_______________ 

OCS Study 

 BOEM 2012-109

Subsistence Study for the North 

Aleutian Basin 

 

U. S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Alaska Region 

www.boem.gov 
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
OCS Study 

 BOEM 2012-109

Subsistence Study for the North 

Aleutian Basin 

Authors 

Katherine Reedy-Maschner, Ph.D. 

Herbert Maschner, Ph.D. 

Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, 

921 S. 8th Avenue, Stop 8005, Pocatello, ID 83209-8005 USA 

Prepared under BOEM Contract 

M08PC20053 

by 

Idaho State University 

921 S. 8th Avenue 

Pocatello, Idaho 83209 

Published by 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Alaska Region 2012 
i 

 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) and Idaho State University. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and 

it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily 

reflect the views and policies of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial 

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review 

and compliance with BOEM editorial standards. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

This report is available only in compact disc format from the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Alaska Region, by referencing OCS Study BOEM 2012-109. The report may be 

downloaded from the boem.gov website through the Environmental Studies Program 

Information System (ESPIS). You will be able to obtain this report also from the National 

Technical Information Service in the near future. Here are the addresses. You may also inspect 

copies at selected Federal Depository Libraries. 

 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Commerce 

 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management National Technical Information Service 

 Alaska Region 5285 Port Royal Road 

 3801 Centerpoint Dr, Suite 500 Springfield, Virginia 22161 

 Anchorage, AK 99503-5820 Phone: (703) 605-6040 

 Fax: (703) 605-6900 

Telephone requests may be placed at Email: bookstore@ntis.gov

 (907) 334-5200 

 Fax: (907) 334-5202 

CITATION 

Reedy-Maschner, K.L. and H.D.G. Maschner. 2012. Subsistence Study for the North Aleutian 

Basin. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska 

Region, Anchorage, AK. OCS Study BOEM 2012-109. 428 pp. 

 

 
ii 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors and study team wish to thank the community leaders and residents of Akutan, False 

Pass, Nelson Lagoon and Port Heiden for their interest, participation and assistance in 

completing the project. The Idaho State University Informatics Research Institute, Corey Schou 

and Jonathan Holmes, provided invaluable work assistance in developing an entirely unique 

database and graphical network analysis tool that allowed us to track complex sharing and 

trading networks while maintaining genetic and marriage relationships. This innovative approach 

was critical to meeting project objectives. 

This report has been reviewed by the BOEM and approved for publication. Approval does not 

signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Bureau, nor does 

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

use. 

Project Management 

Katherine Reedy-Maschner, Ph.D., Principal Investigator and 

Herbert Maschner, Ph.D., co-Principal Investigator 

Research and Support Staff 

Dr. Corey Schou, ISU Informatics Research Institute 

Jonathan Holmes, M.S., ISU Informatics Research Institute 

Crystal Callahan, M.S., Field Assistant 

Buck Benson, B.A., GIS Technician 

Andrea Kayser, B.A., Data entry and analyses 

Grace Dotson, M.A., Data entry and analyses 

Katie Wilson, B.A., Data entry and analyses 

BOEM Technical Oversight 

Chris Campbell, M.A., Sociocultural Specialist 

Contracting Officer’s Representative 

Environmental Studies Section 
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... xiv

PART I ............................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Scope of the Project ................................................................................................................ 1

Timeline .................................................................................................................................. 2

Research Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 3

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Tasks ................................................................................. 4

CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 9

Regional Background .................................................................................................................. 9

Study Background ..................................................................................................................... 15

Social Network Analysis....................................................................................................... 15

Petroleum Politics ................................................................................................................. 21

Subsistence-Commercial....................................................................................................... 22

Management Regimes ........................................................................................................... 25

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3. METHODS ............................................................................................................ 31

Ethnographic Methods .............................................................................................................. 31

Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................ 33

Database Construction .............................................................................................................. 36

Mapping, GIS, and Traditional Ecological Geographies .......................................................... 36

PART II ......................................................................................................................................... 38

VILLAGE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 4. NELSON LAGOON .............................................................................................. 39

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 39

Recent Village History .............................................................................................................. 39

Political Landscape of Nelson Lagoon ..................................................................................... 41

Demographic Profile ................................................................................................................. 43

Fisheries and Economic Development...................................................................................... 44

Subsistence Practices ................................................................................................................ 45

Subsistence Security ............................................................................................................. 52

Spatial Information ............................................................................................................... 60

Crews and Cooperative Hunting and Fishing ....................................................................... 60

Networks ............................................................................................................................... 61

Environmental and Harvest Abundance Issues ..................................................................... 62

Community Economics ......................................................................................................... 63

Expenses and Expense Networks .......................................................................................... 65
iv 

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased ............................................................. 68

Positive Influence on Community Life ..................................................................................... 69

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 5. PORT HEIDEN ..................................................................................................... 71

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 71

Recent Village History .............................................................................................................. 73

Political and Economic Landscape of Port Heiden ................................................................... 73

Ethnicity .................................................................................................................................... 74

Commercial Practices ............................................................................................................... 74

Subsistence Practices ................................................................................................................ 76

Subsistence Security ............................................................................................................. 84

Crews and Cooperative Hunting and Fishing ....................................................................... 90

Spatial Data ........................................................................................................................... 92

Community Economics ............................................................................................................. 92

Expenses and Expense Networks .............................................................................................. 95

Household Expenses ............................................................................................................. 95

Subsistence Expenses ............................................................................................................ 97

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased ............................................................. 98

Positive Influence on Community Life ..................................................................................... 98

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 98

CHAPTER 6. FALSE PASS....................................................................................................... 101

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 101

Village History ........................................................................................................................ 101

Fisheries and Economic Development.................................................................................... 104

Political and Economic Landscape of FaLse Pass .................................................................. 105

Subsistence Practices and Concerns ....................................................................................... 108

Subsistence Security ........................................................................................................... 115

Sharing Networks.................................................................................................................... 121

Spatial Data ............................................................................................................................. 121

Community Economics ........................................................................................................... 121

Expenses and Expense Networks ............................................................................................ 124

Household Expenses ........................................................................................................... 124

Subsistence Expenses .......................................................................................................... 125

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased ........................................................... 125

Positive Influence on Community Life ................................................................................... 126

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 126

CHAPTER 7. AKUTAN ............................................................................................................ 129

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 129

Recent History ........................................................................................................................ 130

Surveyed Population ............................................................................................................... 131

Fisheries and Economic Development.................................................................................... 133

Political and Economic Landscape of Akutan ........................................................................ 134

Cultural Themes of Akutan ..................................................................................................... 135

Subsistence .............................................................................................................................. 136

Subsistence Security ........................................................................................................... 143

Spatial Data ............................................................................................................................. 150
v 

Sharing Networks.................................................................................................................... 151

Community Economics ........................................................................................................... 154

Expenses and Expense Netowrks ............................................................................................ 157

Household Expenses ........................................................................................................... 157

Subsistence Expenses .......................................................................................................... 158

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased ........................................................... 158

Positive Influence on Community Life ................................................................................... 158

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 159

PART III ..................................................................................................................................... 160

CHAPTER 8. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: DEMOGRAPHICS & ECONOMICS ............. 161

Characteristics of Surveyed Households ................................................................................ 161

Household Information ....................................................................................................... 161

Subsistence Harvests and Dependencies ................................................................................ 164

Subsistence Harvester Information ..................................................................................... 164

Comparative Harvest Data .................................................................................................. 165

Commercial Fisheries ............................................................................................................. 170

Fishing Operations, Capacity, and Dependency ................................................................. 171

Salmon ................................................................................................................................ 174

Groundfish .......................................................................................................................... 174

Pacific halibut ..................................................................................................................... 174

Crab Fisheries ..................................................................................................................... 175

Employment and Income ........................................................................................................ 175

Household Expenses ............................................................................................................... 177

Equipment and Assets ............................................................................................................. 179

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 180

CHAPTER 9. COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND VULNERABILITY ................................... 181

Environmental and Wildlife Observed Changes and Concerns .............................................. 181

Wildlife Health, Abundance, Interactions .............................................................................. 182

Wolves and Caribou ............................................................................................................ 182

Moose and Sport Hunters .................................................................................................... 185

Sea Otters and Clams .......................................................................................................... 185

Other Sea Mammals ............................................................................................................ 185

Birds, Eggs and Berries ....................................................................................................... 185

Fish ...................................................................................................................................... 186

Small Mammals .................................................................................................................. 186

Other ................................................................................................................................... 186

Environmental and other Changes .......................................................................................... 188

Nelson Lagoon .................................................................................................................... 188

Pollution and Port Heiden ................................................................................................... 188

North Aleutian Basin Exploration and Development Prospects and concerns ....................... 189

Village Responses and Survey Results ............................................................................... 189

Development Scenario ............................................................................................................ 198

Models of Development in Alaska and Abroad ...................................................................... 200

Sakhalin............................................................................................................................... 200

Norway ................................................................................................................................ 201

Gulf of Mexico .................................................................................................................... 201
vi 

Other Development Projects ................................................................................................... 201

Akutan’s Geothermal Development ................................................................................... 201

Akutan Airport .................................................................................................................... 201

Akutan Boat Harbor ............................................................................................................ 202

False Pass Tidal Energy Development ............................................................................... 202

APICDA Wind Energy ....................................................................................................... 202

False Pass Processor ........................................................................................................... 203

CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 205

Research Hypotheses Revisited .............................................................................................. 205

Further Observations (from Appendices 1 and 2) ................................................................... 209

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 209

REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................... 213

NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN SPECIES .................................................................................... 224
vii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Regional population trend between 2000 and 2010. ....................................................... 10

Table 2. Historical population figures for study communities and former nearby villages (Census 

2000, 2010; Fall et al. 1993; Fall et al. 1996; Fall and Morris 1987). The figures for Akutan 

include the more transient employees of the Trident Plant. The Akutan Traditional Council 

estimates there are about 83 permanent local village residents today. .................................. 13

Table 3. Associated administrative entities for the study communities. ....................................... 15

Table 4. Bird and Egg Estimated Annual Harvests for the Study Region. (Source: 

alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/harvest.htm). ...................................................................................... 25

Table 5. Steller sea lion and harbor seal takes in 1993 and 2006 (Wolfe, Fall and Riedel 2008; 

Wolfe and Mishler 1994). ...................................................................................................... 25

Table 6. Alaska Peninsula-Aleutian Islands sport fish harvest and effort estimates by fisheries 

and species, Survey Area R, 2009. Source: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/index.cfm?ADFG= area. ....................... 27

Table 7. Survey Participation. ....................................................................................................... 33

Table 8. Product and unit possibilities for each species category provided in interviews. ........... 35

Table 9. Household Characteristics for Nelson Lagoon, 2010. .................................................... 44

Table 10. Nelson Lagoon’s Subsistence Harvests, 2009. Results of the North Aleutian Basin 

survey. .................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 11. Job types identified by Nelson Lagoon residents. ........................................................ 63

Table 12. Reported earned and other income, Nelson Lagoon, 2009. .......................................... 64

Table 13. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by Nelson Lagoon in 2009. ......... 69

Table 14. U.S. Census and Survey Population. ............................................................................ 72

Table 15. Port Heiden’s Subsistence Harvest Data, 2009. ........................................................... 77

Table 16. Job titles identified by Port Heiden survey participants. .............................................. 93

Table 17. Earned and other income, Port Heiden, 2009. .............................................................. 94

Table 18. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by Port Heiden in 2009. .............. 98

Table 19. U.S. Census and Survey Population, False Pass. ........................................................ 104

Table 20. Subsistence Data for False Pass. ................................................................................. 109

Table 21. Job titles identified by False Pass adults. .................................................................... 122

Table 22. Earned and other incomes, False Pass 2009. .............................................................. 123

Table 23. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by False Pass in 2009. ............... 126

Table 24. U.S. Census and Survey Population, Akutan 2010..................................................... 132

Table 25. Subsistence Harvest Data for Akutan, 2009. .............................................................. 138

Table 26. Job titles identified by Akutan respondents. ............................................................... 155

Table 27. Earned and other income, Akutan 2009. ..................................................................... 156

Table 28. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by Akutan in 2009. ................... 158

Table 29. Average household size for each community. ............................................................ 161

Table 30. Permit Codes, Gear types, and Location for Figure 131. ........................................... 172

Table 31. Subsistence halibut harvests for the study villages, 2010. Source: Subsistence Harvests 

of Pacific Halibut in Alaska, 2010 (Fall and Koster 2011) Technical paper #367. ............. 175

Table 32. Average annual household expenses ($) by expense category and village, 2009. ..... 178

Table 33. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that range in the study region ....... 188
viii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Project Timeline. ............................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2. Regional map showing the project area and region of potential development. Map 

drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner. ................................................................................. 11

Figure 3. Example of a scale-free network and a chart showing the power-law distribution of the 

connections of agents. From Maschner and Bentley 2003:50, Figure 3.2. Adapted originally 

from Jeong et al. (2000:Figure 1 and Albert et al. (2000:Figure 1). ...................................... 20

Figure 4. Example of a random network and histogram showing the normal distribution of the 

connections of agents. From Maschner and Bentley 2003:51, Figure 3.3. Adapted originally 

from Jeong et al. (2000:Figure 1 and Albert et al. (2000:Figure 1). ...................................... 20

Figure 5. Baseline harvest data for estimated total pounds per species category by the four study 

communities, ADF&G Subsistence Division. ....................................................................... 24

Figure 6. Reedy-Maschner presents the project goals and methods in Akutan, April 2009. Photo 

by Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough. ........................................................................................... 32

Figure 7. Regional map for Nelson Lagoon. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner. ......... 40

Figure 8. F/V Cynthia Jane, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska, March 2010. Photo by K. Reedy-Maschner.

 ............................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 9. Nelson Lagoon surveyed population and U.S. Census population. .............................. 43

Figure 10. Nelson Lagoon harvests reported by total pounds usable weight between the 1987 

Subsistence Division survey (for 13 of 18 households) and this project (for 22 of 24 

households). ........................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 11. Percent of total pounds usable weight harvested by resource category in Nelson 

Lagoon between 1987 (13 of 18 HHs) and 2009 (22 of 24 HHs) (Source: ADF&G CSIS). 49

Figure 12. Using the Subsistence Division’s harvest expansion method for the total community, 

these are estimated total community pounds harvested by species category between 1987 

and 2009, Nelson Lagoon. ..................................................................................................... 50

Figure 13. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1987 (18 HHs) and 2009 (24 HHs), Nelson Lagoon. .............................................. 50

Figure 14. Percent change of estimated pounds useable weight harvested by species category 

between 1987 (18 HHs) and 2009 (24 HHs), Nelson Lagoon. .............................................. 51

Figure 15. Average Lbs. Harvested per household in 1987 and 2009. ......................................... 51

Figure 16. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1987 and 2009. ................ 52

Figure 17. Top 10 species harvested by Nelson Lagoon residents in 1987. ................................. 53

Figure 18. Top 10 species harvested by Nelson Lagoon residents, 2009. .................................... 53

Figure 19. Change in 2009 (in pounds usable weight per capita) of ten resources harvested in the 

largest amounts in 1987. ........................................................................................................ 54

Figure 20. Change in 2009 (in pounds usable weight per capita) of ten resources harvested in the 

largest amounts in 1987. ........................................................................................................ 54

Figure 21 Smoking coho salmon strips, Nelson Lagoon, April 2012. Photo by K. ReedyMaschner. ............................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 22. Nelson Lagoon’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 

2009 that in the past. .............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 23. Nelson Lagoon Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, based upon 22 of 24 

households, 2009. .................................................................................................................. 57
ix 

Figure 24. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, 

in percentages of Nelson Lagoon households (N=22), 2009. ................................................ 58

Figure 25. Pareto chart for Nelson Lagoon showing that harvesting patterns closely fit the 30/70 

rule. ........................................................................................................................................ 59

Figure 26. Pareto chart for salmon harvesters, showing 30% of households in Nelson Lagoon 

harvest 70% of the community's total harvest. ...................................................................... 59

Figure 27. Total pounds wild foods harvested versus total pounds received by household, Nelson 

Lagoon. .................................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 28. Partial sharing activities of a woman in Nelson Lagoon, 2009. .................................. 61

Figure 29. Network of the same individual from the 2009 survey data. ...................................... 62

Figure 30. Relative percentages of fishing versus non-fishing earnings, based upon 22 of 24 total 

households, Nelson Lagoon, 2009. ........................................................................................ 65

Figure 31. Nelson Lagoon income sources, 2009. ........................................................................ 65

Figure 32. Relative Percentages of Household Expenses for Nelson Lagoon. ............................. 66

Figure 33. Grocery sharing between four households, Nelson Lagoon. ....................................... 68

Figure 34. Regional map for the Port Heiden area. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner 71

Figure 35. Port Heiden surveyed population and U.S. Census population. .................................. 72

Figure 36. The old saltery in Meshik village, Bering Sea shore, November 2009. Photo by K. 

Reedy-Maschner. ................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 37. Pounds usable weight harvested by species category between the 1987 Subsistence 

Division survey (37 of 37 HHs) and this project (22 of 29 HHs), Port Heiden. ................... 81

Figure 38. Percent of total pounds usable weight harvested by resource category in Port Heiden 

between 1987 (37 of 37 HHs) and 2009 (22 of 29 HHs) (Source: ADF&G CSIS). ............. 82

Figure 39. Estimated total community harvest levels for 1987 and 2009 by species category, Port 

Heiden. ................................................................................................................................... 82

Figure 40. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1987 and 2009, Port Heiden. ................................................................................... 83

Figure 41. Percent change of estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1987 and 2009, Port Heiden. ................................................................................... 83

Figure 42. Change in average pounds harvested per household between 1987 and 2009, Port 

Heiden. ................................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 43. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1987 and 2009, Port Heiden.

 ............................................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 44. Top ten species harvested in 1987, Port Heiden. ......................................................... 85

Figure 45. Top ten species harvested in 2009, Port Heiden. ......................................................... 85

Figure 46. Change in pounds usable weight harvested per capita in 2009 for the top ten species 

harvested in 1987, Port Heiden. ............................................................................................. 86

Figure 47. Percent change in per capita harvest in 2009 for the top 10 species harvested in 1987, 

Port Heiden. ........................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 48. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, 

in percentages of Port Heiden households (N=22), 2009. ..................................................... 87

Figure 49. Port Heiden’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 

2009 that in the past. .............................................................................................................. 88

Figure 50. Port Heiden Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, 2009. ............................. 88

Figure 51. Pareto chart showing Port Heiden's household harvests, where 30% of the households 

are responsible for 81% of the harvests. ................................................................................ 89
x 

Figure 52. Pareto chart for salmon harvesters showing that about 30% of the households harvest 

70% of the salmon in Port Heiden. ........................................................................................ 89

Figure 53. Total pounds of wild foods harvested versus pounds received by household, Port 

Heiden. ................................................................................................................................... 90

Figure 54. A sample of the flow of foods between households for one hunter/fisherman in Port 

Heiden for 2008. In addition, this man harvests for his own household all five species of 

salmon, numerous birds, clams, seals and sea otters, and dolly varden. ............................... 91

Figure 55. Sharing network for the same individual as in Figure 54 for 2009. ............................ 92

Figure 56. Port Heiden household incomes for fishing and non-fishing earnings, 2009. This does 

not take into account returns to the village from CDQs. ....................................................... 93

Figure 57. Port Heiden income sources, 2009 .............................................................................. 95

Figure 58. Relative Percentages of Annual Expenses, Port Heiden. ............................................ 95

Figure 59. Shared grocery and other orders by four households with one matriarch. .................. 96

Figure 60. Gas & Fuel Prices posted in Ray’s Place, the community center of Port Heiden. Photo 

by K. Reedy-Maschner, March 2010. .................................................................................... 97

Figure 61. Regional map for the False Pass area. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner . 101

Figure 62. Old Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. sign lying in the tundra, False Pass, Alaska, August 

2009. Photo by K. Reedy-Maschner. ................................................................................... 102

Figure 63. False Pass surveyed population and U.S. Census population. .................................. 103

Figure 64. The cemetery, fire truck, and house in the mountain shadows, False Pass 2009. Photo 

by K. Reedy-Maschner. ....................................................................................................... 106

Figure 65. False Pass harvests by pounds usable weight between the 1988 Subsistence Division 

survey (20 of 22 HHs) and this project (15 of 16 HHs). ..................................................... 111

Figure 66. Percentage of harvest by species category between the 1998 Subsistence Division 

survey (20 of 22 HHs) and the 2009 survey (15 of 16 HHs), False Pass. ........................... 112

Figure 67. Estimated total community harvest by species category between 1988 and 2009, False 

Pass. ..................................................................................................................................... 112

Figure 68. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1988 and 2009, False Pass. .................................................................................... 113

Figure 69. Percent change of estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1988 and 2009, False Pass. .................................................................................... 113

Figure 70. Average pounds harvested per household between 1988 and 2009, False Pass. ...... 114

Figure 71. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1988 and 2009, False Pass.

 ............................................................................................................................................. 114

Figure 72. Top ten species harvested in False Pass, 1988. ......................................................... 116

Figure 73. Top ten species harvested in False Pass, 2009. ......................................................... 116

Figure 74. Change in harvest in pounds usable weight per capita in 2009 for the top ten species 

harvested in 1988, False Pass. ............................................................................................. 117

Figure 75. Percent change in harvest in pounds usable weight per capita in 2009 for the top ten 

species harvested in 1988, False Pass. ................................................................................. 117

Figure 76. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, 

in percentages of False Pass households (N=15), 2009. ...................................................... 118

Figure 77. False Pass’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 

2009 than in the past. ........................................................................................................... 119

Figure 78. False Pass Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, 2009. .............................. 119
xi 

Figure 79. Pareto chart showing False Pass's household harvests where approximately 30% of 

households are responsible for 70% of the harvests for the community. ............................ 120

Figure 80. Pareto chart showing that 30% of False Pass households are responsible for 82% of 

the total salmon harvests for the community. ...................................................................... 120

Figure 81. Total pounds of wild foods harvested versus total pounds received by household, 

False Pass. ............................................................................................................................ 121

Figure 82. Percentage of fishing and non-fishing earnings, False Pass 2009. This does not 

include returns to the village from CDQs. ........................................................................... 122

Figure 83. False Pass income sources, 2009. .............................................................................. 123

Figure 84. Relative percentages of Household Expenses, False Pass. ........................................ 125

Figure 85. Regional map for Akutan village. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner ....... 129

Figure 86. Trident Seafoods and Akutan village on Akutan Island, 2009. ................................. 130

Figure 87. Akutan census with Trident obscuring the village in 2010. ...................................... 132

Figure 88. Akutan harvests reported by total pounds usable weight between the 1990 Subsistence 

Division survey (25 of 31 households) and this project (30 of 40 households). ................. 140

Figure 89. Percent of Akutan harvests reported by total pounds usable weight between the 1990 

Subsistence Division survey (25 of 31 households) and this project (30 of 40 households).

 ............................................................................................................................................. 140

Figure 90. Estimated total community harvest for Akutan in pounds usable weight between the 

1990 and 2008 Subsistence Division surveys and 2009 data from this project. .................. 141

Figure 91. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1990 (31 HHs), 2008 (40 HHs) and 2009 (40 HHs), Akutan. .............................. 141

Figure 92. Percent change in estimated pounds usable weight harvested by species category 

between 1990 (31 HHs), 2008 (40 HHs) and 2009 (40 HHs), Akutan. .............................. 142

Figure 93. Average Lbs. Harvested per HH in 1990 and 2009, Akutan. .................................... 142

Figure 94. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1990 and 2009, Akutan. 143

Figure 95. Akutan Dry Rack, Photo by April Pelkey, Summer 2011 ......................................... 143

Figure 96. Top ten species harvested in Akutan, 1990. .............................................................. 145

Figure 97. Top ten species harvested in Akutan, 2008. .............................................................. 145

Figure 98. Top ten species harvested in Akutan, 2009. .............................................................. 146

Figure 99. Change in pounds per capita harvested in 2009 for the top ten species harvested in 

1990, Akutan. ....................................................................................................................... 146

Figure 100. Percent change in pounds per capita harvested in 2009 for the top ten species 

harvested in 1990, Akutan. .................................................................................................. 147

Figure 101. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last 

year?”, in percentages of Akutan households (N=30), 2009. .............................................. 147

Figure 102. Akutan’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 2009 

that in the past. ..................................................................................................................... 148

Figure 103. Akutan Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, 2009 .................................. 148

Figure 104. Pareto chart showing household harvests in Akutan closely fit the 30/70 rule where 

30% of households are responsible for 70% of the total community's harvests. ................. 149

Figure 105. Pareto chart showing that 30% of Akutan households are responsible for 70% of the 

total community harvests. .................................................................................................... 149

Figure 106. Total pounds of wild foods harvested for Akutan households versus the total pounds 

of wild foods received from others. ..................................................................................... 150
xii 

Figure 107. The flow of a portion of wild food in and out of the home of a primary 

hunter/gatherer/fisherman in Akutan, 2008. ........................................................................ 151

Figure 108. Network data for the same individual in Figure 107. .............................................. 152

Figure 109. A portion of the flow of foods in and out of a woman’s home in Akutan, 2008. ... 153

Figure 110. Pareto chart showing that 6% of all households in Port Heiden (n=4), False Pass 

(n=2), and Akutan (n=9) are responsible for 70% of the total sea mammal harvests in the 

study communities. Nelson Lagoon did not harvest sea mammals in 2009. ....................... 154

Figure 111. Percent of fishing and non-fishing earnings in Akutan, 2009. This does not include 

returns to the community from CDQs. ................................................................................ 155

Figure 112. Akutan income sources, 2009. ................................................................................. 156

Figure 113. Relative Percentages of Household Expenses, Akutan. .......................................... 157

Figure 114. Sizes of Surveyed Households by Community, 2009. ............................................ 161

Figure 115. Age ranges of Surveyed Households by Community, 2009. ................................... 162

Figure 116. Years in the Community, Reported from Surveyed Households for 2009. ............. 162

Figure 117. Sex Distribution within Surveyed Households by Community, 2009. ................... 163

Figure 118. Native and non-Native distributions by community. .............................................. 163

Figure 119. Level of education of surveyed population by community. .................................... 164

Figure 120. Number of subsistence harvesters by community. .................................................. 164

Figure 121. Average number of subsistence harvesters per household by community, 2009. ... 165

Figure 122. Reported and estimated total community harvests for the four study villages. ....... 166

Figure 123. Cumulative pounds (in usable weight) estimated total harvested by community in 

2009. .................................................................................................................................... 166

Figure 124. Cumulative pounds harvested per household by community, 2009. ....................... 167

Figure 125. Total harvest of wild foods, pounds per capita, 2009. ............................................. 167

Figure 126. Salmon harvests by gear type and commercial fishing context, 2009. ................... 168

Figure 127. Non-Salmon harvests by gear type and commercial fishing context. ..................... 169

Figure 128. Pounds wild foods purchased by community and species category, 2009 .............. 170

Figure 129. Dried subsistence salmon (ukela) hanging on a commercial fishing vessel, False 

Pass. ..................................................................................................................................... 170

Figure 130. Number of fishing vessels and skiffs by village, sorted by length in feet, 2009. .... 171

Figure 131. Number of permit types owned per village, 2009. See Table x for explanation of 

codes. ................................................................................................................................... 172

Figure 132. Number of Permit Holders and Crew Members from the Villages, All fisheries, 

2009. .................................................................................................................................... 173

Figure 133. Reported incomes earned by captains and crewmen in commercial fishing relative to 

non-fishing incomes. ............................................................................................................ 173

Figure 134. Number of Households in Income Brackets, Total Incomes 2009. ......................... 176

Figure 135. Percentages of income sources for the four study villages, 2009. ........................... 177

Figure 136. Average annual household expenses by category and village, 2009. ...................... 178

Figure 137. Cumulative household expenses for each study village, 2009. ............................... 179

Figure 138. Comparisons of equipment used in subsistence harvesting per study village, 2009.

 ............................................................................................................................................. 179

Figure 139. Reported changes in species by community. ........................................................... 181

Figure 140. Reported changes in individual species. .................................................................. 182

Figure 141. Caribou near Port Heiden. Photo by Kate Reedy-Maschner, March 2010. ............ 184
xiii 

Figure 142. 50 Reasons Not to Shoot a Cow Caribou. Signage posted in the Nelson Lagoon post 

office. Photo by Kate Reedy-Maschner, March 2010. ........................................................ 184

Figure 143. Observed changes in species across the study communities. .................................. 187

Figure 144. Local support for North Aleutian Basin development. ........................................... 192

Figure 145. Concerns related to subsistence harvesting. ............................................................ 193

Figure 146. Concerns and prospects for potential development. ................................................ 194

Figure 147. Schematic map of potential development facilities. ................................................ 199

Figure 148. Wind turbine being erected in Akutan, February 2010. Photo by Crystal Callahan.

 ............................................................................................................................................. 203
xiv 

ACRONYMS 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

AEB Aleutians East Borough 

AHA Aleutian Housing Authority 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

APIA Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 

APICDA Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association 

BBNA Bristol Bay Native Association 

BBNC Bristol Bay Native Corporation 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

BP Bering Pacific Seafoods, Inc. 

BSIERP Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program 

CAMF Concerned Area M Fishermen 

CDQ Community Development Quota 

CFEC Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, State of Alaska 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

GMU Game Management Unit 

IFQ Individual Fishing Quota 

IGAP Indian General Assistance Program 

IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission 

IRA Indian Reorganization Act 

LNG Liquid Natural Gas 

L&PB Lake and Peninsula Borough 

MMS Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

NAB North Aleutian Basin 

NAHASDA Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

PAF Pacific American Fisheries 

PPSF Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

RSW Refrigerated Sea Water 

SSL Steller Sea Lion 

TAC The Aleut Corporation 

TDHE Tribally Designated Housing Entity 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VPSO Village Public Safety Officer 

WAC White Alice Communications 
xv 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
1 

PART I 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Alaska OCS 

Region, is responsible for the oil and gas leasing program on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS 

of Alaska). The Environmental Studies Program (ESP) establishes the information required for 

assessment and management of oil and gas exploration and development. The ESP sponsored 

socioeconomic and sociocultural research in advance of a proposed development scenario in the 

North Aleutian Basin planning area in the southern Bering Sea to identify and assess the human 

environment and how this might respond to OCS of Alaska oil and gas activities. Idaho State 

University was contracted by BOEM to initiate a subsistence study of the North Aleutian Basin 

region and the study communities of Akutan, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, and Port Heiden to 

provide needed baseline data about subsistence harvesting and sharing activities. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document serves as the final report for the North Aleutian Basin Subsistence Study on the 

people and subsistence activities in the villages around the proposed North Aleutian Basin 

offshore oil and gas lease sale. The study region encompasses four villages, two Alaska Native 

sociocultural groups, hundreds of miles of coastline, and numerous species of wild birds, fish, 

and large and small game. This study investigates the role of subsistence and commercial 

harvests across the community and at household levels, and explores characteristics of harvesters 

and their harvesting behavior, where they harvest, when, what species, how much, and access to 

commercial opportunities. All of these data are used to describe household networks of food 

distribution, sharing and exchange, and the range of variation in subsistence production and 

distribution. These data are used to describe and characterize how, where, and why the people of 

Akutan, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, and Port Heiden use the landscape the way they do. These 

data are then used to identify aspects of the communities that could be vulnerable to oil and gas 

exploration and development. This report also contains a description of the historical, cultural, 

political, and economic aspects of each community, which provides a foundation for the survey 

and its analyses. 

Scope of the Project 

This is a community baseline study that describes four communities as they currently exist and 

the potential changes that may accompany offshore oil and gas exploration and development in 

the North Aleutian Basin. The study used qualitative and quantitative methodologies to 

investigate each community’s subsistence and commercial harvest activities, economic structure, 

demographic characteristics, infrastructure, and sociocultural systems, and examine each 

community in the context of the greater southern Bering Sea region. Historical trajectories for 

each community are also explained, and may indicate future responses to exploration and 

development. 
2 

Timeline 

The North Aleutian Basin (NAB) Program Area identified in the 5-Year Proposed Offshore Oil 

and Gas leasing Program (2007-2012) of the USDOI includes more than 50,000 square miles of 

ocean and outer continental shelf. The North Aleutian Basin Lease Sale area 214 was selected 

from the planning area as having the greatest prospects for oil and gas exploration and 

development with lease sale planning for 2011. On March 31, 2010, the Obama Administration 

announced support for some oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Arctic waters but cancelled leasing 

plans for federal waters in the North Aleutian Basin. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the 

Bristol Bay region is “simply too special to drill” citing wildlife and salmon abundance and 

value (Bluemink, Anchoarge Daily News, 3/31/2010). 

Shell Offshore Inc. (SOI, whose parent company is Royal Dutch Shell) had been preparing its 

role in leasing for several years, including visiting villages, meeting with community leaders, 

supporting a trip for community leaders to travel to Sakhalin to observe operations there, and 

working on mitigations with the Aleutians East Borough. Many leaders were disappointed in the 

decision and concerned that Secretary Salazar did not visit peninsula communities situated closer 

to the proposed exploration and development. 

The majority of data collection for this study had been completed at the time of the Obama 

Administration’s decision and the study was allowed to carry forward to completion, including 

authorization of the survey instrument by the Office of Management and Budget (Figure 1). The 

moratorium on North Aleutian Basin exploration and development extends to 2017, and this 

study might serve to provide baseline information for future analysis. 
3 

Figure 1. Project Timeline. 

RESEARCH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

The project team investigated the social dynamics of subsistence and commercial harvests at the 

community and household levels using detailed ethnographic methods and a valid survey 

instrument (OMB Control Number 1010-0181, see Appendix 3). Recent studies on this region 

are few, but those that have been conducted emphasize the linkages between commercial and 

subsistence harvesting, the importance of sharing, the role of immigrant fishermen in the region, 

economic integrations, marine dependency, and identity (e.g. Black et al. 1999; Braund et al. 

1986; Reedy-Maschner 2004, 2007, 2010), which contribute to hunter-gatherer-fishermen studies 

more generally that often privilege subsistence over other aspects of society. The present study 

explores characteristics of the harvesters themselves and their harvesting behavior, locations, 

seasonality, species and quantity, and access to commercial opportunities. These data provide the 

foundations for exploring household networks of food distribution, food exchange, exchange 

frequency, and the range of variation in subsistence production and distribution that link to 

community and inter-community sharing patterns. Each community exhibits complex and varied 

social maps of food harvest and distribution. These data allow us to then identify the key nodes 

that could be vulnerable to oil and gas exploration and development. 

Generally, this project sought baseline and detailed analyses of the following topics. 

 What resources are harvested, where they are harvested, and in which seasons. 
4 

 Who harvests those resources, the structure of harvest teams, and how harvests are 

shared. 

 How resources are ultimately distributed, who participates in the distribution, and the 

variation in immediate versus delayed redistribution. 

 The affinal and consanguinial relationships among all participants and the role of 

kinship in regulating sharing and distribution networks. 

 The role of key peoples and places (network nodes) in the maintenance of the 

subsistence infrastructure. 

 The role of commercial harvests in subsistence returns. 

 Historical changes (living memory) in the structure and functioning of the 

subsistence--commercial continuum and in the realm of subsistence in general. 

 An analysis of potential disruptions and other factors that may negatively affect 

subsistence/commercial harvesting and sharing networks. 

 An assessment of food insecurity in the communities and vulnerability in the face of 

potential oil and gas exploration and development. 

In this context, three major areas of investigations were conducted. First, ethnographic data were 

collected that includes genealogical information, qualitative assessments of subsistence and 

sharing, traditional ecological knowledge, land use patterns, and local-global interactions. 

Second, a survey seeking quantitative data on subsistence, harvests, sharing, customary trade, 

local-global imports/exports and redistribution, GIS-based land and sea use patterns, perceived 

impacts on OCS exploration and development on the subsistence economy, and the underlying 

socio-political and economic networks was conducted. Using ethnographic and survey data, a 

comprehensive analysis of the subsistence baseline was conducted, a non-linear analysis of 

sharing/transaction networks was achieved, and simulations of potential disturbances to facets of 

the networks were completed and analyzed. 

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Tasks 

The project has multiple research components addressing the modern production of subsistence 

foods and mechanisms of individual, family, community, and ecological relations involving the 

distribution of these foods and other goods and their abilities to maintain certain social and 

ecological values in the face of change. Formal hypotheses are in the format of a statistical null 

hypothesis test, however many of these hypotheses proved more qualitative than quantitative, so 

that the null model should be seen more simply as an alternative hypothesis, rather than a null 

hypothesis in the strict definition of the term. 

Relevant to these hypotheses is a working definition of an “effect.” One of the goals of this study 

is to identify thresholds of effect that can only emerge through the study process and analyses. A 

“disruption” is also an important concept to define for our working hypotheses. A disruption is 

defined as an external act, event or series of events that leads to change in activity or behavior, or 

interrupts the current state or continuity. This can be temporary or permanent. 

 H11 Current social networks are organized around central nodes made up of either the 

most successful commercial fishermen or a senior matriarch directly related to one or 

more of the most successful commercial fishermen. Should any one of these nodes 
5 

change roles in the network, there will be a disruption in the subsistence and sharing 

economies. 

 H10 Current social networks have sufficient depth that should any primary node leave the 

subsistence and sharing network, other nodes will fill any voids created by that 

disruption. 

Social networks are critical to understanding the sustainability and resilience of northern 

communities. Genealogical, interview, and survey data were used to map social networks in 

kinship, redistribution systems, the subsistence and commercial economy, and in local and 

regional geographic space, in order to build the baseline data for all of these hypotheses and 

research questions. Key to investigating H1 is the identification of the dominant nodes in the 

economic and social systems, and the roles they play in local and regional social and economic 

integration. Previous studies indicate that while there are key nodes in all of the networks that are 

instrumental in determining access to subsistence and commercial goods for numerous 

households, there is less depth in the networks than might be expected. Thus, it is expected that 

an interruption in the ability of a major node to participate in the network may have negative 

impacts on the network as a whole. For example, the hypothetical pipeline to an LNG terminal at 

Balboa Bay may prompt restricted use of the land and waters in those areas, removing a key 

node from a network. Alternatively, exploration and development project may add a node that 

enhances the network. 

 H21 A disruption in the commercial fishing industry, either through natural disaster, 

industrial accident, or through economic development where commercial fishing 

becomes a secondary enterprise, will have influence on networks and cause their 

disarticulation and reorganization. 

 H20 A disruption in the commercial fishing industry will be mitigated through success in 

other commercial areas since new economic opportunities are often best articulated by 

the most successful fishermen, an economic expansion in the region will lead to the 

strengthening and expansion of traditional networks. 

Previous research has demonstrated that commercial fishing is the key variable that determines 

the degree of subsistence activities for individuals and families. Previous research has also 

shown that the greater the access to commercial fishing, the greater the access to all levels of 

subsistence activities. Thus, we might expect that the most successful commercial fishermen 

would generate the greatest access to non-commercial economic activities. But conversely, with 

increased access to high paying jobs associated with oil and gas exploration and development, 

this influx of new capital may mitigate or replace the advantages of commercial and subsistence 

fishing. 

 H31 Since the subsistence economy is based upon local land use and interactions between 

traditional subsistence and modern commercially harvested enterprises, a disruption in 

access along the subsistence-commercial continuum caused by a ship grounding, 

landscape restrictions due to pipeline and facility construction, oil spills, or similar 
6 

factors could lead to a change in traditional economies, a breakdown of sharing networks, 

and community abandonment. 

 H30 A disruption in access along the subsistence-commercial continuum caused by a ship 

grounding, landscape restrictions due to pipeline and facility construction, oil spills, or 

similar factors will have small local effects but will not alter the basic structure of sharing 

networks. 

To address H3, a combination of ethnographic interviews, focus groups, and a structured survey 

to identify the key factors associated with the underlying structure of the community were used. 

All local and regional networks of exchange and interaction were mapped, including a complete 

understanding of kinship and family structure. Using the role of both subsistence and commercial 

harvests, we also identified the key nodes, species, seasons, and levels of interaction in the total 

community network. If H31 is supportable, it is expected that each community will have a 

number of elements that are at immediate risk given any perturbation to the overall subsistence, 

commercial, and sharing network continuum. We also expect that there would be a few stronger 

nodes in the network, and a suite of weaker links, where a change within a key link in the 

network would have effects throughout any one community. On the other hand, and in support of 

the alternative H3, it is expected that that the system of subsistence and commercial harvests, and 

their subsequent networks of exchange and interaction, to have depth such that the loss of any 

particular node or other factor in the overall network is quickly replaced by other nodes or 

factors in the network resulting in little measurable change. 

 H41 An influx of wealth with strong paying jobs could increase subsistence harvests 

because these practices are intimately tied to wealth and access to technology. 

 H40 An influx of wealth with strong paying jobs could decrease subsistence harvests 

because as these practices become superfluous to other wealth options. 

To address H4, the factors limit participation in the subsistence economy, and thus participation 

in redistribution and sharing networks, were identified. This was done through both ethnographic 

interviews and structured survey. This hypothesis is critical in order to investigate whether 

increased wealth leads to greater subsistence access, or increased wealth (or job security) 

decreases the time, or desire, to participate in subsistence activities. Critical also to this 

hypothesis is the shift from commercial fishing to other forms of labor, and the effects of this 

shift on participating in subsistence and sharing networks. 

 H51 Changing work roles of subsistence harvesters (e.g. from commercial fisherman to 

platform worker) will exclude key harvesters at significant times during the year leading 

to lower subsistence harvests, less subsistence food sharing, and less community 

cohesion. 

 H50 Changing work roles of subsistence harvesters (e.g. from commercial fisherman to 

platform worker) will increase participation in subsistence activities by other members of 

the community leading to increased subsistence harvests, increased subsistence food 

sharing, and increased community cohesion. 
7 

Drawing on data from H1 – H4, H5 seeks to identify the depth and flexibility of the subsistence 

system and its resilience to individual-based changes in participation. Crucial is the investigation 

as to whether there could be a systemic transformation in the subsistence network should one of 

the key subsistence participants decide to take an industry job. Using interviews and the survey, 

data on whether or not subsistence participation will be increased by lesser participants when a 

senior subsistence harvester stops participating because of wage employment were investigated. 

Once again, network depth and network structure are key to understanding network resilience. 

 H61 The increased wealth produced by increased exploration and development and 

economic expansion in the region will change sharing networks from subsistence / 

commercially harvested foods to goods and products imported from Anchorage and 

elsewhere. 

 H60 The increased wealth produced by increased exploration and development and 

economic expansion in the region enhance sharing networks by the addition of goods and 

products imported from Anchorage and elsewhere to the subsistence / commercially 

harvested foods already harvested. 

While subsistence goods certainly play a critical role in local and regional sharing networks, less 

understood is the role of manufactured goods imported from Anchorage, Seattle, and elsewhere 

in sharing networks. Through interviews and the survey instrument, we identified significant 

sources of external goods and services, how they are imported and used, if they are redistributed 

and to whom, and determined the importance of imported commodities to the subsistence and 

commercial harvesting of local resources. Critical to understanding H6 is whether or not the 

importation of non-local goods enhances redistribution networks during periods of increased 

access and economic boon, or if non-local goods replace local goods in redistribution networks 

during times of network instability and economic reorganization. 

 H71 An influx of resident industry employees with subsistence access would strain local 

resources and local access, leading to a breakdown in local subsistence activities, sharing 

networks, and traditional culture. 

 H70 An influx of industry employees will not affect subsistence access because of the 

transitory nature of their residence. 

Returning to the communities and building on the analyses of the associated networks, the 

effects of a substantial increase in resident population in the region that would participate in 

subsistence activities, given that the rural subsistence priority is non-discriminatory, were 

modeled. Using the primary exploration and development scenario, the scale of this change was 

investigated to evaluate its potential impact. But, because this is a hypothetical scenario, the 

primarily interest is in the perceived effects as evidenced by local peoples in the region. 
8 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
9 

CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND 

REGIONAL BACKGROUND 

The Aleut and Alutiiq1

 of the western Alaska Peninsula and Eastern Aleutian Islands (Figure 2) 

are coastal societies who engage simultaneously in for-profit commercial fisheries and 

subsistence harvesting of wild fish and game. The majority of local families rely on the sea for a 

living as commercial seiners, gillnetters, longliners, trawlers and/or pot fishermen (ReedyMaschner 2007, 2010). An archaeological record reveals their 10,000-year relationship to a 

marine ecosystem (e.g. Dumond 1987; Langdon 1982; Laughlin 1963, 1980; Laughlin and 

Aigner 1975; Maschner 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2004a, 2004b; Maschner and Hoffman 2003; 

Maschner and Jordan 2001, 2008; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998; McCartney 1984) to 

which the living Alaska Native peoples link their maritime sociocultural identity. Traditionally, 

the Aleut and Alutiiq harvested a wide variety of sea mammal, fisheries, intertidal and terrestrial 

resources (e.g. Black et al. 1999; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 2006; Laughlin 1980; Lantis 

1984; Partnow 2001; Veltre and Veltre 1987; Veniaminov 1984). The ancient Aleut and Alutiiq 

thrived on the landscape and waters, built ranked societies with nobility and common classes, 

and were frequently at war (Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998). 

The first documented foreign contact in the region was in 1741 in the Shumagin Islands by the 

two ships of Vitus Bering’s Second Kamchatka Expedition (Black et al. 1999). The next century 

saw an intense occupation of Russian fur hunters who reorganized the Aleut and Alutiiq peoples 

to be fur producers for the Tsar. This occupation had devastating consequences for the health and 

well-being of the Alaska Native people, with epidemics and violence reducing the populations 

(Fortune 1992), but within a few generations, the Aleut and Alutiiq had become citizens of 

Russian America. Russian Orthodoxy became the primary church for the Alaska Native people 

and remains so today (Mousalimas 1995; Smith and Petrivelli 1994). 

After fur bearing sea mammals dwindled in numbers, and thus Russian interests in Alaska, 

Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1867 (Haycox 2006). The new territory came 

under military jurisdiction. The Alaska Commercial Company assumed control of many of the 

former Russian trading posts, and expanded into trapping and fishing operations (Jacka 1999). 

Missionaries spread out across the territory, and managed the education of many rural peoples 

(Haycox 2006). Protestant missionaries were in the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands 

regions, but Russian Orthodoxy remained the primary religion for most (Smith and Petrivelli 

1994). Commercial fisheries for cod, salmon and crab developed throughout the region (Jacka 

1999). 

In 1942, the Japanese occupied the Near Islands, which are the Aleutian Islands farthest west, 

and took Aleut residents and one Caucasian as prisoners of war (Kohlhoff 1995). The U.S. 

government evacuated the other Aleut villages east of Unimak Island to abandoned canneries in 

Southeast Alaska or into shabby and abandoned CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) camps, for 

example, at Ward Lake near Ketchikan, Alaska, with the goal of protecting the people during the 

 

1

 The Aleut and Alutiiq are ethnically, linguistically, and socioculturally distinct indigenous Alaska Native groups 

bordering one another at the Alaska Peninsula. 
10 

war. They were, however, left to fend for themselves for three years, and many died from disease 

and malnourishment. When they were allowed to return to the Aleutians at the end of the war, 

they found their villages in disarray from U.S. military occupation. They fought and won 

reparations for this disaster from the government in the 1980s (Kohlhoff 1999). The Alutiiq and 

eastern Aleut villages did not experience an evacuation, but the presence of the military was felt 

in several communities. Akutan was evacuated during the war, and it is still a painful scar for 

many in the community. 

The importance of Alaska in strategic defense fueled a push for statehood after World War II, 

which eventually came in 1959. The discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope in 1968, 

and the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, changed the political landscape. Ongoing 

fights for land claims between the state, federal entities, homesteaders and Alaska Natives came 

to a head, forcing the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 

(Berger 1985; Mitchell 2003). Alaska Native peoples extinguished further aboriginal claims to 

their land in exchange for land and cash settlements that were divided between thirteen regional 

corporations, and urban and village corporations. These corporations manage their lands and 

funds, with Alaska Native members enrolled as shareholders. Non-profit regional corporations 

were also created to manage health care, social services and cultural resources for their regions. 

The federal government recognizes tribes by village in Alaska, and IRA (Indian Reorganization 

Act) Traditional Councils govern more than 200 villages. Further, many communities have 

incorporated as cities under Alaska State law. Municipal and tribal powers operated side by side 

but with different rules and jurisdictions. The municipalities are mayor and city council forms of 

government and the tribal councils have presidents and council members. Cities and 

unincorporated communities are also located within boroughs and governed by borough 

assemblies. 

Statehood and the discovery of North Slope oil forced a number of these political shifts in the 

state, and Alaska has only grown in value for its mineral development (Haycox 2002). New 

explorations in petroleum are occurring, and mining operations have expanded around the state. 

The latest mining development being debated is the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay (Figure 2). The 

Pebble Mine is a planned gold, copper and molybdenum open pit mine proposed for 

development in the watersheds of Bristol Bay. It is near the largest commercial sockeye salmon 

fishery in the world, numerous sport and subsistence fisheries and hunting grounds, and the 

home of many Yup’ik and Alutiiq Alaska Natives who engage in both subsistence and 

commercial pursuits. It is highly controversial, and the debate over the project is shaping 

attitudes towards other mineral exploration and development projects across the state. 

Regionally, there are 43 communities in the Dillingham Census Area, the Lake & Peninsula 

Borough, the Bristol Bay Borough, Aleutians East Borough and Aleutians West Census Area. Of 

these 43 communities, 22 have fewer than 100 residents and only 2 have over 1,000 residents. 

Table 1 shows regional population trends, with a negligible rise in the past decade. 

Table 1. Regional population trend between 2000 and 2010. 
11 

Population in 2000 (43 communities) 16,165 

Population in 2010 (43 communities) 16,177 

% Change +0.074% 

Figure 2. Regional map showing the project area and region of potential development. Map drawn by B. 

Benson and H. Maschner. 

The Alaska Peninsula and Aleutians have a long history of engaging with commercial enterprise: 

the Russians pursued sea otters and fur seals beginning in 1741; Americans pursued fur seals, 

salmon and crab; and Scandinavians chased cod, herring and whales. The development of 

minerals in the region has been described by local people as simply “other natural resources” but 

also as a riskier enterprise that could undermine the fisheries and hunting economies. It has been 

shown that local indigenous peoples participated in the development of fishing industries 

alongside codfish saltery and salmon cannery companies (Reedy-Maschner 2010). The salmon 

industry that began in the late 19th century is the reason for the size and location of many modern 

day Alaska Native villages. Akutan also became a center for whaling, crabbing and fishing other 

Bering Sea species. Initially, the canneries depended on company-owned salmon traps, and 
12 

employed a small fleet of fishermen, both outsiders and locals, to fish other areas where there 

were no traps. When fish traps were outlawed in 1959 following a territory-wide fisheries crisis, 

the canneries became dependent on the growing local fleets. Within a few generations, local 

peoples went from supporting the fishing industry using cannery-owned equipment to being 

pivotal in the industry as boat owners and later as permit owners under the 1973 Limited Entry 

Permit Plan, which gave every qualifying fisherman salmon permits. Many local people in the 

region see mineral exploration and development as the next phase of commercial enterprise but 

others are much more cautious about changing the landscape and the uses of the region’s 

resources. 

Port Heiden is an Alutiiq Native village located near the mouth of the Meshik River within the 

Lake and Peninsula Borough (Figure 2, Table 2). Although some elders speak a Yup’ik dialect 

called Sugpiaq, English is the common language, and most residents call themselves Aleut 

instead of Alutiiq (Crowell, Steffian and Pullar 2001; Kresge et al. 1974; Partnow 2001). During 

World War II, Fort Morrow was built nearby and housed 5,000 personnel, only to close after the 

war. The town incorporated in 1972. Today, Port Heiden has a resident population of 102 (78 

percent Alutiiq) (Census 2010). Thirteen residents hold commercial salmon fishing permits. Port 

Heiden is also a member of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), 

which is a groundfish Community Development Quota (CDQ) program. The Commercial 

Development Quota (CDQ) program was created in 1992 to promote fisheries related economies 

in western Alaska communities. This federal program has led to the creation of six regional CDQ 

groups with 65 participating communities. The CDQ program allocates a portion of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands harvests of certain species to these groups, who use the profits to 

expand fisheries infrastructure, buy shares in catcher vessels, and fund education and training. 

The vicinity in which the present day village of Nelson Lagoon is located was used traditionally 

by Aleuts for fish camps and hunting grounds (Figure 2, Table 2). It is located on a narrow sand 

spit between the lagoon and the Bering Sea on the north shore of the Alaska Peninsula. In the 

lagoon itself, on Egg Island, a salmon saltery/cannery operated between 1906 and 1923. This 

facility was then moved to Port Moller under Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. and residents and 

fishermen were scattered around the lagoon, coming together only during commercial fishing 

seasons. The modern town site grew up around a school beginning in 1960 with families from 

nearby Port Moller, Bear River and Ilnik regions moving there. Today, there is a population of 

52 (82 percent Alaska Native Aleut) (Census 2010). In 2011, 24 residents held 26 commercial 

salmon fishing permits, the majority of which are set gillnet. Residents are also avid trappers and 

bird and caribou hunters maintaining cabins around the lagoon and along the Bering Sea coast. 

Nelson Lagoon is a member of the groundfish CDQ program of the Aleutian Pribilof Island 

Community Development Association (APICDA). Nelson Lagoon imports food and supplies by 

barge at Port Moller twice yearly. Food is also air freighted from King Cove or Cold Bay. All of 

these shipping options are expensive. 

False Pass is located on the eastern end of Unimak Island (Figure 2, Table 2), having been 

established around a cannery in 1917 with people from Morzhovoi, Ikatan and Sanak Island. The 

cannery burned in 1981, but the facility continued to be a supply base. In 2003, Peter Pan 

Seafoods announced closure of its facility altogether. In 2000, Bering Pacific Seafoods opened as 

a local cooperative cannery, which closed after two years. It has reopened for the 2008 salmon 
13 

season. False Pass also participates in APICDA. False Pass has a population of 35 (66 percent 

Aleut) (Census 2010) with six fishermen holding nine commercial salmon fishing permits fishing 

in 2011, with additional permit holdings in halibut, herring, sablefish, and other groundfish 

fisheries. 

Akutan is located on Akutan Island in the eastern Aleutians (Figure 2, Table 2). It was founded 

in 1878 after it was chosen as the site for a trading post for the Western Fur & Trading Company, 

a Russian Orthodox Church, and a school, attracting Aleuts from the region. The company 

expanded into commercial cod fishing and processing. In 1912, the Pacific Whaling Company 

built a whale processing station across the bay from Akutan, which operated until 1939. After the 

Japanese attacked Unalaska in June 1942, the U.S. government evacuated Akutan residents to 

Southeast Alaska. The village was re-established in 1944 with a much smaller population. The 

City was incorporated in 1979, and has supported a Trident processing plant since the 1980s. 

Akutan is also a member of APICDA. The Census Bureau reported 1,037 residents in 2010, of 

which the vast majority is seasonal cannery employees. Only seven residents hold commercial 

fishing permits. 

Table 2. Historical population figures for study communities and former nearby villages (Census 2000, 2010; 

Fall et al. 1993; Fall et al. 1996; Fall and Morris 1987). The figures for Akutan include the more transient 

employees of the Trident Plant. The Akutan Traditional Council estimates there are about 83 permanent 

local village residents today. 

Port 

Heiden 

Herendeen 

Bay 

Port 

Moller 

Nelson 

Lagoon

Morzhovoi False 

Pass 

Ikatan Akutan

1880 40 100

1890 74 68 80

1900 81 60

1910 

1920 30 51 60 66

1930 51 22 59 71

1940 13 45 17 88 80

1950 74 33 0 42 29 86

1960 66 0 41 107

1970 92 43 0 62 101

1980 103 0 70 

1990 119 83 0 69 589

2000 119 83 0 73 713

2010 102 52 35 1037

Millennia of commodification practices and commercial exchange of resources has been well 

documented for the region, and the economy of the local peoples is a modern extension of these 

ancient processes. The modern Aleut and Alutiiq of the region are continuing practices and 

activities that have been traditional among them for generations. The commercial salmon harvest 

is the time of year when most fishermen earn their income for the entire year, the time when 

most subsistence foods are harvested in conjunction with commercial fishing, the time when 

most foods are shared amongst family and friends, and the time in which a body of social and 
14 

economic relations are enacted. Commercial fishing centers on the summer salmon season. Other 

fisheries, such as crab in the fall and winter; cod and pollock in the winter; halibut in fall, winter 

and spring; and herring in the spring, are fished in the area and some local people participate as 

crew. Alaska Native fishermen dominate the local salmon fleets, fishing in regional waters 

designated as “Area M” and “Area T” by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (Figure 2) (Commercial 

Fisheries Entry Commission 2007). 

Subsistence is an institution for many households, and is enacted through vast sharing networks 

of families and friends. These networks extend between villages and out to Alaska’s cities where 

family members may be living or attending college. Each community is facing unique challenges 

and economic and sociopolitical circumstances that influence subsistence. People preferred to 

discuss politics and economics that directly influence their communities and subsistence. 

Discussions of subsistence harvesting, sharing, processing, and eating offered almost a relief 

from the other issues and stresses that weigh on families and individuals. Commercial fishing has 

been the economic and social mainstay for generations, yet it is becoming increasingly difficult 

for communities to continue to participate given changing time and area fishing restrictions, low 

prices paid for fish, high fuel and other operating costs, the volatility of salmon, cod, crab, 

herring, and pollock abundance, and market volatility. Alternative jobs are few, and many are 

seasonal, such as guiding hunts or short-term construction jobs, and thus do not offer consistent 

security. Three communities struggle to keep their schools open, and two (False Pass and Nelson 

Lagoon) struggle to keep residents in the community altogether. Outmigration is a constant 

concern in rural Alaska, and these villages are no exception. Women and children are often the 

first to leave, which prompts the closure of schools, and eventually the demise of small villages 

(Martin 2009). These, and other factors to be described, affect the nature of subsistence. 

Table 3 shows the primary administrative entities for the study villages. Three of the four 

villages (Akutan, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon) are linked politically in the Aleutians East 

Borough (AEB) and The Aleut Corporation (TAC), economically within designated regional 

commercial fisheries, and share Aleut (Unangan) ethnicity and history. These communities also 

experience a high degree of interrelatedness and kinship ties among and between them. They 

participate in Area M commercial fisheries. They are also linked through the regional non-profit 

corporation of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) which is responsible for many 

health, cultural, and economic services to the communities, and the Aleutian Housing Authority, 

which is the Tribally Designated Housing Entity for the region. 

The fourth community of Port Heiden is primarily Alutiiq or Yup’ik Eskimo (with significant 

cultural and familial ties to the other three villages), part of the Lake and Peninsula Borough 

(L&PB), the Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), and the Bristol Bay Native Association 

(BBNA), and participates in Area T commercial fisheries. Their Tribally Designated Housing 

Entity is the Bristol Bay Housing Authority. 

All study villages are members of CDQs. Port Heiden is part of the Bristol Bay Economic 

Development Corporation (BBEDC) and the other three villages are part of the Aleutian Pribilof 

Islands Community Development Association (APICDA). For each community, funds generated 

from Bering Sea fisheries as part of the CDQ program provide significant fisheries development 

and infrastructure. Every community is structured by the ability to harvest wild resources from 
15 

its environment, and this program guarantees a portion of revenue from groundfish fisheries is 

returned to the coastal villages of the region. 

Table 3. Associated administrative entities for the study communities. 

STUDY BACKGROUND 

Social Network Analysis 

The project was tasked with focusing ethnographic fieldwork on informant perspectives on 

subsistence food harvesting and sharing behaviors so that the survey results can be better 

interpreted and explained. The social dynamics of sharing (and food sharing in particular), 

distribution, and exchange are critical areas of anthropological investigation expressed variously 

as gifting, commodity exchange, reciprocity, and social networks. Structures of social relations 

and cultural rules in a given society can be elucidated through analyses of gift exchange and 

other transactional types. Social bonds, cooperation, and antagonisms are often revealed. 

Early social network analysis in anthropology can reasonably be attributed to Marcel Mauss and 

explained in his essay The Gift (1923). Mauss explored gift giving and the social obligations it 

creates using comparative analysis of ethnographic examples. This analysis was done through 

highlighting aspects of the Trobriand Islanders’ kula ring, the Maori’s hua in New Zealand, the 

potlatch of the Northwest Coast Native American tribes, among many other cases. He identified 

moral obligations created once a gift has been made, the power or value of the object(s), gifts 

made to other beings or spirits, and the responsibilities of those on the receiving ends. Analyses 
16 

of exchange patterns formed the basis of economic anthropology for much of the 20th century 

(e.g. Bohannan 1955; Firth 1959; Fortes 1949; Sahlins 1972; Weiner 1992). Bohannan’s (1955) 

famous study on the Tiv, for example, identified three “spheres of exchange”: foodstuffs or 

subsistence goods, prestige goods (which can include high prestige possessions and foods, like 

cattle), and women through marriage. Goods and women are able to be exchanged within the 

spheres but not between them. Each sphere has its own status and moral structure: these were 

ranked with the first sphere less valued than the second, which was less valued than the third. Tiv 

spent a great deal of effort trying to convert lower valued items from one sphere to a higher 

sphere. This is a strong example of cultural economics and the rules that govern them. A more 

contemporary example is offered by Yan (1996) who tracks reciprocity and social networks in a 

northern Chinese village by examining the value and meaning of gifts. 

The role of kinship has been an important consideration in these studies. Mauss distinguished 

personalized gift giving from impersonalized commodity exchange. Sahlins critiques these 

distinctions as two end points on a continuum (1972:191-197) and argues that people tend to 

exchange gifts among kin and commodities among non-kin. Social network analysis software 

programs do not presently allow researchers to track activities between affines (in-laws). 

Nevertheless, exchange between affines has been an important focus in anthropology and is an 

important component of this analysis. Fortes, for example, (1949:120) tracked gift exchange 

among the Tallensi and found that political stability is achieved partly through exchange between 

affines who might otherwise conflict. More recently affines in Belgium were found to be treated 

much the same as biological kin, and the study authors recommend that affines be considered in 

studies of biological kin (Burton-Chellew and Dunbar 2011). 

Examinations of property and value from an economic standpoint also have bearing on the 

analyses. Production of wild foods involves technology, materials, and labor; people’s 

relationships to the product are transformed, usually in the form of property and the rights 

attached. Value can be expressed monetarily, socially, emotionally, nutritionally, among many 

other attachments. Food sharing and the social contexts are expressed differently among a range 

of societies, sometimes examined along a continuum of scale and political complexity. 

Anthropological analyses of sharing has involved concepts of shares (standard amounts of food 

distributed), generalized-negative-balanced reciprocity (Sahlins 1972), gifting, generosity, 

exchange, transfer, demand sharing (compulsory sharing with those without), and tolerated theft. 

Property and control of objects/foods may involve “sweat equity,” that is, objects belong to the 

one who worked for the food. They may also involve hierarchical systems where, for example, 

elders are always given preference without playing a role is production. Value is poorly 

understood and carries subjective elements between each individual. 

Social status of the givers and receivers is a critical component as well. In Alaska Native 

communities around the state, 30 percent of households tend to account for 70 percent of the 

total harvest and share with others, described by the ADF&G Subsistence Division as the “30/70 

rule” (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe and Utermohle 2000). This pattern generally reflects people’s 

capacities, skills, and relative wealth in each community. Social capital is the accumulation of 

trust, skill, information, power, among other elements that can be gained or lost through the 

quality and frequency of sharing (Bourdieu 1986). Social immunity, defined as the ability of a 

group of people to mitigate changes and impacts, may also be rooted in networks and 
17 

interpersonal ties. Individuals exchange resources, goods, services to deal with problems and 

respond to opportunities. In order to scrape by or be successful in these communities, one has to 

interact. 

Location and access also structures sharing behaviors and social networks. In Alaska, urban-rural 

exchanges are frequent. Playing on the kula ring, Lee (2002) describes a “cooler ring” in which 

an elder Yup’ik woman from Anchorage exchanges donuts and other urban goods for wild foods 

(and thus, filling her cooler) with relatives and friends in southwest Alaska. 

Food sharing, gift exchange, mutual aid, and reciprocal obligation have been addressed in 

numerous studies across the arctic by Chance (1990), Collings, Wenzel and Condon (1998), 

Bodenhorn (2000a, 2000b), Damas (1972), Hovelsrud-Broda (2000), and Wenzel (1995, 2000). 

Frequently, sharing is described as a form of risk management as part of people’s adaptive 

capacity in extreme environments (e.g. Berkes and Jolly 2001). Writing on the Inuvialuit of 

Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories, Berkes and Jolly describe how frequent hunters support 

occasional/non-hunters or those in hunting roles support those with wage jobs that cannot afford 

time away. Products that Sachs Harbour can get, such as musk ox and snow geese, are 

exchanged with other communities for things they cannot easily harvest, such as beluga. Cash 

can appear as part of the exchange, but generally the system is based on sharing and generalized 

reciprocity. This study traces adaptive flexibilities in harvesting and the emergence of exchange 

forms as part of coping with climate change impacts, and offer insights into thinking about 

emergent responses to development. 

Social network analysis is an emerging research tool that allows for the documentation of 

relationships, exchange systems, and social linkages, with subsequent analyses (Borgatti, 

Everett, and Freeman 2002; Hanneman and Riddle 2005). This tool has only recently been used 

on data from Alaska Native communities (Magdanz et al. 2002, 2004). Magdanz has applied 

social networks using expanded Alaska Department of Fish & Game subsistence surveys with 

illuminating results. While assessing household and community harvest and consumption 

patterns of numerous species, Magdanz was then able to code the exchanges between individuals 

and households, resulting in a rich depiction of subsistence dynamics, essentially diagramming 

overlapping sharing networks and the flows of wild foods between households. This project uses 

portions of Magdanz’s model to explore relationships in harvesting, sharing, and consumption in 

the four North Aleutian Basin communities. The structure of the survey was oriented specifically 

towards social network analysis. We include genealogical work, adding a kinship dimension that 

is critical to understanding sharing networks, since kinship often structures obligations and 

interactions between people. As such, we expect that people will shar food and services more 

often with relatives than non-relatives. This project employs ego centered networks in which 

each “actor” is analyzed in terms of his or her relationship to other “actors” based upon their 

actions towards one another. Actors and relationships are defined as nodes and are diagrammed 

as networks. Nodes can be keystone species, individuals, hunting or fishing grounds, households, 

businesses, communities, et cetera. These nodes can then be manipulated to explore hypothetical 

circumstances. 

Building on the social network studies of Wasserman and Faust (1994; and Wasserman and 

Galaskiewicz 1994), the “small world” concepts of Watts and Strogatz (1998), and following a 
18 

number of recent studies on the relationship between status, wealth, and the structure of networks 

(drawing specifically on Bentley and Maschner 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2007; 

Maschner and Bentley 2003), this project uses the structure of networks in social systems to 

model the sustainability and resilience of networks in the study region. Among north Pacific 

foragers, we would expect these to be fractal, or scale free networks such as those scale-free 

growth networks of the World Wide Web (Huberman et al. 1998; Huberman and Adamic 1999; 

Albert et al. 1999), Hollywood actor networks (Barabási and Albert 1999), prehistoric villages 

on the North Pacific (Maschner and Bentley 2003) and social networks leading to wealth 

inequality (e.g. Bodley 1999, among many others). 

These systems have a number of characteristics in common. Each is composed of agents (in this 

case people) whose conditions are a product of interactions with other individuals. Another 

important factor is that even though individuals may have similar goals and aspirations, 

differences in the connectedness of agents lead some to increase their attributes at the expense of 

others in the network (Barabási and Albert 1999) – “the rich get richer,” so to speak. If the most 

connected people in a network are also the most likely people to add new network connections, 

then the those with the most wealth, or status, or some other attribute in the beginning, will 

increase those attributes faster than those less well connected (Bentley and Maschner 2003:47-

48). 

Bentley and Maschner (2003:48) found that “In human societies, we see that preferential 

acquisition of social connections occurs even at the scale of the individual fisherman, for 

example. A person’s advantageous, well-connected position in an exchange network 

makes it easier for that person to gain further network contacts and resulting benefits. It is 

this concept of increasing returns that is the basis for an explanation of the “power-elite 

hypothesis” of Bodley (1999).” 

Bodley (1999) does not use the language of complex systems in his analysis, but he 

demonstrates clearly that power law distributions of wealth exist in all scales of society. 

These patterns have been recognized for many years in the field of economics (Pareto 

1907). The concept of the scale free network leads us to new investigations and insight 

with social and cultural data, expecially in regards to sharing networks, redistribution of 

the good and services, and the development of wealth disparities is a fishing society. 

Maschner and Bentley go on to set up a series of expectations (2003:50): 

 Most individuals in a scale-free network are not well-connected, while the 

majority of links tend to lead through a few well-connect individuals (Figure 3). A 

frequency histogram of connections held by individuals in a scale-free network 

forms a power law distribution as seen in Figure 3 (Albert et al. 2000). 

 This is quite different from a random network (Erdős and Rényi 1960) where all 

of the individuals have the same chance of acquiring network links, leading to a 

normal distribution of links per individuals, as seen in Figure 4. This occurs 

because scale-free networks grow in a tree-like fashion but with the added rule 
19 

that agents that are already the most well-connected acquire more connections 

preferentially. 

 One critical attribute of a scale-free network is its vulnerability to catastrophic 

collapse or change. A scale-free a sharing network is organized around a few 

highly-connected individuals, which leads to network vulnerability because the 

removal of one or a few of the most well-connected individuals breaks up the 

network considerably (Albert et al. 2000). 

 Because most of the individuals in a agents in a scale-free network are relatively 

poorly connected and insignificant to its smooth operation, the random loss of 

individuals does not significantly damage the network. 

Complex systems are often robust to perturbations, yet subject to unexpected events and 

perturbations (Carlson and Doyle 2000). Contingency (Gould 1999) is critical in these 

networks, and historical events, such as a change in fisheries regulations or the 

development of a new scientific approach (Bak et al. 1987), can have significant effects 

on the network of subsequent events, while most events by themselves have negligible 

long-term consequences. In this context we would expect the loss of an important 

individual or resource in a network to have measurable consequences for the overall 

network, but minor events or the loss of a poorly connected individual, would have little 

long-term effect. This pattern can be seen in Figure 3, where the loss of a central node 

would cause a sharing network to either collapse, or go through a complete 

reorganization. We apply these concepts to household data from the eastern Aleutian and 

Alaska Peninsula region of Alaska and describe the results in Appendix 2. 
20 

Figure 3. Example of a scale-free network and a chart showing the power-law distribution of the connections 

of agents, with those as central network nodes (red) having a disproportionate number of connections. Green 

nodes show a single connection to a central node, black more than one step to a central node. From Maschner 

and Bentley 2003:50, Figure 3.2. Adapted originally from Jeong et al. (2000:Figure 1 and Albert et al. 

(2000:Figure 1). 

Figure 4. Example of a random network and histogram showing the normal distribution of the connections of 

agents where everyone is equally connected. Many fewer nodes (green) are connected directly to a central 

node (red), showing greater distance between any two nodes in the network. From Maschner and Bentley 

2003:51, Figure 3.3. Adapted originally from Jeong et al. (2000:Figure 1 and Albert et al. (2000:Figure 1). 
21 

Scale and Time 

Social network analysis depends on identifying the relevant social units. Foods, goods and 

people are circulating in wider networks, for example, salmon harvested by an Aleut fisherman 

could end up in his neighbor’s house, a fine restaurant in Seattle, or in Japan. Changing the scale 

of analysis can be revealing. This project uses analytical tools that can shift between scales to 

determine relevancy. 

Households are often the default economic unit in the field of anthropology (Wilk and Netting 

1984). But the household moves in and out of fashion now as the primary economic level of 

analysis in ethnographic research. Households are difficult to define. They are fluid, movable, 

unbounded and may impose analytical limitations. Arctic households have also come under 

scrutiny, from re-examining the nuclear family unit in the high arctic (Bodenhorn 2000a, 2000b) 

to circular migration patterns between urban and rural Alaska, showing that both community and 

household as static entities is problematic (Lowe 2010). The household is particularly 

problematic in food security studies where the inputs and outputs of household units are highly 

variable. Nevertheless, households are important units of analyses as residential spaces that are 

shared, with common domestic resources and responsibilities between members. These units 

often include families, those that are genealogically linked, but not always. The household level 

of investigation requires that we map the flow, quantity, and range of subsistence foods and 

products, people, and cash inputs in and out of the household. This shows household 

composition and characteristics, their relative levels of productivity, harvest specializing 

behavior, seasonal variations in harvesting, and how households vary. 

This study tracked harvesting and sharing behavior for a single year. Thus, this is a snapshot of 

short-term food sharing acts not long-term, although the obligations created between individuals 

were oftentimes years in the making. There are memory deficits for all types of harvesting and 

sharing activities, so we assume the harvest and sharing amounts reported are a minimum. 

Petroleum Politics 

Social science analyses of the intersections between indigenous peoples and petroleum 

development are increasing globally (Behrends, Reyna and Schlee 2011). Sawyer’s work (1996, 

2004) in the Ecuadorian Amazon, for example, describes a government appetite and approval of 

continual and expanding development despite toxic waste, oil spills, and local health problems. 

Where the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP) intervened and protested 

activities, ARCO searched for “friendly” communities to drill near, and represented themselves 

as dealing with local groups. The local view of the land is that it belongs to all, and consensus 

must be reached before development can occur. Proximity to oil wells does not constitute control 

or ownership of the land (see also Finer, Pimm and Ross 2008). Fentiman (1996) has examined 

oil activities’ impacts on fishing villages in the Niger Delta and found extensive environmental 

and cultural degradation, outmigration, and health problems for local people, with no measurable 

benefits of oil industry activities to the fishing community. Work on the role of indigenous 

peoples and oil and gas exploration and development in Russia has also centered on alienation of 

lands, health consequences, and the potential for partnerships (Pika and Bogoyavlensky 1995; 

Roon 2006; Stammler and Wilson 2006; Vitebsky 1990; Wilson 2003). 
22 

Work on fisheries and oil exploration and development interactions and conflicts has occurred in 

North America (e.g. Cicin-Sain and Tiddens 1989; Glazier, Petterson and Craver 2006; Woodell, 

Forsyth and Gramling 1996). Funded by MMS, Glazier, Petterson and Craver describe drift 

gillnet fleet spatial conflicts with oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska, and examine the 

potential for mitigation between these two industries. An analysis of the oil industry in North 

Alaska shows how it both supports and encumbers Inupiat whaling (Nielsen 1988). Following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, there were studies of social disruption related to subsistence 

restrictions, commercial fishing closures, and community socioeconomic stress (Dyer, Gill and 

Picou 1992; Gill 1994), including litigation induced stress (Picou, Marshall, and Gill 2004). 

This is not an analysis of the oil and gas industry. However, industry activities in other parts of 

the globe and other regions of Alaska influence perceptions in southwest Alaska. This broader 

literature contributed to our understanding of regional planning and assessment in the North 

Aleutian Basin. 

Subsistence-Commercial 

For Alaska’s residents, significant portions of wild foods are obtained through hunting, fishing 

and gathering on public lands, and residents engage in mixed subsistence harvesting and incomegenerating activities. During the process and result of land claims in Alaska, future rights to land 

and resources were officially extinguished in return for land parcels and cash settlements made to 

newly formed Alaska Native regional and village corporations. The Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) did not explicitly recognize Alaska Native subsistence rights, that is, 

the ability to hunt, fish, and gather wild resources for food, shelter, and other needs, including 

the sociocultural and cosmological matrices attached to these practices. The federal Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) established a rural priority for subsistence 

users in 1980, which was later deemed unconstitutional by the State of Alaska which extends 

subsistence rights to all citizens, and federal entities assumed subsistence management on federal 

lands and waters. There continues to be an ongoing struggle over rural versus urban interests, 

federal and state control, and occasionally Alaska Native versus non-Native concerns. As 

Thornton states (1998), “To be an effective public policy, subsistence must not be viewed simply 

as an allocation scheme or as the preservation of archaic lifestyles in a changing world. Rather it 

should be understood as a means of sustaining and promoting healthy relationships between 

communities and their land and resource bases -- a "life-enriching process" as Nelson Frank puts 

it. Though rooted in the past, subsistence is dynamic and varied, adapting by necessity to 

changing technological, demographic, and socioeconomic circumstances.” 

There is a broad tendency in anthropology generally, and Alaska specifically, to “overdraw the 

contrast between monetary and nonmonetary economies and, as a result, assume that 

monetary/nonmonetary divisions are possible only between, not within, societies” (critiqued in 

Dove 1996:49). This tendency appears in management as well. A great deal of federal fisheries 

management, for example, draws boundaries between subsistence communities (e.g. that they are 

largely indigenous, with a relationship to the commercial side only made through the CDQs) and 

commercial communities (Unalaska, Kodiak, e.g. who have large processors and harbors, and 

the success of the communities is often measured in poundage landed and fisheries value). While 

recognizing the complexities of the state, the State of Alaska still generally divides its research 
23 

and management efforts along subsistence and commercial lines. Previous research is 

summarized below, demonstrating the value and shortcomings of these approaches. The present 

study assumes that all communities exhibit complex, intertwined economies. 

Previous Subsistence Research 

The ADF&G Subsistence Division has conducted several subsistence surveys in these villages 

over the years (e.g. ADF&G 2009; Davis 2005; Fall et al. 1997, 2007; Fall and Koster 2010; 

Scarbrough and Fall 1997; Turek et al. 2008; Veltre and Veltre 1982, 1983, 1987; Wolfe, Fall 

and Reidel 2009). A number of annual management reports contain subsistence information as 

well (e.g. Hartill 2009; Hartill and Keyse 2010; Tschersich 2009). These sources provide 

harvester characteristics, numbers, methods and locations for salmon, halibut, sea mammals and 

other species in each village, but lack a comprehensive appreciation of individual, local and 

regional dynamics. Detailed ethnographic work is generations old (e.g. Berreman 1953). Other 

sources reveal a rich heritage culturally, linguistically, and politically (Bergsland 1959, 1994; 

Black 1991, 1984; Jochelson 1993; Jones 1976; Laughlin 1980; Liapunova 1990, 1996; 

Snigaroff 1979; Veniaminov 1984). More current anthropological research has not been 

conducted, save for a few exceptions (e.g. Hudson 1998; Lowe 2006). These sources do not 

explicitly address subsistence issues or the role of wild foods in society. Nevertheless through 

these disparate studies, these communities have demonstrated that subsistence fisheries and 

hunting play strong roles in their lives. 

Since 1980, the Division of Subsistence has conducted over 30 research projects in the 

communities of the study region and published approximately 55 technical papers containing 

data sets and descriptions of the areas. Harvest data also appears in the Community Subsistence 

Information System Database. Studies are baseline community harvest analyses (Fall et al. 1993; 

Fall and Morris 1987; Fall et al. 1996; Fall and Krieg 2006) and directed studies on particular 

species in these communities (Fall et al. 1998; Fall, Walker and Stanek 1990; Krieg et al. 1996; 

Wolfe et al. 1984; Wolfe and Mishler 1994; Wolfe, Fall and Riedel 2008). The baseline harvest 

studies are single year surveys of household harvesting and consumption. In the four study 

communities, every household (excluding group quarters since these are likely to be transient 

processor employees) uses wild foods. Figure 5 shows the average pounds harvested for each 

community by species category from these baseline studies. 
24 

Average Lbs. Harvested by Species Category and Community

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Salmon

Non-Salmon Fish

Marine Mammals

Land Mammals

Shellfish

Birds and Eggs

Wild Plants

Species Category

Lbs.

Akutan (1990)

False Pass (1988)

Nelson Lagoon (1987)

Port Heiden (1987)

Figure 5. Baseline harvest data for estimated total pounds per species category by the four study 

communities, ADF&G Subsistence Division. 

More frequent, and even annual, harvest monitoring programs occur for salmon, halibut, 

migratory birds, harbor seals and sea lions. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service conducts annual 

migratory bird harvest surveys in conjunction with the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management 

Council.2 For the past 15 years, voluntary annual household surveys have been distributed for the 

purposes of collecting data on the average annual harvest of 236,000 migratory birds, including 

geese, ducks, swans, cranes, seabirds and shorebirds. The bulk of this harvest occurs in western 

coastal Alaska, from Kivalina to Port Heiden. Table 4 shows average harvests and egg 

collections for the study region. 

NOAA/NMFS fund the monitoring of the Alaska subsistence halibut fishery for ADFG’s 

Subsistence Division.3

 The subsistence harvests of Pacific Halibut are monitored through a 

voluntary mail-out survey to the holders of Subsistence Halibut Registration Certificates 

(SHARCs). The most complete report to date is from the 2006 survey (Fall, Koster and Turek 

2007). Nelson Lagoon and False Pass are in regulatory area 3B, Akutan is in 4A, and Port 

Heiden is in 4E. The survey response rates from these communities were very low, but SHARC 

holders from these regulatory areas are high, with the majority in 4E. Those in 4E took 6,531 fish 

(equal to 70,743 lbs.). 3B SHARC holders took 2,762 fish (or 59,038 lbs.) and 4A took 1,503 

fish (equal to 30,892 lbs.) (Fall, Koster and Turek 2007:58). Lingcod and Rockfish are also 

included in the survey. In 2006, 3B took 221 lingcod and 1,014 rockfish. 4A took 51 lingcod and 

247 rockfish. 4E took 189 lingcod and 194 rockfish (2007:59). 

 

2

 alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/ambcc/Harvest/subharvweb.pdf 

3

 www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/subsistence/halibut.htm 
25 

Table 4. Bird and Egg Estimated Annual Harvests for the Study Region. (Source: 

alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/harvest.htm). 

Location & Year Year-Round Estimated Annual Total Bird Harvests 

 Geese Ducks Swans Cranes Seabirds 

Shorebirds 

Total Birds 

Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof 

NWR (1995-2000) 

1039 2967 10 29 41 4086 

Aleutian/Pribilof Islands 3319 5898 0 4 435 9656 

Estimated Annual Subsistence Egg Harvests 

Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof 

NWR (1995-2000) 

4 37 4 0 1657 1702 

Aleutian Islands 0 112 0 0 8611 8782 

The Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission (ANHSC) partners with the Division of Subsistence 

and other Alaska Native organizations to monitor the subsistence harvests of harbor seals and 

Steller sea lions (Wolfe, Fall and Riedel 2008). 1993 and 2006 surveys of harbor seal and sea 

lion takes by Alaska Natives (Wolfe and Mishler 1994) included False Pass, Akutan and Port 

Heiden (Table 5). These data are based on sampled households and expanded to include 

estimated harvests for the whole community, hence there are fractions of sea mammals in their 

data. The 2006 data are fairly consistent with the 2009 data for False Pass for both species, but 

with two harbor seals taken in 2009. Akutan shows slightly more harvested in 2009 (5 sea lions 

and 4 harbor seals). Port Heiden shows one sea lion taken in 2009, which is fairly consistent with 

the 2006 data, but only six harbor seals taken in 2009, a significant decrease from the data below. 

Table 5. Steller sea lion and harbor seal takes in 1993 and 2006 (Wolfe, Fall and Riedel 2008; Wolfe and 

Mishler 1994). 

1993 

# Households 

Surveyed 

# Sea lions taken 

(includes struck & lost) 

# Harbor seals taken 

(includes struck & lost) 

False Pass 20 0 19 

Akutan 26 23.4 20.1 

Port Heiden 15 0 50.6 

 

2006 

False Pass 13 0 0 

Akutan 24 2.4 2.4 

Port Heiden 25 0 23.8 

Management Regimes 

Management regimes are important to understand because the harvest of wild foods is regulated 

for most species and dictates timing, area, seasonality, and amounts harvested. This includes 

state, federal, commercial, subsistence, sport and personal use. 
26 

State & Federal Subsistence Management 

Subsistence fisheries that occur in state waters are managed by the State of Alaska. Subsistence 

uses of wild resources are defined as “noncommercial, customary and traditional uses” for a 

multitude of purposes. These purposes include direct personal and family consumption as food, 

shelter, clothing, tools and/or transportation; making and selling crafts out of nonedible 

byproducts of subsistence harvested fish and wildlife species; sharing for personal and family 

consumption; and customary trade or barter (A.S. 16.05.940[32]). The Alaska Board of Fisheries 

identifies fish stocks that support subsistence harvests and adopts regulations that provide 

reasonable opportunities for subsistence harvests and uses to occur. If it becomes necessary to 

restrict harvests, subsistence fisheries have priority over other uses (A.S. 16.05.258). 

For salmon, fisheries are managed for escapement to sustain future runs, subsistence 

opportunities, then commercial, sport and personal use opportunity to harvest. Escapement goals 

are set for numerous rivers in the study area. During the fishing season, managers track 

escapement trends against historical data and determine the best management strategy to meet 

the necessary goals. If there are no escapement information yet accumulated for a stream, inriver fish counting projects, test fisheries, and commercial and subsistence harvest estimates are 

used to calculate uncertainties in run sizes. The state annually reviews all escapement 

information and management performances. The Sustainable Salmon Policy specifies a review 

process of salmon stock statuses and stocks of concern. Stocks of concern fall into three 

categories: yield concern (stocks fail to meet expected yields); management concern (stocks fail 

to meet escapement goals); and conservation concern (stocks at risk of not rebuilding 

themselves). Stocks are a “concern” if they fail to meet management goals over 4 or 5 years. If 

this occurs, ADF&G, the Alaska Board of Fisheries, and user groups develop action plans and 

identify research needs with the goal of rebuilding the stock. 

Subsistence hunting is also managed by the state and requires a permit. Migratory birds are 

managed by the state as well as the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC) 

under federal regulations. Subsistence hunting and disposition of marine mammals is under the 

federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and is managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service depending upon the species. Only Alaska 

Natives who reside on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean may subsistence 

harvest marine mammals. 

Pacific halibut are managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). Federal 

regulations allow both rural and Alaska Native residents with customary and traditional uses of 

halibut to subsistence harvest. Akutan (4A), False Pass (3B), Nelson Lagoon (3B), and Port 

Heiden (4E) are eligible to participate in the Alaska subsistence halibut fishery. Since 2003, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued Subsistence Halibut Registration 

Certificates (SHARCs) prior to fishing. 

Issues in subsistence management identified by Fall and Shanks (2000:30-31) are still present 

today. Key issues for the area are gaps in harvest reporting and the lack of detailed harvest 

information needed to manage the fisheries. Data are often reported in aggregate form and dates 

of harvest are either missing or entered as a date range. Inconsistent information is an issue for 
27 

management. The factors that have made research difficult are also key factors in the ability for 

residents to support their households and to harvest their environments. 

Sport Management 

Sport harvesting and licensing are managed by the ADF&G Division of Sport Fish. Sport fishing 

guides are people who are licensed to provide sport fishing guide services to persons engaged in 

sport fishing (A.S. 16.40.299). These individuals provide direct assistance to sport fishermen to 

take or attempt to take fish for compensation. All saltwater and freshwater sport fishing charter 

vessels must be registered with ADF&G. Sport fishing guide operations keep records of their 

clients’ catches though Charter Logbooks. Effort, harvest and catch estimates for guided anglers 

in the study region are included here for the study year 2009 (Table 6). 

Table 6. Alaska Peninsula-Aleutian Islands sport fish harvest and effort estimates by fisheries and species, 

Survey Area R, 2009. Source: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/index.cfm?ADFG= area. 

Sport guide services operate on the Alaska Peninsula within the study area. Aleutian Adventures 

(aleutianadventures.com; nelsonlagoonadventures.com) is an APICDA outfitted and guided sport 

fishing and hunting operation that attracts sportsmen in the Nelson Lagoon area. Local men from 

Nelson Lagoon and the APICDA communities serve as guides for the operation. Hoodoo Sport 

Fishing Lodge and Adventures is located south of Nelson Lagoon on the Sapsuk River and offers 

expensive fishing packages for salmon, rainbow trout and dolly varden fishing. There is a great 

deal of tension between this operation and residents of Nelson Lagoon. From King Salmon, 
28 

several bear and moose hunting guiding services operate near Port Heiden. A few men from Port 

Heiden have worked as guides for these businesses. Moose meat is sometimes transported into 

the village after successful hunts because the hunter only takes the trophy head, and moose 

provide approximately 500 pounds of usable weight. Sport management is significant to the 

study area because it is often in conflict with local subsistence hunters and fishermen. 

State & Federal Commercial Management 

The villages for the study reside inside the state salmon fishing designations of Area M (Akutan, 

False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon) and Area T (Port Heiden). Salmon fisheries provide the major 

income source for many households. The state also manages Tanner crab fisheries on the Pacific 

side near False Pass, in which local fishermen harvest using pot gear and is usually conducted in 

January. The state manages sac roe Pacific herring fisheries on the north and south sides of the 

Alaska Peninsula in late May. 

False Pass fishermen participate in State-waters Pacific cod fisheries to the south of the 

Peninsula using pot and jig gear. This fishery opens parallel with or after the Western Gulf of 

Alaska federal cod fishery closes. The state and federal management of Pacific cod represents 

complex joint agreements between agencies.

Federal management of commercial harvests occur in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (3 to 

200 miles offshore) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and are managed under 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). FMPs usually establish State/Federal cooperative 

management agreements that can defer fisheries management to the State of Alaska with Federal 

oversight. State regulations are then subject to the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable Federal laws. 

Halibut and sablefish fishing are regulated by the International Pacific Halibut Commission and 

managed through federal Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs). Quota shares are held by individuals 

and are transferable. CDQs also hold halibut quota share allocations. 

Many commercial fisheries occur within the proposed exploration and development zone. 

Groundfish, crab and scallop fisheries occur in the North Aleutian Basin Lease Sale area. 

Groundfish fisheries include trawling for Pollock, Yellowfin sole, Rock sole and Flathead sole, 

and trawl, longline and pot fishing for Pacific cod. Statistical areas 509, 516, and 512 overlap 

with the North Aleutian Basin area. 

The federally managed Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program 

allocates a percentage of all Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands quotas for groundfish, prohibited 

species, halibut, and crab to eligible communities. These are coordinated through CDQ groups. 

For the study area, these groups are the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development 

Association (APICDA) and the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC).

CONCLUSIONS 

Previous research on regional harvesting behavior and capacities, management regimes, and 

social network analyses inform this study’s approach to the social dynamics of harvesting (or 
29 

other means of acquisition) and types of distributions. This approach captures contemporary 

social circumstances and informs hypothetical linkages between oil and gas exploration and 

development activities and vulnerabilities of subsistence activities. 
30 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
31 

CHAPTER 3. METHODS 

ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODS 

Ethnographic methods include interviews and observations to capture the points of view and 

behavior of the study participants (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). Data were collected that include 

local perspectives and insights, life histories, socioeconomic practices, genealogical information, 

qualitative assessments of subsistence and sharing, traditional ecological knowledge, land use 

patterns, and local-global interactions, that can later inform the interpretation of statistical data. 

The research relied on directed discussions that were open enough so that participants explored 

concepts and concerns not contained within the original question. 

Signed informed consent was obtained before every interview, stressing that their participation 

was voluntary but extremely valuable, and that identities will be protected throughout this project 

and beyond.4

 It was important to point this out because some of the information collected could 

be viewed as sensitive. Remuneration for participants’ time and effort was provided to the 

informants in order to contribute to the community and build support for the project. 

Fieldwork in 2009 occurred in Akutan, Alaska (Figure 6), in March-April 2009; False Pass and 

Nelson Lagoon in August 2009; and Port Heiden in November 2009. A follow-up field trip was 

made to False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, and Port Heiden in April 2012. These trips consisted of 

making presentations about the research project, building local support, and were extended to 

include substantial ethnographic discussions. The study and the timeline were well-received in 

every community. Two researchers from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game Subsistence 

Division were in Akutan conducting a subsistence survey as part of the Bering Sea Integrated 

Ecosystem Research Program (BSIERP) project at the same time as this project’s initial visit, 

and we worked to coordinate and collaborate on our efforts, sharing information. 

 

4

 Consistent with Human Subjects requirements of informed consent, anonymity, and community coordination, 

Reedy-Maschner obtained approval of the research protocol and informed consent form from Idaho State 

University’s Human Subjects Committee in March of 2009. This approval was renewed annually for the length of 

the study. 
32 

Figure 6. Reedy-Maschner presents the project goals and methods in Akutan, April 2009. Photo by Lisa 

Hutchinson-Scarbrough. 

In preparation for the survey and analyses, the social dynamics of subsistence and commercial 

harvests at the community and household levels were investigated using open-ended discussions 

about people’s lives: personal and family history, genealogy, economics, harvests, specialization, 

and how households might adjust their harvesting behavior within a season or between seasons 

depending upon need and environmental conditions. Topics also included household assets, 

access to resources, sharing patterns, levels of purchased food and goods, as well as individual 

desires and stresses as uses of the North Aleutian Basin change. Themes covered local 

economics, changes in harvesting and ecology, environmental hazards, political activities, and 

social processes relevant to activities that may accompany Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and 

gas exploration and development. People preferred to discuss politics and economics in the 

context of questions about subsistence harvesting and behavior rather than keeping subsistence 

as the only focus, since it is intertwined with all facets of the communities. 

Although the ethnographic portion of the study contract has, as its primary focus, detailed 

descriptions of distribution, reciprocity, networks and kin relations, sharing strategies, relative 

abundance, and the role of other foods and commodities, the research was limited by the focus of 

the informants themselves. Each of these topics was explored, but the foci of the discussions 

rapidly expanded to other economic, social, cultural and political issues that people found more 

pressing. Ultimately, projects involving diverse communities in disparate locales relying on local 

villagers who have their own lives, jobs, stresses and desires such as these four study villages 

require flexible time frames. These villages are best served when they are not treated as 
33 

laboratories, but as participating communities with valued interests, ideas and motivations, and 

can act as partners in interpreting study results. 

SURVEY METHODS 

The survey was developed, pretested, and submitted for OMB approval in 2008-2009. In early 

February 2010, the North Aleutian Basin survey was approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) but with the specification that the survey be completed by March 21st so as not to 

conflict with the U.S. Census. Once the OMB approval number and statement were added to the 

survey, Reedy-Maschner began conducting the survey in Anchorage with members of the study 

communities who were “in town” for other meetings. Reedy-Maschner arranged travel to all four 

study communities and trained graduate student Crystal Callahan to assist with the survey. 

Travel began February 17, 2010, to the village of Akutan, followed by False Pass, Nelson 

Lagoon, and ending in Port Heiden on March 18. The research team was well received by local 

residents and survey participation was high in every community, ranging from 86 to 96 percent 

(Table 7). 

Table 7. Survey Participation. 

Village Total 

Households 

Household Able 

to be Surveyed 

Households 

Surveyed 

Households 

Refused/No Contact/ 

Advised Against/Out 

of Town/Other 

Akutan 40 35 30 (86%) 10

False Pass 16 16 15 (94%) 1

Nelson Lagoon 24 24 22 (92%) 2

Port Heiden 29 23 22 (96%) 7

Totals 109 98 90 (92%) 19

Initially, Dr. Reedy-Maschner contacted the plant manager of Trident Seafoods in Akutan to 

discuss conducting the survey with known subsistence harvesters working at the processor. The 

U.S. Census from the same year counted 937 people living in group quarters, and these are likely 

the count of Trident employees at the time of the survey. Trident’s manager was interested in the 

study and offered support for the project when the survey was to be conducted. In March 2010, 

Dr. Reedy-Maschner contacted the plant manager again to explain when the survey team would 

be in the community conducting the study. The manager stated that workers were doing double 

shifts to process the enormous volume of the pollock A-season catch, and were not available. 

When Dr. Reedy-Maschner pressed that they surely had time to themselves that Trident did not 

control, he stated that they did not. 

This interaction highlighted labor issues. Transient migrant labor forms the bulk of the workforce 

in the processing sector. It is unknown what their overall role is in subsistence harvesting but 

they were often observed by villagers and members of this study team gathering (unregulated) 

wild foods, from sea urchins to salmon berries. This project sought to include their participation, 
34 

but could not gain the cooperation of the plant manager. It is unclear to the study team what the 

rights of transient labor are relative to subsistence and “free” time. 

Perhaps as a consequence of this lack of cooperation, the Subsistence Division has reported that 

workers are not engaged in subsistence activities 

(http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2011/wakefield-people/presentations/fall-akutan-emmonaktogiak.pdf) or that they engage in subsistence at a very low level. Ultimately, the state does not 

know their level of engagement. 

Because there was a limited time frame between OMB approval and survey completion, a single 

survey trip to each community meant that those traveling or otherwise unavailable were not 

surveyed. There were various reasons some households were unable to be surveyed. Those 

surveyed are representative of the communities, and the network data collections on those 

surveys include every member of the villages, but this resulted in the known exclusion of some 

key harvesters in Akutan and Port Heiden. 

The following data elements were included in the survey (see Appendix 3): 

Harvesting, Giving, Receiving, & 

Purchasing of: 

 Salmon 

 Freshwater Fish 

 Marine Fish 

 Shellfish and Intertidal Foods 

 Sea Mammals 

 Land Mammals 

 Birds and Eggs 

 Plants and Berries 

 Harvest Locations for all Species 

 Crews (Subsistence and 

Commercial) 

 Employment 

 Other Income Sources 

 Household Expenses 

 Subsistence Expenses 

 Subsistence Equipment Owned 

 Support Networks for Each Category 

 Oil/Gas Opinions 

 Wildlife Health 

Upon returning from the field, survey forms were edited so that units of measurement, species 

designations, and other variables were standardized. This involved creating conversion factors 

for village based units such as raw fish, fillets, quart and gallon size Zip-loc bags, 5 gallon 

buckets, raw fish versus dried fish, etc. This was done using previous conversion indices created 

by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and through our own research. Species designations 

were also standardized such as pogies = greenlings, chums = dogs, pushki = cow parsnip, etc. 

Then all species were catalogued using their taxonomic classification. A products list was also 

created so that we can capture the sharing of finished products, such as kippered and jarred silver 

salmon or mossberry pies (Table 8). These were converted into amounts by the database, but the 

product information was preserved. 
35 

Table 8. Product and unit possibilities for each species category provided in interviews. 

In order to compare household and community harvest data with the Subsistence Division of the 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, we needed to replicate their methods of extrapolation. They 

use data from the households they sampled and expand it to the entire community. Using the 

total harvest reported in returned surveys divided by the number of returned surveys, they 

calculate the mean harvest per returned survey. They then multiply that number by the number of 

households in a community to get the total harvest for the community. Before expanding the 

data, they calculate the standard deviation, standard error, and confidence limit for each 

community. 
36 

The survey asked about household economics, expenses, assets, and equipment. It also asked 

about shared resources, for example, shared subsistence equipment, labor, repairs, and expenses. 

It also asked about sources of financial, travel, shipping, fishing and other types of information, 

and for people to name positive influential people in the community. These data supplemented 

the food sharing network analyses and vulnerabilities. 

DATABASE CONSTRUCTION 

The creation of the relational database provides the analytical foundation of all subsequent 

analyses, especially in regards to the movement of goods, services, and funds through the 

complex trading networks of the region. This database construction had four primary 

components. The first component involved translating Reedy-Maschner’s genealogy of the 

region into a format suitable for database construction and analysis. This genealogy, which has 

the familial relationships for over 3,500 individuals spanning six generations, is currently 

maintained in the software program Family Tree Maker. Since this program is not an analytical 

tool, the first task was to disarticulate the data from the software and import it into an SQL 

database while maintaining all of the family relationships. 

A suite of database entry forms were created in order to use the genealogical data to track 

transactions between individuals, families, businesses and other entities. These forms are set up 

so that any transaction involving the transfer of goods, materials, services, or most importantly 

foodstuffs, could be entered into the database while maintaining the kinship or other social 

relationships between the people involved. All of the transaction data were then inputted to the 

database. 

The database entry forms for the harvest data were also created. These were built on top of the 

transaction database so that the individuals and their relationships are maintained while tracking 

the harvests of individual species. All possible species are now in this database, entered by both 

common names and through their taxonomic classification. Entry forms were added that capture 

employment, income, expenditure, and equipment use data, linking this information to the 

specific individuals so that we can track assets and expenses related to the subsistence harvesters 

and receivers. Survey data on oil and gas development, wildlife health, and additional comments 

have been summarized separately and can be linked to specific households at the end of the 

analysis, so investigations could be conducted as to whether, for example, if a key hunter 

expected to leave for employment in exploration and development. 

MAPPING, GIS, AND TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL GEOGRAPHIES 

The macroregion is a key level of investigation for producing coherent representations of social, 

economic and political formations across communities and landscapes. Maschner developed the 

concept of Traditional Ecological Geographies (TEGs) to highlight the importance of landscape 

in how indigenous peoples view regions of harvest (Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 2006). 

Following the classic place-name studies of the 1970s and 1980s (as championed in Alaska by 
37 

linguist James Kari), these types of analyses allow the researcher to think spatially at a scale far 

beyond the village and must encompass the greater harvest regions of several communities. 

There is a large degree of temporal continuity where people hunt and fish for particular species 

in certain seasons. When a family, community, or even a group of communities repeatedly use a 

number of areas for harvesting any species, and the traditional use of these areas becomes part of 

the local appreciation for the landscape, we can begin to address the concept of Traditional 

Ecological Geographies. This is distinguished from Traditional Ecological Knowledge studies by 

the fact that this is simply mapping where people go, and this study did not survey individual’s 

particular ecological knowledge of any of these harvesting areas. 

Surveyed individuals were asked to identify locations for harvesting species on local area maps. 

Most respondents drew their own lines on the maps, which ideally ensures better accuracy. They 

often identified cabins, commercial fishing areas, and other sites of use and interest. These maps 

were digitized for individual surveys and combined at the village level. In April and May 2012, 

Reedy-Maschner returned to three villages to verify the accuracy of the maps with the original 

interviewees, and conduct a number of interviews to check conclusions and other findings. 

Errors were corrected on the maps and digitally edited. 

This project integrated these spatial data using a Geographic Information System (GIS). These 

data allow us to locate where people hunt and fish, where they move around within and between 

seasons, and how communities relate and differ regarding harvesting patterns (See Appendix 1 ). 
38 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
39 

PART II 

VILLAGE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESULTS 

CHAPTER 4. NELSON LAGOON 

INTRODUCTION 

Owing to Nelson Lagoon’s close proximity to the proposed offshore exploration, planning, and 

scoping, and residents’ engagements with the planning process, the community requires more 

comprehensive treatment than the other study villages. Residents here would have seen the most 

changes to their village and landscape under the proposed plan. This chapter describes their 

community and use of land and sea areas using ethnographic materials and survey results. 

The village of Nelson Lagoon is located on a thin sand spit between Nelson Lagoon and the 

Bering Sea on the north shore of the Alaska Peninsula (Figure 7). It is an Aleut village whose 

residents engage in commercial fishing and subsistence hunting and fishing. In 2010, the 

population was 52 (82 percent Alaska Native Aleut) (Census 2010). In 2010, 23 residents held 

26 commercial salmon fishing permits, both drift and set gillnet (Figure 8). Residents are 

oriented towards salmon fishing as the primary economy, but it is a seasonal summer activity. 

The remainder of the year, residents focus on resources on land. Residents who are also avid 

trappers of furbearers and hunters of birds and caribou maintain cabins around the lagoon, up the 

major rivers, and along the Bering Sea coast. The village is situated in vegetated black Bering 

Sea sand dunes. People drive twenty or more miles up the coast to beach comb, whale watch, or 

picnic on the beach. Lakes down the coast get warm enough for swimming in the summer time. 

RECENT VILLAGE HISTORY 

The present location of Nelson Lagoon village has a short history, yet many of the residents and 

their ancestors inhabited and used the entire lagoon system prior to the formal establishment of 

the village. Arthur Johnson, ancestor to many in Nelson Lagoon, ran a saltery in the 1800s in 

Nelson Lagoon. Pacific American Fisheries bought the facility but never operated it. It was 

dismantled in the 1950s and lumber was used for houses in Nelson Lagoon. A Pacific American 

Fisheries cannery/saltery was built on Heart or Egg Island (both names were used), a tiny island 

in the lagoon across from the dock, and operated between 1906 and 1923. There were five 

commercial fish traps in the lagoon (later outlawed by the Statehood Act of 1959) and one in a 

channel that forms at low tide; a tender moved the fish to the cannery. A potable water barge also 

operated, bringing fresh water from upriver. This facility was then moved to Port Moller in 1911 

under Pacific American Fisheries, which later became Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. (PPSF) and 

residents and fishermen were scattered around the lagoon, coming together only during 

commercial fishing seasons. The modern town site of Nelson Lagoon grew up around a school 

beginning in 1960 with families from nearby Port Moller, Bear River, Herendeen Bay, and Ilnik 
40 

regions moving there. While there were two houses and approximately 15 people living on the 

Nelson Lagoon spit prior to its founding, the majority in the region lived in Herendeen Bay. 

Figure 7. Regional map for Nelson Lagoon. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner. 

Around the turn of the 20th century, Eskimos (eleven families and two single men) were 

relocated by the federal government south to the lagoon area because there was little food to 

harvest around their home, which is thought to have been on the Seward Peninsula (Culver 1917; 

Drucker 1985:5). They lived in Herendeen Bay, and had a school. They hunted, trapped, and 

worked in fish plants. Tuberculosis spread through the community and many died. Locals 

reported seeing their coffins eroding out of the bank. They did not interact with the Aleut and 

Scandinavian families who live in the area and were engaged in both trapping and fishing. 

Herendeen Bay and Port Moller were serviced by a steamship Catherine D. in the 1930s and 

1940s. People sent clothing orders out with the furs from trapping that they were sending to 

market. They also walked over the mountains to the coast across from Sand Point to meet a boat 

to send things out (and for mail). Men from Sand Point would also walk the trip overland for $25 

per person to carry mail and supplies to a cannery in Herendeen Bay. In the 1950s four families 

lived in Herendeen Bay and operated two small fish canneries. At the end of the decade, they and 

others in the lagoon region began to coalesce around the modern town site of Nelson Lagoon. 
41 

In the early 1980s, Nelson Lagoon still had no store, post office or recreation center. They waited 

for the North Star III in the spring, the supply ship that brought in fishing equipment, 

housewares, lumber, vehicles, fuel, food, and other supplies. There was a community center that 

had a single phone for the whole village to make and receive calls; local calls were made by CB 

radio. It is also where they received mail. 

Commercial fishing was the primary occupation, and 130 boats operated between Nelson 

Lagoon and Bear River for the sockeye salmon fishery in the 1980s, fetching $0.60 per pound at 

Peter Pan Seafoods in Port Moller.5 The Akutan, a fish processing vessel, came into the Lagoon 

to buy fish, fillet and freeze them. According to several local people, this provided a solid 

income in the 1980s: enough to go on a two-week vacation, buy a winter’s supply of groceries, 

buy a four wheeler and have money left over. Boats were typically 32 feet and were privately 

owned, which was an improvement from the decades before in which wooden cannery boats 

were leased from Pacific American Fisheries. 

Figure 8. F/V Cynthia Jane, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska, March 2010. Photo by K. Reedy-Maschner. 

POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF NELSON LAGOON 

Nelson Lagoon is a relatively newly established community, but is led by families who have 

been in Herendeen Bay and Port Moller for generations. Politically, leaders made the decision 

not to form as a second class city early in their establishment and hoped it would help maintain 

their sovereignty and their lifestyle. The village council manages community business. The 

Nelson Lagoon Corporation manages corporation lands and assets. Nelson Lagoon land claims 

 

5

 This would be worth approximately $1.56 today, according to www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. 
42 

were pieced together by several local leaders who selected lands and then traded for better pieces 

later, for example, trading swamp lands to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in exchange for good 

hunting grounds with easier access from the community. 

Nelson Lagoon is part of APICDA which, in addition to several subsidiaries, manages a gear and 

vessel storage company for the salmon season with the Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council. In the 

future, APICDA may also pursue direct marketing of frozen fish from Nelson Lagoon, flying it 

directly from the village instead of Port Moller. This would involve putting a processor in the 

community. Currently there is an icing plant near the dock. The village gets one barge per year, 

and they pay large fees for it (amounts vary). They have experienced numerous fuel shortages of 

both gasoline and aviation gas because they only get this yearly barge and must plan ahead. The 

community sells aviation fuel for profit. 

Land use conflicts between professional guiding operations and local subsistence users in Nelson 

Lagoon prompted a study of the Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Program in 2000 

(Stearns Planning & Design 2000). A Nelson Lagoon Special Use Area was established in 1991 

as part of the Aleutians East Borough’s coastal zone management plan as a biologically 

productive complex of habitats. The Port Moller State Critical Habitat Area and the Port 

Moller/Herendeen Bay/Bear River Special Use Area are also designated as significant habitat 

regions. The Sandy River Caribou Calving Area adjacent to these is also important. The Nelson 

Lagoon Special Area encompasses these calving grounds, the Nelson Lagoon Special Use Area 

and the Port Moller/Herendeen Bay/Bear River Special Use Area as locations with similar 

planning needs (Stadium Group 2001). This area was of particular concern because the 

Department of Natural Resources was continuously increasing the number of hunting and fishing 

commercial guide permits (Stadium Group 2001). The permits last five years, and are seen to 

conflict directly with recent poor subsistence and commercial fishing seasons. The increased 

number of non-resident users has changed resource availability for residents. Salmon, caribou, 

Emperor geese, ducks, bird eggs, and occasionally moose are the primary species used by Nelson 

Lagoon and there is worry that too many non-local harvesters are leaving too few resources for 

local people (Stearns Planning & Design 2000). The AEB Coastal Management Plan was seen as 

out-of-date with policies that are inadequate to address resource and land use conflicts and 

needed revision to give more local control. The Stearns Planning & Design (2000) report 

recommended that the AEB develop a use plan for the Nelson Lagoon Special Area that meets 

the requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and that the AEB amend its own 

coastal management plan to include enforceable policies that limit permits and use of the area. 

The Alaska Legislature did not extend the Alaska Coastal Management Program in May 2011, 

and it is no longer in effect. 

A sport hunter/fisherman built a lodge in the lagoon and local people see the operation as a threat 

to local subsistence food harvests. There are several sport fishing/hunting operations from the 

Bear River to Cold Bay that are also seen in this light. On the other hand, APICDA Joint 

Ventures manages a sport fishing business operated by local guides. A local man gained 

certification as a guide and APICDA hopes that other young people will be interested. They 

employ several local people in their camps. There is fear that, because caribou, geese, and other 

species’ numbers are so low, the presence of sport hunters and fishermen further stresses the 

resources. With the exception of a few areas, such as the location of this lodge, Nelson Lagoon 
43 

Corporation is the only entity legally whose members are allowed to traverse above the mean 

high water mark on many of the area’s streams and rivers. 

The village is seeking funding and support to maintain the breakwater. Erosion concerns and an 

aging breakwater could change the lagoon system and alter the habitat. They have also secured 

funds to clean the beaches near the village by gathering and sorting debris, which was described 

by one local man as a “renewable resource.” 

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 

Nelson Lagoon is a small village that has recently experienced even more population decline 

(Figure 9). In 2012, the Aleutians East Borough School District announced that their school 

would close down. The parents of the few children there will need to pursue other options such 

as online programs, home schooling, or relocation. The only two high school children achieved 

early graduation in 2012 through online educational programs. Others of school age identified in 

the survey and the census as part of a household are already semi-transient and attend school in 

Anchorage (Table 9). 

Figure 9. Nelson Lagoon surveyed population and U.S. Census population. 
44 

Table 9. Household Characteristics for Nelson Lagoon, 2010. 

FISHERIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Ethnographic research began during the silver (coho) salmon fishery in Nelson Lagoon in 2009, 

which lasts from about August 15 to September 5. Nelson Lagoon has only drift gillnet and set 

gillnet permits because of the environmental conditions of the fisheries. There are approximately 

30 local boats and, with no harbor; they anchor in “the river” during the fishing season. “The 

River” is a low tide channel that forms between sand bars in the lagoon. In the off season, the 

fishermen pull the nets and vessels out of the water and put them next to their houses outside or 

in garages, or store them in a boatyard or warehouse near the dock. 

Approximately 18 boats owned by Area M fishermen of Russian ancestry, who reside primarily 

in Homer, are stored in Nelson Lagoon, whereas everyone else stores them in Port Moller in 

fenced enclosures. Silvers (coho salmon) are fished using six-inch mesh gear while sockeye are 

fished with 4 and 7/8” mesh because, as one local man observed, “the fish are getting smaller.” 

In 2009, silver salmon were fetching $0.25 per pound, or about 84 percent less than in the 1980s. 

There were some sockeye, chum, and pink salmon mixed in to the silver salmon fishery, and 

these get sorted out by the fishermen before they are passed on to the tender. There is no harbor, 

but there is a Harbormaster who manages the use of the dock and upland facilities and maintains 

an office near the dock. The fuel company office is in the same building. 

Peter Pan Seafoods in Port Moller can support about 400 employees working three shifts, but 

employee counts vary with fish abundance and processing needs. In 2009, there were 
45 

approximately 100 boats fishing for them (with each boat employing two to four people aboard 

as crew). The Port Moller North Peninsula fishery is dominated by a group called Concerned 

Area M Fishermen (CAMF). A few locals from the region are part of CAMF, but it is largely an 

outsider fleet, residing in other parts of Alaska and in Lower 48 states (primarily Washington). 

Only a few CAMF fishermen come in to Nelson Lagoon because Port Moller provides all fleet 

services and has its own airstrip. They are locally called the “Northern Fleet” or the “Moller 

Fleet.” Because Nelson Lagoon is a terminal fishery, the fishery “on the outside,” that is outside 

the lagoon, can have an impact on the fishery inside the lagoon. There is some resentment 

towards the fleet emanating from Nelson Lagoon due to concerns over interception of fish before 

they enter the lagoon, an increasing number of vessels fishing the area, their fishing capacity, and 

that many have jobs elsewhere. It is even more difficult when locals charge groceries and fuel to 

Peter Pan Seafoods and then fish all summer to try to pay that off. People have built up debt even 

before the season starts. If fishing is poor on the south side of the Peninsula, those fishermen 

from King Cove, Sand Point and False Pass may also come up to Nelson Lagoon and Port Moller 

to fish. 

There are between 20 and 25 drift and set gillnet permits in the lagoon. Set gillnet sites are 1,800 

feet apart as part of a fishermen’s agreement. Approximately six fishermen use “stake nets” on 

the shore inside the back of Nelson Lagoon. It is difficult fishing because people move along the 

net and pick fish working around every stake. It is the only way to fish that shore. 

There are three or four Nelson Lagoon women who fish out of skiffs running their own 

operations. Skiffs still deliver to the large tenders and it is dangerous to offload next to them. 

They use a crane to lift bags of fish out of boats. One woman described how she fished all day, 

but had to quit before her husband because it was “getting too late, so I had to come home and 

cook.” One woman complained of so many flounders in their nets, “they are a pain in the neck. I 

wish we had a market for them.” There are also several women who run large boats as captains 

in Nelson Lagoon. 

There is not much opportunity for employment outside of fishing, tribal and corporation offices, 

or other local services. The Tide’s Inn Café opened in August for the silver salmon season, but it 

is only open for short stints and is run by a woman who lives primarily in Anchorage. Other jobs 

include charter pilot, postal worker, teacher, water quality inspector, tribal environmental 

coordinator, janitor, and local hunting guide. There are also two privately owned hotels. There 

were two small enterprises of households selling smoked salmon in Nelson Lagoon. They use 

alder and cottonwood driftwood from the beach, which is a scarce resource. It is difficult for 

these types of enterprises because they have to market outside the village. Details on community 

economics are provided below. 

SUBSISTENCE PRACTICES 

The following presents survey data characterizing subsistence harvests and changes in Nelson 

Lagoon for the 2009 calendar year. Contemporary harvesting is juxtaposed with results of the 

previous Subsistence Division study from 1987. 

As reflected in this project’s survey results in Table 10, Nelson Lagoon residents describe 

themselves as “salmon eaters,” and salmon represent the majority of food harvested, consumed 
46 

and shared. They net salmon in the lagoon and bring it home from commercial catches to smoke, 

dry, jar and freeze. They are also avid bird hunters, taking a large amount of ducks and geese 

annually to pluck and freeze. They harvest a large amount and variety of berries in and around 

the village, and take seagull and tern eggs from nests near the airport and Heart/Egg Island just 

across from the village dock. 

Figure 10 shows that the major change between 1987 and 2009 is a major reduction in land 

mammal harvesting and more than double the salmon harvest for food. In pounds usable weight 

(Figure 11) salmon and non-salmon fish have become dominant over sea mammals, land 

mammals, and shellfish. These data are reflected in the usable pounds of these categories of 

harvest (Figure 12) and Figure 13 shows the estimated total in pounds usable weight harvested 

has been substantial. There has been a nearly 8,000 pound reduction in usable weight of land 

mammals, an 89 percent decrease (Figure 14). Further, these data show (Figures 12-14) that 

while in the 1980s there was still a sea mammal harvest in the village of Nelson Lagoon, there is 

no longer a sea mammal harvest today, a 100 percent reduction. These data are reflected in the 

average pounds harvested per household and the percent change for the categories of taxa. Based 

on the average pounds harvested presented in Figure 15, Figure 16 shows the percent change in 

pounds harvested demonstrating that marine mammals, land mammals, and shellfish have 

reduced while salmon, non-salmon fish, and wild plants have increased at the household level.
47 

Table 10. Nelson Lagoon’s Subsistence Harvests, 2009. Results of the North Aleutian Basin survey. 

Species N of

Cases

Minimum Maximum Range Sum (Total

LbsReportedHarvested)

Mean Std

ErrorofMean

95% LCLmean

95%upperCLmean

Std.Dev.

MpH

Birds/Eggs Geese 5 25 100 75 225 45 14.58 4.53 85.47 32.6 1

Ptarmigan 8 2.8 70 67.2 151.2 18.9 7.85 0.34 37.46 22.2 6Gull Eggs 11 1.8 34 32.2 114.2 10.38 3.62 2.31 18.45 12.01 5Mallard Duck 9 1 10 9 46 5.11 1.25 2.22 8 3.76 2Brant 5 2.4 7.2 4.8 24 4.8 1.07 1.82 7.78 2.4 1Goldeneye 6 1.64 8.2 6.56 23.78 3.96 0.98 1.44 6.48 2.4 1Pintail Duck 4 2.4 8 5.6 23.2 5.8 1.36 1.47 10.13 2.72 1Teal Duck 6 0.9 3 2.1 9.9 1.65 0.32 0.84 2.46 0.78 0Unknown Duck 1 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0Eider 1 2.34 2.34 0 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 0Tern Eggs 1 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0Total 623.52 2

LandMammals

Wolf 2 175 700 525 875 437.5 262.5 ‐2897.88 3772.88 371.23 3Total 875 3

Non‐SalmonFish

Unknown Trout 2 216 216 0 432 216 0 216 216 0 1Halibut 2 57.6 76.8 19.2 134.4 67.2 9.6  ‐54.78 189.18 13.58 6Lake Trout 1 108 108 0 108 108 108 108 4Steelhead 2 14 70 56 84 42 28  ‐313.77 397.77 39.6 3Cod 1 32 32 0 32 32 32 32 1Black Bass 1 15 15 0 15 15 15 15 0Dolly Varden 1 2.8 2.8 0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 0Total 808.2 3
48 

Species N of

Cases

Minimum Maximum Range Sum (Total

LbsReportedHarvested)

Mean Std

ErrorofMean

95% LCLmean

95%upperCLmean

Std.Dev.

MpH

Plants Mossberries 13 2 400 398 698 53.69 31.12 ‐14.1 121.49 112.19 3

Strawberries 18 0.12 80 79.88 312.28 17.35 5.24 6.29 28.41 22.25 1Salmonberries 13 0.16 120 119.84 253.16 19.47 8.74 0.43 38.52 31.52 1Wineberries 3 4 20 16 44 14.67 5.33  ‐8.28 37.61 9.24 2 Petrushki 6 0.08 20 19.92 29.24 4.87 3.11 ‐3.13 12.87 7.62 1Cranberries 1 1.2 1.2 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0Total 1337.88 6

Salmon Silver Salmon 14 100 1500 1400 4260 304.29 97.62 93.39 515.18 365.25 1

Red Salmon 18 30 600 570 3972 220.67 39.1 138.17 303.17 165.9 1King Salmon 8 40 500 460 1300 162.5 56.24 29.5 295.5 159.08 5Unknown Salmon 2 129.5 129.5 0 259 129.5 0 129.5 129.5 0 1Pink Salmon 1 12.5 12.5 0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 0Total 9803.5 4

Shellfish Cockles 3 1.6 75 73.4 78.52 26.17 24.41  ‐78.87 131.22 42.29 3

Sea Urchins 1 60 60 0 60 60 60 60 2Dungeness Crab 1 21 21 0 21 21 21 21 0Mussels 2 1.2 1.5 0.3 2.7 1.35 0.15 ‐0.56 3.26 0.21 0King Crab 1 2.3 2.3 0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0Razor Clams 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0Total 165.52 7

AllResources

Total 13613.62 6
49 

Figure 10. Nelson Lagoon harvests reported by total pounds usable weight between the 1987 Subsistence 

Division survey (for 13 of 18 households) and this project (for 22 of 24 households). 

Figure 11. Percent of total pounds usable weight harvested by resource category in Nelson Lagoon between 

1987 (13 of 18 HHs) and 2009 (22 of 24 HHs) (Source: ADF&G CSIS). 
50 

Figure 12. Using the Subsistence Division’s harvest expansion method for the total community, these are 

estimated total community pounds harvested by species category between 1987 and 2009, Nelson Lagoon. 

Figure 13. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 1987 (18 

HHs) and 2009 (24 HHs), Nelson Lagoon. 
51 

Figure 14. Percent change of estimated pounds useable weight harvested by species category between 1987 

(18 HHs) and 2009 (24 HHs), Nelson Lagoon. 

Figure 15. Average Lbs. Harvested per household in 1987 and 2009, Nelson Lagoon. 
52 

Figure 16. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1987 and 2009, Nelson Lagoon. 

Subsistence Security 

Changes in top species harvested for Nelson Lagoon indicate a heavier reliance on salmon 

currently than many other species used in the past (Figures 17-21). The major changes between 

1987 and 2009 in the top 10 species show the loss of caribou and the increased importance of all 

salmon species. Five of the 1987 top 10 harvested species in Nelson Lagoon are no longer top 10 

in 2009: moose, caribou, cockles, king crab, and Emperor geese (Figures 17 and 18). These 

changes are also visible in the percent changes in pounds usable weight (Figures 18 and 19). 

Three of the top species hunted in 1987 are no longer harvested in Nelson Lagoon, two by 

regulation and one by access. Nelson Lagoon normally hunts the Southern Alaska Peninsula 

Caribou Herd. A mail out survey and interview study on the 1985/86 and 1986/87 hunting 

seasons (Fall, Walker and Stanek 1990) shows that hunting was done primarily in the months of 

August and again from January to March. Hunters motor their skiffs up the David River or drive 

south along the ocean beach and onto the tundra in ATVs. Averages of 3.2 caribou per hunter 

were taken in 1987 and meat was distributed to most of the community. Caribou meat was 

always the main red meat for the community, especially given the expense of shipping outside 

goods into Nelson Lagoon. 

In responding to whether or not people uses less, the same, or more resources than in the past, 

the respondent data parallels the quantitative data showing the modern reduction in use of clams 

and land mammals. There is an exception: people say they are using (Figure 21) less salmon than 

in the past, but our data show they are using far more than in the 1980s (Figure 22). 
53 

Figure 17. Top 10 species harvested by Nelson Lagoon residents in 1987. 

Figure 18. Top 10 species harvested by Nelson Lagoon residents, 2009. 
54 

Figure 19. Change in 2009 (in pounds usable weight per capita) of ten resources harvested in the largest 

amounts in 1987, Nelson Lagoon. 

Figure 20. Change in 2009 (in pounds usable weight per capita) of ten resources harvested in the largest 

amounts in 1987, Nelson Lagoon. 
55 

Figure 21 Smoking coho salmon strips, Nelson Lagoon, April 2012. Photo by K. Reedy-Maschner. 

The primary subsistence food for Nelson Lagoon used to be caribou and a top ten food for the 

community was Emperor geese. Today, hunting either specie is prohibited by regulation. There 

has been a cessation in the harvest of both, demonstrated in the 1987 survey and the 2009 data 

reported here. “The caribou ban really put a hurt on us,” said one of these hunters in 2009. 

Caribou was the main food for decades. Moose are in the area, but are across the lagoon and up 

the mountainsides, and are difficult to access. People complain that they do not care for moose 

meat or beef. They believe the main reason the caribou are suffering is because of an 

overabundance of wolves. 

Wolves can be hunted in wintertime, but many said it is so difficult that it needs to be done from 

the air. They see a lot of tracks but very few animals. Many commented that there were more 

wolves and bears than ever before. Wolves are getting braver, coming into town, and have taken 

dogs. Their food supply (caribou) is going down too. The local hunters and the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service have hunted wolves and then seen calf survival go up the following year. 
56 

Figure 22. Nelson Lagoon’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 2009 that in 

the past. 

Most terrestrial meat is ordered “from outside” now. Several families will coordinate to place 

large orders, which arrive by barge to Peter Pan Seafoods in Port Moller and then is flown over 

or brought over on tenders to Nelson Lagoon. Meat is primarily ordered from Mike’s Quality 

Meats, SpanAlaska, and Sam’s Club in Anchorage and dry goods, produce, and cheeses are 

ordered from Fred Meyer, also located in Anchorage. Food is also ordered from Rogge and QFC 

in Seattle. Food is also air freighted from King Cove or Cold Bay whenever planes are flying. 

All of these shipping options are very expensive. Some residents make trips to Anchorage 

several times a year to load up on basic food and supplies, while others rely on relatives outside 

the village to ship necessities to them. There was a small store in Nelson Lagoon up until 2008 

but it carried mostly snacks and soft drinks. 

Purchased wild foods represent a fraction of the overall acquisition of these foods, but it is the 

primary way that people from Nelson Lagoon obtain crab and codfish (Figure 23). Seven of the 

22 surveyed households bought frozen processed cod fillets from Peter Pan Seafoods in King 

Cove, totalling 320 pounds. Sixteen of the 22 surveyed households bought cases of frozen 

processed king and tanner crab from Peter Pan Seafoods in King Cove, totalling 925 pounds. 

Other purchased shellfish are bidarkis and clams from friends as small scale customary trade. In 

addition, three households purchased frozen processed sockeye salmon fillets from Peter Pan 

Seafoods in Port Moller in 2009 totalling 220 pounds. Two of these households are elders who 
57 

are unable to fish and put up fish for themselves and a third household purchased the salmon for 

reasons of convenience. This was a surprising finding because so many of the local people have 

direct access to salmon fishing in the lagoon. One elder also paid his nieces to harvest 16 pounds 

of wild berries for him since he is physically unable. 

Figure 23. Nelson Lagoon Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, based upon 22 of 24 households, 

2009. 

Bird hunting has been a mainstay in the village. Nelson Lagoon was included in a bird and egg 

use study by the Subsistence Division (Fall et al. 1998). The 1996/1997 survey found that birds 

are of great importance to the community. 92.3 percent of households used birds and eggs, with 

23 hunters and 33 gatherers supplying the village. Only 7.7 percent said their bird and eggs needs 

were not met, and cited conflict with a wage job. They harvested 17.6 pounds per person mostly 

between the months of September and November, which is a significant increase from the 12 

pounds per person from the previous 1986/1987 survey. Largest quantities were of Emperor 

geese, ptarmigan, mallards, goldeneyes, teals and gull eggs. The 2009 survey found that they 

were back to 12 pounds per person for bird and egg harvests. 

There was no hunting season for Emperor geese during this study, and they fear that “outside 

hunters” will come in and hunt them if it does open up because of the sport operations in the 

area. There used to be a prevalence of eiders and saltwater ducks, but they “died out.” Several 

men hunt mallards, pintails, teals, goldeneyes, canvasbacks, and other ducks in the fall. Very few 

people gather seagull eggs anymore because the outer islands where they nested washed away, 

and those who do compete with foxes and bears to gather them. 

There is infrequent sea mammal harvesting in Nelson Lagoon. One reason given is that 

Scandinavians who intermarried with the indigenous population had not been interested in them, 

so now their descendants are not either. Only one household appears to be interested in 

harvesting sea mammals but has not done so in recent years due to health problems. 
58 

Berries are harvested by the many gallons, especially salmon berries, moss berries, and wild 

strawberries. These are found near the village, and their abundance depends on the quality of the 

spring. 

Subsistence salmon fishing supports every household at various levels. Families generally put up 

fish by freezing, smoking and salting. The majority of fish are smoked. Salting is done to prepare 

salmon for pickling. Families share the processing labor, especially since there are only a few 

smokehouses in the village. Poor commercial fishing affects subsistence in a negative way. 

Rather than retain more subsistence fish, instead, people in Nelson Lagoon tend to “deliver every 

one you got for every penny,” according to one local fisherman. This was put in more concrete 

terms, since daily living is so expensive. “One fish equals one gallon of gas; three fish used to 

buy a whole drum.” The price of fuel ($5.71 per gallon of gasoline in 2009) negatively affects 

harvesting range. 

In response to the question, “Did you get enough for your needs last year?,” most residents of 

Nelson Lagoon responded that they did get enough of all resources except land mammals (Figure 

24). 

Figure 24. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, in 

percentages of Nelson Lagoon households (N=22), 2009. 

The “30/70 rule” identified by the Subsistence Division, where 30 percent of a community’s 

households harvest approximately 70 percent of that community’s subsistence (in pounds usable 

weight), was tested for Nelson Lagoon using a Pareto chart (Figure 25). For the households 

surveyed, Nelson Lagoon harvests closely fit this rule, where approximately 30 percent of 

households account for 70 percent of the community’s total harvests. This is also true when only 

considering the harvests of five species of salmon (Figure 26). 
59 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

1718

1920

21

22

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

Figure 25. Pareto chart for Nelson Lagoon showing that harvesting patterns closely fit the 30/70 rule. 

12

5

16

3

1

6

18

14

10

2

7

9

13

4

15

17

8

11

19

20

21

22

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

Figure 26. Pareto chart for salmon harvesters, showing 30 percent of households in Nelson Lagoon harvest 

70 percent of the community's total harvest. 

Figure 27 shows the differences in pounds of wild foods harvested versus pounds received in the 

22 surveyed households in Nelson Lagoon. There are significant differences between 

households, with one household harvesting no wild foods and one stating that they received 

nothing. Of the 16,078 total pounds of wild foods entering households, 2,889 pounds (or 18 

percent) were received through sharing and are the products of social relationships. 
60 

Figure 27. Total pounds wild foods harvested versus total pounds received by household, Nelson Lagoon. 

Spatial Information 

In the 2009 and 2010 interviews, some members of the Nelson Lagoon community lamented that 

they do not have better access to more commercial fisheries closer to the village that could 

diversify the economy. Commercial salmon boats and skiffs provide a good deal of access, 

constrained by the price of fuel, weather, and other factors. 

There is a series of cabins and camps all through the lagoon and along the beach, that are situated 

primarily on Alaska Native allotments, Nelson Lagoon Corporation property, and/or near set 

gillnet sites.6 One man counted nine of these. They all have stoves and radios in them and are 

kept open and clean, available to anyone who needs a respite. A family has a huge homestead in 

Herendeen Bay that is as large and as equipped as their house in Nelson Lagoon. This was built 

on combined family Alaska Native allotments. Occasionally, locals will lead guided bear hunts 

or sport fishing from there. While locals might call it “camping,” it is a “big, beautiful fully 

functioning house in the middle of nowhere,” according to one family member. A Nelson 

Lagoon man also owns 160 acres and the runway at David River, and uses it “to get away from 

town.” Pilots moving sport hunters pay him a fee to land there. The David River runway is left 

over from PanAmerican and Exxon oil companies exploring on the Alaska Peninsula in 1980s. It 

periodically becomes a base camp for subsistence hunting expeditions by local people. All 

geographic data and maps are presented in Appendix 1. 

Crews and Cooperative Hunting and Fishing 

Many subsistence and all commercial activities require crew members. Activities that can be 

done alone (e.g. berry picking) still require group efforts in areas where there are bears and 

wolves, as it does in Nelson Lagoon. Oftentimes these crews carry firearms. Data were gathered 

 

6

 Set gillnets are fishing nets set out in a stationary site in the path of moving fish. Seine nets are laid out around 

milling fish from a boat using a skiff, then closed at the bottom and lifted onto the boat. 
61 

by species/method, crew captain, season, and crewmembers, however not everyone provided 

these data, some do not crew at all, and some crews were highly variable. For variable crews, 

many people were listed as participating; however, they may or may not be cooperating together 

in every harvesting opportunity. Commercial fishing crews were much more fixed, and 

frequently were immediate family members. 

Networks 

Sharing is a key feature of subsistence activities in Nelson Lagoon. Figure 28 illustrates a portion 

of sharing activities for a commercial fishing woman in Nelson Lagoon described in an 

interview. This figure shows the flow of certain goods between her and part of her social 

network, and does not capture the sharing between these other individuals that also occurs. It 

also includes friends and family from outside the community, which is very common in every 

community. These networks easily incorporated researchers who, in 2012, moved a subsistence 

box from a niece in False Pass to an aunt in Nelson Lagoon on a charter flight. 

Figure 28. Partial sharing activities of a woman in Nelson Lagoon, 2009. 
62 

Figure 29. Network of the same individual from the 2009 survey data. I=Individual, E=Entity/Business, and 

?=unknown source. Numbers are codes distinguishing between identities. 

More comprehensive network data and analyses are presented in Appendix 2. 

Environmental and Harvest Abundance Issues 

While a comprehensive treatment of environmental and species observations appears in Section 

III, this section introduces some issues facing Nelson Lagoon. Nelson Lagoon is concerned about 

erosion since they are located on a sand spit that “changes every day.” The Nelson Lagoon 

Corporation has invited geologists, coastal geomorphologists and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to study the problem, since “we are on an island sometimes” when there is 

an extreme high tide and the section between the lagoon and Bering Sea is breached. Concern 

over a failing breakwater could dramatically affect the stability of the village site and the habitat 

for many species within the lagoon. 

Other environmental and resource changes observed: 

 People described huge piles of seaweed on the beaches now, so thick that that 

people cannot drive through them. Seaweed used to be really thin. 

 Millions of birds fly into the lagoon in the spring and fall. Geese eat tiny clams 

the size of a fingernail by stepping on the sand and pushing them up out of the 

sand, and can gain several pounds in a week. One theory for the decline of 

Emperor geese is that snow geese (or whitefronts) are overtaking Emperor geese 

feeding areas and egg laying areas on the Kuskokwim. 

 There are more sea otters in the lagoon. They come up on shore and dogs have to 

be restrained because they will kill the otter pups. As described below in the 

section on Port Heiden, if the sea ices up on the Bering Sea side, the sea otters 
63 

will head across land to the Pacific Ocean, a distance of approximately 30 miles. 

Because they are defenseless, wolves, foxes, dogs and humans get them. 

 There are also many more jellyfish today than in recent decades. They are a 

nuisance, getting caught in nets. 

 There are also lots and lots of flounders which are, again, a nuisance to fishermen 

targeting salmon. One woman stated that she wished they had a market for them. 

 Porcupines are becoming scarcer. 

Community Economics 

The following general comments apply to all four study villages. Because this is a voluntary 

survey, and every piece of data is self-reported, there are many known errors. Some individuals 

were reluctant to report actual incomes, while others clearly under- or over-reported incomes. 

For example, expenses are higher than incomes reported in a few cases. A few household cases 

with obvious errors were removed before general statistics were applied to income and expense 

data. 

 

An employment profile has been generated from the 22 households surveyed (Table 11). The 

majority of adults listed more than one job title and income source. Because the local fishermen 

(including women who fish) are primarily fishing only the salmon season (given the lack of other 

nearby fisheries), they often had other jobs as well. Fifty-two separate jobs were identified by 38 

adults from these 22 households, or 1.4 jobs per person. 

Table 11. Job types identified by Nelson Lagoon residents. 

Fisherman 15 

Service Provider 8 

Maintenance 4 

Bookkeeper/Billing Agent 3 

Business Owner/Service Manager 2 

Cook 2 

Corporation/Tribal Administrator 2 

Health Aide 2 

Janitor 2 

Teacher 2 

Beach Cleanup/Environmental Technician 1 

Environmental Director 1 

Harbormaster 1 

Postmaster 1 

Sport Guide 1 

Substitute Teacher 1 

Teacher's Aide 1 

VPSO 1 

Watchman 1 

Administrative assistant 1 
64 

The main employers for Nelson Lagoon are as self-employed commercial fishermen and 

crewmen, APICDA, Eastern Aleutian Tribes, and the Aleutians East Borough School District.7 

Local government, fisheries, and services provide the bulk of the income in Nelson Lagoon 

(Table 12). Even though there are more fishermen in this community than in the others, earnings 

directly from fishing are lower than earnings from non-fishing employment. Directed fishing 

earnings presented for Nelson Lagoon are from nine captains and three crewmen (Figure 30). 

The crewmen are all employed with local captains. These are all salmon fishermen, with only 

one fishermen deriving earnings from moonlighting in cod fishing in the Gulf of Alaska. 

Table 12. Reported earned and other income, Nelson Lagoon, 2009. 

 Households 

Reporting 

Total 

Income 

Average 

per HH 

Earned Income 

Local Government 10 239562 23956

Federal Government 2 23000 11500

Fisheries 11 464150 42195

Retail 1 25000 25000

Services 16 493294 30831

Education 2 133000 66500

Other 4 75120 18780

Total Earned Income $1453126

Other Income 

Alaska Permanent Fund 

Dividend 

20 61570 3079

Native Corporation Dividend 18 42487 2360

Unemployment 1 8400 8400

Food Stamps 1 1360 1360

Social Security 4 70260 17565

Pension 1 1500 1500

Total Other Income $185577

NELSON LAGOON TOTAL $1638703

 

7

 In June 2012, the Aleutians East Borough School District announced it could no longer support a school in Nelson 

Lagoon and would not open in the fall. 
65 

Figure 30. Relative percentages of fishing versus non-fishing earnings, based upon 22 of 24 total households, 

Nelson Lagoon, 2009. 

The Permanent Fund Dividend and dividends from Alaska Native corporations represent 6 

percent of the total income sources. Public assistance funds from state and federal sources 

represent another 6 percent. Only a few households were dependent upon public assistance 

(Figure 31). 

Figure 31. Nelson Lagoon income sources, 2009. 

Expenses and Expense Networks 

Household Expenses 

Nelson Lagoon residents were asked to itemize their annual household expenses (Figure 32). 

These data are presented below. 
66 

Figure 32. Relative Percentages of Household Expenses for Nelson Lagoon.

Groceries 

Most food arrives by air with extra freight charges. For groceries, freight charges were $27 per 

box on PenAir freight from Cold Bay in 2010. Of the 22 households surveyed, average grocery 

expenses were $12,357 per household. Grocery expenses reported ranged from between 5 

percent to 41 percent of households’ total incomes. 

Rent or Mortgage 

Only nine of the 22 surveyed households reported having to pay rent or mortgage on their 

homes. The majority own their homes outright. These nine households pay $4,425 annually or 

$369 per month. 

Heating Fuel 

Nelson Lagoon households spent an average of $5,192 annually on heating their homes. Heating 

oil has averaged $5 per gallon in the village. Several people mentioned how living close to a 

source of natural gas could provide significant relief if the petroleum company was willing to 

invest in gas lines to the village. 

Propane 

Eighteen of 22 households used propane. Propane is used in stoves in the village and is used to 

fuel stoves, lights and refrigeration out in cabins. The price averaged $300 per 100 lb. tank, and 

the average household expense was $1577. The village landfill has a large stack of rusted spent 

tanks because it is more costly to repair tanks than import new ones. The village would like to 

build a fuel farm. 

Electricity 

Households pay an average of $3741 in electricity provided through the Nelson Lagoon Electric 

Cooperative. Residents prepay for electricity and use is monitored electronically for each 

household. 
67 

Water-Sewer-Garbage 

An average of $748 is paid for water-sewer-garbage services for households annually. There is 

no garbage collection service but a landfill monitored by the Environmental branch of the tribe. 

Potable water is sourced from a lake 10 miles south of the village and connected to all homes 

through pipes. Water quality is sampled weekly and sent to Anchorage for testing by a local 

resident. 

Telephone 

Households pay an average $1,204 annually on telephones. At the time of the survey, the 

majority of households had landlines. Many residents have switched to cell phones since the 

survey was conducted. 

Television 

Every surveyed home had at least one television. Residents pay an average of $1,331 on satellite 

television annually. 

Subsistence Expenses 

Gasoline 

Respondents were asked to provide costs for subsistence activities. When asked about gasoline 

purchases, some had a difficult time separating automobile fuel costs around the village from 

subsistence trips. An average of $2,558 was spent by households, but this number is confounded 

by some households reporting all gasoline purchases. 

Ammunition 

The survey asked about ammunition purchases for subsistence hunting. Of the 12 households 

that reported these purchases, they paid an average $258. 

Supplies 

Five households reported purchasing extra subsistence supplies at $507 each. These included 

items such as berry pickers, XTRA Tuff boots, and nets. 

Expense Networks 

The primary expense shared was for grocery expenses (Figure 33). Six households reported 

sharing grocery expenses with 16 other people by contributing to their households. These were 

immediate family members spread between households, and often shared large grocery orders. 

Two other households reported paying two others’ household expenses, typically when a family 

member fell short on a monthly bill. 
68 

Figure 33. Grocery sharing between four households, Nelson Lagoon. 

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased 

In order to assess assets and harvesting capacity, surveys asked about equipment owned or 

accessed, newly purchased, and how these items are shared (Table 13). In Nelson Lagoon, skiffs 

are used in commercial fishing inside the lagoon, but also allow access to subsistence fishing and 

hunting grounds around the lagoon system and up the rivers. Of the 22 households surveyed, 15 

reported owning at least one skiff, and one reported owning 5. Villagers surveyed owned a total 

of 38 skiffs. Twelve households also owned 36 working outboard motors. Thirteen of the 

households surveyed owned 22 snowmobiles, and 14 households owned 26 working 4-wheelers. 

All of these are part of subsistence equipment that gets shared. New items purchased in the 

survey year were two 4-wheelers, one snowmobile, and one truck. 

Cars and trucks are not essential to getting around the small village, and not every household 

owns one because they are expensive to maintain. Sixteen of 22 households reported owning 32 

operating trucks and cars. These were also part of subsistence equipment, allowing people to 

drive along the beach to various hunting, fishing, and gathering sites. 
69 

Table 13. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by Nelson Lagoon in 2009. 

Equipment Type 

Total Households 

(of 22) 

Average per 

Household with 

Equipment Type 

Average per 

Household in 

Village 

Skiffs 38 15 2.5 1.7

Outboard Motor 36 12 3.0 1.6

Commercial > 30' Boat 16 13 1.2 0.7

Snow Mobiles 22 13 1.7 1.0

ATVs; 4-Wheelers 26 14 1.9 1.2

Cars(s) or Truck(s) 32 16 2.0 1.5

. 

Two households reported actively helping two other individuals with subsistence expenses, in 

this case fuel only. 

POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON COMMUNITY LIFE 

Sixteen different individuals were mentioned as having a “positive influence on community life,” 

including the general category of Elders. Six individuals named themselves. These are primarily 

current or former community leaders and/or elders, and many of them are key nodes in the 

network section in Appendix 2. 

SUMMARY 

 Nelson Lagoon relies on the commercial salmon industry as its economic base, which 

is experiencing a variety of difficulties for local participation, including interception 

and low returns in the lagoon.

 The closure of caribou and goose hunting has severely undermined the subsistence 

harvesting culture of the community. Approximately 20 caribou and hundreds of 

geese used to be shared across the village annually. There has been an 89 percent 

reduction in pounds harvested between 1987 and 2009. 

 30 percent of the households account for 70 percent of the total community’s 

harvests. 

 Of the 16,078 total pounds of wild foods entering all Nelson Lagoon households, 

2,889 pounds (18 percent) are the result of social relationships other than the 

household’s own harvests through cooperative hunting and fishing. 

 Several wild foods (including regional seafoods) are purchased because of 

subsistence closures, the lack of seafood variety around Nelson Lagoon, and the 

capacity of some households to hunt and fish.

 Nelson Lagoon residents are “salmon eaters,” taking 445 pounds per household, and 

10,694 pounds in the community in 2009. There is a 40.7 percent increase in 

household salmon harvests from 1987.

 There is a 121 percent increase in household non-salmon fish harvests, a 87 percent 

reduction in household shellfish harvests, and a 36 percent reduction in household 

harvests of birds and eggs between 1987 and 2009.
70 

 Only one household seeks out sea mammals for hunting but has not harvested any in 

recent years. There was a 100 percent reduction in marine mammal use between 1987 

and 2009.

 The community experienced a 388 percent increase in wild plant harvests between 

1987 and 2009.

 Commercial fishing is the mainstay of Nelson Lagoon, with both men and women as 

captains in the fleet, hiring primarily family members as crew.

 The village has experienced a 37 percent population decline between the 2000 and 

2010 censuses, and the closure of the school during this project.

 Average annual costs of living are higher in Nelson Lagoon than in other 

communities (21 percent higher than Port Heiden, 23 percent higher than False Pass, 

and 45 percent higher than Akutan) with propane and groceries largely responsible 

for this difference.

 Nonlocal sport hunting and fishing operations are considered to have negatively 

affected Nelson Lagoon’s subsistence activities. The village has also cornered a 

portion of the sport market for themselves.

 Nelson Lagoon leaders were optimistic about the revenue sharing that could 

potentially result from oil and gas exploration and development, but support for the 

overall project is mixed within the community.
71 

CHAPTER 5. PORT HEIDEN 

INTRODUCTION 

Port Heiden is an Alutiiq Native village located on the north side of the mouth of the Meshik 

River within the Lake and Peninsula Borough (Figure 34). In 2010, Port Heiden had a resident 

population of 102 (78 percent Alutiiq) (Census 2010) (Table 14, Figure 35). It is the most remote 

community in Bristol Bay and is accessed by air through King Salmon. The village is spread out 

for miles with multiple housing subdivisions and new construction occurring regularly. “Ray’s 

Place” is the local name for the community center that houses the health clinic, city office, 

Village Corporation office, tribal IRA Native Council of Port Heiden office, and an office of the 

Bristol Bay Health Corporation. It is also a true community center where people drift in and out 

to visit and work and the coffee is always on. Thirteen residents hold commercial salmon fishing 

permits. Port Heiden is also a member of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, 

which is the local CDQ program. Port Heiden is eight miles from the Aniakchak Caldera 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Figure 34. Regional map for the Port Heiden area. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner 
72 

Table 14. U.S. Census and Survey Population. 

Figure 35. Port Heiden surveyed population and U.S. Census population. 
73 

RECENT VILLAGE HISTORY 

During World War II, the U.S Army Air Corps built Fort Morrow in 1941 as an airfield for 

Alaska defense near the Meshik village site and housed 5,000 personnel. Fort Morrow covered 

several square miles and contained hundreds of buildings. The base was closed after the war and 

largely dismantled. 

In the 1950s, sections of the former Fort Morrow were acquired by the U.S. Air Force, who 

constructed a White Alice Communication Site (WACS) in nearby Port Heiden. These sites were 

part of an Air Force telecommunication system in Alaska during the Cold War for both military 

and civilian uses. Port Heiden also had a Distant Early Warning (DEW) line radar station 

constructed there as part of the system to detect possible attacks from the west. The WACS was 

operated in Port Heiden until 1969. The site was then converted into a Radio Relay Site (RRS), 

which became obsolete in the 1970s; the site was abandoned in 1978. 

The old village of Meshik became vulnerable to erosion and people began moving from the 

village site on the shoreline to higher ground in the 1970s and 1980s. They spread out along the 

roads left over from these old government sites. Community leaders renamed the new village 

Port Heiden after the WACS site and incorporated in 1972.8

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE OF PORT HEIDEN 

Port Heiden resides within the Lake and Peninsula Borough and residents are members of the 

Bristol Bay Native Corporation. The local village corporation, city, and tribal council are all 

housed in the same building and cooperate closely on political and economic development 

projects. Most houses are located on city land, since Alaska Native allotments are all at some 

distance from the village. This was described as “like a land trust” since people chose areas 

where they like to hunt and fish. Port Heiden has many empty, uninhabitable houses all over the 

area after people abandoned them and upgraded to new homes. 

Fuel and power costs are high. Residents and businesses pay 75 cents/kilowatt for power. Some 

families use 500 kilowatts per month. Heating fuel costs are 17 gallons for $100, or $5.88 per 

gallon. There are frequent deliveries because people can only pay a little bit at a time. Several 

people have installed wind turbines at their homes to offset high power costs. Ray’s Place also 

has a wind turbine. 

Port Heiden is eight miles from the Aniakchak Caldera National Wildlife Refuge. Surprise Lake 

formed within the Aniakchak Caldera, and is the only volcano with an active salmon run. Port 

Heiden gets about a dozen hikers per year to the caldera. In the summer of 2009 there was an 

emergency where some hikers’ camp gear blew away. Port Heiden has a volunteer search and 

rescue effort but it is made of “our men” and they were all out fishing. The Coast Guard instead 

was called in for the rescue. Port Heiden has plans to set up a more formalized emergency 

 

8

 www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm?comm_boro_name=Port Heiden 
74 

response team that would supply food, gear, health care and other assistance to distressed hikers, 

and perhaps bring local income. 

Through the National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund, the tribe is pursuing a plan to 

designate a Tribal Trail that would run from the Port Heiden airport to Surprise Lake. The trail 

would serve as a well-known mapped route that tourists can follow or return to for assistance or 

rescue. They are also interested in supporting bird watchers, since there are many species that 

migrate through Port Heiden, especially the marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) which migrates from 

Australia through Hawaii and to Port Heiden. 

Other new local development and construction projects will include a washeteria building and a 

water filtration system.

ETHNICITY 

Port Heiden exists on a cultural border between Alutiiq and Aleut and their ethnonyms reflect 

this. Although some elders speak a Yup’ik dialect called Sugpiaq, English is the common 

language, and most residents call themselves Aleut instead of Alutiiq (Crowell, Steffian and 

Pullar 2001; Kresge et al. 1974; Partnow 2001). Those to the west were called “True Aleuts” by 

some in Port Heiden. Most call themselves Alutiiq or Yup’ik. “Gainkuk” is the local term for 

Russian Aleut. There are also Athapaskans and Aleuts who have married into the community, as 

well as many non-Alaska Natives. The non-Native population is less than 40 percent. Even the 

Alaska Native population acknowledges many facets of ethnicity, including Swedish, Norwegian 

and Danish heritage. 

COMMERCIAL PRACTICES 

Meshik had a saltery for processing both fish and skinning and salting seal skins for commercial 

sale (Figure 36). There are no longer any processing facilities in the village, although a group out 

of Copper River plans to build a fish plant in Port Heiden, supported by the Bristol Bay 

Economic Development Corporation. There is an ice making facility for preserving fish. 

Port Heiden exists on a commercial fisheries boundary. The fishermen of the village fish to the 

east in the Ugashik district of Bristol Bay even though the Area M boundary is above Meshik 

Bay. Most have no intention of switching to Area M because it is cost prohibitive and they would 

have to learn a whole new style of fishing, but some are considering the change. They are 

concerned with how Area M fishermen may affect the Ugashik District’s catch rates. People 

reported a drop in fish availability for subsistence after the Area M line was moved north of 

them. 
75 

Figure 36. The old saltery in Meshik village, Bering Sea shore, November 2009. Photo by K. Reedy-Maschner. 

There are approximately twelve local fishing captains with Area T drift permits. They store their 

boats and skiffs on land in Port Heiden, since there is no harbor. There are also three set gillnet 

permits fished by both men and women. Set gillnet fishing is considered more difficult because 

of the low volume of fish and the dangers of delivering fish in a skiff next to a tender and 

because wakes of the larger boats can swamp them. Setnetters put anchors on the beach to hold 

them steady. Drift fishermen have a different skill set requiring more knowledge of mechanics, 

reading the ocean, water and sandbars, and finding the hot spots for fish. Trident Seafoods does 

not accept set gillnet fish anymore because they are picked at low tide in the mud, and the plant 

is unhappy with this, so they deliver to other tenders in the bay. Processors put people on limits 

when they have got a “big plug” of fish. 

Commercial fishing is seen as a tradition that must be kept alive. If a person owns a boat or 

permit, there is a sense of duty that the owner must fish these. With new employment offered in 

Port Heiden working to remediate soil at the White Alice site, a few men who took these jobs 

were criticized for not fishing even though the permits were still fished by relatives. Some 

consider commercial fishing a “sacrifice industry” because it requires sacrificing family time to 

earn money. Port Heiden’s fishermen hope to be able to fish closer to home near Meshik Bay, 

and have lobbied the Alaska Board of Fisheries to consider allowing overlap areas with Area M 

fishermen. 
76 

SUBSISTENCE PRACTICES 

All subsistence harvesting and sharing practices are highly valued (Table 15). For example, 

community subsistence nets set out next to the village are open to anyone who wants to pick the 

nets. In this way, multiple households are guaranteed some fish, even if they do not have the 

resources to harvest for themselves. Quantity concerns appeared in relation to getting sockeye 

and chum for several residents who observed fewer fish in the subsistence nets. Some residents 

go to Chignik and transport sockeye back, or relatives ship it over in totes, because it is hard to 

get locally. 

Most people travel to Reindeer Creek located to the north up the beach because it is more 

accessible and all five species of salmon are found there. Meshik River is fished for salmon, and 

is also a primary area for seals, clams and non-salmon fish. Coho (silver) salmon are fished at 

Cinder River. A silver salmon derby is held at North River every year where there is competition 

to catch the largest coho salmon. 

Salmon are considered to have a local flavor. “The fish taste muddy here, but I like our fish,” 

said one woman. Another said that Chignik fish taste better, cleaner, whereas Kuskokwim fish 

are oilier. The women claim that even though the fish might be prepared the same way, you can 

tell where they come from by their taste. Several people have smokehouses, and sometimes will 

share the labor and the fish for smoking, processing them together. Salt fish is also desired, 

especially among elders. Salt fish makes a nice breakfast with sourdough pancakes. People will 

put up a couple buckets of salt fish while they are commercial fishing because tenders keep salt 

to cool water for Refrigerated Seawater Systems (RSW) and it is available to them. Another 

prized food for the Alutiiq is “old redfish,” or spawned out sockeye or silver salmon. It is the 

“number one delicacy,” according to one woman in Port Heiden. Others called it simply “old 

fish” and added king salmon to the list. Caviar from old fish is also good, and is squeezed out of 

the fish. This fish also comes into the community via Chignik relatives and friends and they say 

that their fish has a different taste. 

There is a “blackfish,” also called naynays, which is a type of whitefish that lives in cold ponds 

all times of the year. They can be partially frozen and still be alive. They are eaten frozen or raw, 

and can also be boiled and eaten with seal oil. This was called “starvation food” by the elders 

because it is available all year and can be caught with little fish traps or dipnets. “The lakes here 

are more like ponds,” said one woman. They have sticklebacks and blood suckers in them. 

Candlefish are caught there as well, and are slightly smoked and dried. 
77 

Table 15. Port Heiden’s Subsistence Harvest Data, 2009. 

Species N of

Cases

Minimum Maximum Range Sum (Total

Lbs ReportedHarvested)

Mean Std Error

of Mean

95% LCL

mean

95% upper

CL mean

Std.

Dev.

MpH

Birds/Eggs Goldeneye Duck 1 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 

Scoter Ducks 1 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.9 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Gull Eggs 1 1.80 1.80 0.00 1.8 1.80 1.80 1.80 

Pintail Duck 1 8.00 8.00 0.00 8 8.00 8.00 8.00 

Sandhill Crane 1 8.40 8.40 0.00 8.4 8.40 8.40 8.40 

Mallard Duck 1 12.00 12.00 0.00 12 12.00 12.00 12.00 

Teal Duck 1 12.00 12.00 0.00 12 12.00 12.00 12.00 

Unknown Duck 2 3.00 45.00 42.00 48 24.00 21.00  ‐242.83 290.83 29.70 

Brant Geese 6 2.40 24.00 21.60 62.4 10.40 3.38 1.72 19.08 8.27 

Geese 3 15.00 25.00 10.00 65 21.67 3.33 7.32 36.01 5.77 

Ptarmigan 15 1.40 49.00 47.60 185.5 12.37 3.39 5.09 19.65 13.15 

Canadian Geese 5 6.30 210.00 203.70 277.2 55.44 39.19  ‐53.37 164.25 87.63 

Total 682.02 

Land mammal Arctic Hare 1 5.60 5.60 0.00 5.6 5.60 5.60 5.60 

Porcupine 1 8.00 8.00 0.00 8 8.00 8.00 8.00 

River Otter 2 3.00 15.00 12.00 18 9.00 6.00  ‐67.24 85.24 8.49 

Wolverine 1 35.00 35.00 0.00 25 35.00 35.00 35.00 

Beaver 2 80.00 200.00 120.00 280 140.00 60.00  ‐622.37 902.37 84.85 

Caribou 1 600.00 600.00 0.00 600 600.00 600.00 600.00 

Red Fox 1 600.00 600.00 0.00 600 600.00 600.00 600.00 

Brown Bear 2 350.00 700.00 350.00 1050 525.00 175.00 ‐1698.59 2748.59 247.49 

Wolf 2 525.00 525.00 0.00 1050 525.00 0.00 525.00 525.00 0.00 

Moose 2 540.00 1080.00 540.00 1620 810.00 270.00 ‐2620.67 4240.67 381.84 

Total 5256.6 

Non‐Salmon Fish Rainbow Trout 1 2.80 2.80 0.00 2.8 2.80 2.80 2.80 

Cod 1 3.20 3.20 0.00 3.2 3.20 3.20 3.20 

Yellowfin Sole 1 10.00 10.00 0.00 10 10.00 10.00 10.00 

Black Rockfish 1 15.00 15.00 0.00 15 15.00 15.00 15.00 

Flounders 1 50.00 50.00 0.00 50 50.00 50.00 50.00 

Smelt 1 84.00 84.00 0.00 84 84.00 84.00 84.00 

Dolly Varden 5 1.40 140.00 138.60 316.4 63.28 31.48 ‐24.12 150.68 70.39 

Halibut 4 76.80 172.80 96.00 464.8 116.20 20.45 51.11 181.29 40.90 

Total 946.2 

Plants Wineberries 2 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.24 0.12 0.04  ‐0.39 0.63 0.06 

Fireweed 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Wild Rice 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Wild Rhubard 2 0.08 1.00 0.92 1.08 0.54 0.46 ‐5.30 6.38 0.65 
78 

Species N of

Cases

Minimum Maximum Range Sum (Total

Lbs ReportedHarvested)

Mean Std Error

of Mean

95% LCL

mean

95% upper

CL mean

Std.

Dev.

MpH

Petrushki 1 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 2.00 2.00 2.00 

Pushki 2 0.16 2.00 1.84 2.16 1.08 0.92 ‐10.61 12.77 1.30 

Cranberries 1 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 3.00 3.00 3.00 

Blueberries 1 4.00 4.00 0.00 4 4.00 4.00 4.00 

Tundra Tea 3 1.00 4.00 3.00 6 2.00 1.00  ‐2.30 6.30 1.73 

Salmonberries 2 0.16 8.00 7.84 8.16 4.08 3.92 ‐45.73 53.89 5.54 

Beach Greens 4 0.08 24.00 23.92 26.24 6.56 5.83  ‐11.99 25.11 11.66 

Mossberries 11 0.16 40.00 39.84 140.32 12.76 3.35 5.29 20.22 11.11 

Total 195.2 

Salmon Pink Salmon 5 5.00 37.50 32.50 107.5 21.50 6.10 4.55 38.45 13.65 

Chum Salmon 1 271.00 271.00 0.00 271 271.00 271.00 271.00 

Coho Salmon 17 11.56 173.40 161.84 1161.78 68.34 11.43 44.10 92.58 47.14 

Sockeye Salmon 16 15.54 1554.00 1538.46 4983.16 311.45 103.85 90.10 532.79 415.39 

Chinook Salmon 16 33.26 1862.56 1829.30 5853.76 365.86 119.19 111.82 619.90 476.75 

Total 12377.2 

Marine Mammal Steller Sea Lion 1 200.00 200.00 0.00 200 200.00 200.00 200.00 

Sea Otter 4 58.50 97.50 39.00 312 78.00 11.26 42.17 113.83 22.52 

Ring Seal 1 850.00 850.00 0.00 850 850.00 850.00 850.00 

Harbor Seal 6 56.00 560.00 504.00 1792 298.67 95.55 53.06 544.28 234.04 

Total 3154 

Shellfish Surf Clam 2 0.05 7.50 7.45 7.55 3.78 3.73  ‐43.56 51.11 5.27 

Horse Clam 2 4.00 7.50 3.50 11.5 5.75 1.75 ‐16.49 27.99 2.47 

Cockles 8 0.96 30.00 29.04 64.26 8.03 3.52  ‐0.30 16.37 9.97 

Total 83.31 

All Resources Total 19540.53 
79 

People scavenge beaches for glass balls for crafts and walrus tusks for carving. No one from Port 

Heiden hunts walrus, but they will collect dead ones that have washed up on the beach and boil 

them down for dog food. Walrus reside on Round Island, which is a protected area. One 

household gets walrus meat from friends in Togiak, trading berries from Port Heiden’s berry 

patches. Berries are favorite subsistence foods. Berry patches (moss berries, cranberries, 

wineberries, and high bush salmonberries) are family secrets. Mossberry abundance is down 

from previous years. People talked of “no blackberries,” (referring to mossberries) but this really 

means very low quantity; for example, it took one lady one hour to gather a quart. 

The residents of Port Heiden eat a beach herb that is sometimes called Alaska spinach. It has a 

red flower and is called qurrkiq locally. Other beach greens are boiled down and sautéed in 

butter. They eat fiddlehead ferns too, but these are not found in any abundance. Fireweed 

blossoms are picked and made into jelly using sugar and pectin. They also gather an herb called 

“Tundra tea” (Caa’uq, more commonly known as Labrador tea) which is acknowledged as good 

medicine but dangerous if one drinks too much. Chamomile is found locally too. 

Both sea and land otters are hunted and trapped, and described in terms of pelt utility. Land 

otters are smaller and about 30 land otters are needed for a woman’s coat. Sea otters are hunted 

frequently and their pelts are very valuable, requiring 20 for a family to have coats. Over several 

years with hard winters (especially 2006-2007 and 2011-2012), sea otters have suffered. Sea 

otters need water to keep their pelts clean in order to stay warm. There was so much sea ice that 

they could not get to the water and tried to cross land approximately 30 miles to the Pacific side. 

Many of them died because of the journey and predation by wolves, foxes, dogs, eagles and 

crows. Local people found many near death and took about 17 of them to make hats and mittens 

out of their fur. The media picked up this story and “portrayed us as monsters.” 

One Steller sea lion (SSL) has been taken in Port Heiden in recent memory. They prefer to hunt 

and eat subadults to the larger Steller sea lions. Seal fat (from Phocid sp.) and seal oil are eaten 

regularly. Seal meat is considered essential food for women who have just given birth. A bearded 

seal was caught in the area one year, but is a very rare sight. 

People used to get tons of clams, but now they state that there are too many sea otters. “We like 

‘em like that,” said one lady nodding towards a sea otter pelt, one that was seven feet long, shot 

by her brother. Cockles are the most common bivalve, but they are lost to sea otters and other 

unknown processes. There used to be a lot of sea urchins too, but not anymore. The people call 

sea cucumbers “assholes” because of their appearance and their sediment eating behavior, and 

only a few people eat them. People also harvest snails and shrimp for consumption. 

“Part of the Native style of life is sharing,” said one local man, as he described how intertwined 

he and his family’s harvesting and food sharing activities are with other friends and family. He 

and his girlfriend get pike, freshwater trout and beluga from friends and family in Bristol Bay. 

Many people also share equipment with relatives. Sharing networks are strong within the village, 

but also extend into other communities such as Chignik Bay, Aleknagik, Perryville, Pilot Point, 

and Dillingham. Smelts from Naknek and Pilot Point will be sent down. Jarred fish is also sent 
80 

out to relatives in Alaska universities and outside the state. Fish, razor clams, pinkneck clams, 

butter clams, cockles, steamer clams, halibut, black bass, crab, sea urchins, octopus, bidarkis, 

gumboots, red snapper and cod are also sent over from the Pacific side villages of Chignik Lake, 

Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon and Perryville. 

There was a great deal of discussion about all the foods people used to get. Caribou, beluga 

whale, rabbits, beaver and beaver tail... “Everyone came from the Pacific side to hunt caribou 

here,” said one man, because of the alders and larger hummocks on the Pacific side. It was easier 

to hunt near Port Heiden. Caribou hunting is now completely closed (Tier II). Several people 

read the regulations and found that caribou may be hunted for “ceremonial purposes.”9 Funerals 

qualify for this, so caribou will be hunted for the potluck part of the ceremony. If there are 

several deaths, they can harvest one for each deceased person, and will wait to do it all together. 

These ceremonial hunts are also used to teach youth to hunt caribou, since there is a worry that 

children will not learn the skills while the hunts are closed. Hunters will take children out to 

practice hunting seal first. 

“Caribou used to come by the thousands, now it’s by the tens. You used to hear them before you 

see them.” They used to import no meat at all. People report ordering more store bought foods 

now that caribou hunting is closed, but most agree that they consider that beef is inferior to 

caribou and harder for them to digest. One family paid $1000 on beef in 2009, including freight. 

Another man with a large family spent $4000 on beef in 2012 and “I don’t even like it.” “We had 

come to expect it. I never thought we’d never have caribou. Have to buy meat now.” 

Wolves are contributing to their decline. One man mentioned that he took a small group of 

teenagers moose hunting and they found 14 caribou carcasses from a wolf kill, since wolves will 

kill for sport as well as food. Wolves select for the choicest parts of the animals too. There is 

some tension with biologists over the caribou management. Locals report that the caribou are 

rebounding through their counts of calves in the herd. Dillingham relatives will sometimes send 

caribou meat if they are allowed to hunt. 

Pilot Point participated in a pilot project to bring in musk ox and Port Heiden is interested in 

something similar. There used to be semi-domesticated reindeer in Pilot Point and one woman 

stated that her Alutiiq grandfather was a local herder in Pilot Point. There was a concern over 

caribou-reindeer hybrids in Port Heiden because of an economic experiment near Pilot Point. 

“Up north they are short. They are true caribou.” 

Wolves are a huge concern for the people of Port Heiden. Two women reported getting chased. 

Five dogs have been killed so far. Five moose were taken in Perryville by wolves. They can be 

hunted, and the limit is 10 wolves per day, but they are difficult to hunt. 

Moose are hunted on the plateau, which is a wide long hill behind the village. It is treated 

somewhat as a substitute for caribou, although people complain about “trying to get used to 

moose.” In one family there are five households (about 50 people) and it only takes two moose to 

feed them all. They grind the tough meat into hamburger. Some sent it out for it to be made into 

summer sausage, polish sausage and “hotdogs.” They also eat moose innards when they are fresh 

 

9

 This is the only village in the study that took advantage of this. 
81 

by first boiling and then frying the heart, liver and kidneys, and eating the meat with sourdough 

pancakes. People also make corned moose, which is prepared like corned beef in a salty brine. 

Moose meat is also dried in a dehydrator and made into jerky. Guides come from all over and 

make an impact on the moose. Sport hunters only want the trophy heads and pelts, so the guides 

will fly the meat into the village, and this helps families. This practice is waning too, however. It 

typically goes to elders and lower income people first. 

The previous baseline study from 1987 compared to 2009 data show the dearth of land mammals 

hunted now compared to previous years (Figures 37 and 38). This is seen in both pounds usable 

weight and the total community harvest levels (Figure 39). Both changes in estimated total 

pounds and the percent change in estimated total pounds reflect the region-wide reduction in 

access to caribou and the concomitant shift towards salmon in these communities (Figures 40 

and 41). Port Heiden also has experienced a significant increase in the use of sea mammals as an 

alternative to their access to terrestrial mammals. These same community data are reflected at the 

household level (Figures 42 and 43). 

Figure 37. Pounds usable weight harvested by species category between the 1987 Subsistence Division survey 

(37 of 37 HHs) and this project (22 of 29 HHs), Port Heiden. 

. 
82 

Figure 38. Percent of total pounds usable weight harvested by resource category in Port Heiden between 1987 

(37 of 37 HHs) and 2009 (22 of 29 HHs) (Source: ADF&G CSIS). 

Figure 39. Estimated total community harvest levels for 1987 and 2009 by species category, Port Heiden. 
83 

Figure 40. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 1987 and 

2009, Port Heiden. 

Figure 41. Percent change of estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 

1987 and 2009, Port Heiden. 
84 

Figure 42. Change in average pounds harvested per household between 1987 and 2009, Port Heiden. 

Figure 43. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1987 and 2009, Port Heiden. 

Subsistence Security 

Because caribou hunting is closed, and moose are very sparse now because of sport hunting 

pressure, hunters have moved on to hunting bear for food. Regulations do not require them to 

salvage the meat but they will take orders from elders and others who like select parts of the 

bear, and bring those portions home from a hunt. In 2009, brown bear ranked sixth in top ten 

harvests, but the entire animal is generally not consumed, only choice parts. Respondents said 

usually young bears, approximately 300 pounds, taste the best. 

When comparing the top 10 species harvested between 1987 and 2009, a number of important 

changes have occurred. The overwhelming dominance of caribou in 1987 has been replaced by 
85 

chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, and harbor seal (Figures 44 and 45). These data are reflected in 

pounds per capita harvested and the percent change per capita harvested between these two time 

periods (Figures 46 and 47). 

Figure 44. Top ten species harvested in 1987, Port Heiden. 

Figure 45. Top ten species harvested in 2009, Port Heiden. 
86 

Figure 46. Change in pounds usable weight harvested per capita in 2009 for the top ten species harvested in 

1987, Port Heiden. 

Figure 47. Percent change in per capita harvest in 2009 for the top 10 species harvested in 1987, Port Heiden. 

There is a community-wide emphasis in making sure that children learn how to harvest this 

landscape and use wild foods. For example, a local man recently ran a culture/subsistence camp 

where he took 14 children to Strogonof Point and taught them about harvesting numerous species 

and living in the wild, and told stories about his own adventures. This man stated that uncles 

should teach, not the fathers, because they will be too soft on the children. For this camp, he 

taught them the rules of hunting and what not to take in a certain year, for example, never take 

any animal when they are pupping, calving or hatching. He also taught about medicines in teas 

and roots; they have to be used in moderation because they are strong. 
87 

Port Heiden also hosts Culture Week, also known as Carnival, in early March in which people 

from all over the Lake and Peninsula Borough come to Port Heiden for a big celebration. These 

weeks are also for recording elders’ stories and listening to one another. There is singing, eating, 

language sessions, crafts, skin sewing, and dancing, among other celebrations. Other nearby 

villages hosts similar Carnivals and invite Port Heiden to attend. 

Many households are not getting enough land mammals (caribou and moose) due to sport 

pressure and population problems, plants (berries in this case, due to a poor spring), or shellfish 

(cockles/clams) due to sea otters (Figure 48). When asked whether or not people used less, the 

same, or more of certain resources, the significant responses for 2009 were less clams, berries, 

and gull eggs (Figure 49). 

Wild foods that are used in Port Heiden are mostly hunted, fished or collected. There were 

instances of people purchasing canned clams from Anchorage and from the local store to 

supplement the lack of clams found in the area. Figure 50 reflects those purchases compared to 

others. 

Figure 48. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, in 

percentages of Port Heiden households (N=22), 2009. 
88 

Figure 49. Port Heiden’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 2009 that in the 

past. 

Figure 50. Port Heiden Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, 2009. 
89 

The “30/70 rule” identified by the Subsistence Division, where 30 percent of a community’s 

households harvest approximately 70 percent of that community’s subsistence (in pounds usable 

weight), was tested for Port Heiden using a Pareto chart (Figure 51). For the households 

surveyed, Port Heiden demonstrates a higher concentration of harvests, where approximately 30 

percent of households account for 81 percent of the community’s total harvests. When 

considering the keystone species category of salmon (Figure 52), 30 percent of households are 

responsible for just over 70 percent of the community’s total harvests. 

123456789

10

11

1213

141516171819202122

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

30:81

Figure 51. Pareto chart showing Port Heiden's household harvests, where 30 percent of the households are 

responsible for 81 percent of the harvests. 

1

6

5

15

17

4

16

9

11

13

14

10

7

8

12

3

2

18

19

20

21

22

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

Figure 52. Pareto chart for salmon harvesters showing that about 30 percent of the households harvest 70 

percent of the salmon in Port Heiden. 
90 

Figure 53 shows the total pounds of wild foods harvested by each household next to the total 

pounds of wild foods received. Three of the 22 surveyed households harvested no wild foods, 

and all received at least some. Of the 29,784 total pounds entering all Port Heiden households, 

8,492 (28.5 percent) were received through sharing and are the products of social relationships. 

Figure 53. Total pounds of wild foods harvested versus pounds received by household, Port Heiden. 

Crews and Cooperative Hunting and Fishing 

Hunting is usually done in groups of men, or in family groups. To take a moose, a minimum of 

three hunters need to be working. Families tend to fish together, dig clams, pick berries and hunt 

ducks and geese together. Members of the largest family in Port Heiden talked about their 

“production line processing” after fishing and hunting expeditions. Generally, hunters and 

fishermen work cooperatively and share the results of their harvests. 

Networks 

Figures 54 and 55 show examples of the flow of foods for a hunter and fisherman from Port 

Heiden using interview data in 2008 and survey data in 2009. This is a highly subsistence-active 

individual who is responsible for providing certain foods to many households. In addition, this 

man harvests all five species of salmon, numerous birds, clams, seals and sea otters, and dolly 

varden for his own household. More comprehensive network data analysis is found in Appendix 

2. 
91 

Figure 54. A sample of the flow of foods between households for one Port Heiden hunter/fisherman in 2008. 
92 

Figure 55. Sharing network for the same individual as in Figure 54 for 2009. Colors are added only to 

distinguish between lines. I=Individual, P=Processor, and ?=unknown/unidentified source. Numbers are 

codes distinguishing between identities. 

Spatial Data 

Port Heiden residents make use of the entire landscape and waterways between Aniakchak and 

Bristol Bay for subsistence and recreation using 4-wheeler trails and also traveling on foot. All 

spatial and geographic land use data are presented in Appendix 1. 

COMMUNITY ECONOMICS 

Fishing income only represented 24 percent of the household incomes in 2009 (Figure 56). This 

is partly because there were temporary jobs in soil remediation of the old White Alice site nearby 

which provided good wages. Directed fishing earnings in Port Heiden reported here are from six 

captains and four crewmen. The crewmen are all employed with local captains. These are 

primarily salmon fishermen. Forty adults named 85 separate job titles in Port Heiden, or 2.1 jobs 

per adult (Table 16). The majority of income in Port Heiden comes from a combination of local 

government, services, and fisheries (Table 17). More than 88 percent of the income in Port 

Heiden is earned income. Only 12 percent in composed of dividends or public assistance (Figure 

57). 
93 

Figure 56. Port Heiden household incomes for fishing and non-fishing earnings, 2009. This does not take into 

account returns to the village from CDQs. 

Table 16. Job titles identified by Port Heiden survey participants. 

Heavy Equipment Operator/Laborer 15 Sport Guide 2 

Fisherman/Crewman 13 Tribal Children Service Worker 2 

Beach Cleanup 8 Airport Maintenance 1 

Beach Cleanup 7 Airport Manager 1 

Handyman 4 Administrative Asst. 1 

Tribal/Corporation Administration 3 Coach 1 

Janitor 3 City Clerk 1 

Retail Clerk 3 Postmaster 1 

Babysitter 2 Flagger 1 

Bookkeeper/Billing 2 Fuel Deliverer 1 

Bus Driver 2 Teachers Aide 1 

Health Aide 2 Meter Reader 1

Cook 2 Business Owner 1

Environmental Director 2 Tank Farm Manager 1

 Peninsula Airways Agent 1
94 

Table 17. Earned and other income, Port Heiden, 2009. 

 Households Total 

Income 

Average 

per HH 

Earned Income 

Local Government 16 608960 38060 

Federal Government 6 155500 25917 

Fisheries 11 454450 41314 

Retail 6 91000 15167 

Services 13 275320 21178 

Education 1 1000 1000 

Transportation 1 32000 32000 

Other 1 7000 7000 

Construction 1 2000 2000 

Total Earned Income $1627230 

 

Other Income 

Alaska Permanent Fund 

Dividend 

20 80905 4045 

Native Corporation Dividend 16 23653 1478 

Unemployment 4 13400 3350 

Workers' Compensation 1 12000 12000 

Food Stamps 3 14850 4950 

Social Security 4 45960 11490 

Pension 1 27009 27009 

Child Support 4 16500 4125 

WIC 1 1926 1926 

Total Other Income $236202 

PORT HEIDEN TOTAL $1863432 
95 

Figure 57. Port Heiden income sources, 2009 

EXPENSES AND EXPENSE NETWORKS 

Household Expenses 

Groceries 

There is a grocery store in Port Heiden, Jack’s New Meshik Mall, where many grocery purchases 

are made and through which outside orders are coordinated. Households will also order 

independently. Households in Port Heiden spent an average of $10,409 on groceries (Figure 58). 

Grocery expenses reported ranged from between 5 percent to 41 percent of households’ total 

incomes. Many large orders are shared between family members (Figure 59). 

Figure 58. Relative Percentages of Annual Expenses, Port Heiden.
96 

Figure 59. Shared grocery and other orders by four households with one matriarch. 

Rent or Mortgage 

Nine of the 22 surveyed households in Port Heiden pay a rent or a mortgage. These average 

$3,200 annually, or $267 per month, and are typically paid to the Bristol Bay Housing Authority. 

Heating Fuel 

Households in Port Heiden pay an average of $3,898 in heating fuel costs. Fuel prices for 2009 

appear in Figure 60. Most households buy fuel oil, with a few heating by electricity from diesel 

powered generators. 

Propane 

Households pay approximately $544 in propane costs annually. 

Electricity 

An average of $3,375 per year is paid in electricity for each household. Port Heiden Utilities 

provides electricity from diesel powered electrical generators. The community building and 

several households have also added wind turbines to offset utility costs. 

Water-Sewer-Garbage 

These services are fairly inexpensive relative to other expenses in Port Heiden, with households 

paying an average of $230 annually. Garbage collection occurs three days a week and the city 

manages a landfill several miles from the village. 
97 

Telephone 

Telephone service cost households an average of $913 annually during the survey year. Since 

then, many people have converted to cell phones and discontinued their land lines. 

Television 

Every home had at least one television, costing an average of $1,528 annually. 

Figure 60. Gas & Fuel Prices posted in Ray’s Place, the community center of Port Heiden. Photo by K. 

Reedy-Maschner, March 2010. Gasoline in Anchorage in March 2010 was $3.20 per gallon, and the national 

average was $2.81. 

Subsistence Expenses 

Gasoline 

Estimating only gasoline costs for subsistence harvesting trips, households averaged $1,025 

annually. 

Ammunition 

$262 was spent annually on ammunition for subsistence. This also included ammunition for 

killing wolves near the village, which is a part of protecting subsistence resources. 

Supplies 

An estimated $342 in subsistence supplies above ammunition and gasoline was spent in the 

survey year for each household. 
98 

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased 

Subsistence nets placed off the beach in Meshik Bay are generally shared with anyone who 

needs or wants some fish. Other equipment that allows subsistence activities owned by the 22 

households surveyed is listed below (Table 18). 

Table 18. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by Port Heiden in 2009. 

Equipment Type 

Total Households 

(of 22) 

Average per 

Household with 

Equipment Type 

Average per 

Household in 

Village 

Skiffs 8 5 1.6 0.4

Outboard Motor 8 4 2 0.4

Commercial > 30' Boat 7 7 1 0.3

Snow Mobiles 8 4 2 0.4

ATVs; 4-Wheelers 17 13 1.3 0.8

Cars(s) or Truck(s) 39 19 2.1 1.8

POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON COMMUNITY LIFE 

Twenty individuals and entities were named as having a positive influence on community life, 

including the tribal council and elders generally. Three women were named between five and 

seven times, one of whom is now deceased. They were praised for strong leadership, ethics, and 

community support. 

SUMMARY 

 Port Heiden appears to harvest a greater variety (54 different species) of wild foods, and a 

greater quantity of sea mammals, fish, and land species than the other study communities 

from local lands and waters. 

 Port Heiden fishermen fish Bristol Bay Area T commercial fisheries as a primary 

economic base and employ family as crew. Commercial salmon fishery openings are 

starting earlier and earlier, which can interfere with subsistence and, thus, sharing. 

 The city, tribal council and village pursue economic development options that involve 

land reclamation and soil remediation to keep their village and resources healthy. 

 30 percent of the households account for 81 percent of the total community’s harvests, 

whereas 30 percent of households account for 70 percent of the community’s total 

salmon harvests. 

 Of the 29,784 total pounds of wild foods entering all Port Heiden households, 8,492 (28.5 

percent) were received through sharing and are the result of social relationships other 

than the household’s own harvests through cooperative hunting and fishing. 

 The primary subsistence food is all species of salmon with 562.6 edible pounds per 

household (a 137 percent increase from 1987) and 16,315.4 edible pounds harvested for 

the community (an 86.1 percent increase from 1987). 

 Gas rationing is a concern, and forces people to delay or combine hunts/fishing 

expeditions. 
99 

 Closure of caribou hunting has increased grocery costs, altered people’s hunting behavior 

to target moose and bear, and is threatening a generation with cultural and skills losses. 

 There was a 96.4 percent drop in per capita edible pounds harvested of caribou between 

1987 and 2009. Moose and brown bear have gained importance, yet households reported 

68.5 percent less land mammals harvested since 1987. 

 Households reported harvesting 32 percent more non-salmon fish and 244 percent more 

marine mammals between 1987 and 2009. 

 Households reported harvesting 92.3 percent less shellfish, 16.5% fewer birds and eggs, 

and 77 percent fewer wild plants between 1987 and 2009. 

 Port Heiden is the only study village to seek and gain permits for ceremonial and 

educational caribou hunts. 

 Sport hunting and fishing operations were identified by local people as negatively 

affecting Port Heiden’s subsistence access. 

 Community fishing nets support many people who have no other means to fish. 

 Sharing networks are widespread, frequent, and diverse, occurring between Pacific 

communities (e.g. Perryville, the Chigniks) and into Bristol Bay. 

 The population experienced a 14 percent decline between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. 

 Economic opportunities in soil remediation and environmental cleanup currently support 

the majority of the community, and are attracting population growth. 

 Controversy over the Pebble Mine has shaped attitudes towards all natural resource 

exploration and development. Leaders see opportunities for jobs and revenue sharing, 

while the community support is mixed. 
100 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
101 

CHAPTER 6. FALSE PASS 

INTRODUCTION 

False Pass is an Aleut village located on the eastern end of Unimak Island facing Isanotski Strait 

(Figure 61). Isanax means “the pass” in Aleut, and was renamed False Pass because of the 

difficulties in navigating the channel. Established in 1917 from dwindling nearby villages, the 

community has been a small commercial fishing port for the past century. Today, the community 

struggles to stay viable; False Pass has a population of 35 (66 percent Aleut) (Census 2010). 

There are two homesteads across the pass. Six fishermen held seven commercial salmon fishing 

permits in 2008, with additional permit holdings in halibut, herring, sablefish, and other 

groundfish fisheries. 

Figure 61. Regional map for the False Pass area. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner 

VILLAGE HISTORY 

False Pass was established around a P.E. Harris cannery beginning in 1917 with people from the 

now vacant villages of Morzhovoi, Ikatan and Sanak Island. Having been purchased by Peter Pan 

Seafoods, the cannery operated until it burned in 1981, but the facility continued to be a supply 
102 

base. In 2003, Peter Pan Seafoods announced closure of its facility altogether, but continues as a 

fueling station for the fishing fleet (Figure 62). 

Figure 62. Old Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. sign lying in the tundra, False Pass, Alaska, August 2009. Photo by K. 

Reedy-Maschner. 

A school was built in False Pass in 1929, but did not operate every year as the number of 

children in the community fluctuated, especially since the school in Ikatan operated until 1956 

and there was a lot of movement between communities. The school in False Pass was in the 

cannery hospital building. The next school was built in 1966 also on cannery property due to the 

efforts of the late Borge Larsen, the former cannery manager who was a legendary figure in the 

whole region. He followed his uncle Chris Larsen there from Denmark to take care of the P.E. 

Harris cannery. The AEB built the most recent school in the 1990s. It has struggled to stay open 

since the number of children is small. 

The cannery was the focal point of False Pass, and owned fish traps near Ikatan, East Anchor and 

Pavlof Bay (Figure 61). The P.E. Harris facility was sold to Pacific American Fisheries and later 

to Peter Pan Seafoods. It processed salmon, crab and other Bering Sea and Pacific Ocean fish, 

but was always a smaller operation than its facility in King Cove. Food and supply orders came 

to the cannery store on the M/V Dolphin boat from Seattle, a small barge that came once a 

month. When Peter Pan burned in 1981, the False Pass economy struggled. Commercial fishing 

remained the focus of the economy, but fishermen delivered to tenders for the King Cove plant. 

Some people moved to King Cove and Sand Point. 

The old Peter Pan Seafoods dock is now a fueling station with one man operating it, living in the 

“ghost town.” Another family rents a house there from Peter Pan every summer, fishing nearby 
103 

and delivering to the Peter Pan tender that comes over from King Cove. The buildings appear as 

if people just closed the doors and left, leaving the store and houses as is. 

There is an old boardwalk through the old part of town, but the village is now a series of roads, 

and the old boardwalk is in a terrible state, no longer used. Everyone uses “bikes” and cars now, 

driving the need for gasoline. Beach access is somewhat obscured because of the emphasis on 

roads. The F/V Western Dawn that caught fire at sea in 2006 sits as burned up wreckage on the 

beach, a reminder of fishing dangers. 

Figure 63 shows a demographic profile of the community of False Pass. Table 19 breaks this 

down by household data. Both these sets of data show the very small number of children in the 

community, further emphasis that these communities are vulnerable. 

Figure 63. False Pass surveyed population and U.S. Census population. 
104 

Table 19. U.S. Census and Survey Population, False Pass. 

FISHERIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

In 2000, Bering Pacific Seafoods opened as a local cooperative cannery, which closed after two 

years. It reopened for the 2008-2012 salmon seasons and hires “outsiders” and a few local 

people. There used to be a “dipper,” a floating processor/barge at the end of the dock in the late 

1990s, and this facility is considered a major improvement. 

Peter Pan Seafoods in King Cove sends tenders over to the False Pass area to collect fish off the 

boats. A tender, a type of vessel that moves fish from boats to canneries, that is operated by the 

seafood processor SnoPac comes down from Bristol Bay. Bering Pacific Seafoods, or BP, is 

primarily a “slime line”, which is a fish gutting and cleaning assembly line to ready fish for 

market. They hire workers at $9/hour and provide housing, food, and transportation. 

Commercial fishing issues weigh heavily on False Pass as a community and as a fishery. In the 

late 1990s and early 2000s, the “False Pass” fishery became hotly contested by people of the 

Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay regions as unfairly intercepting salmon bound for 

those streams. “False Pass was a convenient target,” one local man said, and the controversy, and 

subsequent fluctuations in fishing regulations for the Area M fishery, added stress to an already 

fragile community. 
105 

Fishermen complained that they used to fish only in the summer to make a living but now must 

fish all year long. There are only four boats holding slips year round. There is a concern over 

fishing opportunities lost to local communities. “Handliners” refers to the cod fishermen of the 

late 19th and early 20th centuries who fished commercially for cod from dories using handlines. 

These men married locally and are ancestors to many in the region. Cod fishery traditions were 

lost to the future generations through North Pacific Fisheries Management Council management 

allocations. “Our fathers and grandfathers were handliners. It’s in my heritage but where’s my 

portion?” False Pass also participates in the CDQ program APICDA, which is funded based 

upon a portion of the Bering Sea pollock quota. 

Crab fishing was described as a “huge tragedy,” referring to the rationalization of crab. In 2005, 

the crab fisheries were restructured by the NPFMC to give quotas to both vessels and processors 

based upon historical participation, effectively reducing the crab fleet by approximately 75 

percent. In 2008, there were perhaps 85 boats fishing in what used to be a 350 boat fishery. False 

Pass collected fishery tax on a PPSF floating processor that was put across the bay in season. 

False Pass also sold fuel and hanging bait to crab fishermen, and offered pot storage. A local 

man also moved pots for the boats as an employee of Isanotski Pot Storage. He also worked 

making alterations on the pots for the different fisheries/species. There were industries within the 

industry that have dwindled or no longer exist. Before rationalization, there were 5,000 pots 

stored in False Pass. Now there are 2,200 crab pots for 46 boats stored there. 

One elder described how the pass used to be full of king crab. Locals would shine lights on the 

water to attract king crab which would come towards the people, who caught them with their 

hands. He said there were so many that the residents were feeding them to their dogs, “but not 

one codfish” was to be found. “Now you throw a halibut line off the Municipal Dock and get two 

codfish before it hits the bottom.” People in False Pass will sometimes get crab from non-local 

Bering Sea crab fishermen passing through. 

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE OF FALSE PASS 

False Pass faces serious housing shortages due to deterioration of the houses standing. There was 

an out-migration in early to mid-2009, and the population was down to 45 people in August 

2009. By March 2010, only 35 permanent residents called False Pass home. Out-migration was 

due to failed relationships and partners leaving (with children too), people choosing to attend 

school in Anchorage, and people leaving for work. Several recent deaths also contribute to the 

decline (Figure 64). 
106 

Figure 64. The cemetery, fire truck, and house in the mountain shadows, False Pass 2009. Photo by K. ReedyMaschner. 

Despite this drop in population, the city has still secured numerous improvement monies. There 

is a planned airport expansion that was approved in the state budget. There is newly remodeled 

warehousing at the airstrip, and there is a new weather system set up there so Cold Bay pilots can 

get reliable information before flying. There is a new harbor completed in July 2009 (with rocks 

barged in because they cannot quarry rock here) and new crab pot storage space created by the 

waste from the harbor dredge. False Pass boats used to anchor in the pass using huge 750 lb. 

anchors during the fishing season, and pulled their boats up onto the beach in the off season. This 

was very hard on all the vessels due to the harsh weather. 

There is a new liquor store owned by the Isanotski Corporation, the local village corporation, 

open for a couple hours each week day. There is a new landfill recently completed. Aleutian 

Housing Authority (AHA)10 workers were building a duplex in the summer of 2009 for a Village 

Public Safety Officer (VPSO) hired in 2011. This is a local law enforcement and first responder 

 

10 Aleutian Housing Authority (AHA) was organized in 1977 to provide affordable housing and related housing 

services to low-to-moderate-income families throughout the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region. With the passage 

of the federal Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) in 1998, AHA became the 

"Tribally Designated Housing Entity" (TDHE) for the region. 
107 

program that provides rural Alaska communities with public safety assistance, when hired. A 

business need mentioned repeatedly is that of a hardware store. 

Profit-sharing forms a significant portion of the local revenue. APICDA and Bering Pacific 

Seafoods engage in profit sharing. There is also revenue from wharfage charges, mooring fees, 

sales tax, bed taxes, and a raw fish tax. 

Although the community has a Library and Recreation Center, neither was open regularly for 

youths in 2009. The Recreation Center is rented out by the City to travelers and researchers as 

hotel space, and it is where the author of this report stayed and conducted interviews. There were 

stacks of tissue boxes everywhere, left over from a number of recent funerals. The clinic is 

located near the cemetery, and one man joked that once someone dies they “open a shoot and 

send them over to their grave.” Although every community faces difficulties related to alcohol 

and untimely deaths, several recent “younger deaths” that were alcohol related in False Pass 

made it a current topic for discussion during interviews. As one woman stated, “You’re looking 

at a few square miles with nothing but a liquor store.” 

There was a discussion of a greenhouse being built for home grown vegetables. The cancer rate 

is high and diet was blamed by several people; it was hoped that this plan would change diets. 

No one is purely subsistence anymore given greater access to western foods, and people are 

worried over the health consequences of a western diet, such as obesity, diabetes, and heart 

disease. Potluck foods are very starchy: potatoes, cheese, and bread. Soda and alcohol are also 

consumed frequently. Some families order groceries from Seattle once or twice a year, but 

freight prices make this very expensive. Some also shop for groceries at the local store, which is 

extremely expensive. 

There was also mention of capturing tidal energy and increasing the number of wind turbines 

(currently the city office owns one but it is not operational). Geothermal was also mentioned. 

Fuel costs concern everyone. Two 50-gallon drums of oil cost $1000.00 and last only a few 

months. The village is now so spread out along the shore that a vehicle is necessary. But, as one 

man said, “people complain about the price of fuel and groceries, but for the price of booze and 

cigarettes, they’re not complaining,” which are also approximately twice the costs as in 

Anchorage. 

Tourism in the form of hunting lodges has been discussed, but there is concern that these would 

interfere with subsistence. This is especially worrisome with the closure of caribou hunting. One 

man stated that he harvested caribou more than any other species and missed it terribly. He was 

frustrated with the recent management history after a trophy hunt was paired with a subsistence 

hunt, and then closed the following year. One man felt that the Unimak herd could sustain a 

small hunt, but if it was opened up to King Cove, Sand Point, and False Pass, the quota would be 

unrealistic. One man distinguished a “False Pass culture” that includes a greater dependency on 

caribou than the other Borough villages, although his characterization of others as “sport 

hunters” would not likely be well received. 
108 

SUBSISTENCE PRACTICES AND CONCERNS 

Salmon is the main subsistence food (Table 20, Figure 65). Subsistence fishing with rod and reel 

is done off the dock. Halibut fishing is done there as well, tying the line to the dock. Ukela, or 

half-dried salmon, is prized. 

False Pass gets an abundance of berries. Salmonberries, wild strawberries, moss berries, 

blueberries, and cranberries are picked right in town, on the hillsides, by the old houses in 

Morzhovoi Village and Ikatan Village, and by the dump. Strawberries are found near Ikatan and 

on Sanak Island. People use hand-held, tined berry pickers for the smaller berries. Berries are 

eaten with milk and sugar, made into pies and jelly, eaten fresh or frozen for later. People also 

make salmonberry wine. 

Caribou hunting is closed. The caribou population on Unimak Island and the Alaska Peninsula is 

viewed as having been reduced by wolves. One man used to get between two and three caribou 

every year and shared them with family and elders in False Pass, but not anymore. “No more 

caribou. No more elders either,” he said. A few local men will go to Sanak Island to take a 

domestic cow, which are left over from the cod fishing days of the 1880s to 1920s when 

fishermen imported cattle to the island for meat and milk. Beef is not seen as an alternative to 

caribou; it is simply another subsistence animal on the landscape. 

Locals go bidarki (chiton) picking all year, gather sea (urchin) eggs, catch octopus, and collect 

pushki (cow parsnip) and petrushki (wild parsley). They make octo-burgers out of beach octopus. 

They also collect rhubarb stalks for food and beach grasses for basket weaving. Other prize foods 

are seal oil and ulla (whale meat that is scavenged from beached whales, not hunted), which are 

usually traded in from other communities such as King Cove. 

A woman in town has been teaching about the health uses of plants. Low pushki roots are split 

and used to dress wounds; Iris setosa, or blue flag iris, is a natural laxative, Geum Calthifolium

(commonly called calthaleaf avens) roots are boiled and made into tonic that is drunk for sore 

throats and colds. The leaves put on open wounds. Narcissus flowered anemone juices are used 

to treat hemorrhage. They also drink the juices after the root was boiled for internal ailments. It 

appears that these are not current or widespread practices, but there is an effort to retain the 

knowledge. 
109 

Table 20. Subsistence Data for False Pass. 

Species N of

Case

s

Minimu

m

Maximu

m

Range Sum (Total

LbsReportedHarvested)

Mean Std

Error

of

Mean

95% LCL

mean

95%

upper

CL

mean

Std.

Dev.

MeaperHoud

Birds/Eggs Tern Eggs 2 0.60 0.60 0.00 1.20 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 

Wigeon Duck 1 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Gadwall Duck 2 1.60 6.40 4.80 8.00 4.00 2.40 ‐26.49 34.49 3.39 Goldeneye Duck 1 8.20 8.20 0.00 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 Pintail Duck 4 1.60 8.00 6.40 20.80 5.20 1.65 ‐0.05 10.45 3.30 Unknown Duck 1 22.50 22.50 0.00 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 Teal Duck 6 3.00 12.00 9.00 33.60 5.60 1.40 2.00 9.20 3.43 Mallard Duck 4 5.00 20.00 15.00 45.00 11.25 3.15 1.24 21.26 6.29 Brant 3 6.00 36.00 30.00 54.00 18.00 9.17 ‐21.43 57.43 15.87 Geese 2 5.00 50.00 45.00 55.00 27.50 22.50  ‐258.39 313.39 31.82 Gull Eggs 5 3.60 60.00 56.40 136.20 27.24 13.41 ‐9.99 64.47 29.99 Ptarmigan 5 14.00 56.00 42.00 147.00 29.40 7.79 7.76 51.04 17.43 Canadian Geese 5 12.60 63.00 50.40 157.50 31.50 9.44 5.30 57.70 21.10 Total 696.00 

Land Mammals Bear 1 1360.00 1360.00 0.00 1360.00 1360.0

0

1360.00 1360.0

0

Feral Cattle 4 700.00 1750.00 1050.0

0

4550.00 1137.5

0

262.5

0

302.11 1972.8

9

525.0

0

Total 5910.00 

Non‐Salmon Fish Dolly Varden 1 4.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 

Yelloweye 1 48.00 48.00 0.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 Red Rockfish 1 50.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Cod 8 6.40 384.00 377.60 749.60 93.70 43.15 ‐8.33 195.73 122.0

5

Halibut 10 19.20 1843.20 1824.0

0

2922.40 292.24 174.0

7

‐101.53 686.01 550.4

5

Total 3774.00 

Plants Wild Rice 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

FiddleheadFerns

2 0.50 0.60 0.10 1.10 0.55 0.05 ‐0.09 1.19 0.07 

Wild Rhubarb 2 0.08 1.40 1.32 1.48 0.74 0.66  ‐7.65 9.13 0.93 Beach Greens 1 8.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Cranberries 2 0.08 8.00 7.92 8.08 4.04 3.96  ‐46.28 54.36 5.60 Fireweed 1 20.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Petrushki 8 0.16 8.00 7.84 27.40 3.43 0.99 1.08 5.77 2.81 
110 

Species N of

Case

s

Minimu

m

Maximu

m

Range Sum (Total

LbsReportedHarvested)

Mean Std

Error

of

Mean

95% LCL

mean

95%

upper

CL

mean

Std.

Dev.

MeaperHoud

Strawberries 4 0.03 16.00 15.97 34.20 8.51 3.30 ‐1.99 19.00 6.60 Pushki 10 0.08 20.00 19.92 46.92 4.69 2.24  ‐0.37 9.75 7.07 Blueberries 6 2.00 16.00 14.00 50.00 8.33 1.82 3.66 13.01 4.46 Mossberries 7 0.75 60.00 59.25 140.75 20.11 8.27  ‐0.14 40.35 21.89 Salmonberries 12 0.16 188.00 187.84 484.16 40.35 14.56 8.29 72.40 50.45 Total 823.09 

Salmon Pink Salmon 6 15.00 125.00 110.00 315.00 52.50 16.82 9.26 95.74 41.20 

Chinook Salmon 8 33.26 415.75 382.49 1480.07 185.01 46.24 75.68 294.34 130.7

7

Coho Salmon 5 69.36 1156.00 1086.6

4

1976.76 395.35 198.7

6

‐156.51 947.21 444.4

5

Chum Salmon 5 32.52 1084.00 1051.4

8

2254.72 450.94 202.5

3

‐111.36 1013.2

4

452.8

6

Sockeye Salmon 10 46.62 1554.00 1507.3

8

3085.32 308.53 145.2

8

‐20.12 637.19 459.4

3

Total 9111.87 

Sea Mammals Harbor Seal 2 30.00 56.00 26.00 86.00 43.00 13.00 ‐122.18 208.18 18.38 

Total 86.00 

Shellfish/Intertidal

Razor Clams 1 15.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Sea Urchins 6 1.60 8.00 6.40 18.60 3.10 1.00 0.54 5.66 2.44 Clams 1 24.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 Dungeness Crab 2 5.60 60.00 54.40 65.60 32.80 27.20  ‐312.81 378.41 38.47 Tanner Crab 2 44.00 100.00 56.00 144.00 72.00 28.00 ‐283.77 427.77 39.60 Bidarkis 9 0.60 108.00 107.40 324.10 36.01 12.10 8.11 63.92 36.30 Butter Clams 2 30.00 300.00 270.00 330.00 165.00 135.0

0

‐

1550.34

1880.3

4

190.9

2

Octopus 9 20.00 240.00 220.00 732.00 81.33 27.56 17.78 144.89 82.68 Total 1653.30 

All Resources Total 22054.26 1
111 

There is a great deal of waterfowl hunting on Unimak Island, but locals are not always licensed. 

Men go out in hunting parties. Bird shortages were mentioned for Canadian geese and ducks, 

which they “had to bum from other hunters [in the community] when they got scarce.” 

Relevant to plant harvesting, there is only one banya in town that is currently in use and they will 

let everyone know if they fire it up. While there is no beach grass used for the banya to splash 

water on their backs, people will use rags instead, and occasionally fireweed. 

Figure 65. False Pass harvests by pounds usable weight between the 1988 Subsistence Division survey (20 of 

22 HHs) and this project (15 of 16 HHs). 

Figures 66 and 67 provide comparisons between the 1988 Subsistence Division survey and the 

2009 data. Unlike the other communities in this survey, the 1988 and 2009 data are remakably 

similar in all areas except sea mammals, which played little role in the 2009 harvest. When 

converted to pounds usable weight of harvest, and their percentages, there is a reduction in 

salmon, sea mammals, and birds and eggs, and an increase in land mammals, which is a product 

of increasing use of Sanak Island cattle (Figures 68 and 69). The household data (Figure 70 and 

71) show similar trends in the community data, except there has been no reduction in the 

household harvest of salmon even though in Figure 68 there is a community-wide reduction in 

the use of salmon, as a product of fewer households in the community. 
112 

Figure 66. Percentage of harvest by species category between the 1998 Subsistence Division survey (20 of 22 

HHs) and the 2009 survey (15 of 16 HHs), False Pass. 

Figure 67. Estimated total community harvest by species category between 1988 and 2009, False Pass. 
113 

Figure 68. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 1988 and 

2009, False Pass. 

Figure 69. Percent change of estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 

1988 and 2009, False Pass. 
114 

Figure 70. Average pounds harvested per household between 1988 and 2009, False Pass. 

Figure 71. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1988 and 2009, False Pass. 

In 2009, several people were “waiting on the APIA food box,” which is an annual benefit 

distributed to all elders in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands villages. APIA receives state 

assistance money for this program to offset the food burdens on elders. There were also 

complaints about the food box; it used to have potatoes, milk, canned beans, for example, but 

now has brown rice, low fat milk and canned fruit. One elder stated that most of her food comes 

from the Isanotski Store (owned by the village corporation) at outrageous prices (for example 

$66 for a package of processed barbeque ribs for a family of four). There is no credit extended at 

the store unless one is working on a boat. 
115 

Subsistence Security 

There was a discussion of foods they used to get in large quantities: salt salmon, salt ducks, salt 

geese, limpets or “china hats” (these are good fried with onions and rice), dried fish, seal meat, 

ptarmigan. There was concern that the sea otters ate all the clams and now people in King Cove 

send them over to share. 

Brown bear management was highly criticized by several people. According to local residents, 

the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak bears belong to the same population and they swim across the 

pass all the time, but are managed as two separate populations. There are many “problem bears” 

in False Pass that end up shot. The alder bushes in the village used to be short, but are taller than 

people now. Bear fears are heightened because they are difficult to see in the alders. (Alders 

were also blamed for taking over good mossberry patches.) Rumors were that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or USFWS counted 1,000 bears on Unimak Island so they could open a sport 

hunt. 

When the comparing the top 10 species harvested in 1988 and 2009, cattle have completely 

replaced caribou and the primary terrestrial mammal and the top harvest. We also see that 

octopus has moved into the top 10 and harbor seal has moved out of the top 10 (Figures 72 and 

73). When we look at both the changes in pounds usable weight per capita in the 1988 top 10 

species, and changes in the percent harvest for those same top 10 species, the reduction in access 

to caribou and the increase in both sockeye salmon and halibut use is clear (Figures 74 and 75). 

In responding to “Did you get enough for your needs?” the majority of False Pass residents 

indicated that they did indeed get enough for their needs, except in relation to land mammals 

(Figure 76). In responding to whether or not they used less, the same, or more in 2009 for 

species, False Pass residents indicated they used more wild cattle and more dolly varden in 2009 

and, as is shown in all the other data, less caribou (Figure 77). 

Almost all wild foods in False Pass are harvested. Unlike the other communities, very few wild 

foods are purchased. False Pass residents purchase almost no wild foods, in this case a single 40 

pound box of king crab and another 40 pound box of salmon fillets, both from Peter Pan 

Seafoods in King Cove (Figure 78). This was for convenience, not because of lack of availability 

in the region. 
116 

Figure 72. Top ten species harvested in False Pass, 1988. 

Figure 73. Top ten species harvested in False Pass, 2009. 
117 

Figure 74. Change in harvest in pounds usable weight per capita in 2009 for the top ten species harvested in 

1988, False Pass. 

Figure 75. Percent change in harvest in pounds usable weight per capita in 2009 for the top ten species 

harvested in 1988, False Pass. 
118 

Figure 76. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, in 

percentages of False Pass households (N=15), 2009. 
119 

Figure 77. False Pass’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 2009 than in the 

past. 

Figure 78. False Pass Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, 2009. 
120 

The “30/70 rule” identified by the Subsistence Division, where 30 percent of a community’s 

households harvest approximately 70 percent of that community’s subsistence (in pounds usable 

weight), was tested for False Pass using a Pareto chart (Figure 79). For the households surveyed 

in False Pass, approximately 30 percent of households account for 70 percent of the 

community’s total harvests, confirming this “30/70 rule.” For salmon harvests, 30 percent of the 

households are responsible for 82 percent of the total salmon harvests, which could be a 

reflection of commercial salmon vessel ownership, and thus access (Figure 80). 

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

Figure 79. Pareto chart showing False Pass's household harvests where approximately 30 percent of 

households are responsible for 70 percent of the harvests for the community. 

1

5

2

11

10

4

7

96

3

8

1213

14

15

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:82

30:70

Figure 80. Pareto chart showing that 30 percent of False Pass households are responsible for 82 percent of the 

total salmon harvests for the community. 
121 

Figure 81 shows the total pounds of wild foods harvested for the 15 surveyed households in 

False Pass versus the total pounds received by household. One household did not harvest at all, 

but every household received at least some subsistence foods from others. Of the 25,464 total 

pounds of wild foods entering False Pass households, 3,870 (15 percent) was received through 

sharing and is the product of social relationships. 

Figure 81. Total pounds of wild foods harvested versus total pounds received by household, False Pass. 

SHARING NETWORKS 

Sharing was described as “kind of random,” by one young man. Others spoke of it as somewhat 

more structured in which at least half of others’ harvests are given away. As one man said, “It is 

a responsibility of mine. I have the ability and the opportunity.” 

Subsistence was also described as “not a yearly thing,” meaning different species are harvested 

in different quantities in different years. Access depends upon relationships with the harvesters. 

Trade networks have extended as far away as St. Lawrence Island in the recent past. Networks 

for the survey year are analyzed in Appendix 2. 

SPATIAL DATA 

Located on the pass, the village has easier access to fisheries and other resources of both the 

Bering Sea and North Pacific. See Appendix 1 for spatial analysis for False Pass. 

COMMUNITY ECONOMICS 

Participation in the fisheries relative to the total fleets in the same fisheries is small, but 

significant from a village economic perspective (Figure 82). 
122 

Figure 82. Percentage of fishing and non-fishing earnings, False Pass 2009. This does not include returns to 

the village from CDQs. 

False Pass is most dependent on directed fishing income relative to the other communities. Of 

those households surveyed, seven derive income directly from fishing. Three of these are as 

captains and four are as crew. The crewmen in this village all work for local captains, so 

essentially three vessels/fishing operations are supporting 47 percent of the households. These 

represent the total fishing operations in the village, since none of those that were not surveyed 

are fishermen. 

Twenty adults in False Pass listed 32 separate job titles, or 1.6 jobs per person (Table 21). The 

majority of False Pass earned income is through fisheries, followed distantly by local 

government and education (Table 22). 87 percent of income in False Pass is earned income 

(Figure 83). 

Table 21. Job titles identified by False Pass adults. 

Fisherman/Crewman 9 City Clerk 1 

Maintenance/Laborer 4 Community Health Aide 1 

Store Manager 2 Cook 1 

Teacher 2 Fence Construction 1 

Pot Storage 2 Peninsula Airways Agent 1 

Tribal Council/Corporation Administrator 2 Secretary 1 

Babysitter 1 Fuel Operator (Delivery) 1 

Board Member 1 Tribal Children Service Worker 1 

 Mayor 1 
123 

Table 22. Earned and other incomes, False Pass 2009. 

 Households

Reporting 

Total 

Income 

Average 

per HH 

Earned Income 

Local Government 7 186080 26583 

Fisheries 7 507009 72430 

Retail 1 5010 5010 

Services 7 71020 10146 

Education 1 132000 132000 

Other 1 1500 1500 

Total Earned Income $902619 

 

Other Income 

Alaska Permanent Fund 

Dividend 

14 36540 2610 

Native Corporation Dividend 10 12608 1261 

Unemployment 3 12592 4197 

WIC 1 1284 1284 

Social Security 5 41560 8312 

Pension 1 23500 23500 

Total Other Income $128084 

FALSE PASS TOTAL $1030703 

Figure 83. False Pass income sources, 2009. 
124 

EXPENSES AND EXPENSE NETWORKS 

Household Expenses 

Groceries 

False Pass households spent an average of $9,647 on groceries (Figure 84), and make up the bulk 

of household expenses. There is regular barge service in False Pass where most grocery orders 

are made from outside. There is a small store operated by the Isanotski Corporation, and orders 

are also made through the Bearfoot Store in Cold Bay. False Pass has a separate liquor store 

operated by the Isanotski Corporation and is popular with fishermen stopping through the pass. 

Rent or Mortgage 

Eight of 15 households surveyed in False Pass pay a rent or a mortgage. These households pay 

$4,686 annually, or $390 per month. 

Heating Fuel 

Households paid an average of $2,703 in heating fuel oil annually. It is sold by Peter Pan 

Seafoods. 

Propane 

Propane cost the surveyed households an average of $972 annually. 

Electricity 

Diesel power generation provides electricity for the city. Households pay an average of $1,426 

annually. Bering Pacific Seafoods has separate generators for its electricity demands. 

Water-Sewer-Garbage 

Water is piped from a spring and reservoir to the village. Individual septic tanks are used for 

sewage. The city manages a dump site. Bering Pacific Seafoods uses an outfall line to dispose of 

wastewater from seafood processing. 

Telephone 

Telephone costs each household an average of $1,186 each year. Many people were transitioning 

to cell phones at the time of the survey, and giving of landlines. 

Television 

Every home had at least one television costing an average of $1,144 per household. 
125 

Figure 84. Relative percentages of Household Expenses, False Pass.

Subsistence Expenses 

Gasoline 

Gasoline costs $552 each year per household for subsistence use only. A great deal of 

subsistence is conducted on commercial boats, however, so these costs are underestimated 

because it is difficult to separate out fuel burned for subsistence harvesting only. Two 

households without boats reported paying two men with boats in fuel in order to be able to 

accompany them on subsistence trips. 

Ammunition 

Hunters spent an average of $182 annually on ammunition for hunting for food and for 

protection against bears and wolves. 

Supplies 

Other subsistence supplies cost households an average of $320 annually. This included rain gear, 

boots, rifles, and other items. 

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased 

False Pass residents own a large number of vessels and vehicles to support subsistence 

harvesting (Table 23). These are shared with those who do not own what they need. 
126 

Table 23. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by False Pass in 2009. 

Equipment Type 

Total Households 

(of 15) 

Average per 

Household with 

Equipment Type 

Average per 

Household in 

Village 

Skiffs 13 6 2.2 0.9

Outboard Motor 14 5 2.8 0.9

Commercial > 30' Boat 5 5 1.0 0.3

Snow Mobiles 2 2 1.0 0.1

ATVs; 4-Wheelers 12 9 1.3 0.8

Cars(s) or Truck(s) 17 10 1.7 1.1

POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON COMMUNITY LIFE 

Nine adults were named as having positive influences on life in False Pass. These included all 

adult members of a large extended family, two elders, and two other elders no longer living in 

the village. These individuals were praised for bringing infrastructure improvements and being 

tenacious leaders for many decades. 

SUMMARY 

 False Pass is a small commercial fishing community highly dependent upon salmon, cod, 

tanner crab, and other fisheries. 

 30 percent of the households account for 70 percent of the total community’s harvests, 

but 30 percent of households account for 82 percent of the total salmon harvests. 

 Of the 25,464 total pounds of wild foods entering False Pass households, 3,870 (15 

percent) was received through sharing and are the result of social relationships other than 

the household’s own harvests through cooperative hunting and fishing. 

 Households reported harvesting just 0.2 percent fewer salmon and 19.3 percent fewer 

birds and eggs between 1988 and 2009, but 92.8 percent fewer marine mammals. 

 Households reported a 50.6 percent increase in shellfish harvesting and a 36.6 percent 

increase in wild plant harvesting between 1988 and 2009. 

 False Pass lost a significant portion of its population in 2009 and 2010 due to family 

reasons, deaths, and the lack of economic opportunities. The village experienced a 54 

percent drop in population between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Several new families 

moved into the village in 2011 to work for the city and village corporation. 

 The city, village, and corporation continue to pursue improvement and expansion projects 

despite a dwindling population, offering a new harbor, for example. False Pass is actively 

pursuing alternative energy development in wind and tidal energy. 

 APICDA is investing millions of dollars to expand the local shore plant to support the 

fisheries and the village. 

 Sharing is widespread within the village and beyond, consisting mostly of fish products 

and berries. 
127 

 False Pass has tremendous access to a large variety of subsistence and commercial 

species, and harvest 46 different species. 

 False Pass residents harvested 348 percent more halibut in 2009 than they did in 1988. 

Households harvested 32.2 percent more non-salmon fish in 2009. 

 People lament the closure of the caribou harvest, which played a key role is sharing and 

seasonal activities. This also contributed to people leaving the village. 

 Predator control is a primary concern for caribou health and people’s safety. 

 The City of False Pass was optimistic about its role as staging grounds for the North 

Aleutian Basin oil and gas exploration and development, but community support for the 

overall project is mixed. 
128 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
129 

CHAPTER 7. AKUTAN 

INTRODUCTION 

The modern village of Akutan sits perched on the eastern end of Akutan Island on the north 

shore of a bay and is accessible only by boat and, until 2012, seaplane (Figure 85). Akutan is a 

tightly spaced village with all homes and businesses connected by boardwalks. While there are a 

few ATVs owned in the village, there is no need (or space) for cars. The Akutan Corporation 

manages a hotel and store. Offices of the Akutan Tribal Council and a new City office building 

sit next to one another along the boardwalk. There is also a new school with a married couple as 

teachers. Akutan also has a library/museum building containing displays of Akutan’s whaling 

history, Aleut history, and archaeological discoveries. At the center of Akutan is the Bayside 

Café run by a couple from Unalaska whose parents run the Dutch Harbor airport café. 

Figure 85. Regional map for Akutan village. Map drawn by B. Benson and H. Maschner 

The village and Trident Seafoods are approximately 1⁄4 mile apart along the north shore of 

Akutan Bay (Figure 86). Trident sits on an old homestead from a non-local resident and on 

former whaling station lands. Trident Seafoods is a massive processing plant that employs up to 

1200 people for year round processing. The majority of workers in the plant are migrant laborers 

from nations in North Africa, the Philippines, and Mexico, but they also recruit from across the 
130 

United States.11 On the stretch between the village and plant is a large Christian church built by 

Chuck Bundrant, owner of Trident Seafoods. A new pastor arrived during this research and was 

moving his wife and three children there from Minnesota later in the spring. The current pastor 

and his wife were moving on. During follow up research, this pastor left after only a few months. 

In the interim, a missionary and his wife living in Unalaska flew over every other Sunday to run 

the Akutan church services. The church is primarily used by Trident employees instead of the 

Akutan villagers, who are mostly Russian Orthodox. 

Figure 86. Trident Seafoods and Akutan village on Akutan Island, 2009. 

RECENT HISTORY 

Akutan was founded in 1878 after the Western Fur and Trading Company chose the location as 

the site for a trading post. Soon a Russian Orthodox Church and a school were constructed, 

attracting Aleuts from the region but especially from Tigalda, Akun and nearby islands. The old 

village on the island was called Akutanax, and had been influenced and decimated by Russian 

occupation, disease and outmigration. Aleut residents gave the new village a similar name. In 

1878, the Western Fur and Trading Company opened a sea otter pelt trading facility there 

(McGowan 1999), and the company expanded into commercial cod fishing and processing. A 

Russian Orthodox Church was constructed at the site in the same year. The Alaska Commercial 

Company took over the trading facility in 1879 and was managed by Hugh McGlashan, a 

Scotsman who is ancestor to many Akutan and Unalaska families today. 

 

11 These laborers typically work 11 months of the year. All travel and accommodations are included in their work 

contracts. 
131 

Sea otter hunting was banned in 1911, and in 1912, the Pacific Whaling Company built a whale 

processing station across the bay from Akutan, which operated until 1939 and provided an 

economic base (Birkeland 1926). Fox farming and sulfur mining were pursued on nearby islands 

(McGowan 1999:48). The Aleutian Islands were made a bird preserve by a 1913 Presidential 

Executive Order, negatively affecting fox farming and subsistence bird hunting and egg 

collecting. The cod fishery also started in Akutan, attracting people from Unalaska, Makushin, 

Kashega, the Pribilofs. A dock and processing facility were constructed to serve the fishery. 

Village people worked on trawler boats for cod and crab. 

Population declines due to the smallpox and influenza epidemics were devastating to the village 

(Robert-Lamblin 1982). Nevertheless, a school was opened in 1921 (McGowan 1999:50). The 

whaling station closed in 1939 due to market forces, but the cod fishery continued. The 

community was again devastated by evacuation in 1942 during World War II after the Japanese 

attacked Unalaska, and the military occupied the village in everyone’s absence, ruining homes, 

the processing facilities, and the church. Those who survived internment camps in Southeast 

Alaska (described above) returned home along with people from neighboring Biorka, Kashega, 

and Makushin villages who had been discouraged by the federal government from resettling their 

homes. 

The village was re-established in 1944 with a much smaller population. In the late 1940s, fish 

processing industries flourished, and floating processors anchored in the bay, employing local 

people. Akutan harbor supported thirteen processors, and became a lucrative port. The crab 

fishery declined in the 1980s, and many processors left. Trident Seafoods built a shore plant in 

the early 1980s, and continues to process cod, crab, pollock, and other fish. They provide a 

critical tax base to the village and the Aleutians East Borough. 

The City was incorporated in 1979, and the island has supported a Trident processing plant since 

the 1980s. Akutan is also a member of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program of 

the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA). The Census 

Bureau reported 767 residents in 2006, of which approximately seven-eighths are cannery 

employees. Only seven residents hold commercial fishing permits. The City of Akutan is 

actively pursuing expansion of their harbor, docks, and other local capacities to increase 

Akutan’s importance as a Bering Sea port. 

SURVEYED POPULATION 

The following graphs show the portion of the population surveyed relative to data from the 2010 

U.S. Census (Figure 87). Akutan is obscured here because the census includes Trident Seafoods. 

The total Akutan village population is estimated at 80 at the time of the survey, but we do not 

have the age breakdown. There are 40 households, of which 30 were surveyed (Table 24). 
132 

Figure 87. Akutan census with Trident obscuring the village in 2010. 

Table 24. U.S. Census and Survey Population, Akutan 2010. 
133 

FISHERIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

The Trident Seafoods plant processes mostly frozen fillets and blocks of pollock for frozen fish 

sticks marketed throughout the United States. All value-added processing is done in the 

corporation’s other plants, especially the Anacortes, Washington, plant. They ship to Asia, 

Europe and across the U.S. More commercial fishing money flows through Dutch Harbor in the 

“bottom industry,” but the Akutan Trident plant gets more poundage. When Dutch Harbor plants 

run out of bait, the highliner boats come into Akutan to restock. 

The village and the plant have a strong, reportedly positive relationship. Akutan’s Trident plant 

has been an APICDA partner since 1992, meaning they work together to enhance economic 

development opportunities for the community. This involves joint ownership in vessels and 

harvestable quota. The Trident Seafoods plant manager is on the Akutan city council, which is 

very different from its neighboring villages with processors, except Unalaska, where this 

phenomenon is seen to have contributed to marginalizing local people in their own town. 

Another Trident employee sits on the Aleutians East Borough Assembly. Because Trident 

operates throughout the year, several U.S. resident employees have lived there long enough to 

have gained voting rights and can out-vote the city, which can create difficulties for Akutan 

leaders. Trident employees live at the plant eleven months of the year, which is very different 

from other plants around the area. The city wants to build more housing to expand the village, 

accommodate year-round employees of Trident, and remain viable. Local people tend not to 

work in the Trident plant in the actual processing sector, but may drive equipment or hold other 

jobs there. Other jobs include working at the post office, store, the Roadhouse bar, diving, 

halibut IFQ holders, cod/miscellaneous finfish permit holders, and boat piloting. 

While local jobs are relatively limited, many commercial opportunities were discussed. “Akutan 

Harbor would be ideal to raise mussel and abalone. They get huge.” It was also pointed out that 

the waters are probably too cold to do it commercially. One fisherman who delivers to Trident 

discussed trying an oyster farm in the bay, but was concerned over sea otter predation. The cattle 

business still looms as a possibility. Akun Island has approximately 1,000 head of cattle, and 

people have been making improvements to the island. It now has a house and steam bath 

(banya), setting the stage for longer occupation and thus more involved business activities. There 

are two fences with the goal of rotating the animals over pasture to manage the herd. The Akutan 

Corporation, which owns the land, wants to do a seeding project on the island for feed as well. 

With the assistance of federal stimulus funds, the Aleutians East Borough is funding the 

construction of a boat harbor at the head of the bay. The Army Corps of Engineers was awarded 

the construction contract in March 2010. The harbor will accommodate 58 vessels ranging up to 

180-feet in length. Road construction from the village to the harbor site is also planned. 

Tourism prospects have also been considered. In addition to birding, whale watching, and other 

wildlife viewing, the leaders want to include Aleut culture in tourism. “We need to educate 

ourselves and other people...Aleuts are a dying breed,” according to one leader. 

There are few commercial fishermen based in Akutan. Some young men work on boats as crew, 

but this is not consistent. One man fishes out of Sand Point to be able to participate in the salmon 

fishery, but Akutan does not support a commercial salmon fishery. Individual Fishing Quotas for 
134 

halibut (IFQs) are owned by approximately seven local people. These are quota shares that are 

owned by individuals and allow participation in halibut fisheries based upon the shares owned 

and the expected harvest for the species in a region. One man called it a “rich man’s game” 

because of the capital required to enter the fishery. Creating a salmon fishery near Akutan has 

been considered. In 2007, a local man proposed the testing of the creation of an Akutan salmon 

fishery before the Board of Fisheries, the regulatory board that sets fisheries policy for the state 

of Alaska, since they too are part of Area M. The Board declined their request in part because of 

the low abundance of salmon in those waters. There was also fear that King Cove and Sand Point 

fishermen might come down there to fish it out. Herring move down from Togiak and mill 

between Akutan and Dutch Harbor. Trident is the primary buyer for herring, which is fished in 

July. Whales, halibut and cod follow the herring. Herring is so abundant that “we need to get 

serious about [fishing] it.” Atka mackerel are so thick on the south side of the island that they are 

difficult to avoid when halibut fishing and, thus, developing a market for them was also 

mentioned. 

Akutan is part of the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA) 

but gets no direct Commercial Development Quota (CDQ); instead APICDA offers financial 

development and support for infrastructure projects. The local APICDA board member from 

Akutan described some of their current projects, including Puffin Seafoods, a processing venture 

they are trying to start in St. George, one of the Pribilof Islands. 

The lack of fishermen in Akutan does not mean that people do not understand the business of 

fishing. One man described the crab fisheries in such detail, stating, “You memorize the Bering 

Sea after awhile.” In order to expand crab fishing and build up a crab subsistence fishery, 

crabbers will sometimes try to seed the bay with crabs, and they claim to have some limited 

success. They save them up while fishing and then dump them into the bay when they are 

coming in, thereby directly shaping the local ecosystem. 

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE OF AKUTAN 

Akutan Island is locally referred to as “the Rock” and occasionally as “Akutraz.” Accessible 

only by boat and seaplane, it has the feeling of isolation in the Aleutian crossroads. Difficulties 

of travel to and from Akutan weigh on everyone because it can only be accessed from the sea. 

The City of Akutan was awarded state funding for an airport runway in February 2010 on nearby 

Akun Island so different planes can land there and thus not be as restricted by the seas and the 

weather. 

Akutan has two votes in the Aleutians East Borough (AEB) but provides a disproportionate 

amount of revenue to the Borough because of the fish tax and the Trident Plant. Local leaders 

estimated that 45 percent of the Borough’s budget comes from Akutan. Some tension with the 

Borough over this was reported, and local people formed an organization called the Concerned 

Citizens of Akutan to pursue more equitable returns from the Borough. “People think we’re rich 

out here because of Trident, but the corporation doesn’t own the land that Trident sits on.” 

Trident leases some of its land from the City of Akutan. 
135 

The City of Akutan is working on several projects. As mentioned above, they are working 

towards constructing an airport on Akun Island, since PenAir (the only commercial carrier in the 

region) now has a $500,000 subsidy from the federal government to fly the amphibious 

Grumman Goose and Widgeon aircraft to Akutan Bay. They would like a 4,500 foot paved 

airstrip with a Hovercraft on the contiguous shore moving passengers between islands (a 

Hovercraft is desirable because it is not a hulled vessel and no dock construction would be 

necessary). This plan would be a key facet in the Akutan Corporation’s future goals of marketing 

cattle. They are also working towards constructing a new boat harbor at the head of the bay 

closer to Trident Seafoods. Right now there is little more than a skiff moorage with four small 

local fishing vessels there (42’ is the largest local boat). Trident Seafoods owns 40 to 50 vessels 

and is the second busiest port in the United States country, and the City of Akutan would like to 

tap into the boat storage market. They are also interested in developing geothermal energy. The 

Akutan Traditional Council hired a consulting group from Anchorage to do a feasibility study on 

what is estimated as being a $45 million project. The State of Alaska views nearby Makushin 

Volcano as one of two of the most promising for geothermal energy in Alaska. There is also a 

potential for hydrogen development but The Aleut Corporation (TAC), which, under ANCSA, 

owns the subsurface rights, does not support it at this time. 

Akutan receives a fuel delivery twice year and they are locked in to the price at the time of 

ordering. In 2009, it was $3.75 per gallon. The city buys it and sells it at cost. APICDA gave 

every household 100 gallons of fuel in 2008 because of the free fuel from Venezuelan president 

Hugo Chavez to all Alaska Native villages, the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association’s (APIA) 

rejection of the gift, and APICDA’s match. 

CULTURAL THEMES OF AKUTAN 

Akutan residents claim to be part of both the historical Qigiigun Tribe and the Qawalangin Tribe 

(which is Unalaska’s main tribe). The Akutan Traditional Council both pursues and facilitates 

studies of Aleut culture and subsistence. They also support children attending culture camps in 

Unalaska. 

Russian Orthodox holidays are observed and conform to the Julian calendar, For example, in 

Akutan close to Easter time, it was learned that the Friday before Easter is Good Friday and one 

should wear dark colored clothing to church. Then on Easter morning, church goers should wear 

colored light clothing. The Russian Orthodox also observe 40 days of Lent before Easter, which 

used to be rather strict, such as no listening to music, no dancing, no gum chewing, no playing, 

and avoiding eating meat and butter. On Easter, people make kulich, a Russian sweet bread 

which is iced and decorated with dried fruits and candies, and pass it out to friends and family 

around the community. At Russian Christmas, starring, which is the practice of twirling large 

decorated stars that mimic the star the Wise Men followed in the early Christian era, is a major 

activity in the community. They will spin one or several stars, and other members of the church 

will follow the leaders, visiting homes around the community and singing carols. The Orthodox 

emphasis does not restrict subsistence activities. Instead, there is a greater focus on subsistence 

activities around holidays as families stock up for community feasts and family events. 
136 

SUBSISTENCE 

Subsistence foods regularly harvested in Akutan include salmon, halibut, black bass, yellow and 

bullhead sculpin, pogie roe, grey cod, clams, rock ducks, greenwing teal, coots, and multiple 

types of berries (Table 25). 

Sea mammal hunting has declined in recent years. Fur seals are harvested infrequently. Several 

reported that they like to eat year old seals and fur seal pups (“alakuduk”). During Russian 

Orthodox Christmas starring, some of the fur seal pup is usually shared across the community 

with other church members by those few who harvest it. Some households prefer chadu, and 

make it out of the young seal (hair seal, fur seal, e.g.) for better flavor. They will dip dried fish 

and boiled cod in the chadu. Aleut chowder made out of sea lion blubber, sometimes locally 

called “stink soup” for the strong odor it produces during cooking, is also a favorite. Seal meat 

will also be divided up among the villagers, but “you got to be right there on the beach because it 

goes fast.” Harbor seal are harvested when they are about two years old, and “small enough to 

handle.” Also, as one man said, “I never bother them when they have the young ones.” 

Akutan harvests mass quantities of berries, mostly salmonberries and blueberries. With the 

blueberries they make tagao, which is a dish with mashed potatoes that have been ordered from 

Seattle or Anchorage, seal oil and blueberries, comparable to the Eskimo ice cream called 

agutaq. Blueberries are picked in late August through September. Salmonberries are picked in 

the middle of August to the end of the month. Mossberries come out in the middle of August for 

several weeks. All berries are found right in the village in between houses, and ladies laughed as 

they described opening their dining room windows and picking them right outside. Petrushki, 

which is wild parsley used to flavor fish chowders, and pushki are picked closer to the beach. 

Drift wood is something of a prize possession on Akutan. It is gathered for banyas and 

smokehouses. When there is no cottonwood for smokehouses, which is the preferred wood for 

smoking salmon regionally, they burn wood chips or other materials on a hot plate and in coffee 

can and use a capped stove pipe that spreads the smoke out. Smokehouses are shared among 

family and friends, since there are only a few in the community. 

Bidarkis (the local term for the Aleut kayak and for a shellfish, chitons, because of their shape) 

are harvested regularly and shared. Cockles and limpets are found near Akutan but rarely 

harvested because of preference for other foods. Only one man in town likes mussels, but the 

transient cannery workers, many of whom are Filipino, eat them frequently. When asked about 

red tide, one man said, “Well, there are no dead Filipinos.” Shrimp used to be harvested around 

Makushin village, but they made people sick; algae were extremely thick near the village and 

shrimp were eating it. Shrimp were fished out in the 1980s but are back again. Nobody eats them 

because of the history of making people sick. One family had found no clams to harvest in three 

years and had only found a few sea urchins. Sea otters were to blame. Some get butter clams 

from people in King Cove and Sand Point and will share those. 

Octopus is harvested in large quantities year round. One man kept 50 lbs. for himself but gave 

away 500-600 pounds. “It is really abundant out here. It gets on halibut for overnight sets. Gets 

stuck on them.” Octopus is pickled. Sea cucumbers are harvested using j-hooks or circle hooks. 

“Sea eggs” (urchins) are collected by one man through diving. In 2008 he took 20 pounds. Sea 

otters tend to keep them cleaned out. Only one man in Akutan hunts sea otters. 
137 

Only four residents hunt birds. Some can only be hunted from a skiff, scaring them up off the 

water. But there are “not that many skiffs here.” Puffin are eaten (ookstin = puffin breast). 

Willow ptarmigan, canvasbacks, teal (greenwing), mallards, buffleheads, harlequin, black scoter, 

rock ducks, white wing scoter, king eiders are harvested. A few elders like to eat murres and 

their eggs. The kittiwake is called “Pribilof goose” by Akutan locals. Horned auklets and 

Emperor geese are taken. Young men are not really interested in harvesting birds because of the 

price of gas ($340 for a 50-gallon drum). Also because there are only a few skiffs in the village, 

hunting is limited to those with access to them and funds for fuel. 

Seagull eggs are hard to get because of inclement weather. They used to get them in May but 

now June or even the end of June. These are sent to friends and family in Unalaska since “they 

don’t get stuff over there anymore like we do.” Typically, people who get seagull eggs will 

announce on the radio, “We got seagull eggs. Come get them.” But, one woman laughed, “we 

call on the phone if we get ducks.” Eggs are harvested in June, but seagulls have started to move 

out because there are so many eagles. 

Cash concerns affect harvesting. Residents increase their reliance on subsistence activities to 

lower their food bills, for example. For salmon harvesting, they will choose to stay closer to the 

village and only go as far as Entrance Point to burn less fuel. 
138 

Table 25. Subsistence Harvest Data for Akutan, 2009. 

Species N of

Cases

Minimum Maximum Range Sum (Total

LbsReportedHarvested)

Mean Std

Error

of

Mean

95% LCL

mean

95%

upper CL

mean

Std.

Dev.

MeaperHou

Birds/Eggs Scaup 1 1.80 1.80 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 

Unknown Duck 1 7.50 7.50 0.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 

Goldeneye Duck 1 8.20 8.20 0.00 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 

Teal Duck 2 3.00 9.00 6.00 12.00 6.00 3.00  ‐32.12 44.12 4.24 

Ptarmigan 3 1.40 11.20 9.80 14.70 4.90 3.16 ‐8.68 18.48 5.47 

Black Duck 2 4.50 13.50 9.00 18.00 9.00 4.50  ‐48.18 66.18 6.36 

Black Scoter 1 22.50 22.50 0.00 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 

Geese 1 30.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

Whitewing Scoter 1 30.50 30.50 0.00 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 

Harlequin Duck 3 4.00 15.00 11.00 34.00 11.33 3.67  ‐4.44 27.11 6.35 

Rock Ducks 4 5.00 30.00 25.00 67.00 16.75 5.38 ‐0.36 33.86 10.75 

Puffin 3 13.60 34.00 20.40 22.67 22.67 6.00  ‐3.14 48.47 10.39 

Gull Eggs 5 3.60 60.00 56.40 115.80 23.16 9.61 ‐3.53 49.85 21.50 

Total 384.67 

Land Mammal Feral Cattle 2 100.00 1600.00 1500.00 1700.00 850.00 750.00 ‐8679.65 10379.65 1060.66 

Total 1700.00 

Non‐Salmon Fish Flatfish 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Greenling 2 3.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 4.50 1.50  ‐14.56 23.56 2.12 

Rainbow Trout 1 14.00 14.00 0.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 

Skate 1 18.00 18.00 0.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 

Rockfish 1 20.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 

Black Rockfish 1 30.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 

Black Bass 4 6.00 18.00 12.00 40.00 10.00 2.83 1.00 19.00 5.66 

Yelloweye 1 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

Dolly Varden 7 2.80 70.00 67.20 246.80 35.26 10.06 10.64 59.87 26.62 

Cod 13 16.00 500.00 484.00 1278.40 98.34 38.71 14.01 182.67 139.56 

Halibut 21 30.00 1920.00 1890.00 6937.80 330.37 102.69 116.16 544.58 470.59 

Total 8695.00 

Plant Cranberries 1 4.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 

Strawberries 4 0.08 4.00 3.92 4.57 1.14 0.95  ‐1.89 4.18 1.91 

Wild Rhubarb 1 12.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 
139 

Species N of

Cases

Minimum Maximum Range Sum (Total

LbsReportedHarvested)

Mean Std

Error

of

Mean

95% LCL

mean

95%

upper CL

mean

Std.

Dev.

MeaperHou

Petrushki 6 1.00 8.00 7.00 19.00 3.17 1.08 0.40 5.94 2.64 

Pushki 13 1.00 20.00 19.00 47.90 3.68 1.40 0.63 6.74 5.06 

Mossberries 9 0.12 20.00 19.88 88.87 9.87 2.72 3.61 16.14 8.15 

Blueberries 12 0.40 60.00 59.60 170.40 14.20 4.61 4.06 24.34 15.96 

Salmonberries 19 0.16 60.00 59.84 247.40 13.02 3.46 5.75 20.29 15.08 

Total 594.14 

Salmon Chinook Salmon 2 8.18 12.27 4.09 20.45 10.23 2.05  ‐15.76 36.21 2.89 

Chum Salmon 3 10.68 80.10 69.42 144.18 48.06 20.22 ‐38.93 135.05 35.02 

Coho Salmon 9 15.81 137.02 121.21 558.62 62.07 10.86 37.03 87.10 32.57 

Sockeye Salmon 16 11.94 318.40 306.46 1814.88 113.43 24.74 60.70 166.16 98.95 

Pink Salmon 15 25.00 625.00 600.00 2337.50 155.83 45.26 58.75 252.92 175.31 

Total 4875.63 

Sea Mammals Hair Seal 1 40.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 

Fur Seal 1 45.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 

Harbor Seal 4 56.00 112.00 56.00 392.00 98.00 14.00 53.45 142.55 28.00 

Sea Lion 5 200.00 200.00 0.00 1000.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 200.00 0.00 

Total 1477.00 

Shellfish/Intertidal Hair Crab 1 4.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 

King Crab 1 14.00 14.00 0.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 

Razor Clams 1 15.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 

Sea Urchins 6 1.28 10.00 8.72 23.48 3.91 1.36 0.41 7.42 3.34 

Bidarkis 8 1.00 20.00 19.00 56.50 7.06 2.11 2.08 12.04 5.95 

Octopus 4 20.00 200.00 180.00 392.00 98.00 39.88  ‐28.93 224.93 79.77 

Total 504.98 

All Resources Total 18231.42 
140 

Figures 88 and 89 shows the difference in pounds usable weight harvested between 1990 and 

2009. There has been a decline in every species category despite more houses reporting in 2009. 

Figures 90 to 92 reflect three years of survey data, 1990 and 2008 surveys by the Subsistence 

Division, and a 2009 survey from this project. Whether the comparison is made between the 

1990 and 2009 surveys, or the 2008 and 2009 surveys, we see overall reduction in the use of 

salmon, shellfish, birds, eggs, and plants. Smaller reductions are also seen in sea mammals. The 

2009 data show a marked increase in the use of non-salmon fish and land mammals (Akun Island 

beef). Figures 93 and 94 shows that the average pounds of harvested foods per household have 

declined for every category of harvested subsistence resource between 1990 and 2009 for the 

community of Akutan. Figure 95 shows a successful pink salmon harvest. 

Figure 88. Akutan harvests reported by total pounds usable weight between the 1990 Subsistence Division 

survey (25 of 31 households) and this project (30 of 40 households). 

Figure 89. Percent of Akutan harvests reported by total pounds usable weight between the 1990 Subsistence 

Division survey (25 of 31 households) and this project (30 of 40 households). 
141 

Figure 90. Estimated total community harvest for Akutan in pounds usable weight between the 1990 and 

2008 Subsistence Division surveys and 2009 data from this project. 

Figure 91. Change in estimated total pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 1990 (31 

HHs), 2008 (40 HHs) and 2009 (40 HHs), Akutan. 
142 

Figure 92. Percent change in estimated pounds usable weight harvested by species category between 1990 (31 

HHs), 2008 (40 HHs) and 2009 (40 HHs), Akutan. 

Figure 93. Average Lbs. Harvested per HH in 1990 and 2009, Akutan. 
143 

Figure 94. Percent change in Lbs. Harvested per household between 1990 and 2009, Akutan. 

Figure 95. Akutan Dry Rack, Photo by April Pelkey, Summer 2011 

Subsistence Security 

The following is a list of specific subsistence and other species abundance issues described by 

informants that could indicate future shifts in subsistence activities. 

 Sea otters are said to have cleaned out most of the urchins (sea eggs). 
144 

 Clams are seen as smaller in size and less abundant than in previous years due to 

predation by sea otters and other unknown factors. 

 Climate change is also attributed to regime shifts. For example, shearwaters are dying 

off because waters have warmed and the fish that they eat are swimming deeper. 

Locals have found dead, starving birds and sent them in to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

 There has been an explosion of octopus and Atka mackerel in the waters around the 

islands, for unknown reasons. 

 There was concern over “ghetto crab,” which are crab that migrate through areas of 

known areas where the processor has disposed of fish processing byproducts and they 

turn black, both shells and meat. They are considered inedible. Local harvesters were 

setting pots in the area, then “sorting through the junk.” 

Changes in top 10 species between the 1990, 2008 and 2009 surveys show the increasing 

importance of feral cattle, octopus, and sockeye salmon, and the decreasing role of sea mammals 

(Figures 96-98). With only a year between the 2008 and 2009 data, there are dramatic 

differences in the top ten species harvested. These differences are especially marked in sockeye 

salmon and sea lion (Figure 99) demonstrating that a single year can make a substantial 

difference in how a subsistence economy is characterized in a given village. When comparing 

the 2009 harvest with the 1990 survey, only halibut and pink salmon have a higher harvest today 

than when they did in 1990. All other categories are between 33 and 94 percent less in 2009 than 

in 1990 (Figure 100). In responding to the question, “Did you get enough for your needs last 

year?” Akutan residents generally responded yes, except with regards to salmon (Figure 101). In 

response to whether people used less, the same, or more in 2009 than in the past, most 

respondents indicated they used about same in 2009 for most species, except for salmon (Figure 

102). 

Few people harvest subsistence crab in Akutan. Commercial fishermen sometimes give them 

opilios and tanners, they said. Instead of harvesting crab people buy it from Trident Seafoods in 

25 lb. or 40 lb. boxes (Figure 103). 
145 

Figure 96. Top ten species harvested in Akutan, 1990. 

Figure 97. Top ten species harvested in Akutan, 2008. 
146 

Figure 98. Top ten species harvested in Akutan, 2009. 

Figure 99. Change in pounds per capita harvested in 2009 for the top ten species harvested in 1990, Akutan. 
147 

Figure 100. Percent change in pounds per capita harvested in 2009 for the top ten species harvested in 1990, 

Akutan. 

Figure 101. Responses to the question, “Did you get enough (resource) for your needs last year?”, in 

percentages of Akutan households (N=30), 2009. 
148 

Figure 102. Akutan’s responses to whether people used less, same, or more of resources in 2009 that in the 

past. 

Figure 103. Akutan Lbs. of Wild Foods Harvested and Purchased, 2009 
149 

The “30/70 rule” identified by the Subsistence Division, where 30 percent of a community’s 

households harvest approximately 70 percent of that community’s subsistence (in pounds usable 

weight), was tested for Akutan using a Pareto chart (Figure 104). For the households surveyed in 

Akutan, approximately 30 percent of households account for 70 percent of the community’s total 

harvests, confirming this “30/70 rule.” This pattern is also true for salmon harvests (Figure 105). 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

Figure 104. Pareto chart showing household harvests in Akutan closely fit the 30/70 rule where 30% of 

households are responsible for 70% of the total community's harvests. 

17

5

15

3

14

12

19

1

20

16

13

18

2

11

4

6

10

8

7

9

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

Figure 105. Pareto chart showing that 30% of Akutan households are responsible for 70% of the total 

community harvests. 
150 

Figure 106 shows the total pounds of wild foods harvested by Akutan households versus the total 

pounds received by the same households. Four of the 30 surveyed households did not harvest any 

wild foods but all received some subsistence foods from others. Of the 25,676 total pounds 

entering households, 7,955 (31 percent) pounds are foods received through sharing and social 

obligations. 

Figure 106. Total pounds of wild foods harvested for Akutan households versus the total pounds of wild foods 

received from others. 

SPATIAL DATA 

At the mouth of Hot Springs Bay, people will set nets and get halibut, pogey, flounder, bullhead, 

and salmon. In the Akutan Bay and Creek, people fish for pink salmon before they have 

spawned. Lake trout and dolly varden are harvested at Open Bight and Akun Island, both caught 

with rod and reel. Chum salmon, harvested in the creek, is eaten wrapped in pushki (wild cow 

parsnip) leaves or with chadu (seal oil), or boiled with mussels. Chum salmon eggs are drained 

using sheer curtains, cheese cloth or panty hose, and hung in smoke houses or drained raw, then 

onion and salt are added. 

For subsistence salmon harvesting, people put nets outs (beach seines) and when they get their 

household needs met, they share with others in the village. 2008 was disappointing for 

subsistence salmon, catching maybe ten percent of what they normally harvest. 

Commercial fishermen make sure they go beyond where community skiffs can go so that they do 

not interfere with subsistence. People jig for cod on the south of Akutan Island and north of 

Akun. Irish lord and sculpin are taken east of Akutan Island. Subsistence pogies are taken from 

“two-acre rock.” 

Several men hold halibut IFQs as described in the section above. One stated he had 747 lbs. 

Halibut must be at least 32 inches long to keep. They do not find large halibut anymore, but 
151 

stated that the flesh is still firm and healthy. Several stated that commercial boats overfish 

halibut. Most local harvesting is done between Green Bight and Seredka Point (Figure 85). 

The Krenitzin Island Cattle Company on Akun Island is a subsidiary of the Akutan Corporation, 

and is managed by a non-Native man residing in Akutan. The cattle are descendants of a herd 

introduced by the Russians in the early 19th century. People from Akutan used to harvest cattle 

and bring them to the beach to share, but this has not been done for several years. Instead, the 

“cattle guys” brought in three animals to share in 2008 that equaled about 1,000 pounds of meat. 

There is rumored to be some dead loss due to severe weather or cattle falling off cliffs into the 

ocean. Erosion created by the cattle concerns some residents since Akun is Akutan Corporationowned lands. People discussed culling the herd again and sharing the meat as a subsistence food. 

All geographic data are presented in Appendix 1. 

SHARING NETWORKS 

The primary harvesters and distributors in Akutan have large quantities and varieties of wild 

foods flowing in and out of their homes (Figure 107). A person harvesting and distributing 

certain foods does not prevent those same foods from being shared with you by another 

harvester/distributor. 

Figure 107. The flow of a portion of wild food in and out of the home of a primary hunter/gatherer/fisherman 

in Akutan, 2008. 
152 

In this case, this is the only man who gathers sea eggs (urchins, by diving for them) for the 

village, and his importance in providing variety, quantity, and quality cannot be overstated. The 

loss of this single hunter/gatherer/fisherman could have dramatic consequences for households 

beyond his own, and there are so few hunter/gatherer/fishermen in the community that the 

harvesting and sharing burdens to them would likely increase, rather than others stepping up to 

replace that person. Many of the elderly, infirmed or those otherwise unable to harvest on their 

own named this individual repeatedly as a key harvester for them (Figure 108). 

Figure 108. Network data for the same individual in Figure 107. I=Individual, P=Processor, 

E=Entity/Business, and ?=unknown/unidentified source. Numbers are codes distinguishing between 

identities. 

Caribou has been traded in from family and friends in Chignik, King Cove and Sand Point, but 

not in recent years. It also comes from Atka a bit more regularly, since they have a population 

introduced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service several decades ago. Relatives and friends in 

Seattle trade vegetables for fish. One woman has polar bear meat in her freezer; she traded 

fireweed jelly and tea for it in Anchorage a few years ago but now doesn’t want to eat it because, 

“they eat humans.” 

There is a great deal of sharing with relatives in Unalaska. “They don’t get stuff over there 

anymore like we do.” One woman sends seagull eggs to a relative in Unalaska. One man sends 
153 

his sister in Unalaska ducks, berries and seafood, “otherwise she don’t get no [traditional] 

foods.” For sea mammal portions, one woman complained, “Everybody is so stingy with that 

stuff anymore, we hardly get it.” 

Figure 109 shows some of the variety of foods flowing in and out of a woman’s home in Akutan. 

She is married but has no children, and most of the wild foods that enter her home do so from a 

network of friends and relatives. The foods she is able to gather on her own are plant foods found 

near the village, and she shares these in large quantities. 

Figure 109. A portion of the flow of foods in and out of a woman’s home in Akutan, 2008. 

Several households reported difficulties in getting sea mammal foods because the hunters are not 

targeting them often, and those that do get them tend to share mostly with their close network. 

Figure 110 shows the combined harvests in three of the four study communities that harvested 

sea mammals. 6 percent of all households are responsible for 70 percent of the total harvests for 

these three communities. 
154 

12

151314 4 3

8 5

2 6 9

11 1

7

10

1617

18

19

202122

2324

25

26

2728

2930313233

34

353637

3839

4041

4243

4445

4647

48

4950

51

52

5354555657

5859

606162

6364

6566

67

HOUSEHOLD

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cumulative_Proportion

30:70

6:70

Figure 110. Pareto chart showing that 6% of all households in Port Heiden (n=4), False Pass (n=2), and 

Akutan (n=9) are responsible for 70% of the total sea mammal harvests in the study communities. Nelson 

Lagoon did not harvest sea mammals in 2009. 

The community net system, in which fishing nets are set in front of the village and the food 

collected from them shared, appears to be a crucial feature of sharing in the community, and 

allows those unable to harvest to get at least a portion of what they need. There is communal 

sharing on the beach of other animals too, but “you have to get down there quick” or it is all 

gone. Although sporadic, this system is highly valued and is distinctive from the other study 

communities. 

All network data for Akutan are presented in Appendix 2. 

COMMUNITY ECONOMICS 

Of the 30 surveyed households in Akutan, seven derive income directly from fishing (Figure 

111). Three of these are as captain and four are as crew. Akutan fishermen are primarily engaged 

in longlining for halibut and jigging for cod. Crewmen work on local vessels with Akutan 

captains, or on a couple of large cod fishing vessels based outside the region. These crewmen are 

adult men with families of their own and need the fisheries income. Captains report bringing 

home subsistence foods from these commercial fishing trips, such as halibut and octopus. In the 

30 surveyed households, 40 adults listed 67 separate job titles, or 1.7 jobs per adult (Table 26). 

Earned income in the community of Akutan is dominated by local government, followed by 

fisheries and services (Table 27). 88 percent of income in Akutan is earned income (Figure 112). 
155 

Figure 111. Percent of fishing and non-fishing earnings in Akutan, 2009. This does not include returns to the 

community from CDQs. 

Table 26. Job titles identified by Akutan respondents. 

Fisherman/Crewman 12 Cattleman 1 

Handyman/Laborer 6 Diver 1 

Fencer 4 Elder Case Worker 1 

Administrative assistant/Front Desk 3 Harbormaster 1 

Bartender/Waitress 3 Housekeeper 1 

Secretary/Front Desk 3 Janitor 1 

Waste Management 3 Librarian 1 

Carpenter 2 Longshoreman 1 

Clerk 2 Mayor 1 

Corporation/Tribal Administrator 2 Native Artist 1 

Fueler 2 Physician’s Assistant 1 

PenAir Agent 2 Preschool Teacher 1 

Postmaster 2 Teacher's Aide 1 

Storekeeper 2 VPSO 1 

Teacher 2 Watchman 1 

Business Owner/Service Manager 1 Water Treatment Operator 1 
156 

Table 27. Earned and other income, Akutan 2009. 

 Households Total Income Average 

per HH 

Earned Income 

Local Government 17 477917 28113

Federal Government 2 46000 23000

Fisheries 11 292500 26591

Retail 5 85640 17128

Services 9 227700 25300

Education 1 110000 110000

Transportation 1 4800 4800

Other 4 89000 22250

Total Earned Income $1333557

 

Other Income 

Alaska Permanent Fund 

Dividend 

28 76995 2750

Native Corporation 

Dividend 

22 52979 2408

Unemployment 4 14134 3534

Food Stamps 4 18008 4502

Social Security 2 13440 6720

Supplemental Security 1 3600 3600

Other 1 1700 1700

Total Other Income $180856

AKUTAN 

TOTAL 

 $1514413

Figure 112. Akutan income sources, 2009. 
157 

EXPENSES AND EXPENSE NETOWRKS 

Household Expenses 

Groceries 

The McGlashan Store in Akutan carries groceries and other goods, and many residents get a 

portion of their groceries there. Most food is ordered from outside arriving by barge. Residents 

also ride the ferry to Unalaska for shopping and bring groceries home. Grocery expenses 

reported ranged from between 5 percent to 41 percent of households’ total incomes. They cost 

households an average of $8,217 annually (Figure 113). 

Figure 113. Relative Percentages of Household Expenses, Akutan. 

Rent or Mortgage 

Eighteen of 30 households surveyed pay a rent or mortgage, averaging $3,685 annually, or $307 

monthly. 

Heating Fuel 

Heating fuel costs households an average of $2,902 each year. Propane is not used in Akutan. 

Electricity 

Households use $952 in electricity generated from a hydroelectric plant that is backed by diesel. 

Water-Sewer-Garbage 

There are no separate charges for these services. 

Telephone 

A combination of cell phones and landlines cost households an average of $594 annually. 
158 

Television 

Every home had at least one television costing an average of $548 annually. 

Subsistence Expenses 

Gasoline 

Cars and trucks owned by Akutan residents are actually in Anchorage. Trident Seafoods and the 

Safe Harbor Church own a few vehicles, but there are no roads through the village and no need 

for cars or trucks. The boardwalk though the village has been widened to accommodate the width 

of 4-wheelers; these are used to go between the village and cannery, airstrip and around the 

village. The use of gasoline, therefore, is much smaller than in other communities, averaging 

$390 per reporting household annually. 

Ammunition 

The average household uses $123 in ammunition. 

Supplies 

Other supplies such as berry pickers, buckets, freezer bags costs each household less than $100 

annually. 

Subsistence Equipment Owned, Shared, Purchased 

The subsistence equipment for Akutan is minimal (Table 28). Few households have commercial 

sized boats and there are relatively few skiffs in use by the community. Cars and trucks reported 

that are owned by Akutan residents are actually in Anchorage. Once the harbor is completed and 

road access provided, this will likely change. 

Table 28. Equipment used in subsistence harvesting reported by Akutan in 2009. 

Equipment Type 

Total Households 

(of 30) 

Average per 

Household with 

Equipment Type 

Average per 

Household in 

Village 

Skiffs 10 8 1.3 0.3

Outboard Motor 13 9 1.4 0.4

Commercial > 30' Boat 3 2 1.5 0.1

Snow Mobiles 0 0 0.0 0.0

ATVs; 4-Wheelers 10 10 1.0 0.3

Cars(s) or Truck(s) 4 4 1.0 0.1

POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON COMMUNITY LIFE 

Thirteen individuals were named has having a positive influence on community life. Five 

individuals named themselves. Two men were cited the most (7 and 9 times) for their strong 

leadership and for taking care of many people beyond their immediate kin. These are also the 

strongest nodes in the food sharing networks. 
159 

SUMMARY 

 Akutan is a small, progressive community that harvested 48 different species (in 

2009) of subsistence foods from their immediate environment. 

 30 percent of the households account for 70 percent of the total community’s 

harvests. 30 percent of households also account for 70 percent of the total community 

harvest of salmon. 

 Of the 25,676 total pounds entering households, 7,955 (31 percent) pounds are foods 

received through sharing and are the result of social relationships other than the 

household’s own harvests through cooperative hunting and fishing. 

 The people of Akutan rely on a greater portion of sea mammals in their diet than the 

other communities surveyed for this study, but still experienced a 85.8 percent decline 

in household harvests. 

 While some residents engage in commercial fishing, the dominant source of income 

is in local government. 

 Commercial fishermen provide the greatest abundance and variety of wild foods for 

the whole community owing to their capacity and expanded range. 

 Between 1990 and 2009, Akutan experienced declines in 8 of the top 10 species. 

Halibut and pink salmon have gained in importance significantly. 

 Between 1990 and 2009, Akutan households reported harvest declines for every 

species category: 59.2 percent decline in salmon, 38.4 percent decline in non-salmon, 

85.8% decline in marine mammals, 37.8 percent decline in land mammals, 81.8 

percent decline in shellfish, 86.2 percent decline in birds and eggs, and a 46.2 percent 

decline in wild plants. These data could partly be the result of several hunters and 

fishermen who were unavailable during the survey. 

 Communal sharing is a crucial feature of Akutan. Fishing nets are set in the bay and 

the fish are shared with everyone who comes down to the beach, announced on the 

VHF radio. Cattle, sea mammals, and birds are shared this way as well, but less 

frequently. 

 Akutan has a positive relationship with Trident Seafoods even though few residents 

are employed in the processing plant. 

 Akutan is constructing a harbor and airport to increase revenue and support the 

village. 

 Geothermal prospects for Akutan Island could play a strong, positive role in 

community development. 

 Support for the North Aleutian Basin project is mixed for the community, but the 

leadership supported the project. 
160 

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
161 

PART III 

CHAPTER 8. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: DEMOGRAPHICS & 

ECONOMICS 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 

Household Information 

The OMB approved survey collected basic demographic information and household 

composition. Respondents were asked to list the members of their household for the year 2009, 

whether they were male or female, Alaska Native or other ancestry (Scandinavian, Russian, 

Japanese, et cetera), what year each was born, how each in the household was related to the head 

of household, last grade of school completed, where they were born, and the number of years 

each had lived in the community. These data were used to generate demographics for the 

surveyed portion of the community. Data from the survey were also compared to the 2010 U.S. 

Census results. The average household size for each community is provided in Figure 114 and 

Table 29. Port Heiden has slightly more people per household than the other communities. 

Figure 114. Sizes of Surveyed Households by Community, 2009. 

Table 29. Average household size for each community. 

 Average Household Size 

Akutan 2.2 

False Pass 2.1 

Nelson Lagoon 2.5 

Port Heiden 3.1 

False Pass, Nelson Lagoon and Akutan are concerned about the dearth of school age children but 

there are some younger families in these communities still having children (Figure 115). The 

schools must have ten children in order to receive state funding and support teachers. The 
162 

inability to provide schooling could drive young families to leave the villages, which could 

signal the demise of entire communities. The Aleutians East Borough has contributed funds to 

maintain the schools in False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, and Akutan. These funds are from fisheries 

landing taxes within the Borough boundaries. In 2012, the Aleutians East Borough School 

District closed the Nelson Lagoon school. Port Heiden has a larger population of school age 

children, with new babies born often, and does not have the same pressure as the other 

communities. Figure 116 shows the years that respondents have lived in each community. 

Figure 115. Age ranges of Surveyed Households by Community, 2009.

Figure 116. Years in the Community, Reported from Surveyed Households for 2009.

Most Alaska Native communities are male dominated (Hamilton, Seyfrit, and Bellinger 1997) 

and these villages are no exception (Figure 117). 
163 

Figure 117. Sex Distribution within Surveyed Households by Community, 2009.

These villages are primarily Alaska Native Aleut/Unangan and Alutiiq/Sugpiaq/Yupik (Figure 

118). Other ancestry reported was Russian, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, French, 

Finnish, Scottish, German, Hungarian, Filipino, Inupiaq, Irish, Cherokee, Apache, Quileute, and 

Athabascan. 

Figure 118. Alaska Native and non-Native distributions by community.

Most residents surveyed completed high school (Figure 119). A handful of people in each 

community achieved university degrees, with only one graduate degree reported in Akutan. 

Many residents attended high school outside of their village, for example, at Mt. Edgecombe, 

Kodiak, Anchorage, or Dillingham. 
164 

Figure 119. Level of education of surveyed population by community. 

SUBSISTENCE HARVESTS AND DEPENDENCIES 

Subsistence Harvester Information 

The survey gathered basic information on household members’ subsistence activities: who 

harvested during the study year, which months were they actively harvesting, and reasons for any 

inability to harvest (Figure 120). Nelson Lagoon and Port Heiden have the highest average 

number of subsistence harvesters per household of the surveyed communities (Figure 121). 

Figure 120. Number of subsistence harvesters by community.
165 

Figure 121. Average number of subsistence harvesters per household by community, 2009. 

Comparative Harvest Data 

More salmon are harvested for subsistence than any other wild foods in three of the four study 

communities (Figure 122-124). In pounds usuable weight, they dominate wild foods. Akutan is 

the exception because there are few salmon streams accessible from the village, and they have 

easier access to marine fish such as cod and halibut than they do the other foods. Land mammals 

available to Akutan are almost exclusively wild cattle from Akun Island. Nelson Lagoon is also 

eating relatively few land mammals, however, a member of the community experienced legal 

trouble for poaching caribou and members of the community were reluctant to share information 

for fear of more legal troubles for their hunters. 

Per capita harvests of wild foods in pounds have changed for all villages. Akutan has seen a 

steady decline over three studies; False Pass has seen a significant increase; and Port Heiden and 

Nelson Lagoon have declined in pounds per capita. This is partly due to harvest closures (Figure 

125). As described above, salmon are the most critical resource in most communities and, as 

shown in Figure 126, most salmon are taken with commercial gear. A variety of gear is used in 

harvesting. Figures 126 and 127 disaggregate activites out by context, whether subsistence 

harvesting was occuring during commercial fishing or if foods were removed from commercial 

fishing. These data show how intertwined all harvesting practices are. 

A surprising finding of this study is the amount of wild foods formerly harvested that are now 

purchased or increasingly purchased (Figure 128). The bulk of purchased foods are king and 

tanner crab. False Pass consumes a great deal of crab, but because of local access does not need 

to purchase it the way that the other communities must. Nelson Lagoon is also purchasing frozen 

cod from Peter Pan Seafoods in King Cove and frozen salmon fillets from Peter Pan Seafoods in 

Port Moller. 
166 

Figure 122. Reported and estimated total community harvests for the four study villages. 

Figure 123. Cumulative pounds (in usable weight) estimated total harvested by community in 2009. 
167 

Figure 124. Cumulative pounds harvested per household by community, 2009. 

Figure 125. Total harvest of wild foods, pounds per capita, 1987-88, 1990, and 2008-09. 
168 

Figure 126. Salmon harvests by gear type and commercial fishing context, 2009. 
169 

Figure 127. Non-Salmon harvests by gear type and commercial fishing context. 
170 

Figure 128. Pounds wild foods purchased by community and species category, 2009 

. 

COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 

Commercial fishing activities directly support many subsistence pursuits with equipment, cash, 

time and labor. Commercial harvest zones are important to the study communities even if the 

members of the communities do not directly engage in the fisheries (Figure 129). All villages 

have commercial boats and skiffs. The size and type of boats and skiffs vary with the kinds of 

permits that are fished from those villages (Figure 130). This means that every village has some 

access to commercial fisheries. 

Figure 129. Dried subsistence salmon (ukela) hanging on a commercial fishing vessel, False Pass. 
171 

Figure 130. Number of fishing vessels and skiffs by village, sorted by length in feet, 2009. 

Fishing Operations, Capacity, and Dependency 

False Pass has the greatest diversity of permit holdings for all the villages with nine different 

types of permits (Figure 131 and Table 30). It also has the smallest number of permit holders and 

crew members (Figure 132). It is important to point out the fisheries that these villages do not 

participate in. Without historical, documented relationships to a number of “money fish” in the 

federal Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands fisheries, such as king crab and pollock, 

local communities generally did not have strong participation in these fisheries and, after 

rationalization and catch share programs, their already meager role has diminished further. 

Earnings from CDQ shares are the primary way that the coastal villages engage with many of 

these fisheries. 
172 

Figure 131. Number of permit types owned per village, 2009. See Table 30 for explanation of codes. 

Table 30. Permit Codes, Gear types, and Location for Figure 131. 

Species Code Gear Location 

Salmon S01M Purse Seine Alaska Peninsula 

 S03M Drift Gillnet Alaska Peninsula 

 S04M Set Gillnet Alaska Peninsula 

 S03T Drift Gillnet Bristol Bay 

 S04T Set Gillnet Bristol Bay 

Halibut B06B Longline, under 60’ Statewide 

Sablefish C09B Pot gear, under 60’ Statewide 

Herring Roe G01T Purse seine Bristol Bay 

Tanner crab T09M Pot gear, under 60’ Alaska Peninsula 

Miscellaneaous 

Saltwater Finfish M26B Mechanical Jig Statewide 

 M26G Mechanical Jig Gulf of Alaska 

 M09G Pot gear, under 60’ Gulf of Alaska 
173 

Figure 132. Number of Permit Holders and Crew Members from the Villages, All fisheries, 2009. 

Figure 133 shows levels of community dependency on commercial fisheries. Incomes and 

dependencies from directed commercial fishing are present, but are somewhat misleading, since 

a significant portion of the non-fishing earnings are financed from commercial fisheries through, 

for example, fisheries landing taxes and revenue from CDQs. Community level taxes are levied 

against the fishermen delivering in False Pass at 2 percent, and an additional 2 percent fish tax 

imposed by the Aleutians East Borough in False Pass and Akutan. 

Figure 133. Reported incomes earned by captains and crewmen in commercial fishing relative to non-fishing 

incomes. 
174 

Salmon 

The majority of permits and vessels fishing from Nelson Lagoon, Port Heiden and False Pass are 

engaged in salmon fishing. Akutan fishermen have no salmon permits. Nelson Lagoon supports 

and almost equal number of drift and set gillnet salmon fishing permits. They fish inside Nelson 

Lagoon and Port Moller, in the South Alaska Peninsula area, and in the Northern District of Area 

M. False Pass fishermen fish primarily in the South Alaska Peninsula Salmon Management Area, 

which includes Kupreanof Point west to Scotch Cap on Unimak Island. The Southwestern 

District and Unimak District are closest to their village. The South Alaska Peninsula June fishery 

occurs between June 7 and June 29, with 88 hour fishing periods interspersed with 36 hour 

closures. Sockeye are the primary target, bringing higher prices at the processors, but all five 

species are harvested. The post June fishery begins July 1 and ends August 31 with time 

restrictions interspersed throughout. Pink and sockeye salmon are the most abundant in the area. 

These fisheries include mixed stocks with portions migrating to Bristol Bay and the ArcticYukon-Kuskokwim Regions of western Alaska. A Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification 

Project (WASSIP), a comprehensive program on sockeye and chum genetic stock identification 

to determine stock of origin, is scheduled to release results in 2012 that may help resolve 

conflicts between regions. The majority of Port Heiden’s fishermen are drift gillnetters for 

salmon with Area T Bristol Bay fishing permits. They fish the Ugashik District of Area T north 

of their village. 

Groundfish 

Cod and pollock fisheries are currently booming industries with no stocks of biological concern 

that support large transient and resident fleets. Processing of groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska 

and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands occurs regularly in a shore-based processor in Akutan (Trident 

Seafoods). No study villages currently have, or have ever had, a significant fleet engagement in 

the groundfish fisheries but there are significant levels of participation as harvesters and crew 

members from the vantage point of the villages. The mechanical jig and pot permit holdings for 

miscellaneous saltwater finfish in Nelson Lagoon, False Pass and Akutan are largely cod fishing 

permits. 

Pacific halibut 

Hippoglosus stenolepis have experienced sharp declines in biomass over the past decade from 

small year classes in the late 1980s, and the growth rate of the fish has slowed so that adults are 

smaller than in previous decades (International Pacific Halibut Commission 2012). The TAC 

(Total Allowable Catch) has been lowered annually so that directed IFQ halibut fishermen have 

taken substantial cuts in their quotas. 

The study villages cross three halibut regulatory areas: 3B (Nelson Lagoon and False Pass, 4A 

(Akutan), and 4E (Port Heiden). These communities are eligible for subsistence harvesting of 

halibut as rural communities with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Subsistence Halibut 

Registrations Certificates (SHARCs) are issued by ADF&G’s Subsistence Division under 

contract with NMFS. These certificates collect information on subsistence halibut, rockfish and 

lingcod harvests. These are mail-out surveys with fairly low response rates (Table 31). 
175 

Table 31. Subsistence halibut harvests for the study villages, 2010. Source: Subsistence Harvests of Pacific 

Halibut in Alaska, 2010 (Fall and Koster 2011) Technical paper #367. Tribe Regulatory Area SHARCS issued SHARCs returned # Fishermen # Halibut 

Lbs Halibut # Lingcod bycatch # Rockfish bycatch 

Port 

Heiden 

4E 3 0 No data No data No data No data No data 

Nelson 

Lagoon 

3B 3 0 No data No data No data No data No data 

False 

Pass 

3B 1 0 No data No data No data No data No data 

Akutan 4A 21 7 0 34 830 5 30 

Crab Fisheries 

There are three permit holders/captains in False Pass that participate in the state crab fisheries. 

They hold permits for Tanner Crab pot gear, under 60’, fisheries. These three individuals 

represent the total permit holdings in crab fisheries for the four study communities. Chionoecetes 

bairdi, or Tanner crab, are found in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. These crab are 

managed under a federal fisheries management plan, with management assumed by the State of 

Alaska with federal oversight. The State manages Tanners in registration areas divided by 

districts. Waters east of the 166° W Longitude line in the Eastern Subdistrict of the Bering Sea 

District are closed to commercial fishing. The pot fishery developed in the 1970s, peaking in 

1977, and declining until it was closed to fishing in 1985 and 1986. It was opened in 1987 and 

followed a similar peak/crash through the 1990s. It was closed to commercial fishing between 

1997 and 2004 because of depressed stocks. It reopened in 2005 and was closed again in 

2010/2011. Tanner fishing resumed in January 2012. 

EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME 

The top employment sources are local government entities and commercial fishing earnings by 

self-employed captains and crewmen. There is considerable disparity in household income 

(Figure 134). The majority of income in the villages is earned from wages from jobs, pensions, 

and Social Security (Figure 135). 
176 

Figure 134. Number of Households in Income Brackets, Total Incomes 2009. 

Port Heiden households generally reported the highest incomes from fishing and income earned 

from their environmental cleanup projects. False Pass and Nelson Lagoon incomes are primarily 

from commercial fishing with multiple other jobs outside the summer salmon season. Akutan 

incomes are largely coming from wages earned in local government. 

Residents of Alaska are eligible for the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which in 2009 

was $1,305 for every eligible individual. Most survey respondents received the dividend. On a 

few occasions, it was seized for child support, back taxes, or other debts. In the pie charts below, 

the category of Dividends reflects the PFD and dividends from regional and village Alaska 

Native Corporations such as the Aleut Corporation, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and 

smaller village corporations who are able to issue dividends. This category also includes as 

Elder’s Benefit from the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association. Other sources include public 

assistance funds such as Food Stamps, Energy Assistance, child support, Women-InfantChildren (WIC) support, Unemployment, and Workers Compensation. 
177 

Figure 135. Percentages of income sources for the four study villages, 2009. 

HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 

Annual grocery expenses were reported as a significant burden by most households (Figure 136, 

Table 32). Individuals were surveyed for total household grocery expenses for a year. This 

usually meant people reported weekly or monthly expenses that were multiplied to cover the 

entire year. Some were able to report specific annual totals. Some clearly underestimated their 

expenses. 

Surveys asked people to provide costs to maintain their homes and other household expenses. 

Comparative expenses for rent or mortgage, heating fuel, electricity, propane (if used), 

water/sewer/garbage fees, telephone, and the cost of cable or satellite television are provided 

(Figure 137). The survey asked about other goods coming in to households, specifically 

dry/canned goods, produce, frozen foods, and meat. Orders are made from Sam’s Club, Fred 

Meyer, Walmart, Costco, and SpanAlaska, for example. 
178 

Figure 136. Average annual household expenses by category and village, 2009. 

Table 32. Average annual household expenses ($) by expense category and village, 2009. 

Akutan False Pass Nelson 

Lagoon 

Port 

Heiden 

Groceries $8217 9647 12357 10409 

Rent or Mortgage $3685 4686 4425 3200 

Heating Fuel $2902 3899 5192 3898 

Propane $0 972 1577 544 

Electricity $952 1426 3741 3375 

Water-Sewer-Garbage $0 518 748 230 

Telephone $594 1186 1204 913 

Television $548 1144 1331 1528 
179 

Figure 137. Cumulative household expenses for each study village, 2009. 

EQUIPMENT AND ASSETS 

Comparative analysis of harvesting equipment owned and used in subsistence harvesting 

demonstrates that each village has unique needs because of geography and resource availability 

(Figure 138). Ownership and access to equipment determines a great deal of subsistence 

accessibility. 

Figure 138. Comparisons of equipment used in subsistence harvesting per study village, 2009. 
180 

CONCLUSIONS 

These comparative data show the unique structure, challenges and capacities of each community. 

Villages of similar size in a defined geographic region of the North Aleutian Basin exhibit very 

different characteristics, subsistence activities, commercial fisheries engagement, and economic 

development prospects. 
181 

CHAPTER 9. COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND 

VULNERABILITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE OBSERVED CHANGES AND CONCERNS 

The survey gathered data on observed changes in wildlife in the four study communities. People 

were asked to name species and describe what was wrong with them, or what improved for them, 

how many were affected, locations where the changes were observed, and timeframe for the 

observations. The high volume of observations reported (Figures 139 and 140) indicates a strong 

awareness of the fish, game, and plants around their villages. 

Figure 139. Reported changes in species by community. 
182 

Figure 140. Reported changes in individual species. 

As described below, the study communities are already responding to population changes for 

numerous species. It remains unclear how oil and gas exploration and development could 

exacerbate, alleviate, or maintain the status quo relative to these populations. This will be 

revisited below in discussions of development scenarios.

WILDLIFE HEALTH, ABUNDANCE, INTERACTIONS 

Wolves and Caribou 

In 2009, all hunting for caribou in State Game Management Units 9D and 9E in the study area, 

and on Unimak Island, were suspended for conservation reasons, including subsistence hunting. 

From March to June 2011, ADF&G extended wolf hunting and trapping seasons in Units 9 and 

10 by Emergency Order (EO #04-01-11). Additional opportunity for hunters and trappers was 

meant to decrease wolf predation on caribou. Over 90 percent of Unimak Island is part of the 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and is managed by the Izembek National Wildlife 

Refuge from Cold Bay. A state plan to reduce the wolf population on Unimak was blocked by 

federal officials in 2011. 

False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, and Port Heiden residents all reported a high population of wolves 

and the need for predator control. The overabundance of wolves seriously affects people’s sense 

of safety and their use of the outdoors. Many feel constrained in their ability to take walks and 
183 

children are sometimes cautioned not to play outdoors. Many people will not even walk between 

houses. A wolf was spotted near the Port Heiden school grounds during the research team’s visit 

in November 2009, and the village rallied with guns and four-wheelers to try to shoot it before it 

did harm. During the research team’s visit to Port Heiden in March 2010, the bed & breakfast 

received a phone call identifying a special education teacher in the village of Chignik Lake 

across the Peninsula as having been killed by a pack of wolves. The woman had been out 

running on an isolated road and was attacked and killed; four locals riding snow machines found 

the body (Halpin, ADN, 3/11/2010). Port Heiden hunters have actively tried to eliminate wolves 

in their local area, Perryville, and near the Chigniks. They have lost dogs, been stalked by 

wolves, and have seen them take both caribou and moose calves. During a 2010 Fish & Game 

hunt, after the death of the school teacher, locals complained that wolves ran into Aniakchak 

National Monument & Preserve to avoid the hunters, and that the federal agencies will not take 

action on the wolves. 

In False Pass, wolves are often spotted in town and a number of village dogs have gone missing. 

A local man killed a wolf that he found near his house while the study team was working there. 

Wolves are seen all year long and are often seen during the daytime, which was previously 

unusual. Nelson Lagoon reported high wolf populations and the associated dramatic drop in 

caribou population and calf recruitment. Brown bears were also reported at an “all time high,” 

especially in False Pass. They also prey on caribou calves and locals would like to see an 

increased sport bear hunt. Furthermore, people in Nelson Lagoon, False Pass and Port Heiden 

were concerned that previously opened sport hunting of caribou bulls damaged their critical 

subsistence resource. 

During the caribou closures, Port Heiden has applied to conduct two types of hunts: an 

educational hunt and a ceremonial hunt. The educational hunt is to teach hunting to kids the 

necessary hunting skills for when caribou recover. Two youths were able to conduct an 

educational hunt. They must do all the work cleaning and processing the animal, and only elders 

and others in the village get the meat, not the hunters. This is to teach youths that they are 

hunting for elders and others, not for themselves. Ceremonial hunts are conducted specifically 

honoring a person and usually accompany a funeral. Meat is served at a potluck where elders 

have priority in getting portions. In August 2010, ADF&G’s Division of Wildlife Conservation 

issued a memorandum identifying wildlife excluded from ceremonial harvest. Under regulation 5 

AAC 92.019, the department must maintain a list of areas and species not eligible for ceremonial 

harvest because to do so would be inconsistent with sustained yield principles. Unit 9, the North 

Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd, was placed on this list for Regulatory year 2011 (through June 

30, 2011). They were removed from the 2011-2012 list. 

Caribou are living closer to Port Heiden in order to hide out from the wolves (Figure 141), but 

there is some incentive not to hunt them (Figure 142). Locals are concerned that they have no 

fear of humans now, and when hunting is allowed to resume, they are worried how the 

population will behave. Poor caribou health, for example lung disease and worms under the skin, 

has also been observed by Port Heiden hunters in recent years. 
184 

Figure 141. Caribou near Port Heiden. Photo by Kate Reedy-Maschner, March 2010. 

Figure 142. 50 Reasons Not to Shoot a Cow Caribou. Signage posted in the Nelson Lagoon post office. Photo 

by Kate Reedy-Maschner, March 2010. 
185 

Moose and Sport Hunters 

The moose population in Game Management Unit 9E is also observed by Port Heiden residents 

as in serious decline. Hunters said that moose are, "Hard to find anymore. Have to scout in an 

aircraft." With caribou hunting closed, there was more subsistence pressure placed on moose. 

One informant said subsistence use climbed from 1-2 moose for the village to 10-20 for annual 

hunts just after caribou were closed. There are numerous sport guide businesses out of King 

Salmon operating in the area. “Sport pressure” and “over hunting” were the top reasons given for 

their decline. For example, one hunter said, "Sport hunters negatively impact the moose 

population. Hard to find trophy moose anymore.” Groups of hunters are rotated in every ten days 

to two weeks. Some sport operators have donated moose meat to the village over the years, but 

that has declined as well. 

Sea Otters and Clams 

An overabundance of sea otters was reported by members of every village. These are 

competitors for eating clams and sea urchins with the local people. Cockles were a significant 

subsistence food for all villages, and they harvest very few today because of sea otters. Over 

several years with hard winters (especially 2006-2007, and 2011-2012), sea otters have 

experienced large die-offs. Sea otters need water to keep their pelts clean in order to stay warm. 

Near Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon, there was so much sea ice that they could not get to open 

water and tried to cross land approximately 30 miles to the Pacific side. Many of them died 

because of the journey and predation by wolves, foxes, dogs, eagles and crows. Local people 

have found many near death and killed them “out of mercy.” 

Other Sea Mammals 

Port Heiden is seeing more and more seals every year. Akutan spotted 5,000 porpoises near the 

island several years previously. All villages reported seeing more and more orcas each year. 

Birds, Eggs and Berries 

Fewer geese are seen near Port Heiden than in recent years, leaving locals to wonder about 

changing migration patterns. Others from the community reported an abundance of Canadian 

geese and pintail ducks. They have been teaching local people not to pick their eggs after their 

populations dropped to where they could no longer hunt them. Geese near Nelson Lagoon were 

reported as increasing. Emperor geese hunting has been closed for several years, but many felt 

they were at high enough levels to open a season once again. Ptarmigan populations are high on 

the peninsula and Unimak Island. 

King eider and Steller’s eider populations were reported as decreasing near Nelson Lagoon. King 

eiders were also reported as declining near Akutan which was “a damned shame, because they 

taste good.” There are lots of ducks around Akutan Bay, but mallards were thought to be fewer 

than they should be. People in Akutan were also worried about fewer murre eggs found. In Port 

Heiden, Arctic tern eggs have not been harvested since 2005. They are difficult to find. 

Kingfishers also started to show up in past 3 years in Akutan; they are yellow/orange and 

believed to be new to the island. 
186 

Locations of strawberry patches often are products of seeds in bird droppings. A decrease in all 

birds that eat berries was also observed in low berry years near Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon. 

Berry abundance each year has to do with the harshness of the previous winter and moisture 

levels. During the study years, Akutan was concerned about blueberry and mossberry 

abundances. 

Fish 

Nelson Lagoon, Port Heiden and Akutan residents reported declines in salmon runs. For salmon 

in general, Nelson Lagoon and Port Heiden put much of the responsibility for salmon declines in 

their streams, bays, and lagoons on the drift gillnetters of the Area M fleet that fishes between 

Nelson Lagoon and just northeast of Port Heiden. Effort by the drift fleet affects run strength and 

escapement inside the Nelson Lagoon where many village residents fish. Port Heiden said 

salmon are “disappearing” from local streams, and there are more fish with “things wrong with 

them,” such as having yellow tinges, “weird” flesh colors, or looking “odd.” Akutan reported 

fewer salmon in Akutan Bay in recent years, especially sockeye and coho, and that their arrival is 

later than it used to be. 

Port Heiden proposed a salmon monitoring project on Meshik River, essentially a counting tower 

and weir by Fish and Game, but the low volume of escapement made the project not worth the 

investment. Meshik River also experiences high winds and flooding, making subsistence fishing 

there difficult. Beaver dams up river made water levels too low for upriver spawned out sockeye 

and coho to be collected for smoking. Chinook salmon are also in decline near Port Heiden 

where Meshik River used to support a large run. In 2010, they were not really coming close to 

the beach and had to be fished in open water. Coho are harder to find near Port Heiden as well. 

Nelson Lagoon residents were also concerned with a sport fishing operation on Sapsuk River. 

They are concerned with “too many clients,” “greed,” and the need for proper waste disposal to 

protect the river. Sport guiding operations also purchase fuel from Nelson Lagoon for planes and 

boats, which contribute to their economy. 

Halibut in both quantity and size are also getting harder to find for False Pass and Akutan’s 

fishermen. False Pass reported an increase in Pacific cod. 

Small Mammals 

Near Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon, there are a lot fewer porcupine and snowshoe hare than in 

previous years. Foxes are increasing on the Alaska Peninsula. 

Other 

Port Heiden locals have both conducted and participated in recent harvesting research studies for 

the Bristol Bay Native Association and others. Harbor seal and sea otter surveys have been 

conducted recently in the region. A local woman enrolled in an Environmental Science Field and 

Methods Survey class and encouraged the professor to conduct his clam bed survey and a trawl 

survey in the bay. Results showed that in seaweed areas, there is the most species variety with up 

to 30 different species in a trawl. The mussels of the area are considered invasive species; they 

multiply quickly and are suspected to have arrived on barges. Near False Pass, fireweed and 

wildflowers are harder to find. Akutan reported more octopus than usual. They were also 
187 

concerned that crab, halibut, and cod were not showing up in Akutan Bay like they used to. 

Trident Seafoods dumping their waste was cited as a possible factor. In Akutan too, "People 

don't hunt as much as they used to. Gas, the price of shells have gone up." Nelson Lagoon also 

reported more “weird bugs” due to temperature warming. There were also new species moving 

in: a type of tern with a black head, newer unidentified “little birds,” a ribbon seal on the beach 

in about 2000, a fur seal tangled in net in 2007, and an abundance of salmon sharks. These and 

other observed changes are captured in Figure 143 along with positive or negative community 

views. In addition to local observations, a few marine mammals, several species of birds and one 

plant occurring in the Aleutians are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (Table 33). Reasons are varied. 

Figure 143. Observed changes in species across the study communities. 
188 

Table 33. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that range in the study region 

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status 

Steller Sea Lion (Western Population) Eumetopias jubatus Endangered* 

Northern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris Threatened 

Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered 

Bowhead Whale Balaena mysticetus Endangered 

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 

Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 

Right Whale Balaena glacialis Endangered 

Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered 

Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered 

Short-tailed Albatross Phoebaotria albatrus Endangered 

Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri Threatened 

Kittlitz Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris Candidate 

Aleutian Shield Fern Polystichum aleuticum Endangered 

*Subsistence species for the study communities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CHANGES 

Nelson Lagoon 

A Nelson Lagoon man has recorded the weather almost every day since 1990, and has a record 

of climate change, rising sea levels, and erosion. Several people described the changing and 

eroding Nelson Lagoon spit; a cabin was built at the end of the spit in 1956 and the spit has 

grown north several miles since then. Because Nelson Lagoon is now a state and federal critical 

habitat area (primarily for waterfowl populations) they are concerned that erosion will drastically 

alter the lagoon. Their Tribal Environmental Department has also applied for funds over several 

years for beach cleanup. Garbage continues to fill the beaches and these funds “saved a couple of 

[fishing] permits here.” Following the tsunami in Japan, this work is expected to increase. 

Pollution and Port Heiden 

The military left a system of roads behind in and around Port Heiden, and the village spread out 

along these roads, but only after they experienced massive erosion around the old village site at 

the Bering Sea’s edge in the 1970s and 1980s. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built roads 

with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money (taking gravel from the bay and a 

barrier island that may have further accelerated erosion), and connected them to the military 

roads. There is strong concern over pollutants from the military remains. The Tribal 

Environmental office has Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (IGAP) funds and 

Brownfield site funds to clean up military remains.12 They have also gained grant funds for water 

quality, solid waste disposal, and energy assistance. Many residents had used lumber from old 

military structures as building materials for their homes, and now claim a disproportionate 

number of cancer deaths. A White Alice Communications (WAC) site remains, and in May to 

September of 2009, it was the focus of a soil remediation project to remove contaminated soils. 

 

12 These are Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds used to develop tribal capacity for addressing 

environmental hazards and related health issues in their communities. 
189 

Aniakchak Contractors is the for-profit business through the tribe that hired local people to work 

on the cleanup. They worked with the remediation companies, Weston Solutions and DMZ Soil 

Solutions, for the remediation. This work resumed in 2011 and 2012. 

There are noticeable vegetation changes around the remediation site, and people will avoid 

picking berries in the area, although some say they often only picked there because the biggest 

berries came from the contaminated areas. It was a prime ptarmigan hunting spot as well. The 

people generally alter their harvesting behavior now to go around these areas because of 

concerns about contamination and hazardous materials. The Tribal Environmental office holds 

educational meetings about contamination and posts signs to avoid the area but there is no 

enforcement. Those that do pick berries in the area say that they “wash them extra.” 

Meshik village is now the old ghost town section on the shore. Everyone moved out because of 

erosion. They were also worried about the PCBs, leaded paint, and other waste in the old village. 

Houses had been built out of old military materials and people are now concerned with what was 

in them. Barrels of substances were lying around that people used to use to melt ice to get their 

vehicles and boats working. They have had water tested and nothing serious was found, but they 

claim an alarming cancer rate. Aniakchak Caldera is also blamed for upper respiratory issues and 

ear infections. 

NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS 

AND CONCERNS 

The survey asked about support for offshore oil and gas exploration and development and 

anticipated advantages or disadvantages that may accompany the development scenario. These 

questions lead to open-ended responses in many cases. Quantifiable elements are examined 

below.

Village Responses and Survey Results 

Port Heiden residents commented that Shell Oil representatives came to Port Heiden twice 

between 2007 and 2009. The first time they told the people of the village that they had nothing to 

offer them; they were just informing them of what would happen in the Bering Sea. The second 

time, they reportedly spoke of local hires, revenue sharing, and other benefits to the community. 

This change in approach created some concern. Revenue sharing is also very attractive to the 

community. Given their location, they were interested in participating in construction, spill 

response, and local jobs. 

The City of Akutan was interested in participating in the North Aleutian Basin exploration and 

development phases. The leadership sees Akun Island (and its new airport) as a key location for 

storing spill response equipment. The residents are mixed in their opinions of the exploration and 

development. Some saw it as occurring too far away from Akutan to be of concern or of any 

benefit. 

False Pass leaders were optimistic about serving as staging grounds for oil and gas exploration 

and development. Others were fearful of the prospects. For example, one man stated, “There is 

no feasible way oil and gas can happen out there without negative impacts.” 
190 

One man stated that he gets flyers about the NAB exploration and development but does not read 

them. He supports it, but mostly because he does not fish anymore. But, he said, “If they can do 

it up north and in California, then they can do it here too.” He also acknowledged spill dangers 

because of the frequency of earthquakes, but said that earthquakes are fewer and less intense than 

they used to be. 

Nelson Lagoon has been engaging with petroleum exploration and development for many 

decades. In 1968-69, an oil well was drilled at David’s River 16 miles down the beach from 

Nelson Lagoon on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula. It was drilled by Brinkerhoff Drilling 

Company for Pan American Petroleum (predecessor of AMOCO Production Co.). In August 

1969, a 200 foot barge delivered equipment to build roads and an airstrip for Pan American 

Petroleum. Drilling equipment was brought in and a derrick installed. Some people from Nelson 

Lagoon were hired for construction. It turned out to be a dry well and was closed down right 

away. 

Given Nelson Lagoon’s close proximity to the North Aleutian Basin proposed OCS lease area it 

was a greater topic of discussion throughout the community than the other communities of this 

study. Prior to this research effort, the tides of support for offshore oil and gas exploration and 

development were shifting, and the president of the Nelson Lagoon Corporation estimated about 

40 percent of the village was against the development. Northern Dynasty Minerals’ Pebble Mine 

in Bristol Bay has influenced opinions of all development. Most discussions of offshore oil and 

gas exploration and development sparked discussions of the Pebble Mine development. Some do 

not want Bristol Bay offshore drilling, but do not oppose onshore development because they 

perceive less onshore risk. Many residents were displaying anti-Pebble Mine hats and bumper 

stickers during the 2012 community visits. Most are opposed to the Pebble Mine, and approach 

the North Aleutian Basin project with caution. If managed properly, salmon is considered a 

renewable resource that will last forever while oil is finite. “Oil and gas has come a long way in 

safety, but not far enough,” said one man. On the other hand, one man argued, “We can send a 

man to the moon; why not drill a hole in the Bering Sea?” In Akutan, the wreck of the Selendang 

Ayu in 2005 affected people’s understandings of disaster. "Where the boat went down in Dutch, 

we saw slicks out there. Skimmers came in to the bay to clean up." 

Leaders were becoming more aware of global activities of the petroleum corporations. They 

were reading about Shell’s activities in Nigeria, for example, and industry’s other foreign 

activities that “don’t give me much confidence.” Oil companies have paid for leaders from 

Nelson Lagoon to observe operations in Norway, the North Slope, Cook Inlet and Sakhalin. One 

major concern of local leaders and harvesters was the size of the corridor needed for pipelines. In 

the leading development scenario released by Shell Offshore Inc., a pipeline crosses the Alaska 

Peninsula through Herendeen Bay to a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plant on the Pacific side. 

Herendeen Bay cannot experience such a corridor according to local people because the corridor 

would destroy all the resources there. Herendeen Bay is locally just called “the bay” and is 

something of “a special place” in terms of resource abundance. In the 1980s, when petroleum 

exploration was considered for the region, leaders spoke of their trips that industry provided to 

the Gulf of Mexico to see other operations. 
191 

Nelson Lagoon leaders expect positive outcomes in revenue sharing. Since they only expect one 

or two people from Nelson Lagoon to take oil and gas jobs, instead revenue sharing would 

“create entrepreneurship,” job development, infrastructure and “allow us to survive.” There has 

been no training of Nelson Lagoon residents for petroleum jobs, nor has it been promoted 

locally. 

Fishermen spoke of the difficulties in getting salmon escapement in the Nelson Lagoon system 

and fears that “it will dry up.” “You add oil and gas leases on top of that and now you got 

something to worry about.” As one community leader stated, “It is more controversial now than 

it was” in Nelson Lagoon. 

The potential lease sale in Bristol Bay was an evolving story throughout the study period. This 

project surveyed village participants in February and March 2010 before the Obama 

Administration canceled the lease sale option. Since then, there have been private and public 

disputes about this process. Publicly, Aleutians East Borough Administrator Sharon Boyette 

wrote a Compass piece for the Anchorage Daily News on April 2, 2010, expressing the 

disappointment of the region, and particularly of the fishermen of Nelson Lagoon and False Pass. 

On April 28, 2010, resident fisherman and pilot from Nelson Lagoon Theo Chesley responded 

with his own Compass piece in the Anchorage Daily News stating that the Borough was not 

accurately representing regional concerns and there was no widespread support. 

It became clear that most questions about the exploration and development could not be captured 

in yes or no responses. “Do you support or oppose the development?”, for example, elucidated 

many pros and cons from respondents, seeing multiple sides to the project. Figures 144 attempts 

to quantify and show graphically this range of responses between communities. Qualitative 

descriptions, however, provide the most guidance on local responses and are described below. 

Figures 145 and 146 summarize responses to questions related to exploration and development 

and subsistence harvesting. Nelson Lagoon’s proximity to the North Aleutian Basin site is 

evidenced in their responses since they indicated they expected more local effects. The majority 

of subsistence users of the development site live in Nelson Lagoon. They expected changes in 

the harvest of key species, particularly salmon and caribou. Port Heiden expected the same 

harvest changes. These resources could be harvested away from the sites for many people, but 

for others the development corridor was the sole source. Employment expectations were 

generally low across the board for survey respondents, but they were hopeful others in the 

community would be employed in jobs related to oil and gas exploration and development. 
192 

Figure 144. Local support for North Aleutian Basin exploration and development.
193 

Figure 145. Concerns related to subsistence harvesting.
194 

Figure 146. Concerns and prospects for potential exploration and development. 
195 

Numerous speculative concerns were expressed by residents of the study villages ranging from 

water and air contamination to habitat impacts to economic issues. Here they are broken down by 

subject and theme. Villages from which the concern originated are indicated in parentheses. 

Local Economies 

 Will help the younger generation (PH) 

 "Would like to see training and employment opportunities." (PH) 

 “We were told they weren't going to hire." (PH) 

 Fuel sales would increase (PH) 

 “We gotta do something here. There’s no work. No jobs. Food and fuel prices are high” 

(AK) 

 “Hoping they can do internships and hire locally.” (AK) 

 “It would boost our economy. More jobs, more people. The school is going down.” (NL) 

 “Boost our economy, give people some jobs. Or this village will die of starvation.” (NL) 

Local Capacity 

 “We have no training for underwater welding. We need good vocational program for 

kids." (AK) 

Fisheries 

 "Maybe affect the fish migrating through." (PH) 

 "Could eventually affect fisheries, but need more information." (PH) 

 "May force a re-route in migration patterns." 

 "Fish might [be affected] if something happens." (PH) 

 "Might affect fish migrating through." (PH) 

 "Potential to affect, but not fully educated in science, but ... fear need more information." 

(PH) 

 "No impact concerning fish availability? It will have a negative effect on the fish, 

salmon." (AK) 

 “If something goes wrong and there is a huge oil spill, there goes our fish and our king 

crabbing.” (NL) 

 “Not wanted. Danger to mess up the whole fishing lifestyle.” (AK) 

 “It’s gonna affect us in negative ways. Especially hunting and fishing.” (AK) 

 “Salmon, halibut—everything is linked to up there [Nelson Lagoon]. And all the ducks.” 

(AK) 

Terrestrial Mammals 

 "Oil company won't have any effect [on caribou]. Drill holes didn't have any effects. 

Roads always full of caribou." (NL) 

Birds/Marine Mammals 

 “Big species migrate through there.” (AK) 

Subsistence 

 "Salmon, plus the caribou herd goes down there." (PH) 
196 

 Fish, seals, geese, walrus, “all the species run up through there." (PH) 

 "That's where our fish come from." (PH) 

 "Increase human influences, user access." (PH) 

 "If there was an accident, everything would be affected." (PH) 

 "Not enough information coming to us. I'm scared about the subsistence, our territory, 

our waters.” (PH) 

 “All it takes is one mistake to wipeout halibut and crab. What does it outweigh? We want 

money but could lose a livelihood” (NL) 

 “[A spill] may force a reroute in migration patterns.” 

Energy 

 "If pipeline comes in, then doable, but not instantly. But it would change the energy 

consumption around here." (PH) 

 “Don’t want to count on that foreign oil anymore.” (PH) 

 “If it lowered our gas and oil prices [I support it].” (PH) 

Transportation & Infrastructure 

 "Possibly as a tribe, our LLC (Aniakchak). We could be a staging area, since we have the 

runway." (PH) 

 "If NG pipeline comes in costs could change but not instantly, but it would change the 

energy consumption around here." (PH) 

 "Hope for airport to be part of response." (AK) 

 “False Pass would be a nice staging area.” (FP) 

 “Might be easier to get resources out here. Might bring in more barges.” (PH) 

Risk 

 "Know it’s coming but holding out for technology will help with problem." (PH) 

 “It’s not if, but when, there is an oil spill.” (PH) 

 "I think it’s crazy. It’s the Bering Sea. Don't think the technology is right this time." (AK) 

 "Economic development is welcome, but the chance of a leak is troublesome. [John] used 

to fish in Balboa Bay and said that is prime ground for crab and much of the salmon 

species." (AK) 

 “Don’t want any accidents like Valdez. Don’t care for Pebble Mine.” (AK) 

 “I used to be a commercial fisherman. Oil and fish don’t mix. It’s too high a price for this 

development” (AK) 

Habitat 

 Possibility of spills ruining the habitat (AK) 

General 

 "We shut down early 1980s one. My family has made a living out of Bering Sea. Had 

dumped $7 million into the corporation. Whole family involved in fishing. Don't think it's 

gonna go. On shore angle drilling -- would support that." (AK) 

 “Big effect. Just being built and being there will change things.” 

 “Foregone conclusion to develop, so why not support it.” (PH) 
197 

 “More people and traffic and pollution.” (PH) 

Occupation, Movement, Settlement 

 "More people subsisting on the same resources." (FP) 

 "If it gets bigger-more people, just depends on the people who come in. Most of the time 

it's good." (FP) 

 "Would help. Need some new blood." (FP) 

 "Might bother some of the elders with the extra activities going on. Might be good for 

younger people to have stuff to do." (FP) 

 [Village population change?] "Not here" "If it were closer, yes." "If it was here in these 

waters” (PH) 

 “It would bring more people to the region. Good for the economy. Good for town; 

probably save this town.” (FP) 

 “We need more kids here” (FP) 

 “Have got to develop it. Take a chance and make it better. People need jobs. Fishing isn’t 

what it used to be.” (FP) 

Community/Social Problems 

 “Economy would get a boost but could destroy fishing. Oil and gas exploration will not 

bring families to the community. We got an exodus in the borough. Kids are leaving or 

following parents. Perception of impact is not really impact. People that do fish only eke 

out a living. Cannery helps, but it doesn’t bring in family, only single men who bring in 

problems of their own.” (NL) 

 “More Westerners here and less Native culture. Development brings that in.” (PH) 

Other 

 “I stay out of it.” (PH) 

 “Need more information. Mixed feeling.” (PH) 

 “Not sure. Half and half on it. Don’t know. Undecided.” (PH) 

 “Be cautious. It’s good for employment, dangerous for subsistence.” (PH) 

 “Shell has been here. Kind of like Pebble.” (PH) 

 “In support of the permitting process. Wait and see.” (PH) 

 “Corporations, oil companies might buy up a lot of land. Lot of red tape.” (NL) 
198 

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 

The leading proposed development scenario was presented by Shell Offshore Inc. in Anchorage 

in October 2006. Their presentation included a slide similar to Figure 147 indicating what the 

project might contain. There would be 2-4 offshore platforms in the Bering Sea, a pipeline to the 

peninsula and overland to a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plant at Balboa Bay on the Pacific side. 

Tankers would then transport petroleum to the U.S. west coast. The timing of the development 

from the Lease Sale to the Construction phase was projected to take seven years (NAB 

Information Status and Research Planning meeting, 2006). From a proposed 2010 Lease Sale, 

construction at the NAB site would have begun in 2017, oil production would have begun 

approximately 2020 and gas production would have begun in 2525. 

Shell Offshore Inc. also presented financial and employment impact potential which included 

approximately $7 billion in royalties of which a portion could include revenue sharing with local 

government. 

A construction phase was projected to last 5 years for both the pipeline and LNG plant offering 

between 2,000 and 4,800 jobs. An operating phase, projected to last 25 years, offered a total of 

approximately 650 jobs at the LNG Plant, Onshore Facilities, in Platform Maintenance, and 

Platform Operations. A “job pyramid” created by Dr. Scott Goldsmith from ISER and based 

upon Kenai Peninsula data projected that for every one Oil and Gas Industry worker, there would 

be about 6 positions in the community supported with public revenue. Thus, 650 operator and 

contract staff positions (with average annual salaries of $85,000) would potentially be 

accompanied by 3,900 community jobs (with average annual salaries of $38,000). Oil and gas 

workers would be involved in drilling, coring, maintenance, logistics, transport, spill and 

emergency response, among many other positions. Platforms typically have two crews of about 

46 personnel each working at the same time, and four crews per platform. Community 

employment could be in services (hotels, restaurants, transportation, emergency, infrastructure, 

government agencies, and construction, for example) and goods (food, fuel, housing, vehicles, 

clothing, household items, and office products). LNG Plants typically have one crew of 141 

workers. 
199 

Figure 147. Schematic map of potential development facilities.
200 

In the final installment of The Pipeline (Aleutians East Borough Newsletter) March 31, 2010, 

pages 2-3, local people were looking forward to other benefits as well: 

“Other benefits would have included energy resources for the nation, a local source of 

fuel and energy, enhanced spill response in the busy shipping lanes of the North Aleutian 

region and enhanced search and rescue. Geologists believe the area is predominantly gas 

prone. The mean, conventionally recoverable resource amount is estimated to be 12.8 

trillion cubic feet equivalent of natural gas. Oil is a secondary resource. The mean, 

conventionally recoverable resource amount is estimated to be 753 million barrels of oil. 

Taxes derived from the lease sale would have been considerable: $546 million in Ad 

Valorem Tax could have been generated from a liquefied natural gas plant; $12 billion in 

federal income tax; $7 billion in royalties; and $850 million in state and local taxes.” 

Sand Point would likely see population growth and community changes if the LNG Plant was 

situated in Balboa Bay, however Sand Point was not included in the research contract. Cold Bay 

could also potentially feel some effects, given its large runway, its role as airport hub, and its 

proximity to the proposed development site, but it too was not part of the contract. Therefore, we 

will analyze only the four study communities for how they might change should the project 

continue. This phase of the project occurred after the development project was cancelled by the 

Obama Administration, and many residents felt like it was a moot point to even consider 

exploration and development scenarios, but still had plenty of say about the leading development 

plan. 

Nelson Lagoon would have likely served as staging grounds for large portions of the 

construction, operation, and removal phases. A Nelson Lagoon resident on the trip to Sakhalin 

described below commented extensively on the large corridors required for pipeline construction. 

Photographs from the trip showed broad swaths of ground that had been bulldozed for the 

pipeline’s path. Should this same corridor be required for a pipeline through Herendeen Bay to 

Balboa Bay, Nelson Lagoon would lose critical subsistence areas. 

Cold Bay and Port Heiden airports currently serve as emergency services centers for Bering Sea 

rescue operations. Most residents in Port Heiden felt as though the exploration and development 

was not close enough to the village to affect real change in the community unless there was a 

spill or disaster. Cold Bay had a large runway and can already accommodate increased air traffic. 

False Pass leaders expressed a desire to serve as staging grounds as well, since vessel traffic 

through the pass would likely increase. 

MODELS OF DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA AND ABROAD 

Regional leaders were invited to view other exploration and development models involving 

petroleum and fisheries interactions. These activities described below influenced their sense of 

NAB exploration and development and variously appeared in interviews. 

Sakhalin 

In 2007, Shell Oil invited several regional representatives to Sakhalin to view how commercial 

fishing and oil and gas industries co-exist. They toured an LNG plant, saw a nursery 
201 

enhancement project, and met with local leaders, fishermen, and indigenous peoples. They did 

not have time to tour the pipeline and offshore platforms from the northern part of the island. 

Norway 

Norway has a long tradition as a fishing nation. They have a large coastal fleet spread along the 

Norwegian coastline, and a smaller offshore fleet. The nation has been production oil since the 

1970s. In March 2008, Aleutians East Borough and Lake & Peninsula Borough representatives 

joined an Arctic Sea Studies Tour and Energy-Fisheries Coexistence conference in Bodø, 

Tromsø, and Hammerfest, Norway. Development in Hammerfest had particular significance for 

NAB communities where large and small fleets work next to oil and gas operations, and the 

community is a support base for Barents Sea development and the Snøhvit LNG plant. Just after 

the trip, Aleutians East Borough administrator Juettner wrote, “Its population has stabilized as a 

result of the offshore development, while the number of fishermen is increasing.” 

Gulf of Mexico 

In 2008, Aleutians East Borough and Bristol Bay representatives toured offshore oil platforms in 

the Gulf of Mexico, hosted by Shell. This is before the Gulf oil spill and responses were positive. 

OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 

Community leaders continually seek out new opportunities and local economic development 

projects. Each of these projects could potentially affect subsistence harvesting and sharing 

behavior. Several that are planned, ongoing, or completed during this project are briefly 

described here to show that any oil and gas development will happen alongside other projects 

already occurring, and coordination will be required.

Akutan’s Geothermal Development 

Akutan was rated as having the best geothermal development prospects for the entire state of 

Alaska. In 2010, drilling began as part of an exploratory project. Akutan receives power through 

a diesel generator. If significant geothermal resources are located, it may be possible that a new 

geothermal power plant will be developed in Akutan. Local residents are excited by the potential. 

"Geothermal energy is huge potential. We have the technology, the need. We should dive into it. 

If there’s a hot water spill, so what?” 

Akutan Airport 

Transportation in and out of Akutan is a significant challenge for the community and for Trident. 

The village was serviced primarily by seaplanes built in the 1940s (which are expensive to 

maintain), the state ferry in the summer months, and (rarely) transport and fishing vessels 

moving between Akutan and Dutch Harbor. The plan was to connect the airport with the village 

using a costly hovercraft to shuttle passengers. A $75 million airport project on Akun Island was 

in the planning stages at the start of this project and was completed in 2012. In the Fall 2011, 

there was some media reporting about an “airport to nowhere” because Akun is uninhabited and 

it is a six mile trip over open seas to get to Akutan. There is no space on Akutan itself for a 

runway. 
202 

The airport consists of a 4,500-foot paved runway, taxiway, apron and Sand Storage Building. 

Improvements on Akun Island include a hovercraft facility site consisting of a ramp and pad. The 

hovercraft facility and the airport are linked by an access road. This project will also construct a 

hovercraft facility at the head of Akutan Bay that will include a ramp, pad and maintenance 

building. The existing amphibious ramp next to the village was altered to accommodate the 

hovercraft. 

Akutan Boat Harbor 

The Aleutians East Borough and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ $31.9 million harbor project in 

Akutan began construction in the summer of 2010. The harbor site is at the head of the Akutan 

Bay and will provide mooring and refuge for approximately 60 vessels. An access road is also 

being constructed between the village and harbor site.

False Pass Tidal Energy Development 

In March 2011, the City of False Pass submitted a grant application to the state Department of 

Energy’s Emerging Energy Technology fund (EETF) for tidal energy exploration. The project is 

to assess ocean current velocities near False Pass to determine development prospects and 

transmission distances. If the project seems feasible, permitting and design work could begin 

leading to an electrical generation system power by ocean currents serving False Pass (Hennigh 

et al. 2010; Lavrakas 2011). 

APICDA Wind Energy 

As part of a pilot renewable energy project, APICDA installed wind turbines in three of its 

villages. The Nelson Lagoon Electrical Cooperative installed a wind-measuring meteorological 

(met) tower to help determine whether wind turbines are feasible. The design of the wind 

turbines will depend on data from the met tower, as well as the best way to integrate wind power 

in the current diesel power system. Permitting and bird affects studies are in the planning stages. 

False Pass also put in a meteorological (met) tower to measure wind energy potential. Because of 

its location in a pass near mountains, there is high wind turbulence that may make it difficult to 

develop. They are considering studying other nearby sites for less turbulence. The pilot program 

was extended to Akutan and tied to its electrical grid (Figure 148). 
203 

Figure 148. Wind turbine being erected in Akutan, February 2010. Photo by Crystal Callahan. 

False Pass Processor 

Bering Pacific Seafoods, the CDQ funded processing plant in False Pass, is adding new 

processing lines, expanding their bunk houses, and hoping to add halibut and cod processing 

over the next few years. This will hopefully attract more people to the community and support 

the local fleets. 
204 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
205 

CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS 

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES REVISITED 

To conclude, research hypotheses are reconsidered in light of study findings. Each pair of 

hypotheses is considered together. 

 H11 Current social networks are organized around central nodes made up of either the most 

successful commercial fishermen or a senior matriarch directly related to one or more of 

the most successful commercial fishermen. Should any one of these nodes change roles in 

the network, there will be a disruption in the subsistence and sharing economies. 

 H10 Current social networks have sufficient depth that should any primary node leave the 

subsistence and sharing network, other nodes will fill any voids created by that disruption. 

The network data presented, in which most sharing and food harvest distributions occur around 

key individuals and entities, confirms H11. Missing from this hypothesis, however, are the 

entities such as Peter Pan Seafoods and Trident Seafoods from which the majority of crab, and in 

some cases cod, are distributed. Should any one of these nodes change roles, that is, leave the 

community, take a construction job in oil and gas, or die, for example, there would be disruptions 

to the sharing economy. The “30/70 rule” identified by the Subsistence Division of the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, that is, 30 percent of households account for 70 percent of the 

total harvest, appears to hold true in these communities (J. Fall, pers. comm.). These highly 

productive households also tend to hold the wage jobs in the community, have greater social and 

material resources, and are in the middle and elder generations. While each community has a few 

key harvesters, the loss of one of these key harvesters could have devastating results, especially 

where there is no clear successor. The burdens on key harvesters will increase. That said, there 

often are “successors,” or people who could potentially take over a fishing boat and subsistence 

burdens, although they may not exactly duplicate the work of the previous person. Many key 

harvesters are fully aware of their own importance, and are not likely to change their roles 

without reason or making arrangements to support their dependents. Should an entity change its 

role, for example crab becoming cost prohibitive to the local people, villages would likely lose a 

substantial portion of this high status food. Access by the other communities would then be 

dictated by sharing networks from communities with greater subsistence crab access, such as 

King Cove and False Pass. 

There are some networks for which there is a sole provider, or at least one so dominant, such as 

cattle in Akutan, or moose provided by sport hunters in Port Heiden, that any disruption in that 

single source would result in the collapse of the network – there are no back up sources. On the 

other hand, halibut, octopus, salmon, and a number of the more “traditional” taxa have 

considerable network depth. The networks associated with plant foods are the only networks 

organized around women. These are either senior matriarchs or young women participating in 

subsistence with some network depth for sustainability. 
206 

 H21 A disruption in the commercial fishing industry, either through natural disaster, 

industrial accident, or through economic development where commercial fishing becomes a 

secondary enterprise, will have influence on networks and cause their disarticulation and 

reorganization. 

 H20 A disruption in the commercial fishing industry will be mitigated through success in 

other commercial areas since new economic opportunities are often best articulated by the 

most successful fishermen, and economic expansion in the region will lead to the 

strengthening and expansion of traditional networks. 

It is clear in all communities that commercial fishermen have greater access to quantity and 

variety in their subsistence harvesting through access, space, time, resources, and labor. They 

possess the equipment and can recruit labor for hunting and fishing expeditions. They can also 

travel farther to other subsistence harvesting grounds. These men typically wear multiple hats in 

the communities, managing the tribes, corporations, cities, businesses, and pursue new economic 

opportunities continually. While these individuals are creative entrepreneurs, commercial fishing 

is the foundation for Nelson Lagoon, False Pass, and Port Heiden, and a disruption in access 

would have negative social and economic consequences. These networks could certainly 

reorganize, and it is expected that the same few people would likely still carry the burdens of 

maintaining traditional networks. But we have also definitively shown that access to a 

commercial boat is the defining variable in the distribution of subsistence resources. 

These communities have already experienced significant disruptions in the commercial fishing 

industry through harvest volatility, fuel costs increases, salmon price fluctuations, and shrinking 

local fleets and populations. Harvesting and sharing burdens have increased for some, but this is 

tempered by population decline in the villages. In Akutan where commercial fishing is not the 

primary income source and cultural foundation for the villagers (although their economic base is 

supported by Bering Sea fisheries), it is still the primary means by which key harvesters have the 

resources and flexibility to harvest large quantities and travel great distances. 

 H31 Since the subsistence economy is based upon local land use and interactions between 

traditional subsistence and modern commercially harvested enterprises, a disruption in 

access along the subsistence-commercial continuum caused by a ship grounding, landscape 

restrictions due to pipeline and facility construction, oil spills, or similar factors could lead 

to a change in traditional economies, a breakdown of sharing networks, and community 

abandonment. 

 H30 A disruption in access along the subsistence-commercial continuum caused by a ship 

grounding, landscape restrictions due to pipeline and facility construction, oil spills, or 

similar factors will have small local effects but will not alter the basic structure of sharing 

networks. 

There are current issues of decreased access to key species, such as caribou and Emperor geese, 

that have produced difficulties in maintaining sharing networks. While moose meat and bear 

have emerged as substitutes for caribou in Port Heiden, False Pass has turned to buying storebought meats and has increased their harvest of island raised beef to fill this gap. Nelson Lagoon 

does not have this option, and is purchasing most of their meat with high freight costs. But the 

larger issues are the disruption for hunting groups, butchering groups, and sharing networks 
207 

surrounding this critical species. While the changes in these species have various natural and 

human-induced causes, declines in species and subsequent closures related to human-induced oil 

and gas activities would further stress these sharing networks. 

A large pipeline from offshore platforms across Nelson Lagoon, through Herendeen Bay, and 

ending in Balboa Bay would likely require construction crews plowing up the tundra, altering 

habitats, potentially removing clam beds and berry picking areas, for example. Herendeen Bay, 

especially around the old village site, is a crucial harvesting area for many species not available 

elsewhere, such as shrimp. Alaska Native allotments and cabins are heavily used and valued by 

the village. Losses in this critical zone could certainly breakdown sharing networks emanating 

from the area. More disastrous events, such as natural gas leaks and oil spills, could pollute the 

lagoon system, especially the waterfowl, and negatively affect salmon spawning lakes and rivers. 

Oil spills could close commercial fishing in the region temporarily during cleanup, which would 

devastate many households that rely exclusively or significantly on salmon fishing. Special care 

should be taken to avoid subsistence harvest areas if any near-shore or onshore ground 

disturbance were to occur in the future. 

 H41 An influx of wealth with strong paying jobs could increase subsistence harvests 

because these practices are intimately tied to wealth and access to technology. 

 H40 An influx of wealth with strong paying jobs could decrease subsistence harvests as 

these practices become superfluous to other wealth options. 

It was expected that the wealthier individuals in each community bring in the greatest amount 

and variety of subsistence resources and, thus, wealth will likely continue to support or even 

expand subsistence access. What was found was that income is not the key variable. In fact, 

income is not a good predictor of subsistence harvests, sharing, and redistribution. Rather, it is 

boat ownership and access to commercial fisheries that is the key measure of whether or not one 

is a provider. Thus, jobs that remove key people from commercial fishing will result in a 

catastrophic reduction in access to subsistence foods for all members of the communities. If local 

hire is indeed a priority with training and recruitment, and these jobs become attractive to key 

harvesters, reorganization of sharing networks would have to accompany these losses. Wealth 

from oil and gas could support other non-industry employed people to continue or even expand 

their subsistence harvesting. 

 H51 Changing work roles of subsistence harvesters (e.g., from commercial fisherman to 

platform worker) will exclude key harvesters at significant times during the year leading to 

lower subsistence harvests, less subsistence food sharing, and less community cohesion. 

 H50 Changing work roles of subsistence harvesters (e.g., from commercial fisherman to 

platform worker) will increase participation in subsistence activities by other members of 

the community leading to increased subsistence harvests, increased subsistence food 

sharing, and increased community cohesion. 

It is clear that the loss of even a single key harvester in a community could have cascading 

negative consequences to the households who rely upon that individual. On the other hand, key 

harvesters are keenly aware of their importance within and beyond their own households, and 

would be unlikely to abandon these responsibilities. It is unlikely that subsistence harvests will 
208 

simply increase if key harvesters take jobs in the oil and gas industry, since wealth (boats) is still 

required to increase harvests. But it is also clear that those who are the top producers today are 

likely to stay in that position. Those who today do not produce surplus subsistence foods are 

unlikely to do so in the future even if it was needed by the community. 

 H61 The increased wealth produced by increased development and economic expansion in 

the region will change sharing networks from subsistence/commercially harvested foods to 

goods and products imported from Anchorage and elsewhere. 

 H60 The increased wealth produced by increased development and economic expansion in 

the region enhance sharing networks by the addition of goods and products imported from 

Anchorage and elsewhere to the subsistence/ commercially harvested foods already 

harvested. 

Again, because commercial fishing wealth is a crucial factor in subsistence harvesting and 

sharing, this certainly appears to include other items as well. People already incorporate friends 

and relatives in Anchorage and beyond into their sharing networks, and these networks involve a 

flow of subsistence/commercially harvested foods out, and range of other goods and products 

unavailable in the villages back in. Wealth will support subsistence and commercial activities, 

not replace them, at least for those who translate their wealth into the commercial fishing 

enterprise. 

 H71 An influx of resident industry employees with subsistence access would strain local 

resources and local access, leading to a breakdown in local subsistence activities, sharing 

networks, and traditional culture. 

 H70 An influx of industry employees will not affect subsistence access because of the 

transitory nature of their residence. 

Nelson Lagoon is already stressed because of the increase in sport hunting/guiding operations in 

the region. An influx of resident employees could gain subsistence harvesting rights in a short 

time and further stress the region’s resources. They have also benefited from operating their own 

the sport outfits in their community. Port Heiden shares this stress over sport operations, seeing a 

decline in their moose and having to move onto bear harvests. They receive moose meat from 

trophy hunters on occasion, but are now ordering large amounts of beef. 

Industry employees gaining residency and subsistence rights would present problems for their 

already stressed resources. It is not possible to speculate on the nature of the industry employees 

resident patterns, but it seems clear that a sudden increase in residents to the communities would 

stress local services and resources. New residents, and even visitors, to villages are easily 

incorporated into sharing networks, but a sudden increase would likely produce negative effects. 

False Pass is actively recruiting new residents to boost their population, and would support an 

increase in residents, although they do not have the housing available. Akutan and Nelson 

Lagoon do not have additional housing to support residents. Port Heiden has recently constructed 

many new homes and an entire subdivision to accommodate an influx of people moving in for 

the environmental cleanup work. This influx of people, primarily friends and relatives from other 

Bristol Bay communities, has been positive for the village. 
209 

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS (FROM APPENDICES 1 AND 2) 

The geographic data described in Appendix 1, which we refer to in the context of Traditional 

Ecological Geographies (TEG), provides critical insights. Those with the commercial fishing 

boats and permits have the largest subsistence ranges and harvest the greatest number of species. 

Those without permits and boats tend to harvest in the immediate vicinity of the village and 

harvest a fewer number of species. This finding highlights the importance of commercial fishing 

access to the subsistence enterprise. 

Two areas of investigation that have not been described so far is the role of kinship and marriage 

in these transaction networks, and the return investment for being a top provider. In Appendix 2 

we showed these to be closely related. When we measured the genetic distance between every 

two individuals in the entire survey, we found that this had no influence on the redistribution of 

subsistence goods and it was subsequently not included in this report. In fact, because this is a 

bilateral kinship system, with recognition of both sides of the family, it was immediately found 

that blood relations and marriage relation carry equal weight. We further found that while, in the 

smaller two and three node networks, individuals were often related in some way, in the larger 

networks we found little evidence that either blood or marriage relations were dominant; about 

half of the connections were related, and half were not – approximately what one would expect 

from a village as a whole. 

This ties in closely to the Return Index (RI), which is our measure of return on investment when 

one gives food away, which was also elaborated on in Appendix 2. All anthropological 

investigations of gifting, redistribution, and exchange have made the case that one is more likely 

to participate in a negative exchange with a relative than a non-relative. That is, one is more 

likely to give salmon to an uncle, and expect nothing in return, than one would with someone 

who was completely unrelated. Our Return Index (RI) data show clearly that providers are giving 

away much more than they are getting in return. If this is not kinship, then what is it? The 

clearest explanation is prestige and status. Those individuals regularly named in the survey as 

having a positive role on community life are most often the key providers resulting in 

community and regional recognition. 

One of the key findings of the network analyses was that income played no significant role in 

whether or not one was a provider of subsistence goods. Rather, ownership of a commercial 

fishing permit and boat was the dominant factor in redistribution. 

SUMMARY 

Summarized findings from the North Aleutian Basin study area, as documented in this report and 

Appendices 1 and 2 include: 

 The Aleut (Unangan) and Alutiiq people of the North Aleutian Basin region share a similar 

lifestyle and culture based around subsistence and commercial harvesting of wild 

resources. This lifestyle is also shared with non-Native residents in these communities. 
210 

 North Aleutian Basin study community residents harvest a range of wild terrestrial and 

marine species in the immediate vicinity of their villages. Those with access to commercial 

fishing boats have an expanded range, which is still limited by the range of the fishing 

grounds. 

 Each community has unique challenges in maintaining access to subsistence resources. 

 Each community has relatively recent establishment dates and histories, having been 

created in the past two centuries from consolidation of shrinking villages located nearby. 

Fisheries and educational opportunities are primarily responsible for this shift. 

 The majority of leaders in the four study communities support oil and gas exploration and 

development, while the views of the village populaces are mixed. 

 The volatility of commercial fishing corresponds to a volatility of support for non-fishing 

economic development. 

 Subsistence research in this region has largely constituted a number of single-year 

community surveys and directed studies of particular species conducted by state, federal, 

independent, and Alaska Native organizations. 

 The commercial fishing monetary economy both contributes to the ability to subsistence 

harvest and is also a pursuit in and of itself. In many cases involving fishing, commercial 

and subsistence harvesting practices are blurred. 

 Salmon are keystone species for False Pass, Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon. Caribou and 

geese are keystone species for Nelson Lagoon and Port Heiden. Seals, salmon and shellfish 

are key species for Akutan. Several keystone species have been closed to harvesting due to 

population concerns for the past several years. 

 Increases in non-local harvesters through guided hunts, tourism, or as commercial 

fishermen is a growing concern for the Alaska Peninsula communities. Oil industry 

workers would exacerbate these concerns. 

 Sharing of wild species is a frequent and universal practice across all four communities. 

 Harvest methods are modern and efficient, and generally involve commercial fishing gear, 

skiffs, all-terrain vehicles, nets and guns. 

 Wild species are harvested in their season of availability and may be influenced by 

processing capabilities, other economic pursuits, and state and federal regulations. 

 Various agencies monitor the harvests of particular species such as migratory birds, halibut, 

harbor seals and sea lions. These often rely on voluntary reporting which underestimates 

harvests. 

 Social networks are structured around a few key providers. For nearly all species, these 

providers have direct access to the commercial fishing industry; especially needed is a boat. 

 98 percent of all individuals identified in the surveys can be connected in one massive 

network. 

 The most durable and resilient networks appear to be those focused on what might be 

considered traditional species. Networks involving less traditional taxa, such as crab or 

cattle, are more vulnerable to the loss of the provider. 

 Income is not a predictor of subsistence provision, but boat ownership is. This means that a 

sudden influx of new wealth will not translate into more subsistence, unless that wealth is 

converted to commercial permits and boats. 
211 

 The Return Index (RI) for providers of subsistence goods and receivers of subsistence 

goods indicates, across every category of resource, that the providers give away 

significantly more than they get back, at least in relation to foods. 

 Concerns over the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay influence people’s opinions of the 

North Aleutian Basin potential oil and gas exploration and development. 
212 

[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
213 

REFERENCES CITED 

ADF&G Division of Subsistence and the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission 2009. The 

Subsistence Harvest of Harbor Seals and Sea Lions by Alaska Natives in 2008. Technical 

Paper No. 347. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Albert, R., H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabási 1999. Diameter of the World-Wide Web. Nature 

401:130 

Albert, R., H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabási 2000. Error and Attack Tolerance of Complex 

Networks. Nature 406:378-382. 

Bak, P., C. Tang, and K. Weisenfeld. 1987. Self-Organized Criticality: An Explanation of 1/F 

Noise. Physical Review Letters 9:381-384. 

Barabási, A.-L. and R. Albert 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 

286:509-512. 

Behrends, Andrea, Stephen P. Reyna, Günther Schlee (Eds) 2011. Crude Domination: An 

Anthropology of Oil. Berghahn Books. 

Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert Maschner 2007. Complex Systems Theory. In The Handbook 

of Archaeological Theories. Altamira Press. Pp. 245-270. 

Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert Maschner 2003a. Foreword: Considering Complexity Theory 

in Archaeology. In Complex Systems and Archaeology: Empirical and Theoretical 

Applications. Pp. 1-8. Edited by R. Alexander Bentley & Herbert D. G. Maschner. 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert Maschner 2003b. A Complex Systems Approach to Social 

Behavior. In Complex Systems and Archaeology: Empirical and Theoretical 

Applications. Pp. 61-73. Edited by R. Alexander Bentley & Herbert D. G. Maschner. 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert Maschner 2001. A Macroevolutionary Approach to Artifact 

Lifespans: Implications for Stylistic Change. Journal of Archaeological Method and 

Theory. 8(1):35-66.

Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert Maschner 2000. A Growing Network of Ideas. Fractals, Vol. 

8, No. 3, 227-237 

Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert Maschner 1999. Subtle Criticality in Popular Album Charts. 

Advances in Complex Systems, 2:197-208. 

Berger, Thomas 1985. Village Journey. New York: Hill & Wang. 

Bergsland, Knut 1959. Aleut Dialects of Atka and Attu. Transactions of the American 

Philosophical Society 49(3):1-128. 

Bergsland, Knut 1994. Aleut Dictionary Unangam Tunudgusii: an Unabridged Lexicon of the 

Aleutian, Pribilof, and Commander Islands Aleut Language. Fairbanks: Alaska Native 

Language Center. 
214 

Berkes, F. and D. Jolly. 2001. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a 

Canadian western arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5(2):18. 

Berreman, Gerald 1953. A contemporary study of Nikolski: an Aleutian village. M.S. thesis. 

University of Oregon. 391 pp. 

Birkeland, Knut 1926. The Whalers of Akutan: An account of modern whaling in the Aleutian 

Islands. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

Black, Lydia 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutian Islands. Alaska History, No. 

24. R.A. Pierce, ed. Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press. 

Black, Lydia 1991. Glory Remembered: Wooden headgear of Alaska sea hunters. Alaska State 

Museums. 

Black, Lydia, Sarah McGowan, Jerry Jacka, Natalia Taksami, and Miranda Wright 1999. The 

History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough. Fairbanks: University of Alaska 

Press. 

Bodenhorn, B. 2000a. ‘It’s good to know who your relatives are but we are taught to share with 

everybody: shares and sharing among Inupiaq households.’ In G.W.Wenzel, G. 

Hovelsrud-Broda, and N. Kishigami (eds.) The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource 

Allocation and Modern Hunter-Gatherers. Senri Ethnological Series. Osaka: National 

Museum of Ethnology. Pp.27-60. 

Bodenhorn, Barbara 2000b. “He used to be my relative’: Exploring the Basis of Relatedness 

among Inupiat of northern Alaska. Pp 128-148 in Cultures of Relatedness: New 

Approaches to the Study of Kinship. J. Carsten, Ed. Cambridge University Press. 

Bodley, J.H. 1999. Socioeconomic Growth, Culture Scale, and Household Well-Bering: A test of 

the Power-Elite Hypothesis. Current Anthropology 40:595-620. 

Bohannan, Paul. 1955. Some Principles of Exchange and Investment among the Tiv. American 

Anthropologist 57(1):60--70. 

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for 

Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. 

Bourdieu, P. 1986. 'The Forms of Capital.' Pp. 241-58 in Handbook of theory and research for 

the sociology of education, edited by John G Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press. 

Boyette, Sharon 2010. North Aleutian Basin development necessary. Anchorage Daily News. 

April 9, 2010. 

Braund, Stephen R. & Associates 1986. Effects of Renewable Resource Harvest Disruptions on 

Community Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Systems: King Cove. Report for the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 

Anchorage, Alaska. Social and Economic Studies Program Technical Report No. 123. 

419 pp. 

Braund, Stephen R. & Associates 2010. Subsistence Mapping of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow. 

MMS OCS Study Number 2009-003. Anchorage, Alaska: Stephen R. Braund and 

Associates. 
215 

Burton-Chellew, M.N. and R. Dunbar 2011. Are affines treated as biological kin? Current 

Anthropology 52(5):741-746. 

Carlson, J.M. and J. Doyle 2000. Highly optimized Tolerance: Robustness and Design in 

Complex Systems. Physical Review Letters 84:2529-2532. 

Census 2000, 2006. U.S. Census data from www.census.gov. Access date: 12/10/10 

Census 2010. U.S. Census data from www.census.gov. Access date: 7/10/11. 

Chance, Norman 1990. The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development. Holt, 

Rinehart, and Winston. 

Chesley, Theo 2010. Compass: Bristol Bay lease sale was a bad idea. Anchorage Daily News, 

April 28. 

Cicin-Sain, Billiana and Alana Tiddens 1989. Private and public approaches to solving 

oil/fishing conflicts offshore California. Ocean and Shoreline Management 12(3):233-

251. 

Collings, P., G.W. Wenzel and R. Condon 1998 Modern food sharing networks and community 

integration in the central Canadian Arctic. Arctic 51(4):301-314. 

Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 2007. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 

Report 2007. Juneau, Alaska. 

Crowell, Aron, Amy Steffian and Gordon Pullar 2001. Looking Both Ways: Heritage and 

Identity of the Alutiiq People. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Culver, Walter C. 1917. "Annual Report U.S. Gov't School at Port Moller," 19 August 1916; 

Culver, "Annual Report," 30 June 1917; W.T. Loop to Superintendent Forbes, Pacific 

American Fisheries, 11 March 1916, and Lopp to Walter G. Culver, 29 January 1917 

Damas, D. 1972 Central Eskimo systems of food sharing. Ethnology 11(3):220-240. 

Davis, Brian 2005. Subsistence Fisheries Harvest Assessment and Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge, Lower Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands. Federal Subsistence Fishery 

Monitoring Program, Final Project Report No. FIS 02-032. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, 

Fisheries Information Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Denzin, Norman and Y.S. Lincoln 2000. Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Dove, Michael 1996. Rice-Eating Rubber and People-Eating Governments: Peasant versus State 

Critiques of Rubber Development in Colonial Indonesia. Ethnohistory 43(1): 33-63. 

Drucker, James H. 1985. Out of Harm’s Way: Relocating Northwest. American Indian Culture 

and Research Journal 20(1):43-71. 

Dumond, D.E. 1987. The Eskimos and Aleuts. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. 

Dyer, Christopher L., Duane A. Gill, and J. Steven Picou. 1992. "Social disruption and the 

Valdez oil spill: Alaskan natives in a natural resource community." Sociological 

Spectrum 12: 105-126. 
216 

Erdős, P. and A. Rényi 1960. On the Evolution of Random Graphs. Publications of the 

Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Science 5:17-61. 

Fall, James, Amy Paige, Vicki Vanek, and Louis Brown. 1997. Subsistence harvests and uses of 

birds and eggs in four communities of the Aleutian Islands area: Akutan, False Pass, 

Nelson Lagoon, and Nikolski. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 

243. 

Fall, James and Roland Shanks 2000. Statewide Subsistence Fisheries Harvest Monitoring 

Strategy. Report to the Office of Subsistence Management, Study number FIS 00-017. 

Fall, James, Caroline Brown, Michael Turek, Nicole Braem, James Simon, William Simeone, 

Davin Holen, Liliana Naves, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, Terri Lemons, Victoria 

Ciccone, Theodore Krieg, and David Koster 2009. Annual Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 

2007 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 346. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 

Division of Subsistence. 

Fall, James and David Koster. 2010 Subsistence harvests of Pacific Halibut in Alaska, 2009. 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence. Tech. Paper. 357. 209 pp. 

Fall, James A., Rachel Mason, Terry Haynes, Vicki Vaneck, Louis Brown, Gretchen Jennings, 

Craig Mishler, and Charles Utermohle 1993. Noncommercial Harvests and uses of Wild 

Resources in King Cove, Alaska, 1992. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence, Technical Paper Series No. 227. Juneau. 

Fall, James and Judith M. Morris 1987. Fish and wildlife harvests in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and 

Port Heiden, Alaska Peninsula, 1986-1987. Technical Paper No. 158. Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game, Subsistence Division. 

Fall, James, Ronald T. Stanek, Louis Brown and Charles Utermohle 1996. The harvest and use 

of fish, wildlife, and plant resources in False Pass, Unimak Island, Alaska. Technical 

Paper No. 183. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Subsistence Division. 

Fall, James, David Koster, and Michael Turek 2007. Subsistence Harvests of Pacific Halibut in 

Alaska, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical 

Paper Series No. 333. 

Fall, J.A., and T. Krieg 2006. An overview of the Subsistence Fishery of the Bristol Bay 

Management Area. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence 

Fisheries, Juneau. 

Fall, James, 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. Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Subsistence Division. 

Fall, James, Robert J. Walker, and Ronald T. Stanek 1990. Subsistence use of the southern 

Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd. Technical Paper No. 191. Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Subsistence Division. 

Fentiman, Alicia 1996. The Anthropology of Oil: The Impact of the Oil Industry on a Fishing 

Community in the Niger Delta. Social Justice, Vol. 23. 

Firth, R. 1959 Economics of the New Zealand Maori. Wellington: Government Printer. 
217 

Fortes, Meyer. 1949. The Web of Kinship among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press. 

Finer M, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, Keane B, Ross C (2008) Oil and Gas Projects in the Western 

Amazon: Threats to Wilderness, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Peoples. PLoS ONE 3(8): 

e2932. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002932 

Fortuine, Robert 1992. Chills and Fever: Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska. 

University of Alaska Press. 

Gill, Duane A. 1994. "Environmental disaster and fishery co-management in a natural resource 

community: impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill." Pp. 207-236 in Christopher L. Dyer 

and James R. McGoodwin, eds., Folk management in the world's fisheries: lessons for 

modern fisheries management. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. 

Glazier, Edward, J. Cody Petterson and Amy Craver 2006. Toward Mitigating Problems at the 

Fisheries-Oil Development Interface: The Case of the Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. Human Organization 65(3):268-279. 

Gould, S.J. 1999. Introduction: The Scales of Contingency and Punctuation in History. In 

Structure and Contingency: Evolutionary Processes in Life and Human Society. Edited 

by J.L. Bintliff, pp. ix-xxii. Leicester University Press, London. 

Halpin, James 3/11/2010. Residents unnerved by Wolves. Anchorage Daily News, A1, A12. 

Hamilton, Lawrence, Carole Seyfrit and Christina Bellinger 1997. Environment and Sex Ratios 

Among Alaska Natives: An Historical Perspective. Population and Environment 

18(3):283-299. 

Hanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle (2005) Introduction to social network methods. 

Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/ 

Hartill, Trent 2009. Annual Summary of the Commercial, Subsistence, and Personal Use Salmon 

Fisheries and Salmon Escapements in the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and AtkaAmlia Islands Management Areas, 2008. Fishery Management Report No. 09-33. Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game. 

Hartill, Trent and Matthew Keyse 2010. Annual summary of the commercial, subsistence, and 

personal use salmon fisheries and salmon escapements in the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian 

Islands, and Atka-Amlia Islands Management Areas, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 10-21, Anchorage. 

Haycox, Stephen 2002. Frigid Embrace: Politics, Economics and Environment in Alaska. 

Oregon State University Press. 

Haycox, Stephen 2006. Alaska: An American Colony. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 

Hennigh, Gary, Robert Thomas, Joel Darnell, Todd Bethard and James Jordan 2010. Assessing 

ocean energy resources. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com, Accessed: 8/25/2010. 

Hovelsrud-Broda , G. 2000. Sharing, transfers, transactions and the concept of generalized 

reciprocity. In The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and Modern HunterGatherers. G. Wenzel, G. Hovelsrud-Broda, and N. Kishigami, eds. Osaka: National 

Museum of Ethnology. 
218 

Huberman, B.A. and A.L. Adamic 1999. Growth Dynamics of the World Wide Web. Nature 

401:131. 

Huberman, B.A., P.L.T. Pirolli, J.E. Pitkow, and R. M. Lukose 1998. Strong Regularities in 

World Wide Web Surfing. Science 280:95-97. 

Hudson, Ray 1998. Moments Rightly Placed: An Aleutian Memoir. Fairbanks: Epicenter Press. 

International Pacific Halibut Commission 2012. Stock assessment reports. 

http://www.iphc.int/research/stock-assessment.html. Access date: 7/1/2012. 

Jacka, Jerry 1999. Fishing. The History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough. Black, 

Lydia, Sarah McGowan, Jerry Jacka, Natalia Taksami, and Miranda Wright (eds). Pp. 

213-242. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Jeong, H., B. Tombor, R. Albert, Z.N. Oltvai, and A.-L. Barabási 2000. The Large-Scale 

Organization of Metabolic Betworks. Nature 407:651-654. 

Jochelson, W. 1933. History, Ethnology, and Anthropology of the Aleut. The Netherlands: 

Oosterhout, N.B. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication 432. 

Jones, Dorothy 1976. Aleuts in Transition: a Comparison of Two Villages. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press. 

Kohlhoff, Dean 1995. When the Wind was a River: Aleut Evacuation in World War II. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press. 

Krieg, Theodore M., Philippa Coiley Kenner, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, and Louis Brown 

1996. Subsistence harvests and uses of caribou, moose and brown bear in 12 Alaska 

Peninsula communities, 1994/95. Technical Paper No. 240. Alaska Department of Fish & 

Game, Subsistence Division. 

Kresge, David T., Susan R. Fison, and Anthony F. Gasbarro 1974. Bristol Bay: A 

Socioeconomic Study. ISEGR, University of Alaska. 

Langdon, Stephen J. 1982. Alaska Peninsula Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Systems 

Analysis. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. 

Technical Report No. 71. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

Lantis, Margaret 1984. Aleut. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5, Arctic, David 

Damas, ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Laughlin, W.S. 1963. Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origins and Evolution; Physiological and 

Cultural Adaptation to facilitate the Evolutionary Success of Eskimo-Aleut Stock. 

Science 142(3593):633-645. 

Laughlin, W.S. 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. New York: Holt, Rinehart 

and Winston. 

Laughlin, W.S. and J.S. Aigner 1975 Aleut adaptation and evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime 

Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone. W. Fitzhugh, ed. Pp. 181-201. Mouton: Paris. 

Lavrakas, Dimitra 2011. False Pass makes real progress with energy. Dutch Harbor Fisherman, 

March 14. 
219 

Lee, Molly 2002. The Cooler Ring: Urban Alaska Native Women and the Subsistence Debate 

Arctic Anthropology 39(1-2)3-9. 

Liapunova, R.G. 1990. The Aleuts before Contact with the Russians: Some Demographic and 

Cultural Aspects. Pacifica 2(2):8-23. 

Liapunova, R.G. 1996. Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleuts (at the End of the Eighteenth 

and the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. J. Shelest, trans. W. Workman and L. Black, 

editorial assistance. Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series, Vol. 9. Fairbanks: 

University of Alaska Press. 

Lowe, Marie 2006. The impact of industrial fishing on localized social environmental change in 

Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University. 

Lowe, Marie E. 2010. Contemporary Rural-Urban Migration in Alaska. Alaska Journal of 

Anthropology. 8(2):71-88. 

Magdanz, James, Charles Utermohle, and Robert Wolfe 2002. The Production and Distribution 

of Wild Food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Technical 

Paper No. 259. 

Magdanz, James, Robert Walker and Ronald Paciorek 2004.The subsistence harvests of wild 

foods by residents of Shungnak, Alaska, 2002. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, 

Technical Paper No. 279. 

Magdanz, J., C. Brown, D. Koster, and N. Braem 2011. A network analysis of mixed economies 

in Alaska. Paper presented at the 27th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium, 

Anchorage, AK, September. 

Martin, Stephanie 2009. The effects of female out-migration on Alaska villages. Polar 

Geography 32(1-2):61-67. 

Maschner, Herbert 1998. Salmon Run Volatility, Subsistence, and the Development of North 

Pacific Societies. Pp. 11-28. Proceedings of the 12th International Abashiri Symposium: 

Salmon Fishery in the North and its Change Through Time. Edited by the Hokkaido 

Museum of Northern Peoples. Published by the Association for the Promotion of 

Northern Cultures. Abashiri, Hokkaido, Japan. 

Maschner, Herbert 1999a. Prologue to the Prehistory of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Arctic 

Anthropology. 36(1-2):84-102. 

Maschner, Herbert 1999b. Sedentism, Settlement and Village Organization on the Lower Alaska 

Peninsula: A Preliminary Assessment. Pp. 56-76. In B. Billman and G. Feinman (editors). 

Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Viru. Washington: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Maschner, Herbert 2000. Catastrophic Change and Regional Interaction: The Southern Bering 

Sea in a Dynamic World System. Pp 252-265. In Identities and Cultural Contacts in the 

Arctic. Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 

November 30-December 2, 1999. Edited by Martin Appelt, Joel Berglund, and Hans 

Christian Gulløv. Danish National Museum and Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen, 

Denmark. 
220 

Maschner, Herbert 2004a. Traditions Past and Present: Allen McCartney and the Izembek Phase 

of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology. Vol. 41, No. 2, Pp. 98-111. 

Maschner, Herbert 2004b. Redating the Hot Springs Village Site. Alaska Journal of 

Anthropology. Vol. 2, Nos 1-2. Pp. 100-116. 

Maschner, Herbert and Alexander Bentley 2003. The Power Law of Rank and Household on the 

North Pacific. In Complex Systems and Archaeology: Empirical and Theoretical 

Applications. Pp. 47-60. Edited by R. Alexander Bentley & Herbert D. G. Maschner. 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Maschner, Herbert and Brian Hoffman 2003. The Development of Large Corporate Households 

along the North Pacific Rim. Alaska Journal of Anthropology (1)2 pp 41-63. 

Maschner, Herbert and James Jordan 2001. The Russell Creek Manifestation of the Arctic Small 

Tool Tradition on the Western Alaska Peninsula. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of 

Alaska: Some Recent Research, Pp. 151-172. Don E. Dumond, editor. University of 

Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. 

Maschner, Herbert and James W. Jordan 2008. Catastrophic Events and Punctuated Culture 

Change: The Southern Bering Sea and North Pacific in a Dynamic Global System. Pp. 

95-113 in Time and Change: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on the 

Long Term edited by Dimitra Papagianni and Robert H. Layton. University of Utah 

Press. 

Maschner, Herbert and Katherine L. Reedy-Maschner 1998. Raid, Retreat, Defend (Repeat): The 

Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Warfare on the North Pacific. Journal of 

Anthropological Archaeology, 17:19-51. 

Maschner, Herbert and Katherine Reedy-Maschner 2006. Subsistence Fisheries Harvest 

Assessment and Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Lower Alaska Peninsula and 

Aleutian Islands. Report FIS 02-032 to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Mauss, M. 1923. The Gift. London: Cohen & West. 

McCartney, Allen 1984. Prehistory of the Aleutian region. In Handbook of North American 

Indians, volume 5, Arctic. D. Damas, ed. Pp. 119-135. Washington: Smithsonian 

Institution Press. 

McGowan, Sarah 1999. The Modern Village of Akutan: 1878 to Present. In The History and 

Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough. By L. Black, S. McGowan, J. Jacka, N. 

Taksami, and M. Wright. Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press. 

Mitchell, Donald 2003. Sold American: The Story of Alaska Natives and their Land, 1867-1959. 

Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Mousalimas, Soter 1995. The Transition from Shamanism to Russian Orthodoxy in Alaska. 

Oxford: Berghahn Books. 

Pareto, V. 1907 Manuel d’Economie Politique. Giard et Briere, Paris. 

Partnow, Patricia 2001. Making History: Alutiiq/Sugpiaq Life on the Alaska Peninsula. 

University of Alaska Press. 
221 

Picou, J. Steven, Brent K. Marshall and Duane A. Gill. 2004. Disaster, Litigation and the 

Corrosive Community. Social Forces 82(4):1493-522.

Pika, A. and D. Bogoyavlensky 1995. Yamal Peninsula: Oil And Gas Development And 

Problems Of Demography And Health Among Indigenous Populations. Arctic 

Anthropology 32(2):61-74. 

Reedy-Maschner, Katherine 2004. Aleut Identity and Indigenous Commercial Fisheries. 

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Social Anthropology, University of 

Cambridge. 

Reedy-Maschner, Katherine 2007. The Best-Laid Plans: Limited Entry permits and Limited 

Entry systems in Eastern Aleut Culture. Human Organization 66(2):210-225. 

Reedy-Maschner, Katherine 2010. Aleut Identities: Tradition and Modernity in an Indigenous 

Fishery. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 

Robert-Lamblin, Joelle 1982. An historical and contemporary demography of Akutan, a n 

Aleutian village. Etudes Inuit Studies, 6(1):99-126. 

Roon, T. P. 2006. ‘Globalization of Sakhalin’s Oil Industry: Partnership or Conflict? A 

Reflection on the Etnologicheskaia Ekspertiza’, in Wilson, E. and F. Stammler (eds.) 

Special issue of Sibirica: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Siberian Studies, 5(2):95-114. 

Sahlins, Marshall 1972. Stone age economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

Sawyer, Suzana 2004 Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multinational Oil, and 

Neoliberalism in Ecuador. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 

Sawyer, Suzana 1996. Indigenous Initiatives and Petroleum Politics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. 

Cultural Survival Quarterly 20(1): 26-30. 

Scarbrough, Lisaand James Fall. 1997. Unalaska: subsistence harvest and use information. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Special Publication No. 

SP1997-001. 

Smith, Barbara Sweetland and Patricia Petrivelli 1994. A Sure Foundation: Aleut Churches in 

World War II. Anchorage: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association. 

Snigaroff, Cedor 1979. Niigugis maqaxtazaqangis; Atkan Historical Traditions told in 1952. K. 

Bergsland, ed. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. 

Stammler, F. and E. Wilson 2006. ‘Dialogue for Development: An Exploration of Relations 

between Oil and Gas Companies, Communities, and the State’, in Wilson, E. and F. 

Stammler (eds) Special issue of Sibirica: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Siberian Studies, 

5(2):1-42. 

Stearns Planning and Design 2000. Nelson Lagoon Final Report: Aleutians East Borough 

Coastal Management Program. Vashon Island, Washington. Report prepared for the 

Aleutians East Borough, June 30. 

Thornton, Thomas 1998. Alaska Native Subsistence: A Matter of Cultural Survival. Cultural 

Survival Quarterly 22(3). 

Tschersich, P. 2006. Aleutian Islands and Atka-Amlia Islands management areas salmon 

management report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, 2007. Alaska Department of Fish 
222 

and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Fishery Management Report No. 06-64, 

Anchorage. 

Turek, Michael F., Sverre Pedersen, Nancy Ratner, and Marianne G. See 2008. Steller sea lions 

Eumetopias jubatus: direct mortality by humans. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, 

Technical Paper No. 338. 

Veltre, Douglas W and Mary J. Veltre. 1982. Resource utilization in Unalaska, Aleutian Islands, 

Alaska. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 58. 

Veltre, Douglas W. and Mary J. Veltre 1983. Resource Utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands, 

Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper 

88. 

Veltre, Douglas W. and Mary J Veltre 1987. The northern fur seal: a subsistence and commercial 

resource for Aleuts of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Etudes Inuit Studies 

11:51-72. 

Veniaminov, Ioann 1984. Notes on the islands of the Unalaska District [1840]. L. Black and 

R.H. Goeghega, trans. R.A. Pierce, ed. Alaska History 27. Kinston, Ont.: The Limestone 

Press. 

Vitebsky P. 1990. Gas, Environmentalism and Native Anxieties in the Soviet Arctic: The Case of 

Yamal Peninsula. Polar Record 156:19-26. 

Wasserman, S. & K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. 

Cambridge University Press. 

Wasserman, S. and J. Galaskiewicz 1994. Advances in Social Network Analysis. Sage Press. 

Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping While Giving. 

Berkeley, University of California Press. 

Wenzel, G.W. 1995 Ningiqtuq: Inuit Resource Sharing and Generalized Reciprocity in Clyde 

River, Nunavut. Arctic Anthropology 32(2):43-60. 

Wenzel, G.W. 2000 Sharing, Money, and Modern Inuit Subsistence: Obligation and Reciprocity 

at Clyde River, Nunavut. In The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and 

Modern Hunter-Gatherers. Ed. by G.W. Wenzel, G. Hovelsrud-Broda, and N. Kishigami. 

Senri Ethnological Series. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. pp.61-85. 

Wilk, R. R. and R. M. Netting (1984) ‘Households: changing forms and functions,’ in R. 

Netting, R. Wilk and E. Arnould (eds), Households: comparative and historical studies of 

the domestic group. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Wilson, E. 2003. “Freedom and Loss in a Human Landscape: Multinational Oil and Gas 

Exploitation and the Survival of Reindeer Herding in Northeastern Sakhalin, the Russian 

Far East.” Sibirica: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Siberian Studies, 3(1):21–47. 

Wolfe, Robert 1987. The Super-Household: Specialization in Subsistence Economies. Paper 

presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, 

Anchorage. 

Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert J. Walker 1987. Subsistence economies in Alaska: productivity, 

geography, and development impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24:56-81. 
223 

Wolfe, Robert J., James A. Fall, and Monica Riedel 2009. The subsistence harvest of harbor 

seals and sea lions by Alaska Natives in 2008. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, 

Technical Paper No. 347. 

Wolfe, R. J. and C. Mishler 1994. The Subsistence Harvest of Harbor Seal and Sea lion by 

Alaska Natives in 1993. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Technical Paper Series, Technical Paper No. 233, Parts 1 and 2. Juneau. 

Wolfe, Robert, James Fall, and Monica Riedel 2008. The Subsistence Harvest of Harbor Seals 

and Sea Lions by Alaska Natives in 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper Series, Technical Paper No. 339, Juneau. 

Wolfe, R.J., J.J. Gross, S.J. Langdon, J.M. Wright, G.K. Sherrod, L.J. Ellanna, V. Sumida, and 

P.J. Usher 1984. Subsistence-Based Economies in Coastal Communities of Southwest 

Alaska. Technical Paper No. 89. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Wolfe, R.J., and C.J. Utermohle 2000. Wild Food Consumption Rates Estimates for Rural 

Alaska Populations. Technical Paper No. 261. Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Division of Subsistence, Juneau. 

Woodell, George, Craig Forsyth, and Robert Gramling 1996. Technological change, resource 

management and conflict: commercial shrimping in Louisiana. Sociological Spectrum 

16(4):437-472. 

Yan, Y. 1996. The Flow of Gifts: Reciprocity and Social Networks in a Chinese village. 

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 
224 

NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN SPECIES 

Commonly used subsistence and commercial species from the southern Bering Sea region and 

local terms for key foods used today. 

Terrestrial Mammals Marine Mammals 

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) 

Domestic cow, feral (Bos taurus) 

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) 

Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) 

Brown bear (Ursus arctos) 

Moose (Alces alces)

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) 

Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) 

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

California sea lion (Zalophus californicus) 

Sea otter (Enhydra lutris) 

Whale (multiple species) 

Fish Marine Invertebrates 

King salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)

Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)

Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

Pacific herring (Clupea harengus) 

Dolly varden (Salvelinus malma) 

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) 

Black cod (Anoplopoma fimbria) 

Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) 

Red rockfish (Sebastes alutus) 

Walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma)

King crab (Paralithoides camtschatica) 

Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) 

Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) 

Butter clam (Saxidomus gigantean) 

Pacific littleneck clams (Protothaca 

staminea) 

Razor clam (Siliqua patula) 

Octopus (Octopus dolfleini) 

Black katy chitons (Katharina tunicata) 

Mussels (Mytilus edulis) 

Snails (Fusitriton oregonensis) 

Sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus 

droebachiensis) 

Waterfowl and eggs Plants/Berries 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 

Brant (Branta bernicla) 

Emperor goose (Philacte canagica) 

Pintail (Anas acuta) 

Mallard (Anas platyrhyncos) 

Harlequin (Histrionicus histrionicus) 

Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) 

Willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) 

Seagull eggs (Sternidae) 

Arctic tern eggs (Sterna paradisaea) 

Salmonberries (Rubus chamaemorus) 

Cranberries (Vaccinium uliginosum) 

Mossberries (Empetrum nigrum) 

Blueberries (Vaccinium uliginosum) 

Wine berries (Cornus suecica) 

Petrushki (Ligusticum hultenii) 

Pushki (Heracleum lanatum) 
225 

Food Russian term Aleut and Alutiiq term 

Wild parsley Petrushki 

Cow parsnip Pushki 

Whale meat Ulla 

Half-dried salmon Ukela 

Black katy chiton Bidarki 

Chum heads (eaten raw) Chumela 

Seal oil Chadu 

Easter bread Kulich 

Tundra/Labrador Tea Caa’uq 

Fur seal pups Alakuduk 

Eskimo ice cream Agutaq 

Alaska spinach Qurrkiq 

Aleut ice cream Tagao 
226 

www.boem.gov

The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the sound use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish, 

wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our 

national parks and historical places; and providing for the 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 interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also 

has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 

who live in island communities. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the exploration 

and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that appropriately balances 

economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection through oil 

and gas leases, renewable energy development and environmental reviews and studies.