native foods were commonly 

available through the cash economy) valued egg gathering more in terms of its intangible 

benefits and rewards, as opposed to its necessity in relation to individual or community 

food supply. Given this perspective, egg gatherers would have been opportunistic in 

their approach to taking gull eggs in Glacier Bay, but within constraints of the larger 

context of other subsistence and commercial natural-resource harvests occurring 

simultaneously. Many families who had the equipment and finances to travel to Glacier 

Bay to harvest eggs may have found it infeasible in any given year because of other 

activities. These circumstances would have restricted the pool of people who were able 

to make the trip during the narrow period when conditions were optimal for gathering 

quantities of fresh eggs. 

Given the above circumstances and conditions, the authors infer that the number 

of Huna people actually going to the Marble Islands for egg gathering in any given year 

116
 

was usually limited. Not all families gathered eggs every year. The HTEES interviews 

also support the notion that, for various reasons, some families were much more involved 

in egg gathering than others. 

Normative restrictions limiting the number of egg harvesters within the Huna 

Tlingit community were apparently not considered necessary nor discussed. Exceptional 

concentrations involving several parties at South Marble Island at once were probably 

due to unusual commercial-fishing circumstances, or occurred for other uncommon 

reasons. At the same time, the HTEES data provide no reason to believe the presence of 

more than one party, on South Marble Island for example, by itself would have ruined the 

trip for the participants. Motivations for these trips appear primarily to have been 

interaction among family members and friends -- within a cultural context that goes to 

the core of Huna Tlingit identity. As long as there were plenty of eggs to go around, 

another party or two might have enhanced the experience for some people. Alternatively, 

if the area were over-crowded, people simply would have gone elsewhere.20

 

20 There is no instance in HTEES interviews where a party wanted to gather eggs but could not find a supply to harvest because they 

had been depleted by others. 

117
 

Analysis of Factors Known to Have Affected or Suspected of Affecting 

Gull Nesting Success 

The impact of vegetative succession on Glaucous-winged Gull nesting sites 

Patterns of vegetative succession on the heels of glacial retreat in Glacier Bay 

have been analyzed in detail (cf. Cooper 1923; Lawrence 1958; Reiners, Worley, and 

Lawrence 1971). Three broad physiognomic community types are distinguished 

subsequent to the emergence of bare rock or soil from beneath the retreating glacier. 

First is the "pioneer community" stage of low herbaceous and woody mat vegetation, 

which is well suited to gull nesting, other things being equal. This is followed by a 

"willow-alder thicket" stage that would most likely preclude gull nesting. That stage in 

turn is overgrown by a young Sitka spruce forest (Cooper 1923:225). According to 

Reiners, Worley, and Lawrence (1971:56), the mat community may develop 5-20 years 

after exposure of the substrate, shrub-thicket stage at 20-40 years, and the spruce forest at 

75-100 years (1971:56). However, the rapidity of the transition from bare rock through 

these multiple stages varies a great deal depending on substrate, being most rapid on slate 

and argillite substrates and slowest on limestone and marble surfaces, particularly those 

that are steep and/or with few crevices (Cooper 1923:234). 

"The more favorable spots, such as level or depressed areas, or surfaces 

with many crevices, soon become covered with a luxuriant turf-like 

growth...by increase of the shrubby species such areas are rapidly 

converted into thickets in which alder and willows are dominant, while the 

adjacent steeper and smoother surfaces are still bare of plants. Such is the 

condition today upon the limestone islands of the lower bay, Drake and 

Willoughby. The spruces, thickly scattered upon the meadow and thicket 

areas, indicate the future course of development" (Cooper 1923:234). 

118
 

Cooper does not mention the Marble Islands, but as their name and location 

suggests, they very likely are composed of the smoothest rock surfaces most resistant to 

weathering and invasion. Drake and Willoughby Islands (described by Cooper as 

"roches moutonnées" ... "being carved of solid rock," (1923:97) supported Glaucouswinged Gull colonies to the mid-20th century, but are now too overgrown. North Marble 

Island has undergone the same fate somewhat more recently (i.e., since Patten's studies 

there in 1973-1974). It is uncertain if and/or when the South Marble Island colony will 

become overgrown with vegetation, though it has remained at least bare enough to allow 

a sizeable gull nesting colony for at least 160 years since the mantling glaciers retreated 

(Reiners, Worley, and Lawrence 1971:56). Now, there appear to be no alternate sites for 

gull colony relocation short of the cliff areas at the heads of the contemporary glaciers or 

on the outer coast. 

The impact of Huna egg harvesting on Glaucous-winged Gull nesting success 

The potential impact of traditional harvesting by Huna Tlingit people should be 

considered in terms of the steadily shrinking nesting base in lower Glacier Bay. 

Although in the strictest sense scientific evidence is lacking, ecological succession 

appears to be the most significant variable affecting gull nesting population trends in this 

area during the 20th century. Some observers have suggested that Huna Tlingit egg 

harvests may have been responsible for observed or imputed Glaucous-winged Gull 

nesting failures in the Park. The best known and most influential of these claims is that 

incorporated in Lowell Sumner’s “Special Report to the National Park Service on the 

Hunting Rights of the Hoonah Natives in Glacier Bay National Monument" (1947). The 

119
 

report was solicited by the National Park Service in response to pressure from the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs to permit seal hunting in Glacier Bay. 

Catton (1995:124-128) has criticized this report as biased and inadequately 

documented. Regional Director Owen A. Tomlinson assigned biologist Sumner “the 

duty of formulating precise regulations and recommendations to cover the hunting 

privileges of Hoonah Tlingits in Glacier Bay National Monument.” Catton states that: 

“Sumner’s cursory investigation and subsequent report of August 5, 1947 

reflected the NPS’s strong predisposition to ban Native hunting in the 

Monument. Sumner’s few days in Glacier Bay in late June allowed only a 

brief appraisal of the effects of Native hunting and egg collection on the 

animal populations in the Monument, much less a reliable assessment of 

population sizes and trends of the various species that most concerned the 

NPS.... His report contained a scant seven pages of text. Nevertheless, it 

was a strongly worded condemnation of the present policy of allowing the 

people of Hoonah certain privileges [in particular, egg collecting] in the 

Monument. Tomlinson gave Sumner’s report his full support” (125). 

Catton concludes: 

The report was flawed in many respects. As a biological study, it reached 

conclusions about animal population trends based on ludicrously 

inadequate field data.... Sumner made ... cavalier judgments when he 

inspected Glaucous-winged Gull rookeries on North Marble Island. 

“Great crowds of gulls stood at empty nests“, he wrote afterwards, 

”displaying the listlessness that characteristically settles upon a bird 

colony a few days after it has been robbed” (126). 

Sumner concluded that egg harvesting “would result in severe depletion” of the gull 

population if allowed to continue. He recommended to the Park Superintendent that egg 

harvesting be excluded from the “special privileges” of “the Hoonah natives” (Sumner 

1947:10). 

Sumner’s recommendation was based on an inference concerning the cause of the 

observed nesting failure: 

[O]n June 25, 1947, the seabird nesting colony on North Marble Island 

was inspected by the National Park Service party. According to normal 

120
 

expectation, nesting activities should have been well under way at this 

date, with hundreds of young gulls in evidence, or at least hundreds of 

nests with incubation well underway. Instead, great crowds of gulls stood 

at empty nests, displaying the listlessness that characteristically settles 

upon a bird colony a few days after it has been robbed. There were no 

young gulls whatever, and of nests that contained eggs, only one had the 

full complement of three.... It is recognized that the Hoonah natives used 

to raid the bird colonies of Glacier Bay during primitive times [sic.]. 

However, Hoonah has become an incorporated town with daily radio 

communication ... and all the home conveniences of the machine age that 

the mail-order houses can furnish. Use of seabird eggs by such a large 

community can only result in eventual severe depletion.... The Director’s 

authorization of January 7, 1947, listing the special privileges of the 

Hoonah natives, does not include the gathering of seabird eggs. It is 

believed that in view of present and future use of Glacier Bay National 

Monument, this omission is completely justified (10). 

Sumner’s inference that the colony failure must have been due to Native harvests 

is highly speculative. Similar assumptions by Been in 1940 at Drake Island also lack 

empirical support. A similar reproductive failure of Glaucous-winged Gulls was 

documented in 1975 (Paige 1975) after traditional egg harvests were prohibited. 

Furthermore, the 1975 failure was not restricted to a single colony, but was evident 

throughout Glacier Bay. 

However, it cannot be ruled out that Sumner's visit to the North Marble Island 

colony just happened to occur shortly after an extensive harvest by Huna people. If 

indeed "great crowds of gulls stood at empty nests..." on June 25, 1947, this would argue 

against a nesting failure due to a drastic crash in food supplies, as under those conditions 

it is unlikely many gulls would have remained at the colony (Stephani Zador pers. 

comm., March 21, 2001). However, given evidence that colonies will re-nest after such a 

disturbance following a period of ca. 12 days, it is possible that had Sumner returned to 

the colony two weeks hence he would have found many nests with eggs (Shugart and 

121
 

Scharf 1976:473; Stephani Zador pers. comm. Nov. 20, 2001). This suggestion is 

supported by the following accounts describing how gulls react to human disturbance 

during nesting and following egg predation. In his classic life histories, Bent addresses 

this question with respect to two close relatives of the Glaucous-winged Gull, the 

Western and Herring Gulls: 

If the first set [of eggs] is removed, however, the birds will prepare a 

second, consisting almost invariably of two eggs, and these are deposited 

as likely as not in the same nest as the former set. Deposition occurs at 

intervals of two or three days. (Bent 1963:91, quoting Dawson [1909]) 

Further, 

After being robbed the birds soon begin laying again, and [Dawson] noted, 

by watching a certain nest, that an egg was laid every other day. (Bent 

1963:91) 

While they are somewhat wary, many allowed us to come quite close 

before rising from their nests.... (Bent 1963:92, quoting Milton S. Ray 

[1904]) 

Although the nest may be frequently robbed and several sets of eggs may 

be laid, only one brood of young is raised in a season. The normal set 

consists of three eggs, though two eggs often constitute a full set in the 

later layings.... (Bent 1963:92) 

When I first arrived at Great Duck the birds did not appear to mind my 

walking around among the nests so much as they did later on. When I 

entered the nesting ground the birds within 50 to 100 feet of me would rise 

and fly around, calling. Later on during my stay the birds within 200 to 

300 feet would rise. This may have been due to the fact that young were 

hatching out every day. (Bent 1963:103, quoting G. Ralph Mayer [1913]) 

Only one brood is raised, but when the nests are frequently robbed the 

birds are kept laying all summer. (Bent 1963:106) 

Verbeek confirms the gulls’ resilience in the face of human activity: 

Glaucous-winged Gulls are not easily disturbed at nest sites. In one study, 

in which nests on a roof were removed periodically ... sixteen pairs rebuilt 

their nests on average 4.7 times rather than move to another site. 

(Verbeek 1993:12) 

122
 

A study by Vermeer et al. (1991) of the effects of egging on Glaucous-winged 

Gull colonies in the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia concluded: 

[I]f egging occurs throughout the laying and incubation periods, no gull 

chicks are produced [as occurred in one of the colonies studied]. In the 

three egged colonies where egging stopped midway during the laying 

period, gulls produced 0.86 fledglings per pair, whereas the average 

fledging rate for non-egged colonies was 0.77 chicks/pair. At the higher 

rate the gull population would be expected to increase at 2.7% per year.... 

Therefore the effects of egging, if practiced in moderation, would still 

alow [sic.] the population to grow. 

The predominant Huna harvest strategy is consistent with the latter case, in which 

reproductive success was actually somewhat greater than in colonies that were not 

subject to egg harvesting. 

The descriptions and analysis herein of the validity of Huna Tlingit traditional 

knowledge of gull reproductive behavior suggest that Huna Tlingit egg harvests would 

not have seriously disrupted gull nesting or reduced gull reproductive success over time. 

As Patten noted, Glaucous-winged Gulls at the major Marble Island colonies were 

reproducing at rates well above replacement levels in the early 1970s. Assuming that the 

Huna Tlingit had harvested eggs from these colonies annually for about 100 years prior 

to Sumner’s visit, it appears that their traditional harvests did not harm the long-term 

reproductive success of gulls in Glacier Bay. 

The impact of non-human predators 

Zador (2001:13-15) reports substantial predation by Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) at the South Marble Island colony in 1999 and 2000 although the patterns 

of eagle predation differed between the years. In 1999 eagle predation was observed 

throughout the incubation period; in 2000 depredation was much less frequent until about 

a month after the first gull eggs appeared. Bald Eagle populations have increased 

123
 

dramatically throughout North America in the past few decades. Thus, the intensity of 

eagle predation at the South Marble Island colony may be a recent phenomenon.21 In 

this regard Zador (2001:27) suggests that the forest on South Marble Island “appears

facilitate eagle predation by providing perches in sight of the colony areas.” Non-human 

predation may be potentially more disruptive of gull nesting than traditional Native 

American harvests. The impact of eagle predation on the South Marble Island gull 

colony should therefore be carefully monitored so that this impact is included in 

assessments of the feasibility of a resumption of traditional harvests by the Huna Tlingit. 

 to 

 

Sustainability of Marble Islands Harvests 

How many gull eggs did the Huna people take before being stopped by federal 

intervention, and how many do they use today? 

It is not possible to determine exactly how many families harvested gull eggs on 

the Marble Islands each year. Nor is it possible to state how many eggs they took 

because it has been many years since the Huna people have felt free to carry on harvests. 

There has been an official presence discouraging use of the park for most subsistence 

purposes for about 50 years. Many people remembered their last egg-gathering trip to 

these islands to have been in the early 1960s or before (Table 10). Thus, consultants’ 

recollections of quantities harvested are rough approximations. Catton (1997), drawing 

on BIA Annual Statistical Reports for 1943 and 1945, states that in 1943, 800 dozen 

21 Patten (1981) states: "Bald Eagles take chicks, juveniles, and adults. However this predation is not significant at the population 

level." Patten says that the bald eagles between the Dangerous River and Cape Fairweather represent one of the largest 

concentrations in the U.S. (as of 1980). 

124
 

(9,600) gull eggs were harvested by Huna Tlingits from throughout their traditional use 

area. 

Table 10. Last Reported Egg Harvests.

Date before 

the 

1950s 

1950s 1960s 1970s more 

recently 

never Total responses 

with relevant 

information 

Number of 

consultants 

5 4 7 3 1 3 23 

 % of total 

responses 

22 17 31 13 4 13 100 

As far as current use is concerned, people in Hoonah are understandably reluctant 

to talk about an activity defined as illegal by the U.S. government in a study funded by an 

agency responsible for enforcement of applicable laws (NPS). The researchers thus 

avoided asking about illegal harvesting. Consequently, current levels of consumption of 

gull eggs in Hoonah cannot be estimated from interviewees’ direct responses. The 

authors believe however, that the consumption of gull eggs in Hoonah is now quite 

limited and has been since NPS enforcement of regulations in Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve became more active in the early to mid-1960s.22 Comments from 

interviewees that support this inference include statements from some parents that they 

would like their children to have the opportunity to eat gull eggs, but that only occasional 

illegal eggs in apparent small quantities came into the community. 

 

22 Schroeder and Kookesh (1990) also observe: "Traditional harvest of bird eggs has decreased in recent years due to closure of 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve to subsistence uses and legal limitations on this harvest. Because of these legal restrictions, 

harvesters are reluctant to discuss possible contemporary use of bird eggs." Hoonah respondents to AFG&G surveys indicated no 

seabird and/or gull eggs harvested in 1985, and extremely limited harvests in 1987 and 1996. 

125
 

Estimation of gull egg harvests prior to NPS enforcement 

One way of very roughly estimating Huna egg harvests prior to more active NPS 

enforcement and after Huna acquisition of larger and faster boats is to calculate the 

quantities available for harvest, given the cultural context of Huna Tlingit egg gathering 

-- including strategies for taking them and available technology. Such estimates are 

limited by the fact that the Glaucous-winged Gull nesting populations have not been 

systematically monitored at any site in the region, much less at all sites. Other than 

competition from other predators, the number of eggs that might have been harvested is a 

function of several factors including: 1) the number of active nests within a certain 

radius of Hoonah at that time (i.e., the 1950s and before); 2) the number of “surplus” 

eggs that a female gull might produce given what is known of gull breeding biology; and 

3) the efficiency of Huna Tlingit gull egg harvests. 

For the first factor the authors used Patten’s rough estimate of 2,000 breeding 

birds (1,000 nesting pairs) for the North and South Marble Island breeding colonies in 

1975 and a count of 1494 nesting birds (747 nesting pairs) tabulated at nine outer-coastal 

colonies by Sowls et al. for 1982. However, the authors believe that these outer-coastal 

colonies were likely harvested only incidentally while pursuing other resources. The 

colony on Middle Pass Rock in Icy Strait is likely the only colony outside of Glacier Bay 

that would have contributed significantly to this harvest. 

For the second factor there are two estimates. Nager, Monaghan, and Houston 

(2000:1343) report a mean number of eggs laid per female of 8.59 based on an 

experimental manipulation of nesting Lesser Black-backed Gulls. Zador (2001) reports a 

considerably lower average of 5.75 and 5.78 eggs per female for the South Marble Island 

126
 

colony in Glacier Bay for 1999 and 2000. Subtracting three eggs from these averages to 

allow for an eventual full clutch of three eggs, the theoretical “surplus” egg productivity 

can be estimated at between 2.8 and 5.6 eggs per nest, that is, the maximum number of 

eggs that might have been taken from each nest while leaving a full clutch that could then 

be incubated, hatched, and fledged. This “surplus” productivity is more than a 

“sustainable” harvest, because the stress of replacing lost eggs, other predation, the 

delays incurred in completing the nesting cycle, and other factors would reduce fledging 

success rates by some amount. 

There is no quantitative data with which to estimate the third factor, the efficiency 

of Huna Tlingit egg harvests, that is, the fraction of the “surplus” eggs that might 

reasonably be expected the to have been harvested by the Huna each year. For the sake 

of illustration, the number of eggs that might have been harvested sustainably can be 

calculated at several levels of efficiency, e.g., 30%, 50%, and 70%. It is certain that 

100% of the “surplus” eggs could not have been harvested, given that some fraction of 

the active nests would have been located on inaccessible terrain and the casual nature of 

Huna Tlingit harvests would have allowed some fraction of nests and/or eggs to escape 

notice. During any given visit, some nests would not yet hold eggs or would have 

complete clutches, and thus would have been passed over. The variation in harvest 

strategies reported among Huna consultants would also have tended to reduce the overall 

efficiency of the harvest. Finally, competition from other predators would have reduced 

the number available to Huna egg collectors. 

On the other hand, consultants report that harvests were organized to coincide 

with the most productive period of the nesting cycle, taking advantage of the tightly 

127
 

synchronized laying schedule in the colony. Huna people also communicated with each 

other with respect to the condition of the colony and the success of recent harvest efforts, 

which could have substantially enhanced overall harvest efficiency. Thus, it is not 

unreasonable to hypothesize a rather high efficiency rate for these traditional harvests. 

These assumptions are applied in Table 11 below. 

Table 11. Estimates of Huna Marble Islands Egg Harvests.

X eggs/nest “surplus”/nest

* 

Total “surplus”# @ 30% @ 50% @ 70% 

8.6† 3.6 3600 1080 1800 2520 

5.8‡ 2.8 2800 840 1400 1960 

† Nager, Monaghan, and Houston (2000:1343). 

‡Zador (2000a). 

*Allowing three eggs for a completed clutch. 

#On the basis of 1,000 active nests, as reported for the Marble Island colonies by Patten in 1975. 

Based on the assumptions detailed above, an annual harvest by the Huna Tlingit 

from the Marble Islands colonies can be estimated between 840 and 2520 eggs. 

However, Catton (1997:107) cites a BIA count of 800 dozen gull eggs harvested by the 

Huna in 1943, or, 9600 eggs. If this count is accurate there must have been a 

substantially larger nesting gull population in lower Glacier Bay in 1943 than at present. 

Applying conservative assumptions, there would need to have been 11,429 active nests 

available for harvest, or, based on liberal assumptions, 3,810 such nests. While there is 

no way of knowing what the gull population was in Glacier Bay during this time, it is 

known that many historic nesting sites in Glacier Bay are now abandoned due to 

vegetational succession (see Table 7). 

With the knowledge that Huna harvests in what is now Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve were not limited to the Marble Islands, although speculative, it is not 

unreasonable to suggest that the Huna were taking at least 2,000 gull eggs from Glacier 

128
 

Bay on average annually in the period shortly before regulations on such harvests were 

enforced. (Using the most conservative efficiency rate from Table 11, if all other nesting 

sites in Glacier Bay contributed twice our estimate from the Marble Islands, about 2400 

eggs could have been taken.) The rough estimate of 2000 eggs is employed in a later 

section to illustrate the potential cultural significance of such a harvest for the Huna 

community. 

Were Gull Egg Harvests by the Huna Tlingit “Sustainable”? 

Earlier it was noted that egg harvest strategies varied and that there are unknown 

implications of some of these from a sustainability perspective, if practiced frequently. 

The authors are convinced, however, that Huna gull egg harvests overall were 

“sustainable” to the extent that the South Marble colony has apparently continued to 

support hundreds of nesting gulls for as long as elders can recall and a multigenerational 

Huna tradition evolved around the harvest, sharing and consumption of these eggs, 

including social norms guiding harvest practices. The Marble Islands were considered 

very important for nesting gulls by biologists as early as 1939 (Trager 1939) and 1947 

(Sumner 1947). Patten (1974) described the Marble Island colonies as “by far the largest 

in Glacier Bay” in 1974. As noted above, the North Marble Island colonies numbered in 

the neighborhood of 500 nesting pairs during Patten's study in 1972 and 1973. That site 

is now abandoned apparently due to successional changes in vegetation. Today South 

Marble Island is the primary nesting site in Glacier Bay and is a major tourist attraction 

by virtue of this nesting (and because of the now resident sea lions). Based on the 

association of recently established colonies with the tongues of retreating glaciers, it 

129
 

seems likely that the Marble Islands have been important nesting sites for Glaucouswinged Gulls since first exposed by the retreating glaciers ca. 1845. 

It is highly likely that Huna Tlingit have harvested eggs from these colonies since 

the emergence of the islands from the ice until the active exclusion of egg harvesting 

from Glacier Bay National Monument, a period of approximately 120 years. There is no 

conclusive evidence that those harvests have had lasting negative impacts on breeding 

success at the colony. In fact, no HTEES consultants could remember any shortages of 

eggs for gathering, nor could they recall any notable variations in gull populations from 

year to year.23

 

23 The authors believe that generally Huna egg-gathering practices fit Berkes (1999:95) suggestion that a conservation ethic can 

develop if a “resource is important or limiting, predictable and depletable, and if it is effectively under the social control of the group 

in question so that the group can reap the benefits of its conservation.” We explore this issue in more detail in a separate, 

forthcoming paper (Hunn et al. n.d.). 

130
 

VI. PATTERNS OF CONSUMPTION OF GULL EGGS BY HUNA 

TLINGIT, INCLUDING PREPARATION, PRESERVATION AND 

DISTRIBUTION24

As noted earlier, gathering gull eggs on the Marble Islands largely involved 

family outings. For some parties these outings were picnics where eggs were gathered 

and eaten on the spot with few taken back to Hoonah. In other cases, eggs were feasted 

upon in Glacier Bay but some quantity was taken back to Hoonah. People of both sexes 

and of all ages participated. There does not seem to have been rigid definitions of tasks 

by age or sex. Everyone might assist in cooking and shelling the eggs, especially while 

out on the land. Elder Lily White recalled, for example, that the men cracked the eggs all 

the way around and that the women and children removed the shell, but both sexes 

participated in the processing. 

Eggs were frequently delivered to a central point on the South Marble Island 

beach where some people worked on the eggs and made a fire for boiling them for a 

picnic that included other food. People also cooked and ate eggs on their boats. Others 

remembered camping nearby but away from the Marble Islands. As explained earlier, 

people usually were very hungry for the eggs, and children would usually eat three and 

adults four or five, according to one consultant. 

Transporting Gull Eggs to Hoonah and Their Distribution 

Eggs harvested in Glacier Bay were frequently carried back to Hoonah where 

they were shared with relatives and others who were not able to make the trip. On the 

 

24 This section of the report covers Task 1, Research Questions 4, 6, 9, 12 and 14. See Appendix 1. 

131
 

trip back, several temporary methods were used to keep the eggs cool and to prevent the 

development of the chicks. These included packing them with glacial ice that floated in 

Glacier Bay and wrapping them in skunk cabbage leaves, grass and moss, or other natural 

materials. 

Sharing eggs 

HTEES interview data show that most eggs that were shared were done so among 

kin, especially favorite elders who were fond of them. The ethic of sharing throughout 

the community, however, was also present. Most, but not all people, who gathered eggs, 

appear to have shared them. 

Elder Katherine Grant answering the interviewer’s questions about who they 

normally gave eggs to recalls: 

Relatives and all. Not just elders. You give it to anybody -- you have a 

friend, maybe give them four eggs. Oh, they’re happy to get it.... 

Thus, people without close kin taking eggs in any given year probably also 

received some gull eggs, if they wanted them. Illustrating how food was shared 

traditionally throughout the community, when asked what happened when a boat returned 

to Hoonah with food, elder Frank See says: 

When you first come in you hit the beach. That means come down and 

help yourself. That's the way Hoonah was.... They all come down – 

some of them bring their pans. Yeah they know they’re gonna get some – 

that is tradition. 

Mayor Albert Dick remembers the following from being on a boat with a captain who 

distributed food to the community. 

Yeah, like our group, if he was chief, we have to donate ... so they took a 

little bit more to share.... Actually it turns out even though it looked like I 

132
 

didn’t get very much for my hard work, it was equal to what I would eat, 

but everybody got a share. [Food was distributed according to family 

size.] Some had eight, nine kids, and they had to feed all of them for the 

winter. And I guess there was only a couple of us so it wouldn’t be as 

much. 

Pat Mills explains how he was taught to share eggs and other natural resources at a young 

age: 

So when we helped people, we were told not to ask ... the reason ... 

because these people we helped might not have any money. And they 

might have to dig too deep to pay you. It might hurt them too much. And 

so this is why when we give seagull eggs, we never ask for money. We 

come and say Auntie, look what we got for you. And we’d give them 

eggs. And if they were relations that were real important to us, we’d give 

them more eggs. And it's obvious that our grandmother got the most of 

the eggs. 

HTEES consultants emphasized that elders were given priority when eggs and 

other food was distributed. Elder Wilbur James explains why: 

The elders are respected by the Huna Tlingit because they are regarded as 

teachers and because they taught and carried on the traditions of our 

culture. 

According to Ernestine Hanlon: 

There’s never been a time that our young people have let our elders go 

hungry. And especially from Glacier Bay. Whenever we put out the best 

food, it is from Glacier Bay. 

Pat Mills says: 

We did have a priority for our elders because they’re the ones that told us 

how good [the eggs] were and shared their experiences with us. And we 

wanted them to know that we went after eggs for them. 

Frank Wright, Jr., says: 

The sharing was more with close, immediate family first, and then would 

go elsewhere.... Elders were always a priority. 

Gull eggs were also saved for special occasions, sometimes to share with special friends. 

Elder Charles Jack gives an example: 

133
 

When we first got eggs my grandpa would eat maybe one or two. He 

used to say, we’ll save this for a special occasion. [When asked what a 

special day was he said:] Maybe decide today is a good day to eat an egg, 

you know. Yeah, [with] a special friend. 

Were enough gull eggs available from Glacier Bay for widespread distribution in 

Hoonah? 

This section examines whether there were enough gull eggs available from 

Glacier Bay, gathered by residents of Hoonah, to have been widely distributed on a 

regular basis, thereby fostering the perception of gull eggs from Glacier Bay as a delicacy 

throughout the Hoonah community. The following analysis takes into account previously 

postulated estimates of Glaucous-winged Gull populations and eggs available for harvest. 

It also includes the ethnographic material pertaining to the social dimensions of gull egg 

harvests. The data presented further supports the claims of respondents that gull eggs 

from Glacier Bay were widely appreciated as delicacies before open access to nesting 

colonies was formally denied. 

One consultant estimated that a single individual would typically fill one fivegallon pail during a single visit to the colony. (There are pictures from 1959 and 1960 

egg-harvesting trips in which three-gallon buckets were being completely filled with 

eggs.) The authors estimate that 30 chicken eggs fit into a gallon, which translates to 

17.6 gull eggs per gallon, or 88.5 in a five-gallon pail. However, if allowing for the 

layers of grass, Indian celery or moss used to cushion the eggs, 60 gull's eggs per fivegallon pail is a reasonable estimate, if the pail is full.25

 

25 NPS intercepted an illegal harvest of eggs in the summer of 1999 in which the harvester had placed 45 eggs in a well-cushioned

five-gallon pail three-quarters full. 

134
 

It is clear from the interviews that not all persons in the parties actually took eggs. 

Elders on the trip frequently were not able to negotiate the steep terrain. There was also a 

division of labor, with some people boiling water and preparing eggs for eating on-site. 

Children were frequently accompanied by older relatives who taught them how to harvest 

eggs or supervised their activities. Thus, a logical conjecture is that an average party size 

of nine family members would have filled the equivalent of four five-gallon buckets of 

eggs. Based on the above calculations, this totals about 240 eggs. If that party were 

composed of five adults and four children (assuming that adults consumed five per meal 

and children three, as suggested by one interviewee), the hypothetical party of nine 

would have consumed about 35 eggs per meal while in the park.26 Assuming three meals 

were eaten in the park, this totals 105 eggs, leaving about 135 to take back to Hoonah for 

use as fresh eggs, for preservation and sharing (with the unrealistic assumption that none 

were broken or discarded because they contained developed embryos). 

Assuming that 5% of the eggs were either broken or discarded (because of not 

being fresh), that leaves about 128 of the 135 above to take to Hoonah. If each party was 

composed of two households and they each kept two-dozen eggs for their own use, there 

would be about 80 eggs to share with relatives and friends. If each household with which 

they shared received 10 to 12 eggs, then one egg-gathering trip would have resulted in 

eggs being consumed in total by about nine households. With each gathering household 

keeping only one dozen eggs and sharing about two dozen, the distribution to nongathering households might have doubled. 

 

26One respondent states: “...[E]verything we ate was associated with the season. It [eating seagull eggs] would be just like the bear: 

when the fish hit the river, the bear gorges himself with as many as he can hold the first day. I think that’s the term that we use, too.” 

135
 

Using the estimate of the equivalent of four five-gallon buckets filled per 

extended family gathering party, and assuming 2000 eggs available for harvest, Glacier 

Bay could have furnished eggs for a total of eight egg-gathering parties. This would 

represent sixteen households, who would have distributed those eggs to approximately 56 

households, resulting potentially in about 72 households having gull eggs under the first 

of the above assumptions. During the period when eggs were being openly collected, if 

every recipient household did not get a dozen eggs but only enough for a portion at a 

meal, or perhaps enough to make a cake, and/or if gathering parties kept fewer eggs after 

returning to Hoonah (as suggested by one respondent) then there were clearly enough 

Marble Island gull eggs for them to have potentially found their way into most Hoonah 

households annually.27 (Gull eggs harvested from the outer-coast colonies or other 

locations would have expanded considerably the number of gull eggs available to the 

Hoonah community during the peak gathering period when access was motorized and 

more colonies were accessible). 

Although speculative, these figures suggest that a minority of Hoonah families 

would have been able to visit Glacier Bay in any given year for the purpose of taking 

eggs. However, if 2000 gull eggs were available for sustained harvest they easily could 

have been distributed widely and, therefore, widely appreciated as a delicacy in Hoonah. 

Our ethnographic material is consistent with this conclusion, since interviewees 

frequently mentioned that not all children were selected to go and that to be selected was 

 

27 One consultant, recalling a series of family egg-gathering trips, mostly to the Marble Islands in the mid-1960s, said: “I don’t 

remember a family that was able to harvest ever keeping more than three or four, maybe a half a dozen themselves, even if they had 

several buckets’ full. All the rest ... would get shared with the other community members, relatives, aunts, uncles, next-door 

neighbors.... I remember that it was always a very giving time for everybody.” 

136
 

an event of great importance. The HTEES interviews also suggest that not every adult 

gathered eggs every year and that some families were much more involved in the actual 

egg gathering than others. One reason some families were able to collect eggs more 

often than others was that not all families owned large enough boats to make the trips 

with several people.28 Finally, the interviews also indicate that prior to NPS enforcement 

of restrictions prohibiting their harvest, gull eggs from what is now Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve were widely distributed in the Hoonah community and recognized as 

special because of the location of their harvest. 

Cooking and preparation 

In Hoonah, especially in recent times, most eggs were cooked in boiling water 

and eaten on the spot.29 The shells were sometimes put in the soil in local gardens. The 

most popular way of eating a boiled egg was by dipping the shelled egg in seal oil. Elder 

George Obert says: "We'd dip it in seal oil and turn it upside down so the seal oil runs 

down it and then we'd salt it." Other more modern ways of preparing gull eggs were to 

scramble, poach, and fry them. Some were used in baking, as gull eggs made a superior 

cake. Elder Hilda comments: 

Yeah, I bake cakes with them and your cake, the color is almost a bright 

orange. It's so pretty, and it raises up and you use only one egg where you 

would use two chicken eggs. They are a very rich egg. 

Johanna Dybdahl describes cakes her mother used to make: 

And it was just astronomical to us because a normal size cake we all know 

is [from] a cake-size pan, but these cakes that they would make with the 

 

28 For example, Elder Ester Kaze says: "During my time ... the whole town didn't go up there, and it was just the people that had 

boats." Interviewer: "Do you think that everybody in the village got to have some eggs by the sharing?" Ester Kaze: "Yeah." 29 George Dalton, Jr., said his parents sometimes made hard-boiled gull eggs in boiling coffee. 

137
 

seagull eggs were at least twice the size. It would rise that high. And so 

you know we used to just love it. 

A few people mentioned that the eggs were occasionally eaten raw. Johanna 

Dybdahl says: 

I remember ... a couple of elders eating the eggs raw. I mean just 

cracking 'em. And they ate them. 

Preservation of eggs 

Several consultants described traditional methods of preservation of gull eggs; 

some claiming that supplies of preserved eggs might last until late winter. Others said 

that gull eggs in their households would all be eaten by November, if not sooner. From 

the HTEES interviews, it does not appear that many gull eggs are preserved in Hoonah 

today, or in more recent times.30 However, the detailed descriptions reported by virtually 

all respondents clearly suggest that egg preservation was an important and routine 

practice earlier in this century, before the introduction of refrigerators and freezers and at 

a time when gull colonies were considerably more numerous in lower Glacier Bay. In any 

case, whether eggs are harvested for preservation has significant implications for the 

number harvested. Ed Hubbard comments: 

It's like going to the store and buying a dozen eggs. You won't buy twenty 

dozen eggs 'cause you know ... [they won't] last. The same thing holds 

true with going to pick eggs that we can consume today [or] in the next 

three days. 

Several methods of preservation were described by Huna consultants. These may 

represent distinct family traditions. The most commonly reported practice was for hard-

 

30Obviously, part of the reason that eggs are not widely preserved today is because, with only two exceptions, there has been no legal 

access to them. 

138
 

boiled eggs to be preserved in bentwood boxes made of yellow cedar or spruce and 

covered in seal oil.31 Regarding the seal oil, Lily White points out: 

It's gotta be fresh. Before when the egg season was coming close ... the 

guys used to have this hunting trip and get the seal fat. And the ladies 

used to cook it, render the oil, and after it's pure and cold, they just keep it 

for the egg-picking time. 

Elder Elizabeth Govina, who lived in Juneau at the time of the interviews, but lived in 

Hoonah until about 1960 recalls: 

My grandmother used to do that. She used to cook it first and peel it and 

then put in the seal oil.... And it’d have to be in real fresh grease. Freshly 

kill the seal and then render the fat. Because if you put it in... too old of 

seal grease, it won’t be so good... 

The boxes of oil-covered eggs were kept in a dark, cool place. Elder Sam Hanlon 

says: 

And our people back then had the bentwood cedar box. Waterproof. And 

when [the egg was cooked and shelled] they would pour seal oil into that 

box which is waterproof and place their eggs in there. And all through the 

winter months if you picked enough you can eat hard-boiled eggs. 

Tom Mills recalls: 

Well, the eggs were preserved. The eggs were always boiled, and they 

were preserved in seal oil. You skinned them and then you put them in 

seal oil. You build a little wood spacer or something on the bottom so if 

there’s any moisture like in all oils so the moisture will drop down to 

bottom of the oil barrel. 

It was very important to dry the shelled eggs before storing them, as Lily White explains: 

Lay it out on something like canvas. Just keep rolling them.... Cause it 

will dry real fast. If you take a boiled egg out, leave, it will dry off all 

sides of it except where [it’s] sitting. 

 

31 Although some seals were hunted in conjunction with gull-egg harvests often with the objective of rendering fresh oil, the primary 

seal harvest season was later in the summer. Several respondents said they did not harvest seals in the spring because that is pupping 

season. However, by targeting the males, overall seal reproduction would not have been affected by limited spring hunting. Frank 

White Sr. told us that hunters could tell the difference between males and females, primarily by their size. 

139
 

Elder Richard Dalton, Sr., says: 

They dry it by just air. First early in the morning when the damp is 

getting out, dry out a little bit.... And the eggs get warmed up, and it’s 

not hot but it’s warm and drying out the damp out of it. If you don’t do it 

that way, it will mildew. 

Charles Jack reports that his family preserved eggs dry in the shell: 

...[my grandfather drained] the liquid that's in the egg. Like chicken eggs 

there's a liquid. You punch a hole, and it doesn't crack when you're 

boiling it but mostly they punch the hole and drained the water out after its 

cooked.... [We used] the honeycomb from the bee and wasp.... [Y]ou dip 

the stick in it and [then] put it in the egg to seal the hole so it doesn't 

breathe the air. See the idea is to get all the liquid and all the air out of the 

egg and then seal it and then they made it about an inch and a half above 

the eggs so when they stood [packed] it in those seeds [i.e., outer husks of 

seeds of tall grass growing on the river flats], then they covered it. It 

stuck up above the covering. That way they know where to put the next 

row, to stagger the next row in between... If they're separated so they 

don't touch ... they keep a long time. 

A few people remembered their families preserving eggs by slicing the shelled, 

hard-boiled eggs very thin and drying them on rocks, but many other people had not 

heard of this approach. 

After commercial salt was introduced, some families began preserving the boiled, 

unshelled eggs in a brine solution. Elder Elizabeth Govina describes how her father 

processed eggs using layers of salt and moss: 

He used to get moss by the trees. We’d just shake them off so there 

wouldn’t be no insects or anything in there. We lay it out and let it dry. 

And he used to get those wooden boxes or orange crates... and he layers 

them with that moss and salt... and then we lay the eggs, salt at the bottom 

and on top and then the moss. Just by layers. And they keep. And you 

just keep them in one place. Don’t move them around.... And they ... 

used to keep until late November ... in a cool place. 

140
 

According to elder George Obert, another way of preserving eggs was to dig a 

hole in a stream, line the hole with moss to protect the eggs, and cover the eggs with 

gravel and rocks. Sometimes a dam of rocks was made to keep the eggs in place. 

...[T]hey'd dig a hole in a running stream and they'd put moss ... in there, 

then the eggs. Then they'd put rocks around it and over it, so that they 

wouldn't be disturbed. As long as water was running, kept it cold.... 

They'd [bring] it up in the fall time when you're having a party like [the] 

latter part of October, first part of November. 

Finally, Lila Hubbard describes a more recent way of preserving eggs, prepared in 

cakes, which were then preserved; she notes that this is the only way she had ever 

preserved them: 

The only way I [ever preserved them] was when they had my dad's party 

... we got some gull eggs, and I baked cakes with them. I baked the cake 

and froze it. 

In sum, five or six distinct preservation methods were reported, suggesting that in 

the past larger numbers of eggs were harvested and that they played a more prominent 

role in the local diet and at social events than has been the case in the memory of most 

HTEES respondents. The fact that individuals who practice one technique may not be 

aware of alternative practices in use in the same community shows that a particular 

culture’s practices may vary in detail even while serving a common, highly valued 

purpose. 

Medicinal uses of gull eggs 

Many but not all respondents reported that gull eggs were used as a healing food. 

Tony Mills gives the following account: 

141
 

When my mom was dying ... she was hungry for some seagull eggs, so 

my boy Robert Mills – they couldn’t go to Glacier Bay to get it, but they 

found some places off the islands where they got them.... They took a 

skiff out there and jumped off on the rocks while they were going up and 

down the big swells. And they jumped back on when they got their bucket 

or two buckets’ full. And my mom was real sick. She couldn’t eat 

anything. Couldn’t stomach anything. But after we cooked the seagull 

eggs for her, she ate about four of them. And she felt real happy and 

good.... 

Elder Lily White also talks about medicinal use of gull eggs: 

When a person had real bad stomachaches and stuff, they couldn't eat 

heavy stuff like oiled meats ... that they fixed for food. They used to have 

those eggs instead of hard stuff like bread ... something they could 

digest.... And they had these Hudson Bay teas that's picked in the 

muskegs. 

Elder Charles Jack explains how the elders felt about eating eggs with chicks: 

Just a few, for their medicinal uses you know and [they’d] say: well I ate a 

seagull.... [T]hey did a lot of things to help prolong their living. And it 

would also help them with medicine or whatever or maybe in their mind. 

It isn't a proven thing but they did [eat the eggs] because of so many 

things. Just like you take vitamin [C] whether you need it or not. It’s the 

same thing. 

Dan Neil recalls: 

There's a tea that you can boil it with.... Once the tea is made you just 

crack your egg in the tea. In fact, I had a cold one time in Glacier Bay and 

it was given to me for medicinal purposes. 

Gull eggs and potlatches 

Younger consultants usually did not recall gull eggs being given at potlatches, 

probably because in recent times few eggs have been preserved in Hoonah by traditional 

methods. Older people remembered that gull eggs were not normally given in large 

quantities at potlatches because they had usually been consumed. However, occasionally 

gull eggs were given at potlatches to honor and to thank a person of the opposite moiety 

for something they had done during the past year. A gull egg was a treasured gift that 

142
 

represented respect and thankfulness. In addition, an elder who was given fresh eggs by 

a harvester might publicly thank the person at a potlatch. 

Elder Frank White Sr. explains that earlier gifts of eggs might be remembered at 

potlatch time: 

Sometimes when you give eggs... to old-timers and then come potlatch 

time [T]hey’d remember it and they’d mention you and give you money. 

[And say] this is for appreciation for you giving me eggs from my country 

or from my father’s country. Something like that, it’s not payment for that 

egg, just an appreciation. 

Trading of gull eggs 

Although some respondents said gull eggs were not traded, others indicated that 

they were.32 The most reasonable conclusion regarding this issue appears to be that some 

families did trade gull eggs and others did not. When they were traded, it was to people 

outside the village, for other products of nutritional importance. Elder George Obert: 

...people would come down with some of their dried and smoked fish. Or 

people from Haines and Klukwan would come down with smoked 

hooligan, and they'd trade for seagull eggs. 

One consultant said they sold gull eggs to people who worked in Icy Strait 

Cannery at a time when seining started early thereby preventing cannery employees from 

harvesting eggs themselves. 

 

32 A limitation of our data with regard to trading of eggs may be that the question was misunderstood in some instances as only 

pertaining to distribution within the Hoonah community. Consultants were consistent in their answers that eggs were not traded

within this community. This is not to say that the underlying basis of some sharing is in terms of the expectation that, if one gives 

away some commodity that they have, others will reciprocate with commodities that they have. 

143
 

Permission given to non-Huna Tlingit to gather eggs 

Though non-Huna people might ask permission to gather eggs, this was unusual. 

When such visitors (usually relatives) came from outside Huna Tlingit territory to gather 

gull eggs, they asked permission, which was usually granted. They were most often 

accompanied by a Huna Tlingit, normally a relative, when they harvested the eggs. After 

citing an example of a relative from another area who came to gather gull eggs with his 

family, Pat Mills says: 

The reason why I mentioned Mr. Annisekett is because we go back to 

different people in Southeast using Glacier Bay. To me this is the 

connection why they used Glacier Bay, because a lot of these people are 

relatives. 

Elder George Obert elaborates on the use of Glacier Bay for egging by non-Huna Tlingit: 

Obert: Some boats from the other communities would come in and pick 

somebody up or a family, bring them up to Glacier Bay.... They'd have a 

chance to pick seagull eggs as well. They wouldn't allow them in Glacier 

Bay unless they had a person or a family [from Hoonah]. 

Interviewer: It's like asking permission 

Obert: Yeah. 

Interviewer: So where did these people come from? 

Obert: Angoon, Juneau and Haines and all the villages on the inside. 

Interviewer: Kake people too? 

Obert: No, they probably had their own. 

Interviewer: So, Angoon, Juneau, Haines, Klukwan? 

Obert: Yeah. 

Estimates of the Nutritional Contributions of Bird Eggs to the Huna Tlingit Diet 

As noted above, the cultural value of gull eggs involves much more than their 

nutritional contribution. As de Laguna (who worked in Yakutat) notes, they were “a 

treat,” rather than a staple element of the diet (1972:395). Nonetheless, that contribution 

should be understood, given the limitations of the available data discussed earlier. 

144
 

The nutritional value of a single Glaucous-winged Gull egg was estimated by 

extrapolating from values published for domestic chicken, duck and goose eggs. Since 

published nutritional values are based on a standard 100-gram sample, it was necessary to 

estimate the weight of a gull's egg. Nine fresh, whole, grade-AA chicken eggs were 

weighed to calculate their average weight. The length and width of these eggs were also 

measured. This was the basis for calculating a series of volumetric ratios for the various 

wild bird species reported to have been targeted for their eggs by the Huna Tlingit (see 

Table 6). The authors calculated the egg volume as 4/3π(l/2)(w/2)2 (l = length; w = 

width) and thus estimated that a Glaucous-winged Gull egg on average would weigh 1.7 

times the average chicken egg. Since the grade-AA chicken eggs weighed an average of 

59 gms, it was estimated that the average Glaucous-winged Gull’s egg would weigh 100 

gms. This may be compared with Patten’s measurements of 142 eggs: the average 

weight was 97.6 gms (1974:46). Subtracting 6.7 gms from this for the inedible shell, this 

leaves 90.9 gms of edible portion per egg. 

The authors then took the average of the available figures for chicken, duck and 

goose eggs as their nutritional standard (Watt and Merrill 1963). For minimal daily 

requirements for humans, the averages of the values recommended by the National 

Academy of Sciences (1974) for males and females ages 23 to 50 were used. These are: 

2,350 Kcal, 51 gms protein, 4,500 IU Vitamin A, 800 mg Calcium (Ca) [*400 is an 

international standard], 800 mg Phosphorus (P), 14 mg Iron (Fe), 1.2 mg Thiamin (Thi), 

1.4 mg Riboflavin (Rib), 1.6 mg Niacin (Nia) (see Table 12). 

145
 

146

Table 12. An Estimate of the Nutritional Value of Various Eggs per 100 grams (3.5 

ounces). 

Water Kcal Protein Fat Ca P Fe Thi Rib Nia VitA

Chicken 73.7 163 12.9 11.5 54 205 2.3 0.11 0.30 0.10 1180 

Duck 70.4 191 13.3 14.5 56 195 2.8 0.18 0.10 1230 

Goose 70.4 185 13.9 13.3 - - - - - 

Gull 71.5 162 12.1 11.8 50 180 2.34 0.14 0.27 0.09 1085 

RDDA % - 7% 24% - 6/12% 22.5% 17% 12% 19% 5.6% 24% 

#Gull eggs/ 

day* 

14.5 4.2 8/16 4.4 6 8.6 5.2 17.8 4.1 

Ca = calcium, P = phosphorous, Fe = iron, Thi = thiamine, Rib = riboflavin, Nia = niacin, * to meet RDDA 

However, on an annual basis it is clear that gull eggs could have provided only a 

tiny fraction of the total Huna Tlingit food energy requirement. If a maximum of 9600 

gull eggs (the BIA figure for 1943) were actually available per year for a Huna Tlingit 

population in the neighborhood of 600, the egg harvest would have provided 

approximately 0.3% of the community's total annual food energy requirements. 
 

VII. THE IMPACT OF REGULATION OF BIRDS’ EGGS 

HARVESTS ON THE HUNA TLINGIT33

At the beginning of the 20th century, it was obvious that many migratory North 

American bird populations were in serious decline and widespread interest in their 

conservation began. According to Wagner & Thompson (1993): 

The loss of opportunities to hunt waterfowl was of concern to the 

organized sport hunting fraternity. Concerns were also raised over the 

potential effects on agriculture as insectivorous bird populations declined. 

Migratory routes had been identified in the 1890s (by banding) and it was clear that 

effective regulation of bird harvest would have to be done on an international basis. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

In 1914, the U.S. presented a draft treaty to the Canadian government. After 

being signed by American and British representatives in 1916, the Migratory Birds 

Convention Act was passed by Parliament in 1917. Subsequently, the U.S. Congress 

passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in 1918. Eventually, Mexico signed a 

similar treaty in 1936 and conventions were also signed with Japan (1972) and Russia 

(1976). The MBTA is the domestic law that implements U.S. commitment to the 

international conventions. 

Birds are classified in the MBTA as: migratory game, migratory non-game, and 

migratory insectivorous birds. The act governs the taking, killing, possession, 

transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts and nests. Wagner 

 

33 This section of the report pertains to Task 1, Research Questions 15 and 16 in part. See Appendix 1. For a more complete 

discussion of the relationship between the Huna Tlingit and the NPS, see Catton 1995, especially chapters VI and X. 

147
 

and Thompson (1993) state: 

Hunting of non-game and insectivorous birds was prohibited. A closed 

season on hunting of game birds was established from March 10 to 

September 1, with a maximum length of a hunting season at any location 

set at three and one-half months... Sale of any birds, eggs and nests was 

prohibited. 

Although there are limited exceptions for subsistence uses, until recently the 

MBTA generally outlawed the taking of migratory birds and their eggs during the spring 

and summer, including customary and traditional harvests in areas where people were 

dependent upon them. Paradoxically, customary and traditional harvests by indigenous 

people are guaranteed by the Canadian constitution, and both are acknowledged and 

protected by U.S. policy. Since the mid-1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

used “discretion” in enforcing laws establishing closed seasons that impact customary 

and traditional harvests, provided that such harvests did not adversely affect species’ 

populations and birds were not wasted (Tollefson 1999). Not surprisingly, traditional 

harvest by Northern indigenous groups in the spring and summer continued throughout 

the tenure of MBTA -- especially in rural and remote areas. 

Negotiations to change the MBTA began in the 1970s but conventions were not 

signed until December of 1995. The Senate gave its consent to the protocol for 

amendment in October of 1997. On October 7, 1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

announced that the U.S. and Canada had formally agreed to a protocol amending the 

1916 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This agreement allows both countries to recognize and 

cooperatively manage subsistence uses of migratory birds and their eggs for “their own 

nutritional and other essential needs,” including such harvests in the spring and summer. 

Given that these harvests have been ongoing, the 1999 MBTA amendments function 

148
 

mainly to legitimize them. They also implicitly acknowledge that such activities are not 

inherently ecologically unsound. 

The protocol establishes eligibility for the “indigenous inhabitants of Alaska” in 

specified areas. Tollefson states: 

Indigenous inhabitants are defined as permanent residents of a village 

within a subsistence harvest area, regardless of race. Subsistence harvest 

areas are established to include most village areas within the Alaska 

Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands, and areas north and 

west of the Alaska Range. Areas that would generally not qualify include 

the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star Boroughs, 

the Kenai Peninsula roaded area, the Gulf of Alaska roaded area, and 

Southeast Alaska. Exceptions to these areas can be made through a 

deliberative process [that] includes the management bodies established by 

the Service. 

NPS Management and the Huna Tlingit, 1925 to 1974 

An exact description of NPS management and their interaction with the Huna 

Tlingit during this timeframe is difficult, if not impossible, to construct. The written 

record is sketchy, memories dim over time, and information passed down verbally over 

several generations may lose its accuracy. Catton (1995:29-31) questions whether the 

Tlingit people understood in 1925 the impact the designation of Glacier Bay as a national 

monument might have. The founding of the Tongass National Forest on their lands in 

1907 had little or no effect on their traditional harvest practices. Catton surmises that 

they may have expected that the National Park Service would have no further impact. 

Catton also notes that, in contrast to most National Park Service lands in the lower 48 

states, Indian title in Alaska had not been extinguished and the issue of Indian land 

claims was ignored when Glacier Bay National Monument was established. He 

characterizes the NPS de facto management of the new national monument as “virtual 

non-management... through the 1930s” (1995:4). “NPS officials had no direct contact 

149
 

with the people of Hoonah before 1939.” (Catton 1995:13) The fundamental reason for 

this lack of contact was simply because the NPS had no personnel stationed in the area. 

The Monument was expanded in 1939 primarily to protect the Alaskan brown 

bear34 incorporating the Marble Islands. Catton reports that “Hoonah Tlingits... resisted 

the new regime; [and] negotiated for special privileges to continue seal hunting....” As 

noted previously, these harvest privileges (including those pertaining to gull egg 

harvests) became an issue in the 1940s (Sumner 1947). However, very few tourists 

visited the park until the mid-1960s, and enforcement of restrictions on Tlingit harvests 

in the park were unsystematic (Catton 1995:3). Rangers were stationed at Glacier Bay 

National Monument in about 1950. Eventually NPS management “ended seal hunting 

[privileges] by Natives [1974], promulgated regulations on vessel traffic to protect the 

endangered humpback whales [1993], and began to phase out commercial fishing in park 

waters [1998]” (Catton 1995:4). 

Catton reports several instances of conflict, sometimes violent, between white 

settlers and Huna people within and around the Monument during the 1940s: 

It seems unlikely that any arrests of Tlingits were made by NPS officials 

in these years [the 1940s], for certainly any such incidents would have 

been reported by Been or the custodian at Sitka, Ben C. Miller. Rather, it 

was white residents in the area who took the extension of the monument in 

1939 as their cue to wreck Tlingit property and drive the Natives away 

with gunshots. The Tlingits invariably associated these actions with the 

Park Service. For example, two old Natives lived on Drake Island in 

Glacier Bay where the Dakdentan clan had a fort and palisade. A resident 

fox farmer ran the old couple off the island and tore down these structures. 

When the Tlingits protested, he told them the government had given him 

permission. 

 

34 Several Hoonah people say a meeting took place between the NPS and residents of Hoonah prior to the expansion of the monument 

in 1939 at which time they were told that they could continue to hunt, fish, and gather in the park. However, there is no record of 

such a meeting in NPS records. 

150
 

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “made ‘three or four’ arrests of Huna Tlingits 

for ‘hunting and trapping in the Glacier Bay area’ during the winter of 1945 to 1946, 

which left many Huna Tlingits confused as to what they could or could not do in the 

Monument.” (Catton 1995:121) In 1946, responding to Tlingit complaints, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs superintendent, Don C. Foster, requested a clarification from the National 

Park Service as to Tlingit rights giving rise to the Lowell Sumner investigation. 

According to Catton (1995), by the 1960s the legal basis for the Huna hunting 

privileges was "becoming obscure to the people who staffed the Monument." In fact, the 

existing agreement had been drafted by the superintendent and the BIA in 1954. This 

agreement allowed the Huna to gather berries, hunt seals, and carry weapons ashore for 

protection against bear attacks. The authorization allowing these activities was renewed 

in 1956, 1958, 1960 and 1962 with few modifications. The NPS began to take specific 

steps to rescind the agreement in 1964.35 Eventually NPS management “ended seal 

hunting by Natives [1974], promulgated regulations on vessel traffic to protect the 

endangered humpback whales [1993], and began to phase out commercial fishing in park 

waters [1998]” (Catton 1995:4). 

 

35 According to Catton (1995) the primary objection to Native seal hunting by the NPS was the threat that such hunting represented to 

the Monument seal population. NPS rangers had negatively reacted to a seal- hunting camp in 1963 in the monument in which ca. 

243 seals had been killed and the remains of carcasses left to rot on a two-mile stretch of beach. In 1965 one estimate placed the 

number of seals killed by Huna hunters in the monument at about 1,200 during the first half of the year. Nonetheless, a NPS staff 

report in 1966 said that present hunting pressure was not “sufficiently intense to cause a noticeable change in the seal population” 

(“Seal Hunting—Glacier Bay, [1966],” GLBA, administrative files, file N1619 as quoted by Catton 1995). In 1966 a tourist 

concession opened in the Monument, introducing NPS management also to the negative reactions of tourists who were not happy with 

the fact that the animals were being killed in an NPS-managed area. There was also the issue that both the tourists and NPS 

management wanted seals that could be easily viewed at close range from tour boats. NPS management also argued that the special 

seal-hunting privileges were not related to subsistence but a pretext to enter a protected area to harvest hides for commercial

operations killing large numbers on a single trip. Finally, seal hunting, and in particular bounty hunting, was perceived as wholly 

inconsistent with the NPS mission. 

151
 

Huna Gull Egg Harvesting and Federal Enforcement of Harvesting Prohibitions 

The history of Huna gull egg-harvesting privileges and the federal enforcement of 

egg-gathering prohibitions within Glacier Bay are far from clear. In a December 1939 

letter to Frank Been, NPS Director Cammerer states: “It is our intention to permit the 

Indians to take hair seals and to collect gull eggs and berries as they have done in the 

past, until a definite wildlife policy can be determined.” (Norris 2002:39) The authors 

note that in 1947 Lowell Sumner recommended an end to gull egg gathering in Glacier 

Bay as a “special privilege.” This language implies that Sumner believed the Huna 

people had the same type of privilege to collect gull eggs that they had for seal hunting 

and other food-harvesting activities. He also apparently believed this privilege was 

recognized by his intended readers. However, the NPS agreement with BIA in December 

1946 that sets forth Huna privileges in Glacier Bay does not mention egg collecting. It 

does refer to berry picking and is primarily about seal hunting. 

According to Wayne Howell (pers. comm. August 20, 1999), a long-time 

employee of the park (now retired) says that Superintendent Henry Schmidt advised 

Huna people in 1953 or 1954 that egging was illegal and to stop. (There is, however, no 

formal record of Schmidt doing this and the retired employee declines to be taped.) In 

addition, according to Howell, a park ranger stationed at Glacier Bay from 1953 to 1955 

says he recalls seeing people on South Marble Island but did nothing to stop them 

because there were many poaching violations and he did not regard this as a serious 

issue. NPS ranger reports of the 1960s contain no record of citations or contacts 

associated with egg harvesting. Superintendent Howe, according to Howell, says that 

when he transferred to the Monument in 1966 he had no knowledge of egg harvesting 

152
 

and was unaware that it was an issue. With regard to the timing of more intensive 

enforcement to prevent gull egg gathering, Howell says: “The best we [GBNPP] can say 

is that people were informed not to egg in 1953 or 1954 and enforcement must have 

occurred sometime after that, so that by 1966 it [egg gathering] was not occurring overtly 

(although we know that people continued to collect when they could be sure nobody was 

watching).” 

Belief that NPS or Coast Guard Destroyed Gull Eggs

Although respondents were not systematically asked about this subject 

specifically, a few respondents stated that either the NPS or the Coast Guard destroyed 

gull eggs or harassed gulls in Glacier Bay. One elder said there were fewer gulls since 

NPS presence in Glacier Bay and went on to say: 

Respondent: A lot of people witnessed them bustin the eggs on the 

nest.... Yeah busted the eggs. ...this was way back in the 1940s or 1950s. 

Interviewer: Why did they do that? 

Respondent: Nobody knows. Getting too many seagulls I guess. 

Another elder says: 

The Park Service has destroyed gull eggs. 

Yet another elder told us: 

I’ve heard lately there’s some Coast Guard that came in there and 

destroyed whatever eggs there was. I don’t know what reason. Probably 

because there were too many seagulls. Our people utilizing the eggs kept 

the population down and kept it in balance. 

A variant of the belief that the NPS destroyed gull eggs is that they hired someone to do 

it as indicated in the following statement: 

Respondent: ...the Park Service [did] hire someone to destroy the eggs 

wantonly, but not feed the people.... So, the management [of the park] 

they gave more protection to the seagull eggs than they did to us. And 

then they destroyed it, telling us that it was necessary to do so. 

153
 

Interviewer: Did they give you a reason.... [w]hy they destroyed the 

seagull eggs? 

Respondent: No. The government does not need a reason. They never 

needed it before. Why should they need it now? 

Finally, one respondent commented: 

Respondent: ...so that is why when it comes time to bust the eggs, you 

got to make sure there’s four in the nest before you break the eggs because 

then she won’t replace it, but if you break [eggs out of a nest] of three 

they’ll lay four or five eggs 

Interviewer: But don’t you want them to replace [the eggs]. 

Respondent: I’m talking about the Fish and Game who wants to cut back 

on [them].... If they don’t do it the right way, there [will] always be a lot 

of seagulls. They’ll never kill them off. They have to do it at the right 

time if you want to control the population. 

Not all respondents were familiar with the story that a public agency had 

destroyed gull eggs or harassed gulls. One respondent asked about the story of the Coast 

Guard or NPS destroying gull eggs, said he had not heard anything about it. Another 

elder with memories of gull egg collecting back to the 1920s was asked about the 

government breaking eggs directly and he said that he had heard nothing of it. 

There is insufficient data to explore the origins of stories that NPS or some 

government agency has destroyed gulls’ eggs in Glacier Bay. It is apparent, however, 

that such beliefs reinforce the negative attitudes toward the federal government and the 

NPS that are held by several residents of Hoonah. 

154
 

Reactions by Consultants of the HTEES to the Prohibition of Harvesting Certain Food 

Resources from Glacier Bay - with Emphasis on Gull Eggs36

Readers should realize that gull egg collecting is seen by most Huna as integral to 

the larger issue of being displaced from Glacier Bay, depriving them of a much broader 

range of subsistence uses and occupancy. However, because the objectives of this 

project are focused on egg collecting, this discussion focuses on that subject. 

Our consultants were universally critical of laws and regulations that exclude 

them from Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve for the purposes of taking important 

traditional foods, including gull eggs.37 This does not mean that people said they are 

presently materially impacted by the closure of the park to egg gathering. Gull eggs were 

widely considered a delicacy, and today Glacier Bay is the only close place with safe 

access where quantities of gull eggs can be taken by extended families. The importance 

of the loss of legal access to GBNPP for egg collecting is tied to the spiritual importance 

of Glacier Bay as the Huna ancestral homeland, the spiritual nature of food, its 

relationship to personal and group identity, and the salience of nostalgic memories held 

by people who gathered eggs as children. 

In attempting to understand Huna reactions to federal restrictions on egg 

gathering in GBNPP, readers should recall that the Huna Tlingit see themselves as a part 

of the natural ecological system -- not separate from it as is characteristic of Judeo- 

 

36 This section of the report is written from a Huna Tlingit perspective as is inherent in the mandate and methods associated with this 

research. Our consultants have made many heartfelt and emotional statements that warrant serious consideration. We also 

emphasize that we have no intent to malign individual members of the National Park Service or to categorically convey disrespect for 

the NPS organization. 

37 We emphatically do not mean to suggest that the negative impacts Huna people perceive from exclusion from Glacier Bay for food

harvesting purposes are singularly centered around the specific issue of egg gathering. Egg gathering is part of a suite of issues that 

include all Native foods traditionally taken in Glacier Bay. 

155
 

Christian philosophy and much contemporary secular wilderness advocacy. They see 

themselves as the historical caretakers of this pristine natural area that was impressive 

enough to outsiders to be deemed one of the preeminent wilderness parks in the U.S. 

Most Huna see it as extremely paradoxical that they are now prohibited from traditional 

subsistence activities and that their culture is not acknowledged as part of the natural 

ecosystem by current park management philosophy and policy. 

Consultants' reactions to questions concerning the impact of NPS restrictions on 

access to Glacier Bay harvests are placed in categories below. Quotations illustrating 

various perspectives are listed within each category. The nature of these quotations was 

not common to all of the interviewees, nor do they represent all possible statements that 

could have been included in each category. Rather, the quotes were selected to illustrate 

how people felt about the issues at hand. In total, the categories represent the range of 

opinions expressed by HTEES interviewees. In some cases, quotations may have 

implications for multiple categories of reactions. In other words, the categories of 

reactions and many of the quotes regarding NPS restriction of access are not necessarily 

mutually exclusive. 

The following headings are an attempt to categorize and to paraphrase the essence 

of Huna perspectives on the issues addressed in this report. These perceptions may be 

unsettling to some readers; other observers may even question the existence of these 

views. Nonetheless, the authors believe that the Huna claims are genuine, even if they 

may appear to some people to be exaggerated.38

 

38 Pat Mills says: ...[S]ometimes our anger gets the better of us and we're kind of harsh with our words to people because we're 

defensive about how things were done. We mean no disrespect to anyone that comes to Hoonah to try to help us clear up some of our 

numerous problems with the Park....” 

156
 

1. Displacement from Glacier Bay has denied a generation of Huna Tlingit part of its 

cultural heritage and will deprive future generations unless changed. There are still 

many older people who have fond memories of family bonding while on family outings to 

gather eggs in Glacier Bay. That they are prevented from reenacting these times with 

younger relatives and from symbolically connecting with their ancestors in the homeland 

not only saddens them, but is seen by many to threaten the survival of their culture. 

Nina Dick, age 53, expressed this opinion after saying that it has been more than 

30 years since her family has had gull eggs: 

...[M]y mom and dad did it for years, and we used to have seagull eggs 

every year. And then ... they closed everything down, and then pretty 

soon they had to start sneaking around to get [them]. And that was ... 

bad. So we hardly got to taste it because [potential eggers] were afraid of 

being caught.... Now I don't even know what it's like to go out and get 

seagull eggs. I never got a chance to go out. Only time we'd get to taste 

them is when somebody went out there and stole some and brought some 

in.... I [also] want my grandsons to try seagull eggs.... 

Edna Skaflestad said she had some gull eggs with her grandpa when she was about six or 

seven and did not remember what they tasted like: 

...I was never given the opportunity to acquire a taste for them. So I feel 

that's something taken from us ... from this generation, because we've 

heard how much everybody enjoyed them.... 

Walter Smith, who was born in 1945, says: 

My family, they haven't had any. Like my kids right now, they haven't 

had seagull eggs. They've been asking me how it tastes. Don't know how 

to explain it to them. 

Winnie Smith says: 

...[S]ee my children didn't know what seagull eggs look like. They don't 

know what it is like.... Frank is old enough where he could remember 

that going with his grandfather out there. But other than that, my children 

don't know. They haven't been there. And just that one time they went 

there for a picnic and they were let loose and they were running around on 

the Marble Island, and that was back in the ‘60s. And that was the only 

time they've ever been for seagull eggs and I don't know if the younger 

ones even remember. See, because of [the] Park Service doing this, our 

children don't know. 

157
 

Frank Wright, Jr., states: 

When you take one thing away from an indigenous people, you are 

eliminating part of their culture. You know the Park Service continues to 

do this and limit our access to our natural foods, and it’s a form of 

[cultural] genocide. And you know, the seagull egg is important.... Even 

the way you gather them. How many young people even have an inkling 

of what it’s about.... [M]y daughter... she's never eaten a seagull egg.... 

We can't go up there and get 'em because the law says we can't. 

Lily White explains her feelings: 

Well, it was hard to accept, you know. Us older people that's used to all 

these things, you know, we took it for granted. But the young generation 

will feel bad about it for a short time, and so the Park Service told us we 

could do this just for your generation. The next generation won't care. 

This what we're afraid of is when they lose caring. We don't want them to 

lose it. 

I think the egg collecting, if we got it back, our children will not forget. 

The spiritual feeling we talk about, we pass it on to our grandchildren. 

Now when I sing Tlingit songs, my little grandson, I taught him how to 

dance. Even if he's playing when he hears this, when I'm singing, I hit the 

table for them, they'll come running. Try to dance. And he's only twoand-a-half years old.... [T]hat's how come ... we want to keep the 

tradition of our foods and of, even our very existence with the children, so 

they can carry on like we did. 

2. Elders are deprived of a culturally, socially, and spiritually important food and 

activity 

Elder Frank See, the oldest man in Hoonah, says: 

There's only two ladies older than I am in this village now. I'm the oldest 

male ... right now of the Tlingit. They talk about it all the time like, like 

they haven't tasted the seagull eggs for years, you know. They crave it. 

[They say] I'm hungry for kwat [egg]. 

Tony Mills talks about an older man who has now died: 

...like this old man Sinclair before he died, he told a judge in Juneau he 

was talking to ..."How would you like it if I took your bacon and eggs 

away from you? And what would you eat after that?" 

158
 

Grace Hillman observes: 

Well, I know a lot of our Native people, our elders, and people that grew 

up around the food, you know, got used to using it for baking it and 

whatever, and just making use of the foods they grew up with. I think 

they kind of miss it. 

Elder Sam Hanlon talks about his feelings: 

...[O]ur heart has been saddened by being barred out of Glacier Bay. You 

know, our people used to live for that day to start picking. 

Elder Ester Kaze expresses sadness at the changes she has personally experienced: 

It's part of our ... food. Like if you went to the store and [were] told that 

you couldn't have any chicken eggs, I mean how would you feel if they 

told you that? And you really liked eggs. 

I feel real sad because we can't go up there, you know [to get food]. 

Winnie Smith remarks: 

It isn't that we like it [gull eggs] any better. It was just our food. You 

don't compare it to anything. You can't compare your hen egg to our 

seagull eggs. You can't because you grew up on what you eat, we grew up 

on what we eat. This food we grew up on. Then to be cut off it, like 

suppose all of a sudden they said [there’s] a shortage of chickens, you 

can't have any chicken eggs. Then you don't have... eggs for breakfast. 

Elder Adeline St. Clair asserts: 

It's kind of a crime.... Why can't they let us do it just for our food 

[referring to taking resources in Glacier Bay]? I told a man in Juneau ... 

from the legislature... “I'll give up my subsistence food and go to whiteman food, but it's only fair the white people do away with their own food, 

too. Their steaks, their pot roasts... their chicken....” I said, “For every 

food I give up you give up one too.” 

3. Behavior that is defined as responsible by the Huna has been criminalized by the 

dominant society. A result of this stigma is that those who want to harvest traditional 

foods must become outlaws. This outcome interferes with interaction between the 

generations. 

159
 

Edna Skaflestad expresses her point of view. 

I think what worries me is that ... there are still some elders who enjoy 

having eggs, and... they have family who will still collect for them but... 

what will happen to them if they get caught doing that...? [A]nd that's 

basically, I feel, like a right to them.... 

Eva Davis says: 

All the Chookaneidi people in Hoonah, they're all sorry.... Our uncle, 

related to us, he went hunting in there, got the seal. When he shot one seal 

he got it on the boat. The Park Service came. They take the gun away 

and they took that seal away, and they put them in jail.... We used to live 

in there; [it was] just like an icebox [for our food].... They took his gun 

away, and put him in jail until he paid a $500 fine. 

Elder Sam Hanlon describes an encounter with a NPS ranger that resulted in him never 

going back to harvest eggs. After collecting eggs on South Marble Island with a crew of 

halibut fishermen, his boat was intercepted and boarded. This happened in 1963. 

He pulls out his citation book... [and] he asks me: "Did you pick eggs?" 

I said, "We sure did, and [they are] going back home with me...." "Well 

you know you broke the law ... by picking the eggs." I told him I didn't 

know that.... "Well it's against the law so I'll have to write you a ticket." 

And under my breath I said, "good!" Not knowing anything about the law 

... I said, “This is going to be a test in the court, isn't it." You know he 

scribbled everything that he wrote down, tore it up... put it in his 

pocket.... Says, "No, I'm not going to do it. Just go ahead and take what 

you have...." That was the last time I ever picked eggs up there. 

Winnie Smith says: 

My son was 18 years old when he went up to Glacier Bay. They didn't 

know the rules of Glacier Bay. Him and [a friend]... they shot a seal 

there. They picked 'em up and they read them their rights. Charlie said, "I 

see them read their rights on TV, but I never thought anybody [would] 

read me my rights...." 

So, that's when they found out they couldn't even go into Glacier Bay for the 

seal, and people just quit going up there for any food.... And that's the same 

way with the seagull eggs.... We're not allowed to go and get our food. 

160
 

George Obert states: 

For the past 10 years we've [had to behave as] criminals to gather our own 

food, and were arrested for one or another [activity] that pertained to our 

customary and traditional lifestyle. 

Dan Neil explains his feelings: 

I know one thing. Seagull egg gathering, whether it be with permission 

from the Western world or not, I'm going to do it. If I have to become a 

criminal for something I've done following my grandfathers’ footsteps, so 

be it.... I don't feel like I'm breaking Nature's law. Nature's law is more 

powerful than man's law.... If you want to see Nature's law broken go to 

Los Angeles. Go to California. You will see Nature's law broken daily. 

And it's disgusting. You can't even breathe there. It is humiliating to say 

that you are a human being there.... 

It’s really a repugnant feeling that the white man would treat us this way. 

It’s absolutely repugnant.... [T]hey don't own [Glacier Bay].... [T]hey 

never owned it.... [F]or thousands of years my people have been there, 

my people have had respect for it, my people have managed [Glacier Bay] 

flawlessly.... I can't speak for everybody or anybody else but my own 

feelings but... there's really a biased situation there [in the Park]. [It's 

like:] "What are you doing here? You're not supposed to be here. We're 

taking care of your home for you. Don't worry about it. Go on now." 

You get this feeling that you are a second-class citizen. "Go to the back of 

the bus." 

I feel at ease with what I do.... I am a seagull myself. I come from the 

seagulls.... It's one of my crests.... I served in the Vietnam War, and I got 

an honorable discharge. So I can't say that I disrespect... the laws. I just 

don't agree with some of them. 

4. As the original inhabitants, the Huna Tlingit see themselves as the “owners” of 

Glacier Bay. Many assert, rightly or wrongly, that they have not signed agreements 

relinquishing these land rights.39 The permitting processes can also be seen as 

demeaning and in conflict with the perception that it is a Huna right (not a privilege) to 

harvest food in Glacier Bay.40

 

39 A Native claim heard by the U.S. Court of Claims was brought on behalf of all Haida and Tlingit by the Central Council of Tlingit 

and Haida (Tlingit and Haida Indians v. United States, 1959, 1968). The Council reluctantly accepted a settlement of $7.5 million for 

17,400,000 acres, for which the Indian title was judged to have been preempted -- including land taken for the Tongass National

Forest, Annette Island Indian Reservation, and Glacier Bay National Monument. This settlement amounted to forty-three cents per 

acre (Worl 1990:156). 

40 One definition of “homeland” among the Tlingits is a “place where you can dwell and subsist without having to ask permission.”

161
 

Elder Sam Hanlon says: 

It’s always been our rights to be where we're at.... Not our privilege. 

Nothing more, nothing less. That [is] all we ask.... 

Elder Jim Austin says: 

...[T]he United States Constitution is very specific in stating that they 

cannot take any of our land without just compensation.... The people of 

Hoonah who do lay claim to Glacier Bay have never been compensated, 

even allowed to visit their own homeland [except as dictated by the 

dominant society]. We do not really consider Hoonah our home. We 

consider Glacier Bay our home. So we need to do a few things like get 

our land back. 

George Dalton, Jr., says: 

I'm kind of upset at the Park Service having to give us permits for this and 

that for everything in order to get in there. I mean ... we were there even 

before it became a park ... and national monument.... [And] now they are 

talking wilderness and trying to stop us from commercial fishing.... It’s 

gonna be a great impact on us. 

Maureen Obert says: 

Traditionally we can get seagull eggs. Politically we can't, and it looks 

like we're going to have to go on one more year traditionally, which is to 

sneak in.... This is the first time we are going through the process of 

asking. I feel that we don't have to ask them permission. That we can go 

out there for our eggs and they can make [a] special ruling for us to remain 

Tlingits with our customary and traditional way of life. 

Ernestine Hanlon expresses her feelings: 

...[J]ust because something becomes a [designated] wilderness [area] does 

not stop the fact that we have the right to access our food. And [there also 

is] an international law that protects this right. And I would really 

encourage anyone that's studying this to check into the international law as 

well as the federal.... I would really encourage you to look at the 

genocide law because I and lots of other people consider what has 

happened [cultural] genocide committed on our people by Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve. 

5. The Huna Tlingit believe that they have been unfairly deprived of a healthy source of 

food. 

162
 

Elder Ester Kaze asserts: 

...[T]hat was our food. And they're telling us we can't get it. I mean like 

up north, we see some books where they had a boatload of eggs. Those ... 

Eskimos, they can get all their eggs. And then we can't. 

Frank Wright, Jr., asserts: 

If you get a chicken egg, you get all the chemicals that are put in to a 

chicken to lay those eggs, you know. They're not a pure egg.... [The] 

seagull is a natural hunter ... so I would prefer to eat that [rather than] to 

eat a chicken egg if at all possible. 

Ernestine Hanlon states: 

[I am] angry that we have to be dictated on what we have to eat. All of us 

know that white flour, white sugar, white man's food does not agree with 

us.... Our health ... has changed a lot because we have to depend more 

on the store rather than the land. And our health pays big time. We're 

having more strokes, more diabetes, more heart problems and of course 

more alcoholism.... [A]lcohol is here because we're post-traumatic 

[stress] syndrome people and we can thank the Park Service for that.... I 

think that we could really begin to heal by [the Park Service] allowing us 

to eat again -- but what our body needs, not what we're dictated to eat. 

6. The Huna define themselves as an integral part of the Glacier Bay ecosystem. From 

the Huna perspective, their absence from Glacier Bay as part of the food chain alters the 

natural ecosystem. Being deprived of the ability to take food from the Glacier Bay 

ecosystem has negative cultural, social, and spiritual impacts on the Huna culture and 

upon them as individuals. These effects go to the core of Huna cultural and personal 

identity and represent a profound loss. 

Pat Mills talks about Glacier Bay and egg gathering: 

We did not go to Glacier Bay the first time [just] for eggs. We went there 

to live. And eggs became part of our food. We treasure our food; the 

things that brought us life; the things that continue our life.... 

...[W]e respect the seagulls and ... we respect Glacier Bay that brought us 

life, that brought us our identity. This is why seagull eggs are ... 

important ... because it’s part of the place that made us who we are -- our 

fathers, our grandfathers.... When you took Glacier Bay away from 

[us]... you took away our fathers. 

[Egg gathering is] special to the community because it affirms who we are 

and affirms who our fathers are. It affirms why we are here.... It’s 

163
 

164

important to the community because it bonds us together as a people and it 

allows us to do what our fathers have taught us and our uncles.... 

Sometimes when someone gives me an egg today.... We'll look at the 

egg. We won't take it [and] eat it right away; we'll look at it. We'll admire 

it. We'll cherish it. We say these things to ourselves. This may be the last 

time I may have these eggs. This may be the last time. And some of us, 

we salt our eggs with our tears. ... I know ... the Park Service is trying to 

preserve something, but they're not doing a very good job of it. The only 

thing they're preserving is what the Native people from Huna eat. The rest 

is being sold -- charter boats, tour boats kayaks, schoolkids from 

Juneau.... [And] not one seagull egg for the Huna. 

Johanna Dybdahl explains the depth of the Huna Tlingit identity with and current 

commitment to ties to Glacier Bay by saying: 

...[M]any of us get emotional, and, you know, there's been times when 

that I've talked to people from the Park that I've ended up crying because 

this is so much more than a National Park to us.... I think that without the 

Huna Tlingit presence, you only get part of a national park.... The Huna 

Tlingits are as much a part of the Park as the glaciers are, as the resources 

that are in there, as the wildlife is. And to take us and remove us as part 

of the park, your certainly disintegrate the value ... in the end. The Huna 

Tlingits are going to continue to hammer it home that this is our 

traditional homeland.... 

I will take my children into the park with permission or without.... I will 

not allow that tie to be cut and as long as our Tlingit people are alive and 

the stories can be told and shared.... [W]e all agree that we're going to be 

here forever. 

...[M]any times my people have cried tears over leaving Glacier Bay, and 

every year at the potlatches that are given in honor of our deceased people, 

when the Eagle clan is giving the potlatch, the Chookaneidis sing the 

mourning song for leaving Glacier Bay. And everybody cries because we 

mourn to this day being forced out of our homeland. And so every year 

that grief is renewed. 
 

II. HUNA TLINGIT GULL EGG HARVEST STUDY CONCLUSIONS 

In summary, the authors believe the available evidence supports the following 

conclusions: 

• The harvest of eggs by Huna Tlingit people is traditional in the sense that it was 

a highly valued regular activity of many Huna families and integrated into the 

Huna Tlingit seasonal round of hunting, fishing and gathering activities. 

• This egg harvest was originally relevant to Huna survival. More recently, it has 

been maintained as a minor seasonal nutritional contribution but primarily as a 

tangible symbol of Huna Tlingit identity. 

• Gull egg harvests are recalled with a sense of longing by most Huna who 

remember them. This activity heralded the summer season and strengthened ties 

to the ancestral homeland. Gull egg harvests were limited to a brief period in 

late May or June, a time marked by the onset of good weather and the release 

from the physical and psychological confines of winter. It can be argued that 

gull egg collecting in Glacier Bay has actually accrued Huna cultural 

significance in recent times because of its propensity for sustaining ties to 

ancestral lands. 

• Gull egg harvests also united families in a common enterprise. The harvest was 

a social event. Children traveled with parents and grandparents to the Marble 

Islands where they were instructed in the proper way to harvest eggs. Many 

contemporary Huna adults describe the moral instruction they received in 

conjunction with these family egg-harvest outings. They were shown how to 

sustainably harvest the eggs and with appropriate respect for the gulls and the 

importance of sharing the harvest with family and community. 

• In the mid-20th century these traditional harvests were strongly focused on the 

North and South Marble Island Glaucous-winged Gull colonies, which in 1972 

numbered approximately 500 pairs each. Other colonies were either too 

dangerous for easy access, too far from Hoonah for family outings, or by that 

time overgrown by post-glacial vegetational succession. Eggs of other species 

would occasionally be harvested, but none provided the same opportunity that 

the Glaucous-winged Gull colonies did. There is thus no substitute for the South 

Marble Island colony (with the recent demise of the colony on North Marble) in 

terms of the core cultural values that traditional Huna egg harvesting sustained. 

165
 

• Traditional harvest strategies varied. With some exception, these harvests 

appear to have been based on elementary knowledge of Glaucous-winged Gull 

nesting behavior and ecology and to have overall been sustainable, given the size 

of the Huna Tlingit population, access capability, etc. The strategy reported by a 

majority of respondents involved harvesting the eggs from nests with clutches of 

one or two eggs, ideally early in the season. 

• Traditional Huna Tlingit gull egg harvests were not highly ritualized but were 

frequently marked by individual spiritual observances, such as first speaking to 

the gulls to ask permission to take the eggs or to offer thanks for the harvest. 

• Gull eggs, after refrigeration became available, were mostly consumed at the 

time of the harvest or shortly thereafter, rather than saved for potlatches or for 

ceremonial exchange. Yet, their consumption was an event in and of itself in 

which sharing within the family and throughout the community was highlighted. 

• Huna traditional gull egg harvests were suppressed by the 1960s with the 

enforcement of the prohibition of gull egg harvesting within Glacier Bay 

National Monument. Though most Huna respondents had no direct personal 

experience of enforcement actions by Park personnel, all were aware of specific 

incidents. Many report having abandoned egg harvesting in order to avoid 

confrontations with Park authorities. 

• Virtually all respondents objected, at times bitterly, to the prohibition of their 

gull egg harvests. Respondents voiced strong interest in resuming legal gull egg 

harvests within GNNPP. 

166
 

Gathering sites as cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties41

The strong attachment of Huna Tlingits to gathering sites such as South Marble 

Island suggests that these locales may qualify, collectively or individually, as “cultural 

landscapes” under NPS criteria and as Traditional Cultural Properties under the 

provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act.42 The NPS (1994) stipulates that a 

cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both natural and cultural resources, 

associated with an historic event, activity or person, and identifies four cultural landscape 

categories: 1) historic designed landscapes; 2) historic vernacular landscapes; 3) historic 

sites; and 4) ethnographic landscapes. Categories three and four may be applicable to 

some traditional gathering sites in Glacier Bay. Similarly, according to National Register 

Bulletin, number 38, a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is a place that is: “eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or 

beliefs of a living community that a) are rooted in that community’s history and b) are 

important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and 

King 1990). Examples include Native American sacred places, cemeteries, gathering 

sites and other prominent places that figure in their traditions as well as those of other 

groups. Although a formal Traditional Cultural Property evaluation is beyond the scope 

of this investigation, the HTEES interview data suggest that the Huna Tlingit may view 

 

41 References for this section are: National Park Service (NPS). 1994. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. 

Washington, DC: National Park Service, USDI; Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1990. “Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.” National Register Bulletin 38. Washington, DC: Interagency Resources Division, 

U.S. National Park Service, USDI. 

42 The National Park Service (NPS 1998) defines a cultural landscape as “a geographic area that includes both cultural and natural 

resources, associated with a historical event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” Ethnographic 

landscapes, a subset of this category, are “associates with contemporary groups and typically are traditionally used and valued”. 

Places or landscapes that are especially associated with the cultural practices of a living community and are rooted in the 

community’s history and present identity may also be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 

167
 

168

South Marble Island, and perhaps other key historic landscapes in Glacier Bay, in such 

terms. A more detailed investigation of egging sites as cultural landscapes may reveal 

additional cultural values that these sites hold for the Huna Tlingit beyond egg harvesting 

and other activities detailed in this report.
 

REFERENCES 

Ackerman, Robert E., T. D. Hamilton, and R. Stuckenrath. 1979. "Early culture 

complexes on the northern Northwest Coast." Canadian Journal of Archaeology

3:195-209. 

ADF&G-CPDB. 2000. "Alaska Department of Fish and Game community profile 

database." Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, 

Alaska. http://fir.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/subsist/subhome.htm

Agler, Beverly A., Steven J. Kendall, Pamela E. Sesser, and John R. Lundell. 1995. 

"Estimates of marine birds and sea otter abundance in Southeast Alaska during 

summer 1994." Migratory Bird Management, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK. 

Ecological Services, 3000 Vintage Blvd., Juneau, AK 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Armstrong, Robert H. 1983. A New, Expanded Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Revised 

Edition. Alaska Northwest Publishing, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Baicich, Paul J., and Colin J. O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and 

Nestlings of North American Birds. 2nd edition. Academic Press, San Diego, 

California. 

Basso, Keith. 1996. Wisdom Sites in Places. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico 

Press. 

Been, F. 1940. “Notes taken in the field during inspection of Admiralty Island, Sitka 

National Monument and Glacier Bay National Monument, July 8 to August 17, 1940 

(in the company of Victor Cahalane, Fish and Wildlife Service).” Typescript of daily 

log. McKinley Park, Alaska. 

Bent, Arthur Cleveland. 1963 [1921]. Life Histories of North American Gulls and Terns. 

Dover Publications, New York. 

Berkes, Fikret. 1999 Sacred Ecology: Traditional Knowledge and Resource 

Management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA. 

Bosch, M., D. Oro, F.J. Cantos and M. Zabala. 2000. "Short-term effects of culling on 

the ecology and population dynamics of the yellow-legged gull." Journal of Applied 

Ecology 37:369-385. 

Bosworth, R. G. 1987. "Tlingit subsistence in Glacier Bay, Alaska: Responding to 

change in landscape and bureaucracy." Paper presented before the Alaska 

Anthropological Association, Anchorage, March 1987, and The Society for Applied 

Anthropology, Oaxaca, April 1987. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska. 

169
 

Bosworth, R. G. 1988. "Consistency and change in subsistence use of Glacier Bay, 

Alaska." Proceedings, Second Glacier Bay Science Symposium, Glacier Bay National 

Park, Gustavus, Alaska. U.S. National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

Boyd, Robert T. 1990. "Demographic history, 1774-1874." pp. 135-148 in Northwest 

Coast. Wayne Suttles, volume editor, Volume 7, Handbook of North American 

Indians, William Sturtevant, general editor: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Carlson, Roy L. 1990. Cultural Antecedents. pp 60-69 in Northwest Coast. Wayne 

Suttles, volume editor, Volume 7, Handbook of North American Indians, William 

Sturtevant, general editor: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution. 

Catton, Theodore R. 1993. “Glacier Bay National Monument, the Tlingit, and the artifice 

of wilderness.” The Northern Review 11 (Winter 1993):56-82. 

Catton, Theodore R. 1995. Land Reborn: A History of Administration and Visitor Use in 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Catton, T. R. 1997. Inhabited Wilderness: Indians, Eskimos and National Parks in 

Alaska. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Cooper, William Skinner. 1923. "The Recent Ecological History of Glacier Bay, Alaska. 

In: "The Interglacial Forests of Glacier Bay" 4:93-128; "II. The Present Vegetation 

Cycle" Ecology 4:223-246; and "III: Permanent Quadrats at Glacier Bay: An Initial 

Report Upon a Long-Period Study" Ecology 4:355-365. 

Croes, Dale R. 2001. “North Coast Prehistory – Reflections From Northwest Coast Wet 

Site Research.” In Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, ed. by 

Jerome S. Cybulski. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey 

of Canada, Mercury Series Paper 160, pp. 145-171. 

Dalton, Richard. July 31, 1999. Personal communication to Wayne Howell, GBNPP. 

Mr. Dalton is a leader among the Takdentaan clan, and a lifelong resident of Hoonah. 

He is considered eminently knowledgeable about the history and tradition of his 

people. 

Dauenhauer, Richard and Nina Dauenhauer. 1987. Haa Shuká, Our Ancestors: Tlingit 

Oral Narratives. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Davis, Brian L. 1999. Geographic Patterns of Seal Hunting in Southeast Alaska, 1992-

1994. Technical Paper No. 256, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. Juneau. 

De Laguna, Frederica. 1960. "The story of a Tlingit community [Angoon]: A problem in 

the relationship between archaeological, ethnological, and historical methods." 

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 172. Washington, D.C. 

170
 

De Laguna, Frederica. 1972. Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the 

Yakutat Tlingit. 3 Pts. (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 7.) Washington, 

D.C. 

De Laguna, Frederica. 1990. Tlingit. pp. 203-228 in Northwest Coast. Wayne Suttles, 

volume editor, Volume 7, Handbook of North American Indians, William Sturtevant, 

general editor: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution. 

Drent, R.H. and S. Daan. 1980. "The prudent parent: Energetic adjustments in avian 

breeding." Ardea 68:225-252. 

Dyson-Hudson, Rada and Eric Alden Smith. 1978. "Human territoriality: An ecological 

reassessment." American Anthropologist 80:21-41. 

Ehrlich, Paul R., David S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A 

Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster, New 

York. 

Emmons, George Thornton. 1991. The Tlingit Indians; Frederica De Laguna, editor. 

(Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 70). 

Washington, D.C. 

Fall, James A., Amy Paige, Vicki Vanek, and Louis Brown. 1998. Subsistence harvests 

and uses of birds and eggs in four communities of the Aleutian Islands area: Akutan, 

False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, and Nikolski. Technical Paper No. 243. Division of 

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve staff. 1998. June 5, 1998. Personal 

communication. Interview with Eugene S. Hunn. 

Goetzmann, William H., and Kay Sloan. 1982. Looking Far North: The Harriman 

Expedition to Alaska, 1899. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Goldschmidt, W. R. and T. H. Haas. 1998. Haa Aani, Our Land. Tlingit and Haida Land 

Rights and Use. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Gunther, Erna. 1972. Indian Life on the Northwest Coast of North America, as Seen by 

the Early Explorers and Fur Traders During the Last Decades of the Eighteenth 

Century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 

Howell, Wayne. November 4, 2002. Personal communication. Mr. Howell is a Cultural 

Resources Management Specialist at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

Howell, Wayne. August 20, 1999. Personal communication. 

Hunn, Eugene S. 1981. “On the Relative Contribution of Men and Women to 

Subsistence Among Hunter-Gatherers of the Columbia Plateau: A Comparison with 

Ethnographic Atlas Summaries.” Journal of Ethnobiology 1:124-134. Reprinted in 

Case Studies in Ethnobotany, Paul E. Minnis (ed). University of Oklahoma Press, 

Norman (2000). 

171
 

Hunn, Eugene S. 1994. “Place Names, Population Density, and the Magic Number 500.” 

Current Anthropology 35(1):81-85. 

Hunn, Eugene S. 1996. "Columbia Plateau Indian place names: What can they teach us?" 

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 6(1):3-26. 

Hunn, Eugene S., Darryll R. Johnson, Pricilla N. Russell and Thomas F. Thornton. n.d. 

“Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation and the 

management of a “wilderness” park.” Current Anthropology in press. 

Ickes, Sheri K., Jerrold L. Belant, and Richard A. Dolbeer. 1998. "Nest disturbance 

techniques to control nesting by gulls." Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(2):269-273. 

Jacobs, Mark, Jr., and Mark Jacobs, Sr. 1982. "Southeast Alaska Native foods." pp. 112-

130 in Raven's Bones, A. Hope, editor. Sitka Community Association, Sitka, Alaska. 

Jewett, S. G. 1942. Bird notes from Southeastern Alaska. Murrelet 23:67-76. 

Kennedy, E. Dale. 1991. "Determinate and indeterminate egg-laying patterns: A review." 

The Condor 93:106-124. 

Kessel, Brina and Daniel D. Gibson. 1978. Status and Distribution of Alaska Birds. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 1. Cooper Ornithological Society. Allen Press, 

Lawrence, Kansas. 

Kralovec, Mary. 1998. June 5, 1998. Personal communication. Ms. Kralovec is a Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve staff member interviewed by Eugene S. Hunn. 

Krause, Aurel. 1956 [1885]. The Tlingit Indians: Results of a Trip to the Northwest 

Coast of America and Bering Straits. Erna Gunther, translator. (Monographs of the 

American Ethnological Society 26). University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Kurtz, Rick S. 1995. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve historic resource study. 

National Park Service, Alaska System Support Office, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Langdon, Steve J. 1989. From Communal Property to Common Property to Limited 

Entry: Historical Ironies in Southeast Alaska Salmon Management. In: A Sea of 

Small Boats. Ed. by J. Cordell. Cultural Survival, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Langdon, Steve J., with Judith Brakel. 2001. The History, Social Economy and Cultural 

Practice of Commercial Fishing in Glacier Bay National Park Waters. Unpublished 

Draft Report. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, Alaska. 

Lawrence, Donald B. 1958. "Glaciers and Vegetation in South-Eastern Alaska." 

American Scientist Summer (June 1958), pp 88-122. 

Madge, Steve and Hilary Burn. 1988. Waterfowl: An Identification Guide to the Ducks, 

Geese and Swans of the World. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 

Menzies, Archibald. 1993. The Alaska Travel Journal of Archibald Menzies, 1793-1794. 

University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. 

172
 

Monaghan, Pat and Ruedi G. Nager. 1997. "Why don't birds lay more eggs?" Tree

12(7):270-274. 

Moss, Madonna. 1993. “Shellfish, gender, and status on the Northwest Coast: 

Reconciling archeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistorical records of the Tlingit.” 

American Anthropologist 95(3):631-652. 

Muir, John. 1915. Travels in Alaska. The Riverside Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Murdock, George Peter. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas. University of Pittsburgh Press, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Nager, Ruedi G., Pat Monaghan, and David C. Houston. 2000. "Within-clutch trade-offs 

between the number and quality of eggs: Experimental manipulations in gulls." 

Ecology 81(5):1339-1350. 

National Academy of Sciences. 1974. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 8th edition. 

National Academy of Sciences. New York. 

National Audubon Society (NAS). 1997. "The Ninety-eighth Christmas Bird Count." 

Field Notes 51(2). 

National Park Service (NPS). 1994. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, United States Department of 

the Interior. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1998. Director’s Order NPS-28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline. Release No. 5 (Final). 

Newton, R. and M. Moss. 1984. "The subsistence lifeway of the Tlingit People. Excerpts 

of oral interviews." U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. 

Niblack, A. P., Ensign, U.S. Navy. 1890. "The coast Indians of southern Alaska and 

northern British Columbia. Based on the collections in the U.S. National Museum, 

and on the personal observation of the writer in connection with the survey of Alaska 

in the seasons of 1885, 1886 and 1887." U.S. National Museum Annual Report for 

1887-1888:225-386. Washington, D.C. 

Norris, Frank. 2002. Alaska Subsistence A National Park Service Management History. 

U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Oberg, K. 1973. The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. (Monographs of the 

American Ethnological Society 55). University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Olijnyk, Chris G. and Kevin M. Brown. 1999. "Results of a Seven Year Effort to Reduce 

Nesting by Herring and Great Black-backed Gulls." Waterbirds 22(2):285-289. 

Paige, Amy W., Cheryl L. Scott, David B. Andersen, Susan Georgette, and Robert J. 

Wolfe. 1996. Subsistence use of birds in the Bering Strait region, Alaska. Technical 

Paper No. 239. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau, 

Alaska. 

173
 

Paige, Bruce. 1975. Gull nesting failure, Marble Islands, Glacier Bay, Alaska U.S. 

National Park Service, Juneau, Alaska. p 1. 

Paige, Bruce. 1986. “Birds of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.” Alaska Natural 

History Association and the National Park Service, United States Department of the 

Interior, Gustavus, Alaska. 

Paige, Bruce. 1998. June 5, 1998. Personal communication. Mr. Paige is a retired Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve staff member interviewed by Eugene S. Hunn. 

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. 

Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service, USDI. 

Parsons, J. 1976. “Factors determining the number and size of eggs laid by the herring 

gull.” Condor 78:481-492. 

Patten, Samuel Merrick, Jr. 1974. Breeding ecology of the Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus 

glaucescens) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Patten, Samuel, Jr., and A. R. Weisbrod. 1974. “Sympatry and interbreeding of Herring 

and Glaucous-winged Gulls in Southeast Alaska.” Condor 76(3):343-344. 

Patten, Samuel M., Jr. 1981. Seasonal Use of Coastal Habitat from Yakutat Bay to Cape 

Fairweather by Migratory Seabirds, Shorebirds and Waterfowl. In Environmental 

Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Final Reports of Principal 

Investigators, Volume 16. Biological Studies. U.S. Department of Commerce and 

U.S. Department of Interior. 

Reid, Walter V. 1987. "Constraints on clutch size in the Glaucous-winged Gull." Studies 

in Avian Biology No. 10:8-25. 

Reiners, William A., Ian A., Worley, and Donald B. Lawrence. 1971. "Plant Diversity in 

a Chronosequence at Glacier Bay, Alaska" Ecology 52:55-69. 

Salisbury, O. M. (1962). The Customs and Legends of the Thlingit Indians of Alaska.

Bonanza Books, New York. 

Schroeder, Robert F. 1995. "Historic and contemporary Tlingit use of Glacier Bay." pp. 

278-293 in Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Symposium, 1993, D. Engstrom, 

editor. National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Schroeder, Robert F. and Matt Kookesh. 1990. "Subsistence harvest and use of fish and 

wildlife resources and the effects of forest management in Hoonah, Alaska." Division 

of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

Shugart, Gary W., and William C. Scharf. 1976. "Predation and dispersion of Herring 

Gull nests." The Wilson Bulletin 89(3):472-473. 

Skidmore, Eliza R. 1893. “Glacier Bay”. In Appleton’s Guidebook to Alaska and the 

Northwest Coast. D. Appleton and Company, New York. 

174
 

Sowls, Arthur L., David R. Nysewander, John L. Trapp, and Jay W. Nelson. 1982. 

"Marine bird and mammal survey of the outer coast of South East Alaska, summer 

1981." United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Streveler, G.P. 1989. Black-legged Kittiwakes of Glacier Bay National Park, 1989. 

Unpublished report. U.S. National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and 

Preserve. Gustavus, Alaska. 3pp. 

Sumner, Lowell. 1947. “Special report on the hunting rights of the Hoonah Natives in 

Glacier Bay National Monument.” National Park Service, Region Four, August 1947. 

Swanton, J. R. 1908. "Social conditions, beliefs and linguistic relationships of the 

Tlingit Indians." pp. 391-485, Plates XLVIII-LVIII in 26th Annual Report of the 

Bureau of American Ethnology for the years 1904-1905. Washington, D.C 

Thornton, Thomas F. 1995a. "Place and being among the Tlingit." Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 1995b. “Tlingit and Euro-American Toponymies in Glacier Bay”. 

In Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Science Symposium, 1993, ed. by D. 

Engstrom. Anchorage: National Park Service. pp. 294-301. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 1997a. “Anthropological Studies of North American Indian Place 

Naming.” American Indian Quarterly 21(2):209-228. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 1997b. “Know Your Place: The Organization of Tlingit 

Geographic Knowledge.” Ethnology 36(4):295-307. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 1999. "Tleikwaaní, The 'Berried' Landscape: The Structure of 

Tlingit Edible Fruit Resources at Glacier Bay, Alaska." Journal of Ethnobiology

19:27-48. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 2000. "Person and Place: Lessons from Tlingit Teachers". In 

Celebration 2000: Restoring Balance Through Culture. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage 

Foundation. pp. 79-86. 

Thornton, Thomas F. 2001. From Clan to Kwaan to Corporation: The Evolution of 

Tlingit Political Organization. In special issue of Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 17 (1). 

Thornton, Thomas F. 2002. The Geography of Tlingit Character. In Coming to Shore: 

Northwest Coast Ethnology, Traditions, and Visions, ed. By Michael Harkin, Sergei 

Kan, and Marie Mauss. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Tollefson, C. 1999. “Amendments to Migratory Bird Treat Boost Conservation Native 

Partnerships” from NEWS@fws.gov AT FWS. 

http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/glin-announce/1999-10/msg00034.html 

Trager, Earl A. 1939. "Glacier Bay expedition, 1939." File report, NAPSR RG79, 

Western Region, central classified files, Box 293. 

175
 

Turner, Nancy J., Leslie M. Johnson Gottesfeld, Harriet V. Kuhnlein, and Adolf Ceska. 

1992. "Edible wood fern rootstocks of western North America: Solving an 

ethnobotanical puzzle." Journal of Ethnobiology 12:1-34. 

Vancouver, George. 1801. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and 

Around the World. Printed for J. Stockdale, London. 

Verbeek, N. A. M. 1993. "Larus glaucescens: Glaucous-winged Gull. In: The Birds of 

North America, No. 59, ed. By Poole, H. and F. Gill. The Academy of National 

Sciences, Philadelphia. 

Vermeer, K., K. H. Morgan, G. E. J. Smith, and B. A. York. 1991. “Effects of egging on 

the reproductive success of Glaucous-winged Gulls.” Colonial Waterbirds 14:158-

165. 

Wagner, M.W and J.G. Thompson. 1993. “The Migratory Birds Convention: Its History 

and the Need for an Amendment.” Northern Perspectives 21(2). 

Wanless, W., M.P. Harris, J. Calladine and P. Rothery. 1996. "Modelling responses of 

herring gull and lesser black-backed gull populations to reduction of reproductive 

output: implications for control measures." Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1420-

1432. 

Watt, Bernice K., and Annabel L. Merrill. 1963. Composition of foods. Agriculture 

Handbook No. 8 Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. 

Wolfe, Robert J., Amy W. Paige, and Cheryl L. Scott. 1990. The subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds in Alaska. Technical Paper No. 197. Division of Subsistence, Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

Wolfe et al. 1993. The Subsistence Harvest of Harbor Seal and Sea Lions by Alaska 

Natives in 1992. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Juneau, 

Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Wood, C.E.S. 1882. “Among the Thlinkits in Alaska.” Century Magazine, Vol. XXIV, 

No. 3. 

Worl, Rosita. 1990. History of southeastern Alaska since 1867." pp. 149-158 in 

Northwest Coast. Wayne Suttles, volume editor, Volume 7, Handbook of North 

American Indians, William Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

Yerxa, Randy. 1998. June 5, 1998. Personal communication. Mr. Yerxa is a Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve staff member interviewed by Eugene S. Hunn. 

Zador, S. G. 1999. A guide to the pigeon guillemot nest sites on South Marble Island. 

USGS, Alaska Biological Sciences Center, Anchorage, AK (see 

www.absc.usgs.gov/research/seabird&foragefish/index.html). 

176
 

Zador, Stephani G., and John F. Piatt. 1999. "Populations and productivity of seabirds at 

South Marble Island, Glacier Bay, Alaska, during May - July, 1999." U.S.G.S. 

Biological Resources Division, Alaska Biological Science Center, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., 

Anchorage, Alaska, and University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, 

Seattle, Washington. 

Zador, Stephani. 2001. Reproductive and physiological consequences of egg production 

for Glaucous-winged Gulls. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 

Zador, Stephani. 2001. November 20, 2001. Personal communication. Ms. Zador is a 

Ph.D. student at the University of Washington, College of Aquatic and Fishery 

Sciences. Her Master of Science thesis examined the effects of egg loss on 

reproductive and physiological responses of Glaucous-winded Gulls at South Marble 

Island, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

Zador, Stephani. 2001. November 5, 2001. Personal communication. 

Zador, Stephani. 2001. March 21, 2001. Personal communication. 

177
 

178
 

APPENDIX 1: SUBAGREEMENT, RELEVANT SECTIONS ONLY 

Cooperative Agreement No. 1443 CA-9000-95-0019 

Subagreement No.1, Modification 3 

General Project Objectives 

(1) To understand the cultural significance and historic use pattern of bird eggs by the 

Tlingit community of Hoonah and to document these practices within the Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve and environs. 

(2) To compare existing biological information on gull colonies within Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve and to link this information with local traditional knowledge. 

(3) To demarcate the historic and contemporary use areas for the community of Hoonah 

and to link these polygons with existing place name data. Both types of information will 

be produced in a GIS-ready format. 

Research Task 1: Documentation of Egging Practices and the Cultural Importance 

of these Activities for the Residents of Hoonah. 

This is a concise study of the egg-gathering strategies used by the community of Hoonah. 

Both the NPS and the researchers understand that the research methods to be used to 

accomplish this task will be ethnographic interviews of primary informants; there is no 

expectation that structured surveys with probability samples will be used. Key research 

questions: 

(1) During the seasonal subsistence round when are gull and other bird eggs 

gathered? Does their harvest during early spring have special cultural significance 

(e.g., first fruits ceremonies)? 

(2) What species of eggs and how many are currently gathered? What species 

have historically been harvested? 

(3) During the last 50 years leading up to the present, where were these eggs 

obtained? Specific areas must be referenced on USGS quads. Are there specific 

clan territories? How have these areas changed over time? What has been the 

effect of climate change – e.g., has plant succession displaced traditional nesting 

areas? What is the distribution of traditional gathering sites both within and 

external to the park? Where are contemporary use areas outside of the park (see 

Task Three)? 

(4) During Traditional and contemporary times who gathers eggs? Nuclear 

households, extended families, multi-generational task groups? What is the 

179
 

division of labor associated with these activities? What are the kinship links 

within and between task groups? 

(5) Collect information on the knowledge and ethical values associated with egg 

gathering and then detail how the composition of task groups passes on this 

knowledge from one generation to another. 

(6) What are the details of gathering practices -- how are eggs identified, 

harvested, stored, processed (cooked) and consumed? 

(7) What are the logistics of egg harvesting? What technology and equipment is 

used? What are the approximate costs? 

(8) Are there any special ceremonies or rites performed during the harvest? What 

are the rituals of respect, of propitiation? 

(9) How are eggs distributed within families, within the community? Are elders 

given a priority? 

(10) How does traditional knowledge influence harvest and conservation 

practices? For example, is egg removal timed to induce a second brood? 

(11) What traditional knowledge exists about gull behavior, distribution of 

species (both historically and at present), relative abundance through time, 

relationships with other species, taxonomic considerations. 

(12) What is the social context of egg harvests? Is it primarily a family outing? 

How are eggs used during ceremonial events, e.g., during pole raising? 

(13) What are the mythical connotations of egg harvests and consumption? 

(14) What part do eggs play in the overall subsistence pattern for the community 

of Hoonah? What are the changes in this dependence through time? How many 

are collected by species – currently, historically? 

(15) What effect have NPS regulations had upon traditional practices and what 

adjustments have Hoonah people made to these constraints? 

(16) What stories or narratives are currently being told that involves the 

relationship between the geography, history and influence of NPS on traditional 

behaviors? 

Research Task 2: Review Existing Biological Literature on Gull Populations & 

Compare this Information with Traditional Practices and Beliefs. 

Considerable biological information exists on breeding gull colonies within Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve. For example, Patten has written extensively on the subject 

including a master’s thesis (1974), "Breeding Ecology of the Glaucous-Winged Gull 

(Larus glaucescens) in Glacier Bay, Alaska" and a doctoral dissertation (1980), 

Interbreeding and Evolution in Larus glaucescens – Larus argentatus Complex on the 

South Coast of Alaska. In addition, a monograph prepared by Patten (1981), "Seasonal 

180
 

Use of Coastal Habitat from Yakutat Bay to Cape Fairweather by Migratory Seabirds, 

Shorebirds and Waterfowl" contains a wealth of information that may be of considerable 

comparative use during the development of an ethno-ornithology (see task 4 below in the 

previous mentioned Subagreement Modification). Key research questions: 

The existing biological information on gull behavior, ecology, abundance and 

mortality will be reviewed to provide a comparative analysis of the potential 

impacts of traditional egging activities. Issues such as current colony distribution, 

variation in pair breeding area, mortality to eggs and chicks, survival rates, gull 

behavior in limiting plant succession and a variety of other issues will be 

considered and then comparatively analyzed with information collected from this 

traditional knowledge project. Any traditional natural history observations (e.g., 

regarding behavior), ecological insights (e.g., links between gull abundance and 

fishing success) will be highlighted. Special consideration will be taken of 

significant events within the gull population, such as the complete breeding 

failure of the Glacier Bay colony during 1975. What observations and insights do 

local community members have on these events? Any number of additional 

collateral issues can be investigated. The community of Hoonah harvests 

considerable quantities of tidal invertebrates; can they link fluctuations of specific 

tidal species (or forage fish such as sand lance) with observations of abundance of 

bird species? Considerable research has been conducted on glaucauswinged/herring gull hybridization. Can emic taxonomic knowledge shed light on 

these processes? Do Hoonah community members distinguish between these 

species; do they use the same criteria; do they observe differences in 

freshwater/saltwater/estuarine niches exploited by different gull populations? 

 

Research Task 3: Use Area and Site Mapping 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game technical report "Subsistence Harvest and Use 

of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Effects of Forest Management in Hoonah, Alaska 

was written by Schroeder and Kookesh in 1990. In this report are a number of use area 

maps for the community of Hoonah. Of particular interest are Figure 69, "Area Used by 

Hoonah Residents for Subsistence Harvest of Fish, Wildlife, and other Natural 

Resources, 1986" and Figure 70 "Area used by Hoonah Residents for Subsistence 

Harvest of Black and Brown Bear and Collection of Bird Eggs, 1986.” The first map 

depicts the area where subsistence activities have been conducted during the time 

community residents have been living in Hoonah. Initial maps were prepared from key 

respondent interviews. About 60 community residents, including most knowledgeable 

elders and active hunters, contributed to the field mapping. The second map specifically 

delineates egg collection sites. However, there is indication that the enumeration of egg 

collection sites is incomplete. For example, Surge Bay and Deer Harbor on the outer 

coast of Yakobi Island are (or have been) two egg-gathering sites that were not 

enumerated in the ADF&G map. Key research questions and work elements: 

(1) These maps will be verified with primary informants, paying particular 

181
 

182

attention to outer coast egging sites that might have been missed during the 1986 

investigations or overlooked because of access difficulties. 

(2) Subsistence use areas through time, with special emphasis on egging sites, 

will be collected. The horizons of this investigation will depend on the time depth 

of the memory of community informants. 

(3) Egging sites will be coded for frequency of use and for preference of use 

(including stated reasons for these preferences e.g., ease of access). 

(4) Finally, existing place-name data need to be overlaid with traditional use areas 

and gathering sites to present an overall appreciation of Huna subsistence and 

cultural activities through time. Place-name information may also suggest further 

avenues of inquiry for Task One or for the ethno-ornithology task. Any tasks 

added to the research however, will be negotiated to the satisfaction of both the 

Service and the University. 

(5) The impacts of etiquette employed by traditional Tlingit clans in allowing 

access to their use areas will be noted. That is: Do traditional usufruct rights 

influence or impede the use or access to harvest sites by other community 

members?
 

APPENDIX 2: HUNA TLINGIT EGG COLLECTING INTERVIEW 

GUIDE 

Huna Tlingit Egg Collecting Interview Guide 

June 1998 

1. Personal question: Name, sex, age, clan & father’s clan, Tlingit language ability, where raised? 

2. Comments on importance of egg collecting: 

 a. to family 

 b. to community 

 c. special qualities of eggs 

3. Tell us how you used to collect eggs. [a narrative description] 

4. When collected? 

 a. ecological signs of appropriate times 

 b. regional variation; outer coast vs. Glacier Bay 

 c. deciding if it’s the right time (e.g., disappearance of big gulls) 

5. Where collected? 

 a. place names (Tlingit or otherwise) 

 b. clan or family restrictions on access 

6. Who collects? 

 a. task group composition: kin relations; gender; age; etc. 

 b. group size: give example of actual group and its composition 

7. How many collected? 

 a. now versus past 

 b. annual variability of eggs available (e.g., 1975 colony failure in Glacier Bay) 

8. How collected? 

 a. gear 

183
 

 b. access routes 

 c. task coordination 

 d. judging if they’re ready or over (e.g., candling) 

9. Conservation of eggs (now versus before)? 

 a. do you collect if more than two eggs? Three? Full set? 

 b. do you replace embryonic eggs (after candling)? 

 c. do you clear brush? 

 d. what happens if someone breaks the rules? 

10. How processed & consumed? 

 a. cooking 

 b. preserving & storing 

 c. sharing & trading (gifting at potlatches?) 

 d. priority for elders? 

 e. baking cakes 

 f. medicinal or health values? 

 

11. Ritual, cultural, and spiritual context 

 a. showing respect 

 b. special ceremonial roles (e.g., pole raising?) 

 c. traditional stories? 

12. Other species collected? Mew Gulls, Kittiwakes, Aleutian/Arctic Terns, geese, ducks, 

cormorants, puffins, murrelets, etc. 

13. Ecological, phenological, natural history observations 

 a. habitat choices 

 b. life history: named stages 

 c. hybridization 

 d. population trends/causes 

 e. other gull predators 

184
 

14. Comments on Park Service regulation 

 a. impacts on you & your family, if any 

 b. how should it be managed 

 c. special importance of Marble Islands/Glacier Bay sites 

185
 

186
 

APPENDIX 3: HUNA TLINGIT CONTACTS 

Huna Tlingit Egg Harvesting Study

*Indicates a noncontributing interview observer. 

**Indicates translator or interview assistant only. 

Jim Austin Hoonah 

Ken Austin Juneau 

**Ida Brown Hoonah 

George, Jr. Dalton Hoonah 

*Jim Dalton Hoonah 

Richard, Sr. Dalton Hoonah 

Eva Davis Hoonah 

Albert Dick Hoonah 

*Max Dick Hoonah 

Nina Dick Hoonah 

Johanna Dybdahl Hoonah 

Elizabeth Govina Juneau 

Kathryn Grant Hoonah 

Ken Grant Hoonah 

Karl Greenwald Hoonah 

Ernestine Hanlon Hoonah 

Sam, Sr. Hanlon Hoonah 

Grace Hillman Hoonah 

Ed Hubbard Hoonah 

Lila Hubbard Hoonah 

Charles, Jr. Jack Hoonah 

James Jack Sr. Juneau 

Jumbo James Hoonah 

Alice Johnnie Juneau 

Andrew Johnnie Juneau 

Ida Kadashan Hoonah 

Esther Kaze Hoonah 

Jenny Lindhoff Hoonah 

Alfred McKinley Juneau 

*Don Mills Hoonah 

George Mills Hoonah 

Tony Mills Hoonah 

Pat Mills Hoonah 

Thomas Mills Hoonah 

Dan Neil Hoonah 

George Obert Hoonah 

Maureen Obert Hoonah 

Adeline Saint Claire Hoonah 

Frank See Hoonah 

Hilda See Hoonah 

Edna Skaflestad Hoonah 

Jeff Skaflestad Hoonah 

Keith Skaflestad Hoonah 

Wilbur Skeek Hoonah 

Walter Smith Hoonah 

Winafred Smith Hoonah 

Frank, White Sr. Juneau 

Lily White Hoonah 

Frank Wright Hoonah 

187
 

188
 

APPENDIX 4: SITES USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH 

SUBSISTENCE EGG HARVESTS BY HUNA TLINGIT PEOPLE 

The following inventory of sites augments the information in Table 7. See notes 

section below the table regarding the bird species whose eggs are harvested at each and 

for precise map locations.

SITES IN GLACIER BAY AND ICY STRAIT

1) Point Carolus; SW entrance to GB, about 55 km NW of Hoonah; Yáay Shaak'ú

(“Whale's Little Head”); low productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, 

MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; traditional salmon fishing camp; had cabins and 

smokehouses up until WW II. 

2) Young Island; N of Bartlett Cove in GB; about 65 km NW of Hoonah; K’wát’ Aaní 

Luyee (“Area Below the Point of Seagull Eggs Land”); medium productivity for 

eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; good for goose and 

duck eggs, grouse, ptarmigan. 

3) Beardslee Islands; N of Bartlett Cove in GB; about 70 km NW of Hoonah; X'áat'x'i 

Xhoo (“Among the Islands”); medium productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site 

[SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; good for goose and duck eggs, grouse, ptarmigan. 

4) Flapjack Island; NW island in Beardslee Islands., GB; about 80 km NW of Hoonah; 

medium productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BH, PL, MI]; launch 

point for Marble Is. 

5) Goose Island (= Eider Island); in Beardslee Is., GB; about 70 km NW of Hoonah 

T’aawákh X'áat'i? “(Goose Island”?); low productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking 

site [SF, BH, PL, MI]; not commonly used. 

6) Strawberry Island; W of Beardslee Islands., GB; about 70 km NW of Hoonah; 

L'awx'áat’I, (“Glacial Sand Island”); medium productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; plant succession has reduced the 

island’s productivity for berries and bird eggs. One consultant recalls, "When my dad 

was a little kid, Strawberry Island had no trees on it, and they used to use seal skins to 

slide down on the sand.... Now look at the growth on it.” 

7) Boulder Island; NW of Beardslee Islands., GB; about 80 km NW of Hoonah; medium 

productivity for eggs [SF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; close to Marble Islands and accessible, 

but not as easy to land on or as productive as S. Marble Island. 

189
 

8) Willoughby Island (formerly); large Island (3.8 mi. long) in lower GB; about 80 km 

NW of Hoonah; Shatláaxh Tlein (“Big Shaggy Top”); high productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; plant succession has , 

however, reduced the island’s productivity for bird eggs. 

9) Francis Island; small island N of Willoughby in GB; about 85 km NW of Hoonah; 

Shaltláaxh K’átsk’u (“Small Shaggy Island”); medium productivity for eggs [SF, 

BF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; plant succession has reduced the island’s productivity for bird 

eggs. 

10) Leland Island; small island N of Beartrack Cove in GB; about 80 km NW of Hoonah; 

Hintuxux’aayí (T'ooch' X'áat') (“Seagrass Point Under Water”) [“Black Island”]); 

medium productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; 

plant succession has reduced the island’s productivity for bird eggs. 

11) South Marble Island; small island NW of Beartrack Cove; about 80 km NW of 

HoonahIxde Néixh’ X’áat’I (“South Marble Island”); high productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; most preferred site—accessible, 

sheltered, close to other activity sites; perhaps longest history of use; high level of 

traditional ecological knowledge; sacred to the Chookaneidí but hallowed by all 

descendants of Glacier Bay. 

12) North Marble Island (formerly); small island NW of Beartrack Cove; about 85 km 

NW of Hoonah; Nánde Néixh' X’áat'i (“North Marble Island”); high productivity for 

eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; plant succession has 

reduced the island’s productivity; South Marble Island is preferred by most gatherers. 

13) Drake Island; large Island (3.5 mi. long) SE of Geikie Inlet in GB; about 85 km NW 

of Hoonah; X'áat' Kulasá (“Narrow Island”); medium productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; the island’s lake was 

known especially for Mallard and goose eggs: "[T]here’s a little lake back there and 

over the years it’s grown over ... but before it just used to be a short hike” (Tom 

Mills pers. comm.); Hoonah native Leslie Hillman died there; also a fort site on the 

island (Goldschmidt and Haas 1997). 

14) Sturgess Island; small island W of Sandy Cove in GB; about 90 km NW of Hoonah; 

medium productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, BH, PL, MI]; 

plant succession has reduced the island’s productivity for bird eggs. 

15) Sebree Island (at Tlingit Point); island at junction of Muir Inlet and GB; about 95 km 

NW of Hoonah; low productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, 

BH, PL, MI]; plant succession has reduced the island’s productivity for bird eggs. 

16) Garforth Island; small island at the E entrance to Muir Inlet in GB; about 100 km NW 

of Hoonah; Wasus X'aat'I (“Cow Island”); low productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; mountain goat cliffs 

nearby. 

190
 

17) Sealers Island; small island NW of Wachusett Inlet in Muir Inlet in GB; about 120 

km NW of Hoonah; Aan Adéli (“Village Watchman”); medium productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, MI]; this was said by one source to be the site 

of gull egg massacre by the "Coast Guard" (RD) in the 1960s or 1970s. 

18) Tidal Inlet (islands? GD); inlet on E side of N arm of GB; about 105 km NW of 

Hoonah; Tsalgi Gheeyí (“Ground Squirrel Bay”); medium productivity for eggs [SF, 

BF, MM, MI]; not commonly used. 

19) Triangle Island (Queen Inlet); small island at the head of Queen Inlet in GB; about 

120 km NW of Hoonah; medium productivity for eggs [SF, BF, MM, TA, PL, MI]; 

not commonly used. 

20) Russell Island rocks; SE of Russell Island in NW GB; about 135 km NW of Hoonah; 

medium productivity for eggs [BF, MM, TA]; this locale became a preferred site 

when islands further down the bay became overgrown. 

21) Composite Island; island at the mouth of Queen Inlet in GB; about 120 km NW of 

Hoonah; medium productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [BF, MM, TA]; this 

locale became a preferred site when islands further down the bay became overgrown. 

22) Skidmore Bay islands; in NW arm of GB above Hugh Miller Inlet; about 110 km NW 

of Hoonah; medium productivity for eggs [BF, MM, TA, PL, MI]; not commonly 

used. 

23) Hugh Miller Inlet (islands); in NW arm of GB; about 100 km NW of Hoonah; 

Anaxhkhuyaawal'ix'i Yé (“Where the Glacier Ice Broke Through”); medium 

productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; this 

was also a favorite soapberry picking site and considered very accessible by boat. 

24) Lone Island; small island NW of Geikie Inlet in GB; about 95 km NW of Hoonah; 

L'ée Hítk' (“Little Blanket House”); medium productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, PL, MI]; though small, this site was 

considered very productive. 

25) Geikie Rock; small exposed rock at the mouth of Geikie Inlet in GB; about 90 km 

NW of Hoonah; Ts’agéegi Té (“Little Seabird Rock”); productivity for eggs 

uncertain [SF, BF, MM, PL, MI]; small but close to other egging sites at Lone, Drake, 

and Marble islands. 

26) Shag Cove rock (Geikie Inlet); at the mouth of Shag Cove on the SE side of Geikie 

Inlet in GB; about 90 km NW of Hoonah; productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, 

MM, PL, MI]; not commonly used. 

27) Grouse Fort; between Homeshore (E of Excursion Inlet) and Swanson Harbor; about 

25 km NE of Hoonah; Kax’noowú (“Grouse Fort”); low productivity for eggs; 

camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, TA, BH, PL, MI]; former Huna village site; was 

especially important for upland birds such as grouse and ptarmigan. 

191
 

28) Sister's Island; in Icy Strait about 18 km NE of Hoonah; L'aa T'un X'áatk'I (“Little 

Breasts”); productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, MI]; not a gull egg harvest site; 

used occasionally for oystercatcher eggs. 

29) Pulizzi Island (Spasski Bay) (possibly Light Island]); island at Spasski Bay about 15 

km E of Hoonah; productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, TA, BH, PL, MI]; not a 

gull egg harvest site; used occasionally for oystercatcher eggs. 

EXPOSED WATERS: OUTER COAST AND CROSS SOUND 

30) Inian Islands: Middle Pass Rock; small island in the W part of the middle passage in 

the Inian Islands in Cross Sound; about 70 km NW of Hoonah; Lugheiyá? ‘Nose’ 

(check location); medium productivity for eggs [SF, MM, PL, MI]; associated with 

commercial fishing in Inian Island (now closed); difficult to access due to strong tides 

and big swells; considered dangerous; usually only men harvest (Ken Grant; Johanna 

Dybdahl). 

31) Greentop (local name); off Point. Wimbledon near the SW entrance to Dundas Bay; 

about 75 km NW of Hoonah; Neixinté Seiyí (“Rock Below the Green Bluff”); 

productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; this site was 

proximal to Middle Pass Rock and Georges Island, and the harvest at all three sites 

was contemporaneous; location needs to be verified. 

32) George Islands, outside Elfin Cove; at the mouth of Port Althorp in Cross Sound; 

about 75 km NW of Hoonah; Khushnaaxh'I (“Tumbling Water Shelter”); medium 

productivity for eggs [SF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; Huna Tlingits that harvested at 

Middle Pass Rock often harvested here as well; associated with commercial fishing 

activities in Cross Sound and the outer coast. 

33) Table Rock (aka "Bird Rock"); just S of Three Hill Island, near Point Lucan in Cross 

Sound; about 80 km W of Hoonah; Tawéik' (“Coming Up Over It”); medium 

productivity for eggs [SF, BF, MI]; this site is still used by some Natives in Pelican, 

but is not considered very accessible by Huna Natives; site was used in the past when 

fishing in the Inian Islands. 

34) Point Lucan and Column Point, rock; halfway between Point Lucan and Column 

Point off Althorp Peninsula, Cross Sound; about 85 km W of Hoonah; Lix’ Xágu

(“Broken Rock Sandbar”) (check location); productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, 

TA, BH, PL, MI]; location needs to be checked. 

35) Surge Bay rocks; at the mouth of Surge Bay on the outside of Yakobi Island near the 

SW entrance to Cross Sound; about 110 km W of Hoonah; Tsaa Aayi (“Seal 

Country”) (check location); productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, 

PL, MI]; not commonly used; Surge Bay is a former village site (Frank See). 

192
 

36) Yakobi Rock; just W of Yakobi Island at the SW entrance to Cross Sound; about 105 

km W of Hoonah; Yeiyá (“On the face of Yei”) (Yakobi Island?) medium 

productivity for eggs [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; this site is considered to be 

productive but not very accessible due to its distance from Hoonah and exposure to 

waves and ocean swells; it was used occasionally in the past when commercialfishing activities brought Hunas to the outer coast in spring. 

37) Graves Rocks: Egg Island; NW of Cape Spencer on the outer coast; about 110 km 

NW of Hoonah; Lakanakháa (“Man's Mouth”); medium productivity for eggs [SF, 

BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; one island among the rocks was considered productive 

for gull eggs and was referred to as “egg island” (Ken Grant); exposed and difficult 

to access. 

38) Libby Island, rocks inside; NW of Cape Spencer on the outer coast; about 115 km 

NW of Hoonah; Lakweishnaxh Táak? (“Inside”) [refers to Murk Bay]; medium 

productivity for eggs [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; not commonly used. 

39) Dixon Harbor: lake; NW of Cape Spencer on the outer coast; about 125 km NW of 

Hoonah; low productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, 

PL, MI]; this was mainly a site for duck and goose hunting and egg gathering. It was 

not associated with seabird eggs. 

40) Boussole Arch; NW of Cape Spencer off the tip of Boussole Head; about 130 km 

NW of Hoonah; Ghaanaxháa (“Smokehole”?); medium productivity for eggs [SF, 

BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; this is a sacred landscape for the T’akdeintaan clan, who 

use the site and the flocks of kittiwakes that occupy it (kh’eikh’w) as one of their 

crests; it is difficult to access but was used by the T’akdeintaan, who have no 

prohibition on consuming kittiwake or gull eggs. 

41) Astrolabe Point; NW of Cape Spencer at the tip of Astrolabe Peninsula; about 125 

km NW of Hoonah; productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; 

also productive for kittiwakes as well as gulls. 

42) Lituya Bay: Cenotaph Island on the outer coast SE of Cape Fairweather; about 185 

km NW of Hoonah; Kanaxhdakheen (“Flock Flying Over”); high productivity for 

eggs; camping/picnicking site [SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; high productivity for 

terns and kittiwakes, but medium productivity for gulls. 

SITES OUTSIDE OF HOONAH KWÁAN TERRITORY 

43) Tenakee: Goose FlatsTenakee/Wooshekeetaan; T'aawákh X'aayí (“Goose Flats”); 

medium productivity for eggs. 

44) Freshwater Bay, island; Tenakee/Wooshekeetaan; Tsaa Eejí (“Seal Reef”); medium 

productivity for eggs; camping/picnicking site. 

193
 

194

45) Haenke Island, Disenchantment Bay; Yakutat; K'wat' X'aat'i (“Bird Egg Island”); 

high productivity for eggs. 

46) Kanak Island; Yakutat; Ginákh (Alutiiq for “Bird Egg Island”; high productivity for 

eggs. 

47) Taku Glacier (Juneau); Taku; T’aawákh Khu Sít' (“Geese Flooding Glacier”?) 

48) Mendenhall Glacier (Juneau); Auk; Aak'w T'áak Sít' (Sít' Dleey Shanáa) (“Glacier 

Inland of Auke Lake” [“Glacier Over the Head of Which is Meat”]); medium 

productivity for eggs. 

49) Mayflower Island (Juneau); Taku; low productivity for eggs. 

50) Baili Rock/Seagull Island; Sitka; Kaghanú? 

51) Hazy Islands (Kake); Sitka; Deikinoow (“ay Outside Fort”); high productivity for 

eggs. 

52) Lazaria Island (Sitka); Sitka; Kanas X'í (“Edible Plants”?); high productivity for 

eggs. 

53) Loon Island (Sitka); Sitka. 

54) Forrester Island (Klawock); Gaaskhu (Haida); high productivity for eggs. 

55) Dundas Island; Tongass. 

56) Zayas Island; Tongass. 

57) Raspberry Island (Shelikof Strait); Kodiak; high productivity for eggs. 
APPENDIX 5: SCIENTIFIC AND TLINGIT SPECIES NAMES 

Table 13. Cross References for Common Names, Tligit Names and Scientific Names of 

the Various Species in Glacier Bay Area. 

Common Name Tlingit Name Scientific Name 

BERRIES tléikw 

bearberry (kinnikinnick) tínx Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 

blueberry, generic and oval-leaved kanat’á Vaccinium ovalifolium 

blueberry, Alaskan (ripens later) naanyaa 

kanat’aayí 

Vaccinium alaskaense 

blueberry, bog ts’éekáxk’w Vaccinium uliginosum 

blueberry, dwarf kakatlaax Vaccinium caespitosum 

cloudberry, yellow néx’w Rubus chamaemorus 

cranberry, bog k’eishkaháagu Oxycoccus microcarpus 

cranberry, highbush kaxwéix Viburnum edule 

cranberry, lowbush (ligonberry) dáxw Vaccinium vitis-idaea 

current, gray shaax Ribes bracteosum 

current, swamp kaneilts’ákw Ribes lacustre 

elderberry, red yéil’ Sambucus racemosa 

huckleberry, red tleikatánk Vaccinium parvifolium 

nagoonberry neigóon Rubus arcticus 

baspberry tlekw yádi Rubus idaeus (R. pedatus) 

salmonberry was’x’aan tléigu Rubus spectabilis 

soapberry xákwl’i Sheperdia canadensis 

strawberry, seaside shákw Fragaria chiloensis 

thimbleberry ch’eix’ Rubus parviflorus 

OTHER PLANT RESOURCES

alder, red shéix’w Alnus rubra 

alder, beach keishísh Alnus sinuata 

cedar, red laax Thuja plicata 

cedar, yellow xáay Chamaecyparis 

nootkatensis 

devil's club s’áxt Oplopanax horridum 

fireweed lóol Epilobium angustifolium 

grass, creek chookán 

hemlock inner bark sux’ Tsuga heterophylla 

Indian celery yaana.eit Heracleum lanatum 

Indian potato tséit Potentilla anserina 

Indian riceroot kóox Fritillaria camschatcensis 

Indian rhubarb tl’ak’wúch Polygonum alaskanum 

nettles Urtica dioica 

195
Table 13. Continued

Common Name Tlingit Name Scientific Name 

rutabaga unuhòo Brassica napabrassica 

sea laver Porphyra spp. 

seaweed, ribbon k’áach' Palmeria palmata 

skunk cabbage x’áal' Lysichiton americanum 

spruce, sitka see’c Picea sitchensis 

tobacco Nicotiana quadrivalvis 

wood fern k’w’úlx Dryopteris spp. 

SHELLFISH

abalone gúnxaa Haliotis kamtschatkana 

clam, butter gaal’ Saxidomus giganteus 

clam, horse yeis Tresus nuttalli 

clam, littleneck tl’ildaaskeit Protothaca straminea 

cockles yalooleit Clinocardium nuttalli 

crab, box Lopholithodes spp. 

crab, Dungeness s’áaw Cancer magister 

crab, king x’éix Paralithodes camtschatica 

gumboots (= chitons) shaaw Katharina tunicata 

limpet yéil ts’áaxu Acmaea spp. 

mussel, blue yaak Mytilidae spp. 

sea urchin nées' Strongylocentrotus spp. 

MAMMALS

bear, black s’eek Ursus americana 

bear, brown xóots Ursus arctos 

deer guwakaan Odocoileus hemionus 

goat, mountain and/or 

sheep, mountain or Dall’s 

jánwu Oreamnos americanus 

and/or Ovis dalli 

marten k’óox Martes americana 

mink nukshiyáan / 

lukshiyáan 

Mustela vison 

otter, land and/or 

otter, sea 

kóoshdaa Lutra canadensis 

and/or Enhydra lutris 

sea lion, Steller’s taan Eumetopias jubata 

seal, hair or harbor tsaa Phoca vitulina 

whale, humpback yáay 

whale, killer (= orca) keet Orcinus orca 

wolf gooch Canis lupus 

wolverine nóotkw Gulo gulo 

196
Table 13. Continued

Common Name Tlingit Name Scientific Name 

FISHES

cod, black ishkéen Anoplopoma fimbria 

cod, Pacific s’áax' Gadus macrocephalus 

halibut cháatl Hippoglossus stenolepis 

herring, Pacific yaaw Clupea harengus pallasi 

hooligan (= eulachon, smelt) saak Thaleichthys pacificus 

red snapper léik’w Sebastes ruberrimus 

salmon, coho l’ook Oncorhynchus kisutch 

salmon, dog téel' Oncorhynchus keta 

salmon, king t’á Oncorhynchus 

tschawytscha 

salmon, pink or humpy cháas' Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 

salmon, sockeye gaat Oncorhynchus nerka 

sculpin, bullhead wéix’ / tlóox Cottidae spp. 

sea bass, black lit.isdúk Stereolepis gigas 

197
198
APPENDIX 6: MAP OF HUNA TLINGIT TRIBAL TERRITORY, GOLDSC

199
200
201
202
 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the 

Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands 

and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering wise use of our 

land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the 

environment and cultural values of our national parks and historical 

places, and providing for enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 

The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to 

ensure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The 

department also promotes the goals of the Take Pride in America 

campaign by encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibility for the 

public land and promoting citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under 

U.S. administration. 

Technical Report NPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-2002-02 

NPS D-113 March 2003 

203
204