OCS Study BOEM 2015-023

Subsistence Sharing 

Networks and Cooperation:

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

by

Gary Kofinas, Shauna B. BurnSilver, James Magdanz, Rhian Stotts, & Marcy Okada

Subsistence Sharing 

Networks and 

Cooperation:

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Gary Kofinas1,2, Shauna B. BurnSilver3, James Magdanz1,4, Rhian Stotts3, Marcy Okada5

1. School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska Fairbanks

2. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks

3. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University

4. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

5. U.S. National Park Service

A project of the Northwest Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit through 

Cooperative Agreement M07AC12496, funded by the US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

OCS Study BOEM 2015-023
Publication Information

Citation of Report: Kofinas, Gary, Shauna B. BurnSilver, James Magdanz, Rhian 

Stotts, and Marcy Okada (2016), Subsistence Sharing Networks and Cooperation: 

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska. BOEM Report 2015-023DOI;

AFES Report MP 2015-02. School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks. 

About the Cartoons: The drawings used on the title page were cartoons made for the Sharing 

Project by Doug Urquhart, a talented cartoonist and biologist of Whitehorse, Yukon. 

These and other drawings by Doug were used as prompts during some interviews to 

convey the concepts of sharing and cooperation asked of research subjects. Doug passed 

away in 2015 after years of service to indigenous people and inspiration to wildlife comanagement in the North.

Disclaimer: Study collaboration and funding were provided by the US Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, 

Washington, DC, under Agreement Number MO7AC12496. This report has been 

technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication. The views 

and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not 

be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor 

does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

To obtain a copy of this report: A downloadable PDF file of this report can be found at 

the website of US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Environmental Studies Program Information System, by searching for OCS Study 

BOEM 2015-023DOI, or through the UAF School of Natural Resources and Extension 

publications site uaf.edu/files/snre/publications/misc/MP-15-02.pdf. A copy can also 

be received by contacting US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 

99503-5820, (907) 334-5200.

Published by: School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Report designer and copyeditor: Deirdre Helfferich, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment 

Station, School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Cover image: Mataaq by Lisa Risager, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 

Generic license.
This study is dedicated to 

residents of Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie who are actively

engaged in subsistence—to elders whose wisdom and guidance

helped with our research, to harvesters, processors, and consumers

who live a subsistence way of life, and to youth for their 

commitment to sustaining Alaska Native cultural traditions

into the future
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

vi

Acknowledgements

The Sharing Project was completed with the contributions of many individuals and 

organizations. First and foremost, this study was made possible because of the active participation 

and support by residents of Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie. Their willingness to support 

the project and participate in interviews made the project the success it is. Our three Local 

Project Advisory Committees offered essential guidance. Our teams of interviewers, which 

included local residents and graduate students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, did 

an excellent job administering the survey and making our interactions with local residents 

friendly and meaningful. A special acknowledgement is extended to Dr. Dee Williams of BOEM 

for his intellectual contributions, specifically in identifying the need for the study initially, 

envisioning the focus on measuring magnitudes of flow, and in being helpful along the way. 

As well, Chris Campbell of BOEM was wonderfully positive, helpful, and encouraging. Both 

Dee and Chris provided detailed reviews of the report. A special thank you is also given to 

staff of the North Slope Wildlife Management Department, who helped introduce the project 

to our North Slope study communities and provided critical support in our times of need. 

Thanks also to James Simon, David Koster, and Pam Amundsen at Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game Division of Subsistence for their administrative and technical support throughout 

the project. Staff members at the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Natural Resources 

and Extension are thanked for their countless hours of dealing with administrative matters.

Naomi O’Neal of UAF put in countless hours helping with the study, including 

coordinating the research team’s interviewing in Kaktovik entering data, identifying 

errors in the manuscript, organizing and managing materials, reviewing chapters, doing 

literature searches, compiling the bibliography, numbering figures, and more. Rhian 

Stotts put in months of work meticulously managing and analyzing data. Katie Moerlein 

coded qualitative data from the survey instrument. Deirdre Helfferich’ s work as our 

artful and detail-oriented editor gave the final report its strong professionalism. 

Finally, the extraordinary dedication and efforts of senior co-investigators, 

Dr. Shauna BurnSilver and Jim Magdanz, deserve special mention. Their skills as 

community researchers and analysts, sensitivities to the challenges facing Alaska Native 

peoples, and commitment to detail and excellence in science were essential.

The study was funded by the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (Contract MO7AC12496. Partial funding support was provided by the Arizona State University; Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game – Division of Subsistence; the Bonanza Creek LTER / National Science Foundation 

(DEB-1026415), and Alaska EPSCoR (NSF award #OIA-1208927) and the state of Alaska.

Gary Kofinas, PhD 

Sharing Project Principal Investigator 

June 26, 2016
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

vii

Contents

Front Matter

Publication Information iv

Dedication v

Acknowledgements vi

Contents vii

List of Figures viii

List of Tables x

Executive Summary 1

Section One 5

Chapter 1 - Introduction 7

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework 11

Chapter 3 - Methods 25

Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities 37

Section Two 49

Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share – Self-Reported Rationales and Strategies 51

Chapter 6 - Household Demographics, Cash, and Harvests 63

Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks within Subsistence Livelihoods 111

Section Three 209

Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience 211

Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion 239

Bibliography and Appendices 251

Bibliography 253

Appendix I: The Survey Instrument 263

Appendix II: The Conversion Table 502
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 viii

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Vulnerability framework. 12

Figure 2.2. Variables and framework for study. 14

Figure 2.3. Wolfe’s “30:70 Rule.” 16

Figure 2.4. Analytical categories for sharing, core species used as the subject of this study, and complexity of 

respective social relationships. 20

Figure 4.1. The three study communities. 37

Figure 6.1. Household size by household type, Kaktovik. 64

Figure 6.2. Kaktovik sources of employment. 67

Figure 6.3. Kaktovik types of employment. 68

Figure 6.4. Number of jobs of each employment type by month, Kaktovik. 69

Figure 6.5. Income by tercile, Kaktovik. 69

Figure 6.6. Comparison of harvest by category of harvested resources, Kaktovik. 76

Figure 6.7. Household size by household type, Wainwright. 78

Figure 6.8. Wainwright sources of employment. 81

Figure 6.9. Types of employment, Wainwright. 82

Figure 6.10. Number of jobs of each employment type by month, Wainwright. 83

Figure 6.11. Household income in terciles, Wainwright. 83

Figure 6.12. Comparison of harvest by category, Wainwright. 85

Figure 6.13. Household size by household type, Venetie. 93

Figure 6.14. Sources of employment, Venetie. 94

Figure 6.15. Types of employment, Venetie. 95

Figure 6.16. Number of jobs of each employment type by month, Venetie. 97

Figure 6.17. Income in terciles, Venetie. 97

Figure 6.18. Comparison of harvest by category, Venetie. 98

Figure 7.1. Flows of wild food through social relationships in Kaktovik. 115

Figure 7.2. Ranked household inflows, Kaktovik. 116

Figure 7.3. Proportion of food by relationships flowing to households, Kaktovik. 116

Figures 7.4–7.19. Relations shown as network graphs, Kaktovik. 128–143

Figure 7.20. Out ties from surveyed relationships, Kaktovik. 144

Figure 7.21. Flows of wild food through social relationships, Wainwright. 145

Figure 7.22. Total inflows by relationships to households, Wainwright. 154

Figure 7.23. Proportion of food by relationships flowing to households, Wainwright. 154
ix

Figures 7.24–7.39. Relations shown as network graphs, Wainwright. 160-175

Figure 7.40. Out ties from surveyed relationships, Wainwright. 176

Figure 7.41. Flows of wild foods through social relationships, Venetie. 178

Figure 7.42. Total inflows by relationships to households, Venetie. 179

Figure 7.43. Proportion of food by relationships flowing to households, Venetie. 179

Figures 7.44–58. Relations shown as network graphs, Venetie. 193–207

Figure 8.1. Parts of the analysis for Chapter 8. 211

Figure 8.2. Evidence of persistence in the mixed economy, Wainwright and Kaktovik. 212

Figure 8.3a-c. Self-reported percentage of consumed foods that were wild food vs. store-bought. 214

Figure 8.4a-c. Food security. 215

Figure 8.5a–c. Food security represented in household sharing networks with magnitude of inflows. 217

Figure 8.6. Shape of total inflow distributions in pounds for Kaktovik, Venetie, and Wainwright. 218

Figure 8.7. Distributions of food inflows by households, for a) Kaktovik, b) Wainwright, and c) Venetie. 219

Figure 8.7d. Kaktovik whaling. 219

Figure 8.7e. Wainwright whaling. 219

Figure 8.8. Comparing unvalued flows – Processing and in-kind contribution, all communities. 220

Figure 8.9. Relationship between giving and harvest pounds represented on a log-log scale, all communities 

combined. 221

Figure 8.10. Log outflows of food from households and flows between giving (source) and receiving (sink) 

households. 222

Figure 8.11. Income terciles, Wainwright, Kaktovik and Venetie (left to right). 223

Figure 8.12. Givers in a mixed economy, Wainwright example. 224

Figure 8.13. Who receives food in a mixed economy, Wainwright example. 225

Figure 8.14. Household profiles, Kaktovik. 228

Figure 8.15. Household profiles, Wainwright. 229

Figure 8.16. Household profiles, Venetie. 230

Figure 8.17. Radar graph of High Harvest - High Income Households, and one egonet of a household from this 

category, Kaktovik. 231

Figure 8.18. Radar graph of Low Harvest - Low Income Households, and one egonet of a household from this 

category, Kaktovik. 231

Figure 8.19. Thinking about resilience – Exposures ripple through communities, Wainwright. 235
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

x

List of Tables

Table 3.1. Local Project Advisory Committees. 26

Table 3.2. Core species. 27

Table 4.1. Profile of study communities 38

Table 4.2. Season rounds of the three study communities, indicating primary time of harvesting core species

39

Table 5.1. Reasons people share, from Okada (2010). 52

Table 6.1. Community demographics, Kaktovik. 63

Table 6.2. Percentage of household members self-identified as Alaska Native, Kaktovik. 64

Table 6.3. Household type by household development stage. 65

Table 6.4. Household size by household type, Kaktovik. 65

Table 6.5. Household heads and Adult/Elder Individuals’ maximum education levels, Kaktovik. 66

Table 6.6. Percentage (No.) households employed 2009, Kaktovik. 66

Table 6.7. Income and employment, Kaktovik. 66

Table 6.8. Household-level employment data, Kaktovik. 67

Table 6.9. Sources of employment, Kaktovik. 68

Table 6.10. Categories of cash inflows into households, Kaktovik. 70

Table 6.11. Subsistence gear, Kaktovik. 71

Table 6.12. Number of hunters and processors engaged in subsistence, and number of species harvested per 

household, Kaktovik. 71

Table 6.13. Harvest and use – All species, Kaktovik. 72

Table 6.14. Comparison of harvested pounds by category of resources, Kaktovik. 76

Table 6.15. Community demographics, Wainwright. 77

Table 6.16. Percentage of household members self-identified as Alaska Native, Wainwright. 77

Table 6.17. Household type by household development stage, Wainwright. 78

Table 6.18. Household size by household type, Wainwright. 79

Table 6.19. Household heads and Adult/Elder Individuals’ maximum education levels, Wainwright. 80

Table 6.20. Percentage (No.) HHs employed 2009, Wainwright. 80

Table 6.21. Income and employment, Wainwright. 80

Table 6.22. Household (HH) level employment data, Wainwright. 82

Table 6.23. Sources of employment, Wainwright. 83

Table 6.24. Categories of cash inflows into households, Wainwright. 84

Table 6.25. Subsistence gear, Wainwright. 85

Table 6.26. Number of hunters and processors engaged in subsistence, and number of species harvested per 

household, Wainwright. 86
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

xi

Table 6.27. Estimated harvests and uses of fish, game, and plant resources, Wainwright. 87

Table 6.28. Types of harvested resources, Wainwright. 91

Table 6.29. Community demographics, Venetie. 91

Table 6.30. Percentage of household members self-identified as Alaska Native, Venetie. 92

Table 6.31. Household type by household development stage, Venetie. 92

Table 6.32. Household size by household type, Venetie. 93

Table 6.33. Household heads and Adult/Elder individuals’ maximum education levels, Venetie. 96

Table 6.34. Percentage (No.) HHs employed 2009, Venetie. 96

Table 6.35. Income and Employment, Venetie. 96

Table 6.36. Household level employment data, Venetie. 98

Table 6.37. Venetie sources of employment.98

Table 6.38. Categories of cash inflows into households, Venetie. 99

Table 6.39. Subsistence gear, Venetie. 100

Table 6.40. Number of hunters and processors engaged in subsistence, and number of species harvested per 

household, Venetie. 100

Table 6.41. All species used, attempted, harvested, received and given, Venetie. 101

Table 6.42. Types of harvested resources, Venetie. 104

Table 6.43. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables with non-Native teacher households, 

Kaktovik (n = 70). 105

Table 6.44. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables without non-Native teacher households, 

Kaktovik (n = 65). 105

Table 6.45. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables with non-Native teacher households, 

Wainwright (n = 146).106

Table 6.46. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables without non-Native teacher households, 

Wainwright (n = 133).106

Table 6.47. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables with non-Native teacher households, 

Venetie (n = 84). 107

Table 6.48. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables without non-Native teacher households, 

Venetie (n = 80). 107

Table 7.1. Core species vs. non-core species harvested by households, Kaktovik. 113

Table 7.2. Core resource flows, Kaktovik. 114

Table 7.3. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Kaktovik. 117

Table 7.4. Summary of wild food inflows by relationships, Kaktovik. 121

Table 7.5. Bowhead and beluga whaling efforts: Contributions and flows, Kaktovik. 122

Table 7.6. Average size of cooperative hunting groupsa - Core species without whales, Kaktovik. 123

Table 7.7. Giving/Receiving of core resources, Kaktovik. 124

Table 7.8. Network summary measures, core resources, Kaktovik, 2010. 125

Table.7.9. Mean core and non-core harvests for households (lbs), Wainwright. 146

Table 7.10. Core resource flows by resource, Wainwright. 146

Table 7.11. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Wainwright. 147
Table 7.12. Wainwright - Sources of wild food inflows. 151

Table 7.13. Whaling cooperation. 152

Table 7.14. Average size of cooperative hunting group, Wainwright. 155

Table 7.15. Giving and receiving of core species, Wainwright. 155

Table 7.16. Network summary measures, core resources, Wainwright, 2009. 156

Table 7.17. Mean core and non-core harvests for households (lbs), Venetie. 177

Table 7.18. Core resource flows by resource, Venetie. 178

Table 7.19. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Venetie. 180

Table 7.20. Venetie – Sources of wild food inflows. 184

Table 7.21. Average size of cooperative hunting groups- Core species, Venetie. 184

Table 7.22. Giving and receiving of core species 185

Table 7.23. Network summary measures, core resources, Venetie, 2009. 186

Table 7.24. Outflows by household head type and gender. 189

Table 7.25. Resource flows by resource and gender for three communities. 190

Table 8.1. Evidence of persistence. 213

Table 8.2. Cross tabulation of household food security status. 216

Table 8.3. Who gives? (184 of 300 households give) 221

Table 8.4. Measures of household adaptive capacity in subsistence-cash system. 226

Table 8.5. Distribution of households across harvest by income categories. 227

Table 8.6. Scenarios of change in harvested ecosystem services at the community level. 233

Textbox 7.1. Definitions of network statistics. 112
Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary

This study documented and analyzed social networks of 

sharing and cooperation that are part of Alaska Native 

subsistence-cash economies, and explored the potential 

vulnerability and resilience of Alaska rural communities 

to conditions of social and ecological change. The study 

was undertaken in response to the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), formerly Mineral 

Management Services (MMS) Statement of Work 

NSL-AK-05-04. Research activities were initiated 

in spring of 2008 with the survey instrument 

administered from October 2010 to May 2011. 

The study engaged two North Slope Alaska coastal 

communities, Kaktovik and Wainwright (Iñupiat), 

and one rural interior Alaska community, Venetie 

(Gwich’in), in partnerships to complete the 

research. Wainwright and Kaktovik were invited to 

participate because of BOEM’s mandate to study the 

potential impacts of offshore energy development. 

Venetie was included as a contrasting interior 

Alaska community that is not exposed to offshore 

development, and thus served as a “control.”

Primary goals of the study were to provide 

agencies and communities with quantitative and 

qualitative baseline data on patterns of cooperation 

and exchange in subsistence-cash economies, and 

the vulnerability of communities to social-ecological changes relevant to food security and well being. 

At a community level, the study provided documentation of behavior that reflected cultural traditions 

and social cohesion among Alaska Natives. 

The study used survey research methods, 

ethnographic analysis, social network analysis, 

and group interviews to collect data. Research 

methods were developed and refined through 

close consultation with Local Project Advisory 

Committees in each community. Using survey 

research, we sought to interview the head or heads 

of every household in each community. Interview 

response rates were high: 82% in Kaktovik, 96% 

in Wainwright, and 94% in Venetie. Data were 

analyzed to describe household socio-economic conditions and provided general and specific 

characteristics of sharing and cooperation patterns among local and non-local households. The 

study’s analysis of persistence, vulnerability, and 

resilience assessed past-to-present patterns of the 

subsistence-cash economy and the implications 

of plausible future social-ecological changes.

Key substantive findings from the study include: 

1. Social relations involving inter-household 

cooperation represent a significant portion 

of household inflows of subsistence foods 

within communities, accounting for between 

60–75% of inflows into households in all three 

communities. In the two North Slope communities only about one-quarter of total inflows 

were from households’ own harvesting efforts. 

In the Interior community about one-third 

of the total inflows were from households’ 

own harvest. Between three-quarters and 

two-thirds of all other food produced and 

redistributed within communities stemmed 

from some kind of social relationship, including cooperative harvesting (19%–37%), 

gifting (sharing) (9%–23%), helping shares 

(1%–14%), and whaling relationships in 

Wainwright and Kaktovik (33%–46%) that 

included cooperative hunting, shares, sharing 

and feasts involving the entire village. 

2. Subsistence activities consist of more than 

hunting. Significant flows of non-food resources such as contributions of labor, 

equipment, or supplies represent multiple 

ways Alaska Natives in the study communities 

engaged in “subsistence.”

3. Research findings from all three communities show a skewed ratio similar to Wolfe’s 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 2

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

“30:70 Rule,” which predicts that 30% of the 

harvesters will produce 70% of a community’s 

subsistence foods. This study measured household inflows and as expected, found that the 

proportions were slightly higher than 30:70. 

In Wainwright, 30% of households brought in 

76% of harvested food and in Kaktovik 30% 

of households accounted for 81% of harvested 

food. In Venetie 30% of households brought in 

93% of harvested food. Significant reliance on 

fewer harvesters in the future could make the 

subsistence system vulnerable. 

4. Households in each of the three communities 

are highly connected, based on a range of network metrics (i.e., degree distribution, level of 

reciprocity, modularity), yet some households 

are more connected than others. These households represent key providers of subsistence 

resources in their community, conforming to 

Wolfe’s (2004) description of “super-hunting 

households.”

5. Highly productive households are characterized in general as having mature or older 

household heads, more adult hunters, and a 

source of cash income. 

6. While household income was correlated with 

household productivity (the sum of all wild 

food inflows in pounds from all social relations), household self-provisioning was not.

7. Narratives (i.e., qualitative findings) about 

sharing indicate that households share with 

relatives while also sharing with other households that are in need. Quantified patterns of 

outflows confirm this result, indicating that 

food flows out from households with high 

producers to lower-producing households, 

supporting the need-based directionality of 

food flowing to those with less. Kinship data 

were not a focus of this study, and data on kinship relationships among households were not 

collected. Based on the findings of this study 

and research by others, we hypothesize that 

patterns of connectivity can be explained in 

additional detail by accounting for kinship 

relationships.

8. Findings show a correlation between high 

household harvest and outflow. We calculated outflows based on gifting, helping shares, 

and trading redistribution of hunted, fished, 

and gathered (e.g., berries) food. Super households are super providers. Households with 

high harvest and high income are the source 

of a majority of food flowing into other households within the same community/village. 

9. A comparative analysis of past household 

data in years 1977, 1988, and data from this 

study, 2010a, for the North Slope communities of Kaktovik and Wainwright show that 

subsistence systems have persisted in spite 

of households’ continued engagement in the 

cash sector of the economy. 

10. Many of the households in all three communities reported high food insecurity 

(Kaktovik 45%; Wainwright 43%; Venetie 

35%). We found no correlation between 

household characteristics and level of food security. And despite high inflows, 33% to 48% 

of households in “high harvest” terciles were 

categorized as “food insecure,” suggesting that 

food security status may be seasonal, or that 

respondents perceived themselves as being insecure in their ability to meet their food needs.

11. Income-harvest relationships are complex. 

High harvest occurred across low, medium, and high-income households. However, 

with the exception of three households, all 

high-harvesting households had at least one 

adult member employed during the study 

period. Cash plays an integral role within the 

subsistence system. 

12. Study findings show that gifting of subsistence 

resources is not confined within communities. 

Sharing in subsistence commonly extends 

beyond the boundaries of a single village to 

include others across Alaska and beyond. 

13. The patterns of engagement of men and women 

in hunting and subsistence activities differ by 

community, by resource, and by social relationship. Men are responsible for a majority of 

harvested food by weight; however, women are 

a key source of food ties by count. 
Executive Summary

3

14. Social network analysis illustrated how patterns of sharing and cooperation vary widely by 

the resource and the community. For example, 

patterns of ties for caribou (1,193 ties) differ 

from those for beluga in Wainwright (281 ties), 

and these patterns of social ties around beluga 

in Wainwright differ from Kaktovik (136 ties). 

Differences are explained by unique harvesting 

strategies and related local social organization 

of harvesting and sharing.

15. Households within and between communities 

are highly heterogeneous across attributes, 

such as available cash inputs, engagement in 

harvesting, number of sharing ties with other 

households, and demographics. Households 

employ a variety of livelihood strategies; 

therefore, references to “communities” as 

monolithic entities may need to be reframed 

to capture the diversity of household capabilities within communities. 

16. We therefore project considerable variability 

in levels of vulnerability to economic and climatic change at the household level in each of 

these communities. This finding is related to 

the wide range of adaptive capacities of different household types. Results clearly show that 

certain households are more vulnerable to projected changes than others (i.e., low-income, 

unconnected and low-harvest households are 

more vulnerable than high-income, connected, and high-harvest households). 

17. Predicting social responses under future 

conditions of change is difficult, especially 

given the one-time nature of these data and 

the general uncertainty in predicting the nature of human agency and collective action 

at the community level. Still, findings suggest 

strongly that these communities have a high 

dependence on subsistence resources, and 

a significant change in the availability of resources could come with high costs to social, 

cultural, and economic well-being. 

Key methodological findings from the study include: 

1. In small, naturally bounded populations, survey methods can quantify flows of goods and 

services among households, providing a new 

quantitative social indicator of critical social 

structures in communities over time.

2. Having continuity in membership of the research team and taking sufficient time to 

develop meaningful partnerships with partner communities allows for important trust 

building and opportunities for community 

input into the research design, which make 

research data collection more precise and 

findings more relevant to the community and 

policy makers. 

3. Working with a dedicated steering committee 

of knowledgeable local residents incorporates 

critical local knowledge into the research process and lessens the burden on elected officials 

for providing assistance in all phases of the 

community-based research process. 

4. Strong public support of community leaders 

in a project is critical to achieving broad participation in survey research and ultimately, 

more complete and robust findings. 

5. Using multiple methods of communication, 

such public meetings, informal visits with 

opinion leaders, and a video about the project 

that is delivered as a DVD to each household helps to inform the public about project 

objectives. 

6. Household expenses are difficult to document 

with retrospective survey research. 

7. Documenting cultural traditions, such as 

subsistence sharing and cooperation, and 

reporting research findings back to the community produces a sense of pride among 

community residents, and potentially reinforces those practices.

This research provides new and detailed 

findings concerning Alaska subsistence-cash 

livelihood systems, drawing on findings from three 

northern communities. The results also highlight 

the value in systematically gathering quantitative 

data on household and community economies. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 4

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

While insights into community adaptive capacity and resilience are limited because data were 

only collected for one point in time and therefore do not capture community dynamics under 

changing social and environmental conditions, 

they do provide important information on the 

structure and extent of social processes critical 

but largely invisible to subsistence studies. The 

findings also confirm the historic persistence of 

mixed subsistence-cash economies through time 

and the extent to which sharing and cooperation 

continue to act as central features of local culture 

Wainwright interview crew: Training the Sharing Project team in Wainwright, Alaska.

and identities. Further monitoring and research 

that documents these systems will provide greater 

understanding in how and to what extent households and communities are responding to change, 

and are therefore able to adjust social relationships 

and economic activities in response to changing 

social, economic, and ecological conditions. 

¤
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

5

Section one

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

Chapter 3 - Methods

Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

Chapter 1 - Introduction

7

Chapter 1 - Introduction

This study investigated the structure, flows, and dynamics 

of sharing and cooperation in household subsistence-cash 

economies of three villages of northern Alaska—

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie. Focusing on 

patterns of sharing and cooperation in subsistence, 

the study advances knowledge of northern 

communities’ vulnerability and sources of 

resilience, using mixed methods of research. These 

research methods included ethnography, household 

surveys, group interviews and social network 

analysis, generating qualitative and quantitative 

data. Through these approaches, the project 

developed new methods for studying Alaska’s 

subsistence-cash village economies, generated 

baseline data on community systems of subsistence 

food sharing, provided information to community 

members and resource management entities about 

traditional lifeways, and addressed questions about 

the current and possible future vulnerabilities 

and resilience of subsistence-cash systems of 

these communities. The project also facilitated 

research partnerships with study communities 

and contributed to arctic system science. 

The study was undertaken in response 

to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM), (formerly Mineral Management Services) 

Statement of Work National Studies List-AK-05-04 

Statement of Work, “Dynamics of Distribution 

and Consumption of Subsistence Resources in 

Coastal Alaska” (NSL-AK-05-04). As part of its 

mandate, BOEM conducts studies of any area or 

region in the United States potentially affected 

by an offshore lease sale to establish information needed for assessment and management of 

potential impacts by Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) oil and gas activities on the human, marine, and coastal environments in a manner that 

is comparable with the results of studies conducted prior to OCS oil and gas development. After 

the leasing and exploration of any area or region, 

BOEM conducts studies to establish additional 

information and monitor for impacts in a manner that is comparable with the results of studies 

conducted prior to OCS oil and gas development. 

These studies are intended to identify significant 

changes in the quality and productivity of such 

environments, detect trends in the areas studied, 

and identify the causes of such changes. BOEM 

uses the findings from such studies to recommend 

modifications in practices to mitigate the effects of 

OCS activities, and enhance the data/information 

base for predicting impacts that might result from 

a single lease sale or cumulative OCS activities. 

Motivation for this Study

The study was motivated by the potential 

implications of oil and gas development to northern 

villages, local residents’ interest in documenting 

traditional ways of life as a means of protection 

against undesirable changes, and the information needs of government agencies responsible 

for managing for arctic oil and gas development. 

More specifically, BOEM sought to link pounds 

of subsistence harvest with the social system 

underlying subsistence in a more dynamic way 

than merely accounting for weight of harvested 

resources. An overarching motivation was to assess 

vulnerability and risk of oil and gas exploration 

and development on the subsistence-cash economy with more precise quantitative measures than 

used in past studies. The implications of change 

on household food security were also important. 

Future changes in northern Alaska, however, will not likely be confined to oil and gas. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 8

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Today, multiple forces of change, such as changes 

in climate, culture, and economic conditions, are 

of concern at international, national, regional, 

and local scales, with these forces interacting 

as part of a complex social-ecological system. 

Forces of change may be slow, such as warming temperatures, and in other cases may occur 

as sudden shocks, such as oil spills, loss of employment, or dramatic increases in fuel costs. 

If or when changes occur, Alaska rural communities will be on the front lines of these changes 

because of their high dependence on subsistence resources to sustain their nutritional, economic, and 

cultural needs. Given the dependence on harvested 

resources, the social structures built around subsistence, and Alaska Natives’ clear commitment to 

maintaining subsistence, protection of subsistence 

livelihoods has become a first-order social goal. 

As Alaska, the United States, and the international community assess the potential effects of 

these changes on people and systems, it is striking that quantitatively based analyses of northern 

community-based subsistence food production and 

distribution systems are rare. The need for more 

research, better data, longitudinal studies and the 

rigorous data analysis is striking (e.g., ACIA 2005, 

Einarsson et al. 2004, Arctic Resilience 2013, Larson 

and Fondahl 2015). While harvest studies have 

quantified subsistence harvests and ethnographic 

studies have explored cultural patterns of subsistence identity, cooperation and sharing, we are 

aware of no prior studies that combined these two 

approaches to describe both the community-wide 

harvest and economic patterns and magnitude 

of flows of subsistence goods among community 

households. Consequently, these significant gaps 

in baseline knowledge limited our understanding 

of the vulnerability and resilience of subsistence 

systems in northern Alaska communities. As well, 

there was a need to define and sharpen analytical 

distinctions in framing discussions around distribution of subsistence harvests among communities. 

Northern communities today are seeking to 

document their ways of life and pass on cultural 

traditions to future generations as ways of confronting threats and influencing policy processes. 

Agencies are in need of good data on which to 

base policy decisions. As communities and policy 

makers anticipate possible futures with uncertainty, a better understanding of communities as 

integral parts of social-ecological systems becomes 

vital. To meet these objectives, better methods that 

draw on quantitatively based empirical studies 

of vulnerability and resilience of rural northern 

communities are critical. This study sought to 

address a number of these gaps in knowledge. 

Research questions

The following overarching research 

questions directed project objectives: 

1. What are the range of social structures and 

economic patterns that currently characterize subsistence-cash livelihoods in northern 

communities? 

2. What patterns of social relationships, food 

flows, and resource flows among households 

characterize mixed subsistence-cash-economies of the communities, and how do these 

relationships relate to broader indicators of 

well-being and adaptive capacity?

3. What are the potential vulnerabilities, and alternatively, sources of resilience of households 

and communities to changes in social, ecological and economic conditions? 

Linked sub-questions include: 

1. What proportion of total food flowing within villages is based on social relationships of 

cooperation and sharing versus household 

self-provisioning? 

2. How variable are patterns of social relationships, flows of food and resources across 

species and by communities? 

3. Is there a relationship between household 

engagement in the cash economy, household 

harvest activities and households’ positions in 

cooperative and sharing networks? 

4. How do household types (i.e., income and 

harvest levels, household composition) differ 
Chapter 1 - Introduction

9

in their network positionality and therefore, 

their ability to respond to change and risk?

5. How do community residents perceive changes that have occurred through time in their 

social networks? 

6. How variable is food security within villages?

7. Given observed sharing and cooperative 

patterns, how could a significant change in 

employment or harvesting success affect the 

distribution of resources across the network 

within communities? 

Organization of the report

The report is organized in three sections. In 

Section I we introduce the study (this chapter), 

present the theoretical orientation and framework for analysis (Chapter 2), describe research 

methods (Chapter 3), and give background on the 

study communities (Chapter 4). Section II presents 

research results, including findings on what motivates people to share (Chapter 5), demographics 

and ethnicity of community residents, cash inputs, and harvesting (Chapter 6), and results on 

subsistence cooperation and social networks of 

sharing, including findings on ties, magnitude of 

wild food flows about nodes, and social relations 

(Chapter 7). Section III explores the persistence, 

vulnerability, and resilience of household subsistence-cash systems (Chapter 8) and presents 

a summary of the study’s conclusions and recommendations for future research (Chapter 9). 

Reference households are abbreviated 

as “HH”. Percentages in the body of the 

report are rounded to whole numbers.

Additional publications about 

the study’s findings can be obtained by 

contacting the lead author of this report. 

¤

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

11

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

occurring both within scales and among scales, 

such that a crisis (e.g., global energy crisis) in one 

scale can influence interactions in other scales 

(e.g., higher fuel costs for hunters). For example, 

in the context of this study household-level drivers 

of change can scale up to affect community-level 

outcomes, and vice versa. When a system breaches 

a critical threshold and can no longer sustain its 

previous structure and function, it undergoes a 

regime shift to a new state. For example, a warming 

climate may increase temperatures and nutrient 

levels in arctic lakes, causing a change to algal-dominant states, as has occurred in the past (Overpeck 

et al. 1997). Similarly, economic and ecological 

conditions in an arctic community could potentially result in a mass outmigration of residents, 

transforming the system with outcomes at both 

household and community scales. As a “complex 

adaptive system,” arctic communities are collections 

of multiple entities engaged in dynamic networks 

of interactions, whose collective behaviors evolve in 

response to shocks. These systems are characterized 

by evolution, aggregate behavior, and anticipation. Human actors embedded in these systems 

have agency. They make decisions and can learn 

and adapt. Thus, aggregate behavior emerges from 

the interaction of specific parts (i.e., individuals, 

households, and communities) (Holland 1992). 

Characterizing any SES, identifying its critical thresholds of change, and measuring resilience 

with research is a challenge, especially given the 

past tendencies to view human-ecological interactions with mechanistic models. Adger (2000b) 

has noted that resilience theory has been guided to 

a great extent by ecological thinking, giving only 

limited attention to the social dimensions, how they 

differ from ecological dynamics, and the methods 

analysts should use to link the two. In his critique 

This chapter describes the theoretical orientation and 

framework that guided the study, including analytical 

categories used to measure subsistence sharing and 

cooperation. Our approach was transdisciplinary, 

drawing from literatures of economic anthropology, 

network theory, social-ecological systems 

resilience theory, and vulnerability theory. 

A Social-Ecological Systems Perspective

We approached communities, their mixed 

subsistence-cash economies, and the ecosystems of 

which they are a part as coupled social-ecological 

systems (SES). An SES is composed of interacting 

and interdependent physical, biological, and 

social elements that emphasize the ‘humans-innature’ perspective (Chapin et al. 2009). An SES 

framework implies that these communities are 

complex adaptive systems with feedback loops, 

non-linearity dynamics, and potential regime shifts 

or state changes that modify system structure, 

function, and identity. Resilience of an SES is 

defined as the ability of the SES to respond to 

change and retain its structure, function, and 

identity, with its capacity to respond defined as the 

system’s adaptability or adaptive capacity (Walker 

et al. 2004). Resilient social-ecological systems are 

evolutionary and adaptive, constantly changing in 

response to internal processes and external shocks. 

For example, one hypothesis is that the households 

of an arctic community have greater resilience to 

resource shortfalls if community members are 

highly cooperative in harvesting resources and 

well networked with other households locally and 

regionally in the sharing of harvested wild foods. 

Resilient social-ecological systems exhibit 

multiple, semi-independent scales or “panarchy” 

(Gunderson and Holling 2002) with interactions 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 12

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

of the resilience paradigm, Davidson (2010) 

acknowledged that resilience theory has drawn 

“attention to conditions that facilitate breakdown 

and renewal, and dynamic feedback processes” 

(page 1141), but notes that social systems are 

fundamentally different from ecological systems:

The application of the resilience framework 

to social systems will require improved 

articulation of the relationship—or more 

precisely the multiple relationships—between complexity and disturbance in a 

less deterministic manner than is afforded 

by ecological systems, in order to specify 

the conditions favoring the likelihood for 

resilience, adaptation, or transformation. 

While the structural complexity of both 

ecological and social systems can be conceived of in similar terms, the feedback 

processes associated with each are incomparable: Social systems are unique in that 

the tendencies toward complexity, and the 

responses of individual organisms to those 

levels of complexity, are defined not solely by structural variables, but by agency. 

(2010:1142)

Davidson’s quote emphasizes the importance 

of human choice or human agency in SES dynamics, and the need to move 

beyond the application of 

theory and towards empirically-based quantitative analyses 

that tests and refines theory, 

as undertaken in this study. 

Vulnerability assessment 

has emerged in a parallel but 

complementary stream of 

theory building. While resilience theory has focused on 

SES dynamics, vulnerability 

assessment has examined the 

harmful effects of environmental, social, and political change 

in relationship to human 

risk, sensitivity, and adaptive 

capacity (Turner et al. 2007). 

Vulnerability is defined as 

susceptibility to harm from 

exposure to stresses associated 

with environmental and social change and from 

the absence of capacity to adapt (Adger 2001, 

2006). Vulnerability is also a multi-scalar concept, 

encompassing analyses from the global to regional scales, and down to the level of households. 

Household vulnerability (of primary concern in this 

study) within a social-ecological system is multidimensional, combining numerous variables that 

differentiate households’ characteristics across the 

three domains of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive 

capacity. The exposures of major concern to arctic 

households are primarily economic (e.g., rising 

food and fuel prices) and fluctuating environmental conditions stemming from climatic change 

and land and sea use change. Sensitivity reflects 

the likelihood that households will experience 

harm from a given set of exposures based on their 

combined livelihood characteristics, while adaptive 

capacity represents the degree to which households 

are able to absorb change based on combinations 

of socio-economic endowments. (Figure 2.1) 

Vulnerability studies generally seek to identify the distribution and composition of risks to 

harm from change within and between study 

populations. In this context, households within 

communities possess a range of heterogeneous 

Figure 2.1. Vulnerability framework (adapted from Turner et al. 2003 and 

Kofinas et al. 2013).
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

13

capabilities and resource endowments, and 

so logically, different households have different sensitivities and capacities to cope with 

change. Some households are highly vulnerable to specific changes, while others are not.

Measures of Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity or adaptability in an SES 

follows from properties that allow the system or 

individuals to adjust or recover, while retaining 

the same social-ecological state (Walker et al. 

2006; Chapin et al. 2009). This capacity is related 

to factors or processes that enable or constrain 

choices, such as actors’ memory of managing past 

stresses or barriers that may result from inequitable power relations. In their review of adaptive 

and transformative capacity literature, Kofinas et 

al. (2013) identified dimensions of adaptive capacity relevant to arctic social systems, which can be 

considered as assets or endowments available to 

a community or household when responding to 

change. Endowments here are different capabilities 

that households have available to them; for example, specific modes of livelihood diversification, or/

and combinations of social, human, physical, or 

financial capital (Scoones 1998). These dimensions 

of adaptive capacity include, but are not limited to: 

Natural capital – the stock of resources that 

directly or indirectly produce the flow of 

ecosystem services (i.e., benefits to humans, 

derived from ecosystems). For example, 

the diversity of natural capital in a system 

contributes to the resilience of the system; 

a community with a diversity of harvested 

species may be less vulnerable to ecological 

change in its ability to switch harvested species, 

as opposed to a community that is highly 

dependent on a small number of species. 

Social capital – the capacity of individuals to 

access resources and act collectively. Social 

capital follows from the extent to which actors 

are networked within their group and beyond 

to other groups. Subsistence sharing and 

cooperation in harvesting among households 

and beyond, as documented in this study, 

constitute indicators of social capital at the 

community level. 

Human capacity – the human resources and 

competencies of the group, such as skills 

through education, interpersonal skills, 

leadership. For example, the skill level and 

number of hunters represent measures of 

human capital in a household’s acquisition of 

food and cash. 

Infrastructure and equipment – buildings, 

roads, airports, snowmobiles, boats, ATVs 

(a.k.a. all-terrain vehicles or 4x4s) that may 

affect sensitivity to changing conditions. 

In the context of a northern community, 

infrastructure as a source of adaptability would 

include having adequate housing where young 

families can reside or households with storage 

(e.g., freezers or ice cellars) for subsistence 

foods. 

Financial capital – access to financial resources 

(i.e., money) through ownership of property, 

savings, investments, well-financed 

government programs, inheritance. A flow 

of cash from jobs, annual dividend payments 

from the Alaska Permanent Fund and a 

regional and village Native Corporation, and 

social assistance for the needy are important 

resources for weathering hard times or making 

changes to emergent conditions. 

Knowledge assets – availability of information 

for assessing conditions, anticipating future 

changes, and planning. The traditional 

ecological knowledge of northern indigenous 

people, the contributions of science-based 

measurements of ecological and social change, 

and other sources of information are assets 

that can be critical for assessing, planning, 

and responding to emerging conditions. 

Significant conflict in what is perceived 

as known by various stakeholders could 

potentially undermine this asset.

Institutional capital – formal and institutional 

arrangements (rules and policies) that 

guide and shape human decision-making. 

In the northern context institutions include 

the array of policies and institutions that 

guide governance (i.e., the means by which 

society makes decisions; different from the 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 14

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

institutional structures of government). For 

example, institutional capital includes the 

Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission, and local 

and regional rules regarding participation in 

and leadership of bowhead whaling crews. 

Informal institutions are norms and ethics that 

shape human behavior. Informal institutions 

overlap with cultural capital described below. 

Cultural capital – language, worldview, beliefs, 

norms, often constructed through livelihood 

pursuits. Cultural capital includes values and 

behaviors linked to group identity, such as the 

norm that a young caribou hunter shares all of 

his or her first-ever harvest with others or that 

the first moose harvested each fall is shared 

across the village. 

Assessing adaptive capacity is, at best, complex 

and tricky (Berman et al. 2016). Having quality 

infrastructure may insure protection from some 

changes but can come with the need to continue 

maintenance at great financial expense. Welldefined institutional arrangements for management 

of natural resources may provide for security while 

constraining flexibility and responsiveness when 

immediate action is needed. Cultural capital can 

limit consideration of different points of view 

and restrict innovation. Yet, understanding these 

assets provides an indication of how the system 

may respond to shocks or other forms of stress. 

We explored household subsistence sharing and cooperation as sources of resilience, 

considering all households of a community as a 

higher-level adaptive capacity. (See Figure 2.2.) The 

adaptability of households has been the subject 

of many past livelihood studies (e.g., Chambers 

and Conway 1992; Adger 2000a; Defries et al. 

2006), with the household being a particularly 

useful unit of analysis in the study of adaptability 
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

15

because it is the arena where many social choices are made (e.g., the decision to hunt alone or 

cooperatively with others, to share a harvest with 

other households, to move away from the village and live in an urban center, etc.). Each of 

these decisions relates directly to the dimensions 

of adaptive capacity listed above, and therefore 

to questions of vulnerability and resilience. 

Northern subsistence 

Subsistence is defined as the production of 

food (hunting, fishing, gathering, and post-harvest food processing and distribution) undertaken 

without commodification or profit maximization 

(Landgon 1988), having three main functions: i) 

harvesting and processing, ii) distribution, and iii) 

consumption. Production consists of preparation 

for harvesting and the actual hunting, fishing, or 

gathering of wild foods. Processing includes butchering, smoking, canning, and cooking wild foods. 

Distribution of wild foods in subsistence involves 

the division, allocation, and exchange of goods and 

services among individuals (Worl 1980; Magdanz 

et al. 2002). In Alaska the definition of subsistence 

also has legal standing (Caulfield 1992). And as 

articulated by Alaska Natives from their cultural 

perspective, the meaning of subsistence extends 

beyond pounds of meat to include social relations 

of community, cultural identity, and a way of life. 

Past studies show that the production of 

wild food in Alaska villages is commonly organized around extended family groups (Bodenhorn 

2000a, 2000b; Burch 1975; Collings et al. 1998; 

Magdanz et al. 2002) and varies depending on 

local culture, ecology, and economic conditions. 

The actual harvesting of species in subsistence can 

be undertaken by individuals, several members of 

a single household, and/or members of different 

households working cooperatively. Harvesting 

can also be highly organized, such as community 

hunts or with crews requiring membership, recruitment, and long-term commitment, such as in 

Iñupiat bowhead whaling. Time spent processing 

harvested food can exceed the time spent harvesting, and commonly involves contributions of 

labor and goods among community members. 

Subsistence foods have been shared and 

traded with extended family members and others, 

sometimes across considerable distances beyond 

the physical bounds of the village (Damas 1972; 

Kishigami 2004; Spencer 1959; Wenzel et al. 

2000). These acts of sharing and cooperation 

in subsistence have deep traditional roots for 

indigenous peoples, linking contemporary cultural 

identity to earlier times when collective action 

was critical to human survival. Interestingly, 

today arctic peoples report that such cooperative 

subsistence activities are a primary reason 

they remain in remote, rural communities 

(Kruse et al. 2008; Poppel and Kruse 2009).

The rapid changes anticipated for the high 

latitudes, such as greater industrial development and climate change, suggest the need to 

understand more fully the adaptive capacity of 

household cash-subsistence economies in northern communities in the face of future changes. 

Toward a networks understanding of subsistence 

Systems of exchange and reciprocity in 

subsistence have been the subject of economic 

anthropology (Planter 1989), evolutionary theory 

(Henrich and Henrich 2007), and game theory (Axelrod 1984). Research suggests that these 

systems exist particularly among hunter-gatherer 

groups (e.g., Lee 1979). These and other studies have shown that simple economic analyses 

(i.e., viewing subsistence as flows of benefits) 

are incomplete in accounting for the complex 

motivations among those involved. Putting 

questions of motivation for sharing in perspective, Hovelsrud-Broda (2000) commented, 

I will not go further into the debate here 

over why people transfer and share their 

resources... The argument about why

can be better understood if we first know 

what. An understanding of the transaction 

systems and how these are related to socioeconomic structure and social relations will 

eventually lead to answers to the why question. [emphasis original] (2000:194) 

Many past studies have documented subsistence by focusing on the quantity of food harvesting 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 16

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

and consumption, and assessed subsistence needs 

at the community and household levels (see Wolfe 

2004). The findings of these studies provided an 

understanding of the differences in harvesting and 

consumption patterns among communities (i.e., 

urban vs. rural) and how types of households and 

hunters (i.e., super households and super hunters) 

contribute differently to subsistence food production at the community level. In his research in 

Alaska, Wolfe (2004) identified a common 30:70 

ratio (“the 30:70 rule”) where 30 percent of the 

harvesters typically account for 70 percent of the 

total community harvest poundage (Figure 2.3). 

More recently, Magdanz et al. (2002, 2004) and 

others (Collin 2011) have applied social network 

analysis to document and analyze the structure 

of systems of exchange among individuals and 

households in Alaska. The use of social network 

theory has significantly advanced household-level analyses of subsistence production systems by 

providing a better appreciation of household-, 

family- and community-level dimensions of subsistence, the structure of sharing networks, and 

the links between sharing and kinship ties. The 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) 

and the National Park Service (NPS) have also 

examined some of the dietary implications of food 

sharing networks in villages of northwest Alaska. 

Social networks analysis explores explores 

relations among connected entities in a system and 

is an especially useful tool for exploring complex 

adaptive systems. While network analysis can 

incorporate attributes of individual entities, the 

focus is on relations rather than attributes (Watts 

and Strogatz 1998; Granovetter 1973, 1983; Rogers 

2003). Social networks analysis supports theories 

to describe interconnected systems in relational 

terms, such as degrees of connectedness, typologies 

of structure, structural equivalence, community 

identification, and diffusion (Borgatti et al. 2009). 

With roots in mathematical graph theory (Erdös 

Figure 2.3. Wolfe’s “30:70 Rule.”
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

17

and Rényi 1959), contemporary network analysis 

spans disciplines (Butts 2009), and has been applied 

in sociology (Boorman and White 1976), anthropology (Denham and White 2005), epidemiology 

(Goodreau 2006), ecology (Estrada and Bodin 

2008), biology (Dunne et al. 2002), and economics 

(Burt 1992; Jackson 2011; Goerner et al. 2009). 

As with the study of complex adaptive systems, 

network theory seeks to identify fundamental 

properties common to all connected systems. 

Network analysts already have identified and 

quantified common properties of several different types of complex systems, including Watts 

and Strogatz’s (1998) solution to the small-world 

problem. In a small world network, most connections occur between neighboring nodes, but 

a few connections occur between distant nodes, 

creating a network characterized by high clustering but short characteristic path lengths (Watts 

and Strogatz 1998:442). This structure explains 

the “small world problem” described by Milgram 

(1967). Since small worlds were classified by Watts 

and Strogatz, it has become apparent that they are 

ubiquitous, presumably because they provide an 

evolutionary advantage and contribute to resilience.

Regardless of the field, network relations 

can be categorized into four basic types: similarities (e.g., membership), social relations 

(e.g., friendship), interactions (e.g., advice), and 

flows (e.g., resources) (Borgatti et al. 2009:894). 

Between pairs of sources (i.e., givers) and sinks 

(i.e., recipients), some relations may be undirected (e.g., membership on a crew) and some 

may be directed (e.g., leadership). Some relations 

are valued (amounts of flow). It is possible for 

a relation to be several types simultaneously. In 

analysis, for example, an Iñupiat whaling captain’s ties to his crew might be characterized as:

•  Similarity: He was a member of a whaling 

crew. This similarity was neither directed nor 

valued (i.e., he is either a member or not).

•  Interaction: He provided leadership to his 

crew. This interaction was directed from the 

captain to the crew members, but not valued.

•  Flow: He received whale from the crew after 

the hunt. This flow was both directed (from 

the crew to the captain) and valued (in edible 

pounds). 

In analysis, this same whaling captain also could 

be characterized in any one of several modes: 

•  Himself, an individual in the community

•  A household, his household of residence

•  A group, his whaling crew

•  The settlement (i.e., village) where the captain 

resides

•  The social collective defined by the captain’s 

sharing network 

Current computer network software can 

analyze all these types of relations, although some 

procedures are limited to unvalued ties, such as 

those not measured by the flow of wild food in 

pounds. Current network software can analyze 

only one- and two-mode (bipartite) networks. 

Subsistence network data are multi-mode, valued 

flows for complete, naturally bounded networks, 

the most complex kind of network data typically analyzed. In our review of potentially useful 

approaches, we favored approaches with similarly 

complex data. Commenting on the importance 

of flows, Borgatti and Xun (2009) noted: 

In principle, flows are often the most important kinds of tie. But, in practice, flows 

are rarely measured and are instead assumed from interactions or social relations. 

(2009:7).

Subsistence flows have certain qualities that distinguish them from other kinds of relations. Most 

subsistence flows consist of tangible, perishable, 

and unwieldy fresh meat and fish. Path lengths 

(i.e., the number of nodes through which flows 

pass) will therefore tend to be short. Conceptual 

frameworks and analytical tools must fit the data:

To represent an empirical phenomenon as a 

network is a theoretical act. It commits one 

to assumptions about what is interacting, 

the nature of that interaction, and the time 

scale on which that interaction takes place. 

Such assumptions are not “free,” and indeed they can be wrong. Whether studying 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 18

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

protein interactions, sexual networks, or 

computer systems, the appropriate choice 

of representation is key to getting the correct result. (Butts 2009:416)

Because hunter-gatherer societies cooperate 

extensively in harvesting foods and redistribute 

goods widely in their communities of practice, 

the term “network” often appears in studies of 

subsistence food systems (e.g., Gurven et al. 

2001). However, these scholars usually do not 

apply formal network methods. There are a handful of important exceptions, discussed below.

Past research on subsistence and food sharing networks

Working with two indigenous groups in 

Nicaragua, Koster (2011) employed local research 

assistants to complete daily food consumption 

forms from 35 households for a period of 9 to 12 

months. The forms documented types, amounts, 

and sources of the food consumed in the previous 

24 hours. Households (in 2 adjacent communities) 

were located on GPS units, and genealogies were 

collected to at least the grandparental generation. 

A “quadratic assignment procedure” was used to 

test hypotheses in which food sharing patterns 

were the response variables and predictor variables 

included reciprocity, distances between households, and several different kin relationships. “This 

study provided support for multiple evolutionary 

models of food sharing, most notably kin selection 

and reciprocal altruism, while the distribution of 

large game resembles tolerated scrounging more 

than costly signaling” (Koster 2011:411). Koster’s 

study was unusual in several respects. It included extremely detailed longitudinal flow data, 

solid grounding in anthropological theory, and 

rigorous statistical tests of network hypotheses. 

Koster’s work in Nicaragua was informed in part 

by Allen-Arave, Burven, and Hill’s work with the 

Ache in Paraguay (Allen-Arave et al. 2008). There, 

researchers sampled food flows over a 4-month 

period that, in analysis, suggested that contingent reciprocity was the norm among close kin. 

Although they sampled and analyzed food flows, 

they did not use network analysis methods; Koster 

took the method that extra step in Nicaragua.

In northern Canada, Collings (2011) adopted 

a network approach to study food sharing, conducting bi-weekly interviews with 14 Inuit males 

over a 9-month period, asking about hunting effort, 

food exchanges, and income changes. In Alaska, 

Magdanz et al. (2002) added a social network 

module to a standard household harvest survey 

used by ADFG, asking respondents to identify 

who harvested, processed, and distributed certain 

subsistence foods to the respondent household, 

and found highly patterned structures of food 

production and distribution, strongly associated 

with kin relationships. These relations, however, 

were interactions, not valued flows. Subsequently 

ADFG expanded the set of questions in its later 

studies to include sources of equipment, supplies, 

and cash, and found that cash networks were much 

sparser than subsistence food networks in the same 

communities (Magdanz et al. 2011). The inclusion 

of non-subsistence ties in a subsistence system 

was consistent with Stern’s recommendation:

There is a large ethnographic literature 

that documents Inuit exchanges of game 

(Bodenhorn 1989; Collings et al. 1998; 

Condon et al. 1995; Dahl 2000; Damas 

1972; Hovelrud-Broda 2000; Kishigami 

2000; Nuttall 2000; Remie 1984; Wenzel 

1981, 1995, 2000, for example); yet none of 

the authors in the preceding list addresses 

exchanges unrelated to subsistence hunting. This bias in the literature fixing Inuit 

sharing to subsistence activities strikes me 

as an error of omission rather than one of 

commission. (2005:67)

Delineating types of sharing and cooperation

Bodenhorn (2000a, 2000b) argued that many 

of the food-sharing terms commonly used in 

northern subsistence research of Alaska do not 

capture the complexity of food sharing As well, 

several researchers have noted analytically different categories that delineate “sharing.” Woodburn 

(1998) referenced “demand sharing” when a 

harvester expresses their need or right to a share 

and Burch (2006) noted how this type of sharing 

was something done “naturally” among Iñupiat. 

Sahlin’s (1972) classic anthropological study of 
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

19

traditional societies differentiated “general” from 

“balanced reciprocity,” with the former being 

related to long-term reciprocity among members 

of a social group and the latter being more “calculated... where fair exchange is the norm,” and 

the relationship relies on a two-way flow (Planter 

1989:212; Langdon 1986; Galginaitis 2003). 

Bodenhorn (2000a) described “shares” as the 

portion of the harvest provided by those who have 

contributed to the harvest, through loaning of gear, 

helping with processing after the harvest, or giving of funds for the purchase of fuel. Shares in this 

context constitute a rightful portion and generally 

are allocated as a one-time transaction. Bodenhorn 

(ibid.) also noted that in the case of the Iñupiat, the 

hunter does not own the carcass of the animal 

s/he has harvested outright, and a set of rules must 

be followed. Consequently, shares are allocated 

depending on the species. For example, bowhead 

whale (Balaena mysticetus) harvests by far have 

the most complex rules for the division of shares. 

The whaling crew that is the first to strike a whale 

is entitled to the largest share of the whale (Nelson 

1982). The parts of the whale that are divided are 

the meat and maqtaaq (i.e., skin and blubber), the 

baleen, the flippers and tail, and various organs 

such as the heart, intestines, tongue, and kidney 

(Bodenhorn 2000a, 2000b; Luton 1985; Worl 1980). 

Each whaling crew that assisted with the hunt 

and the towing of the whale will receive a share. 

The captain is obligated to make sure each member of his whaling crew receives an equal share, 

as well as people who were not a part of the hunt, 

but who donated material goods or loaned equipment to the crew (Jorgensen 1990). The captain 

is also responsible for the communal sharing of 

the whale during specific times of the year (i.e., 

Nalukataq [the spring whale festival], Thanksgiving, 

and Christmas) and his share must be completely distributed before the next year’s spring hunt 

(Bodenhorn 2000a, 2000b). Less formalized rules 

for sharing other harvested animals have also been 

described. Animals harvested using a boat, such 

as bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), are divided 

equally, with the boat owner receiving a share for 

the use of his boat. When caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are hunted in groups, it is common that all 

hunters receive an equal share of the meat products. 

Ivory and skins from harvested animals go to the 

person who is responsible for the actual harvest 

of that animal (Bodenhorn 2000a, 2000b). Fish 

caught in a net and group harvested are divided 

equally, while fish caught with a rod and reel are 

considered individual property (Bodenhorn 1988). 

Ducks and geese cooperatively hunted are shared 

equally (ibid.). There are differences in sharing 

between communities and there may be flexibility 

in execution, depending on circumstances. As well, 

there is typically no set of rules on how further 

sharing should be done once a share is given.

If one were to look at balanced reciprocity in 

a purely spiritual context within Iñupiat culture, 

sharing traditional foods could also fall within 

the definition of this term. Instead of the reciprocal relationship lying between the provider and 

the recipient of the food, the balance occurs between the animal from which the food originally 

came and the hunter who is sharing (Bodenhorn 

2000a, 2000b; Slobodin 1981). With this framing, 

the animal allows itself to be taken by a hunter, 

who, in turn, shares the animal with others. 

Woodburn (1998) further delineates types 

of sharing with the term “delayed reciprocity,” 

where sharing at one point in time may result 

in receiving at a later time. Giving to an elder by 

a younger person may fall into this category, if 

viewed from the instrumental perspective that 

the younger person would one day be the recipient. The distribution of bowhead whale products 

during Nalukataq, Thanksgiving, and Christmas by 

whaling captains to the community at large could 

also fall into the sphere of delayed reciprocity.

Analytical categories used in this study

As our starting point, we drew on academic 

literature, agency reports, and emic (i.e., locally 

constructed) descriptions as provided by exploratory interviews with key informants and our 

Local Project Advisory Committees. Through that 

process we developed a richer understanding of 

sharing and cooperation in subsistence and generated quantitative measures of wild food flows 

and social relations that reflect actual practice. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 20

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

We arrived at categories that served as the basis 

for documenting patterns of sharing relations 

and measuring the magnitude of flows associated with them. Figure 2.4 illustrates the basic 

types of relations examined by this study. The 

list below elaborates on that list to capture nuanced differences in sharing and cooperation. 

Own Household Harvests: Harvesting by 

members from a single household. It is 

noteworthy that harvesting by members of a 

single household can involve cooperation and 

sharing of gear owned among the household 

members. 

Shares: A share of a harvest constitutes an 

understanding that one will receive some 

portion of the harvest in exchange for some 

type of contribution. Shares can result from 

participating in a cooperative hunt (i.e., 

members of two or more households hunting, 

fishing, or gathering together), the loaning of 

equipment for harvesting, contributions of 

money for gas or equipment to be used in a 

hunt, contributions of labor (e.g., processing 

of meat, such as cutting up fish) and giving to 

a feast with the expectation that the wild food 

will be used as part of the community meal 

(i.e., redistribution). 

Cooperative Harvest Relations represent all 

meat and fish (or berries in the case of Venetie) 

in pounds over 12 months that came into each 

household based on household members going 

out to hunt, fish, and gather with individuals 

from other households. Households thus 

Figure 2.4. Analytical categories for sharing, core species used as the subject of this study, and complexity of 

respective social relationships.
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

21

reported the share of the harvested resource 

they received based on successful outings 

with unique groups of individuals from other 

households. 

Captain-Crew Relations: Upon successful 

landing of a whale, the whale is divided into a 

series of shares based on roles that individuals 

fulfill within both the successful whaling 

crew (e.g., captain’s shares, towing shares, 

crew shares) and members of other active 

whaling crews who helped tow the whale 

to shore and/or cut up the whale on land 

(additional crew shares). This type of relation 

therefore represents the pounds flowing into 

households from captain, towing, or crew 

shares aggregated across all landed whales 

over the 12-month study period. Captain and 

towing shares in Kaktovik are significantly 

underrepresented in this study’s dataset 

because 2 of 4 successful captains of the year 

declined to be interviewed. 

Helper and Community Shares related to 

Beluga and Bowhead: “Helper shares” and 

community shares in this study are part 

of hunting of beluga in Wainwright and 

Wainwright’s third whale (taken in fall 2009). 

“Helper shares” refers to shares of food received 

by households stemming not from active 

engagement in hunting, fishing, or gathering 

activities, but a contribution made to the 

hunting of others. For example, households 

reported that they contributed labor, gas, 

equipment, groceries, ammunition, cash, 

cooking, etc. to people from other households, 

and then in return received a share in pounds 

of the harvest when it was successful. This 

relationship is by definition reciprocal. In the 

context of bowhead whaling, households also 

contribute significant resources to whaling 

crews. 

A second type of share is associated with 

beluga and bowhead hunting. After the 

communal hunt of beluga in Wainwright, 

households receive household shares, as all 

village households are entitled to a share 

from the communal hunt. Most beluga in this 

village flowed to households through this type 

of relationship. In contrast, in Kaktovik most 

meat from beluga hunts flowed to households 

based on sharing and cooperative harvest 

shares. Household shares additionally apply 

to bowhead whaling in another context. 

The third whale taken by Wainwright in the 

autumn of 2009 was the first fall whale ever 

taken by the village. When harvesting that 

whale the community decided that instead 

of dividing the whale according to captain 

and crew shares, the entire whale would be 

divided into household shares. All Wainwright 

households thus received household shares of 

bowhead. All these types of share relations 

described above represent total flow of food in 

pounds from shares flowing into households 

over the 12-month study period.

Feast Relations: Feast relations include shares 

of bowhead that households received at two 

types of feasts in Kaktovik and Wainwright. 

Immediately after a whale is fully cut up and 

divided to captains, crew members, and those 

who helped the crews, the successful captain 

and his whaling crew throw a “captain’s feast” 

at the whaling captain’s home (Galginaitis 

2014). Everyone in the village is invited. 

Community members eat together and also 

take home small amounts of the whale. The 

second feast is the Nalukataq, which takes 

place every year in the spring in each whaling 

village. These events can vary from village to 

village. Kaktovik has a combined communal 

feast to which all successful captains from 

the previous year contribute. Wainwright 

whaling crews hold individual Nalukataq, 

which are hosted by the individual crews who 

were successful the previous year. In both 

villages, all community members are invited 

to the feasts. Individuals eat together and 

most households also bring coolers that they 

fill with individual shares of bowhead to take 

home. Most people go home with coolers filled 

with bowhead meat and maqtaaq as well as a 

wide diversity of other food. Feasting shares 

thus represent the total flow of food in pounds 

from these two kinds of feast flowing into 

households over the 12-month study period. 

The data of this study did not include feast 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 22

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

shares from either Thanksgiving or Christmas, 

which are other times when whaling captains 

also provide significant amounts of whale to 

the communities. Thus, feast shares reported 

in this study significantly underestimate the 

amount of food flowing to households from 

commensal feasts on an annual basis. In this 

dataset, crews in Wainwright and Kaktovik are 

represented as the source of feasting shares to 

households. 

Lending Relations: The lending and repair of 

equipment that occurred between households 

is another type of contribution and social 

relation in harvesting. Similar to processing 

ties described above, the magnitudes 

associated with these ties reflect that loaning 

or repair occurred between households, but 

do not reflect the number of times that a given 

piece of equipment was repaired or loaned 

between households. Additional relations 

included in this category are the reciprocal 

side of the helper shares described above. The 

aggregated contributions of gas, equipment, 

cash, labor, ammunition, and groceries are 

represented as the number of different kinds 

of contributions made by households across 

all resource types. The magnitudes associated 

with these relations thus reflect aggregated 

types of ties across resources over the 12-

month study period, not the number of times 

each household made a contribution.

Processing Relations: This relationship describes contributions of labor provided by 

individuals from one household to another 

household across all resources. For example, 

people variously reported that they helped 

others cut, skin, clean, carry, and store meat, 

fish, and berries. The magnitude of the ties 

reflected in this type of relationship represents 

that individuals contributed processing labor 

to another household for particular resources 

(e.g., an individual contributing labor to Dolly 

varden fishing and caribou hunting would be 

a magnitude of 2). The magnitudes associated 

with ties for this relation do not reflect the 

number of times households contributed their 

labor per resource. 

Purchasing and bartering relations: Finally, 

there are buying and bartering relations. This 

category is distinct from the category of shares 

in that it involves a level of commodification in 

which the actor uses money to purchase wild 

food, as opposed to contributing a priori to the 

harvesting and the ex post production effort. 

For example, if contributing to a caribou hunt 

by giving money for gas and the hunt were 

unsuccessful, there would be no expectation 

of return whereas exchanging a caribou for 

money would have that expectation. 

Information sharing is another type of exchange that is part of the system. In this study 

no effort was made to document information 

sharing. This omission was made not because 

information isn’t important, but because an effort 

was made to lessen the burden on respondents 

and do a thorough job with the material and 

labor dimensions of sharing and cooperation. 

It is important to note that most of the 

relations described above are not confined to 

transactions among those living in a single village. 

As reported in the findings of this study, many 

relations of subsistence extend to individuals and 

households elsewhere. A family in Anchorage 

may send a contribution of money to a hunter in 

Kaktovik and in turn, receive a share of caribou 

meat that is shipped back to Anchorage. A villager 

may lodge and eat with a family in another village, 

and that visitor may later gift the host household 

several salmon that were harvested in the village. 

The social networks of subsistence can be extensive 

and are not necessarily restricted by geography, and 

instead are determined by human relationships. 

Magnitude of flows

At the recommendation of Dr. Dee Williams 

of BOEM, this study included a measure of the 

magnitude of flows in sharing. In this respect, 

the study was unique, including those measures 

derived from cooperative activities in the production of wild foods. Documenting such flows 

may seem difficult, but it can be done. Focusing 

on flows of subsistence goods and services among 

community members has considerable potential, 
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation and Framework

23

first for understanding the system itself, second for 

identifying vulnerabilities in the system, third for 

evaluating the adaptive capacity of the system when 

subjected to social or ecological shocks, and finally, 

for characterizing the resilience of arctic communities over time. A materialistic focus on flows is not 

meant to disregard the qualitative literature on social structures in northern communities. Nor does 

it imply that one can describe a community simply 

by measuring flows of goods and services. However, 

documenting actual flows provides opportunities 

for testing hypotheses about and evaluating changes 

in community functioning that are not available to 

qualitative researchers. Development and application of this method is a unique contribution of this 

research. The method section that follows includes 

a table used to calculate pounds from quantity of 

wild foods reported as received by a household. 

Questions of Persistence, Vulnerability 

and Resilience of Mixed Village 

Economies

The persistence, vulnerability, and resilience 

of community subsistence in villages have long 

been in question by policy makers and academic 

researchers alike. With rapid change occurring 

in the high latitudes, these concerns are critical 

today (ACIA 2005; Chapin et al. 2006; Kofinas et 

al. 2013; ARIR 2013). The study of change and its 

impacts on rural northern communities is typically 

underpinned with strong assumptions about the 

nature of change, the robustness of local SES in 

the face of these changes, and the capacity of local 

social systems to respond in ways that retain their 

fundamental structure, function and identity. 

In their classic paper “Tappers and Trappers,” 

Murphy and Steward (1956:336) observed, “the 

process of gradual shift from a subsistence economy 

to dependence on trade is evidently irreversible, 

provided access to trade goods is maintained.” 

This shift typifies theoretical assumptions of the 

1960s that dynamics of market capitalism, once 

established, inevitably propel subsistence societies 

toward an economy based on market exchange. 

By the early 1980s, however, arctic anthropologists 

were speaking in convincing terms about the 

emergence of a vibrant “mixed economy” in 

indigenous communities (Jenness 1962; Hughes 

1965; Langdon and Worl 1981; Lonner 1986; Wolfe 

and Walker 1987). While individuals were indeed 

working more jobs for cash (Jorgensen 1990), the 

“inevitable” transition away from engagement in 

subsistence was not developing as expected. Instead, 

the emergent mixed economy was described as 

“stable” and “persistent” (Kruse 1991; Langdon 

and Worl 1981; Usher 1981). This persistence can, 

at some levels, be considered a form of human 

agency by Alaska Natives—a conscious effort to 

maintain subsistence activities as part of their local 

economy. Household-level data showed positive 

correlations between hunting engagement and 

wage income, as households invested cash back into 

subsistence and better equipment (Chabot 2003; 

Kruse and Foster 1986). However, at the village 

level, employment income and subsistence were 

negatively correlated, associated in some areas with 

increasing connectivity to road networks (Kerkvliet 

and Nabesky 1997; Wolfe et al. 1984). Thus, even 

while the emergent mixed economy was described 

as robust or resilient, the question of an eventual 

transition to a market economy remained open. 

VanStone (1960) hypothesized that the mixed 

economy would remain vibrant until material 

expectations outstripped the ability of subsistence 

to provide them, and Nelson (1969) wondered if 

greater employment would translate into declining 

cultural interest in subsistence as a way of life. 

More than three decades later, questions 

remain about the extent to which the mixed 

economy in rural Alaska persists, with new 

questions about how social and ecological 

changes may affect those systems. Today oil 

and gas development in northern Alaska may 

have single, additive, and cumulative effects on 

the social-ecological systems of which Iñupiat 

communities are a part (National Research Council 

2003). These effects may include changes in: 

•  ecosystem services that are of high value to 

communities, such as the abundance and 

distribution of important wildlife resources 

and/or people’s access to those resources, 

•  the cash economic inputs to communities, 

such as changes in employment and/or 

transfer payments, 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 24

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

•  the patterns of subsistence and nonsubsistence resource sharing, which may 

affect resource consumption, diet, and health 

of individuals,

•  the quantity and quality of time available for 

on-the-land activities, 

•  the transmission of cultural traditions, 

•  and people’s sense of wellbeing. 

Rate of change is an additional variable to 

be considered in assessing these effects as well 

as the capacity of communities to respond in 

ways that support current and future community needs and goals. Although past research has 

sought to assess aspects of these effects (e.g., Kruse 

1992; Braund et al. 1988; Braund et al. 1989a–c; 

Braund et al. 1993; Jorgenson 1995; Barnhart et 

al. 1995a–f; Fall et al. 2000; Haley 2003; Kruse 

et al. 2004), the methods for assessing vulnerability of local communities to the impacts of 

oil and gas development are underdeveloped. 

To what extent will ecological and economic 

changes affect future subsistence activities? How, 

if at all, will networks of sharing and cooperation 

among community households help buffer 

communities in the face of changes? To what extent 

will there be disproportionality in the distribution 

of negative effects, should they occur? This study’s 

examination of the persistence, vulnerability, and 

resilience of mixed village economies, considered 

in light of the project’s findings, are limited 

and should be viewed as exploratory, because 

detailed household data were collected for only 

a one-year period. Yet the findings do provide 

insights about persistence, vulnerability, and 

resilience. To undertake this part of the analysis 

we documented households’ reported proportion 

of those households consuming subsistence foods. 

Second, we evaluated households’ food security 

as reported by heads of households. Third, we 

drew on secondary data collected by the North 

Slope Borough to assess changes in participation 

in subsistence through time. Next, we examined 

the proportions of households with different 

combinations of income and harvest levels, and 

the extent to which they redistributed food to 

other households. Finally, we considered the 

implications of economic and ecological change 

to explore the possible effects of such changes 

on the current subsistence-cash system. 

To summarize, we used a transdisciplinary 

approach by drawing on multiple literatures and 

using mixed methods for data collection and 

analysis. Theoretical understanding of social-ecological resilience was matched with empirically 

based studies of Alaska community subsistence 

to create a powerful framework of analysis in 

the study. The description above provides the 

elements of that framework. The chapter that 

follows describes our methods for research. 

¤
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

25

Chapter 3 - Methods

Sea, because coastal villages were the most likely 

to be affected by offshore oil and gas development and because baseline data for those villages 

was therefore needed. In addition to two coastal 

communities, we invited a third to participate 

that would provide contrasting conditions and 

inform our analysis of vulnerability. Because this 

community was not likely to be affected by offshore oil and gas, it served as our “control.” 

Several communities were considered. 

Ultimately Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie 

received invitations to participate. Wainwright 

was invited because of its proximity to proposed 

Chukchi Sea oil and gas exploration. Kaktovik 

was invited because of its proximity to current 

and proposed offshore exploration activities and 

on-shore exploration interests in the Beaufort Sea, 

and because the project’s Principal Investigator 

(PI), Gary Kofinas, had a former professional 

relationship with the community. Venetie, the 

third community, was invited because its contrasting conditions as an interior Alaska Gwich’in 

Athabascan village would be theoretically interesting and because the project PI had a former 

professional relationship with the community. 

Each of the 3 communities was formally 

invited to participate in the study through written 

communications and a series of follow-up presentations to the public and community leaders. Each 

community’s tribal council passed a formal resolution approving participation in the study. Village 

tribal organizations served as the lead local contacts 

in the study and as subcontractors for services 

such as local hiring and rental of meeting facilities. 

The North Slope Borough Wildlife Management 

Department and the Council of Athabascan Tribal 

Governments, two regional organizations, were 

This study was funded by BOEM on January 2, 2007, with 

research activities intensifying in May 2008 after 

postdoctoral researcher Dr. Shauna BurnSilver joined 

the project team. We used a collaborative research 

approach with participating communities and 

mixed methods for data collection and analysis 

(Bernard 1988). These mixed methods included 

discussion groups for preliminary research and 

survey research as the primary data collection 

method. Some ethnographic studies were also 

included. Because we sought to document social 

networks of sharing and cooperation in villages, we 

needed at least 80% of each community universe of 

households to be interviewed to generate sufficient 

data to represent those systems. Households were 

the study’s primary unit of analysis, compiled to 

represent the community systems. We concurrently 

sought to make the study meaningful and beneficial 

to local residents, agency resource managers, 

and policy makers. Meeting these challenges 

required sufficient time to build relations of 

trust with community partners and develop a 

complete understanding of the study context in 

order to acquire good quality information. 

Below we describe the methods by which we 

selected communities, our approach and philosophy of working with communities, preliminary 

investigations that laid the groundwork for survey 

research, and the administration of research. We 

also describe the process of analyzing data, the 

data management plan, and our process used for 

reviewing findings and generating final products. 

Selection of Communities

Our directive from BOEM was to include 

two coastal communities of North Slope Alaska, 

one from the Beaufort and one from the Chukchi 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 26

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

also contacted and informed about the project. 

The North Slope Borough Wildlife Management 

Department was particularly supportive in introducing the project’s researchers to the community 

of Wainwright and endorsing the study in Kaktovik.

Community Partnerships

Strong researcher-community collaboration 

results in better research results and enhanced 

community benefits. Therefore, an effort was made 

to cultivate meaningful partnerships with each 

participating community. To achieve that objective, 

considerable resources were allocated to spend 

time in each community, with project researchers 

visiting each community at least 4 times (12–16 

days each time) before administering the survey.

Under the direction of tribal councils and 

other local leaders, a Local Project Advisory 

Committee (LPAC) of 4 to 7 members was 

formed for each community. (See Table 3.1 for 

LPAC membership.) The LPACs met regularly with researchers, advising on the project’s 

design, which variables to include in the framework, the wording of interview questions, the 

selection of local interviewers, and general communications about the project’s objectives to 

the village. The LPACs proved to be invaluable 

in informing the study with local knowledge. 

After researchers heard concerns from several Kaktovik residents about their willingness 

to participate in a project funded by BOEM, the 

Kaktovik LPAC recommended that a video be 

produced describing the project’s objectives and 

benefits, with a copy distributed to each household. The video articulated the goals and rationale 

for the study, and included an explanation of 

social network analysis and statements of support from local and regional leaders about the 

importance of documenting subsistence ways of 

life. Because it was agreed that the video would 

be only used for communication with community members, it is not included with this report. 

In 2011 the project received the 

Secretary of Interior’s “Partnership in 

Conservation Award” for its collaborative research efforts with local communities. 

Preliminary Background Research

Background research was undertaken in 

several phases. First, a literature review on the 3 

communities, subsistence-cash mixed economies, 

wild foods sharing, and social network analysis 

was completed. Second, we established and met 

with LPACs over the course of a year where researchers had discussions about the project’s goals, 

design, methods, and communications with the 

village. Each LPAC also provided perspectives on 

current and past patterns of subsistence sharing, 

changes in subsistence activities, and the norms, 

practices observed by the community in the 

exchange of wild foods and in cooperative harvesting. These discussions with the LPACs were 

supplemented with informational discussions 

with local key informants. We worked with LPACs 

to construct historical timelines of community 

change for each of the communities that reflected critical points of transition in village life. We 

Table 3.1. Local Project Advisory Committees.

Kaktovik

Nora Jane Burns

Carla Sims Kayotuk

Fenton Rexford

Flora Rexford

Wainwright

Joe Ahmaogak

Lizzie-Marie Bodfish

John Hopson, Jr.

Lucille Mayer

Rex Nashookpuk

Ida Panik

Rossman Peetok

Ira Ungudruk

Venetie

Ernest Erick

Eddie Frank

Gareth Frank 

Mary Rose Gamboa

Patrick Simple
Chapter 3 - Methods

27

also compared the analytical constructs appearing 

in the literature on northern subsistence sharing with in vivo subsistence activities and local 

vernacular, and soon discovered significant inconsistencies. (See Chapter 2 in section “Analytical 

Categories Used in This Study.”) We used these 

discussions to inform our community interactions 

and when formulating the survey instrument.

Another phase of our preliminary research 

involved the graduate research project of Marcy 

Okada. Okada’s study included fieldwork and 

interviews in North Slope villages, including 

Wainwright, Barrow, and Kaktovik, and was undertaken as a summer internship with the North Slope 

Borough Wildlife Department. Her work culminated with the master’s thesis, “The Comparison 

of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 

for Measuring Traditional Food Sharing in 

Communities of the North Slope, Alaska” (Okada 

2010). Okada’s findings provided important information on residents’ rationale for sharing 

subsistence foods and a quantitative (cluster) analysis of the household types and household levels 

of sharing and harvesting, based on data from the 

Alaska section of the Survey of Living Conditions 

in the Arctic (SLICA). A summary of her interview findings is included in Chapter 4 of this 

report. University of Alaska Anchorage Professor 

Emeritus Jack Kruse provided Okada access to 

SLICA data and excellent guidance in her analysis. 

Previous comprehensive surveys by the ADFG 

Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence 

Information System found that Kaktovik and 

Wainwright harvested at least 60 different species 

in the study years. Because collecting quantitative 

network data for every species that came to each 

household from every source through every type of 

relationship would have been virtually impossible to 

complete in a reasonable amount of time, our study 

focused on social networks for “core subsistence 

resources” for each community. These included 7 

species each for Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie 

(Table 3.2). The process of selecting core species 

included reviewing available harvest data from 

published reports to assess which species were harvested in the greatest quantity and which provided 

the greatest total pounds of meats. We also worked 

with LPACs to identify which harvested species 

were perceived as the most culturally important and 

selected the representative set of species for a range 

of resource types (i.e., marine mammals, terrestrial 

mammals, waterfowl, fish, and berries.). After the 

researchers’ initial selections of core species, the 

lists went to each LPAC for review and verification. 

The survey instrument

The ADFG Division of Subsistence and the 

National Park Service had previously conducted 

research on country food production systems and 

subsistence sharing, and through those studies 

developed several generations of questionnaires. 

We initiated development of our survey instrument by first working from the questionnaires on 

harvesting and subsistence resource sharing used 

by the Division of Subsistence. The survey instrument collected information about permanent 

household residents, amounts of wild food harvested, flows of core species between households 

Table 3.2. Core species. 

Wainwright Kaktovik Venetie

Bowhead Bowhead Moose

Beluga Beluga Caribou

Bearded Seal Bearded Seal Salmon

Smelt Dolly Varden (Arctic Char) Grayling

Caribou Caribou Geese

Geese Dall Sheep Ducks

Ducks Geese Berries
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 28

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

based on a set of social relationships, wages earned, 

and other income received by household members. A demographic section asked about gender, 

kin relationships, age, birthplace, and ethnicity 

of each household member. Harvest sections for 

each major category subsistence resource asked 

what species were hunted, taken (excluding the 

previously identified core species), used, and how 

much the household members harvested. These 

species are referred to as “non-core species” in 

this report. An employment section asked about 

each job held by each member of the household, 

and for each job: the months employed, the schedule worked, and the amount earned in the study 

year. Respondents estimated household income 

from non-employment sources such as the Alaska 

Permanent Fund dividend, Social Security, and 

public assistance programs. The survey also asked 

food security protocol of the respondents. Project 

survey instruments are found in Appendix I. 

Basing the survey instrument on the ADFG’s 

standard questionnaire and format made our 

research findings consistent and comparable with 

other harvest studies conducted by that agency. 

As noted above, all in-depth questions on social 

networks of subsistence resource sharing and 

cooperative hunting were focused primarily on 

core species and what households received from 

other households. At the request of the LCAPs, 

one section was included to capture giving (outflows from households) at a more general and 

lower resolution. This section proved important 

in documenting networks of sharing that extended to people beyond the immediate study 

community. We modified the most current ADFG 

instrument to reflect the objectives of this study, 

but added and/or modified variables on household cash inputs (income / outputs / expenses); 

ethnicity and duration of residence; and measures of the magnitude of flows (e.g., pounds) in 

wild food exchanges to households (households). 

Using the modified survey instrument, this research made several unique contributions: First, 

the instrument collected individual, quantitative 

reports of flows of subsistence foods among households. To our knowledge, no previous study has 

employed social network methods to systematically collect quantitative wild food flow data for 

multiple communities over a one-year period.

As already noted, the instrument used anthropologically and locally informed analytical 

categories, capturing the distinction between: i) 

harvest by members of the respondent household 

only; ii) cooperative harvesting involving members 

of the respondent household and at least one member of another household and receiving “shares” 

of harvested food; iii) households contributing to 

the hunting efforts of other households through 

the contribution of, for example, equipment, cash, 

labor, or gas, and subsequently receiving “shares” 

of any successful harvest; iv) sharing (i.e., gifting) 

of subsistence foods with another household, a 

whaling crew, or a feast; and v) barter and trade exchanges involving members of another household. 

Sources and recipients of goods, services, 

and wild foods were not limited to residents of 

the study communities; respondents could (and 

did) name sources anywhere in the world. As was 

undertaken in previous ADFG research (Magdanz 

et al. 2002, Magdanz et al. 2004, Magdanz et 

al. 2011), the study also documented relationship ties in addition to subsistence foods, such 

as exchanges involving labor, equipment, and 

cash. The survey did not ask about kinship relationships beyond the immediate household. 

The food security protocol used in these 

surveys was a modified version of the 12-month, 

food-security scale questionnaire developed 

by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

(Bickel et al., 2000). This questionnaire is administered nationwide each year as part of the Current 

Population Survey. Although there have been 

efforts to develop a universal food security measurement protocol (Swindale and Bilinsky 2006), 

researchers often modify the protocol slightly to 

respond to community social, cultural, and economic circumstances. For example, as in Brazil 

(Peréz-Escamilla et al., 2004:1928), the USDA 

term “balanced meals” was difficult to interpret for 

Alaska Native populations, and in these surveys the 

term “healthy meals” replaced “balanced meals” to 

reflect unique dietary and cultural circumstances 

in rural Alaska. There were several sub-questions 

added to determine whether food insecurities, if 

any, related to subsistence foods or store-bought 

foods. Food security questions were also focused 

on actual consumption and availability of food, 
Chapter 3 - Methods

29

rather than the mere perception of security and 

insecurity (e.g., “Did you go without meals?”). 

(See research instruments in Appendix I.)

While the full survey primarily generated 

quantitative measures of people’s past behavior, 

the final section of the questionnaire asked a series 

of open-ended questions to capture respondents’ 

qualitative perceptions on the behavior of the sharing system and changes that may have occurred. 

The survey instrument collected information about multiple types of social relations and 

types of nodes (i.e., connecting points in flow 

of resources), sometimes in a response to a single question. For example, a single report of the 

whaling captain’s share from a whale hunt could 

support an analysis in any combination of the 

types and nodes above. In structuring the dataset, it was important to maintain the ability to 

analyze the network data from all possible perspectives, yet to be efficient and avoid duplication. 

The household was defined as the basic 

unit of analysis, with the understanding that 

findings would also allow for analysis scaling 

down to individuals and up to the community 

level. In-flows to households were the primary 

measure for harvest and network questions. 

Pretesting and modifying the instrument

Pretesting of the research instrument with 

2 residents in Kaktovik (one active hunter and 

one whaling captain) and 4 residents of Venetie 

(3 active hunters and one inactive hunter) proved 

essential. Modifications to survey questions 

were then based on the quality of responses and 

feedback from these respondents, with additional input from key informants (e.g., whaling 

captains) and LPACs. Because this research 

was the first to document detailed quantitative 

flows of bowhead whales among the Iñupiat, 

including the Nalukataq (spring community whaling feast) and contributions to whaling 

crews, we had to test and modify some sections of the research instrument several times 

in consultation with whaling crews and captains before arriving at a workable approach. 

Human Subjects Review and Research Ethics

As required by the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, the study’s protocol for research received 

an approval after review from the UAF Office of 

Research Integrity (IRB). The IRB requires that anonymity of research subjects be adequately protected 

and subjects not be exposed to significant risks 

from participation. All UAF personnel involved in 

interviewing completed the IAB’s Human Subjects 

Training. The US Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) also reviewed and approved the survey 

instrument (OMB Control Number - 1010-0184). 

Administration of survey instrument

We worked with each local tribal organization to solicit applications from local residents to 

work as members of our interviewing team. The 

University of Alaska Fairbanks hired/contracted 

6 to 7 integral individuals in each community to 

assist with the administration of the instrument. 

An equal number of graduate students from 

UAF volunteered to serve the project as interviewers (Table 3.3 and Images 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).

The interview schedules for each community 

avoided conflicts with subsistence activities and 

feasts. Interviews occurred in October 2010 in 

Venetie, November 2010 in Wainwright, and May 

2011 in Kaktovik. Prior to doing interviews, we 

conducted a one-and-a-half day training program 

with local hires and graduate students in each 

community, instructed by the project’s lead investigators (BurnSilver, Magdanz, and Kofinas). 

Training provided an overview on the objectives 

of the project, instruction in interviewing, recordkeeping, and trial-run practice interviews. 

Graduate students and local hires teamed 

in pairs conducted the interviews. Using household lists compiled and reviewed by LAPCs 

and tribal entities beforehand, interview teams 

made appointments for interviews with household heads. No unannounced knocking on 

doors requesting interviews occurred.

To construct a list of households and their 

members for the entire community, we worked 

with local organizations that provided basic 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 30

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

housing and household information, conferred 

with key respondents to refine the list for better 

accuracy, and continued to revise the list as information became available during the interviewing 

process. Respondents were limited to the head or 

heads of households (i.e., husband and wife), who 

provided all information about their household. 

Head or heads of households were self-selected in 

the interview setup process. In some cases other 

household members were present at the time of 

interviews and contributed to the interview process. 

Each household head participating in an 

interview was paid $50 for the first half hour, 

and $25 per fifteen minutes thereafter, at a maximum of $100 paid, except for whaling captains. 

Because whaling crew captains asked to spend 

considerably more time providing detailed information because of their role, crew, and the 

Nalukataq, their interviews were considerably 

longer and they received $200 for their time. 

All completed interview forms were turned 

in at the end of each day and reviewed by the 

project’s interview “crew chief ” for information gaps or illegible or ambiguous records. 

As needed, interview forms were returned to 

interviewers for clarification, which in some 

cases required communication with the respondent again to obtain missing information. 

Data Limitations

The survey collected information on subsistence activities during a single year. This assumed 

that the year selected was representative. This 

usually cannot be determined before a survey’s 

implementation, but could be assessed during 

analysis by comparing the current results with past 

harvest data results, when available, and assessed 

through ethnographic interviews conducted as part 

of this project. Some variation in harvests among 

species and incomes among different industries 

from year to year was expected. This approach 

also assumed that respondents could remember 

their important activities during the previous year. 

To minimize recall problems, surveys targeted 

household heads on the assumption that household heads were most likely to be aware of all 

household members’ activities. Respondent recall 

bias was not expected to change significantly over 

time or from community to community. It was not 

expected to affect comparisons of data from this 

study with other studies employing similar methods. Some respondents were unable to remember 

specific quantities of subsistence foods harvested, 

shared, or otherwise obtained by members of their 

households. Some respondents were reluctant to 

provide information about personal or household 

incomes, especially earned income. Some locally hired community researchers were personally 

reluctant to ask respondents about income. As a 

consequence, some income and employment data 

were missing. To provide more accurate community estimates for total harvests and incomes, mean 

data replaced missing data, as explained below.

Bowhead whales are redistributed to community households in multiple ways. Bodenhorn 

(2000a, 2000b) and Kishigami (2013) describe 

redistribution as proceeding based on both formalized sharing rules and informal mechanisms. 

Commensal feasts are an example of formally structured sharing rules. There are 4 feasts in Wainwright 

and Kaktovik at which bowhead are distributed 

(captain’s feasts, Nalukataq, Thanksgiving, and 

Christmas). Beluga also may be shared during 

Thanksgiving and Christmas feasts, but this only 

occurs if individuals bring it to share. We did not 

collect data on Thanksgiving or Christmas feasts. In 

group conversations prior to survey design we were 

told that while all those attending Thanksgiving 

and Christmas feasts receive bowhead, the amounts 

are small—“everyone who attends receives a taste” 

was the description, and most households attend. 

Given the already long length of the survey instrument, we decided to limit the bowhead questions 

to captain’s feasts and Nalukataq and the other 

social relationships linked with bowhead whaling in 

each community (crew membership, towing cooperation, helper shares, etc.). Kishigami describes 

that in Barrow, the uati (lower back section) and 

aqikaak (tail flukes) portions of a landed bowhead 

whale are saved by successful captains and then 

served at Nalukataq (50%) Christmas (25%) and 

Thanksgiving (25%). We did, however, report household-level bowhead (meat and maqtaaq) received 

from Nalukataq and captain’s feasts, and provide an 

estimate for the additional amounts that would have 
Chapter 3 - Methods

31

Table 3.3. Interviewers (with residence or affiliation at 

time of interviews)

Kaktovik Interviewer Crew Members

Darren Kayotuk (Kaktovik)

Carla Sims Kayotuk (Kaktovik)

Marie Rexford (Kaktovik)

Torie Sims (Kaktovik)

Annie Tagarook (Kaktovik)

Raymond Aguvluk (Wainwright)

Bonnie Spencer (Wainwright)

Naomi O’Neal (UAF)

Leigh Coppola (UAA)

Irmelin Gram-Hanssen (UAF)

Irina Ikatova (UAA)

Gary Kofinas (UAF)

Shauna BurnSilver (UAF)

Wainwright Interview Crew Members

Raymond Aguvluk (Wainwright)

Lizzie-Marie Bodfish (Wainwright)

Joyce Captain (Wainwright)

Chuck Ekak (Wainwright)

Ronnie Kimoktuak (Wainwright)

Ida Panik (Wainwright)

Bonnie Spencer (Wainwright)

Danielle Bennett Redmond (UAF)

Irmelin Gram-Hanssen (UAF)

Martin Robards (UAF)

Eleanor Wirts (UAF)

Gary Kofinas (UAF)

Shauna BurnSilver (UAF)

Jim Magdanz (ADFG)

Image 3.1. Venetie interview crew.

Image 3.2. Wainwright interview crew: Practicing the 

interview by members of the crew. 

Venetie Interviewer Crew Members

Jesse Charlie (Venetie)

Dennis Erick (Venetie)

Earl Erick Jr. (Venetie)

Roy Henry (Venetie)

Julian Roberts (Venetie)

Larry and Maggie X (Venetie)

Katie Moerlein (UAF)

Catherine Chambers (UAF)

Colette de Roo (UAF)

Winslow Hansen (UAF)

Gary Kofinas (UAF)

Jim Magdanz (ADFG)

Shauna BurnSilver (UAF)

been shared in subsequent feasts based on figures 

presented in Kishigami for Barrow feasts (2013). 

Standardization in data collection procedures 

was important because many different people 

gathered data. One or more principal investigators 

were present throughout the administration of the 

surveys and administered a number of surveys 

themselves. Standardization and quality control 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 32

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

were accomplished through an initial orientation 

process, daily review of completed surveys, and 

a post-administration review of all surveys. 

Data analysis and management

Quantitative data were entered into the 

Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 

version 19) at UAF under the supervision of lead 

investigators, in some cases following templates 

provided by ADFG for social network analysis and 

in other cases creating new templates. Raw data of 

different types (demographic, employment, harvest, network ties, food security, etc.) were entered 

into separate data files, and each community’s 

raw data were stored in separate files. Qualitative 

data on perceptions of sharing were transcribed in 

full, and analyzed with open coding using Atlas.ti 

software (version 6). Once quantitative data were 

entered into SPSS, files were reviewed by the lead 

investigators for accuracy and consistency among 

communities. Apparent errors were resolved by 

checking copies of the original survey instruments and corrected, if necessary, in the raw files. 

Using SPSS syntax, raw files of the same type were 

combined, creating one set of data files for demographic, economic, harvest, network ties, food 

security, etc. for the project. Other than correcting 

data entry errors, the raw files were not altered 

in subsequent analyses. Mergers and transformations of the raw files were accomplished with SPPS 

syntax to facilitate correction of errors discovered 

later in analysis, and to facilitate replication.

Harvest amounts and amounts received 

by households were reported in a variety of 

units: numbers of individual fish or wildlife harvested, gallons harvested (for berries), pounds 

received, boxes, coolers, bags, gunny sacks, 

etc. Standard conversion factors for individual species to pounds, gallons to pounds, and 

unorthodox units to edible pounds were completed using methods developed by ADFG. (See 

Appendix II.) These standard conversion factors 

applied in the study to estimate edible pounds 

for each harvest and type of social relationship. 

The project collected flows of subsistence 

foods coming into households, rather than simply 

harvests. As a consequence, respondents reported 

different parts they received as shares from hunts 

and gifts, such as caribou ribs, shoulder blades, 

hams, heads, tongues, even intestines. That method 

created unusual conversion challenges in calculated edible weights for a variety of (mostly) animal 

parts. Several archeologists have explored this 

problem. Binford (1978) proposed a measure called 

the “Modified Generalized Utility Index” (MGUI). 

Metcalf and Jones (1998) reevaluated Binford’s 

work and concluded that simple weights were as 

reliable as the MGUI, and proposed a measure 

called the “Food Utility Index” (FUI). The FUI 

is the gross weight of a part minus the dry bone 

weight of a part, with a Binford averaging routine 

applied (Metcalf and Jones 1998:489–491). Wiklund 

et al. (2008) also have estimated Rangifer (caribou/

reindeer) carcass weights. Buckland and Gérard 

(2002) provided estimates for component weights 

for domestic geese. These sources supported calculations and a conversion table for edible weights 

of individual parts of caribou and waterfowl. 

In a small number of cases, respondents did 

not know or were unable to recall a particular 

amount of harvest, network flows, or type of income. For harvests and network flows, annual mean 

values were calculated for each resource by each 

Image 3.3. Kaktovik interview crew.
Chapter 3 - Methods

33

relation in each community, and missing harvest 

and flow values were replaced with mean values. 

For income, monthly mean values were 

calculated for each job category in each community, and missing income values were replaced 

with monthly mean values and multiplied by 

the number of months worked. For missing 

harvests and network flows, mean values for 

resources by relation type were calculated for 

each community. These “mean replacement” 

procedures were the same as those used by 

ADFG in its comprehensive survey program.

Using SPSS syntax, the individual data 

files were merged into one file for analyses of 

household socio-demographic and economic data, two final files for network analysis, and 

a harvest file for core and non-core species:

•  The Demographics File contained one 

record for each household (300 records) and 

included index variables (i.e., community 

and household ID), summarized data on 

household types, schooling, household 

income from all sources (jobs, village and 

regional corporations, retirement, public 

assistance), employment type (full-time, parttime, on-call), household equipment, number 

of hunters, food security, summarized inflows, 

summarized harvest, and summarized 

network variables (e.g., indegree and 

outdegree for harvests and contributions). 

This data file produced the network “attributes 

file” described below.

•  The network “ties file” contained one record 

for each report of each flow of each key species 

or subsistence-related good or service into 

(or in some cases out of) each respondent 

household across the three communities. Each 

record was identified by study community 

and respondent household, and contained 

codes identifying the type of relation, the 

resource involved, the source of the resource 

(the giver), the sink (destination, usually the 

respondent household) for the resource, and 

some constructed variables to categorize 

resources and relations. The final ties file 

contained approximately 10,500 records.

•  The network “attributes file” contained one 

record for every source and sink named in 

the ties file, and included index variables 

(community and household ID) to link records 

to the ties file. This file contained demographic 

variables (e.g., household size, age of heads), 

economic variables (e.g., income, jobs held), 

food security score and category, harvests 

quantities, and network variables calculated 

from the ties file (e.g., indegree, outdegree). 

This file contained 590 records: 300 surveyed 

households in the study communities, 27 

other households in the study communities, 

228 individuals in other communities, and 34 

crews, organizations, and groups both in and 

outside of the study communities.

The two ties files were exported from SPSS to 

Excel, imported to UCINet, analyzed in UCINet, 

and graphed with NetDraw (Borgatti et al. 2012).

Analysis of harvest data

Total harvest for core and non-core species 

was estimated by ADFG. Core species harvest 

data for households’ own hunting and cooperative 

hunting relationships were combined with harvest 

data for non-core species. Harvest estimates were 

calculated based upon the application of weighted 

means (Cochran 1977). These calculations are standard methods for extrapolating sampled data. As 

an example, the formula for harvest expansion is:

 iii = ShH(1)

where:

 i

i

i n

h

h =

(2)

Hi = total harvest (numbers or pounds 

of resource) for the community i,

hi = total harvest reported in returned surveys,
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 34

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

hi = mean harvest per returned survey,

ni = number of returned surveys,

Si = number of households in the community.

As an interim step, the standard deviation 

(SD) (or variance [V], which is the SD squared) 

was also calculated with the raw, unexpanded data. 

The standard error (SE), or SD of the mean, was 

also calculated for each community. This method 

estimated the relative precision of the mean, or 

the likelihood that an unknown value falls within 

a certain distance from the mean. In this study, 

the relative precision of the mean is shown in the 

tables as a confidence limit (CL), expressed as a 

percentage. Once the standard error was calculated, 

the CL was determined by multiplying the SE by a 

constant that reflected the level of significance desired, based on a normal distribution. The constant 

for 95% confidence limits is 1.96. Though there 

are numerous ways to express the formula below, 

it contains the components of an SD, V, and SE:

 

(3)

where:

S = sample standard deviation,

n = sample size,

N = population size,

a 2/ t = student’s t statistic for alpha level 

(α = .95) with n – 1 degrees of freedom.

Small CL percentages indicate that an estimate 

is likely to be very close to the actual mean of the 

sample. Larger percentages mean that estimates 

could be further away from the sampled mean.

Food security responses were analyzed 

following USDA procedures (Bickel et al. 

2000) to provide comparability between the 

Northwest Harvest Monitoring Program results 

and USDA results for Alaska and the nation. 

Summaries of results of harvests for 

each study community were added to the 

ADFG-CSIS. This publicly accessible database included community-level findings 

only, not household-level information.

Analysis of qualitative data

Our analysis of qualitative data took an 

inductive approach to coding responses to questions (Bernard 2011). This method is based in 

grounded-theory research (Glaser and Strauss 1967; 

Strauss 1987; Strauss and Crobin 1990) where the 

goal is to become grounded in the data and allow 

understanding to emerge from an intense study of 

the survey responses. The idea of grounded theory 

is that there is no predetermined set of codes to be 

applied, but instead, codes emerge based on the 

range of answers from respondents. To begin the 

coding process, we first read through the entire 

set of responses to each open-ended question. As 

patterns and themes began to emerge from the 

text, we then created codes that represented themes 

that appeared repeatedly in the survey responses. 

For example, when asked how one determines 

how much food to share, survey respondents 

repeatedly mentioned that they decide how much 

to share based on need. We then created a code 

“based on need,” and attached the appropriate 

survey responses to that code. Each open-ended question has a set of codes associated with it. 

The list of codes was refined and amended as we 

went through the process of coding all the data. 

Review and Dissemination of Findings

Preliminary results were presented to the 

three study communities at public meetings on 

two occasions, first in July of 2012 and again in 

July of 2013. Community reviews did not generate feedback resulting in substantive changes. 

“Community Summary Reports” for each community were published and distributed to the 

community and regional organizations. Peerreviewed papers based on this study can be 

obtained by contacting the authors of this report. 
Chapter 3 - Methods

35

Conclusion

The Sharing Project used highly participatory and quantitatively rigorous research 

methods to develop research instruments, administer those instruments, analyze data, and 

report findings to research subjects. The next 

chapter provides brief background information about the three study communities. 

¤

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

37

Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie (Figure 4.1) served as 

the three study communities of this research.

Wainwright and Kaktovik are Alaska Iñupiat 

communities located on the northeastern and 

northwestern coasts of Alaska, respectively. 

Venetie is in eastern interior Alaska, situated on 

the Chandalar River, a tributary of the Yukon 

River. These geographically isolated communities 

are off the road system, but served by regular 

commercial flights. The closest regional center for 

Wainwright and Kaktovik is Barrow (population 

4,212), the governmental center for 8 communities 

in the North Slope Borough. The closest regional 

centers for Venetie are Fort Yukon (population 

583) and Fairbanks (population 32,469 in 

city and 99,357 in North Star Borough). 

All three communities have active subsistence-cash economies with cultural traditions 

of wild foods sharing and cooperation in wild 

food harvesting. All three are mostly surrounded by federally managed public lands. Alaska 

Natives of these communities are subject to the 

Figure 4.1. The three study communities.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 38

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act (1971), although there are differences in how 

Venetie engaged in that settlement. Much has 

been written about all three communities, their 

histories, cultural origins and orientations, subsistence-cash economies, traditional knowledge, 

and political issues. A general summary of local 

conditions is presented in Table 4.1. Information 

about the seasonal harvests of species or “seasonal rounds” for each community is presented in 

Table 4.2. Because the results of this study include 

demographic, social, and economic information 

for both the cash and subsistence sectors, that 

kind of information is limited in this chapter. 

North Slope Study Communities – 

Kaktovik and Wainwright 

History of the North Slope Region:

There is much speculation about the Iñupiat 

people’s true geographical origin (Spencer 1959; 

Chance 1990; Langdon 2004). The Iñupiat are 

thought to be descendants of nomadic Asiatic 

people who crossed the Bering Land Bridge from 

Siberia (Spencer 1959; Hall 1976; Jensen 2014), 

with continuous inhabitation for 7,000 years. 

Historically, there were bartering and trading 

interactions between coastal and inland peoples 

in northern Alaska, and customary trading places 

existed, where people met their trading partners 

to exchange goods (Spencer 1959). The North 

Slope Iñupiat commonly held a major trade fair 

at Nigliq on the Colville River Delta and primary 

trading resources were bowhead whale (Balaena 

mysticetus) meat and blubber and dried caribou 

(Rangifer tarandus) skins (Chance 1990). It was 

through trade that partnerships and cooperative 

institutions were formed, by which both commercial goods and renewable resources could be 

exchanged formally and informally (Spencer 1959).

The Iñupiat people of the North Slope first 

began interacting with white explorers after 1778, 

when Captain James Cook led an exploration 

along the Arctic Coast, with commercial whaling 

Table 4.1. Profile of study communities 

Kaktovik Wainwright Venetie

population † 239 553 166

ecosystem coastal arctic coastal arctic boreal forest

ethnicity Iñupiat Eskimo Iñupiat Eskimo Gwich’in Athabascan

location of settlement 70°7'58"N 143°36'58"W 70°38'50"N 160°0'58"W 67°3'20"N 146°24'58"W

education

Harold Kaveolook School; 

North Slope Borough 

School District (63 

students; 8 teachers)

Alak School; North Slope 

Borough School District

John Fredson School; 

Yukon Flats School 

District (54 students; 4 

teachers)

household infrastructure household water and 

sewer service

household water and 

sewer service none

relevant land claim Alaska Native Claims 

Settement

Alaska Native Claims 

Settement

Alaska Native Claims 

Settement

corporate structures

Kaktovik Village 

Corporation; Arctic Slope 

Regional Corporation

Olgoonik Corporation; 

Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation

Opted for no village 

corporation in lieu of fee 

simple land ownership

tribal governments

Native Village of Kaktovik; 

Iñupiat Community of the 

North Slope 

Native Village of 

Wainwright; Iñupiat 

Community of the North 

Slope 

Venetie Village 

Council; Venetie Tribal 

Government; Council 

of Athabascan Tribal 

Governments

regional government North Slope Borough North Slope Borough unincorporated 

†based on 2010 Census 
Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

39

Table 4.2. Season rounds of the three study communities, indicating primary time of harvesting core species

Wainwright

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Bowhead X

Beluga X X X

Bearded 

seal X X X X X X X X

Smelt

Caribou X X X X X X X X X X X X

Geese X X

Ducks X X X X

Kaktovik

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Bowhead X X X

Beluga

Bearded 

seal X X X X X X X X X X X X

Dolly 

varden X X X

Caribou X X X X X X X X X X X

Dall 

sheep X X X X X X X

Geese X X X X X

Venetie

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Moose X X X X X X X X

Caribou X X X X X X X

Salmon X X X X X

Grayling X X

Geese X X X X X

Ducks X X X X X

Berries X X X

beginning in 1848 (Bockstoce 1986). The arrival of 

commercial whalers from New England and elsewhere had a marked impact on the Alaska Native 

population through the introduction of alcohol and 

diseases (Chance 1966). For both maritime and 

inland Iñupiat, alcohol and diseases proved to be 

an avenue of cultural change and led to a period of 

cultural disorganization. Starvation among Alaska 

Natives was also a common occurrence during 

the whaling period as whale, walrus (Odobenus 

rosmarus divergens), and perhaps caribou were 

decimated by and for the commercial whaling 

fleets (Bockstoce 1986). By 1907, the demand for 

baleen had decreased substantially, with the price 

dropping by nearly 75%, and soon the whaling 

industry came to a close, returning the Iñupiat 

people to a transformed way of life (Gusey 1983). 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 40

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

During the time of the whaling industry the 

Iñupiat people were exposed to Western traditions 

(Chance 1990). Iñupiat participated in the whaling industry by selling their labor as a commodity 

for assistance with the whale, caribou, muskoxen 

harvests and by selling whale products harvested 

on their own (Chance 1990; Bockstoce 1986). They 

also crewed on whaling ships, worked as cooks, 

and manufactured warm and waterproof clothing 

for the crews (Bockstoce 1986). As time went on, 

some Iñupiat slowly engaged with the wage economy while maintaining their subsistence way of life. 

The effect was a “mixed” economy that combined 

cash and hunting. However, subsistence sharing, 

cooperative harvesting, and trading among the 

Iñupiat remained the major form of production 

and distribution (Spencer 1959; Chance 1990). 

Other agents of change soon followed commercial whaling, including the reindeer industry, 

the fur industry, and the arrival of the missionaries. From 1892 to 1930 was another period of 

adjustment for the Iñupiat of the North Slope, in 

the form of an introduced species, reindeer, as an 

economic source. After World War I, trapping fox 

pelts quickly became the main commerce on the 

North Slope. Storekeepers bought the furs and by 

the 1920s, payment was made in cash and no longer 

exchanged for goods (Spencer 1959). Fur companies had also started to set up posts at various 

locations on the coasts. Successful fur trappers 

could earn several thousand dollars a year and 

were then able to purchase subsistence equipment 

such as shotguns and rifles, which benefited their 

subsistence activities (Chance 1990). Fur trapping 

allowed many Alaska Native hunters the same freedoms as their customary subsistence practices, but 

the fur trapping era ended with the arrival of the 

Great Depression of 1929. Between the period of 

the Great Depression and the end of World War II, 

Spencer (1959) had observed within Iñupiat society 

a continuation of cooperation and interpersonal 

dependence. By custom, a successful hunter was 

expected to share his catch with community members who were less fortunate. The sharing of wild 

foods furthered cooperation between both kin and 

non-kin groups within and between communities. 

During the middle to late 1930s, development 

in the form of missions, schools, and trading posts 

increased in Barrow and other North Slope communities. Further changes ensued when various 

disease outbreaks negatively affected the Alaska 

Native population (Chance 1990). Populations 

of Iñupiat were either completely decimated or 

chose to relocate to new areas during the late 19th 

century and well into the 20th. Changes also took 

place due to the creation of welfare and educational programs by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

many of which undermined traditional culture. 

Shortly after World War II, with the initiation 

of post-war defense policies, the federal government took a strong interest in energy resources on 

the North Slope and began building infrastructure 

(Jorgensen 1990). Local people were hired and it 

was common for many of the North Slope Iñupiat 

to serve in the Alaska Territorial Guard or to join 

other divisions of the US military. Distant Early 

Warning (DEW-Line) stations were built across the 

North Slope, with the purpose of detecting Soviet 

missiles during the Cold War (Chance 1990). The 

development of these stations also increased wage 

employment opportunities and sparked economic growth throughout the North Slope region. 

In 1944, the US Navy carried out oil exploration in an area that was to be called the 

Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4 and what 

is now known as the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) (Tussing, Rogers 

and Fisher 1971). A cash economy began 

to emerge as employment opportunities increased and it produced a significant population 

growth for the Barrow area (Rogers 1970).

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) was passed in 1971, creating village 

and regional corporations that were deeded corporation lands and in charge of managing capital 

for their shareholders (Arnold 1978). The Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), a for-profit 

regional corporation, was formed under ANCSA 

and each of the North Slope communities also 

founded their own local village corporation. The 

Act granted the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

4.6 million acres and $22.5 million, of which the 8 

village corporations received portions (Bodenhorn 

1989). Iñupiat community leaders intent on forming their own regional government succeeded 
Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

41

in 1972, when the North Slope Borough was 

established. The borough incorporates 89,000 

square miles or approximately 15% of the state of 

Alaska, and ranges from Point Hope in the west to 

Kaktovik in the east (Morehouse and Leask 1980). 

The borough eventually became a home-rule 

government in 1974, allowing for taxing authority 

and enabling the borough to tax Prudhoe Bay oil 

infrastructure. In 1979 the borough had a taxable 

base of around 5 billion dollars (Morehouse and 

Leask 1980). This tax base provided the funding 

to develop a $370 million capital improvements 

program, where public service facilities could be 

built in Barrow and the other communities (Hess 

1993). The building of public infrastructure such 

as health clinics, new schools, and water/sewer 

systems, along with its maintenance generated a 

substantial increase in jobs available for the residents of the North Slope. Based on an expanded 

job market and an improved living standard, local 

people were enticed into remaining residents of the 

region. In spite of the introduction of Native-owned 

corporations at the regional and local levels and a 

substantial increase in the level of local engagement 

with the cash economy, the Iñupiat maintained 

their subsistence livelihood and cultural tradition 

of sharing (Langdon 1986; Kruse 1991, 1992). 

Through the North Slope Borough’s Capital 

Improvements Program (CIP), public sector 

employment opportunities for local residents 

increased substantially during 1976 and 1988. As 

employment opportunities grew, it was largely 

assumed that the wage economy would become 

more desirable to the Iñupiat and would eventually replace the subsistence way of life (National 

Research Council 1993). A survey conducted in 

1988 showed that the median Iñupiat household 

income increased from $21,744 to $32,500 (Kruse 

1991). Other research indicated that there were 

periods of time available for both wage employment and subsistence (Luton 1985; Nowak 1975). 

The wage economy was used to satisfy the need for 

material goods, while subsistence activities provided traditional foods and strengthened cultural 

ties. A 1988 study of North Slope residents showed 

that men working full-time jobs (12 months a year) 

engaged in slightly more subsistence activities than 

those with less than full-time work (Kruse 1991). 

Finally, it is important to note that during the 

arbitration process of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, Alaska Native leaders fought 

strongly for two components to be incorporated 

within the Act. First, a cash settlement would not be 

accepted if it did not include title to a generous land 

base that could provide for subsistence hunting 

and fishing. And secondly, Alaska Native leaders 

argued for the protection of their subsistence 

way of life through the idea of provisions going 

to the corporations representing the interests of 

the Native peoples (Anders 1983). Alaska Native 

leaders saw the value of both the wage economy 

and the subsistence livelihood and therefore 

had the desire to accept one (a “new” source of 

well-being) and retain the other for their people, 

with subsistence providing cultural meaning, 

including the extensive sharing of traditional foods, 

strengthening social interactions and relationships. 

North Slope subsistence livelihood

The traditional norms of Iñupiat subsistence 

generally do not allow for significant accumulation 

of harvested resources (Ganapathy 1996; Spencer 

1959). Whaling captains who store whale meat 

and maqtaaq for later distribution at community 

feasts are not accruing traditional foods for themselves. Renewable resources are harvested and 

stored for the needs of the household, but are also 

distributed to community members and households in need. The Iñupiat subsistence culture 

involves the harvesting of fish and wildlife resources, the organization of processing and storing, the 

distributive methods of sharing, and finally the 

consumption patterns of these resources (Luton 

1985). Each of these components is regulated by 

Iñupiat cultural norms and has a strong function 

in supporting the overall subsistence system. 

Transfer payments are also a very important 

part of subsistence livelihood across the North 

Slope. Permanent residents of the state of Alaska 

receive an oil dividend check annually and at the regional level, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

provides oil revenue dividends to each of its shareholders. The Olgoonik Corporation in Wainwright 

and the Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation in Kaktovik 

each provide dividends to their local residents 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 42

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

at the community level. Transfer payments are 

often used to purchase subsistence equipment 

to supplement the subsistence livelihood. 

Kaktovik (Qaaktuġvik)

Kaktovik is located at 70°7'58"N 

143°36'58"W, on the north shore of Barter 

Island, between the Okpilak and Jago rivers on 

the Beaufort Sea coast, about 80 miles west of 

the Canadian border, and lies in the 19.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

In Iñupiaq, Kaktovik or Qaaktuġvik means 

“the seining place.” For hundreds of years 

Kaktovik was the traditional site of trade and 

cultural exchange between Canadian Inuit and 

various Iñupiat/Inuit groups across the Arctic 

Slope region (Libbey 1983). Gwich’in Athabascan 

people living to the south were also known to 

have visited Kaktovik to trade for coastal resources and non-local goods such as tea, sugar, 

and tobacco (Bockstoce 2009). Kaktovik was not 

established as a permanent settlement until the 

1950s. Many explorations of this region took place 

in the early to mid-1800s (Nielson 1977). As in 

the Chukchi Sea, commercial whaling ensued 

in the Beaufort Sea during the 1890s and early 

1900s. Whalers traveling to and overwintering 

at Herschel Island and the MacKenzie region in 

Canada commonly used Kaktovik as a stopover 

(Nielson 1977). Life in Kaktovik during this period remained fairly similar to its past, despite 

contact with white local traders and Presbyterian 

missionaries from Barrow (Chance 1990). 

In 1923, Tom Gordon established a trading 

post east of the current village of Kaktovik and 

thus introduced the community to the fur trapping market and the cash economy (Jacobson 

and Wentworth 1982). More people from the 

area began moving to Kaktovik once the trading post was founded, but the majority still 

maintained a semi-nomadic life, supplemented by the trapping economy. People had seen 

hard times prior to the arrival of the trading 

post and were now able to purchase supplies 

with store credit earned from trapped furs. 

It was during the 1920s that reindeer and 

herding were introduced to into the Kaktovik area 

(Chance 1990). Active reindeer herders stayed 

out on the land, watching their herds for months 

at a time and were able to maintain their hunting traditions in addition to herding for wages. 

Reindeer herding in the Kaktovik area ended 

around the late 1930s or early 1940s, primarily due to a weak market for reindeer meat. 

The market economy of fur trading ended in 

the late 1930s and after the end of World War II in 

1945, the United States Air Force took an interest 

in the Kaktovik area as a site for development of 

an airstrip and hangar facility, as well as a Distant 

Early Warning (DEW-line) radar station (Nielson 

1977). Between 1953 and 1957, the construction 

of these sites destroyed two village sites, causing 

relocations, but also providing employment for 

local residents (Nielson 1977; Chance 1990). In 

addition to this, the US Coast and Geodetic Survey 

began mapping the Beaufort seacoast, bringing 

the opportunity for local wage employment. 

With the establishment of a school in 

August 1951 and the increasing availability of 

jobs, the population grew with people either 

returning to Kaktovik from Barrow or from 

Herschel Island, Canada. The 1950 US Census 

had counted 46 people, but by 1951, there were 

8 families totaling 86 people. By the spring of 

1953, the population had increased to 140–145 

people (Jacobson and Wentworth 1982). 

The year 1972 marked the beginning of the 

North Slope Borough’s Capital Improvement 

Projects, which were responsible for much 

of the region’s modern infrastructure developments. A majority of the current housing 

in Kaktovik was built in 1973, all of which 

now receive electricity from the local power 

plant, and running water treated by a wastewater and sewage treatment facility. 

Kaktovik has similar infrastructure to 

the other North Slope Borough communities. 

There is a K–12 grade school, a health clinic, 

police and fire stations, a post office, two grocery stores, two hotels, and a community center. 

Additionally, there are office buildings for the 

village corporation, the city of Kaktovik, and the 

Village Coordinator and Teleconference Center. 
Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

43

Kaktovik is located in a prime subsistence area, with easy access to terrestrial and 

marine resources. A joint study conducted by 

the BOEM (formerly Minerals Management 

Service) and ADFG Division of Subsistence in 

1993 found that the average Kaktovik household used approximately 16 different kinds of 

locally harvested resources and harvested approximately 8.6 resources, while sharing 7.7 

different resources (Pedersen 1995) (Table 4.2). 

The average household in Kaktovik also received 

approximately 10.5 different types of resources 

from other households within the community. 

The typical Kaktovik household in 1993 

used about 2,713.3 pounds of harvested resources (Pedersen 1995). In total, bowhead harvests 

supplied 63% of the estimated harvest for the 

community in that year (Pedersen 1995). Kaktovik 

only hunts bowhead whales in the fall, during the 

months of September and October. This narrow 

time frame means whaling is limited, whereas one 

may fish and hunt all year round for other things. 

Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) is also an 

important marine resource, whereas walrus is rarely 

harvested because Kaktovik lies to the north of its 

migration route (Fuller and George 1997). Caribou 

are the most common terrestrial species harvested. 

Annually, the community harvested between 43 

and 172 animals, averaging 126 caribou in 6 years 

(Pedersen 1990). Caribou are hunted mostly during 

the months of July and August (Brower et al. 2000). 

Both Dall sheep (Ovis dalli) and muskoxen (Ovibos 

moschatus) are harvested in areas to the south of 

Kaktovik annually; Dall sheep during the months of 

October through March and muskoxen primarily in 

October, November, or March (Brower et al. 2000). 

The 1993 study (Pedersen 1995) showed that 

of the sampled households in Kaktovik, 96% relied 

upon locally harvested fish and game species to 

some extent. Households were very much engaged 

in the subsistence livelihood, as 89% of the sampled 

households attempted to harvest local resources 

during the study period. The greatest amount of 

household subsistence participation was linked 

with fall whaling, while approximately 40% of 

the households participated in caribou hunting, 

sheep hunting, and fishing (Fuller and George 

1997). Households within the community were 

also actively sharing the fruits of their labor, with 

92% receiving shares of harvested resources from 

other households and 83% giving away harvested 

resources to other households (Pedersen 1995). 

Proposed oil development in the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge and in the near-shore 

Beaufort Sea represent a considerable source of 

controversy for residents of Kaktovik, with great apprehension about potential impacts to subsistence 

resources. Yet, there is also great desire for more 

employment opportunities and other cash inputs. 

Wainwright (Ulġuniq)

The community of Wainwright is located 

on the coast of the Chukchi Sea at 70°38'50"N 

160°0'58"W, approximately 300 miles above 

the Arctic Circle (Figure 4.1). The community 

is situated on a slight peninsula formed by the 

Chukchi Sea and the Kuk River Inlet. This river, 

along with others, provides access for local people to go inland to fish and hunt (Luton 1985). 

Wainwright is about 90 miles southwest of Barrow, 

the northernmost point of the United States 

and the main hub for the North Slope Borough 

and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. 

People have lived in the area of present-day 

Wainwright for centuries. This original settlement was made up of the Kuugmiut, people 

of the Kuk River and the Utuqqaqmiut, people of the Utuqqaq River (Ivie and Schneider 

1978). There was also a group of people along 

the coast called the Sideromiut who also contributed to the village population. In 1882, the 

coastal area where Wainwright is located had a 

population of roughly 80 people (Ray 1885). 

The Kuugmiut mainly occupied the area 

surrounding the Kuk River and the coastal areas 

near Wainwright, while the Utuqqaqmiut resided near the Icy Cape and Utuqqaq River regions 

(Luton 1985). The Kuugmiut people focused 

largely on maritime resources, although travel 

inland along the Kuk River was fairly common. 

The Utuqqaqmiut people were known to rely on 

and follow them into the Interior, and in comparison to the Kuugmiut hunted sea mammals 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 44

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

less frequently. These two groups may have 

increasingly intermarried as populations fluctuated due to disease outbreaks caused by contact 

with non-Native explorers and whalers. Trade 

was also vital between the inland and coastal 

Iñupiat groups, as much-needed inland products such as caribou skins could be traded for 

sea mammal oil that was vital for both heating 

and lighting (Luton 1985; Spencer 1959). 

The settlement of Wainwright was established in 1904 at its present spot mainly because 

of a construction error in building a schoolhouse. The structure was supposed to have 

been constructed closer to the inlet (at Thomas 

Point), but the building materials were offloaded where present-day Wainwright is now 

located (Milan 1964). Schoolteachers were 

hired by the Bureau of Education and sent to 

Wainwright to teach the village children, as well 

as establish and manage the US Post Office. 

Two stores were established in the late 1930s 

within the village. With these stores came the 

year-round availability of goods and this consequently encouraged more people to settle in 

Wainwright. As with the other villages across the 

North Slope, Wainwright also experienced the 

boom and bust of the fur trading industry. Trading 

posts were a common venture and provided a 

cooperative avenue between the local white people 

and the Iñupiat (Schneider and Libbey 1979). 

In 1904, a reindeer herder’s station was built 

at Wainwright Inlet. Local reindeer herders were 

hired by the Wainwright Reindeer and Trading 

Company under the authority of the Bureau of 

Education to manage and maintain the reindeer 

assigned to them (Bodfish 1991), and between 

1918 and 1934, herds grew to significant population sizes, increasing from about 2,300 to 22,000 

animals (Chance 1966). However, reindeer herding soon declined because of the lack of market 

and limited interest in herding as a way of life, 

with the last herd disappearing in the 1950s. 

Among the communities on the North Slope, 

Wainwright was fortunate to have access to naturally occurring coal reserves. People within the 

area transported coal by dog team and use it to 

heat their homes. During the late 1880s before 

the village was founded, informal coal mines were 

opened that attracted local people to the area. In 

turn, coal was marketed to the steam-powered 

whaling ships passing through (Jorgensen 1990). 

The population of Wainwright was continually in flux between 1890 and 1970, rising 

and falling with the industrial tides of coal mining, whaling, reindeer herding, and fur trading. 

Despite the establishment of the reindeer station 

in 1904, the population did not increase substantially until the school was expanded in the early 

1920s (Jorgensen 1990). In the late 1940s and 

early 1950s, the population decreased as residents 

moved to Barrow looking for work (Luton 1985). 

Travel to Wainwright by airplane became 

increasingly more common in the 1970s, when 

electric landing lights were installed on the gravel 

runway in 1970. Supplies were also delivered by 

ship once a year via the North Star III. This supply 

ship would provide the co-operative stores, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs schools, and private customers with an assortment of pre-ordered goods. 

A co-operative village power station was 

established in 1967–1968, running on oil and 

in turn supplying electricity to local residents. 

Originally, the people of Wainwright cut blocks of 

ice out of a nearby lagoon in order to meet their 

needs for water, but a water treatment and supply 

station has since replaced this method (Brosted 

1975). The community now has a health clinic, a 

school with grades K–12, fire station, search and 

rescue office, solid waste facility, a hotel with a 

restaurant, two village stores (one now run by the 

Olgoonik Village Corporation), and two churches. Within the main part of town, there are also 

modest office buildings for the village council, 

Olgoonik Corporation, and the city of Wainwright. 

Residents of Wainwright also enjoy the comfort of 

modern housing with electricity and plumbing. 

After Barrow and Point Hope, Wainwright 

currently has the third-largest population within the North Slope region and is predominantly 

Iñupiat. From 1960 to 1970, Wainwright’s population increased 19.68% and from 1970 to 1980, 

it increased by 22.2% (Rex 1994). The increase in 
Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

45

population size during this time has been strongly attributed to wage employment provided by 

the North Slope Borough’s Capital Improvement 

Projects program (Braund et al. 1993). The 

availability of jobs and a better standard of living gave local people incentives to remain in, 

or return to the community (Luton 1985). 

Past studies show that many residents either 

have held full-time jobs or part-time seasonal jobs, 

with the majority being employed through positions created by the North Slope Borough, Village 

of Wainwright (the tribal organization), Olgoonik 

(the Native village corporation), or the City of 

Wainwright, yet people of Wainwright are able 

to maintain subsistence activities such as bowhead whale hunting, caribou hunting, and other 

subsistence pursuits. Langdon (1986), Jorgenson 

(1990) and others noted that two livelihoods 

complement each other. Wage labor provides 

the ability to purchase needed goods, including 

subsistence equipment items such as all-terrain 

vehicles, snowmachines, and motorized riverboats. 

In a 1992 harvest survey conducted by the 

North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife 

Management, marine mammals comprised approximately 51% of the overall harvest for Wainwright 

(Fuller and George 1997). It is estimated that 

in an average year, marine mammals would ordinarily contribute more to the overall harvest, 

since in 1992 no bowhead whales were harvested (Fuller and George 1997). Bowhead whales 

are usually harvested as early as mid-April to as 

late as early June, depending on ice conditions 

(Kassam and Wainwright Traditional Council 

2001), and in 2011 when open waters persisted the community harvested its first fall whale 

(Braund et al. 2013). Wainwright residents also 

hunt for other marine resources such as walrus, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), and 

bearded seal (Fuller and George 1997; Braund et 

al. 2013). Walrus are harvested from mid-June 

to September, beluga in the summer from late 

June to early July, and bearded seal from as early 

as spring until the fall (Kassam and Wainwright 

Traditional Council 2001; Braund et al. 2013). 

Results from a survey conducted from 

1988 to 1990 found that Wainwright residents 

harvested at least 46 species of fish, birds, and 

marine and terrestrial mammals (Braund et al. 

1993). Marine mammals comprise the bulk of the 

community’s total harvest, at approximately 69 to 

70% (ibid.). Terrestrial mammals contribute the 

second largest amount, averaging around 24% 

(ibid.). Caribou were the single most important 

terrestrial species for Wainwright, with 748 being 

harvested in 1992, representing approximately 

87,514 edible pounds (Fuller and George 1997). 

Caribou are harvested primarily in August and 

September, before they go into rut (Kassam and 

Wainwright Traditional Council 2001; Braund 

et al. 2013). Waterfowl are also harvested and a 

number of species are taken, such as: black brant 

(Branta bernicla nigricans), king eider (Somateria 

spectabilis), common eider (Somateria mollissima), and white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons)

(Fuller and George 1997). Black brant are commonly hunted from May to mid-July, in late 

August, and throughout September (Kassam and 

Wainwright Traditional Council 2001). Both king 

and common eiders are hunted during their spring 

migration and white-fronted geese are harvested 

during their spring and fall migrations (ibid.). 

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) are by far 

the most common fish species harvested and are 

actively caught in the winter months of January 

and February, where they reside in large numbers in the lagoon close to the village (Fuller 

and George 2002). Fishing is a fairly popular 

subsistence activity for Wainwright residents. 

Results from the 1988–1990 survey revealed that 

the majority of Wainwright households are participating to varying degrees in the subsistence 

tradition, with about 88% taking part in at least 

one subsistence activity (Braund et al. 1993). 

Oil and gas development have been distant activities in the past; however, recent lease 

sales and interest in exploration in offshore 

Chukchi Sea development have emerged as important issues for the community to consider. 

Among the issues include the risks associated with offshore development (e.g., oil spills), 

on-shore infrastructure, and how a non-local 

workforce supporting offshore development 

may affect village life and the environment. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 46

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Interior Alaska Study Community – 

Venetie

Venetie, the third study community of the 

study, is situated at 67°3'20"N 146°24'58"W in 

Interior Alaska, a region loosely defined as the 

boreal forest ecosystem south of the Brooks 

Range and north of the Alaska Range. Interior 

Alaska rural communities differ in significant ways from North Slope communities, in 

their Athabascan Indian cultural orientation, 

low cash economic household income levels, 

absence of harvested marine subsistence resources, limited oil and gas development activities 

and benefits, and high exposure to wildfire. 

Venetie Alaska Native residents are primarily Gwich’in, an Athabascan culture group that 

historically ranged from the western reaches of 

the upper Noatak River Valley in northwestern 

Alaska east to the Arctic Red River and Mackenzie 

River in Canada (Raboff 1999). Early to contemporary Gwich’in identify with subgroups or 

bands that historically occupied this vast region. 

Neets’ąįį Gwich’in occupied the region on the east 

fork of the Chandalar River, including the current 

site of the Venetie Settlement, with other Gwich’in 

bands to the south, west, and east (Osgood 1936). 

As is the case with the Iñupiat, Gwich’in of Interior 

Alaska moved throughout the landscape seasonally to harvest food resources, with periodic 

meeting places for trading and social interactions. 

Neets’ąįį would occasionally travel north to trade 

with the Iñupiat, although there were also conflicts between the two groups (Slobodin 1981). 

Interactions with Euroamericans began in 

1789 with explorers, and later included missionaries and traders. The greatest early impact was the 

result of the Hudson Bay Company’s establishment 

of trading posts in the region, including one at 

Fort Yukon. The richness of furs in the region and 

their market value modified the travel, seasonal 

activities, and access to new goods for the Gwich’in 

(Slobodin 1981). Several epidemics ensued, dramatically reducing their population before and 

during this period (Krech III 1979). Manufactured 

goods were incorporated into Gwich’in life by the 

turn of the century, with regular access to firearms 

making the use of caribou fences unnecessary and 

harvesting more individualistic (Caulfield 1983). 

The period was also punctuated with resource 

scarcity, particularly caribou, which resulted in 

hardship and in some cases starvation. The US 

purchase of Alaska affected the activities of the 

Canadian Hudson Bay Company, which relocated 

trading posts east. Gold seekers followed in the late 

1800s and early 1900s, resulting in intermarriages. 

Through the leadership of John Fredson, the 

community of Venetie, along with Arctic Village, 

Christian Village, and K’aastsik, received approval of a 1.48 million-acre “Chandalar Indian 

Reserve” through the Indian Act of 1934 (Caulfield 

1983). Thus, the Gwich’in were among the first 

Alaska Natives to receive formal recognition of 

land ownership by the US federal government. 

Serious declines in caribou followed, a major 

flood affected villages of the region, and education 

policies and the construction of a school in Fort 

Yukon affected families’ on-the-land activities. 

In 1960 Congress established the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge and in 1971 passed the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. As a part 

of the latter, Venetie and Arctic Village selected 

not to participate in the village corporation provisions and instead received fee simple title for the 

Chandalar Reservation. As a tribal entity, the two 

communities govern as the Venetie Tribal Council. 

The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (1980) enlarged the Arctic 

Refuge, established much of it under the Wilderness 

Act, and with other land designations, created a 

complex land-management regime in the region. 

For coordination of resource management, health 

services, and education in villages of the Upper 

Yukon River system, Venetie works as a member 

of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments. 

Proposed oil and gas development on the coastal 

plain of the Arctic Refuge, the core calving area of 

the Porcupine Caribou herd on which Venetie and 

Arctic Village depend, has galvanized the community in opposition to its potential impacts. 

With no resource development in the region, 

no village corporation, and few commercial enterprises, Venetie has limited local employment 
Chapter 4 - Background on the Three Study Communities

47

opportunities for residents. Those seeking high-paid 

and regular employment generally have to move to 

urban centers such as Fairbanks or Anchorage, find 

employment in the resource extractive industries 

of the North Slope, or serve on firefighting crews. 

As will be reflected in the findings of this 

study, these three communities contrast in 

many ways—their respective geographies, cultural orientations, histories. They also share 

many common characteristics as being dependent on subsistence-cash economies 

and having vibrant cultural identities. 

¤

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

49

section two

Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share – 

Self-Reported Rationales and Strategies of Sharing

Chapter 6 - Household Demographics, Cash, and Harvests

Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks 

within Subsistence Livelihoods

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

51

Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share – 

Self-Reported Rationales and Strategies 

In this chapter we draw on two sources of respondentreported qualitative evidence to document the 

motivations for sharing, the roles individuals play in 

deciding how much to share, how conditions of scarcity 

affect sharing patterns, and how sharing has changed 

over the last decade. Our sources include responses 

to open-ended questions administered in this 

study’s survey and findings on motivations for 

sharing from the UAF master’s thesis research 

of Marcy Okada (2010), undertaken as a parallel 

study to this project and based on interviews in 

Wainwright and Kaktovik in the summer of 2008. 

Okada’s interviews were recorded, transcribed, 

and coded for emergent themes. Below we 

first present the findings on motivations for 

sharing from Okada’s (2010) study and follow 

with reported patterns of sharing, self-reported 

by household heads. In both cases we present 

findings on frequency of stated themes. 

Self-Reported Reasons for Sharing 

Okada (2010) interviewed Wainwright 

(n = 10), Kaktovik (n = 7), and Barrow (n = 5) 

harvesters and identified 8 reasons why people 

shared in subsistence (See Table 5.1, next page.). 

These included 1) maintaining cultural traditions; 2) avoiding waste; 3) benefiting from “good 

luck”; 4) providing a good feeling; 5) giving and 

taking (balanced reciprocity); 6) forming a relationship with animals; 7) remembering hard 

times; 8) gaining a sense of pride. The codes 

and quotes below illustrate these reasons. 

Passing on cultural traditions

They just pass it on from generation to 

generation. Like me, I learned from my 

parents and my parents learned from their 

parents and their parents learned from my 

great grandparents. It just goes on and 

now I’m teaching my son and pretty soon 

as the grandchildren grow, it’ll pass on to 

the grandchildren, so it just keeps going on 

and on and on. That way, you know, they’ll 

know that Iñupiat were sharing and caring 

people. 

My grandson got his first caribou and asked 

me why I gave all of his caribou meat away. 

I told him that when you catch your first animal, you have to give it to all the elders. I 

got a piece because I am an elder too. He 

was kind of upset that I gave it all away to 

everybody and I told him that this is the 

way you start off your life, by sharing. You 

can’t be greedy with anything, if you’re going to be greedy and think like that, you’re 

not going to be a hunter, you’re going to be 

a poor hunter. 

Avoiding waste

So I think that’s one of the real important 

reasons why we share subsistence foods, 

it’s because it’s fresh from the land, it’s fresh 

from the sea, fresh from the sky, and you 

don’t want it to spoil, you don’t want it to 

rot.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 52

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 5.1. Reasons people share, from Okada (2010).

Reasons Why 

People Share

Number of 

Respondents 

Who 

Mentioned 

Theme

Percent 

of Total 

Mentions of 

Categories by 

Respondents

 n = 35

Mentions by 

Respondents’ Age 

Group (%) 

20 to 39: n = 7

40 to 59: n = 18

60 & above: n = 

10

Mentions by 

Respondents’ 

Employment 

Group (%)

Full-time: n = 20 

Part-time: n = 8 

Retired: n = 7

Mentions by 

Respondents’ 

Status Group 

(%)

Single: n = 8

Married: n = 23

Widowed: n = 4

Cultural Tradition 16 46

20 to 39: 14%

40 to 59: 67%

60 & above: 30%

Full-time: 45%

Part-time: 38%

Retired: 43%

Single: 25%

Married: 48%

Widowed: 50%

Avoiding Waste 15 43

20 to 39: 29%

40 to 59: 39%

60 & above: 60%

Full-time: 40%

Part-time: 25%

Retired: 71%

Single: 38%

Married: 43%

Widowed: 50%

Good Luck 13 37

20 to 39: 14%

40 to 59: 44%

60 & above: 40%

Full-time: 35%

Part-time: 50%

Retired: 43%

Single: 38%

Married: 39%

Widowed: 50%

Good Feeling 12 34

20 to 39: 43%

40 to 59: 28%

60 & above: 40%

Full-time: 25%

Part-time: 25%

Retired: 57%

Single: 25%

Married: 35%

Widowed: 25%

Giving and Taking 8 23

20 to 39: 43%

40 to 59: 28%

60 & above: 0%

Full-time: 15%

Part-time: 38%

Retired: 0%

Single: 25%

Married: 17%

Widowed: 0%

Relationship with 

Animals 7 20

20 to 39: 14%

40 to 59: 11%

60 & above: 40%

Full-time: 10%

Part-time: 13%

Retired: 29%

Single: 25%

Married: 13%

Widowed: 0%

Memory of 

Hard Times 5 14

20 to 39: 0%

40 to 59: 11%

60 & above: 30%

Full-time: 5%

Part-time: 0%

Retired: 71%

Single: 0%

Married: 9%

Widowed: 50%

Pride 3 9

20 to 39: 14%

40 to 59: 11%

60 & above: 0%

Full-time: 5%

Part-time: 25%

Retired: 0%

Single: 13%

Married: 9%

Widowed: 0%

Total 79 ------- ------ ----- -----

Good luck

It comes back, it does. The way I look at it 

is when we go out, it becomes easier to 

catch game. As my mom commented on it, 

that guy’s a good hunter cause he shares. 

Or there’s a word too that the elders use, 

signatuitchuaq inuk niqsa yuktuk, those that 

are not stingy are good hunters”, so the 

game is easy to catch for them. 
Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share

53

Growing up I was taught to share food with 

other people and then you will have better luck hunting the next time you go out. 

That’s the story I have heard before. For instance, if I got a caribou and were to share 

it, I would be able to get more caribou the 

next time I go out hunting. It’s an Iñupiat 

belief. 

Good feeling

You want to share it, you want to make 

friends, you want to make people smile, 

you want to make people feel warm and 

welcoming. You want to make them know 

you. You know, where they’re going to recognize you every time they see you, “Hi so 

and so, thank you for the maktak, thank you 

for the ducks, thank you for the geese.” And 

it makes you feel good inside...You know 

that kind of feeling. 

Relationship with animals

If anybody is messed up on how to share, it 

really becomes a bad thing because we’re 

taught not to fight over animals. And rather than fight over whose portion they got, 

then they got to really know how to divide 

the animals. You would think it’s superstition or people would say it is superstition 

but it’s not, it’s the law of the land and the 

law of the animals. And that’s the way it is 

you know, if there’s any discord or anything 

over the equipment, it doesn’t go well with 

the animals. 

Pride and status

I go out and hunt and gather for those who 

can’t hunt and gather or can’t do it very 

easily. Those that don’t have access to it but 

enjoy it; I go out and hunt for them. Provide 

for those who can’t provide for themselves. 

As my mom commented on it, that guy’s a 

good hunter ‘cause he shares. Or there’s a 

word too that the elders use, signatuitchuaq inuk niqsa yuktuk, “those that are not 

stingy are good hunters,” so the game is 

easy to catch for them.

Findings from the survey of this project: 

Self-Reported Motivations and Sharing Behaviors

Kaktovik

Who Decides and How—Kaktovik 

We asked Kaktovik household heads to 

report who in their household decides how to 

share harvested caribou. The data revealed 10 

codes. The following is a list of the 10 codes and 

the number of times each code appeared: 

•	 head of household (36), 

•	 partners (8), 

•	 harvester (7), 

•	 varies (4), 

•	 wife/matriarch (3), 

•	 pick those in need (3), 

•	 grandma (aaka; 2), 

•	 mother (1) 

•	 husband (1). 

Next, we asked how people generally decide how much of a caribou to share. Eight 

codes emerged from the data. The following is a list of the 8 codes and the number of 

times the code appears in the survey data: 

•	 give to family and elders (18), 

•	 based on need of others (15), 

•	 share equally (14), 

•	 depends on providing household’s 

food supply (12), 

•	 give away half and keep half (10), 

•	 reciprocation (3), 

•	 enough for a meal (2), 

•	 don’t give away (2). 

Many of these respondents noted that sharing wild foods with elders is a community priority. 

People often share first with elders, then with family 

members, and then finally with other members of 

the community if enough food remains. A group 

of respondents said that the need of other households determines how much subsistence foods to 

share. Others stated that they give away almost 

all of their catch, to whoever asks. This group of 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 54

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

respondents made the point that they share among 

everyone equally, without preference to a particular group of people. Some people reported that 

their personal needs and food supplies influenced 

their sharing decisions. One respondent said the 

following: “I look at my personal needs and share 

what’s leftover.” Others said that they follow a general pattern of giving away half of their catch and 

keeping the other half. A small group of respondents noted that they consider who helped or lent 

equipment when deciding how much to share. 

Sharing in Times of Scarcity—Kaktovik

We sought to understand how households 

and communities share differently in years of 

scarcity versus years of abundance. With regard to how the sharing patterns of households

differ between years of scarcity and years of 

abundance, 5 codes emerged from the Kaktovik 

data. The list of codes and frequency with 

which they appeared in the data is as follows: 

•	 share less when resources scarce (13), 

•	 no difference (11), 

•	 varies (5), 

•	 never been scarce (1), 

•	 can’t say (1). 

Many respondents said that less sharing occurs in times of scarcity. However, it is important to 

note that people said they still try to share whatever 

they can, as the following quote shows: “If [there is] 

less, then people share less but the sharing still happens!” When wild foods are less widely available, 

people tend to keep that food in the community 

and not send it out to friends and family members who live elsewhere. The following quote talks 

about what occurred during a year when fishing 

was poor: “We didn’t send out fish to relatives. 

We kept it all and we fished late.” Some noted that 

their sharing pattern does not change much during 

years of scarcity. Many Kaktovik respondents noted 

that the proportion of food shared remains the 

same: “We usually give out half of what we get. It 

doesn’t matter how much total comes in.” A few 

respondents noted that their sharing patterns are 

always changing, regardless of resource abundance. 

One noted that several children recently moved 

home, so they are now sharing less than in the past. 

Another mentioned a recent marriage and the effect 

of this change on the household’s sharing pattern.

Similarly, we asked respondents how sharing on the community level in Kaktovik differs 

between years of scarcity and years of abundance. Four codes emerged from the data: 

•	 no difference (12), 

•	 share less when resources scarce (10), 

•	 less sharing overall now (3), 

•	 other comments (7). 

The responses coded as other comments did 

not directly address the question. A large number 

of respondents noted that there is no difference 

in sharing in Kaktovik during years of abundance 

compared to years of scarcity, highlighting the 

importance of sharing in the community. Others 

noted that less sharing occurs when households 

do not have enough for themselves: “When there’s 

not much to share, don’t share much. Have family 

to feed and can’t share the little bit that they have”. 

A small number of respondents noted an overall 

decline in sharing in response to this question. 

“Families used to share more, especially immediate families. Nowadays, hunting is not a priority. 

It’s harder to share today. People have so much on 

their mind; they don’t help each other as much”.

Perceived Changes in Sharing 

and Causes—Kaktovik

When asked if sharing has changed over 

the past 10 years respondents said no, sharing 

has not changed. Those who said yes were then 

asked how sharing has changed in the past 10 

years. Four codes emerged from the data: 

•	 depends on food availability (6), 

•	 less sharing now (5), 

•	 more sharing now (3), 

•	 less hunting now (1). 

When prompted with this question, many 

informants again discussed the notion that sharing 

is related to harvesting success: “If we have it we 

give it away. If we don’t, we don’t.” Others said that 

overall, less sharing occurs in Kaktovik now compared to 10 years ago. One respondent described 
Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share

55

the change in sharing in this way: “It used to be the 

[whaling] captains who went from house to house 

and see the families and see what they need. And 

they didn’t need anything back. Today’s people 

are not like that anymore.” Others felt that more 

sharing occurs now compared to 10 years ago. 

Next, we asked what caused changes in sharing over the past 10 years. This question prompted 

a large number of unique answers. We grouped 

responses into 8 codes. The codes and frequency 

that each code appears in the data is as follows: 

•	 related to hunting activity (10), 

•	 cost and equipment constraints (4), 

•	 availability of wild foods (4), 

•	 cultural change (4), 

•	 no change (2), 

•	 drugs/alcohol (1) 

•	 climate change (1). 

The largest group of responses focused on 

how changes in hunting patterns affect sharing 

networks. Many noted that a particular person is 

no longer hunting due to work constraints, a move 

away from the community, or a death, and this 

change hinders sharing. Others noted that a lack 

of equipment and the financial burden associated 

with subsistence activities prevents them from 

sharing. The equipment required to hunt today 

is very different from the past, as this respondent 

describes: “Long time ago we didn’t have a lot to go 

hunt with, no ski-doo only dog team. Nowadays 

you need gas and money.” Some noted that cultural 

changes in the community have affected sharing networks, as the older generations and their 

knowledge die out of the community: “Change 

the way the family is brought up. Sharing might 

stop if an elder passes. The household might have 

harder time because the connection is with the 

elder.” Finally, issues with drugs and alcohol and 

the effects of climate change were both mentioned 

as specific factors affecting sharing in Kaktovik.

Contributions of Sharing to Household and 

Community Well-being—Kaktovik

The final questions of the open-ended 

component of the survey asked respondents 

“how sharing contributes to well-being.” First, 

we focused on how sharing contributes to the 

well-being of the household. We identified 6 

codes from the responses. The list of codes and 

frequency that the codes appear are as follows: 

•	 general positive effect (36), 

•	 provides food (7),

•	 tradition (5), 

•	 pride (5), 

•	 community cohesion (5), 

•	 neutral feeling (2)

The largest group of responses discussed the 

general positive effects that sharing has on households in Kaktovik. The following quotes provide 

a few examples of the responses linked to this 

code. “Keeps you alive. Feel better.” “Happier, feels 

better, always good to share.” “When you go hunting, giving is good. Hunt as much as you can and 

give half away. That’s at least how I do. It’s better to 

give than receive. Then next time you get more....” 

“Feels good when you share with family. Got to 

share with friends and with seniors. No asking. Just 

share, better to share.” Some respondents specifically mentioned the physical benefits of giving 

and receiving food. One respondent discussed 

the significance of receiving just a small amount 

of some kind of subsistence harvest: “I know who 

needs the taste—even just for a taste, the elders.” 

Another group of respondents noted that sharing 

is an important tradition, one that is passed down 

from parents and grandparents to children. “Well 

I guess I was raised by my parents and grandparents and they shared everything they hunted and 

I guess I got in the habit of that. Share everything 

with the elders.” For some, giving harvested foods 

to others fosters a sense of pride, as this respondent described: “It makes my boy proud that he 

can support not only his family, but also elders....” 

Five responses focused on how sharing contributes to community cohesion. One respondent 

discussed this theme in the following way: “If 

people share it makes you feel like you are a part 

of the community and that people are looking out 

for you and take an interest in your well-being.” 

Next, we asked respondents how sharing 

contributes to the well-being of the community of Kaktovik. The data revealed similar codes 

to the previous question, as may be expected. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 56

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Six codes emerged from the data. The code 

list for this question and the frequency that 

each code appears in the data is as follows: 

•	 good feeling (28), 

•	 maintains tradition (10), 

•	 provides food (9), 

•	 cohesion (8), 

•	 contributes to overall well-being (7), and 

•	 gain respect through sharing (3). 

Many respondents focused on the positive 

feelings that come from sharing when asked how 

sharing contributes to community well-being. One 

respondent talked about the ‘feel good’ effect of 

sharing in this way: “It’s big—everyone contributes—you can see the joy it brings—makes the 

day!” Another respondent discussed how those 

good feelings may go away when sharing is interrupted: “I believe it makes everyone happy— Light 

spirited, it connects people together. It brightens 

people’s sprits. When no one shared with us we 

were down and sad about it. We wondered why, 

did we do something? We questioned ourselves. 

[It] made me feel even worse for not having any 

caribou to share with people. I’m always wishing I could have caught more to give more out.” 

Sharing plays an important role in maintaining 

Iñupiat traditions in Kaktovik, as the following 

respondent discussed: “Sharing honors traditional 

values and helps the spirituality of the community. The community comes together.... It is part of 

forming the identity for children.” One respondent 

simply stated, “It makes me feel like an Iñupiaq.” 

Some respondents noted that sharing contributes 

to community cohesion in Kaktovik and helps to 

keep everyone close as a family. Another group of 

respondents focused on how sharing is important 

for redistributing food through the community 

and for providing wild foods to those who cannot 

hunt for themselves. Sharing helps to augment the 

foods that can be found and afforded at the store, 

as this respondent discusses: “Sharing is important. 

[It is] expensive at the store. [There is] not enough 

money to go to the store and people don’t have 

equipment to go out hunting.” Some respondents 

chose to answer this question very broadly, which 

we coded as “overall well-being.” The following 

quote is one example: “Sharing is very spiritual. 

Contributes both to the economic aspect of the 

community but also the spiritual.” Another respondent said, “[Sharing] makes it a better place to live.” 

Finally, a small number of responses focused on 

the respect that comes from sharing and positive 

effects that respect has on community well-being.

Wainwright

Who Decides and How—Wainwright 

We asked Wainwright household heads 

who in their household decides how to share 

a harvested caribou. The data revealed 8 codes 

and the number of times each code appeared:

•	 head of household (63), 

•	 partners (42), 

•	 husband (6), 

•	 wife (1), 

•	 harvester (4), 

•	 several people in household (7), 

•	 does not give away (6), 

•	 other (9). 

Next, we asked how people decide 

how much subsistence of the caribou to 

share. Ten codes emerged from the data: 

•	 based on need (46), 

•	 depends on providing for own 

household’s food supply (37), 

•	 give half and keep half (19), 

•	 give to family and elders (17), 

•	 give certain proportion (11),

•	 share evenly (8), 

•	 keep most (4), 

•	 enough for a meal (2), 

•	 lacking equipment (1), 

•	 reciprocation (1). 

Respondents most commonly cited the need 

of other households as the main factor influencing 

how much they share. Another important theme 

mentioned by respondents was the food supply 

and harvest success of the providing household. 

One respondent described their sharing decision 

process in the following way: “depends on how 

much we have. If we have a lot she’ll share a lot, if 

we have a little bit she’ll share a little bit.” A group 
Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share

57

of respondents stated that they generally give half of 

their harvest away and keep the other half. Others 

noted that they give away a set proportion of their 

harvest, but not necessarily half, or generally give 

away certain parts of an animal. One respondent 

said, “Give away about a quarter of it. Always the 

same.” We found that many respondents preferentially share with family members, immediate 

and extended, and elders, before sharing with the 

rest of the community. It is important to note that 

these different themes are not exclusive from each 

other. Some responses were assigned more than 

one code, such as the following: “We try to think 

about those who need it, those without hunters 

or those without the means to hunt or also family 

too...our immediate family.” Here, a respondent 

mentioned both need and family. Others stated 

that both need of other households and harvesting success played a role in their decision making 

process: “We know somebody is hungry so we give 

it away, and when we have plenty.” A small number 

of respondents mentioned that they do not think 

about how much to share, but instead share evenly 

amongst community members. One respondent 

focused on reciprocation when answering this 

question. This person stated that they decide how 

much to share based on who does the work.

Sharing in Times of Scarcity—Wainwright

With regard to how the sharing patterns of 

households differ between years of scarcity and years 

of abundance, we identified 6 codes. The list of 

codes associated with this question is as follows: 

•	 no difference (43), 

•	 share less when animals scarce (37), 

•	 changing animal numbers (12), 

•	 other comments (12), 

•	 do not share (3), 

•	 more sharing when there is less (2). 

Many respondents said there is no difference 

in sharing between good and bad harvesting years; 

people are always sharing. Respondents emphasized that it is important to share, even if one is 

only able to provide a small amount: “[We] share 

every time we catch, even if it’s only a little—still 

give”. Another large group of household heads 

stated that more sharing occurs during years of 

abundance and less sharing occurs when wild foods 

are scarcer. The following quote is similar to responses provided by many respondents: “[In] years 

we had lots of traditional food we shared more. 

[It is] harder to share when you had little food.” 

Next, we asked respondents how sharing 

on the community level differs between a year 

of scarcity and a year of abundance. This question produced a wide range of answers, with 

respondents providing so many unique answers 

that it was difficult to group many. The following codes emerged from the survey data: 

•	 share more when successful/less 

sharing when unsuccessful (33), 

•	 no difference in sharing (23), 

•	 varies (4), 

•	 more sharing in lean years (4), 

•	 less sharing overall (2) 

•	 other comments (26). 

Similar to the previous question, many respondents noted that more sharing occurs when 

hunters are successful compared to when they are 

unsuccessful. However, respondents stated that 

sharing is still important in years of scarcity, but 

less food leaves the household. “There was a year 

when there were no whales caught and not too 

much caribou nearby. The weather was bad for 

geese. There were smaller portions. People still 

shared a lot, just smaller portions.” A large group 

of respondents stated that there is no difference in 

sharing between years of abundance and scarcity, 

illustrating the importance of sharing of wild foods 

in Wainwright. One respondent said it succinctly: 

“Community shares in good and bad.” Another 

stated, “They were still glad to share because that’s 

one of our values to share.” A small number of 

respondents stated that more sharing occurred 

in years of scarcity: “In the lean years, the people 

gave more away to those who had nothing.” We 

grouped a large number of responses into the code 

“other comments.” We linked answers to this code 

that did not fit into any other code and that were 

dissimilar to all other answers. If we had created 

a code for each unique answer, there would be an 

additional 26 codes. Several respondents did not 

directly answer the question, but instead provided 

a comment about sharing broadly. For example 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 58

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

one respondent said “love to share,” while another said “learning from Grandma.” Another said, 

“Caribou are far inland” in response to this question. One respondent said they could not answer 

the question since they were new to the community. 

Another said they have not noticed a difference 

in abundance of wild foods over the years. 

Perceived Changes in Sharing and 

Causes—Wainwright

We asked respondents how sharing has 

changed in the past 10 years. We identified 6 

codes, based on the responses to this question. The codes and the frequency that they 

appeared in the data are as follows: 

•	 no directional change (38), 

•	 less sharing now (22), 

•	 share more now (12),

•	 less hunting now (3), 

•	 family changes affects sharing (1), 

•	 other comments (13). 

Learning from elders and teaching younger 

generations to share were commonly mentioned 

by respondents as reasons why sharing remains 

important in the community: “I watched my 

grand-parents, my parents...and I share the same 

way just for a smile on their face. My kids are not 

allowed to sell wild foods.” Many respondents 

mentioned that despite drastic changes, such as 

increasing fuel and ammunition prices, the introduction of food stamps, and changes in animal 

populations, sharing wild foods remains a vitally 

important social norm in Wainwright. “Sharing 

is the same. Hunting has changed but sharing 

always... nothing is going change that. It’s not 

just food. We’re passing on all of it to our kids to 

share. Dancing and language, knowledge of ice 

conditions to whoever is interested in learning... 

It’s not just food that we share, it’s wisdom. It’s love 

that we share. Up here it’s one big family, not the 

white man’s world everybody out for themselves.” 

Another group of respondents stated that the 

sharing of wild foods occurs less now compared to 

the past. Some respondents said they did not know 

why sharing is less important in the community 

now, while others mentioned specific factors influencing a general decline in sharing. Some noted 

that more people now sell wild foods because they 

need money, while others stated that increasing 

regulations limit hunting opportunities, which in 

turn affects one’s ability to share. The loss of family members and the lack of equipment also affect 

people’s ability to share wild foods, as the following 

quotes describe: “I hardly have anything this year, 

so I can’t share very much. My husband is gone you 

know. I just get what my son-in-law catch.” “Used 

to share more when we had our boat and snowmachine; could get more traditional foods and so 

it was easier to give.” Another theme that emerged 

was the idea that some share more now than in the 

past. Several respondents noted that increasing 

harvesting success is linked with more sharing: 

“I’ve been able to share more because I have become a better hunter over past 10 years.” Again, a 

large group of answers remained grouped together 

in ‘other comments’. Generally the responses that 

were coded as other comments did not directly 

address the question. Within this group of comments, a range of topics were mentioned, such as 

global warming, the sharing of store-bought foods, 

the influx of food stamps, the opinion of a newcomer to the community, and changes in whaling.

After asking respondents how sharing has 

changed, we sought to understand what caused 

these changes. The survey data associated with 

this question revealed 7 separate codes. It is important to note that only those who said that 

sharing has changed answered this question, 

so only a small proportion of the respondents 

provided answers. The codes and frequency of 

the code in the survey data are as follows:

•	 changing family dynamics (11), 

•	 changes in hunting (9), 

•	 jobs/money/equipment (8), 

•	 changing environmental conditions (6), 

•	 tradition (5), 

•	 lack of wild foods (4), 

•	 changing cultural norms (4). 

Sharing networks are generally strongest 

amongst family members. Changing family dynamics, such as the death of an elder, kids growing 

up and leaving the household, or an active hunter 

moving away from the community can drastically change the sharing patterns among a set of 
Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share

59

households. Several respondents mentioned this 

phenomenon: “We share more now than when the 

kids were younger. Now they go hunt themselves. I 

wasn’t hunting back then. I was busy with the kids 

and work. But I provided for my dad’s crew.” Several 

people noted that they or other members of their 

family now hunt less, which affects their ability to 

share: “We don’t go out hunt so much anymore. 

My dad is old. We depend on my brother and his 

snowmachine broke down.” The cost of subsistence 

activities and the lack of capital to go hunting and 

fishing were cited by many as affecting their ability 

to pursue subsistence resources: “The prices go up 

on gas, equipment. We have a hard time keeping 

up, especially in winter time. We go out less and get 

less.” A group of respondents mentioned changing environmental conditions as a factor affecting 

changes in sharing patterns. It is important to note 

that climate change and other environmental shifts 

were generally mentioned as one of several factors: 

“Lack of resources, lack of job, global warming.” 

Another set of respondents discussed the changing 

cultural norms in Wainwright, and how that affects 

sharing patterns: “[The] community is getting 

younger—the way of thinking about sharing has 

started to go away. Sharing was an older generation 

thing. Back in the day people always shared....” 

The responses coded as ‘tradition’ focused on the 

continued importance of sharing: “Part of Iñupiat 

culture to give to who needs it; if they don’t have 

people to get it for them.” Finally, some respondents discussed a general lack of wild food as the 

reason why their household may share less. 

Contributions of Sharing to Household and 

Community Well-being—Wainwright

Respondents were asked if and how sharing contributes to the well-being of their 

household. We linked responses to 7 codes, 

which are listed along with the frequency that each code appears in the data: 

•	 general positive effect (64), 

•	 provides food and health benefits (28), 

•	 continues tradition (26), 

•	 give and later receive (24), 

•	 sense of community cohesion (6), 

•	 no sharing (3), 

•	 neutral (1). 

Many respondents recognized and mentioned the general positive effect that sharing has 

on households in Wainwright. “We feel good” or 

“we feel happy” were very common responses to 

this question. One respondent said, “Makes everybody happy. We don’t even think about it—we’re 

willing to help. [We’re] happy to share what we 

got if we have enough.” Other respondents specifically mentioned that sharing provides food 

to people who would otherwise go without, and 

also discussed the health benefits that come from 

eating wild foods. “Sharing is everything. In order 

to survive you need to share. Some households 

wouldn’t be able to survive. Some households are 

blessed with the equipment and resources. If it 

came to nobody sharing anymore there would be 

a lot of people hurting.” “Native food is the best. 

When we eat native food we get healthier.” The 

sharing of wild foods helps to connect people 

living in Wainwright today with their ancestors 

and their legacy of living off the land. Many respondents discussed the vital role that sharing 

plays in the community and the importance of 

passing on the sharing tradition: “It’s an Iñupiat 

value and we teach it to our children so they could 

in turn pass it onto their children.” “It makes me 

feel good, plus it is tradition. My grandma always 

said, ‘Never stop practicing your Inupiaq ways, 

always use them’.” Another group of respondents 

discussed the reciprocal nature of sharing. “Give 

now and you will receive later” was a common 

idea expressed when respondents answered this 

question. As put by one respondent: “When I share 

with people, people share back with me. This way 

we make sure each household has enough to eat.” 

After focusing on the household level, 

we then asked respondents how sharing contributes to the well-being of the community. 

The data revealed similar codes to the previous question, as may be expected. The code list 

for this question and the frequency that each 

code appears in the data is as follows: 

•	 provides food and health benefits (46), 

•	 general positive effect (43), 

•	 community cohesion and identity (29), 

•	 continuing tradition (20), 

•	 give and later receive (4). 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 60

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Respondents noted that sharing helps to 

ensure that everyone in Wainwright has access 

to wild foods, even those who are unable to go 

hunting themselves. “When we share with our 

community, it helps the health of our community 

because there are some people who can’t hunt for 

themselves.” Similarly to the previous question, 

many respondents mentioned the general positive 

effects of sharing on the community of Wainwright. 

The following are words pulled from respondents’ 

answers that were coded as ‘general positive effects’: smile, happy, feel good, love, in our hearts, 

lifts spirits, feel better, full of joy, and very good. 

A group of respondents noted how sharing contributes to community cohesion in Wainwright. 

Giving and receiving wild foods fosters a sense of 

community and caring: “Everyone becoming one 

family through sharing; just like being one big 

family. Keeps the village strong.” Others discussed 

the role that sharing plays in linking the past with 

the present. “It keeps the culture alive. [There is] 

joy in knowing somebody got something and we 

know we’re going to get some. We’re depending 

on our children now that we’re getting older and 

that helps the community.” Finally, a small number of respondents mentioned the reciprocation 

associated with sharing and how that contributes 

to community well-being: “If we give something 

to somebody they give back. Like if we have ducks 

after duck season we’ll give them and if they have 

caribou they’ll give to us. It just goes on and on.”

Venetie

Open-ended questions about sharing differed 

from those asked in the other study communities, because Venetie was the first community 

where interviews were conducted and we decided that rephrasing the questions in Kaktovik 

and Wainwright would provide better results. 

How Decisions Are Made About Sharing 

by Household—Venetie 

We asked survey respondents how members of their household make decisions about 

when and how to share subsistence resources. 

This question differed from the questions posed 

in other communities, which asked only about 

sharing a single caribou. Ten codes emerged from 

the data. The list of codes and the frequency with 

which they appeared in the data are as follows: 

•	 unrestrained sharing (25), 

•	 based on need (21), 

•	 when household has enough or extra (17), 

•	 family members (12), 

•	 elders (10), 

•	 people who ask (7), 

•	 social gatherings (7), 

•	 reciprocation (5), 

•	 families with children (3), 

•	 tradition (3). 

A large proportion of respondents noted that 

they share “anytime” and to “anyone.” These responses were coded as unrestrained sharing. One 

respondent discussed unrestrained sharing in the 

following way: “If I get a bunch of meat, [I] just give 

it away to whomever I think wants them. I share 

all the time.” For some respondents, the decision 

of how and when to share is based on the needs of 

other households, as this respondent explains, “If 

somebody asks for something or I see they need 

something I share with them.” Respondents noted 

that when it comes to sharing moose, hunters 

share with those who were not able to get a moose 

themselves. Whether someone has enough meat for 

their own household often determines if and when 

they share with others. One respondent explained 

how their decision to share was based on their meat 

supply in the following way: “It depends on [the] 

quantity of food harvested and time of year. If my 

freezer is full and it’s not cold enough outside I’ll 

share because [there is] no way to keep it.” Several 

respondents noted that they primarily share with 

members of their family. Another group of respondents said they make sure to share with elders 

when they are able. Some noted that meat is often 

redistributed more than once: “We give it to our 

parents and they give it to others, like elders.” It is 

important to note that some responses, such as the 

previous one, were assigned multiple codes. The 

previous quote is coded as both ‘elders’ and ‘family 

members.’ Some household heads mentioned that 

social gatherings are opportunities to share wild 

foods. Household heads specifically mentioned 
Chapter 5 - How and Why They Share

61

potlatches associated with funerals and holidays as 

important times for sharing foods. Sharing meat 

with those who lent a helping hand, shared meat 

at an earlier time, or loaned equipment is a common occurrence. Several noted the importance of 

reciprocal sharing: “We just remember who give 

us some fish, and when we get fish later, we return 

it.” A small number of respondents noted that they 

share especially with households that have children. Finally, those responses linked to the code 

‘tradition’ discussed how sharing is a very natural 

process, one that dates back generations, and how 

and when to share is rarely discussed explicitly. 

Sharing in Times of Abundant Harvesting 

vs. Limited Harvesting—Venetie

Next, we focused on how sharing changes 

based on harvesting success. We asked respondents if members of their household share wild 

foods differently when they have been successful 

in hunting, compared to when they have been 

unsuccessful. We found that 64% of respondents 

said ‘no,’ sharing is not different when a hunter is 

successful compared to when they are unsuccessful. 

We then asked the 34% of respondents who said 

‘yes’ how sharing is different. Five codes emerged 

from the data. The codes and frequency with 

which they appeared in the data are as follows: 

•	 when successful share more/

unsuccessful share less (23), 

•	 share based on need (5), 

•	 prioritize if unsuccessful (4), 

•	 share more when there is less (2), 

•	 children priority (1). 

The largest proportion of respondents reported that they share more when they have been 

successful compared to when they have been 

unsuccessful. One respondent put it very simply, 

“I can’t share if I have none.” Some respondents 

noted that in times of scarcity, they make sure 

to share with those who are most in need. A few 

respondents discussed how they prioritize when 

they are less successful; they limit their sharing 

to a select group of people, as the following respondent describes. “If we have a lot, then I’d give 

it away to everybody. If I have very little, [I give] 

just to family, elders.” Two respondents reported that more sharing occurs in times of scarcity. 

One said the following: “Give it away more in a 

bad season to make sure people are getting some.” 

Finally, one respondent noted that during unsuccessful periods of hunting, they try to make sure 

that households with children are receiving meat. 

Strength of Sharing Networks—Venetie

Our final open-ended survey question focused 

on the strength of sharing networks. Specifically, 

we asked the respondents this question: How 

strong are your sharing relationships with other 

households? Six codes emerged from the data: 

•	 strong (52), 

•	 very strong (21), 

•	 when and if I have it (9), 

•	 specific to some households (4), 

•	 lessening (4), 

•	 and weak (3). 

Overall, respondents felt that their sharing 

relationships with other households are strong, 

as this respondent describes: “Strong people are 

generous proud people.” A group of respondents 

noted that their sharing relationships change, based 

on how much meat they have and are able to share. 

One respondent explained the flexible nature of 

sharing relationships in this way: “I think they are 

very strong, but not always the same. The need to 

share is always strong, but flexible, depending on 

how much you have and who is in need.” A small 

number of respondents reported that strong sharing 

relationships are specific to certain households. 

One respondent explained in the following way: 

“Pretty strong with family, friends, and elders.” 

Four respondents noted that the strength of sharing relationships is lessening over time. Increasing 

hunting regulations and a decreasing presence 

of moose in the area were both mentioned to be 

causing a decrease in sharing. Three respondents 

reported that their sharing relationships were 

somewhat marginal. One respondent was new to 

the community, and therefore had yet to develop 

their sharing relationships. Another noted that 

they are home a lot and don’t share with anyone. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 62

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Discussion

Self-reported qualitative evidence of sharing 

motivations and rationales for behavior provide 

one understanding of sharing in community 

subsistence-cash economic systems. In the absence of data from two points in time that provide 

insights into system dynamics in varying conditions, self-reported qualitative data do inform 

our understanding of the range of perceptions 

local residents. They also have the potential of 

serving as a starting point for further research.

Reflecting ideology on human-environment 

relationships, and in particular indigenous beliefs 

in animals as sentient beings, community members expressed their obligation to share with other 

humans in respect to animals who have shared 

themselves with hunters. Fulfilling these obligations 

is seen as translating into a greater likelihood of 

hunting success in the future. In this respect, the 

“lucky” hunter is not only described in probabilistic 

terms, but also as one who freely shares his or her 

catch with others. Sharing was also described as 

functioning as a form of security in anticipation of 

one’s possible future conditions of scarcity. If unsuccessful in harvesting during one season, norms 

of sharing may provide households a safety net for 

acquiring needed wild foods. Sharing was described 

as a form of social welfare—a way of taking care of 

those in need in a way that gives a sense of pride 

and pleasure. As well, sharing and cooperation 

were described as cultural markers that distinguish the indigenous subsistence user from other 

harvesters, such as urban hunters seeking trophy 

animals. Finally, acts of sharing and cooperation in 

subsistence food production have been described as 

generating a good feeling and an important sense 

of social cohesion or community. Institutionalized 

rituals, such as the Iñupiat Nalukataq, also contribute to social interaction, the distribution of 

traditional food, dancing, and celebration. 

Findings from our two North Slope communities (where the “who decides” question was 

asked), are consistent with each other—that household heads have a significant role in deciding on 

the frequency, magnitude, and type of sharing that 

will flow from a household. Responses on with 

whom to share, how scarcity affects sharing, and 

how sharing has changed were mixed and therefore inconclusive. These findings suggest several 

questions worthy of future research, such as the 

extent to which scarcity constrains and reduces 

sharing and the extent to which kinship relationships shape the recipients of wild food in conditions 

of scarcity. When interpreting these findings, it’s 

important to note that it is not surprising that a 

diversity of household heads reported a diversity 

of perspectives. Communities and their households are rarely monolithic in their perspectives. 

¤
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

63

Chapter 6 - Household Demographics, Cash, and Harvests 

by adults and elders within households. More 

than 81% of the respondents (n = 57) self-identified their household members as of fully Alaska 

Native descent, while 16% of households (n = 

11) self-described as composed of all non-Alaska 

Native individuals. A few households identified 

as mixed ethnicity (n = 2, 2.9%) (Table 6.2). Five 

Kaktovik households (7%) were headed by non-Native teachers, the majority of whom lived in the 

community only during the 9-month school year. 

A majority of Kaktovik households were 

categorized as Mature households (50%), followed 

by Elder households (34%) and then Developing 

households (16%). Most Developing households 

consisted of unmarried individuals (6 of 11 households) (Table 6.3). Most Mature households were 

either Nuclear (11 of 35) or Extended families 

(9 of 35), while Elder households were predominantly Extended families (8 of 24 households) 

or single individuals (7 of 24 

households). Extended Families, 

Single Individual households 

and Nuclear households represented over 75% of all household 

types. Size of households ranged 

from 1 to 10. The largest households were Extended families 

(Mean = 5.82 individuals), 

followed by Nuclear families 

(Mean = 4.73 individuals) 

(Tables 6.3, 6.4 and Figure 6.1). 

Overall, 40 households 

(57%) self-identified as having 

one head of household. The 

remaining 30 households (43%) 

had 2 heads of household. Of the 

30 households with 2 household 

This chapter presents results from the portion of the 

survey that focused on community and household 

demographics, the cash sector of household economies, 

and harvested subsistence resources. Results are 

presented by community, using a similar format 

for each. Households were categorized by the age 

of the household head in three types: Developing 

(<40yo), Mature (40–59yo), and Elder (>59yo). 

Kaktovik, Alaska

Demographics and Education - Kaktovik

We surveyed 82% of Kaktovik households (70 

out of 85) (Table 6.1) and identified 236 residents in 

all surveyed households. Mean household size was 

3.4 individuals (SD: 2.29; Median: 3.0). The average dependency ratio for Kaktovik households was 

0.36, reflecting the number of minors supported 

Table 6.1. Community demographics, Kaktovik.

Total Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

No. of HHs surveyeda 70.00 ----- ----- ----- -----

No. of Peopleb 236.00 ----- ----- ----- -----

Mean

No. of People per HHb 3.37 2.29 3.00 1.00 10.00

No. of Adults per HHb, c 1.91 1.40 2.00 0.00 6.00

No. of Elders per HHb, d 0.46 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.00

No. of Minors per HHb, e 0.94 1.34 0.00 0.00 4.00

Dependency Ratiob, f 0.36 0.60 0.00 0.00 3.00

a. 82% (70 of 85) of hhs were surveyed

b. Of households surveyed

c. Adults are defined as people between 18 and 59

d. Elders are defined as people 60 and over

e. Minors are defined as people 17 and younger

f. The dependency ratio is no. minors: no. of adults and elders within a HH
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 64

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.2. Percentage of household members selfidentified as Alaska Native, Kaktovik.

Percent Total Number

100% Non-native 

HH 15.71 11

1-25% 

Alaska Native 0.00 0

26-50% 

Alaska Native 0.00 0

51-75% 

Alaska Native 0.00 0

76-99% 

Alaska Native 2.86 2

100% Alaska Native 81.43 57

Total 100.00 70

Figure 6.1. Household size by household type, Kaktovik.

heads, 35% were led by a couple, where one of the 

household heads had a high school diploma or 

above. In 46% of these households, both individuals 

had a high school diploma or above. Of 40 households that had just one household head, 61% were 

led by an individual with a high school diploma 

or above. Children were present in 40% of households and 30% of all households had children in 

school. Table 6.5a, presents education data for 64 

individuals named as a primary head of household 

(household1) and an additional 29 individuals 

named as secondary heads of household (household2). Almost 40% of both groups had a high 

school diploma or GED. More than 26% of primary 

household heads had additional degrees or years in 

school beyond secondary (19% with 1–2 years of 

higher education). Looking at all adults in Kaktovik 

(Table 6.5b), 58% had a maximum education of a 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

65

Table 6.3. Household type by household development stage.

Developinga

% (No.)

Matureb

% (No.)

Elderc

% (No.)

Total

% (No.)

Single Individual 8.57 (6) 8.57 (6) 10.00 (7) 27.14 (19)

Multiple Single 

Individuals 1.43 (1) 1.43 (1) 0.00 (0) 2.86 (2)

Single Parent with 

Young Children 2.86 (2) 1.43 (1) 0.00 (0) 4.29 (3)

Single Parent with 

Children >16 0.00 (0) 2.86 (2) 0.00 (0) 2.86 (2)

Single Elder 

Parent with Adult 

Child(ren)

 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 7.14 (5) 7.14 (5)

Couple 0.00 (0) 5.71 (4) 2.86 (2) 8.57 (6)

Nuclear Family 2.86 (2) 15.71 (11) 2.86 (2) 21.43 (15)

Extended Family 0.00 (0) 12.86 (9) 11.43 (8) 24.29 (17)

Otherd 0.00 (0) 1.43 (1) 0.00 (0) 1.43 (1)

Total 15.71 (11) 50.00 (35) 34.29 (24) 100.00 (70)

a. Developing refers to households where the head is under 40 years old.

b. Mature refers to households where the head is between 40 and 59 years old.

c. Elder refers to households where the head is over 59 years old.

d. “Other” refers to Kaktovik HH 70, which has a 48-year-old female, 38-year-old 

female colleague, 11-year-old nephew, and 11-year-old daughter.

Table 6.4. Household size by household type, Kaktovik.

Mean Standard Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Single Individuals 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Single Individuals + Unrelated 

Individuals 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Single Parent with Young Children 2.67 1.16 2.00 2.00 4.00

Single Parent with Children >16 2.50 0.71 2.50 2.00 3.00

Single Elder Parent with Adult Child(ren) 2.80 1.10 2.00 2.00 4.00

Couple 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Nuclear Family 4.73 1.39 5.00 3.00 7.00

Extended Family 5.82 2.10 6.00 2.00 10.00

Othera 4.00 ---- 4.00 4.00 4.00

a. “Other” refers to Kaktovik HH 70, which has a 48-year-old female, 38-year-old female colleague, 11-year-old nephew, and 11-year-old 

daughter.

high school degree or GED, an additional 17% had more school beyond 

high school, and 5% held a four-year 

or master’s degree or beyond. No men 

held a four-year degree, while 4 women 

had four-year degrees. However, 2 

men and 3 women held either a master’s degree or above (3% of adults). 

Employment and Household 

Cash Inputs—Kaktovik

Almost 90% of households in 

Kaktovik had at least one individual 

who was employed at least one month 

during the 12-month study period 

(61/68 households); the remainder 

(n = 7 households) had no one in 

the household employed (Table 6.6). 

Adults who were employed (18 and 

over) were employed on average 8.2 

mos. per year (Table 6.7). The average 

number of total months employed 

across all working individuals within 

households was 16.61 with a median of 

15.0 and SD of 11.11 (Table 6.8). The 

mean number of jobs held per household (either full-, part-time or on-call) was 2.25 

with a median of 2.0 and SD of 1.67. This figure 

reflects either individuals holding multiple jobs 

or multiple people employed within households.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 66

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.5. Household heads and Adult/Elder Individuals’ maximum education levels, Kaktovik.

Grade 

School 

% (No.)

Junior 

High 

School 

% (No.)

Some 

High 

School

High 

School 

Graduate 

or GED

1–2 years 

Higher 

Education 

% (No.)

Four-Year 

Degree % 

(No.)

Master’s 

and 

Above 

% (No.)

Total 

% (No.)

A. Household Heads

Individ. 

named as 

hh1

12.50 (8) 14.06 (9) 7.81 (5) 39.06 (25) 18.75 (12) 3.13 (2) 4.69 (3) 100.00 

(64)a

Individ. 

named as 

hh2b

10.71 (3) 3.57 (1) 14.29 (4) 39.29 (11) 25.00 (8) 0.0 (0) 7.14 (2) 100.00 

(29)c

B. All Adult and Elder Individualsd

All Men 7.32 (6) 9.76 (8) 12.20 (10) 59.76 (49) 8.54 (7) 0.0 (0) 2.44 (2) 100.00 

(82)e

All 

Women 7.14 (5) 5.71 (4) 8.57 (6) 55.71 (39) 12.86 (9) 5.71 (4) 4.29 (3) 100.00 (70)e

All Adults 7.24 (11) 7.89 (12) 10.53 (16) 57.89 (88) 10.53 (16) 2.63 (4) 3.29 (5) 100.00 

(152)e

a. Education values missing for 6 individuals.

b. 57.1% (40) households named one adult head of household. 

c. 42.9% (30) of households named two household heads. 1 individual named as hh head 2 were missing education values.

d. All adults and elders (individuals 18 years old and over), household heads and all other adults.

e. Education values missing for 13 adult and elder individuals (5 men: 7 women).

Table 6.6. Percentage (No.) households employed 

2009, Kaktovik.

Percent Total Number

HH Employed in 2009 89.71 61

HH Unemployed in 2009 10.29 7

Totala 100.00 68

a. 2 hhs are missing employment information

Of 40 hhs that have just one hh head, 61.11% (22) are led by an 

individual with a high school diploma or above (11 male: 11 female). 

Four cases have missing education information.

Of the 30 hhs that have 2 hh heads, 34.62% (9) are led by a couple 

where only one of the hh heads has a high school diploma or above 

(6 male: 3 female). For 46.15% (12) of couples, both individuals 

have a high school diploma or above. Four cases have missing 

information for at least one of the hh heads.

30% of households currently have children in school 3 no. responses 

missing).

Table 6.7. Income and employment, Kaktovik.

Kaktovik

Income

Per Capita Job Income $ 26,831

Per Capita HH Income $ 32,269

Employment

Employment months per 

adult 8.2

No. jobs/household 2.3

Almost two-thirds (61%) of all employment 

by industrial categories stemmed from local government, primarily jobs generated by the North 

Slope Borough (Table 6.9 and Figure 6.3). Services 

account for 17% of reported jobs with finance (6%), 

retail trade (6%), transportation (5%), mining 

(4%), and construction (1%) making up the difference. Individuals held a diversity of job types 

as illustrated in Figure 6.3. However, 4 categories, 

services, administrative support, teaching, and 

sales occupations, made up more than 50% of all 

jobs in Kaktovik. Figure 6.4 illustrates that employment in all 3 employment schedule categories 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

67

Figure 6.2. Kaktovik sources of employment.

Table 6.8. Household-level employment data, Kaktovik.

Mean 

(months)

Standard 

Deviation

Median Minimum Maximum

HH Total Months Employed 16.61 11.11 15.00 0.00 40.00

HH Total No. of Jobs 2.25 1.67 2.00 0.00 8.00

No. of Full-Time Jobs within HH 1.19 0.97 1.00 0.00 4.00

No. of Part-Time Jobs within HH 0.62 1.16 0.00 0.00 6.00

No. of On-call Jobs within HH 0.32 0.78 0.00 0.00 5.00

Ratio of Jobs to adults within HH 1.09 0.83 1.00 0.00 4.00

Ratio of Full-Time Jobs to HH Size 0.47 0.42 0.33 0.00 1.50

Ratio of Part-Time Jobs to HH Size 0.24 0.52 0.00 0.00 3.00

Ratio of On-call Jobs to HH Size 0.10 0.23 0.00 0.00 1.25
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 68

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 6.3. Kaktovik types of employment.

Table 6.9. Sources of employment, Kaktovik.

Job Type Percent No. of 

Households

Local Government 61.1 88

Services 17.4 25

Finance, Insurance & Real 

Estate 5.6 8

Retail Trade 5.6 8

Transportation, 

Communication & Utilities 4.9 7

Mining 4.2 6

Construction 1.4 2

was fairly consistent throughout the calendar 

year, with a small decline in full-time employment during the summer months (May–July). 

The diversity of income flows into Kaktovik 

households is shown in Table 6.10. Mean household wage income with imputed values was 

$51,789.80. The median value was $55,500.00 and 

income variability was high (SD: $47,109). Average 

gross household income was $86,190 (Median: 

88,127; SD: $48,639). Mean household dividend 

income accounted for between zero and 94% of 

total household income. The mean proportion of 

household income represented by dividends was 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

69

Figure 6.4. Number of jobs of each employment type by month, Kaktovik.

Figure 6.5. Income by tercile, Kaktovik.

31.5%. The largest component of 

household dividend income was the 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

(ASRC). While mean household assistance income over the entire village 

sample was only $2,746 annually, 

45 households were receiving some 

form of public assistance and average 

amount received by this subgroup 

was $4,271/yr (Median: $550.0; SD: 

$7,331). Assistance funds are thus 

important to those receiving them 

(Table 6.10). Mean household income 

by tercile categories was $33,704 

(lower); $81,592 (middle); and 

$141,100 (upper) (Figure 6.5). The 

proportion of income represented by 

wage income doubled by consecutive 

terciles and dividend income tripled 

between lower and middle terciles.

Household income and household 

size are positively correlated (r = .557; 

p< 0.01). On a per capita basis, mean 

job income in Kaktovik was calculated as $22,491 and mean household 

income was $32,269 (Table 6.7).

$141,100

$33,704
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 70

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.10. Categories of cash inflows into households, Kaktovik.

Mean 

with zero 

values $ 

(No.)

Mean 

without zero 

values $ (No.)

Standard 

Deviation 

without 

zero values

Median 

without 

zero values

Minimum 

without 

zero values

Maximum 

without 

zero values

No. of 

HHs 

Missing

Wage Income

Wage Income without 

imputed values

52,437.53 

(51) 62,193.35 (43) 43,859.16 55,500.00 1,600.00 175,000.00 1

Wage Income with 

imputed valuesa

51,789.77 

(69) 59,558.24 (60) 47,108.99 47,500.00 1,600.00 230,000.00 1 

Dividend Income

Permanent Fund 

Dividend

 3,644.10 

(69) 4,055.53 (62) 2,791.23 3,047.00 1,281.00 12,811.00 1

Village Corporate 

Dividendb

 1,573.52 

(69) 2,261.94 (48) 1,821.18 2,000.00 200.00 8,696.00 1

Regional Corporate 

Dividendc

17,570.05 

(69) 22,450.62 (54) 14,271.31 21,183.50 100.00 67,301.00 1

Other Dividend 

Incomed

 104.29 

(69) 811.11 (60) 682.72 600.00 200.00 2,400.00 1

Total Dividend 

Income

22,893.40 

(69) 24,681.94 (64) 18,761.78 21,517.50 1,281.00 87,344.00 1

Assistance Income

Elder Income 5,299.49 

(70) 20.609.11 (18) 16,168.00 16,740.00 92.00 70,800.00 0

Other Incomee 1,634.01 

(70) 3,010.03 (38) 8,245.68 550.00 225.00 45,550.00 0

Assistancef 1,111.94 

(70) 4,324.22 (18) 4,367.30 2,280.00 500.00 13,600.00 0

Total Assistance 

Income

 2,745.96 

(70) 4,271.49 (45) 8,750.80 600.00 413.00 45,550.00 0

Total Gross HH 

Income

86,189.81 

(69) 86,189.81 (69) 48,639.41 88,127.00 2,960.00 235,262.00 1

Per capita incomeg 40,613.09 

(69) 40,613.09 (69) 25,432.24 32,654.75 2,960.00 130,000.00 1

a. Wage income for 20 households was imputed based on reported 

job type and work schedule

b. Combines KIC with additional reported village corporation 

dividends for the HH

c. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC)

d. Other dividend income refers to second regional corporate 

income or/and coop dividends

e. Energy, CITCO, Weatherization Funds, The Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Food 

Stamps

f. Income from jobs programs (Unemployment, Workers’ 

Compensation), child programs (Supplemental Security, Foster 

Care, Child Support) and public assistance programs (Adult Public 

Assistance, Temporary Assistance)

g. Per Capita income is calculated as Gross HH Income/Number of 

people within HH

Household Gear, Hunters and Harvest—Kaktovik

In Kaktovik 50% of households (103/146 

households reporting) owned at least one snowmobile. Not all respondents provided complete gear 

use information, however clear patterns emerge 

from comparing use and ownership data. More 

than 78.0% of households reported that they used 

a snowmachine (Table 6.11). More than 31% of 

households stated they owned a boat, but many 

more (57%; 33/58 households reporting) used 

boats during the study period. Results suggest 

that some households borrow snowmachines and 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

71

Table 6.11. Subsistence gear, Kaktovik.

Use Y/N 

% (No.)

Own Y/Na

% (No.)

Purchase 

Y/Na

% (No.)

Mean No. 

Owneda

(S.D.)

Range of 

No. Owna

No. 

Purchased 

Meanb

(S.D.)

Amount 

spent 

to buyb

(S.D)

Amount 

spent to 

Repairc

(S.D.)

Snowmobiles

Y: 35.6 

(38)

N: 64.4 

(21)d

Y: 50.00 

(35) 

N: 50.00 

(35)

Y: 24.29 

(17)

N: 75.71 

(53)

.90 (1.19) 0–5 1.06 (0.24) 6,777.65 

(5,740.69)

915.54

(1,457.76)e

Boats

Y: 56.9 

(33)

N: 43.1 

(25)d

Y: 31.43 

(22)

N: 68.57 

(48)

Yes: 5.71 

(4)

No: 94.29 

(66)

0.43 

(0.69) 0–2 1.00 (0.00) 2,500.33 (2,499.50)f

80.88 

(212.78)g

All-Terrain 

Vehicle

Y: 48.3 

(31) 

N: 51.7 

(29)h

Y: 37.14 

(26) 

N: 61.43 

(43)

Don’t 

Know: 

1.43 (1)

Yes: 5.71 

(4)

No: 94.29 

(66)

0.48 

(0.68) 0–2 1.25 (0.50) 6,975.00 (1,678.04)

105.22 

(224.60)i

a. Of all respondents

b. Of those who purchased

c. Of those who own

d. 11 missing data

e. 7 missing data

f. 1 missing data

g. N=17 (5 missing)

h. 10 missing data

i. N=23 (3 missing)

Table 6.12. Number of hunters and processors engaged in subsistence, and 

number of species harvested per household, Kaktovik.a

Mean Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Percentage 

of 

Households 

with Zero 

% (No.) 

No. of 

Hunters 2.46 2.10 2.00 0.00 8.00 17.14 (12)

No. of 

Processors 2.49 1.82 2.00 0.00 7.00 5.71 (4)b

No. of 

Species 

Hunteda

2.74 2.09 2.00 0.00 8.00 17.14 (12)

a. These calculations are only for the seven core species.

b. Four households report no hunters or processors.

boats from others. Similar household ownership 

and use patterns were found in the community 

for all-terrain vehicles. About 37% of households 

owned all-terrain vehicles, but 52% reported 

using an all-terrain vehicle during the study period (31/60 households reporting). Combining 

all types of equipment (snowmachines, boats, 

and all-terrain vehicles), mean number of equipment owned was 1.8, with a median of 1.0 and 

SD of 2.0. The average amount spent by Kaktovik 

households during the study period on snowmobile purchases was $6,777 (24% of households 

purchasing), on boats was $2,500 (6% purchasing), and on 4x4s was $6,975 (6% purchasing). 

Across the 7 core species in Kaktovik (caribou, Dall sheep, bowhead whale, beluga whale, 

bearded seal, Dolly varden [“arctic char”], and 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 72

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Resource Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

All 

Resources 100.0 95.7 94.3 100.0 84.3 202,957.7 2,387.7 707.2 13,138.0 15.2

Resource—Fish

Fish 95.7 82.9 75.7 85.7 70.0 27,486.3 323.4 95.8 10,857.6 15.9

Salmon 18.6 7.1 5.7 14.3 8.6 287.9 3.4 1.0 58.6 Ind. 49.7

Chum 

Salmon 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 7.3 0.1 0.0 1.2 Ind. 83.8

Coho 

Salmon 4.3 1.4 1.4 2.9 2.9 47.4 0.6 0.2 9.1 Ind. 83.8

Chinook 

Salmon 5.7 1.4 1.4 4.3 1.4 15.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 Ind. 83.8

Pink 

Salmon 4.3 1.4 1.4 2.9 2.9 17.9 0.2 0.1 8.5 Ind. 83.8

Sockeye 

Salmon 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 78.9 0.9 0.3 18.4 Ind. 83.8

Unknown 

Salmon 7.1 2.9 1.4 7.1 1.4 121.4 1.4 0.4 20.2 Ind. 83.8

NonSalmon 

Fish

95.7 82.9 75.7 84.3 68.6 27,198.4 320.0 94.8 10,799.0 15.9

Herring 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Smelt 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Rainbow 

Smelt 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Cod 11.4 15.7 11.4 1.4 4.3 54.6 0.6 0.2 261.1 Ind. 44.2

Arctic Cod 1.4 2.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 Ind. 83.8

Saffron 

Cod 11.4 15.7 11.4 1.4 2.9 54.3 0.6 0.2 258.6 Ind. 44.5

Halibut 10.0 1.4 1.4 8.6 2.9 364.3 4.3 1.3 364.3 Lbs. 83.8

Sculpin 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 1.4 30.6 0.4 0.1 145.7 Ind. 71.0

Burbot 5.8 1.4 1.4 4.3 1.4 121.4 1.4 0.4 28.9 Ind. 83.8

Char 94.3 80.0 75.7 78.6 64.3 21,174.4 249.1 73.8 6,401.8 Ind. 14.3

Dolly 

Varden 94.3 78.6 75.7 77.1 64.3 20,897.5 245.9 72.8 6,332.6 Ind. 14.3

Lake Trout 24.3 7.1 4.3 24.3 4.3 276.9 3.3 1.0 69.2 Ind. 55.5

Arctic 

Grayling 7.1 11.4 4.3 2.9 1.4 40.4 0.5 0.1 44.9 Ind. 53.9

Table 6.13. Harvest and use – All species, Kaktovik.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

73

Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Resource Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Trout 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Rainbow 

Trout 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Whitefishes 52.9 44.3 34.3 38.6 32.9 5,412.7 63.7 18.9 3,552.3 Ind. 27.6

Broad 

Whitefish 42.9 25.7 20.0 28.6 20.3 3,729.4 43.9 13.0 1,147.5 Ind. 48.2

Cisco 37.1 31.4 22.9 30.4 24.3 1,681.6 19.8 5.9 2,402.3 Ind. 35.2

Arctic 

Cisco 37.1 31.4 22.9 30.4 24.3 1,681.6 19.8 5.9 2,402.3 Ind. 35.2

Round 

Whitefish 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 Ind. 83.8

Resource—Land Mammals (large and small)

Land 

Mammals 94.3 57.1 48.6 94.3 54.3 68,760.2 808.9 239.6 660.9 Ind. 28.9

Large Land 

Mammals 94.3 55.7 47.1 92.9 51.4 68,458.4 805.4 238.5 511.4 Ind. 25.4

Brown 

Bear 11.4 2.9 1.4 10.0 1.4 104.4 1.2 0.4 1.2 Ind. 83.8

Caribou 94.3 52.9 45.7 92.9 51.4 58,304.9 685.9 203.2 428.7 Ind. 24.5

Moose 15.7 8.6 4.3 12.9 4.3 1,959.9 23.1 6.8 3.6 Ind. 47.7

Muskox 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Dall Sheep 75.7 14.3 14.3 72.9 0.0 8,089.2 95.2 28.2 77.8 Ind. 41.4

Small Land 

Mammals 28.6 22.9 17.1 15.7 12.9 301.8 3.6 1.1 149.5 Ind. 53.7

Fox 7.1 5.7 5.7 1.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 Ind. 50.4

Arctic Fox 7.1 5.7 5.7 1.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 Ind. 54.2

Red Fox 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Ind. 83.8

Hare 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 Ind. 83.8

Snowshoe 

Hare 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 Ind. 83.8

Land Otter 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Marmot 1.4 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 242.9 2.9 0.8 48.6 Ind. 83.8

Mink 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 Ind. 58.8

Porcupine 5.7 4.3 4.3 1.4 1.4 29.1 0.3 0.1 3.6 Ind. 47.7

Squirrel 14.3 12.9 8.6 7.1 5.7 27.3 0.3 0.1 54.6 Ind. 45.3

Table 6.13. Harvest and use – All species, Kaktovik, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 74

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Resource Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Parka 

Squirrel 

(ground)

14.3 12.9 8.6 7.1 5.7 27.3 0.3 0.1 54.6 Ind. 45.3

Weasel 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Wolf 12.9 8.6 7.1 5.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 Ind. 46.1

Wolverine 8.6 7.1 5.7 2.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 Ind. 47.7

Marine Mammals

Marine 

Mammals 98.6 91.4 88.6 97.1 68.6 103,107.7 1,213.0 359.3 58.7 Ind. 21.9

Polar Bear 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 903.4 10.6 3.1 2.4 Ind. 83.8

Seal 57.1 30.0 17.1 54.3 24.3 11,354.8 133.6 39.6 36.3 Ind. 33.2

Bearded 

Seal 57.1 27.5 17.1 54.3 24.3 10,164.8 119.6 35.4 24.2 Ind. 33.3

Ringed 

Seal 4.3 5.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Spotted 

Seal 8.6 7.1 5.7 4.3 4.3 1,190.0 14.0 4.1 12.1 Ind. 48.2

Walrus 20.0 2.9 2.9 17.1 7.1 1,870.0 22.0 6.5 2.4 Ind. 58.8

Whale 98.6 90.0 88.6 97.1 65.7 88,979.5 1,046.8 310.0 17.5 Ind. 21.9

Beluga 75.7 30.0 25.7 74.3 30.0 10,317.8 121.4 36.0 14.7 Ind. 25.5

Bowhead 97.1 90.0 88.6 94.3 60.0 78,661.6 925.4 274.1 2.7 Ind. 20.0

Birds and Eggs

Birds and 

Eggs 84.3 55.7 47.1 78.6 50.0 3,261.7 38.4 11.4 1,505.5 Ind. 23.6

Migratory 

Birds 72.9 51.4 40.0 67.1 40.0 2,546.8 30.0 8.9 787.8 Ind. 28.9

Ducks 30.9 20.6 11.4 25.0 11.8 258.8 3.0 0.9 84.3 Ind. 46.1

Eider 23.5 19.1 11.4 16.2 8.8 213.1 2.5 0.7 60.0 Ind. 46.4

Common 

Eider 22.1 19.1 11.4 14.7 8.8 148.3 1.7 0.5 35.7 Ind. 36.6

King Eider 11.8 13.2 2.9 10.3 4.4 64.8 0.8 0.2 24.3 Ind. 66.0

Unknown 

Ducks 15.2 7.6 4.3 12.1 4.5 45.7 0.5 0.2 24.3 Ind. 52.1

Geese 70.0 48.6 40.0 60.0 37.1 2,271.6 26.7 7.9 701.1 Ind. 27.3

Unknown 

Geese 70.0 48.6 40.0 60.0 37.1 2,271.6 26.7 7.9 701.1 Ind. 27.3

Swan 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Table 6.13. Harvest and use – All species, Kaktovik, continued.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

75

Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Resource Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Tundra 

Swan 

(whistling)

1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Crane 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 16.4 0.2 0.1 2.4 Ind. 83.8

Sandhill 

Crane 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 16.4 0.2 0.1 2.4 Ind. 83.8

Other Birds 60.0 42.9 37.1 40.0 28.6 710.4 8.4 2.5 710.4 Ind. 23.0

Upland 

Game Birds 60.0 42.9 37.1 40.0 28.6 710.4 8.4 2.5 710.4 Ind. 23.0

Ptarmigan 60.0 42.9 37.1 40.0 28.6 710.4 8.4 2.5 710.4 Ind. 23.0

Bird Eggs 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 4.6 0.1 0.0 7.3 Ind. 83.8

Swan Eggs 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 4.6 0.1 0.0 7.3 Ind. 83.8

Tundra 

Swan Eggs 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 4.6 0.1 0.0 7.3 Ind. 83.8

Marine Invertebrates

Marine 

Invertebrates1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Clams 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Vegetation and Fungi

Vegetation 45.7 28.6 18.6 41.4 21.4 341.8 4.0 1.2 55.4 Gal. 30.6

Berries 44.3 25.7 15.7 41.4 18.6 312.6 3.7 1.1 48.1 Gal. 33.5

Blueberry 27.5 20.3 12.9 21.7 13.0 109.1 1.3 0.4 16.8 Gal. 44.4

Low Bush 

Cranberry 21.7 17.4 10.0 19.1 8.7 79.1 0.9 0.3 12.2 Gal. 52.9

Crowberry 5.7 4.3 2.9 4.3 2.9 9.9 0.1 0.0 1.5 Gal. 68.8

Cloud 

Berry 37.1 21.4 8.6 32.9 14.3 110.6 1.3 0.4 17.0 Gal. 39.4

Raspberry 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Gal. 83.8

Plants/

Greens/

Mushrooms

4.3 4.3 4.3 0.0 2.9 29.1 0.3 0.1 7.3 Gal. 58.8

Wild 

Rhubarb 4.3 4.3 4.3 0.0 2.9 19.4 0.2 0.1 4.9 Gal. 50.7

Other Wild 

Greens 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.1 0.0 1.2 Gal. 83.8

Fungus 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.1 0.0 1.2 Gal. 83.8

Table 6.13. Harvest and use – All species, Kaktovik, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 76

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

and given species for all Kaktovik households. Sixty different species were reported 

as used and 57 species were harvested. 

Fifty-one percent of harvests consisted of 

marine mammals (103,108 total pounds; 

359 lbs. per capita), 34% large land mammals (68,458 lbs; 239 lbs. per capita), and 

13% non-salmon fish (27,198 lbs; 95 lbs. per 

capita), with the remainder (3%) accounted 

for by birds, eggs, and plants (Figure 6.6 

and Table 6.14). Species that ranked highest 

in use during the reporting period were 

bowhead whale (97% households), Dolly 

varden (94% of households), caribou (94% 

of households), Dall sheep (76% of households) and beluga (76% of households). 

Per capita harvest across all species in 

Kaktovik was 707 lbs. One hundred percent 

of households reported using at least one species. 

The difference between attempted to harvest and 

harvested for most species is between 5–10%, 

suggesting that most hunters seeking to bring 

home wild foods were successful. However, the 

difference between attempted and harvested does 

not account for the number of tries before a hunter was successful (i.e., expended effort). The table 

also reflects the high percentage of households that 

gave and/or received wild foods. Overall, 84% of 

households gave food to others, and 100% received 

some harvested food from other households. This 

summary figure, however, does not account for the 

difference between sharing and shares, which is delineated and explained in the section on networks 

and cooperative relationships around subsistence. 

Wainwright

Demographics and Education—Wainwright 

We surveyed 95% of the households (146 out 

of 153) (Table 6.15) for a total of 552 residents in 

interviewed households. Households had a mean 

of 3.78 people (SD: 2.28; Median: 3.0) (Table 6.15). 

Of the households surveyed, the dependency 

ratio was 0.66, which is almost double the figure 

for Kaktovik (Dependency Ratio: 0.36). More 

than 86% of respondents (n = 127) self-identified their household members as of fully Alaska 

Native descent, while 9% of households (n = 13) 

self-described as composed of entirely non-Alaska 

Table 6.14. Comparison of harvested pounds by 

category of resources, Kaktovik.

Resource Harvest in pounds usable weight

Total Per capita

Salmon 287.9 1.0

Non-Salmon 

Fish 27,198.4 94.8

Large Land 

Mammals 68,458.4 238.5

Small Land 

Mammals 301.8 1.1

Marine 

Mammals 103,107.7 359.3

Birds and Eggs 3,261.7 11.4

Vegetation 341.8 1.2

Figure 6.6. Comparison of harvest by category of harvested 

resources, Kaktovik.

geese), an average of 2.46 individuals hunted 

and 2.49 individuals processed wild food per 

household in Kaktovik, with an SD of 2.1 and 

1.82 respectively (Table 6.12). Only 4 households 

reported no hunters or processors for core species; 

17% had no hunters; 6% had no processors; 17% 

did not hunt for core species. The mean number of core species harvested per household was 

2.74, with a maximum of 7 and an SD of 2.09. 

Using the standardized ADFG harvest reporting protocol and aggregating harvest across the 

community, Table 6.13 summarizes estimates of 

species used, attempted harvest, harvested, received 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

77

Native individuals. Six households (4.1%) composed of some 

level of mixed ethnicity (Table 

6.16). Thirteen households in 

Wainwright (9%) were headed by 

non-Native teachers, the majority 

of whom lived in the community 

for the 9-month school year. 

Similar to Kaktovik, a 

majority of Wainwright households were categorized as Mature 

households (49%), but there were 

more Developing households 

(27%) than Elder households 

(23%). However, rather than 

single individuals, the greatest 

number of Developing households 

consisted of Nuclear families 

(19/40 households) and Single 

parents with young children (11/40 households) 

(Table 6.17). Most Mature households were either 

Nuclear (23/72 households), Extended families 

(18/72), or Single Individuals (14/72). Elderheaded households were predominantly Extended 

families (14 of 34 households), Single Individuals 

(8 of 34 households) or Elder Parents with adult 

children (6/34 households). Single Individual 

households (including those living with unrelated 

individuals), Nuclear households, and Extended 

families combined represented almost 75% of all 

household types, with Single parents/children 

(mature or younger) representing an additional 

17% of households. Size of households ranged 

from 1 to 12. The largest households were Nuclear 

families (Mean = 4.91 individuals), followed by 

Single parents with young children (Mean = 3.13 

individuals). Extended families, however, had the 

highest median number of individuals (Median = 

5.0 individuals) (Tables 6.17, 6.18, and Figure 6.7). 

About 46 percent of households (N=68) 

named one adult head of household. Fifty-eight of 

these household heads (26 men and 32 women) 

had the equivalent of a high school degree. Almost 

54% of households (N=77) named two household 

heads. Of these households, 70% (N=54) were led 

by a couple in which both individuals had a high 

school diploma (or the equivalent) or above. For 

26% of couple households (N=20), one household 

Table 6.15. Community demographics, Wainwright.

Total Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

No. of HHs 

surveyeda 146.00 ----- ----- ----- -----

No. of Peopleb 552.00 ----- ----- ----- -----

Mean

No. of People 

per HHb 3.78 2.28 3.00 1.00 12.00

No. of Adults 

per HHb, c 2.08 1.30 2.00 0.00 6.00

No. of Elders 

per HHb, d 0.32 0.60 0.00 0.00 2.00

No. of Minors 

per HHb, e 1.40 1.65 1.00 0.00 9.00

Dependency 

Ratiob, f 0.66 0.86 0.40 0.00 4.50

a. 95% (146 of 153) of hhs were surveyed

b. Of households surveyed

c. Adults is defined as people between 18 and 59

d. Elders is defined as people 60 and over

e. Minors is defined as people 17 and younger

f. The dependency ratio is no. minors: no. of adults and elders within 

a HH

Table 6.16. Percentage of household members selfidentified as Alaska Native, Wainwright.

Percent Total Number

100% Nonnative HH 8.90 13

1-25% 

Alaska Native 0.00 0

26-50% 

Alaska Native 0.68 1

51-75% 

Alaska Native 2.05 3

76-99% 

Alaska Native 1.37 2

100% 

Alaska Native 86.99 127

Total 100.00 146
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 78

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.17. Household type by household development stage, Wainwright.

Developinga % 

(No.)

Matureb % (No.) Elderc % (No.) Total % (No.)

Single Individuals 1.37 (2) 9.59 (14) 5.48 (8) 16.44 (24)

Single Individuals 

+ Unrelated 

Individuals

0.68 (1) 0.68 (1) 0.00 (0) 1.37 (2)

Single Parent with 

Young Children

7.53 (11) 3.42 (5) 0.00 (0) 10.96 (16)

Single Parent with 

Children >16

0.00 (0) 2.05 (3) 0.00 (0) 2.05 (3)

Single Elder 

Parent with Adult 

Child(ren)

0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 4.11 (6) 4.11 (6)

Couple 2.05 (3) 5.48 (8) 0.68 (1) 8.22 (12)

Nuclear Family 13.01 (19) 15.75 (23) 3.42 (5) 32.19 (47)

Extended Family 2.74 (4) 12.33 (18) 9.59 (14) 24.66 (36)

Otherd 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Total 27.40 (40) 49.32 (72) 23.29 (34) 100.00 (146)

a. Developing refers to households where the head is under 40 years old.

b. Mature refers to households where the head is between 40 and 59 years old.

c. Elder refers to households where the head is over 59 years old.

d. “Other” refers to Kaktovik HH 70 which has a 48-year-old female, 38-year-old female colleague, 11-year-old nephew, and 11-year-old 

daughter.

Figure 6.7. Household size by household type, Wainwright.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

79

Table 6.18. Household size by household type, Wainwright.

Mean Standard 

Deviation

Median Minimum Maximum

Single 

Individuals

1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Single 

Individuals 

+ Unrelated 

Individuals

2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Single 

Parent with 

Young 

Children

3.13 1.15 3.00 2.00 6.00

Single 

Parent with 

Children >16

3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Single Elder 

Parent 

with Adult 

Child(ren)

2.17 0.41 2.00 2.00 3.00

Couple 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Nuclear 

Family

4.91 1.77 4.00 3.00 11.00

Extended 

Family

2.47 2.21 5.00 2.00 12.00

Othera ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

a. “Other” refers to Kaktovik HH 70 which has a 48-year-old female, 38-year-old female 

colleague, 11-year-old nephew, and 11-year-old daughter.

head had a high school diploma or above. Children 

were present in 61% of households of households 

and 50% (N=78) of all households had children 

in school. Table 6.19 (A), presents education data 

for 144 individuals named as a primary head of 

household (household1) and an additional 77 

individuals named as secondary heads of households (household2). Almost 62% of household1 

and 75% of household2 individuals had a high 

school diploma or GED (compared with about 40% 

of Kaktovik individuals). However, about 13% of 

primary household heads had additional degrees or 

years in school beyond high school (5.6% with 1–2 

years of higher education), compared to 26% for 

household1 individuals in Kaktovik. Approximately 

4% of household2 heads held above a high 

school diploma, compared to 32% in Kaktovik. 

Wainwright has a larger proportion of individuals 

attaining an education only to a high school level, 

but Kaktovik has more individuals continuing on to 

education above high school. Looking at all adults 

in Wainwright (Table 6.19b), 68.1% 

had a maximum education of a high 

school degree, an additional 8% had 

additional schooling beyond secondary school, and 4% of individuals 

held a four-year or master’s degree 

or beyond. This group was evenly 

split between men and women. 

Employment and Household 

Cash Inputs—Wainwright

Almost 90 percent of households had at least one individual who 

was employed at least one month 

during the 12-month study period 

(131/146 households); the remaining 

10% (n = 15 households) had no one 

in the household employed (Table 

6.20). Adults who were employed 

(18 and over) were employed on 

average 8.2 mos. per year (Table 

6.21). The average number of total 

months employed across all working individuals within households 

was 13.89 with a median of 12.0 

and SD of 10.68 (Table 6.22). This 

figure is about 3 months less than 

that worked by Kaktovik individuals (Kaktovik 16.61 months). The 

mean number of jobs held per household (either full or part time or on-call) was 1.75 with a 

median of 2.0 and SD of 1.29. This figure could 

reflect individuals holding multiple jobs or multiple people employed within households. 

More than half (55%) of the employment 

sources for Wainwright by category stem from 

local government, mostly based on jobs generated by the North Slope Borough (Table 6.23 and 

Figure 6.8). Retail trade accounted for 11% of 

jobs sources, with services (10%), finance (9%), 

construction (7%), mining (5%), transportation 

(2%), and federal government employment (1%) 

making up the difference. As illustrated in Figure 

6.9 individuals hold a diversity of job types, with 

service occupations, teachers, counselors, and 

librarians, sales occupations, laborers, and equipment operators accounting for about 50% of jobs. 

Reported counts of full-time and part-time 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 80

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.19. Household heads and Adult/Elder Individuals’ maximum education levels, Wainwright.

Grade 

School 

% (No.)

Junior 

High 

School 

% (No.)

Some 

High 

School

High 

School 

Graduate 

or GED

1–2 years 

Higher 

Education 

% (No.)

Four-Year 

Degree 

% (No.)

Master’s 

and 

Above 

% (No.)

Total 

% (No.)

Household Heads - Table 6.19 (A)

Individ 

named as 

hh1

2.78 (4) 7.64 (11) 14.58 (21) 61.81 (89) 5.56 (8) 4.17 (6) 3.47 (5) 100.00 

(144)a

Ind 

named as 

hh2b

1.30 (1) 3.90 (3) 15.58 (12) 75.32 (58) 1.30 (1) 1.30 (1) 1.30 (1) 100.00 

(77)c

All Adult and Elder Individuals - Table 6.19 (B)

All Men 2.33 (4) 3.49 (6) 19.77 (34) 66.28 

(114) 4.07 (7) 2.91 (5) 1.16 (2) 100.00 (172)e

All 

Women 1.20 (2) 5.39 (9) 16.17 (27) 70.06 (117) 2.99 (5) 1.20 (2) 2.99 (5) 100.00 (167)e

All Adults 1.77 (6) 4.42 (15) 17.99 (61) 68.14 

(231) 3.54 (12) 2.06 (7) 2.06 (7) 100.00 (339)e

a. Education values missing for 2 individuals.

b. 46.26% (68) households named one adult head of household. 

c. 52.73% (77) of households named two household heads. One individual named as HH head; 2 were missing education values.

d. All adults and elders (individuals 18 years old and over), household heads and all other adults.

e. Education values missing for 8 adult and elder individuals (5 males: 3 females).

Table 6.20. Percentage (No.) HHs employed 2009, 

Wainwright.

Percent Total Number

HH Employed in 2009 89.73 131

HH Unemployed in 2009 10.27 15

Total 100.00 146

Table 6.21. Income and employment, Wainwright.

Income

Per Capita Job Income $ 24,130

Per Capita HH Income $ 41,485

Employment 

Employment months 

per adult 8.2

No. jobs/Household 1.8

jobs showed some variability during the calendar 

year. Similar to Kaktovik, part-time jobs increased 

during the summer months, although the increase 

in Wainwright continued through the summer and 

into September and October (Figure 6.10). There 

was a corresponding decrease in full-time jobs 

during the same period. Counts of on-call jobs 

remained steady at low levels throughout the year. 

The diversity of income flow into households is 

shown in Table 6.24. Mean household wage income 

with imputed values was $51,360.48. Mean household income was $91,191, but income variability 

was high (SD: $51,775). Mean household dividend 

income accounted for between zero and 99% of 

total household income. The mean proportion of 

income for all households represented by dividends 

was 37% (compared to about 31% in Kaktovik). The 

largest component of household dividend income 

was Arctic Slope Regional Corporate dividends 

(ASRC). While mean household assistance income 

over the entire village sample was only $1,365 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

81

Figure 6.8. Wainwright sources of employment.

annually, 120 households (82%) were receiving 

some form of public assistance and average amount 

received by this subgroup was $6,041/yr. Assistance 

funds are thus important to those receiving them. 

Median assistance received across all households 

(receiving and not receiving) was $550, with a standard deviation of $6,322. Mean household income 

by tercile categories was $36,781 (lower); $79,120 

(middle); and $143,821 (upper) (Figure 6.11). The 

proportion of income represented by wage income 

tripled from lower to middle terciles and doubled 

from the middle to upper-income terciles. Dividend 

income also rose by tercile. Household size and 

income were positively correlated household (r =

.656; p< 0.01). On a per capita basis, mean job income in Wainwright was calculated as $24,130 and 

mean household income was $41,485 (Table 6.21). 

Household Gear, Hunters, and Harvest—Wainwright

Not all respondents provided complete gear 

ownership and use information; however, clear 

patterns emerge from comparing these data. In 

Wainwright, 19% of the households (146 households reporting) owned at least one snowmobile, 

but 79% reported that they used one (91/114 

households reporting) (Table 6.25). Almost 60% 

of households (48/85 households reporting) stated 

they owned a boat, and a few more (59%; 67/114 

households) used boats during the study period. 

These results suggest significant levels of borrowing 

of snowmachines and boats between households. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 82

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 6.9. Types of employment, Wainwright.

Table 6.22. Household (HH) level employment data, Wainwright.

Mean Standard Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

HH Total Months Employed 13.89 10.68 12.00 0.00 55.00

HH Total No. of Jobs 1.75 1.26 2.00 0.00 6.00

No. of Full-Time Jobs within HH 1.29 1.01 1.00 0.00 5.00

No. of Part-Time Jobs within HH 0.27 0.57 0.00 0.00 3.00

No. of On-call Jobs within HH 0.11 0.36 0.00 0.00 2.00

Ratio of Jobs to adults within HH 0.80 0.63 0.75 0.00 4.00

Ratio of Full-Time Jobs to HH Size 0.40 0.34 0.33 0.00 1.50

Ratio of Part-Time Jobs to HH Size 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.00 1.00

Ratio of On-call Jobs to HH Size 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 1.00
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

83

Figure 6.10. Number of jobs of each employment type by month, Wainwright.

Figure 6.11. Household income in terciles, Wainwright.

Table 6.23. Sources of employment, 

Wainwright.

JOB TYPE PERCENT NUMBER 

Local Government 54.8 138

Services 9.9 25

Finance, Insurance & 

Real Estate 9.1 23

Retail Trade 11.1 28

Transportation, 

Communication & 

Utilities

2.4 6

Mining 4.8 12

Construction 6.7 17

Federal Government 1.2 3
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 84

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.24. Categories of cash inflows into households, Wainwright.

Categories 

of cash 

inflows into 

households

Mean with 

zero values 

$ (No.)

Mean 

without 

zero values 

$ (No.)

Standard 

Deviation 

without 

zero values

Median 

without 

zero values

Minimum 

without 

zero values

Maximum 

without 

zero values

No. of 

HHs 

Missing 

Wage Income

Wage Income 

without 

imputed values

56,520.98 

(127)

58,837.41 

(122) 45,204.76 52,500.00 720.00 234,000.00 0

Wage Income 

with imputed 

valuesa

51,360.48 

(146)

59,044.33 

(127) 45,030.41 52,200.00 720.00 234,000.00 0

Dividend Income

Permanent 

Fund Dividend

 4,275.78 

(146)

 4,590.18 

(136) 2,761.30 3,915.00 1,301.00 14,355.00 0

Village 

Corporate 

Dividendb

 2,719.16 

(146)

 3,053.82 

(130) 2,098.56 2,550.00 450.00 15,463.00 0

Regional 

Corporate 

Dividendc

20,120.75 

(146)

22,254.77 

(132) 12,493.73 21,755.50 1,000.00 66,845.00 0

Other Dividend 

Incomed 35.28 (146) 160.97 (32) 249.03 75.00 10.00 1,000.00 0

Total Dividend 

Income

27,150.97 

(146)

28,724.94 

(138) 17,479.41 25,492.00 1,305.00 90,342.00 0

Assistance Income

Elder Income 4,611.17 

(146)

24,934.46 

(27) 18,609.77 24,120.00 1,125.00 88,488.00 0

Other Incomee 2,427.39 

(146)

 3,003.39 

(118) 5,133.09 550.00 302.50 31,742.00 0

Assistancef 1,365.45 

(146)

 6,041.09 

(33) 6,436.10 4,570.00 177.00 28,391.00 0

Total Assistance 

Income

 3,792.85 

(146)

 4,614.63 

(120) 6,699.07 550.00 177.00 31,742.00 0

Total Gross HH 

Income

91,191.25 

(146)

91,191.25 

(146) 51,774.67 84,699.50 8,896.00 275,009.00 0

Per capita 

incomeg

41,485.86 

(146)

41,485.86 

(146) 21,601.67 37,704.87 8,896.00 115,000.00 0

a. Wage income for X households was imputed based on reported job type and schedule.

b. Combines Olgoonik with additional reported village corporation dividends for the HH.

c. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

d. Other dividend income refers to second regional corporate income or/and coop dividends.

e. Energy, CITCO, Weatherization Funds, The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Food Stamps.

f. Income from jobs programs (Unemployment, Workers’ Compensation), child programs (Supplemental Security, Foster Care, Child Support) 

and public assistance programs (Adult Public Assistance, Temporary Assistance).

g. Per Capita income is calculated as Gross HH Income/Number of people within HH.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

85

Figure 6.12. Comparison of harvest by category, Wainwright.

Table 6.25. Subsistence gear, Wainwright.

Use Y/N 

% (No.)

Own Y/Na

% (No.)

Purchase 

Y/Na % 

(No.)

Mean 

No. 

Owneda

(S.D.)

Range of 

No. Owna

No. 

Purchased 

Meanb

(S.D.)

Amount 

spent to 

buyb (S.D)

Amount 

spent to 

Repairc

(S.D.)

Snowmobiles Y: (91) 

N: (23)

Y: (20) 

N: (83)

Y: (27) 

N: (66)

 1.15 

(1.44) 1–8 1.67 (1.94) 7,763.41 (5,321.68)d

926.22 

(2,341.16)e

Boats Y: (67) 

N: (47)

Y: (48) 

N: (37)

Yes: (4) 

No: (79)

 0.47 

(0.95) 1–3 1.00 (----) 4,837.50 (3,971.43)

67.82 

(217.85)f

All-Terrain 

Vehicle

Y: (66) 

N: (44)

Y: (62) 

N: (26)

Yes: (23) 

No: (68)

0.68 

(1.11) 1–5 1.17 (0.49) 5,251.83 (3,184.65)

375.19 

(1,159.27)g

a. Of all respondents

b. Of those who purchased

c. Of those who own

d. 1 missing

Over 70% of households owned all-terrain vehicles 

(62/88 households reporting), and 60% reported 

using an all-terrain vehicle during the study period (66/110 households reporting), a comparison 

suggesting that less borrowing of all-terrain vehicles 

between households occurs. Combining all types 

of equipment (snowmachines, boats and all-terrain vehicles), the mean number of equipment 

owned per household was 2.10, with a median of 

1.0 and SD of 2.5 pieces of equipment. The average amount spent by Wainwright households on 

snowmobile purchases was $7,763 

(29% purchasing), on boats was 

$4,837 (5% purchasing), and on 

4x4s was $5,251 (25% purchasing). 

Across the 7 core species in 

Wainwright (caribou, bowhead 

whale, beluga whale, bearded seal, 

smelt, geese, and ducks), there was 

an average of 1.84 hunters and 2.21 

processors per household, with an 

SD of 1.53 and 2.21 respectively 

(Table 6.26). Only 7 households 

reported no hunters or processors 

for core species; 19% had no hunters; 5% had no processors; 19% did 

not hunt for core species. The mean 

number of core species harvested per household was 3.25, with a 

maximum of 7 and an SD of 2.35. 

Using the standardized ADFG 

harvest reporting protocol and aggregating harvest across the community, Table 6.27 summarizes 

estimates of use, attempted harvest, harvested, 

received and given species for all Wainwright 

households. Fifty-nine different species were 

reported as “used” and 46 species were harvested. 

Forty-seven percent of harvested species by weight 

were marine mammals (186,513 total pounds; 

316 lbs. per capita), 42% large land mammals 

(169,270 total pounds; 287 lbs. per capita), and 

about 12% was represented by non-salmon fish, 

e. 4 missing

f. 9 missing

g. 1 missing
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 86

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.26. Number of hunters and processors engaged in subsistence, and number of species harvested per 

household, Wainwright.

Mean Standard 

Deviation

Median Minimum Maximum Percentage of Households with Zero 

% (No.)

No. of 

Huntersa

1.84 1.53 2.00 0.00 7.00 19.18 (28)

No. of 

Processorsa

2.21 1.31 2.00 0.00 5.00 5.48 (8)

No. of 

Species 

Huntedb

3.25 2.35 4.00 0.00 7.00 19.18 (28)

a. Seven households report no hunters or processors.

b. These calculations are for the five core species, not including beluga or bowhead whales. 

birds, eggs, and vegetation (Figure 6.12 and Table 

6.28). Species that ranked highest in use during 

the reporting period were caribou (97% of households), bowhead whale (96% households), beluga 

(84% of households), geese (77%) and smelt (77%). 

Per capita harvest in Wainwright was calculated 

as 680 lbs. Similar to Kaktovik, all but 1.4% of 

households reported using at least one species. 

The difference between attempted to harvest and 

harvested ranged between 0–8%, suggesting that 

most hunters seeking to bring home wild foods 

were successful. Differences were largest for bearded seal (38% tried vs. 32% succeeded), walrus (14% 

tried vs. 8% succeeded) and ducks (34% tried vs. 

29% succeeded). However, this difference does not 

account for the number of tries before a hunter 

was successful (expended effort). Table 6.27 also 

reflects the high percentage of households that 

gave and/or received wild foods. Overall, 84% of 

households gave food to others, and 99% received 

some harvested food from other households. This 

summary figure does not account for the difference 

between sharing and shares, which is delineated and explained in the section on networks and 

cooperative relationships around subsistence. 

Venetie

Demographics and Education—Venetie 

We surveyed 94% of Venetie households 

(84 out of 89) (Table 6.29) and identified 243 

residents in 84 surveyed households. Mean household size was 2.89 individuals (SD: 1.65; Median: 

3.0). The average dependency ratio for Venetie 

households was 0.55, reflecting the number of 

household minors supported by adults and elders. 

This figure is between the calculated dependency 

ratio for Kaktovik and Wainwright. More than 

90% of respondents (n = 76) self-identified their 

household members as of fully Alaska Native 

descent, while 2% of households (n = 2) self-described as composed of entirely non-Alaska 

Native individuals, with few households identified as mixed ethnicity (n = 6, 7%) (Table 6.30). 

Five households in Venetie (6%) were headed by 

non-Native teachers, the majority of whom lived 

in the community for the 9-month school year. 

A majority of Venetie households were 

categorized as Developing households (44%), 

followed by Mature households (36%), and then 

Elder households (20%). About half of Developing 

households were Nuclear families (18/37), followed 

by Single Individuals (8/37), and then Couples 

(4/37) (Table 6.31). Most Mature households were 

Single Individuals (9/30) followed by Extended 

families (9/30) and Nuclear families (8/30 households). The most common household types among 

Elder-headed households were Single Individuals 

(6 of 17 households) or Extended families (4/17). 

Nuclear households, Single Individual households, 

and Extended families represented over 76% of 

all household types, with Couples representing an 

additional about 11% of households. No households exceeded 8 individuals (Table 6.32). The 

largest households were Nuclear families (x=4.31 

individuals), followed by Extended families 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

87

Table 6.27. Estimated harvests and uses of fish, game, and plant resources, Wainwright.

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

All 

Resources 98.6 96.6 96.6 98.6 83.6 401,254.8 2,572.1 680.1 160,250.9 13.1

Fish

Fish 88.4 57.5 56.8 78.8 52.7 32,829.4 210.4 55.6 154,450.4 13.5

Salmon 33.6 12.3 11.0 28.1 10.3 1,690.8 10.8 2.9 287.4 Ind. 17.0

Chum 

Salmon 15.0 8.9 5.5 10.7 8.0 468.0 3.0 0.8 78.0 Ind. 23.7

Coho 

Salmon 21.6 8.7 6.2 17.4 7.8 583.4 3.8 1.0 112.2 Ind. 20.5

Chinook 

Salmon 16.1 7.2 4.1 12.6 0.9 463.7 3.0 0.8 37.4 Ind. 30.3

Pink 

Salmon 6.8 4.1 4.1 3.4 2.8 98.7 0.6 0.2 47.0 Ind. 26.8

Sockeye 

Salmon 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Unknown 

Salmon 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 76.9 0.5 0.1 12.8 Ind. 50.0

NonSalmon 

Fish

87.7 56.8 56.2 76.7 52.1 31,138.6 199.6 52.8 154,163.0 13.6

Smelt 76.7 43.8 43.2 54.8 46.6 20,475.1 131.3 34.7 146,250.6 Ind. 13.7

Rainbow 

Smelt 76.7 43.8 43.2 54.8 46.6 20,475.1 131.3 34.7 146,250.6 Ind. 13.7

Cod 1.8 3.7 1.4 0.0 1.9 7.9 0.1 0.0 42.7 Ind. 39.5

Arctic Cod 0.9 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 10.7 Ind. 50.0

Saffron 

Cod 0.9 2.8 0.7 0.0 0.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 32.1 Ind. 50.0

Halibut 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs. 0.0

Burbot 13.1 8.3 7.5 8.3 6.2 692.8 4.4 1.2 165.0 Ind. 28.4

Char 5.5 4.6 2.7 4.6 0.9 400.9 2.6 0.7 143.2 Ind. 38.2

Dolly 

Varden 5.5 4.6 2.7 4.6 0.9 400.9 2.6 0.7 143.2 Ind. 38.2

Arctic 

Grayling 47.6 28.8 23.3 27.8 17.6 4,458.8 28.6 7.6 4,954.2 Ind. 20.5

Sheefish 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Trout 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Unknown 

Trout 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 88

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Whitefishes 51.4 17.1 15.8 46.6 14.4 5,103.1 32.7 8.6 2,607.3 Ind. 22.2

Broad 

Whitefish 19.9 4.1 4.1 19.2 2.7 972.3 6.2 1.6 299.2 Ind. 36.5

Cisco 30.8 12.3 11.6 24.7 9.6 2,233.0 14.3 3.8 1,328.1 Ind. 32.9

Arctic 

Cisco 5.5 2.7 2.7 4.8 2.1 60.8 0.4 0.1 86.9 Ind. 38.0

Bering 

Cisco 1.4 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Least Cisco 30.2 12.0 10.3 23.2 10.4 2,172.2 13.9 3.7 1,241.2 Ind. 35.1

Humpback 

Whitefish 4.8 2.8 2.7 3.4 0.7 314.4 2.0 0.5 149.7 Ind. 31.6

Round 

Whitefish 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 80.1 0.5 0.1 114.5 Ind. 50.0

Unknown 

Whitefish 11.6 4.8 3.4 9.6 4.8 1,503.4 9.6 2.5 715.9 Ind. 44.9

Unknown 

NonSalmon 

Fish

0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Land Mammals

Land 

Mammals 97.3 64.4 61.6 83.6 63.0 169,269.9 1,085.1 286.9 1,344.9 Ind. 7.1

Large Land 

Mammals 97.3 63.7 61.0 83.6 61.6 169,198.8 1,084.6 286.8 1,239.1 Ind. 7.1

Brown Bear 2.8 5.6 2.7 0.0 2.1 367.6 2.4 0.6 4.3 Ind. 24.8

Caribou 97.3 63.7 61.0 83.6 61.6 167,355.7 1,072.8 283.7 1,230.6 Ind. 7.1

Moose 3.5 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.1 1,150.8 7.4 2.0 2.1 Ind. 35.2

Muskox 2.8 1.4 1.4 2.1 0.7 324.8 2.1 0.6 2.1 Ind. 35.3

Dall Sheep 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Small Land 

Mammals 13.2 14.5 11.6 2.8 4.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 104.7 Ind. 20.2

Fox 4.3 4.3 4.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.6 Ind. 32.3

Arctic Fox 2.9 2.9 2.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.4 Ind. 34.3

Red Fox 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Ind. 37.2

Hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Snowshoe 

Hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Table 6.27. Estimated harvests and uses of fish, game, and plant resources, Wainwright, continued.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

89

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Lynx 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Squirrel 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 8.5 Ind. 50.0

Parka 

Squirrel 

(ground)

0.7 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 8.5 Ind. 50.0

Wolf 6.3 7.7 5.5 2.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 Ind. 23.7

Wolverine 7.0 9.7 6.2 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 Ind. 18.9

Feral 

Animals 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 66.8 0.4 0.1 1.1 Ind. 50.0

Reindeer 

- Feral 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 66.8 0.4 0.1 1.1 Ind. 50.0

Marine Mammals

Marine 

Mammals 95.9 93.2 93.2 95.9 64.4 186,512.7 1,195.6 316.1 164.1 Ind. 8.9

Polar Bear 2.2 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.5 397.5 2.5 0.7 1.1 Ind. 50.0

Seal 71.2 40.4 33.6 56.2 26.0 34,986.6 224.3 59.3 121.8 Ind. 10.1

Bearded 

Seal 69.2 38.4 31.5 54.8 25.3 30,941.3 198.3 52.4 73.7 Ind. 9.5

Ringed 

Seal 6.5 5.8 4.8 1.5 4.4 2,055.8 13.2 3.5 27.8 Ind. 26.0

Spotted 

Seal 5.8 5.0 4.1 3.6 3.6 1,989.5 12.8 3.4 20.3 Ind. 21.9

Walrus 38.2 13.9 7.5 31.5 12.7 14,809.3 94.9 25.1 19.2 Ind. 16.7

Whale 95.9 93.2 93.2 95.9 57.5 136,319.3 873.8 231.0 22.1 Ind. 5.9

Beluga 83.6 81.5 81.5 82.2 37.5 12,422.9 79.6 21.1 17.7 Ind. 6.9

Bowhead 95.9 92.5 92.5 95.9 48.6 123,896.4 794.2 210.0 4.3 Ind. 6.0

Birds and Eggs

Birds and 

Eggs 82.9 54.1 47.3 67.8 46.6 10,950.1 70.2 18.6 4,031.0 Ind. 9.3

Migratory 

Birds 82.2 52.1 45.2 67.8 45.9 10,893.4 69.8 18.5 3,974.4 Ind. 9.4

Ducks 58.9 34.2 28.8 45.9 30.8 2,895.1 18.6 4.9 1,520.6 Ind. 13.6

Eider 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 66.5 0.4 0.1 16.0 Ind. 50.0

Unknown 

Eider 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 66.5 0.4 0.1 16.0 Ind. 50.0

Table 6.27. Estimated harvests and uses of fish, game, and plant resources, Wainwright, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 90

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Unknown 

Ducks 58.9 34.2 28.8 45.9 30.8 2,828.6 18.1 4.8 1,504.6 Ind. 13.7

Geese 76.7 45.2 41.1 58.2 40.4 7,907.3 50.7 13.4 2,445.3 Ind. 10.7

Brant 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 48.7 0.3 0.1 21.4 Ind. 50.0

Whitefronted 

Geese

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 22.4 0.1 0.0 5.3 Ind. 50.0

Unknown 

Geese 76.7 45.2 41.1 58.2 40.4 7,836.1 50.2 13.3 2,418.6 Ind. 10.7

Swan 5.0 5.0 4.1 1.4 2.1 83.8 0.5 0.1 7.5 Ind. 21.1

Tundra 

Swan 

(whistling)

5.0 5.0 4.1 1.4 2.1 83.8 0.5 0.1 7.5 Ind. 21.1

Crane 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 Ind. 50.0

Sandhill 

Crane 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 Ind. 50.0

Other Birds 6.9 6.9 6.2 1.4 4.9 56.6 0.4 0.1 56.6 Ind. 23.7

Upland 

Game Birds 6.9 6.9 6.2 1.4 4.9 56.6 0.4 0.1 56.6 Ind. 23.7

Ptarmigan 6.9 6.9 6.2 1.4 4.9 56.6 0.4 0.1 56.6 Ind. 23.7

Vegetation 

Vegetation 74.0 63.7 62.3 30.1 29.5 1,692.7 10.9 2.9 260.4 Gal. 6.9

Berries 74.0 63.7 62.3 30.1 29.5 1,692.7 10.9 2.9 260.4 Gal. 6.9

Blueberry 15.8 16.0 12.3 2.5 3.4 55.6 0.4 0.1 8.5 Gal. 21.3

Low Bush 

Cranberry 11.9 11.0 8.9 1.7 3.4 42.6 0.3 0.1 6.6 Gal. 17.6

Crowberry 1.4 2.1 1.4 0.7 0.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 Gal. 46.3

Cloud 

Berry 73.3 62.8 61.0 30.3 28.3 1,588.9 10.2 2.7 244.4 Gal. 7.1

Table 6.27. Estimated harvests and uses of fish, game, and plant resources, Wainwright, continued.

(x=3.73 individuals) (Table 6.32 and Figure 6.13). 

Over 51% of households (n = 43) named one 

adult head of household. Of this total 39 household 

heads (26 men and 13 women) had the equivalent 

of a high school degree or above. Almost 48% of 

households (n = 39) named two household heads. 

Of these households, 92% (n = 36) were led by a 

couple in which both individuals had a high school 

diploma (or the equivalent) or above. For 5% of 

couple households (n = 2), at least one household 

head had a high school diploma or above. Children 

were present in 48% of households and 48% (n 

= 41) of all households had children in school. 

Table 6.33 (A), presents education data for 83 

individuals named as a primary head of household 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

91

Table 6.28. Types of harvested resources, Wainwright.

Resource Harvest in pounds 

usable weight

Total Per capita

Salmon 1,690.8 2.9

Non-Salmon Fish 31,138.6 52.8

Land Mammals 169,269.9 286.9

Small Land Mammals 4.3 0.0

Marine Mammals 186,512.7 316.1

Birds and Eggs 10,950.1 18.6

Vegetation 1,692.7 2.9

Table 6.29. Community demographics, Venetie.

Mean Standard 

Deviation

Median Minimum Maximum

No. of HHs 

surveyeda

 84.00 ----- ----- ----- -----

No. of 

Peopleb

243.00 ----- ----- ----- -----

No. of 

People per 

HHb

 2.89 1.65 3.00 1.00 8.00

No. of Adults 

per HHb, c

 1.63 0.85 2.00 0.00 4.00

No. of Elders 

per HHb, d

 0.24 0.48 0.00 0.00 2.00

No. of 

Minors per 

HHb, e

 1.02 1.34 0.00 0.00 6.00

Dependency 

Ratiob, f

 0.55 0.73 0.00 0.00 3.00

a. 94% (84 of 89) of hhs were surveyed

b. Of households surveyed

c. Adults is defined as people between 18 and 59

d. Elders is defined as people 60 and over

e. Minors is defined as people 17 and younger

f. The dependency ratio is no. minors: no. of adults and elders within a HH

(household1) and an additional 39 individuals 

named as secondary heads of households (household2). Forty-one percent of household1 and 46% 

of household2 individuals had a high school diploma or GED. Looking at all adults in Venetie (Table 

6.33 (B)), 47% had a maximum education of a high 

school degree, an additional 8% had additional 

schooling beyond secondary school, and 3% of 

individuals held a 4-year, master’s degree, or beyond 

(3 men and one woman). Venetie has a higher proportion of individuals attending some high school, 

but not graduating (38% compared to 18% in 

Wainwright and 11% in Kaktovik). Proportionally 

fewer individuals than Kaktovik or Wainwright had 

additional degrees or years in school beyond high 

school (8% with some degree of higher education), compared to 26% for household1 individuals 

in Kaktovik and about 13% in Wainwright. 

Employment and Household Cash Inputs—Venetie

Ninety-two percent of Venetie households 

had at least one individual who was employed at 

least one month during the 12-month study period (77/84 households); the remaining 8% (n = 7 

households) had no one in the household employed 

(Table 6.34). Adults who were employed (18 and 

over) were employed on average 6.1 mos. per year 

(compared to 8 mos per year for both Wainwright 

and Kaktovik households) (Comparing Tables 6.35, 

6.21 and 6.7). Venetie households had a higher 

proportion of adults employed 

part-time than Kaktovik and 

Wainwright. The average number 

of total months employed across all 

working individuals within households was 11.21 with a median of 

7.0 and a SD of 11.6 (Table 6.36). 

The mean number of jobs held per 

household (either full or part time 

or on-call) was 2.86 with a median 

of 3.0 and SD of 1.82. This figure 

could reflect individuals holding 

multiple jobs or multiple people 

employed within households. 

The ratio of jobs per adults within Venetie households was 1.62 

(compared to 0.80 in Wainwright 

and 1.09 in Kaktovik). Overall 

Venetie adults held more jobs 

through the year, however wage 

income was significantly lower. 

More than half (61%) of the 

employment sources for Venetie by 

industrial category stemmed from 

local government. This category 

describes funds that were routed to 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 92

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.30. Percentage of household members selfidentified as Alaska Native, Venetie.

Percent Total Number

100% Nonnative HH 2.38 2

1-25% 

Alaska Native

 0.00 0

26-50% 

Alaska Native

 3.57 3

51-75% 

Alaska Native

 1.19 1

76-99% 

Alaska Native

 2.38 2

100% 

Alaska Native

 90.48 76

Total 100.00 84

Table 6.31. Household type by household development stage, 

Venetie.

Developinga

% (No.)

Matureb

% (No.)

Elderc

% (No.)

Total 

% (No.)

Single Individuals 9.52 (8) 10.71 (9) 7.14 (6) 27.38 

(23)

Single Individuals 

+ Unrelated 

Individuals

2.38 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 2.38 

(2)

Single Parent with 

Young Children 2.38 (2) 4.76 (4) 0.00 (0) 7.14 (6)

Single Parent with 

Children >16 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 2.38 (2)

Single Elder 

Parent with Adult 

Child(ren)

0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 1.19 (1) 1.19 

(1)

Couple 4.76 (4) 3.57 (3) 2.38 (2) 10.71 

(9)

Nuclear Family 21.43 (18) 7.14 (6) 2.38 (2) 30.95 

(26)

Extended Family 3.57 (3) 9.52 (8) 4.76 (4) 17.86 

(15)

Otherd 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Total 44.05 (37) 35.71 (30) 20.24 (17) 100.00 

(84)

a. Developing refers to households where the head is under 40 years old.

b. Mature refers to households where the head is between 40 and 59 years old.

c. Elder refers to households where the head is over 59 years old.

d. “Other” refers to Kaktovik HH 70 which has a 48-year-old female, 38-year-old female 

colleague, 11-year-old nephew, and 11-year-old daughter.

households through the Venetie Village Council. 

Another primary source of employment was the 

Federal Government (18%). Services accounted 

for 15% of job sources, with Retail Trade (3%), 

Transportation (1%), Construction (7%), State 

Government (0.4%), and Finance (0.4%) making up the difference (Table 6.37, Figure 6.14). 

As illustrated in Figure 6.15, individuals hold 

a diversity of jobs, with service occupations, 

laborers and equipment operators, construction, administrative support and Agricultural 

occupations (i.e. summer fire-fighting), and 

teachers accounting for about 72% of all jobs. 

Reported counts of full-time jobs showed 

significant variability during the calendar year. 

Contrary to the patterns identified in Kaktovik and 

Wainwright, full-time jobs increased from April 

to July and then declined gradually 

to pre-April levels through October, 

while part-time and on-call employment job counts remained stable 

throughout the year (Figure 6.16). 

Full-time summer jobs were predominantly in firefighting, housing 

construction, and road building. 

At peak employment, the number 

of full-time jobs in Kaktovik and 

Venetie, the two communities of 

comparable size, were almost the 

same (n = about 75 full-time jobs); 

however, Kaktovik full-time jobs 

declined marginally during only 3 

summer months before rebounding 

to pre-summer levels, while Venetie 

full-time jobs peaked at 75 jobs in 

only one summer month (July). Fulltime employment remained between 

25–30 jobs during 5 months of the 

year and rose above 50 only during 

3 months (July–Sept). Counts of oncall jobs remained steady at low levels 

during the 12-month study period. 

Mean household wage income 

with imputed values was $21,673 

(Table 6.38). This figure is less than 

half the average annual wage income reported for Wainwright and 

Kaktovik ($51,360 and $51,389 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

93

Figure 6.13. Household size by household type, Venetie.

Table 6.32. Household size by household type, Venetie.

Mean Standard Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Single Individuals 1.04 0.21 1.00 1.00 2.00

Single Individuals + Unrelated Individuals 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Single Parent with Young Children 3.5 1.38 3.5 2.00 5.00

Single Parent with Children >16 3.00 1.41 3.00 2.00 4.00

Single Elder Parent with Adult Child(ren) 2.00 ----- 2.00 2.00 2.00

Couple 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Nuclear Family 4.31 1.32 4.00 3.00 8.00

Extended Family 3.73 1.10 3.00 2.00 6.00

Othera ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

a. “Other” refers to Kaktovik HH 70 which has a 48-year-old female, 38-year-old female colleague, 11-year-old nephew, and 11-year-old 

daughter.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 94

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 6.14. Sources of employment, Venetie.

respectively). Mean household income was $36,500, 

but income variability was high (SD: $25,124). 

Mean household dividend income accounted for 

between zero and 69% of total household income. 

The mean proportion of income for all households 

represented by dividends was 37%. This proportion 

is comparable to that documented for Kaktovik and 

Wainwright, however Venetie dividends are significantly lower than these two villages. This is another 

indicator of wide differences in household income 

between Coastal North Slope communities and 

Venetie. Venetie opted out of the village corporation arrangement of ANCSA, receiving fee simple 

ownership of land instead; thus most household 

dividend income comes from the Alaska Permanent 

Fund. Mean household assistance income over the 

entire village sample was $8,001 annually. Sixtyfive households (77%) were receiving some form of 

public assistance and average amount received by 

this subgroup was $10,340/yr. Median assistance 

received across all households (receiving and not 

receiving) was $215, with a standard deviation of 

$9,256. While proportionally more households 

in Wainwright received some level of assistance, 

public assistance in Venetie represented a larger 

proportion on average of total household income 

than in Kaktovik or Wainwright. Mean household 

income by tercile categories was $11,919 (lower); 

$31,994 (middle); and $65,586 (upper) (Figure 

6.17). The proportion of income represented by 

wage income doubled upward by consecutive terciles (moving from lower to upper income groups). 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

95

Figure 6.15. Types of employment, Venetie.

Average assistance similarly increased from lower 

to upper income terciles. Household income and 

household size are positively correlated (r = .587; 

p< 0.01). On a per capita basis, mean job income 

in Venetie was calculated as $11,441 and mean 

household income was $21,300 (Table 6.35). 

Household Gear, Hunters, and Harvests—Venetie

Not all respondents provided complete gear 

use information; however, clear patterns emerge 

from comparing use and ownership data. In Venetie 

50% of the households (84/84 households reporting) owned at least one snowmobile, but 59% 

reported that they used one (43/72 households 

reporting) (Table 6.39). Twenty-one percent of 

households (18/84 households reporting) stated 

they owned a boat, but significantly more (51%; 

31/71 households reporting) used boats during 

the study period. These results suggest that some 

households borrow snowmachines and boats from 

others. Similar household ownership and use patterns were found in the community for all-terrain 

vehicles. Forty-five percent of households owned 

all-terrain vehicles (38/84 households reporting), 

but significantly 64.0% reported using an all-terrain 

vehicles during the study period (46/72 households 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 96

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.33. Household heads and Adult/Elder individuals’ maximum education levels, Venetie.

Grade 

School 

% (No.)

Junior 

High 

School 

% (No.)

Some 

High 

School

High 

School 

Graduate 

or GED

1-2 years 

Higher 

Education 

% (No.)

FourYear 

Degree 

% (No.)

Master’s 

and 

Above 

% (No.)

Total 

% (No.)

Household Heads (A)

Individ named as hh1 6.02 (5) 2.41 (2) 40.96 

(34)

40.96 (34) 6.02 (5) 1.20 (1) 2.41 (2) 100.00 

(83)a

Ind named as hh2b 2.86 (1) 2.86 (1) 42.86 

(15)

45.71 (20) 5.71 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 100.00 

(39)c

All Adult and Elder 

Individualsd (B)

All Men 2.30 (2) 3.45 (3) 41.38 

(36)

44.83 (39) 4.60 (4) 1.15 (1) 2.30 (2) 100.00 

(87)e

All Women 6.56 (4) 3.28 (2) 32.79 

(20)

49.18 (30) 6.56 (4) 0.00 (0) 1.64 (1) 100.00 

(61)e

All Adults 4.05 (6) 3.38 (5) 37.84 

(56)

46.62 (69) 5.41 (8) 0.68 (1) 2.03 (3) 100.00 

(148)e

a. Education values missing for 1 individual.

b. 51.19% households named one adult head of household. 

c. 47.62% of households named two household heads. 

d. All adults and elders (individuals 18 years old and over), 

household heads and all other adults.

e. Education values missing for 6 adult and elder individuals (3 

males: 3 females). Sex was missing for 3 individuals.

Table 6.34. Percentage (No.) HHs employed 2009, 

Venetie.

Percent Total Number

HH Employed in 

2009

91.67 77

HH 

Unemployed in 

2009

8.33 7

Total 100.00 84

Table 6.35. Income and Employment, Venetie.

Income

Per Capita Job Income $11,441

Per Capita HH Income $ 21,300

Employment

Employment months per 

adult

6.1

No. jobs/household 2.9

reporting). Combining all types of equipment 

(snowmachines, boats and all-terrain vehicles), 

mean number of equipment owned per household 

was 1.39, with a median of 1.0 and SD of 1.59 pieces 

of equipment. The average amount spent by Venetie 

households on snowmobile purchases was $3,875 

(21% purchasing), on boats was $9,933 (4% purchasing), and on 4x4s was $5,094 (15% purchasing). 

For moose, caribou, salmon, grayling, geese, 

ducks, and berries, Venetie’s “core species,” there 

was an average of 2.04 hunters and 1.74 processors per household, with an SD of 1.71 and 

1.03 respectively (Table 6.40). Twenty-two point 

six two percent of Venetie’s households had no 

hunters of core species; 10% had no processors. 

Seven percent of households (n = 6) had neither processors nor hunters. The mean number 

of core species hunted per household was 2.86, 

with a maximum of 6 and an SD of 2.28. 

Using the standardized ADFG harvest reporting protocol and aggregating harvest across 

the community, Table 6.41 summarizes estimates 

of use, attempted harvest, harvested, received and 

given species for all Venetie households. Fortyseven different species were reported as “used” 

and 39 species were harvested. Fifty percent of 

harvested species by weight were large land mammals (36,977 total pounds; 136 lbs. per capita), 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

97

Figure 6.16. Number of jobs of each employment type by month, Venetie.

Figure 6.17. Income in terciles, Venetie.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 98

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 6.18. Comparison of harvest by category, Venetie.

Table 6.36. Household level employment data, Venetie.

Mean Standard Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

HH Total Months Employed 11.21 11.60 7.00 0.00 54.00

HH Total No. of Jobs 2.86 1.82 3.00 0.00 9.00

No. of Full Time Jobs within HH 1.74 1.34 2.00 0.00 5.00

No. of Part Time Jobs within HH 0.54 0.98 0.00 0.00 5.00

No. of On-call Jobs within HH 0.38 0.86 0.00 0.00 5.00

Ratio of Jobs to adults within HH 1.62 0.95 1.67 0.00 4.00

Ratio of Full Time Jobs to HH Size 0.73 0.74 0.50 0.00 4.00

Ratio of Part Time Jobs to HH Size 0.23 0.42 0.00 0.00 2.00

Ratio of On-call Jobs to HH Size 0.14 0.37 0.00 0.00 2.50

Table 6.37. Venetie sources of employment.

Job Type Percent Number of 

HHs

Local 

Government 60.7 145.0

Services 14.6 35.0

Finance, 

Insurance & Real 

Estate

0.4 1.0

Retail Trade 3.3 8.0

Transportation, 

Communication 

& Utilities

1.3 3.0

State 

government 0.4 1.0

Construction 0.8 2.0

Federal 

Government 18.4 44.0
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

99

Table 6.38. Categories of cash inflows into households, Venetie.

Categories of 

cash inflows 

into households

Mean with 

zero values 

$ (No.)

Mean 

without 

zero values 

$ (No.)

Standard 

Deviation 

without 

zero values

Median 

without 

zero values

Minimum 

without 

zero 

values

Maximum 

without 

zero 

values

No. of 

HHs 

Missing

Wage Income

Wage Income 

without imputed 

values

22,673.72 

(78)

23,270.39 

(76)

21,172.50 15,100.00 300.00 93,000.00 0

Wage Income 

with imputed 

valuesa

21,316.32 

(84)

23,254.17 

(77)

21,033.23 15,200.00 300.00 93,000.00 0

Dividend Income

Permanent Fund 

Dividend

 3,031.90 

(84)

 3,488.77 

(73)

 2,115.28 2,610.00 1,305.00 10,440.00 0

Village 

Corporate 

Dividendb

 29.05 (84) 203.33 (12) 176.49 116.50 20.00 500.00 0

Regional 

Corporate 

Dividend 

– ASRCc

 1,314.13 

(84)

 2,983.44 

(37)

10,411.90 495.00 50.00 62,000.00 0

Other Dividend 

Incomed

 15.54 (84) 1,305.00 (1) ---- 1,305.00 1,305.00 1,305.00 0

Total Dividend 

Income

 4,390.62 

(84)

 4,983.95 

(74)

 8,308.85 3,441.00 454.00 69,830.00 0

Assistance Income

Elder Income 2,791.64 

(84)

15,633.20 

(15)

12,509.62 11,928.00 1,600.00 53,400.00 0

Other Incomee 4,568.32 

(84)

 6,290.80 

(61)

 5,423.59 5,100.00 300.00 24,747.00 0

Assistancef 3,433.49 

(84)

 6,866.98 

(42)

 8,342.50 3,846.00 430.00 48,000.00 0

Total Assistance 

Income

 8,001.81 

(84)

10,340.80 

(65)

 9,303.30 7,900.00 300.00 48,000.00 0

Total Gross HH 

Income

39,532.30 

(84)

39,532.30 

(84)

26,484.91 36,924.50 2,000.00 124,541.00 0

Per capita 

incomeg

21,300.42 

(84)

21,300.42 

(84)

13,144.77 18,114.25 2,000.00 65,000.00 0

a. Wage income for X households was imputed based on reported job type and schedule

b. Combines reported village corporation dividends if reported for the HH

c. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

d. Other dividend income refers to second regional corporate income or/and coop dividends

e. Energy, CITCO, Weatherization Funds, The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Food Stamps

f. Income from jobs programs (Unemployment, Workers’ Compensation), child programs (Supplemental Security, Foster Care, Child Support) 

and public assistance programs (Adult Public Assistance, Temporary Assistance)

g. Per Capita income is calculated as Gross HH Income/Number of people within HH
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 100

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 6.39. Subsistence gear, Venetie.

Use 

Y/N % 

(No.)

Own Y/Na 

% (No.)

Purchase 

Y/Na 

% (No.)

Mean No. 

Owneda

(S.D.)

Range 

of No. 

Owna

No. 

Purchased 

Meanb 

(S.D.)

Amount 

spent to 

buyb (S.D)

Amount 

spent to 

Repairc

(S.D.)

Snowmachines Y: 43 

N: (29)d

Y: (42) 

N: (42) 

Y: (18) 

N: (66) 0.63 (0.76) 1–3 1.08 (0.29) 3,875.00 (3,440.96)

530.73 

(607.96)e

Boats Y: (31) 

N: (40)f

Y: (18) 

N: (66)

Yes: (3) 

No: (81) 0.23 (0.45) 1–2 1.00 (----) 9,933.33 (1,1351.80)

937.50 

(989.42)g

All-Terrain 

Vehicle

Y: (46) 

N: (26)h

Y: (38) 

N: (46)

Yes: (13) 

No: (71) 0.54 (0.65) 1–2 1.00 (----) 5,094.69 (3,632.43)

370.50 

(557.14)i

a. Of all respondents

b. Of those who purchased

c. Of those who own

d. 12 missing data

e. 16 missing data

f. 13 missing data

g. n=18 (14 missing) 

h. 12 missing data

i. n=38 (18 missing)

Table 6.40. Number of hunters and processors engaged in subsistence, and number of species harvested per 

household, Venetie.

Mean Standard Deviation Median Minimum Maximum Percentage of Households with Zero % (No.)

No. of 

Huntersa 2.04 1.71 2.00 0.00 7.00 22.62 (19)

No. of 

Processorsa 1.74 1.03 2.00 0.00 6.00 9.52 (8)

No. of Species 

Huntedb 2.89 2.28 3.00 0.00 7.00 22.62 (19)

a. Six households report no hunters or processors.

b. These calculations are only for the 6 core species. 

Forty-seven percent of were marine mammals 

(186,513 total pounds; 316 lbs. per capita), 28% 

were salmon (20,775 lbs; 76 lbs. per capita) and 9% 

were non-salmon fish (6,745 lbs; 25 lbs. per capita). 

Birds and eggs accounted for 7% (5619 lbs; 25 lbs. 

per capita), small mammals (3126 lbs; 12 lbs. per 

capita) and vegetation (berries) 2% (1360 lbs; 5 lbs. 

per capita). (Figure 6.18 and Table 6.42). Species 

that ranked highest in use during the reporting 

period were moose (93% of households), caribou 

(86% of households), graying (80% of households), ducks (70% of households), geese (68% of 

households), and berries (67% of households). Per 

capita harvest was calculated as 274 lbs. Similar to 

Kaktovik and Wainwright, all but 1.2% of households reported using at least one species. As well, 

the difference between attempted to harvest and 

harvested is again small (86% of households vs. 

81% of households, respectively), suggesting that 

most hunters seeking to bring home wild foods 

were successful. Exceptions were caribou, where 

23% attempted and 14% harvested, and chinook 

salmon, where 27% of households attempted 

but only 16% harvested. Again, these differences 

between attempted and successful harvest do not 

account for the number of tries before a hunter 

was successful (expended effort). Table 6.41 also 

reflects the high percentage of households that 

gave and/or received wild foods. Overall, 82% of 

households gave food to others, and 95% received 

some harvested food from other households. This 

summary figure does not account for the difference 

between sharing and shares, which is delineated and explained in the section on networks and 

cooperative relationships around subsistence. 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

101

Table 6.41. All species used, attempted, harvested, received and given, Venetie.

Estimated harvests and uses of fish, game, and plant resources, Venetie, Alaska, 2009.

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

All 

Resources 98.8 85.7 81.0 95.2 82.1 74,602.0 793.6 274.3 13,344.1 13.3

Fish

Fish 86.9 69.0 64.3 75.0 58.3 27,519.5 292.8 101.2 9,090.6 Ind. 14.6

Salmon 76.2 36.9 26.2 69.0 33.3 20,774.7 221.0 76.4 2,742.2 Ind. 26.1

Chum 

Salmon 42.2 26.8 20.2 30.1 12.0 12,394.6 131.9 45.6 2,065.8 Ind. 31.5

Coho 

Salmon 2.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 5.8 0.1 0.0 1.1 Ind. 64.9

Chinook 

Salmon 69.0 27.4 15.5 61.9 26.2 8,374.3 89.1 30.8 675.3 Ind. 33.6

Sockeye 

Salmon 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

NonSalmon 

Fish

81.0 66.7 63.1 61.9 47.6 6,744.8 71.8 24.8 6,348.4 Ind. 15.1

Arctic 

Grayling 79.8 65.5 61.9 48.8 44.0 4,943.1 52.6 18.2 5,492.3 Ind. 13.9

Northern 

Pike 2.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 11.1 0.1 0.0 3.4 Ind. 64.9

Sheefish 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Whitefishes 41.0 13.3 8.3 39.8 12.0 1,790.7 19.1 6.6 852.7 Ind. 45.8

Unknown 

Whitefish 41.0 13.3 8.3 39.8 12.0 1,790.7 19.1 6.6 852.7 Ind. 45.8

Land Mammals

Land 

Mammals 96.4 67.9 54.8 91.7 70.2 40,103.1 426.6 147.4 1,790.7 Ind. 23.5

Large Land 

Mammals 94.0 63.1 33.3 91.7 65.5 36,976.7 393.4 135.9 159.1 Ind. 19.0

Black Bear 19.0 16.7 8.3 11.9 6.0 886.3 9.4 3.3 10.1 Ind. 27.2

Brown Bear 3.6 8.3 3.6 0.0 2.4 385.0 4.1 1.4 4.5 Ind. 39.3

Caribou 85.7 22.6 14.3 84.5 49.4 14,229.8 151.4 52.3 104.6 Ind. 25.4

Deer 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Moose 92.9 60.7 29.8 86.9 60.2 21,475.6 228.5 79.0 39.9 Ind. 15.6

Dall Sheep 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 102

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Small Land 

Mammals 56.0 44.0 42.9 28.6 29.8 3,126.4 33.3 11.5 1,631.6 Ind. 25.1

Beaver 25.6 14.8 14.3 14.8 13.6 1,298.1 13.8 4.8 64.9 Ind. 24.4

Fox 3.7 3.7 3.6 1.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 118.6 Ind. 61.2

Arctic Fox 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 Ind. 64.9

Red Fox 3.7 3.7 3.6 1.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.7 Ind. 58.1

Hare 43.4 36.1 34.5 15.7 20.5 1,148.1 12.2 4.2 574.1 Ind. 23.5

Snowshoe 

Hare 43.4 36.1 34.5 15.7 20.5 1,148.1 12.2 4.2 574.1 Ind. 23.5

Lynx 7.3 4.9 4.8 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 Ind. 42.5

Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Marten 6.0 4.9 4.8 2.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.6 Ind. 36.8

Muskrat 18.3 11.1 9.5 9.9 11.1 384.7 4.1 1.4 213.7 Ind. 29.7

Porcupine 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 134.3 1.4 0.5 16.8 Ind. 64.9

Squirrel 16.9 9.9 8.3 12.3 8.5 161.1 1.7 0.6 322.3 Ind. 47.1

Parka 

Squirrel 

(ground)

16.9 9.9 8.3 12.3 8.5 161.1 1.7 0.6 322.3 Ind. 47.1

Wolf 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Wolverine 2.4 2.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 Ind. 49.2

Marine Mammals

Marine 

Mammals 18.1 0.0 0.0 18.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Seal 14.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Bearded 

Seal 14.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Whale 15.7 0.0 0.0 15.7 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Beluga 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Bowhead 14.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Birds and Eggs

Birds and 

Eggs 81.0 60.7 58.3 65.5 57.1 5,619.4 59.8 20.7 2,252.7 Ind. 13.0

Migratory 

Birds 78.6 57.1 54.8 64.3 54.8 5,500.8 58.5 20.2 2,134.1 Ind. 13.4

Ducks 70.2 51.2 46.4 50.0 42.9 2,130.1 22.7 7.8 1,133.0 Ind. 16.2

Eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Table 6.41. All species used, attempted, harvested, received and given, Venetie, continued.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

103

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Common 

Eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

King Eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Unknown 

Ducks 70.2 51.2 46.4 50.0 42.9 2,130.1 22.7 7.8 1,133.0 Ind. 16.2

Geese 67.9 45.2 36.9 56.0 35.7 3,141.6 33.4 11.6 968.6 Ind. 17.2

Snow 

Geese 1.2 2.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Whitefronted 

Geese

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 14.1 0.2 0.1 3.4 Ind. 64.9

Unknown 

Geese 67.9 45.2 36.9 56.0 35.7 3,127.5 33.3 11.5 965.3 Ind. 17.3

Swan 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 25.1 0.3 0.1 2.2 Ind. 64.9

Tundra 

Swan 

(whistling)

1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 25.1 0.3 0.1 2.2 Ind. 64.9

Unknown 

Swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ind. 0.0

Crane 3.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 1.3 203.9 2.2 0.7 30.2 Ind. 60.2

Sandhill 

Crane 3.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 1.3 203.9 2.2 0.7 30.2 Ind. 60.2

Other Birds 20.2 31.0 15.5 8.3 8.3 118.6 1.3 0.4 118.6 Ind. 27.4

Upland 

Game Birds 20.2 31.0 15.5 8.3 8.3 118.6 1.3 0.4 118.6 Ind. 27.4

Grouse 6.0 7.1 3.6 2.4 1.2 13.4 0.1 0.0 13.4 Ind. 54.5

Ptarmigan 15.9 27.2 11.9 7.5 7.4 105.2 1.1 0.4 105.2 Ind. 30.3

Vegetation and Fungi

Vegetation 66.7 46.4 42.9 52.4 27.4 1,360.1 14.5 5.0 210.1 Gal. 14.6

Berries 66.7 46.4 42.9 52.4 27.4 1,351.1 14.4 5.0 207.9 Gal. 14.8

Blueberry 64.3 40.5 36.9 48.8 20.2 686.9 7.3 2.5 105.7 Gal. 15.6

Low Bush 

Cranberry 46.4 34.5 29.8 30.1 22.6 602.6 6.4 2.2 92.7 Gal. 15.4

Crowberry 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.2 0.1 2.2 Gal. 64.9

Cloud Berry 3.7 2.5 2.4 1.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Gal. 48.1

Raspberry 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 21.8 0.2 0.1 3.4 Gal. 64.9

Strawberry 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 21.8 0.2 0.1 3.4 Gal. 64.9

Table 6.41. All species used, attempted, harvested, received and given, Venetie, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 104

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Resource Percentage of households Harvest weight (lb) Harvest 

amount

95% 

confidence 

limit (±) 

harvest

Use 

%

Attempt 

%

Harvest 

%

Receive 

%

Give 

% Total

Mean 

household

Per 

capita Total Unit

Plants/

Greens/

Mushrooms

1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 Gal. 64.9

Wild Rose 

Hips 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 Gal. 64.9

Table 6.41. All species used, attempted, harvested, received and given, Venetie, continued.

Table 6.42. Types of harvested resources, Venetie.

Resource Harvest in pounds usable weight

Total Per capita

Salmon 20,774.7 76.4

Non-Salmon Fish 6,744.8 24.8

Large Land 

Mammals

36,976.7 135.9

Small Land 

Mammals

3,126.4 11.5

Marine Mammals 0.0 0.0

Birds and Eggs 5,619.4 24.8

Vegetation 1,360.1 5.0

Correlations between Socio-economic 

and Harvest Variables—All Three 

Communities

Spearman Correlations were run on a subset 

of socio-economic and harvest variables discussed 

in the previous sections. The Spearman statistic is 

ideal for data that is either not normally distributed or includes rank ordered variables. Correlation 

results are presented in two ways: first, including 

teacher Households and second, without teacher Households included. The socio-economic 

and harvest characteristics of teachers and local 

Households emerge as quite different. All results 

appear in Tables 4.43 through 4.49 in the following order; With Teachers included Kaktovik: 

Table 4.43; Wainwright, Table 4.45 and Venetie, 

Table 4.47; Without Teachers Kaktovik Table 4.44, 

Wainwright: Tables 4.46, and Venetie, Table 4.48.

Household size

Katovik: With teacher Households included, results indicate positive, strong, and significant 

correlations between Wage (r=.264; p< .05) and 

Household Income (r=.587; p< .01), as well as 

Total Household Harvest (r=.572; p< .01) and 

Total Inflow to Households (r=.484; p< .01). The 

strength of each correlation increases significantly when teacher Households are excluded from 

correlations. Removing small teacher Households 

with higher wage incomes and Household gross 

incomes as well as low harvests and inflows increases correlations and Household Size.

Wainwright: Categorization as a teacher Household 

is negatively correlated with Household Size in 

Wainwright (r=-.373; p< .01). Also with teacher 

Households included, results indicate positive, 

strong, and significant correlations between 

Household Size and both Wage (r=.213; p< .05) 

and Household Income (r=.557; p< .01), Total 

Household Harvest (r=.410; p<.01) and Total 

Inflow to Households (r=.391; p< .01). The strength 

of the correlation between Wage and Household 

Income increases when teacher Households are 

excluded from the analysis. Removing small 

teacher Households with higher wage incomes and 

Household gross incomes strengthens the correlation. In contrast, the strength of the correlation 

between Household Size and Harvest and Inflow 

declined without teachers included (i.e. suggesting the presence of small, but highly productive, 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

105

Table 6.43. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables with non-Native teacher households, 

Kaktovik (n = 70).

Variables

HH Size 

(No. 

Individuals)

HH 

Development 

Stage 

(D, M, E)a

Teacher 

HH 

(Yes/No)

Wage 

Income 

($)

HH Income 

($)

Total 

Harvest 

(Lbs)b

Total Inflow 

(Lbs)c

HH Size 1.00 N.S. N.S. .264* .587** .572** .484**

Development 

Stage 1.00 N.S. -.285* N.S. .236* .370**

Teacher HH 1.00 .357** .264* -.268* -.320**

Wage Income 1.00 .784** N.S. N.S.

HH Income 1.00 N.S. N.S.

Total Harvest 1.00 .949**

Total Inflow 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. HH development stage; D=Developing, M=Mature, E=Elder

b. Total harvest combines own harvest and cooperative harvest shares across all core species

c. Total Inflow includes food flowing into HHs from non-harvest social relationships (sharing and shares) for core species.

local Households that mediate the relationships between Household Size, and Household 

Harvest and Total Inflows in Wainwright). 

Venetie: With teacher Households included, 

Household Size was positively and strongly correlated with both Wage (r=.425; p< .01) and 

Household Income (r=.656; p< .01), as well as 

Total Household Harvest (r=.480; p< .01) and 

Total Inflow to Households (r=.503; p< .01). 

Similar to patterns identified for Kaktovik, the 

strength of each correlation increased when teacher Households were excluded from analysis. 

Development Stage: 

Kaktovik: Household Development stage is negatively and significantly correlated to Wage 

Table 6.44. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables without non-Native teacher 

households, Kaktovik (n = 65).

Variables

HH Size 

(No. 

Individuals)

HH 

Development 

Stage 

(D, M, E)a

Wage 

Income 

($)

HH Income 

($)

Total 

Harvest 

(Lbs)b

Total Inflow 

(Lbs)c

HH Size 1.00 N.S. .312* .665** .618** .533**

Development Stage 1.00 -.296* N.S. N.S. .324**

Wage Income 1.00 .756** N.S. N.S.

HH Income 1.00 .302* .252*

Total Harvest 1.00 .950**

Total Inflow 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. HH development stage; D=Developing, M=Mature, E=Elder

b. Total harvest combines own harvest and cooperative harvest shares across all core species.

c. Total Inflow includes food flowing into HHs from non-harvest social relationships (sharing and shares) for core species.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 106

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Income (r=-.285; p< .05) with teachers included. 

Wage Income tends to increase with development stage. Development stage has a positive 

and significant relationship with Total Harvest 

(r=.236; p< .05) and Total Inflow (r=.370; p< .01). 

Without teachers included, the negative correlation between Development Stage and Wage 

Income strengthens marginally (r=-.296; p< 

.05), the relationship with Total Inflow declines 

marginally (r=.324; p< .01), and the correlation with Total Harvest becomes insignificant. 

Wainwright: With teachers included, Household 

Development Stage is negatively correlated 

with Total Harvest (r=.203; p< .05) and positively, but weakly correlated with Total Inflow 

(r=.186; p< .05). Contrary to both Kaktovik 

and Venetie, there is no correlation between 

Variables HH Size 

(No. Individuals)

HH 

Development 

Stage 

(D, M, E)a

Teacher 

HH 

(Yes/No)

Wage 

Income 

($)

HH Income 

($)

Total 

Harvest 

(Lbs)b

Total Inflow 

(Lbs)c

HH Size 1.00 N.S. -.373** .213* .557** .410** .391**

Development 

Stage 1.00 N.S. N.S. N.S. -.203* .186*

Teacher HH 1.00 .302** N.S. -.488** -.486**

Wage Income 1.00 .847** N.S. N.S.

HH Income 1.00 .183* .190*

Total Harvest 1.00 .930**

Total Inflow 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. HH development stage; D=Developing, M=Mature, E=Elder

b. Total harvest combines own harvest and cooperative harvest shares across all core species

c. Total Inflow includes food flowing into HHs from non-harvest social relationships (sharing and shares) for core species.

Table 6.45. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables with non-Native teacher households, 

Wainwright (n = 146).

Table 6.46. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables without non-Native teacher 

households, Wainwright (n = 133).

Variables HH Size 

(No. Individuals)

HH 

Development 

Stage (D, M, E) a

Wage 

Income 

($)

HH Income 

($)

Total 

Harvest 

(Lbs) b

Total Inflow 

(Lbs) c

HH Size 1.00 N.S. .361** .662** .282** .254**

Development 

Stage 1.00 N.S. N.S. -.236** .210**

Wage Income 1.00 .847** .245** .246**

HH Income 1.00 .290** .294**

Total Harvest 1.00 .908**

Total Inflow 1.00

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. HH development stage; D=Developing, M=Mature, E=Elder

b. Total harvest combines own harvest and cooperative harvest shares across all core species.

c. Total Inflow includes food flowing into HHs from non-harvest social relationships (sharing and shares) for core species.
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

107

Table 6.47. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables with non-Native teacher households, 

Venetie (n = 84).

Variables HH Size 

(No. Individuals)

HH 

Development 

Stage 

(D, M, E)a

Teacher 

HH 

(Yes/No)

Wage 

Income 

($)

HH 

Income 

($)

Total 

Harvest 

(Lbs)b

Total 

Inflow 

(Lbs)c

HH Size 1.00 N.S. N.S. .425** .656** .480** .503**

Development 

Stage 1.00 N.S. -.237* N.S. N.S. N.S.

Teacher HH 1.00 .318** .304** -.244* -.320**

Wage Income 1.00 .815** .344** .229*

HH Income 1.00 .364** .372**

Total Harvest 1.00 .835**

Total Inflow 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. HH development stage; D=Developing, M=Mature, E=Elder

b. Total harvest combines own harvest and cooperative harvest shares across all core species.

c. Total Inflow includes food flowing into HHs from non-harvest social relationships (sharing and shares) for core species.

Table 6.48. Correlations between socio-economic and harvest variables without non-Native teacher 

households, Venetie (n = 80).

Variables HH Size 

(No. Individuals)

HH 

Development 

Stage 

(D, M, E) a

Wage 

Income 

($)

HH 

Income 

($)

Total 

Harvest 

(Lbs) b

Total 

Inflow 

(Lbs) c

HH Size 1.00 N.S. .489** .728** .482** .514**

Development Stage 1.00 -.313** N.S. -.236** .229*

Wage Income 1.00 .792** .453** .361**

HH Income 1.00 .475** .519**

Total Harvest 1.00 .827**

Total Inflow 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. HH development stage; D=Developing, M=Mature, E=Elder

b. Total harvest combines own harvest and cooperative harvest shares across all core species.

c. Total Inflow includes food flowing into HHs from non-harvest social relationships (sharing and shares) for core species.

Development stage and Income. Without teachers, the level of significance and strength of both 

correlations for Total Harvest (r=-.236; p< .01) 

and Total Inflow increased (r=.210; p< .01). .

Venetie: Similar to Kaktovik and Wainwright, 

there is a significant negative correlation between Household Development Stage and 

Wage Income (r=-.237; p=<.05), but no other 

correlations were significant. Without teachers 

included, the negative correlation with Wage 

Income strengthens and increases in significance 

level (r=-.313; p< .01). Wage Income tends to 

increase with Development Stage. The correlation 

between Development Stage and Total Harvest 

becomes significant without teachers and is negative (r=-.236; p<.01), while the Wage x Inflow 

correlation (r=.229; p< .05) becomes significant, 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 108

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

but is positive. The difference here between Total 

Harvest and Inflow may reflect that while younger 

Households may have lower harvests, total inflow 

additionally reflects food flowing into Households 

from social relationships (e.g. sharing, helper 

shares) so overall flows to younger Households 

may be positive even as harvests are low. 

Teacher Households:

Kaktovik: Being a non-local teacher Household 

was positively and strongly correlated with wage 

income (r=.357; p< .01), less strongly correlated with Household income (r=.264; p< .05), and 

negatively correlated with both Household Harvest 

(r=-.268; p< .05) and Total Inflow (r=-.320; p< .01). 

Wainwright: Being a non-local teacher Household 

was strongly and positively correlated with wage 

income (r=.302; p< .01), but not correlated to 

Household income. Being a teacher Household was 

negatively correlated with both Household Harvest 

(r=-.488; p< .01) and Total Inflow (r=-.486; p< .01). 

Venetie: Patterns for Kaktovik and Venetie were 

similar. Being a non-local teacher Household 

was positively and strongly correlated with wage 

income (r=.318; p< .01), less strongly correlated with Household income (r=.304; p< .05), and 

negatively correlated with both Household Harvest 

(r=-.244; p< .01) and Total Inflow (r=-.320; p< .01). 

Wage Income

Kaktovik: Household Wage Income with teachers included was strongly and positively 

related to Household Income (r=.784; p< .01). 

Without teachers the strength of this relationship decreased marginally (r=.756; p< .01).

Wainwright: Household Wage Income with teachers included was strongly and positively related to 

Household Income (r=.784; p< .01). The strength 

of this relationship stayed the same when teachers 

were excluded from the test. Without teachers, 

correlations between Wage Income and harvest variables became significant (Total harvest, 

r=.245; p< .01, Total Inflow, r=.246; p< .01).

Venetie: Household Wage Income with teachers 

included was strongly and positively related to 

Household Income (r=.815; p< .01). Including 

teachers, correlations between Wage Income 

and harvest variables were significant (Total 

harvest, r=.344; p< .01, Total Inflow, r=.229; 

p< .05). Without teachers the correlation between Wage Income and Total Income declined 

in strength (r=.792; p< .01). However, correlations between Wage Income and harvest 

variables strengthened significantly (Total harvest, 

r=.475; p< .01, Total Inflow, r=.519; p< .01).

Household Income

Kaktovik: Correlations between Household Income 

and Harvest variables were insignificant when 

teachers were included in the analyses. However, 

correlations became positive and significant 

when teachers were removed (Total harvest, 

r=.302; p< .05, Total Inflow, r=.252; p< .05).

Wainwright: Correlations between Household 

Income and Harvest variables were positive 

and significant when teachers were included 

in the analyses, albeit the relationships were 

not strong (Total harvest, r=.184; p< .05, Total 

Inflow, r=.190; p< .05). However, the correlations strengthened and increased in significance 

when teachers were removed (Total harvest, 

r=.290; p< .01, Total Inflow, r=.294; p< .01).

Venetie: Correlations between Household 

Income and Harvest variables were positive 

and significant when teachers were included in 

the analyses, and relationships were the strongest of the three communities (Total harvest, 

r=..344; p< .01, Total Inflow, r=.229; p< .01). 

The correlations again increased in strength 

when teachers were removed (Total harvest, 

r=.475; p< .01, Total Inflow, r=.519; p< .01).

Total Harvest

Kaktovik: As one might expect, the correlation between Total Harvest and Total Inflow 

is strong, positive, and significant both with 

and without teachers present (r=.949; p< .01 

compared to r=.950; p< .01). The correlation is not perfect however, emphasizing that 

Household inflows stem from food flowing 

in from other non-hunting relationships. 
Chapter 6 - Household Demographics

109

Wainwright: Similar to Kaktovik, the correlation 

between Total Harvest and Total Inflow is positive and significant with teachers present (r=.930; 

p< .01). The strength of this relationship declines 

marginally without teachers (r=.908; p< .01). 

Venetie: Similar to Kaktovik and Wainwright, 

the correlation between Total Harvest and 

Total Inflow is positive and significant 

with teachers present (r=.835; p< .01). The 

strength of this relationship declines marginally without teachers (r=.827; p< .01). 

¤

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

111

Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks 

within Subsistence Livelihoods

This chapter focuses on cooperation and social networks 

of the mixed subsistence-cash livelihoods in our three 

study communities. Results primarily focus on 

flows of core species, the 7–10 species identified 

as of primary importance to subsistence and 

hunting activities by local community members 

and harvest surveys (See Chapter 3 – Methods). 

Because of the high response rate of households 

to the survey, our findings captured significant 

portions of the cooperation and sharing occurring 

within communities for the one-year period 

documented by the study. Sharing with individuals 

outside the study community is included by 

examining household gifting to others, and does 

not capture details of inflows documented, such 

as magnitude of flows. The study does not capture 

day-to-day meal sharing and sharing related to 

holiday feasts (e.g., Christmas and Thanksgiving). 

As noted in Chapter 2 on Theory, we measured wild food inflows to households, including: 

1) own harvest by a single household, gained 

through harvesting by one or more household 

members; 

2) cooperative harvest, which includes portions 

of a harvest received through being on a hunt 

or for fishing; 

3) helping shares for wild foods received 

through a contribution to the hunting of 

others, such as contributing equipment, 

ammunition, gas, or labor;

4) sharing, a gift received independent of 

immediate reciprocated exchange; and 

5) bartered and purchased wild food, received 

through post-harvest exchanges. 

Some data capture outflows to households and to other communities. 

Kaktovik and Wainwright engaged in bowhead and beluga whaling and Venetie did not. 

Social relationships in these two whaling communities were further elaborated to distinguish 

the role of feasts, community household shares 

and crew relations (crew shares, towing shares, 

and captains’ shares) around bowhead and beluga 

whaling as sources of wild food for households. 

Venetie households, however, did receive marine 

species from other communities, and results report 

these flows of food. Results are reported both with 

and without whale flows to households in order to 

highlight the highly structured case of bowhead, 

and the ritualized social organization around harvesting and wild food distribution for core species. 

Results primarily reflect food and other 

resources flowing into and between interviewed 

households. However, some entities that were 

not interviewed (e.g., non-local households, 

local organizations and businesses) do appear 

in network diagrams, as they were reported by 

interviewed household heads as contributing or 

giving wild food or making contributions to them. 

Similarly, unsurveyed local households may also 

appear in networks as they were cited as givers of 

food to respondent households. However, households not interviewed or other entities, such as 

whaling crews, appear only as sources of food 

or contributions and not as part of the two-way 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 112

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

distribution system, even though food and equipment, etc., may have moved in both directions. 

Following descriptive results on cooperation 

and sharing patterns, a series of figures representing 

flows of food and contributions through networks 

are presented for core species for each of the three 

study communities. The first series of network 

graphs represents flows by species, whereby flows 

through all social relationships are aggregated by 

unique species (e.g., beluga, caribou, ducks). The 

second series of network graphs represents flows 

by social relationships, in which flows of all species 

are aggregated by types of social relationships (e.g., 

sharing, cooperative hunting). A final series of 

graphs represents gifts given by households to others. This part of the survey switched the perspective 

on giving and receiving and asked Wainwright 

households to name households they gave to by 

categories related to food. Categories included fish, 

marine mammals, land mammals, and equipment. 

Findings on gender and sharing are presented for all communities at the end of the 

chapter. These are first presented by examining 

level of sharing among households with male, 

female, and couple heads. It is followed by findings on sharing and gender for all resources. 

Flows of food and contributions through 

networks are summarized in two ways: 1) contributions are count data that represent the number 

of contributions of different types provided by 

one household or entity to another (e.g., gas 

provided and equipment provided by household 

1 to household 2 would be reflected as a count 

of 2 contribution “ties”); and 2) flows of food are 

summarized as pounds and represent the magnitude of flow between households. The magnitude 

of flows and counts of other resources moving 

between households is represented by the thickness 

of ties between households. Results are presented in both formats in the following sections. 

Textbox 7.1. Definitions of network statistics.

Components: Groups of connected households. Households are in the same (weak) component if any flow 

occurs among them. Households are in the same strong component if flows are reciprocal. Component 

values range between 1 (where all nodes are connected) to n, where n is the total number of households in 

the network.

Degree: The number of connections between one household and all other households in the network. 

Mean degree is the average number of connections per household. Degree values range between 0 and n.

Density: The ratio of actual connections to total possible connections. Density values range from 0 (no 

households are connected) to 1 (every household is connected to every other household).

Distance: The length of a path from one household to another is the number of ties it contains. The 

distance between two households is the length of the shortest path between them. Mean distance for the 

network is the mean shortest path length. 

Compactness: Compactness is the harmonic mean of all distances (that is, the normalized sum of the 

reciprocal of all the distances). Compactness varies from 0 (when no households are connected) to 1 (when 

all households are connected).

Diameter: Diameter is the longest of all the calculated shortest paths in a network. In other words, once the 

shortest path length from every node to all other nodes is calculated, the diameter is the longest of all the 

calculated shortest path lengths. The diameter is representative of the linear size of a network.

Clustering coefficient: The clustering coefficient of a household is the density of its open neighborhood. 

The overall clustering coefficient is the mean of the clustering coefficient of all the households in the 

network. A high clustering coefficient for a network is an indication of a small world in which nodes are 

separated by relatively short distances.

Reciprocity: The proportion of directed flows that are reciprocated. Reciprocity values range from 0 (no 

flows are reciprocal) to 1 (all flows are reciprocal).
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

113

A table of summary statistics for resources and 

social relationships is presented for each community (Tables 7.8, 7.16, and 7.23). Definitions of 

network statistical terms described in the results 

appear in Textbox 7.1, with summary network 

statistics attached to each network graph. The 

network graphs were created in Netdraw (Version 

6) using a Spring-embedded, node repulsion, 

equal-edge algorithm, by which successive iterations calculate the repulsive and attractive forces 

acting on all nodes, and nodes that are more 

connected are pulled to the center of the visualized network. Nodes that are weakly connected 

fall near the edges of the visualized networks. 

About network graphs

Network graphs contain nodes and ties (vertices). Nodes in all figures represent households 

or other entities (as described above). Node color 

indicates maturity of the household head (i.e., 

developing, mature, and elder categories). Node 

shape denotes the marriage status of household 

head(s) (i.e., couple, single female household head, 

single male household head categories) and type 

of entity if not a local household (e.g., organization, crew, unsurveyed household or household 

in another community). Node size is scaled by 

the total inflow of wild foods into each household 

(inclusive of a household’s own production). 

Ties (or vertices) in all figures represent 

the presence or absence of a flow of either food 

(lbs) or contributions (counts) between nodes. 

Arrowheads denote the direction of the flow—a 

double arrow is indicative of a reciprocal tie between households or entities. Line thickness in all 

network diagrams reflects the relative magnitude of 

reported flows. Textbox 1 defines technical measures of social network analysis used in this report. 

Kaktovik

Network data were collected for 7 core species in Kaktovik—bowhead whale, beluga whale, 

bearded seal, caribou, Dall sheep, Dolly varden 

(arctic char), and geese. Almost 93% of Kaktovik 

households harvested core species with a mean 

weight of 2,573.99 lbs per household (Median = 

1,176.4 lbs) (Table 7.1). More than 94% of households harvested both core and non-core species. 

Total harvest for core species was 180,179 lbs, while 

total food flowing between all Kaktovik households 

was documented as 223,615 lbs. The difference 

between harvest and inflow (43,436 lbs) represents 

harvested wild foods that were redistributed between Kaktovik households, a clear indication of 

the role of social relationships—primarily sharing 

and shares—in supporting Kaktovik households 

within the mixed subsistence-cash economy. 

Table 7.2 indicates the total flow of edible 

pounds by core species for Kaktovik. These figures include mean replacement values. Bowhead 

whale accounted for 84,616 lbs of the 223,615 

lbs of food flowing between village households. 

Table 7.1. Core species vs. non-core species harvested by households, Kaktovik.

Households with Reported 

Harvest % (No.)

Mean 

(lbs/HH)

Standard 

Deviation 

(lbs/HH)

Median 

(lbs/HH)

Minimum 

(lbs/HH)

Maximum 

(lbs/HH )

Core Speciesa 92.9 (65) 2,573.99 4,240.12 1,080.58 0.00 25,052.12

Non-Coreb Species 54.3 (38) 167.50 463.17 7.26 0.00 2,937.00

Core and NonCore Species 94.3 (66) 2,741.48 4,441.21 1,176.40 0.00 25,482.12

a. Kaktovik core hunted species were Bowhead Whale, Beluga Whale, Bearded Seal, Dolly Varden, Caribou, Dall Sheep, and Geese.

b. Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Pink Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Unknown Salmon, Herring, Smelt, Rainbow Smelt, Arctic 

Cod, Saffron Cod, Halibut, Sculpin, Burbot, Dolly Varden, Lake Trout, Arctic Grayling, Rainbow trout, Broad Whitefish, Arctic Cisco, Round 

Whitefish, Brown Bear, Moose, Muskox, Dall Sheep, Arctic Fox, Red Fox, Snowshoe Hare, Marmot, Mink, Porcupine, Parka Squirrel, Weasel, 

Wolf, Wolverine, Polar Bear, Ringed Seal, Spotted Seal, Walrus, Eider, Common Eider, King Eider, unknown ducks, Tundra Swan, Sandhill Crane, 

Ptarmigan, Tundra Swan Eggs, Clams, Blueberry, Low-bush Cranberry, Crowberry, Cloudberry, Raspberry, Wild Rubarb, Other Wild Greens and 

Fungi.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 114

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Caribou was the second-ranked core species 

(72,449 lbs), followed by Dolly varden (21,607 lbs), 

beluga whale (18,032 lbs), Dall sheep (12,975 lbs), 

bearded seal (10,928 lbs), and geese (3,009 lbs). 

Kaktovik Subsistence Cooperation

Figure 7.1 illustrates that only 21.4% of total 

inflows of wild food to Kaktovik households are 

from households’ own harvest (47,812.6 lbs). The 

remainder, 78.6%, is the result of different kinds 

of social relationships between households—a 

key finding of the study. Cooperative harvesting 

accounted for 52,141.0 lbs (23.3%), helper shares 

(non-whale) 10,340.1 lbs (4.6%), and sharing 

32,386.7 lbs (14.5%) (See Table 7.3 for a breakdown 

by species, and then specific social relationships). 

Table 7.4 (a), breaks down the proportion of flows 

of wild food into households represented by all social relationships. Of the total flow of food (223,615 

lbs), 45% (102,648 lbs) is represented by combined 

pounds of meat and maqtaaq associated with bowhead and beluga whaling. More than 22% percent 

of total flow (50,108 lbs) was received by members 

of bowhead whaling crews (Table 7.4, Part b). 

Many other resources flowed between households in addition to wild foods. Table 7.3 (all 

relations contribution ties) highlights a total of 948 

ties between households. These relations represent

•	 help with processing for core 

species (496 ties), 

•	 general lending of equipment (109 ties), 

•	 provision of labor to repair 

equipment (53 ties), 

•	 contributions to communal beluga hunting 

(processing and spotting labor), and

•	 other contributions to the hunting 

efforts of households. 

Other contributions included households receiving shares of hunted meat or fish 

(for, e.g., labor (114 ties), fuel (38 ties), supplies 

(34 ties), equipment (28 ties), ammunition (19 

ties), cash (6 ties) and an “other” category that 

included, for example, contributions such as 

cooking for whaling crews). These contribution 

ties are by definition reciprocal as they represent harvested food received by a household in 

return for contributions to the hunting effort. 

During the study period, three bowhead 

whales were successfully landed and harvested 

in fall of 2009 by 3 of 7 active whaling crews in 

Kaktovik. Only one of the 3 successful whaling 

captains agreed to be interviewed, so the whaling 

flows and contributions to 2 successful whaling crews are not fully captured in this dataset. 

Therefore, reported results significantly underrepresent contributions received by whaling crews 

and the flow of captain and towing shares for the 

other 2 landed bowhead whales, as these data 

were collected based on interviews with whaling captains. Table 7.5 parts (a) and (b) present a 

detailed account of bowhead and beluga contributions and associated flows of whale (maqtaaq and 

meat) to Kaktovik households through specific 

kinds of social relationships unique to both kinds 

of whaling effort. Table 7.5 parts (a) and (b) also 

describe characteristics of crew membership. 

Table 7.2. Core resource flows, Kaktovik.

Resource N of Flow Reports Sum Mean/flow Median/flow Std. Dev.s

Caribou 394 72,448.7 lb 183.9 lb 68.0 lb 365.3 lb

Dall Sheep 133 12,975.1 97.6 30.5 152.8

Geese 210 3,009.2 14.3 9.7 19.0

Dolly Varden 398 21,606.8 54.3 26.4 100.6

Bearded Seal 114 10,927.8 95.9 21.0 222.7

Beluga 88 18,032.0 204.9 101.8 314.6

Bowhead 450 84,615.7 188.0 40.0 342.6

All Resources 1,787 223,615.1 125.1 30.9 274.9
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

115

Figure 7.1 Flows of wildfood through Social Relationships in Kaktovik

Figure 7.1. Flows of wild food through social relationships in Kaktovik.

We documented a total of 57 crew members 

across 33 households that reported household 

members as being on a bowhead whaling crew 

for the 2009 fall whaling season (Table 7.5). Crew 

members received more than 50,107 lbs of maqtaaq

and meat as crew shares, captain’s shares (14,255 

lbs), and towing shares (965 lbs) (Table 7.3). These 3 

sources of shares average to 2,308.5 lbs of meat/maq

taaq received by 33 Kaktovik households. Towing 

shares were distributed to members of whaling 

crews who helped to tow the whales of the three 

successful crews. There were 253 household contributions to the 7 crews made by 59 households, 

businesses, or organizations. An average of 8.1 individuals were named as active hunters on whaling 

crews. Note: This number refers to the number of 

individuals with a captain out on the water. It does 

not include spouses, or helpers to crews who are 

central to all activities associated with preparing for 

feasts. This number therefore underestimates the 

number of people who might locally be defined as 

members of whaling crews. Whaling crew members 

contributed their labor and sometimes equipment. 

Whaling captains contributed equipment (e.g., boat, 

snowmachines, sleds, tarps, fuel, oil, ropes, ammunition, bombs) as well as food and other supplies. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 116

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 7.2. Ranked household inflows, Kaktovik.

Figure 7.3. Proportion of food by relationships flowing to households, Kaktovik.

Figure 7.3 Proportional of food by relationships flowing to households
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

117

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum

Mean 

per 

flow

Median 

per flow

Std. 

Dev.

Caribou Relations

Own Harvest 67 ties 27,037.2 lbs 403.5 lbs 226.7 lbs 533.9 lbs

Share - Cooperative Harvest 144 24,778.8 172.1 81.6 223.1

Share - Helper 42 7,441.5 177.2 136.0 196.1

Sharing 138 13,005.1 94.2 33.5 386.9

Trading 3 186.0 62.0 30.0 64.3

Own HH Processing 91

Other HH Processing 179

Contribution for Share - Total 66

Ammunition 13

Cash 2

Equipment 11

Fuel 18

Labor 18

Supplies 4

Total 730 72,448.7 183.9 68.0 365.3

Dall Sheep

Own Harvest 11 5,033.6 457.6 457.6 204.2

Share - Cooperative Harvest 31 4,373.7 141.1 69.3 131.8

Share - Helper 13 1,295.1 99.6 104.0 133.0

Sharing 78 2,272.7 29.1 16.4 32.8

Own HH Processing 39

Other HH Processing 74

Contribution for Share - Total 24

Ammunition 7

Equipment 2

Fuel 8

Labor 3

Supplies 4

Total 270 12,975.1 183.9 68.0 365.3

Geese Relations

Own Harvest 64 1,353.1 21.1 15.3 27.0

Share - Cooperative Harvest 77 920.2 12.0 6.8 13.9

Share - Helper 14 304.1 21.7 17.0 21.7

Sharing 54 424.9 7.9 6.8 5.7

Trading 1 6.8 6.8 6.8 .- 

Own HH Processing 71

Table 7.3. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Kaktovik.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 118

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum

Mean 

per 

flow

Median 

per flow

Std. 

Dev.

Geese Relations, continued

Other HH Processing 49

Contribution for Share - Total 28

Ammunition 9

Cash 2

Equipment 3

Fuel 5

Labor 6

Supplies 3

Total 358 3,009.2 14.3 9.7 19.0

Dolly Varden Relations

Own Harvest 159 9,348.7 58.8 26.4 112.0

Share - Cooperative Harvest 157 8,886.4 56.6 30.9 105.5

Share - Helper 11 880.0 80.0 23.1 100.1

Sharing 63 2,280.5 36.2 20.0 51.2

Trading 6 188.1 31.4 33.0 4.0

Purchase 2 23.1 11.6 11.6 11.7

Own HH Processing 93

Other HH Processing 69

Contribution for Share - Total 15

Equipment 4

Fuel 1

Labor 7

Supplies 3

Total 575 21,606.8 54.3 26.4 100.6

Bearded Seal Relations

Own Harvest 20 5,040.0 252.0 210.0 461.8

Share - Cooperative Harvest 46 3,482.4 75.7 79.9 69.7

Share - Helper 8 419.4 52.4 20.7 73.1

Sharing 38 1,960.4 51.6 10.0 136.2

Trading 2 25.6 12.8 12.8 1.1

Own HH Processing 37

Other HH Processing 118

Contribution for Share - Total 10

Ammunition 2

Fuel 2

Labor 6

Total 279 10,927.8 95.9 21.0 222.7

Table 7.3. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Kaktovik, continued.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

119

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum

Mean 

per 

flow

Median 

per flow

Std. 

Dev.

Beluga Relations

Share - Cooperative Harvest 25 9,699.5 388.0 388.0 341.3

Share - Helper 2 207.4 103.7 103.7 0.0

Sharing 59 7,775.7 131.8 36.4 282.8

Share - Household 2 349.4 174.7 174.7 51.6

Contribution to Communal Hunt 48

Boat 6

 Hunt 14

Labor (Processing, Spotting, 

Other) 28

Total 136 18,032.0 204.9 101.8 314.6

Bowhead Relations

Sharing 43 4,667.4 108.5 40.0 197.4

Trading 3 72.5 24.2 10.0 31.3

Nalukatuq 49 6,794.6 138.7 105.6 169.4

Small Feast 160 2,849.2 17.8 8.0 62.4

Share - Crew Member 156 50,107.6 321.2 313.2 360.0

Share - Towing 3 964.5 321.5 315.1 12.8

Share - Helper 21 4,905.3 233.6 100.0 462.5

Share - Captain’s 15 14,254.7 950.3 950.0 757.3

Own HH Processing 3

Other HH Processing 7

Contribution for Share - Total 112

Ammunition 1

Cash 2

Equipment 8

Fuel 4

Labor 74

Supplies 20

Other (food) 3

Total 572 84,615.7 188.0 40.0 342.6

Lending Relations

Lending Equipment 

 Boat 25

 Equipment 84

Total 109

Table 7.3. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Kaktovik, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 120

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 7.3. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Kaktovik, continued.

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum

Mean 

per 

flow

Median 

per flow

Std. 

Dev.

Repairing Relations

Repair Equipment 53

Total 53

All Resources

All Relations

Own Harvest 321 47,812.6 148.9 34.0 322.3

Share - 

Cooperative 

Harvest

480 52,141.0 108.6 37.5 183.7

Share - Helper 88 10,340.1 117.2 68.0 159.5

Sharing 473 32,386.7 68.5 21.4 245.8

Share - Crew 

Member 156 50,107.6 321.2 313.2 360.0

Share - Towing 3 964.5 321.5 315.1 12.8

Share - Helper 

(Whale) 23 5,112.6 233.6 100.0 462.5

Share 

- Captain’s 15 14,254.7 950.3 950.0 757.3

Share 

- Household 2 349.4 174.7 174.7 51.6

Nalukatuq 49 6,794.6 138.7 105.6 169.4

Small Feast 160 2,849.2 17.8 8.0 62.4

Trading 15 479.0 31.9 30.0 32.3

Purchase 2 23.1 11.6 11.6 11.7

All Relations 

Flows of Food 1,787 ties 223,615.1 lbs 125.1 lbs 30.9 lbs 274.9 lbs

Own HH 

Processing 334 ties

Other HH 

Processing 496 223,615.1

Contribution 

for Share - Total 242

Ammunition 19

Cash 6

Equipment 28

Fuel 38

Labor 114

Supplies 34
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

121

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum

Mean 

per 

flow

Median 

per flow

Std. 

Dev.

All Resources

Other 3

Contribution to Communal Hunt 48

Lending Equipment 109

Repair Equipment 53

All Relations Contribution Ties 1,282 ties

All Relations Flows and 

Contribution Ties 3,069 ties 223,615.1 lbs 125.1 lbs 30.9 lbs 274.9 lbs

Table 7.3. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Kaktovik, continued.

Table 7.4. Summary of wild food inflows by relationships, Kaktovik.

a. All relations/All Species % of Total Flow Lbs

Own Harvest 21.4 47,812.6

Cooperative Harvest 23.3 52,141.0

Shares Help 4.62 10,340.1

Sharing 14.5 32,386.7

Share – Crew member 22.4 50,107.6

Share – towing 0.4 964.5

Share – Helper (Whaling) 2.3 5,112.6

Share - Captain 6.4 14,254.7

Share – Household 0.2 349.4

Nalukataq 3.0 6,794.6

Small Feast 1.3 2,849.2

Trading 0.2 479.0

Purchase 0.01 23.1

 TOTAL 100.0 223,615.1

b. Whaling Relations Only % of Total Flow Lbs.

Share - Cooperative Harvest 

(Beluga)

4.3 9,699.5

Share - Helper 2.3 5,112.6

Sharing 5.6 12,443.0

Share - Household 0.2 349.4

Trading 0.03 72.5

Nalukataq 3.0 6,794.6

Small Feast 1.3 2,849.2

Share - Crew Member 22.4 50,107.6

Share - Towing 0.4 964.5

Share - Captain 6.4 14,254.7

TOTAL - All whaling relations 45.9 102,647.6

Non-crew “helpers” also were the 

source of significant contributions to 

crews (e.g., cooking labor, processing labor, fuel, equipment and other 

supplies) for which they received 

shares of the landed whale (non-crew 

shares are referred to here as Helper 

lbs). More than 4,600 lbs of maqtaaq/

meat were received by Wainwright 

households in the form of “sharing” 

from one household to another.

There were 3 “Captain’s Feasts” 

or “small feasts” held after the fall 

2009 whaling season, associated with 

the 3 harvested whales. The Captain’s 

Feasts are held at the whaling captain’s home. The timing of the feast 

is announced by radio and the 

parading of the successful captain’s 

boat through town. Once people are 

assembled, the feast begins with a 

prayer of thanks for the successful 

hunt, the safety of the crews, and a 

safe and healthy coming year for the 

community. All community members are invited to attend, eat, and 

take small shares of food (migiak—

whale meat fermented in blood), 

duck and maqtaaq soup, jello, fruit 

salad, biscuits, etc.) home with them. 

Households may take home shares 

of food for each household member 

regardless of any individual’s presence 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 122

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 7.5. Bowhead and beluga whaling efforts: Contributions and flows, Kaktovik.

a. Bowhead Whaling

Contributions to hunt

No. active crews 7

No. HHs with crew members 33

Total crew members (across all HHs) 57

All Contribution ties (No.) 253

Average no. of individuals on a crewa 8.1

No. HHs/org’s contributing to bowhead whaling 59

Flows to HHs

No. HHs receiving crew sharesb 33

Average lbs flowing into HHsb from Towing, Captain’s and Crew Shares 2,308.5

Total lbs flowing into HHs 102,647.6

No. HHs receiving small feast shares per whale

Small Feast 1: 51

Small Feast 2: 53

Small Feast 3: 43

Average Size of Small feast Share/HH (lbs) 40.7

Total lbs small feasts (all) 2,849.2

No. HHs receiving Nalukataq shares 49

Average Size of Nalukataq Share/HH (lbs) 97.1

Total lbs flowing from Nalukataq 6,794.6

Average lbs flowing from bowhead Helper - Shares/Sharing into HHs 255.8

b. Beluga Whaling

Contributions 

to beluga hunt Total No. Individuals (Hunters/spotters/boat providers)

Hunters = 14

Spotter = 1

Boats = 6

No. HHs contributing to beluga hunts 18

Flows to HHs No. HHs receiving beluga 54

Avg. size of beluga share (lbs) 308.3

Total lbs flowing from beluga hunts 18,808.0

a. This number refers to the number of individuals with a captain out on the ice. It does not include spouses, or helpers to crews who are 

actively involved with preparing for feasts. 

b. Captain’s Share, Household crew member, Towing share

c. Average calculated only based on those HHs receiving some combination of Tow, Crew, and/or Captain’s Shares (n=33).

at the feast itself. Fifty-one, 53, and 43 households, 

respectively, reported receiving shares at each of 

the feasts. The average combined shares reported 

across the three small feasts was 40.7 lbs, and a 

total pounds of 2,849.2 lbs was reported received 

by households from all three small feasts. Average 

flows from Helper Shares and Sharing combined 

into each Kaktovik household was 255.8 lbs. 

Kaktovik is a fall (autumn) whaling community. One combined Nalukataq is held in June of 

the following year to which all successful whaling 

crews contribute. Because data were collected 

in Kaktovik in May 2010, the 2010 Nalukataq

had not yet occurred, so households were asked 

to report how much food they received at the 

previous year’s Nalukataq (June 2009). Fortynine households attended that Nalukataq feast, 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

123

and households reported taking an average of 

97.1 lbs home from the feast. Almost 6,800 lbs 

of food were distributed to households through 

the spring 2009 Nalukataq in Kaktovik. 

Beluga hunting took place in Kaktovik (Table 

7.5b) in two ways. One beluga was landed by 

hunters, and other animals were successfully taken 

in a communal hunt. This larger hunt required 

considerable cooperation among community 

members in first spotting animals passing by the 

village, hunting the pod with boats, retrieving 

hunted animals, and processing the meat. Six 

boats participated in the successful group beluga 

harvest, with another 12 households contributing time and labor as harvesters, processors, 

or spotters. Fifty-four total households received 

beluga meat and maqtaaq, averaging 308.3 lbs per 

household, for a total of 18,808.0 lbs distributed to 

community households from the hunting effort. 

Cooperative hunting activity between 

households was reported for all 7 core species. 

The number of households involved in hunting 

or fishing for core species other than bowhead 

and beluga averaged from 2.9 to 2.4 households. Bearded seal hunting groups incorporated 

the most households on average. Mean size of 

cooperative hunting groups varied from 3.1 individuals (Dall sheep) to a high of 5.33. The largest 

recorded group was for fishing of Dolly varden, 

with a maximum of 13 people, followed by 9 

people for a caribou hunting group (Table 7.6). 

The work of Wolfe (1987) highlighted a 

broad pattern of subsistence hunting in Alaska 

villages, the so-called 30:70 rule, whereby 30% 

of households are responsible for 70% of village 

harvests. Figure 7.2 provides detail on this pattern 

for Kaktovik, ranking households by total inflow 

(high to low, left to right on the X axis), but also 

indicating the different social relationships responsible for flows of food into individual households. 

The pattern represented by the black portions of 

the bars is suggestive of Wolfe’s 30:70 rule (own 

and cooperative hunting), but also highlights that 

households along the spectrum of inflow receive 

food from a range of social mechanisms. When 

looking only at harvested food for core species 

(own hunting, cooperative hunting, and whaling 

harvest relationships), 30% of Kaktovik households 

are responsible for 81% of total harvested food. For 

those households with low inflow (Figure 7.2), it 

is clear that the source of most of their wild food 

is predominantly social in nature (Shares Help, 

Sharing, and Whaling). Figure 7.3 highlights this 

pattern for inflows associated with the 5 non-whale 

core species. Households are again ranked by total 

inflow on the X axis and total inflow on the Z 

axis (red line). The proportion of total household 

inflow from sharing and Shares for Helping relationships (Y axis) is inversely related to total inflow. 

Households with lower inflow overall depend more 

on social relationships of Sharing (green color), 

some Shares for Helping (blue color) and Trading/

Purchase (orange color) as sources of wild food. 

Kaktovik households reported giving and 

receiving an average of 3.1 and 4.5 core species, 

respectively (Table 7.7). Households gave an 

average of 2.9 non-food contributions (Median 

Table 7.6. Average size of cooperative hunting groupsa - Core species without whales, Kaktovik.

Species

Mean number 

of HHs within 

cooperative hunting 

groups (No. HHs)

Cooperative 

Hunting Group/

Crew Size (No. 

Hunters)

Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Caribou 2.55 3.92 1.89 4.00 2.00 9.00

Dall Sheep 2.42 3.06 1.53 2.00 2.00 6.00

Geese 2.50 4.43 2.12 4.00 2.00 7.00

Dolly Varden 2.67 5.33 3.19 4.00 2.00 13.00

Bearded Seal 2.92 4.39 1.58 4.00 2.00 7.00

a. Data calculated based on no. individuals hunting together only for the “Cooperative hunting” relation. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 124

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

= 2.0) and received an average of 2.7 contributions from other households (Median = 2.0). 

Households received from an average of 7.1 other 

households (Median = 6.0) and gave to 6.2 households on average (Median = 4.0). All households 

received from, and gave to at least one other 

entity or household. Mean degree for Kaktovik 

households was 44.6 (Median = 30.0), meaning 

households had an average of 44.6 ties (across all 

resources and relations) with other households. 

Kaktovik degree was higher than Wainwright 

(32.6 ties) and Venetie (29.2 ties). For households 

giving/receiving from few sources, attending 

and receiving food at a small Captain’s Feast or 

Nalukataq were the most common sources of food. 

Variability across households was high (Table 7.7). 

One household received foods from 26 different 

households and another gave to 47 different households. Household Degree ranged from 2 to 271. 

Kaktovik Networks

Results within this section are drawn from 

network diagrams and Table 7.8. Figure 7.3 represents all community flows of core resources for all 

social relationships for the one-year study period. 

The 3 successful whaling crews and the Nalukataq

feast are central to the network, reflecting their 

greater connectedness (indegree and outdegree ties) 

relative to other nodes of the network. Figure 7.3 

includes local and non-local nodes in the network, 

to illustrate the extent to which food or contributions were received by local households from local 

households and others outside the village. There are 

few ties to non-local households which are reciprocal (n = 12) and these represent shares of food 

received by Kaktovik households 

in return for contributions made 

to non-local household hunting 

efforts. There were 121 non-local 

ties (3.9%) across 62 non-local 

households from 14 different 

communities. There were 3,069 

ties in total (Table 7.3). 

All but one of the 7 households closest to the center of 

the Kaktovik complete network 

(Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5) are 

“Elder households” (household heads >59 years old). The 

remaining highly connected 

household is a “Mature” aged 

household. These households are 

the most connected, although 

they are not the households 

with the greatest total flow (i.e., 

these nodes are not the largest 

nodes pictured in the diagram). 

The caribou network (Table 

7.8 and Figure 7.6) is the densest 

(0.011), with the greatest number of ties and greatest pounds 

of flows of all core species in 

Kaktovik. Reciprocity within the 

Table 7.7. Giving/Receiving of core resources, Kaktovik.

Core Resources Mean Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Giving

No. Core Food 

Resources 

Given Per HHa

3.08 1.75 2.50 1.00 7.00

No. Other 

Contributionsb

Given Per HH

2.87 2.11 2.00 1.00 9.00

No. of HHs that 

HHs are Giving 

toc

6.21 7.60 4.00 1.00 47.00

Receiving

No. Core Food 

Resources 

Received Per 

HHa

4.53 1.75 5.00 1.00 7.00

No. Other 

Contributions

Received per 

HH 2.69 2.06 2.00 1.00 8.00

No. HHs 

that HHs are 

Receiving From

7.08 5.53 6.00 1.00 26.00

HH Degree 44.64 49.46 30.00 2 271

a. List core resources

b. Processing, Equipment, Ammunition, etc.

c. Sharing, Shares, Trading, Purchasing
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

125

network is the highest of all core species (0.217). 

The network also has the largest number of strong 

components (n = 28), suggesting that the network is both dense and distributed across many 

active households. The network has a total of 297 

food ties (730 ties inclusive of contributions and 

processing) and 45,411 lbs of flow (Note: pounds 

of flow in this section does not include flows of 

food from own harvesting). Mean degree (1.8 ties 

per household) is also the highest across the core 

species. Caribou processing ties between households totaled 179 contributions (Table 7.3). Two 

households from France contributed to caribou 

hunting and one non-USA household received caribou from 2 sources. The mean flow per tie for the 

caribou network is highest among all core species 

(351 lbs), and mean flow per node is the second 

highest of all species (277 lbs) behind bowhead. 

Bowhead, a critically important source of food 

in Kaktovik, accounts for the second most pounds 

of flow and number of ties. Figure 7.7 illustrates 

how households (local and non-local) and other 

local entities contribute to active whaling crews 

(green diamonds). Contributions to bowhead crews 

summed to 112 ties, including ammunition, cash, 

equipment, labor, supplies, and other actions such 

as cooking. The network diagram illustrates these 

contributions to whaling crews. Crews who were 

successful in landing a whale are at the center of 

the network. These crews are the source of towing 

shares (given both to crew members and members 

of other crews who helped to tow the whale to 

Table 7.8. Network summary measures, core resources, Kaktovik, 2010.

All Core 

Resources Caribou Bowhead Whale

Beluga 

Whale

Bearded 

Seal Geese Dall Sheep

Dolly 

Varden

Network Size

Total # of Nodes 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164

Number of Ties 790 297 264 76 132 125 128 201

Flows (edible lbs)

Total Flow among nodes 176,577 45,411 84,616 18,808 5,888 7,941 1,654 12,258

Minimum Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Flow 6,236 2,672 4,236 432 652 236 426 4,929

Mean Flow/Node 1,077 277 516 115 36 48 10 75

Mean Flow/Tie 406 351 318 247 223 139 206 204

Components (connected nodes)

Number of Components 122 136 164 161 157 157 160 148

Largest Strong Component 42 28 0 3 7 7 4 16

Network Statistics

Mean Degree 4.817 1.811 1.610 0.463 0.805 0.762 0.780 1.226

Density 0.030 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008

Mean Distance 2.804 3.066 1.093 1.959 2.010 2.355 1.954 3.436

Compactness 0.117 0.044 0.010 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.018

Diameter 7 7 3 5 5 6 4 8

Clustering Coefficient 0.225 0.21 0.084 0.062 0.258 0.104 0.314 0.12

Reciprocity 0.165 0.217 0.000 0.057 0.185 0.145 0.080 0.140

NOTES: Number of households includes sampled local households, unsampled local households, and unsampled non-local households. 

Flows do not include households’ production for itself. Networks are disconnected. Distance-based measures are calculated within 

components. Total number of components includes isolates. Caribou, bowhead whale, beluga whale, bearded seal, and geese were included 

in all three study communities. Dall sheep and Dolly Varden were included in Kaktovik only.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 126

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

shore), crew shares and shares for households who 

helped crews in their whaling effort. Successful 

crews initially stage a Captain’s Feast, and then 

store a portion of the whale until the following 

June when captains and their crews contribute to 

Nalukataq (See Table 7.3 for flows associated with 

these relationships). These linked social relationships explain the star pattern emanating from each 

successful whaling crew and then the community 

Nalukataq. Note: Active whaling crews with no 

contributions do not reflect a lack of connectedness. Rather, this is indicative that they were not 

interviewed by the survey teams. The mean flow 

per tie for the bowhead network is second highest 

among all core species (318 lbs), but mean flow 

per node is the highest of all species (516 lbs). 

Beluga hunting in Kaktovik was undertaken 

both with a large community hunt and a couple 

of small group hunts, as illustrated in Figure 7.8. 

Because of the nature of beluga hunting, cooperation among several parties (several boats) is 

needed to direct and herd beluga in shallow areas 

were harvesting is possible. Once beluga were 

landed, individual hunters took animals back to 

their homes where processing occurred. This is the 

explanation for the distribution structure illustrated network diagram. Core hunters/processors 

became the source of reported beluga flowing to 

other households. There were 3 strong components in the beluga network (Table 7.8) and mean 

flow per tie was 318 lbs. Mean flow/node within 

the network was 115 lbs. Note: This core hunter(s) 

pattern is very different from the hunting/processing pattern documented in Wainwright, where 

all animals taken during the community hunt 

were processed on the beach and then distributed 

directly to households as “community shares.” The 

Kaktovik beluga network includes 136 ties (Table 

7.3), of which 25 ties were categorized as shares 

from cooperative harvesting. Other households 

received shares based on providing boats, hunting 

(labor/skill), and other labor such as processing 

and initially spotting animals as they swam by the 

village. Total flow of meat and maqtaaq in this network came to 18,032 lbs. Kaktovik has close kinship 

ties with the Inuvialuit of Aklavik, Canada, where 

beluga hunting is a key element of subsistence 

harvesting. We documented 3 contributions 

from the Northwest Territories, Canada. 

The bearded seal network has a low density of 

ties relative to other species networks, and has the 

second-highest clustering coefficient of all networks 

(i.e., it is focused around groups of tightly connected nodes). The network is not compact, however, 

with few of all active nodes connected to each 

other. The network contains 279 ties in total, 118 

of which are processing ties between households. 

Figure 7.9 illustrates the prominent role of key 

households as both producers and receivers in the 

bearded seal network. High producers appear in the 

network as sources of bearded seal for other households and were either mature or elder households. 

The geese network (Figure 7.10) includes 157 

ties and has 7 strong components. Four households 

are isolates. Network density is low in comparison 

to caribou and bowhead, but similar to beluga, bearded seal, and Dall sheep. The clustering 

coefficient metric is relatively low and network 

diameter is moderately high indicating the network is large, but nodes are not tightly connected. 

The Dall sheep network in Kaktovik (Figure 

7.11) illustrates the importance of three key hunters who travel extensively to find sheep. They were 

reported as sources of most of the Dall sheep within 

the Kaktovik network. Network diameter is low 

(3), but clustering coefficient is highest of all core 

species networks (0.314). The distribution of Dall 

sheep, including sharing and the distribution from 

feast events, is explained by the active hunting of 

members of these three households. The mean flow 

per tie was lowest of all species (10 lbs), but mean 

flow per tie was significant (204 lbs), suggesting that 

these key hunters distribute their harvest widely 

and in small amounts. Reciprocity in this network 

is also lowest after bowhead and beluga. The absence of inputs to feasts in the network is an artifact 

of the survey asking what households received. 

The Dolly varden (“arctic char”) network 

(Figure 7.12) includes several high-producing households and a significant number of ties 

(third highest after caribou and bowhead, Table 

7.3). Mean flow per tie was 204 lbs and mean 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

127

flow per node was 75 lbs, the highest among core 

species after bowhead and beluga. Four households were isolates in the network. Network 

distance is the highest of all core species, (i.e., the 

mean of the shortest path between households 

is high) suggesting that many nodes are linked 

together in paths. Similarly, the network diameter is the highest of all core species. Younger 

couples, and male- and female-headed households, are the most central in this network and 

more so than in any other species network. 

Figures 7.13 through 7.19 visualize ties and 

flows between households according to relationship 

type. These figures provide visual context for Table 

7.3 (see final table section entitled “All Resources 

- Flows of Food and Contributions”) and illustrate 

the network structures behind flows of food and 

contributions for specific resources. Processing 

(Figure 7.18), Cooperative Hunting (Figure 7.13), 

and Sharing (Figure 7.15) are the densest networks, 

(496 ties, 480 ties, and 473 ties, respectively). Shares 

relations (whaling and non-whaling combined 

in Figure 7.14) are clearly focused around provision of contributions to whaling crews, although 

shares move between households independent 

of whaling as well. The mirror image of shares is 

contributions (Figure 7.19), instances when households contributed (supplies, cash, ammunition, 

labor, equipment, etc.) to the hunting/fishing of 

other households in return for shares (452 ties). 

Figure 7.16 visualizes feast shares, illustrating 

the distinctive star pattern associated with wide 

distribution of feast shares from whaling crews 

to community households (209 ties). Figure 7.17 

illustrates the very sparse trading and purchase 

network for Kaktovik. Across all species, trading and purchase contains 17 ties (Table 7.3).

Figure 7.20 visualizes gifting flows by categories of resources between Kaktovik households 

and from Kaktovik households to other non-local 

households. In total, 201 nodes are represented in 

this network (70 local and 131 non-local). A total 

of 760 ties are represented, 475 between Kaktovik 

households and 285 to non-local households spread 

across 22 other Alaska communities, two Canadian 

villages, 8 other US states and 3 other countries. 

Sixty-three of 131 non-local households (48%) were 

with other North Slope Borough households. The 

two largest recipient towns were Barrow (50 households) and Fairbanks (46 households), followed by 

Anchorage (29 households). Twenty-nine households in Canada received food or equipment from 

Kaktovik households, reflecting the many kinship 

relationships between Kaktovik and Inuvik and 

Aklavik, Northwest Territories. The most common 

category of food given was land mammals (n = 

269), followed by fish (n = 241), marine mammals 

(n = 216) and equipment (n = 34). Results clearly 

show that sharing relationships extend beyond the 

village and beyond the North Slope Borough. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 128

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Idaho 1

Anaktuvuk Pass 1

Anaktuvuk Pass 2

Anaktuvuk Pass 7

Anaktuvuk Pass 8

Anaktuvuk Pass 12

Anaktuvuk Pass 13

Anaktuvuk Pass 18

Anaktuvuk Pass 20

Anchorage 4

Anchorage 21

Anchorage 28 Anchorage 54

Anchorage 55

Anchorage 56

Anderson 1

Atqasuk 2

Atqasuk 8

Barrow 4

Barrow 11

Barrow 18

Barrow 19

Barrow 22

Barrow 28

Barrow 30

Barrow 33

Barrow 50

Barrow 52

Barrow 66

Barrow 73

Barrow 75

Barrow 83

Barrow 91

Barrow 93

Barrow 107

Barrow 116

Whaling Commission

Delta Junction 1

Fairbanks 22

Fairbanks 23

City Government

Public School

Retail Store A

Retail Store B

Service Company A

Search & Rescue

Nalukatuk

Feasts - Easter & Potlatch

Feasts - Thanksgiving & Christmas

Cakewalk

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew G

Kasigluk 1

Nuiqsut 2

Nuiqsut 3

Nuiqsut 4

Nuiqsut 5

Nuiqsut 7

Palmer 1

Wainwright 1

Wainwright 2

Wasilla 3

Unknown 2

Washington 1

France 1

France 2

Aklavik 7 Aklavik 4

Non-USA 1

Non-US A 2

Non-US A 3

Non-US A 4

Non-US A 5

Non-US A 6

Non-US A 7

NETWORK STATISTICS

Mean Clustering coefficient = 0.225

Mean Degree = 4.817

Density = 0.030

Reciprocity = 0.165

NODE SUMMARY

Total N of nodes = 164

N of local households = 83

N of non-local households = 62

N of crews & organizations = 19

Figure 7.4 

All resources, all documented relations, Kaktovik
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

129

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Whaling Commission

City Government

Public School

Retail Store A

Retail Store B

Service Company A

Search & Rescue

Nalukatuk

Feasts - Easter & Potlatch

Feasts - Thanksgiving & Christmas

Cakewalk

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew G

Figure 7.5

All resources, local relations only, Kaktovik
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 130

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.6

All caribou relations, Kaktovik

Anaktuvuk Pass 1

Anaktuvuk Pass 2

Anaktuvuk Pass 7

Anaktuvuk Pass 8

Anaktuvuk Pass 12

Anaktuvuk Pass 13

Anaktuvuk Pass 18

Anchorage 54

Anderson 1

Atqasuk 2

Atqasuk 8

Barrow 19

Barrow 28

Barrow 52

Barrow 73

Barrow 75

Barrow 107

Feasts - Easter & Potlatch

Feasts

Thanksgiving

& Christmas

Nuiqsut 3

Nuiqsut 4

Nuiqsut 5

Nuiqsut 7

Wainwright 1

Wainwright 2

France 1

France 2

Non-USA 5
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

131

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.7

All bowhead whale relations, Kaktovik

Anchorage 55

Barrow 11

Barrow 19

Barrow 30

Barrow 33

Barrow 50

Barrow 66

Barrow 73

Barrow 83

Barrow 93

Barrow 116

Whaling Commission

City Government

Public School

Retail Store A

Retail Store B

Service Company A

Nalukatuk

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew G

Nuiqsut 2
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 132

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.8

All beluga whale relations, Kaktovik

Anderson 1

Community Hunt

Aklavik 4

Aklavik 7

Non-USA 1

Non-USA 5

Non-USA 6

Non-USA 7
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

133

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.9

All bearded seal relations, Kaktovik

Idaho 1

Anchorage 54

Barrow 18

Barrow 19 Barrow 75

Wainwright 2

Non-USA 2

Non-USA 3

Non-USA 4

Non-USA 5

Non-USA 7
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 134

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.10

All geese relations, Kaktovik

Public School

Feasts - Easter & Potlatch Feasts

Thanksgiving

& Christmas
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

135

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.11

All Dall sheep relations, Kaktovik

Feasts - Easter & Potlatch

Feasts

Thanksgiving

& Christmas

Unknown
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 136

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.12

All Dolly Varden (char) relations, Kaktovik

Anaktuvuk Pass 20

Anchorage 4

Anchorage 28

Barrow 4

Barrow 22

Fairbanks 22

Fairbanks 23

Cakewalk

Palmer 1

Wasilla 3

Aklavik 4

Non-USA 5
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

137

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.13

Cooperative harvesting relations, all resources, Kaktovik

Idaho 1

Fairbanks 22

Nuiqsut 3

Nuiqsut 4

Nuiqsut 5

Nuiqsut 7

France 1

France 2

Aklavik 4

Non-US A 5

Non-US A 6

Non-US A 7
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 138

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.14

Shares relations, all resources, Kaktovik

Anchorage 54

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew G

Non-US A 2

Non-US A 5
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

139

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.15

Sharing relations, all resources, Kaktovik

Anaktuvuk Pass 1

Anaktuvuk Pass 2

Anaktuvuk Pass 7

Anaktuvuk Pass 8

Anaktuvuk Pass 12

Anaktuvuk Pass 13

Anchorage 4

Atqasuk 2

Atqasuk 8

Barrow 11

Barrow 18

Barrow 19

Barrow 22

Barrow 28

Barrow 30

Barrow 33

Barrow 50

Barrow 52

Barrow 66

Barrow 73

Barrow 75

Barrow 107

Barrow 116

Nalukatuk

Feasts - Easter & Potlatch

Feasts - Thanksgiving & Christmas

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Nuiqsut 2

Palmer 1

Wainwright 1

Wainwright 2

None 2

Aklavik 4

Aklavik 7

Non-US A 1

Non-US A 5
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 140

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.16

Feast relations, all resources, Kaktovik

Nalukatuk

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew E
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

141

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.17

Reciprocal relations, all resources, Kaktovik

Anaktuvuk Pass 20

Anchorage 28

Anderson 1

Barrow 4

Barrow 83

Fairbanks 23

Cakewalk

Wasilla 3
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 142

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.18

Processing relations (unvalued), all resources, Kaktovik

Anaktuvuk Pass 2

Anaktuvuk Pass 7

Anaktuvuk Pass 8

Anaktuvuk Pass 12

Anaktuvuk Pass 18

Anchorage 54

Anderson 1

Barrow 18 Barrow 19

Barrow 22

Barrow 75

Barrow 107

Public School

Nuiqsut 3

Nuiqsut 4

Nuiqsut 5

Nuiqsut 7

Palmer 1

Wainwright 2

Aklavik 4

Non-US A 3 Non-US A 2

Non-US A 4

Non-US A 5 Non-US A 7
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

143

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.19

Other relations (unvalued), all resources, Kaktovik

Anchorage 54

Anchorage 55

Barrow 93

Whaling Commission

City Government

Public School

Retail Store A

Retail Store B

Service Company A

Search & Rescue

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew G

Washington 1

Non-US A 2

Non-US A 5
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 144

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years) 

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Provisioning of fish, land mammals, marine mammals, 

or equipment to other households

 unvalued relations, scaled by count of ties

NODES within the study community arranged with a spring-embedding, 

node-repulsion, equal edge algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. 

ARROWS are scaled by the number of ties from each surveyed 

household to other households or communities.

COMMUNITY LABELS include number of ties from study community.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization 

Unsurveyed household 

Household in another community

Delta Junction-2

Wasilla-3

Kivalina-2

Nome-2

Anderson-3

Nikiski-1

Nuiqsut-1

Beaver1

Red Devil-2

Wiseman-3

Atqasuk-1

Fairbanks-46

Huslia-1

Kotzebue-3

Perryville-1

Point Hope-2

Barrow-50 

Wainwright-1

Anchorage-29

Aklavik-29

Anaktuvuk Pass-8

Inuvik-13

Other Nations:3 Other States:8

Fort Yukon-1

KAKTOVIK

NODE SUMMARY

Total N of households = 201

N of local households = 70

N of non-local households = 131 

TIE SUMMARY

Total N of ties = 760

To other local households = 475 

To non-local households = 285 

Fish ties = 241

Land mammal ties = 269 Marine 

mammal ties = 216 Equipment 

ties = 34

Figure 7.20 Out ties from surveyed households, Kaktovik
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

145

Wainwright

Network data were collected for 7 core species 

in Wainwright—bowhead whale, beluga whale, 

bearded seal, caribou, smelt, geese and ducks. 

Almost 94% of Wainwright households harvested core species with a mean weight of 2,347.6 lbs 

per household (Median = 1,363.5 lbs) (Table 7.9). 

More than 97% of households harvested both 

core and non-core species. Total harvest for core 

species was 343,160 lbs while total food flowing 

between all Wainwright households was documented as 404,082 lbs. The difference between harvest 

and inflow (61,064 lbs) represents harvested wild 

foods that were redistributed between Wainwright 

households. This result corresponds to the pattern 

found in Wainwright and is a clear indication of 

the role of social relationships—primarily sharing 

and shares—in supporting Wainwright households 

within the mixed subsistence-cash economy. 

Table 7.10 indicates the total flow of edible 

pounds by core species for Wainwright. These 

figures include mean replacement values. Caribou 

was the first-ranked core species (198,067 lbs), 

followed by bowhead whale (accounting for 

120,465 lbs of the 404,082.0 lbs of food flowing 

between village households), bearded seal (37,508 

lbs), smelt (23,213 lbs), beluga whale (11,825 

lbs), geese (9,455 lbs) and ducks (3,550 lbs). 

Wainwright Subsistence Cooperation

Figure 7.21 illustrates visually that only 25% 

of total inflows of wild food to Wainwright households is from households’ own harvest (102,587 

Figure 7.21 Flows of Wildfood through Social Relationships, Wainwright Figure 7.21. Flows of wild food through social relationships, Wainwright.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 146

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table.7.9. Mean core and non-core harvests for households (lbs), Wainwright.

Households with 

Reported Harvest 

% (No.)

Mean Standard 

Deviation

Median Minimum Maximum

Core Speciesa 93.84 (137) 2,347.62 2,959.18 1,363.52 0.00 16,227.21

Non-Coreb Species 71.23 (104) 225.16 627.30 7.45 0.00 4,486.75

Core and Non-Core Species 96.58 (141) 2,572.78 3,470.16 1,402.10 0.00 20,713.93

a. Wainwright core hunted species were Bowhead Whale, Beluga Whale, Bearded Seal, Smelt, Caribou, Ducks and Geese.

b. Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Pink Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Unknown Salmon, Rainbow Smelt, Arctic Cod, Saffron Cod, 

Halibut, Burbot, Dolly Varden, Sheefish, Arctic Grayling, Unknown trout, Broad Whitefish, Arctic Cisco, Bering Cisco, Least Cisco, Humpback 

Whitefish, Round Whitefish, Unkknown Whitefish, Brown Bear, Moose, Muskox, Dall Sheep, Arctic Fox, Red Fox, Snowshoe Hare, Lynx, 

Marmot, Matin, Parka Squirrel, Wolf, Wolverine, Reindeer – Ferrel, Polar Bear, Ringed Seal, Spotted Seal, Walrus, Tundra Swan, Sandhill Crane, 

Ptarmigan, Tundra Swan Eggs, Clams, Blueberry, Low-bush Cranberry, Crowberry, Cloudberry.

Table 7.10. Core resource flows by resource, Wainwright.

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource N of Flow 

Reports

Sum Mean/flow Median/flow Std. Dev.

Caribou 761 198,066.9 260.3 136.0 399.4

Geese 347 9,454.5 27.2 15.0 44.2

Bearded Seal 250 37,507.5 150.0 70.0 221.0

Beluga 125 11,825.1 94.6 86.4 137.5

Bowhead 842 120,465.2 143.1 69.1 272.4

Ducks 265 3,549.9 13.4 7.5 20.4

Smelt 246 23,212.9 94.4 18.2 174.0

All Resources 2,836 404,082.0 142.5 48.6 282.9

lbs). The remainder, 75%, is the result of different 

kinds of social relationships operating between 

households—a key finding of the study and comparable to the figure found for Kaktovik. Cooperative 

harvesting accounted for 112,116.5 lbs (28%), 

helper shares (non-whale) 13,293.5 lbs (3%), and 

sharing 44,471.6 lbs (11%) (See Table 7.11 for a 

breakdown by species, and then specific social 

relationships). Table 7.12 (Part a), breaks down 

the proportion of flows of wild foods into households represented by all social relationships. Of the 

total flow of food (404,082.0 lbs), 33% (132,290.3 

lbs) is represented by combined pounds of meat 

and maqtaaq associated with bowhead and beluga 

whaling. More than 12% of total flow (50,145.7 

lbs) was received by members of bowhead whaling 

crews from the first two whales landed in spring of 

2009. Another 17,704.0 lbs flowed into Wainwright 

households as equal household shares from the 

third whale that year, which was landed in fall 

(Table 7.12b and Table 7.13 (bowhead section). 

Many other resources flowed between households in addition to wild foods. Table 7.11 (all 

relations contribution ties) highlights a total of 

1,251 ties between households representing help 

with processing for core species (444 ties), general 

lending of equipment (157 ties), provision of labor 

to repair equipment (62 ties), contributions to 

communal beluga hunting (processing and spotting labor, 78 ties), and other contributions to the 

hunting efforts of households for which contributing households received shares of hunted meat 

or fish (e.g., labor (211 ties), fuel (83 ties), supplies 

(57 ties), equipment (92 ties), ammunition (32 

ties), cash (19 ties) and an “other” category that 

included, for example, contributions for cooking 

for whaling crews (16 ties). These contribution 

ties are by definition reciprocal as they represent 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

147

Table 7.11. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Wainwright.

No. of 

Reported Ties Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations Sum Mean Median Std. Dev.

Caribou Relations

Own Harvest 131 ties 78,608.0 lbs 600.1 lbs 408.0 lbs 633.2 lbs

Share - Cooperative Harvest 347 78,019.8 224.8 136.0 256.5

Share - Helper 48 11,032.7 229.8 136.0 263.3

Sharing 219 29,368.4 134.1 68.0 327.1

Trading 13 608.6 46.8 21.4 53.8

Purchase 3 429.4 143.1 136.0 125.5

Own HH Processing 205

Other HH Processing 7.13

Contribution for Share 

- Total 74

Ammunition 18

Cash 2

Equipment 14

Fuel 32

Labor 2

Supplies 6

Total 1,193 198,066.9 260.3 136.0 399.4

Geese Relations

Own Harvest 112 4,457.4 39.8 17.0 65.4

Share - Cooperative Harvest 119 2,876.4 24.2 11.9 33.8

Share - Helper 16 369.1 23.1 20.4 19.6

Sharing 96 1,687.0 17.6 13.6 18.0

Trading 2 40.8 20.4 20.4 9.6

Purchase 2 23.8 11.9 11.9 7.2

Own HH Processing 146

Other HH Processing 67

Contribution for Share 

- Total 21

Ammunition 8

Equipment 3

Fuel 9

Labor 1

Total 581 9,454.5 27.2 15.0 44.2

Ducks Relations

Own Harvest 36 870.4 24.2 14.1 34.3

Share - Cooperative Harvest 159 1,846.5 11.6 4.7 18.5
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 148

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

No. of 

Reported Ties Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations Sum Mean Median Std. Dev.

Ducks Relations, continued

Share - Helper 8 207.6 25.9 24.3 21.5

Sharing 61 621.6 10.2 7.5 9.0

Purchase 1 3.8 3.8 3.8 .- 

Own HH Processing 95

Other HH Processing 88

Contribution for Share 

- Total 8

Ammunition 3

Equipment 2

Fuel 2

Supplies 1

Total 456 3,549.9 13.4 7.5 20.4

Bearded Seal Relations

Own Harvest 20 5,460.0 273.0 70.0 560.9

Share - Cooperative Harvest 133 23,299.5 175.2 140.0 158.7

Share - Helper 10 1,451.5 145.2 140.0 114.0

Sharing 72 6,295.1 87.4 20.3 154.0

Trading 4 910.7 227.7 235.2 222.4

Purchase 11 90.6 8.2 6.8 5.4

Own HH Processing 99

Other HH Processing 119

Contribution for Share 

- Total 18

Ammunition 3

Cash 1

Equipment 1

Fuel 7

Labor 3

Supplies 3

Total 486 37,507.5 150.0 70.0 221.0

Smelt Relations

Own Harvest 80 13,191.3 164.9 49.6 220.6

Share - Cooperative Harvest 63 6,074.3 96.4 13.0 172.9

Share - Helper 7 232.6 33.2 18.2 32.6

Sharing 78 2,674.2 34.3 12.0 107.7

Trading 4 246.6 61.6 15.4 97.2

Table 7.11. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Wainwright, continued.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

149

No. of 

Reported Ties Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations Sum Mean Median Std. Dev.

Smelt Relations, continued

Purchase 14 793.9 56.7 28.7 70.7

Own HH Processing 125

Other HH Processing 17

Contribution for Share 

- Total 8

Cash 1

Equipment 4

Fuel 1

Labor 1

Supplies 1

Total 396 23,212.9 94.4 18.2 174.0

Beluga Relations

Sharing 6 198.5 33.1 27.3 28.4

Share - Household 119 11,626.6 97.7 103.7 140.1

Contribution to Communal 

Hunt 78

 Boat 23

 Labor (Hunting, 

Processing, 

Spotting)

55

Total 281 11,825.1 94.6 86.4 137.5

Bowhead Relations

Sharing 53 3,626.7 68.4 25.0 124.1

Trading 2 416.0 208.0 208.0 292.4

Nalukatuq 223 20,621.8 92.5 87.5 119.6

Small Feast 220 5,325.2 24.2 6.6 33.7

Share - Crew Member 173 50,145.7 289.9 207.4 327.3

Share - Towing 29 14,155.5 488.1 139.2 883.1

Share - Helper 53 8,470.3 159.8 105.6 157.3

Share - Household 89 17,704.0 198.9 138.2 240.8

Contribution for Share 

- Total 381

Cash 15

Equipment 68

Fuel 32

Labor (Processing 

and Other) 204

Table 7.11. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Wainwright, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 150

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

No. of 

Reported Ties Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations Sum Mean Median Std. Dev.

Bowhead Relations, continued

Supplies 46

Other (food) 16

Total 1,223 120,465.2 143.1 69.1 272.4

Lending Relations

Lending Equipment 

Boat 47

Equipment 110

Total 157

Repairing Relations

Repair Equipment 62

Total 62

All Resources

All Relations

Own Harvest 379 102,587.1 270.7 52.5 476.2

Share - Cooperative Harvest 821 112,116.5 136.6 48.6 206.9

Share - Helper 89 13,293.5 149.4 68.0 217.8

Sharing 585 44,471.6 76.0 18.8 219.9

Share - Crew Member 173 50,145.7 289.9 207.4 327.3

Share - Towing 29 14,155.5 488.1 139.2 883.1

Share - Helper (whale) 53 8,470.3 159.8 105.6 157.3

Share - Household 208 29,330.6 141.0 103.7 195.9

Nalukatuq 223 20,621.8 92.5 87.5 119.6

Small Feast 220 5,325.2 24.2 6.6 33.7

Trading 25 2,222.7 88.9 21.4 135.1

Purchase 31 1,341.4 43.3 18.2 69.8

All Relations Flows of Food 2,836 ties 404,082.0 lbs 142.5 lbs 48.6 lbs 282.9 lbs

Own HH Processing 670

Other HH Processing 444

Contribution for Share 

- Total 510

Ammunition 32

Cash 19

Equipment 92

Fuel 83

Labor 211

Supplies 57

Table 7.11. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Wainwright, continued.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

151

No. of 

Reported Ties Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations Sum Mean Median Std. Dev.

All Resources, continued

Other (food) 16

Contribution to Communal 

Hunt 78

Lending Equipment - Total 157

Repair Equipment 62

All Relations Contribution 

Ties 1,921 ties

All Relations Flows and 

Contribution Ties 4,757 ties 404,082.0 lbs 142.5 lbs 48.6 lbs 282.9 lbs

Table 7.11. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Wainwright, continued.

harvested food received by a household in 

return for contributions to the hunting effort. 

During the study period, 2 bowhead 

whales were successfully landed in spring of 

2009. An additional whale was landed in fall 

of that year. This was a huge cause for celebration for the community as this was the first 

time in living memory that crews had landed 

a fall whale. Whaling captains reported that 

they tried whaling that fall because two spring 

whales were “not enough for village needs,” 

and weather conditions were calm enough to 

go out safely. Two of 8 active whaling crews in 

Wainwright landed the 3 whales, with one crew 

successful in both spring and fall. All whaling 

captains in Wainwright were interviewed. Table 

7.13 (a and b) presents a detailed account of 

bowhead and beluga contributions and associated flows of whale (maqtaaq and meat) to 

Wainwright households through specific kinds 

of social relationships unique to both kinds 

of whaling efforts. Tables 7.13 (a and b) also 

describes characteristics of crew membership. 

We documented a total of 74 crew members across 53 households who reported 

household members as being on a bowhead 

whaling crew in 2009 (Table 7.13). Crew 

members received more than 50,145 lbs of 

maqtaaq and meat as crew shares and towing 

Table 7.12. Wainwright - Sources of wild food inflows.

a. All relations/All Species % of Total Flow Lbs

Own Harvest 25.4 102,587.1 

Cooperative Harvest 27.8 112,116.5 

Shares Help 3.3 13,293.5 

Sharing 11.0 44,471.6

Share – Crew member 12.4 50,145.5 

Share – Towing 3.5 14,155.5 

Share – Helper (Whale) 2.1 8,470.3 

Share – Household 7.3 29,330.6 

Nalukatuq 5.1 20,621.8

Small Feast 1.3 5,325.2 

Trading 0.6 2,222.7

Purchase 0.3 1,341.4 

 TOTAL 100.0 404,082.0 

b. Whaling Relations Only % of Total Flow Lbs

Share - Helper 2.1 8,470.3

Sharing 0.9 3,825.2

Share - Household 7.3 29,330.6

Trading 0.1 416.0

Nalukataq 5.1 20,621.8

Small Feast 1.3 5,325.2

Share - Crew Member 12.4 50,145.7

Share - Towing 3.5 14,155.5

TOTAL - 

All whaling relations 32.7 132,290.3
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 152

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 7.13. Whaling cooperation. 

a. Bowhead Whaling

Contributions to hunt No. active crews 8

No. HHs with crew members 53

Total crew members (across all HHs) 74

All Contribution ties (No.) 438

Average no. of individuals on a crewa 9.3

No HHs/org’s contributing to bowhead whaling 124

Flows to HHs No. HHs receiving sharesa 53

Average lbs flowing into HHs from Towing, Captain’s and 

Crew Sharesb 1,503.0

Total lbs flowing into HHs 132,290.0

No. HHs receiving small feast shares per whale 105 

Average Size of Small feast Share/HH (lbs) 38.0

Total lbs small feasts (all) 5,325.2

No. HHs receiving Nalukataq shares 118

Average Size of Nalukataq Share/HH (lbs) 147.3

Total lbs flowing from Nalukataq 20,621.8

Average lbs flowing from bowhead shares/sharing into HHs 285.1

b. Beluga Whaling

Contributions to beluga 

hunt Total no. individuals (Hunters/spotters/boat providers)

Hunters = 53

Spotter = 1

Boats = 23

Flows to HHs No. receiving HH shares 119

Avg size of beluga share (lbs) 94.6

Total lbs flowing from beluga hunt 11,825.1

a. This number refers to the number of individuals with a captain out on the ice. It does not include spouses, or helpers to crews who are 

actively involved with preparing for feasts. 

b. Captain’s Share, Household crew member, Towing share

c. Average calculated only based on those HHs receiving some combination of Tow, Crew, and/or Captain’s Shares (n=53).

shares (14,155.5 lbs) (Table 7.12). Towing shares 

were distributed to members of crews who helped 

to tow the whales of the 3 successful whaling crews. 

Across these 3 categories of shares, average pounds 

of meat and maqtaaq flowing into households was 

1,503 lbs. Because the successful fall whale was 

rare, whaling captains decided at the time to divide 

it according to equal Household Shares (i.e., all 

village households were entitled to a share), instead 

of according to crew and helper shares as would 

have been customary. The crew share category for 3 

whales is consequently lower than would have been 

expected because of this occurrence. The successful 

fall crew did retain significant portions of the 

third whale for future contributions to Christmas, 

Thanksgiving, and Nalukataq feasts—as is customary. There were 381 household contributions to the 

8 crews made by 124 households, businesses, or 

organizations. An average of 9.3 individuals were 

active hunters on whaling crews. Note: This number 

refers to the number of individuals with a captain 

out on the ice. As with Kaktovik, this number does 

not include spouses or helpers to crews who were 

central to all activities associated with preparing for 

feasts. This number therefore underestimates the 

number of people who might locally be defined as 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

153

members of whaling crews. Whaling crew members 

contributed their labor and sometimes equipment 

to whaling efforts. Whaling captains contributed 

equipment (e.g., boat, snowmachines, sleds, tarps, 

fuel, oil, ropes, ammunition, bombs) as well as 

food and other supplies. Non-crew “helpers” also 

were the source of significant contributions to 

crews (e.g., cooking labor, processing labor, fuel, 

equipment and other supplies) for which they 

received shares of the landed whale (Share = Helper 

lbs, 8,470.3). More than 3,600 lbs of maqtaaq/

meat were received by Wainwright households 

as “sharing” from one household to another.

There were 3 Captain’s Feasts or “small feasts” 

held after each whale was landed and processed, 

at the whaling captain’s home. The timing of the 

feast was announced by radio. Once people were 

assembled, the feast began with a prayer of thanks 

for the successful hunt, the safety of the crews, 

and a safe and healthy coming year for the community. All community members were invited to 

attend, eat, and take small shares of food (migiak, 

duck and maqtaaq soup, jello, fruit salad, biscuits, etc.) home with them. Households may take 

home shares of food for each household member 

regardless of any individual’s presence at the feast 

itself. Ninety-two households, 86 and 42 households at the small feasts held in spring (2 feasts) 

and fall (1 feast), respectively, reported receiving 

shares. The average combined shares reported 

across the three small feasts was 38.0 lbs, and a 

total poundage of 5,325.2 lbs was reported received by households from all three small feasts. 

Average flows from shares and sharing combined 

into each Wainwright household was 285.1 lbs. 

Spring and fall whales from 2009 were to 

contribute to Nalukataq feasts in spring of 2010. 

In contrast to Kaktovik, each whaling crew in 

Wainwright holds its own feast. Because data 

were collected in Wainwright in November 

of 2009, the 2010 Nalukatak had not yet occurred, so households were asked to report how 

much food they received at the previous year’s 

Nalukataq (June 2009). One hundred nineteen 

households attended that Nalukataq feast, and 

households reported taking an average of 147.3 

lbs home from the feast. More than 20,621 lbs 

of food were distributed to households through 

the spring 2009 Nalukataq in Wainwright. 

Similar to Kaktovik, beluga hunting took 

place in Wainwright (Table 7.13 (b) in 2 ways. One 

beluga was landed by hunters, and other animals 

were successfully taken in a communal hunt. This 

larger hunt required considerable cooperation 

among community members in first spotting animals passing by the village, hunting the pod with 

boats, retrieving hunted animals, and processing 

the meat. Twenty-three households contributed 

boats with another 55 households contributing time 

and labor as harvesters, processors, or spotters. 

One hundred nineteen total households received 

beluga meat and maqtaaq, averaging 94.6 lbs per 

household, for a total of ~11,825 lbs distributed to 

community households from the hunting effort. 

Animals were processed and distributed from the 

beach. Wainwright households conceptualized 

beluga they received as household shares. Because 

of a local-level rule on how beluga is to be distributed in Wainwright, every household in the 

community was entitled to a share regardless of 

whether they had hunted or processed animals. 

Cooperative hunting activity between households was reported for all 7 core species. The 

number of households involved in hunting or 

fishing for core species cooperatively other than 

bowhead and beluga averaged from 2.5 to 3.4 

households. Duck-hunting groups incorporated 

the most households on average. This reportedly 

was a reflection of bowhead crews often hunting 

together from the ice while waiting for a whale to 

be sighted, or crews hunting together outside of the 

whaling effort to provide ducks for the Nalukataq

feast. Mean size of cooperative hunting groups 

varied from 3.2 individuals (bearded seal) to a 

high of 6.62 (ducks). The largest recorded group 

was for hunting caribou, with a maximum of 14 

people, followed by 13 people for a duck-hunting group (Table 7.14). Bearded seal hunting and 

smelt-fishing groups were the smallest on average.

Figure 7.22 provides detail on the total flows of 

wild foods from seven core species into Wainwright 

households, ranking households by total inflow 

(high to low, left to right on the X axis), and indicating the different social relationships responsible 

for flows of food. The pattern represented by the 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 154

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 7.23. Proportion of food by relationships flowing to households, Wainwright.

Figure 7.22. Total inflows by relationships to households, Wainwright.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

155

Table 7.14. Average size of cooperative hunting groupa, Wainwright.

Species

Mean number 

of HHs within 

cooperative 

hunting groups (No. 

HHs)

Cooperative 

Hunting Group/

Crew Size (No. 

Hunters/Fishers)

Standard 

Deviation 

(No. hunters/ 

fishers)

Median 

(No. 

hunters/ 

fishers)

Minimum 

(No. 

hunters/ 

fishers)

Maximum 

(No. hunters/ 

fishers)

Caribou 2.90 4.94 3.41 4.00 2.00 14.00

Ducks 3.39 6.62 3.85 6.00 2.00 13.00

Geese 2.59 4.22 3.07 3.00 2.00 12.00

Smelt 2.81 3.57 1.80 3.00 2.00 7.00

Bearded 

Seal 2.52 3.23 1.57 3.00 2.00 7.00

a. Data calculated based on no. individuals hunting together only for the “Cooperative hunting” relation. 

Table 7.15. Giving and receiving of core species, Wainwright.

Core Resources Mean Standard 

Deviation

Median Minimum Maximum

Giving

No. Core Food Resources Given Per HHa 3.18 1.57 3.00 1.00 6.00

No. Other Contributionsb Given Per HH 3.05 1.87 2.00 1.00 8.00

No. of HHs that HHs are Giving toc 6.63 4.40 6.00 1.00 30.00

Receiving

No. Core Food Resources Received Per HHa 3.92 1.42 4.00 1.00 7.00

No. Other Contributions Received per HH 2.66 1.62 2.00 1.00 7.00

No. HHs that HHs are Receiving From 6.36 5.96 5.00 1.00 38.00

HH Degree 32.65 23.18 27.50 0.00 143.00

a. Wainwright core hunted species were Bowhead Whale, Beluga Whale, Bearded Seal, Smelt, Caribou, Ducks and Geese

b. Processing, Equipment, Ammunition, etc.

c. Sharing, Shares, Trading, Purchasing

black portions of the bars reflects the 30:70 rule 

articulated by Wolfe (1987), as this portion of 

the bars illustrates production of food from own 

harvest and cooperative hunting. However, the 

results also highlight that households along the 

gradient of total inflow received food from a range 

of social mechanisms. Looking only at harvested 

food for core species (own hunting, cooperative 

hunting, and whaling harvest relationships), 30% 

of Wainwright households are responsible for 76% 

of total harvested food. For those households with 

low inflow (Figure 7.22), it is clear that the source 

of most of their wild food is predominantly social 

in nature (Shares Help, Sharing, and Whaling). 

Figure 7.23 highlights this pattern for inflows 

associated with the 5 non-whale core species. 

Households are again ranked by total inflow on 

the X axis and total inflow on the Z axis (red line). 

The proportion of total household inflow from 

Sharing and Shares for Helping relationships (Y 

axis) is inversely related to total inflow. Households 

with lower inflow overall depend more on social relationships of Sharing (green color), some 

Shares for Helping (blue color) and Trading/

Purchase (orange color) as sources of wild food. 

Wainwright households reported giving and 

receiving an average of 3.1 and 3.9 core species, 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 156

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

respectively (Table 7.15). Households gave an average of 3.1 non-food contributions (Median = 2.0) 

and received an average of 2.7 contributions from 

other households (Median = 2.0). Households 

gave to 6.3 other households on average (Median 

= 6.0). Households received from an average of 

6.4 other households (Median = 5.0). Mean degree 

for Wainwright households was 32.7 (Median = 

27.5), meaning households had an average of 32.7 

ties (across all resources and relations) with other 

households. Mean household degree was higher for 

Kaktovik (44. 6 ties) than Wainwright and Venetie 

(Mean = 29.2). All households received from, and 

gave to at least one other entity or household. For 

households with a degree of one, attending and receiving food at a small Captain’s Feast or Nalukataq

were the most common sources of food. Variability 

across households was high (Table 7.15). One 

household received foods from 38 different households and another gave to 30 different households. 

Household Degree ranged from 1.0 to 143.0 ties.

Wainwright Networks 

Results within this section are drawn from 

network diagrams and Table 7.16. Figure 7.24 

Table 7.16. Network summary measures, core resources, Wainwright, 2009.

All Core 

Resources Caribou Bowhead Whale

Beluga 

Whale

Bearded 

Seal Geese Ducks Smelt

Network Size

Total Number of 

Nodes 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

Number of Ties 1,324 545 322 124 256 288 270 226

Flows among nodes (edible lbs.)

Total Flow 301,075 119,039 120,465 11,825 32,048 4,997 2,679 10,022

Minimum Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Flow 9,086 4,510 9,086 1,493 983 333 644 1,300

Mean Flow/Node 1,381 546 553 54 147 23 12 46

Mean Flow/Tie 426 457 374 96 268 139 110 193

Components (connected nodes)

Number of 

Components 106 150 218 218 196 200 199 213

Largest Strong 

Component 112 68 0 0 22 18 19 5

Network Statistics

Mean Degree 6.073 2.500 1.477 0.569 1.174 1.321 1.239 1.037

Density 0.028 0.012 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.005

Mean Distance 3.419 3.940 1.199 1.008 3.530 3.762 3.825 2.899

Compactness 0.170 0.069 0.007 0.003 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.005

Diameter 8 10 4 2 10 12 9 8

Clustering 

Coefficient 0.242 0.105 0.099 0.407 0.181 0.064 0.148 0.059

Reciprocity 0.168 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.195 0.135 0.180 0.078

NOTES: Number of households includes sampled local households, unsampled local households, and unsampled non-local households. 

Flows do not include households’ production for itself. Networks are disconnected. Distance-based measures are calculated within 

components. Total number of components includes isolates. Caribou, bowhead whale, beluga whale, bearded seal, and geese were included 

in all three study communities. Ducks were included in Wainwright and Venetie. Smelt were included in Wainwright only.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

157

represents all community flows of core resources 

for all social relationships for the one-year study period. The two successful whaling crews (who caught 

3 whales) are central to the network. Similarly, a 

node labeled “community hunt” that represents 

distribution from the beluga community hunting 

efforts is at the center. The central locations of these 

three nodes reflects their greater connectedness 

(total indegree and outdegree ties) relative to other 

nodes of the network. The network visualized in 

Figure 7.24 includes local and non-local nodes to 

illustrate the extent to which food or contributions 

were received by local households from local households and others outside the village. There were 

84 non-local ties (2%) across 53 non-local households from 14 different communities. There were 

3,069 ties in total within the network (Table 7.16). 

Figure 7.25, in contrast, only includes local nodes. 

In contrast to the Kaktovik complete network, there is a mix of younger, mature, and elder 

households at the center of the network diagram. 

The majority of highly connected households are 

couple-headed households (square shapes). Similar 

to the pattern found in Kaktovik, Wainwright 

households that are the most connected are not 

always the households with the greatest total flow 

(i.e., central nodes are not always the largest nodes 

pictured in the network). Reciprocity and density 

metrics for Wainwright and Kaktovik are comparable. Reciprocity was 0.168 in Wainwright and 

0.165 in Kaktovik, while density (proportion of 

all possible ties represented within a network) for 

Wainwright was 0.028 and 0.030 in Kaktovik. 

Similar to results for Kaktovik, the Wainwright 

caribou network (Table 7.16 and Figure 7.26) is the 

densest (0.011), with the highest number of ties 

and behind bowhead, represents the second-highest ranked flow in pounds of all core species. 

Reciprocity within the network is third highest of 

all core species (0.162). The network also has the 

largest number of strong components (n = 68), 

suggesting that the network is both dense and 

distributed across many active households. The 

network has a total of 545 food ties and 119,039 lbs 

of flow. (Note: Pounds of flow in this section does 

not include flows of food from own harvesting.) 

Mean degree (2.5 ties per household) is also the 

highest across the core species. Caribou processing 

ties between households totaled 153 contributions (Table 7.11). The mean flow per tie for the 

caribou network is highest among all core species 

(457 lbs), and mean flow per node is the second 

highest of all species (546 lbs) behind bowhead. 

Bowhead in Wainwright accounts for the 

most pounds of flow and number of ties within 

the household-to-household network. Figure 7.27 

illustrates how households (local and non-local) 

and other local entities contribute to active whaling 

crews (green diamonds). Contributions to bowhead 

crews summed to 312 ties (Table 7.11), including 

ammunition, cash, equipment, labor, supplies, 

and other actions such as cooking. The network 

diagram clearly illustrates these contributions to 

all whaling crews (green diamonds), regardless of 

whaling success. The two crews who were successful in landing a whale are at the center of the 

network. These crews are the source of towing 

shares (given both to crew members and members of other crews who helped to tow the whale 

to shore), crew shares, and shares for households 

who helped crews in their whaling effort. Successful 

crews initially stage a Captain’s Feast, and then 

store a portion of the whale until the following 

June when captains and their crews contribute to 

Nalukataq (See Table 7.12 for flows associated with 

these relationships). These linked social relationships explain the star pattern emanating from each 

successful whaling crew. Individual crews stage 

their own Nalukataq, so unlike Kaktovik, there 

is not a unique node designating flows from the 

whaling feast. Similar to results from Kaktovik, the 

mean flow per tie for the bowhead network (Table 

7.16) is second highest among all core species (374 

lbs), but mean flow per node is the highest of all 

species (553 lbs). Bowhead mean degree is second 

highest of all core species in Wainwright (1.47 ties). 

Beluga hunting in Wainwright was undertaken both with a large community hunt and few 

opportunistic individual hunts. Because of the 

nature of beluga hunting, cooperation among 

many parties (with many boats) is needed to 

direct and herd beluga into shallow areas were 

harvesting is possible. All animals taken during 

the Wainwright community hunt were processed 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 158

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

immediately on the beach and then distributed 

directly to households as “community shares.” A 

radio call to households to pick up their shares 

goes out simultaneously to all community members. This hunting and distribution pattern yields 

a distinctive star network (Figure 7.28), in which 

all distribution takes place from a central point 

(i.e., the beach). This pattern is characterized by 

a high clustering coefficient (0.407) for beluga 

compared to all other core resources. As a consequence, there are zero strong components in the 

beluga network (Table 7.16). Mean flow per tie was 

378 lbs. Mean flow/node within the network was 

54 lbs. The Wainwright beluga network includes 

281 ties (Table 7.13), of which 119 ties were categorized as “household shares.” Other households 

received shares based on providing boats, hunting 

(labor/skill), and other labor such as processing 

and initially spotting animals as they swam by the 

village (156 ties). Six households received beluga as 

sharing from other households. Total flows of meat 

and maqtaaq in this network came to 11,825 lbs. 

The bearded seal network (Figure 7.29) has 

a low density of ties relative to other species networks, and has the second-highest clustering 

coefficient of all networks (i.e., it is focused around 

groups of tightly connected nodes). As well, the 

reciprocity measure for bearded seal (0.195) is the 

highest of all core species. The seal network includes 256 connected households with 22 strong 

components (the second most numerous after caribou). The network is not compact however, with 

few of all active nodes connected to each other. The 

network contains 486 ties in total (Table 7.14), 119 

of which are processing ties between households. 

Mean flow per tie was 268 lbs (third largest) while 

mean flow per node was 147 lbs (third largest of all 

core species). Those who give and receive bearded 

seal do so in larger amounts. Figure 7.29 illustrates 

the prominent role of key households as both producers and receivers in the bearded seal network. 

The geese network (Figure 7.30) includes 

288 ties and has 18 strong components. Three 

households are isolates. Another 5 households are 

linked in two small groups, but not to the larger 

network. Degree within this network is the third 

highest after caribou and bowhead. Reciprocity 

in this network is ranked fourth across core species. The clustering coefficient is relatively low but 

network diameter is high, indicating the network 

is large, but nodes are not tightly connected. 

The duck network (Figure 7.31) includes 270 

ties and has 19 strong components. Two households 

are linked in one small group, but not to the larger 

network. Degree within this network is the third 

highest after caribou and bowhead. Reciprocity 

in this network is ranked second across all core 

species. The clustering coefficient is relatively high 

and network diameter is moderately high indicating the network is large, but nodes are moderately 

connected to other households in smaller groups. 

The smelt network in Wainwright (Figure 

7.32) includes 226 ties with relatively few (n = 

5) strong components. The network is moderate in size compared to other core species. Seven 

households are isolates. Another 12 households are linked in 3 small groups, but not to 

the larger network. Reciprocity is relatively 

low between households in this network. The 

mean flow per tie was fourth highest of all species (193 lbs), and mean flow per tie was also 

moderate compared to other species (46 lbs). 

Figures 7.33 through 7.39 visualize ties and 

flows between local and non-local households 

according to relationship type. These figures 

provide visual context for the proportions of food 

by house relationship of Table 7.11 (Final table 

section entitled “All Resources - Flows of Food 

and Contributions”), and illustrate the network 

structures behind flows of food and contributions 

for specific resources. Cooperative hunting (Figure 

7.33), sharing (Figure 7.35), and processing (Figure 

7.38) are the densest networks (821 ties, 585 ties, 

and 444 ties, respectively). Similar to Kaktovik, 

shares relations (whaling and non-whaling combined in Figure 7.13 and 7.14) are clearly focused 

around provision of contributions to whaling 

crews, although shares move between households 

independent of whaling as well. The mirror image 

of shares is contributions (Figure 7.39), instances when households contributed (supplies, cash, 

ammunition, labor, equipment, etc.) to the hunting/

fishing of others in return for shares (807 ties). 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

159

Again, successful whaling crews are central to 

this network, but other crews were the receivers 

of many contributions, and non-whaling contributions are significant. Figure 7.36 visualizes 

feast shares, illustrating the distinctive star pattern 

associated with wide distribution of feast shares 

from whaling crews to community households 

(443 ties). Figure 7.37 illustrates the comparatively sparse and relatively unconnected trading 

and purchase network for Wainwright. Across all 

species, trading and purchase contains 56 ties.

Figure 7.40 visualizes gifting flows by categories of resources between Wainwright households 

and from Wainwright households to other non-local households. In total, 272 nodes are represented 

in this network (146 local and 126 non-local). 

A total of 826 ties are represented, 577 between 

Wainwright households and 249 to non-local 

households spread across 19 other Alaska communities, and 8 households in other US states. One 

hundred forty of 249 non-local households (56%) 

were with other North Slope Borough households. 

The two largest recipient towns were Barrow (89 

households) and Anchorage (51 households). 

Wainwright shows a stronger regional connection 

to Anchorage than Fairbanks, whereas this relationship is opposite of that found for Kaktovik 

(i.e., Kaktovik households have more numerous 

gifting ties to Fairbanks than Anchorage). The 

most common category of food given was land 

mammals (n = 423), followed by marine mammals 

(n = 196), fish (n = 182), and equipment (n = 25). 

Results clearly show that sharing relationships 

for Wainwright households extend beyond the 

village, and beyond the North Slope Borough. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 160

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Anaktuvuk Pass 3

Anaktuvuk Pass 15

Anaktuvuk Pass 17

Whaling Crew B

Anchorage 6

Anchorage 7

Anchorage 9

Anchorage 39

Anchorage 40

Whaling Crew D

Anchorage 44

Atqasuk 3

Atqasuk 4

Atqasuk 9

Atqasuk 15

Atqasuk 16

Atqasuk 17

Barrow 7

Barrow 8

Barrow 17

Barrow 21

Barrow 23

Barrow 24

Barrow 25

Barrow 27

Whaling Crew H

Barrow 32

Whaling Crew A

Barrow 36

Barrow 41

Barrow 45

Barrow 47

Barrow 48

Barrow 55

Barrow 60 Barrow 61

Barrow 62

Barrow 64

Barrow 68

Barrow 70

Barrow 72

Barrow 81

Barrow 82

Barrow 83

Barrow 84

Barrow 92

Barrow 100

Barrow 101

Barrow 108

Community Hunt

Barrow 109

Barrow 111

Nalukatuk

Kenai 1

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew F

Kivalina 2

Koyuk 1

Nuiqsut 1

Unalakleet 1

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew G

Whaling Crew J

Whaling Crew K

Newhalen 1

Oil Company A

Oil Company B

NETWORK STATISTICS

Mean clustering ccefficient = 0.242

Mean degree = 6.073

Density = 0.028

Reciprocity = 0.168

NODE SUMMARY

Total N of nodes = 220

N of local households = 153

N of non-local households = 53

N of crews & organizations = 14

Figure 7.24

All resources, all documented relations, Wainwright
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

161

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew H

Whaling Crew A

Community Hunt

Nalukatuk

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew F

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew G

Whaling Crew J

Whaling Crew K

Oil Company A

Oil Company B

Figure 7.25 All resources, local relations only, Wainwright
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 162

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.26

All caribou relations, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk Pass 3

Anaktuvuk Pass 15

Anchorage 44

Atqasuk 4

Atqasuk 15

Barrow 23

Barrow 45

Barrow 55

Barrow 111
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

163

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.27 

All bowhead whale relations, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk Pass 17

Anchorage 39

Anchorage 40

Barrow 7

Barrow 17

Barrow 24

Barrow 27

Barrow 32

Barrow 36

Barrow 41

Barrow 45

Barrow 47

Barrow 48

Barrow 60

Barrow 61

Barrow 62

Barrow 64

Barrow 70

Barrow 72

Barrow 81

Barrow 82

Barrow 83

Barrow 84

Barrow 92

Barrow 100

Barrow 109

Nalukatuk

Kenai 1

Nuiqsut 1

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew F

Whaling Crew G

Whaling Crew H

Whaling Crew J

Whaling Crew K

Newhalen 1

Oil Company A

Oil Company B
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 164

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.28 All beluga whale relations, Wainwright

Barrow 108

Community Hunt
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

165

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Barrow 45

Barrow 108

Kivalina 2

Figure 7.29 

All bearded seal relations, Wainwright
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 166

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.30 All geese relations, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk

Pass 17

Anchorage 6

Atqasuk 4

Atqasuk 15

Atqasuk 16

Koyuk 1

Unalakleet 1
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

167

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.31

All duck relations, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk

Pass 17

Barrow 8

Barrow 21

Barrow 45

Barrow 101

Koyuk 1

Unalakleet 1

H41

H82

H147
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 168

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Atqasuk 3

Figure 7.32

All smelt relations, Wainwright
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

169

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Anaktuvuk Pass 17

Anchorage 6

Anchorage 44

Atqasuk 3 Atqasuk 4

Barrow 23

Barrow 45

Barrow 55

Barrow 108

Barrow 111

Koyuk 1

Unalakleet 1

Figure 7.33 Cooperative harvest relations, all resources, Wainwright
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 170

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.34 Shares relations, all resources, Wainwright

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew G
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

171

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.35 Sharing relations, all resources, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk

Pass 3

Anaktuvuk Pass 15

Anchorage 39

Atqasuk 4

Atqasuk 15

Barrow 7

Barrow 8

Barrow 17

Barrow 21

Barrow 36

Barrow 41

Barrow 45

Barrow 47

Barrow 60

Barrow 62

Barrow 70

Barrow 72

Barrow 81

Barrow 82

Barrow 83

Barrow 84

Barrow 92

Barrow 100

Barrow 101

Barrow 109

Nalukatuk

Kivalina 2

Nuiqsut 1

Unalakleet 1

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A Whaling Crew B
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 172

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Figure 7.36 Feast relations, all resources, Wainwright
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

173

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Barrow 64

Figure 7.37 Reciprocal relations, all resources, Wainwright
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 174

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.38 Processing relations (unvalued), all resources, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk Pass 3

Anaktuvuk Pass 17

Atqasuk 16

Kivalina 2

Unalakleet 1
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

175

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.39 Other relations (unvalued), all resources, Wainwright

Anaktuvuk Pass 17

Anchorage 40

Atqasuk 17

Barrow 24

Barrow 27

Barrow 32

Barrow 45

Barrow 48

Barrow 55

Barrow 61

Barrow 68

Barrow 108

Kenai 1

Community Hunt

Whaling Crew A

Whaling Crew B

Whaling Crew C

Whaling Crew D

Whaling Crew E

Whaling Crew F

Whaling Crew G

Whaling Crew H

Whaling Crew J

Whaling Crew K

Newhalen 1

Oil Company A

Oil Company B
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 176

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Provisioning of fish, land mammals, marine mammals, 

or equipment to other households

 unvalued relations, scaled by count of ties

NODES within the study community arranged with a spring-embedding, 

node-repulsion, equal edge algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. 

ARROWS are scaled by the number of ties from each surveyed 

household to other households or communities.

COMMUNITY LABELS include number of ties from study community.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Koyuk-1 Nome-1

Kivalina-1

Kaktovik-1

Kenai-8

Wasilla-1

Point Lay-3

Unalakleet-2

Fairbanks-5

Point Hope-14

Anvik-1

Kotzebue-9

Atqasuk-27

Bethel-1

Selawik-1

Anaktuvuk Pass-6

Anchorage-51

Barrow-89

Ninilchik-1

Other States-8

WAINWRIGHT

NODE SUMMARY

Total N of households = 272

N of local households = 146

N of non-local households = 126 

TIE SUMMARY

Total N of ties = 826

To other local households = 577

To non-local households = 249

Fish ties = 182

Land mammal ties = 423

Marine mammal ties = 196

Equipment ties = 25

Figure 7.40 Out ties from surveyed households, Wainwright
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

177

Venetie

Network data were collected for 7 core species 

in Venetie as well as 3 marine species that were 

received by households, but not hunted. Moose, 

caribou, smelt, geese and ducks, salmon, grayling, 

and berries were core species. Bowhead whale, 

beluga whale, and bearded seal were received 

species. Almost 75% percent of Venetie households 

harvested core species with a mean weight of 672.2 

lbs per household (Median = 91.7 lbs) (Table 7.17). 

More than 78% of households harvested both core 

and non-core species. Total harvest for core species 

was 56,468 lbs while total food flowing between 

all Venetie households was documented as 92,034 

lbs. The difference between harvest and inflow 

(35,566 lbs) represents harvested wild foods that 

were redistributed between Venetie households. 

This result corresponds to the pattern found in 

Wainwright and Kaktovik and is a clear indication of the role of social relationships—primarily 

sharing and shares—in supporting Venetie households within the mixed subsistence-cash economy. 

Total flows in Venetie are significantly lower than 

in Kaktovik, a village of comparable size. A primary 

difference between the two communities is the lack 

of whaling in Venetie. Without flows from bowhead and beluga whaling, total inflows in Venetie 

and Kaktovik are closer in magnitude (Kaktovik: 

120,968 lbs compared to Venetie: 92,034 lbs).

Table 7.18 indicates the total flow of edible 

pounds by core species for Venetie. These figures include mean replacement values. Caribou 

was the first-ranked core species (29,925 lbs), 

Table 7.17. Mean core and non-core harvests for households (lbs), Venetie.

Households with 

Reported Harvest % 

(No.)

Mean Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Core Speciesab 75.00 (63) 672.24 1,303.14 91.65 0.00 5,562.00

Non-Corebc Species 50.00 (42) 68.08 191.46 0.50 0.00 1,241.17

Core and Non-Core Species 78.57 (66) 740.31 1,387.60 130.50 0.00 6,803.17

a. Venetie core hunted species were Caribou, Moose, Grayling, Salmon, Geese, Ducks, and Berries.

b. Bowhead and Beluga Whale and Bearded Seal were not hunted in Venetie, but were core species received by HHs.

c. Northern Pike, Sheefish, Unknown Whitefish, Black Bear, Brown Bear, Deer, Dall Sheep, Beaver, Arctic Fox, Red Fox, Snowshoe Hare, Marmot, 

Marten, Muskrat, Porcupine, Parka Squirrel, Weasel, Wolf, Wolverine, Bearded Seal, Beluga Whale, Bowhead Whale, Tundra Swan, Unknown 

Swan, Sandhill Crane, Grouse, Ptarmigan and Wild Rose Hips.

followed by moose (accounting for 28,320 

lbs), salmon (17,811 lbs), grayling (5,106 lbs), 

geese (4,286 lbs), ducks (2,342 lbs), bowhead 

whale (2,194 lbs), berries (1,894 lbs), beluga whale (82 lbs), and bearded seal (75 lbs). 

Many other resources flowed between households in addition to wild foods. Table 7.19 (all 

relations contribution ties) highlights a total of 397 

total ties between households, representing help 

with processing for core species (257 ties), and 

other contributions to the hunting efforts of households for which contributing households received 

shares of hunted meat or fish (labor (39 ties), fuel 

(38 ties), supplies (9 ties), equipment (6 ties), 

ammunition (33 ties), and cash (15 ties)). These 

contribution ties are by definition reciprocal as they 

represent harvested food received by a household 

in return for contributions to the hunting effort. 

Venetie Subsistence Cooperation

Figure 7.41 illustrates that 37% of total inflows 

of wild food to Venetie households was from the 

households’ own harvest (33,401.0 lbs). The remainder, 63%, is the result of different kinds of social 

relationships operating between households—a 

key finding of the study and similar to the pattern 

identified for Kaktovik and Wainwright. Table 7.20 

illustrates that cooperative harvesting accounted 

for 23,067.1 lbs (25.3%), helper shares was 13,702.1 

lbs (14%), and sharing 21,231.2 lbs (23%) (See 

Table 7.19 for a breakdown by species, and then 

specific social relationships). Sharing in Venetie 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 178

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 7.18. Core resource flows by resource, Venetie.

Flows (edible pounds with mean 

replacements)

Resource

N of 

Flow 

Reports

Sum Mean/

flow

Median/

flow

Std. 

Dev.

Caribou 190 29,924.9 157.5 68.0 259.2

Geese 186 4,286.1 23.0 11.3 33.3

Bearded Seal 17 74.6 4.4 1.3 6.5

Grayling 294 5,105.5 17.4 6.8 44.1

Beluga 8 82.3 10.3 6.8 9.0

Bowhead 17 2,193.9 129.1 5.0 501.2

Ducks 182 2,342.2 12.9 6.0 28.2

Berries 227 1,894.3 8.3 5.0 11.0

Salmon 166 17,810.7 107.3 24.0 289.2

Moose 289 28,319.5 98.0 26.9 203.5

All Resources 1,576 92,034.0 58.4 10.2 174.5

Figure 7.41 Flows of Wildfoods through Social Relationships, Venetie

Figure 7.41. Flows of wild foods through social relationships, Venetie.

accounted for a greater proportion of 

total flow than documented in Kaktovik 

(15%) and Wainwright (11%), although 

flow amounts were smaller. Trading and 

purchasing accounted for less than 1% 

of total inflows to Venetie households. 

Cooperative hunting activity 

between households was reported for 

all 7 core species. The number of households involved in hunting or fishing 

for core species cooperatively averaged 

between 2.4 and 3.0 households. Geesehunting groups incorporated the most 

households on average. Mean size of 

cooperative hunting groups varied from 

3.2 individuals (salmon) to a high of 4.4 

(geese). The largest recorded group was 

for fishing of grayling with a maximum 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

179

Figure 7.43. Proportion of food by relationships flowing to households, Venetie.

Figure 7.42. Total inflows by relationships to households, Venetie.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 180

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum Mean Median Std. 

Dev.

Caribou Relations

Own Harvest 25 ties 7,480.0 lbs 299.2 lbs 272.0 lbs 240.8 lbs

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 28 5,236.0 187.0 136.0 162.3

Share - Helper 29 8,666.4 298.8 136.0 386.3

Sharing 107 8,532.5 79.7 21.4 209.3

Purchase 1 10.0 10.0 10.0 . -

Own HH Processing 70

Other HH Processing 55

Contribution for Share 

- Total 48

 Ammunition 12

 Cash 10

 Equipment 1

 Fuel 12

 Labor 9

 Supplies 4

Total 363 29,924.9 157.5 68.0 259.2

Moose Relations

Own Harvest 19 10,222.0 538.0 269.0 503.3

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 81 8,969.0 110.7 88.8 101.7

Share - Helper 34 3,669.5 107.9 61.3 197.2

Sharing 150 5,117.0 34.1 10.0 77.5

Trading 2 51.0 25.5 25.5 34.6

Purchase 3 291.0 97.0 20.0 149.2

Own HH Processing 74

Other HH Processing 89

Contribution for Share 

- Total 41

 Ammunition 4

 Cash 1

 Equipment 4

 Fuel 13

 Labor 18

 Supplies 1

Total 493 28,319.5 98.0 26.9 203.5

Table 7.19. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Venetie.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

181

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum Mean Median Std. 

Dev.

Geese Relations

Own Harvest 38 1,183.2 31.1 13.6 49.3

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 78 1,611.6 20.7 12.1 20.7

Share - Helper 16 714.5 44.7 18.7 55.0

Sharing 53 766.6 14.5 6.8 20.6

Trading 1 10.2 10.2 10.2 . -

Own HH Processing 65

Other HH Processing 19

Contribution for Share 

- Total 17

 Ammunition 7

 Fuel 4

 Labor 5

 Supplies 1

Total 287 4,286.1 23.0 11.3 33.3

Ducks Relations

Own Harvest 64 1,455.0 22.7 6.0 45.3

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 64 448.5 7.0 6.0 6.7

Share - Helper 12 111.0 9.3 8.3 5.0

Sharing 41 324.7 7.9 6.0 7.1

Trading 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 . -

Own HH Processing 62

Other HH Processing 25

Contribution for Share 

- Total 13

 Ammunition 10

 Fuel 1

 Labor 2

Total 282 2,342.2 12.9 6.0 28.2

Grayling Relations

Own Harvest 160 3,140.1 19.6 6.8 56.1

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 77 1,277.1 16.6 6.8 28.0

Share - Helper 4 85.5 21.4 22.5 10.0

Sharing 53 602.8 11.4 7.2 11.5

Own HH Processing 76

Table 7.19. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Venetie, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 182

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum Mean Median Std. 

Dev.

Grayling Relations, continued

Other HH Processing 16

Contribution for Share 

- Total 4

 Cash 1

 Fuel 3

Total 390 5,105.5 17.4 6.8 44.1

Salmon Relations

Own Harvest 27 9,282.4 343.8 30.0 647.8

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 43 5,090.0 118.4 60.0 126.5

Share - Helper 8 354.8 44.4 24.4 31.0

Sharing 78 2,838.5 36.4 12.0 50.0

Trading 2 22.0 11.0 11.0 1.4

Purchase 8 223.0 27.9 26.0 24.0

Own HH Processing 48

Other HH Processing 24

Contribution for Share 

- Total 9

 Cash 1

 Fuel 3

 Labor 5

Total 247 17,810.7 107.3 24.0 289.2

Bearded Seal Relations

Share - Helper 2 19.0 9.5 9.5 0.7

Sharing 15 55.6 3.7 1.3 6.6

Own HH Processing 2

Other HH Processing 7

Contribution for Share 

- Total 2

 Cash 2

Total 28 74.6 4.4 1.3 6.5

Beluga Relations

Sharing 8 82.3 10.3 6.8 9.0

Own HH Processing 1

Other HH Processing 6

Total 15 82.3 10.3 6.8 9.0

Table 7.19. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Venetie, continued.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

183

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum Mean Median Std. 

Dev.

Bowhead Relations

Sharing 17 2,193.9 129.1 5.0 501.2

Own HH Processing 3

Other HH Processing 7

Total 27 2,193.9 129.1 5.0 501.2

Berries Relations

Own Harvest 70 638.3 9.1 5.0 11.1

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 82 434.9 5.3 2.5 7.4

Share - Helper 4 81.4 20.4 20.0 13.5

Sharing 68 717.2 10.5 5.0 13.4

Trading 1 10.0 10.0 10.0 . -

Purchase 2 12.5 6.3 6.3 5.3

Own HH Processing 53

Other HH Processing 15

Contribution for Share 

- Total 3

 Equipment 1

 Fuel 2

Total 298 1,894.3 8.3 5.0 11.0

All Resources

All Relations

Own Harvest 403 33,401.0 82.9 10.2 253.8

Share - Cooperative 

Harvest 453 23,067.1 50.9 12.1 91.3

Share - Helper 109 13,702.1 125.7 34.3 251.5

Sharing 590 21,231.2 36.0 10.0 132.3

Trading 7 96.2 13.7 10.0 16.5

Purchase 14 536.5 38.3 12.5 69.4

All Relations Flows of 

Food 1,576 ties 92,034.0 lbs 58.4 lbs 10.2 lbs 174.5 lbs

Own HH Processing 451

Other HH Processing 257

Contribution for Share 

- Total 140

 Ammunition 33

 Cash 15

 Equipment 6

Table 7.19. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Venetie, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 184

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Flows (edible pounds with mean replacements)

Resource & Relation 

Combinations

No. of 

Reported 

Ties

Sum Mean Median Std. 

Dev.

All Resources, All Relations, continued

 Fuel 38

 Labor 39

 Supplies 9

All Relations 

Contribution Ties 848 ties

All Relations Flows and 

Contribution Ties 2,424 ties 92,034.0 lbs 58.4 lbs 10.2 lbs 174.5 lbs

Table 7.19. Core resource flows by resource and relation, Venetie, continued.

Table 7.20. Venetie – Sources of wild food inflows.

% of Total Lbs

Own Harvest 36.6 33,401.0

Cooperative Harvest 25.3 23,067.1

Shares - Helper 14.4 13,702.1

Sharing 23.0 21,231.2

Trading 0.1 96.2

Purchase 0.6 536.5

TOTAL 100.0 92,034.0

Table 7.21. Average size of cooperative hunting groupsa - Core species, Venetie.

Species

Mean number 

of HHs within 

cooperative hunting 

groups (No.)

Cooperative 

Hunting Group/

Crew Size (No. 

Hunters/ Fishers)

Standard 

Deviation 

(No. Hunters/ 

Fishers)

Median 

(No. 

Hunters/ 

Fishers)

Minimum 

(No. 

Hunters/ 

Fishers)

Maximum 

(No. 

Hunters/ 

Fishers)

Caribou 2.50 3.36 1.57 3.00 2.00 6.00

Moose 2.70 3.72 1.86 3.00 2.00 8.00

Ducks 2.65 3.94 1.81 3.00 2.00 7.00

Geese 3.00 4.41 1.94 4.00 2.00 7.00

Grayling 2.26 4.45 2.34 4.00 2.00 9.00

Salmon 2.43 3.19 1.03 3.00 2.00 5.00

a. Data calculated based on no. individuals hunting together only for the “Cooperative hunting” relation. 

low, left to right on the X axis), and indicating the 

different social relationships responsible for flows of 

food. The pattern represented by the black portions of the bars reflects the shape of the 30:70 rule 

articulated by Wolfe (1987), as this portion of the 

bars illustrates production of food from own harvest and cooperative hunting. However, the results 

also highlight that households along the gradient 

of total inflow receive food from a range of social 

mechanisms. Looking only at harvested food for 

core species (own hunting and cooperative hunting), 30% of Venetie households are responsible 

for 93% of total harvested food. This relationship is 

significantly more skewed than those identified for 

Wainwright and Kaktovik. For those households 

with low inflow (Figure 7.42), it is clear that the 

source of most of their wild food is predominantly 

social in nature (Shares Help and Sharing). Figure 

7.43 highlights this pattern for inflows associated 

of 9 people followed by 8 people for a moose-hunting group (Tables 7.19 and 7.21). Group sizes for 

all species averaged between 3 and 4 individuals. 

Figure 7.42 provides detail on the total flows of 

wild foods from 7 core species into Venetie households, ranking households by total inflow (high to 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

185

Table 7.22. Giving and receiving of core species

Core Resourcesa Mean Standard 

Deviation Median Minimum Maximum

Giving

No. Core Food Resources Given Per HH 3.36 2.16 3.00 1.00 7.00

No. Other Contributionsb Given Per HH 2.32 1.68 2.00 1.00 8.00

No. of HHs that HHs are Giving toc 7.36 5.10 6.00 1.00 20.00

Receiving

No. Core Resources Received Per HH 4.91 1.74 5.00 1.00 7.00

No. Other Contributions

Received per HH 2.28 1.39 2.00 1.00 7.00

No. HHs that HHs are Receiving From 6.51 7.62 4.00 1.00 43.00

HH Degree 29.19 24.91 20.50 1 125

a. Venetie core species were Caribou, Moose, Grayling, Salmon Geese, Ducks, and Berries, Bowhead, Beluga and Bearded Seal. 

b. Processing, Equipment, Ammunition, etc.

c. Sharing, Shares, Trading, Purchasing.

with core species. Households are again ranked by 

total inflow on the X axis and total inflow on the Z 

axis (red line). The proportion of total household 

inflow from Sharing and Shares for Helping relationships (Y axis) is inversely related to total inflow. 

Households with lower inflow overall depend more 

on social relationships of Sharing (green color), 

some Shares for Helping (blue color) and Trading/

Purchases (orange color) as sources of wild food. 

Venetie households reported giving and 

receiving an average of 3.3 and 4.9 core species, 

respectively (Table 7.22). Households gave an 

average of 2.3 non-food contributions (Median = 

2.0) and received an average of 2.3 contributions 

from other households (Median = 2.0). Households 

gave to 7.4 other households on average (Median 

= 6.0). Households received from an average of 

6.5 other households (Median = 4.0). Mean degree for Venetie households was 29.2 (Median 

= 20.5), meaning households had an average of 

29.2 ties (across all resources and relations) with 

other households. Mean household degree was 

highest for Kaktovik (Mean = 44.6) compared to 

Wainwright (Mean = 32.7) and Venetie (Mean = 

29.2). All households received from and gave to at 

least one other entity or household. One household received foods from 43 different households 

and another gave to 20 different households. 

Household degree ranged from 1 to 125 ties.

Venetie Networks

Results within this section are drawn from 

network diagrams (Figures 7.44 to 7.56) and Table 

7.23. Figure 7.44 represents all community flows 

of core resources for all social relationships for the 

one-year study period. The figure includes local 

and non-local nodes in the network, to illustrate 

the extent to which food or contributions were 

received by local households from local households and others outside the village. In the local/

non-local network, there were 271 non-local ties 

(11%) across 113 non-local households from 

21 different communities. Although the number of communities giving and contributing to 

Venetie households is comparable to Katkvoik and 

Wainwright, 14 and 14, respectively, more than 

double the households gave to Venetie households 

(n = 131) than either Kaktovik or Wainwright 

(63 and 53 households). Venetie and Kaktovik 

are of similar size, but Wainwright has almost 

double the households of Venetie. The Venetie 

network has a higher proportion of non-local 

nodes in the network than either Wainwright 

(2%) or Kaktovik (4%). There were 2,424 ties in 

total within the local/non-local network (Table 

7.16). Figure 7.45 only contains local nodes. 

Similar to Wainwright, there is a mix of 

younger, mature, and elder households at the center 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 186

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 7.23. Network summary measures, core resources, Venetie, 2009.

All Core 

Resources Caribou

Bowhead 

Whale

Beluga 

Whale

Bearded 

Seal Geese Ducks Moose Salmon Grayling Berries

Network Size 

Number of 

Nodes 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205

Number of 

Ties 805 213 17 10 17 160 139 287 161 142 163

Flows (edible lbs) 

Flow 

Among 

Households

58,315 22,445 2,194 82 75 3,103 887 18,098 8,247 1,965 1,220

Minimum 

Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 

Flow 2,527 2,098 2,147 74 83 304 123 1,076 800 193 117

Mean 

Flow/Node 284 109 11 0 0 15 4 88 40 10 6

Mean 

Flow/Tie 166 175 163 49 35 57 53 132 137 74 36

Components (connected nodes) 

Number 

of Components142 192 205 205 205 191 201 177 201 202 202

Largest 

Strong 

Component

63 13 0 0 0 14 4 28 4 3 3

Network Statistics 

Mean 

Degree 3.415 1.039 0.083 0.049 0.083 0.780 0.678 1.400 0.785 0.693 0.795

Density 0.017 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.004

Mean 

Distance 3.391 3.212 1.417 1.250 1.536 3.760 2.266 3.733 2.333 3.123 2.258

Compactness

0.116 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.004 0.027 0.005 0.004 0.005

Diameter 8 10 2 2 3 11 6 9 6 8 6

Clustering 

Coefficient 0.159 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.062 0.107 0.044 0.111 0.126

Reciprocity 0.164 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.044 0.122 0.068 0.025 0.053

NOTES: Number of households includes sampled local households, unsampled local households, and unsampled non-local households. Flows do not 

include households’ production for itself. Networks are disconnected. Distance-based measures are calculated within components. Total number of 

components includes isolates. Caribou, bowhead whale, beluga whale, bearded seal, and geese were included in all three study communities. Ducks 

were included in Wainwright and Venetie. Moose, salmon, grayling, and berries were included in Venetie only.
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

187

of the Venetie network diagram. The majority of 

highly connected households are couple-headed 

households (square shapes), although both single 

men- and women-headed households are central to the network. Similar to the pattern found 

in Kaktovik, the Wainwright households that are 

the most connected are not always the households with the greatest total flow (i.e., central 

nodes are not always the largest nodes pictured 

in the network). Reciprocity and density metrics for Venetie, Wainwright, and Kaktovik are 

comparable. Reciprocity was 0.164 in Venetie, 

0.168 Wainwright, and 0.165 in Kaktovik. Density 

(proportion of all possible ties active within a network) for Venetie was 0.017, less than Wainwright 

(0.028) and that documented for Kaktovik (0.030). 

Similar to results for Kaktovik and 

Wainwright, the Venetie caribou network (Table 

7.23 and Figure 7.46) has the represents the highest-ranked flow in pounds of all core species 

(22,445 lbs). However, there are more ties between 

household nodes for moose than for caribou (231 

compared to 287). The mean flow per tie is higher 

for caribou than moose, suggesting that moose 

is shared distributed more widely but in smaller 

amounts. Caribou processing ties between households totaled 55 ties (Table 7.23). The mean flow 

per tie for the caribou network is the highest among 

all core species (175 lbs), and mean flow per node is 

the highest of all species (109 lbs) behind bowhead. 

Bowhead, a species received by Venetie 

households, is not a large network (17 ties), but the 

mean flow per tie (163 lbs) is the second highest 

across core species. Likewise, beluga and bearded 

seal are very small, sparse networks (17 and 10 

ties, respectively), with low mean flows per tie (49 

lbs and 35 lbs, respectively) and low total flows 

within the village (82 and 75 lbs, respectively). 

Venetie households receive these species from 

non-local households and then distribute them to 

those households that they know desire them. 

The geese network (Figure 7.47) includes 

160 food ties and has the greatest diameter of all 

species (11). The largest strong component has 14 

households. Two households receive only from 

non-local households, two others are linked only 

to each other, and others are linked to the larger 

network component only through one household. 

This network has the largest mean distance of all 

core species (signaling that the network has the 

shortest mean path between nodes). Reciprocity in 

this network is ranked first across all core species.

The duck network (Figure 7.48) includes 139 

food ties and has a diameter of six (moderately 

sized). Two dyads and one triad of nodes are linked 

only to each other and not the larger network. 

Many others are linked only to one or two other 

households at the edge of the duck network. Mean 

degree within this network is similar to that of 

geese, berry, salmon, and grayling, in the range of 

0.678 to 0.785 ties per household. Reciprocity in 

this network is low relative to other core species. 

Situated in the boreal forest, it is no surprise 

that total moose flow among households (18,098 

lbs) was the second highest of all core species in 

Venetie (Figure 7.49). The largest strong component in this network is 28 households—the 

largest component of all core species. This network has the second highest level of reciprocity, 

is the most clustered, the most compact, has 

the shortest mean distance between nodes. The 

mean degree per household is the highest at 

1.4 ties. Mean flow per tie is 132 lbs and mean 

flow per node is the second highest at 88 lbs. 

The salmon network in Venetie (Figure 

7.50) includes 161 food ties with relatively few (n 

= 4) strong components. The network is moderate in size compared to other core species. Many 

households are connected to the network through 

receiving from only one other household, and 

there are 7 pairs of households unlinked to the 

larger network. Six of these dyads are characterized by a local household receiving fish from a 

non-local household. The mean flow per tie was 

third highest of all species (137 lbs), and mean 

flow per tie was also third highest compared to 

other species (40 lbs), after moose and caribou.

The grayling network (Figure 7.51) has a 

moderately large diameter and 3 strong components. There are 142 food ties (fewest of the 7 

core hunted/fished species) and mean flow per 

tie was 74 lbs, while mean flow per node was 10 

lbs. There were 12 isolates in the network. The 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 188

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

network is less compact than other core species, 

but has the second-largest clustering coefficient 

of all core species. Visually, it is clear that the 

network forms around specific key households, 

most of which are couple-headed households. 

The berry network (Figure 7.52) has 163 

food ties and 3 strong components. Mean flow 

per tie was 36 lbs and mean flow per node was 

6 lbs. While berry picking normally does not 

result in high yield in pounds, the harvesting 

of berries in Venetie is a highly social activity. 

Many households are connected to the network 

through receiving from only one or two other 

households, and there are 8 pairs of households 

unlinked to the larger network. Five of these dyads 

are characterized by a local household receiving 

fish from a non-local household. The network is 

less compact than other core species, but has the 

largest clustering coefficient of all core species. 

Figures 7.53 through 7.56 visualize ties and 

flows between local and non-local households 

according to relationship type. These figures 

provide visual context for Table 7.19 (Final table 

section entitled “All Resources - Flows of Food and 

Contributions”), and illustrate the network structures behind flows of food and contributions for 

specific resources. Cooperative Hunting (Figure 

7.53), Sharing (Figure 7.54), and Processing (Figure 

7.55), are the densest networks, (453 ties, 403 ties, 

and 257 ties, respectively). The sharing network is 

noteworthy for the sharing flows between many 

non-local households and local households. Shares 

relations (109 food ties) and the mirror image 

relations of contributions (Figure 7.56, 109 ties) 

illustrate instances when households contributed 

(supplies, cash, ammunition, labor, equipment, 

etc.) to the hunting/fishing of others in return 

for shares. Similar to results for Wainwright and 

Kaktovik, Figure 7.57 illustrates the very sparse 

and relatively unconnected trading and purchase 

network for Venetie. Across all species, trading 

and purchase contains 21 ties (Table 7.19).

Note: The gifting module was added to the 

survey instrument after data were collected in 

Venetie, so gifting data are unavailable for this 

village.

Gender Roles in Sharing for All Three 

Communities

The questionnaire asked the name of the 

source of received subsistence foods, thus allowing our analysis to consider the gender of 

household head and the respective gender of the 

provider. Table 7.24 summarizes counts of ties 

and pounds of food flowing from all individuals named as sources, first by gender and then 

by social relationship for each community. Data 

represented here refer only to adults 18 years old 

and above. The relationship “Own Harvest” refers to the roles of men and women engaged in 

hunting activities only with members of their 

own household. Relationships associated with 

whaling (Crew Share, Captain’s Shares, Towing 

Shares and Helper Shares) refer to individuals who 

were sources of food for their own households, 

and not the households of others. All other relationships cited in the table describe individuals 

cited as sources and living in other households. 

Totals are presented for both tie counts and 

flows in order to distinguish frequency of ties 

from the amount of food represented by those ties. 

Generally, men were named more frequently as 

the sources of food (Table 7.25 shaded areas) and 

the flows associated with food were greater for 

men in each community. However, results show 

clearly that women are active in subsistence activities and are responsible for between 29–38% 

of total ties by count across social relationships. 

There are unique gender patterns associated with 

specific relationships, which are described below. 

The proportion of Own Hunting ties 

where men were reported as sources was 70% 

in Wainwright, ~60% in Kaktovik and 63% in 

Venetie. Tie counts for Cooperative Harvest 

were more skewed in Wainwright - 83% for men 

vs. women, abut tie counts were similar to Own 

Harvest frequencies in Kaktovik (67% men) and 

Venetie (70% men). Flows of food associated with 

these hunting-oriented social relationships were 

also skewed toward men as sources with women 

named as sources for 26% of Own Harvest and 19% 

of Cooperative Harvest food flows. In Kaktovik 
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

189

Table 7.24. Outflows by household head type and gender.

WAINWRIGHT KAKTOVIK VENETIE

Source Gender Source Gender Source Gender

Household 

Type Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Male 

Head(s)

No. of 

Individuals 37 7 44 29 8 37 30 5 35

Mean Flow 

(lbs) 1,225 202 1,063 795 684 771 586 39 508

Sum of 

Flow (lbs) 45,335 1,416 46,751 23,057 5,475 28,532 17,594 197 17,791

Percent of 

Flow (%) 97.0% 3.0% 100.0% 80.8% 19.2% 100.0% 98.9% 1.1% 100.0%

Female 

Head(s)

No. of 

Individuals 20 44 64 14 30 44 12 30 42

Mean Flow 

(lbs) 814 275 443 2,726 599 1,276 756 213 369

Sum of 

Flow (lbs) 16,273 12,095 28,368 38,167 17,974 56,141 9,076 6,404 15,480

Percent of 

Flow (%) 57.4% 42.6% 100.0% 68.0% 32.0% 100.0% 58.6% 41.4% 100.0%

Couple 

Headed

No. of 

Individuals 135 110 245 61 44 105 60 55 115

Mean Flow 

(lbs) 1,369 425 945 1,470 583 1,098 488 71 289

Sum of 

Flow (lbs) 184,787 46,773 231,561 89,667 25,642 115,309 29,302 3,903 33,205

Percent of 

Flow (%) 79.8% 20.2% 100.0% 77.8% 22.2% 100.0% 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

Total

No. of 

Individuals 192 161 353 104 82 186 102 90 192

Mean Flow 

(lbs) 1,283 374 869 1,451 599 1,075 549 117 346

Sum of 

Flow (lbs) 246,396 60,284 306,680 150,890 49,092 199,982 55,972 10,504 66,476

Percent of 

Flow (%) 80.3% 19.7% 100.0% 75.5% 24.5% 100.0% 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

Flows are calculated incorporating reported flows and mean replacement values. Individuals include all flows of food linked to individuals 

within households who are 18 years or older. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 190

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 7.25. Resource flows by resource and gender for three communities.

WAINWRIGHT KAKTOVIK VENETIE

Source Gender Source Gender Source Gender

Resource Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Valid N 192 161 353 104 82 186 102 90 192

Bowhead Flow 

(lbs) 38,579 8,547 47,125 53,143 19,554 72,698 0 15 15

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

81.9% 18.1% 100.0% 73.1% 26.9% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Beluga Flow 

(lbs) 69 109 179 13,453 3,298 16,751 0 10 10

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

38.7% 61.3% 100.0% 80.3% 19.7% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Bearded 

Seal

Flow 

(lbs) 30,475 4,289 34,764 7,663 2,539 10,202 2 11 13

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

87.7% 12.3% 100.0% 75.1% 24.9% 100.0% 15.0% 85.0% 100.0%

Caribou Flow 

(lbs) 149,548 40,154 189,702 50,627 13,543 64,170 15,046 964 16,010

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

78.8% 21.2% 100.0% 78.9% 21.1% 100.0% 94.0% 6.0% 100.0%

Moose Flow 

(lbs) 22,437 2,183 24,619

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

. . . . . . 91.1% 8.9% 100.0%

Dall 

Sheep

Flow 

(lbs) 12,570 286 12,856

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

. . . 97.80% 2.20% 100.00% . . .

Geese Flow 

(lbs) 7,388 1,663 9,050 2,228 697 2,925 3,056 475 3,531

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

81.6% 18.4% 100.0% 76.2% 23.8% 100.0% 86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

Ducks Flow 

(lbs) 2,889 300 3,189 1,641 481 2,122

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

90.6% 9.4% 100.0% . . . 77.3% 22.7% 100.0%
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

191

WAINWRIGHT KAKTOVIK VENETIE

Source Gender Source Gender Source Gender

Resource Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Valid N 192 161 353 104 82 186 102 90 192

Salmon Flow 

(lbs) 9,673 4,169 13,842

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

. . . . . . 69.9% 30.1% 100.0%

Dolly 

Varden

Flow 

(lbs) - - - 11,207 9,175 20,382

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

. . . 55.0% 45.0% 100.0% . . .

Grayling Flow 

(lbs) 3,624 1,304 4,929

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

. . . . . . 73.5% 26.5% 100.0%

Smelt Flow 

(lbs) 17,450 5,223 22,672 - -

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

77.0% 23.0% 100.0% . . . . . .

Berries Flow 

(lbs) 495 893 1,388

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

. . . . . . 35.6% 64.4% 100.0%

Total Flow 

(lbs) 246,397 60,285 49,093 199,984 55,974 10,505 66,479

Percent 

of Flow 

(%)

80.3% 19.7% 100.0% 75.5% 24.5% 100.0% 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

Flows are calculated incorporating reported flows and mean replacement values. Individuals include all flows of food linked to individuals 

within households who are 18 years or older. 

Table 7.25. Resource flows by resource and gender for three communities, continued.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 192

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

women accounted for 24% and 29% of Own and 

Cooperative Harvest, respectively. Women were 

responsible for a smaller proportion of food 

in pounds flowing in Venetie from Own and 

Cooperative Harvest (16% and 15%, respectively). 

Share-helper tie counts and flows were more heavily 

skewed toward men as sources. This relationship 

described ties/food received based on contributing 

to the hunting of others, for example by providing 

or loaning equipment, cash, ammunition or other 

supplies, and results indicate that these contributions more often emanated from men. Sharing tie 

counts followed similar patterns, with men cited 

more frequently as sources than women as sources (79% in Wainwright, and 76% in Kaktovik). 

However, the proportion of food ties by gender was 

more even split in Venetie (58% compared to 42% 

men:women). Taking magnitude of Sharing into 

account, men were responsible for higher proportions of food flows particularly in Wainwright 

and Kaktovik (92% and 87%, respectively), while 

the proportion was more even in Venetie (72%). 

Men were responsible for all Whaling Captain 

shares in Kaktovik and aggregating across the three 

whales landed successfully. Of 130 total individuals 

who brought in Crew Shares for their households 

in Wainwright, 29 sources were women, while 

women accounted for 55 of 134 total sources 

reported in Kaktovik. The proportion of bowhead 

crew shares by weight broke down as 78% (men) 

to 22% (women) in Wainwright and 59% (men) 

to 41% (women) in Kaktovik. Towing Shares were 

brought in mainly by men who were crew members 

physically on the whaling boats. Helper Shares in 

Wainwright were mainly brought in by male household members, while almost half of individuals (8 

of 19) cited as sources of Helper Shares in Kaktovik 

households were women. These individuals accounted for 61% (2,848 lbs) of total Helper Shares 

from whaling flowing into to Kaktovik households. 

Men were slightly more often cited as sources 

for trading in Wainwright and Venetie, while of 

6 total trading ties in Kaktovik, women were the 

source of 5. In terms of total food flowing, men 

still accounted for more traded food by weight, 

suggesting that men took part in trades of larger 

magnitude. Patterns for purchase were similar, 

although given the infrequency of ties for either 

trading or purchase documented in the dataset, 

caution should be used in interpreting these results. 

The proportion of own household’s processing ties accounted for by women was close to even 

across the 3 communities. Women were cited as 

sources of processing help by other households for 

fewer ties in Wainwright (60% men to 40% women) 

and Venetie (54% men to 46% women). Men 

accounted for 63% of processing ties in Kaktovik. 

¤
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

193

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anaktuvuk Pass 21

Anchorage 14

Anchorage 52

Arctic Village 1

Arctic Village 2

Arctic Village 3

Arctic Village 4

Arctic Village 5

Arctic Village 6

Arctic Village 7

Arctic Village 8

Arctic Village 9

Arctic Village 10

Arctic Village 11

Arctic Village 12

Arctic Village 13

Arctic Village 14

Arctic Village 15

Arctic Village 16

Arctic Village 17

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 20

Arctic Village 21

Arctic Village 22

Arctic Village 23

Arctic Village 24

Arctic Village 25

Arctic Village 26

Arctic Village 27

Arctic Village 28

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 30

Arctic Village 31

Arctic Village 32

Arctic Village 33

Arctic Village 34

Arctic Village 35

Arctic Village 36

Arctic Village 38

Barrow 1

Barrow 29

Barrow 51

Barrow 59

Beaver 1

Beaver 3

Birch Creek 1

Buckland 1 Birch Creek 2

Chalkytsik 1

Eagle 1

Eagle 2

Fairbanks 4

Fairbanks 5

Fairbanks 6

Fairbanks 7

Fairbanks 11

Fairbanks 13

Fairbanks 14

Fairbanks 17

Fairbanks 18

Fairbanks 19

Fairbanks 20

Fairbanks 21

Fairbanks 24

Fairbanks 27

Fairbanks 30

Fairbanks 32

Fairbanks 36

Fairbanks 38

Fairbanks 39

Fairbanks 41

Fairbanks 53

Fish & Game

Fort Yukon 1

Fort Yukon 2

Fort Yukon 3

Fort Yukon 4

Fort Yukon 5

Fort Yukon 6

Fort Yukon 7

Fort Yukon 8

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 10

Fort Yukon 11

Fort Yukon 12

Fort Yukon 13

Fort Yukon 14

Fort Yukon 15

Fort Yukon 16

Fort Yukon 17

Fort Yukon 18

Fort Yukon 19

Fort Yukon 20

Fort Yukon 21

Fort Yukon 22

Fort Yukon 24

Fort Yukon 26

Fort Yukon 27

Fort Yukon 28

Galena 1

Healy 1

Huslia 2

Huslia 3

Kaltag 1

Kotzebue 9

Kotzebue 13

Noorvik 1

Nuiqsut 8

Stevens Village 1

Tanana 1

None 1

NETWORK STATISTICS

Mean clustering coefficient = 0.159

Mean degree = 3.415

Density = 0.017

Reciprocity = 0.174

NODE SUMMARY

Total N of nodes = 205

N of local households = 91

N of non-local households = 113

N of crews & organizations = 1

Figure 7.44

All resources, all documented relations, Venetie
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 194

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.45

All resources, local relations only, Venetie
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

195

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.46

All caribou relations, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anaktuvuk Pass 21

Arctic Village 1

Arctic Village 2

Arctic Village 3

Arctic Village 6

Arctic Village 7

Arctic Village 8

Arctic Village 9

Arctic Village 10

Arctic Village 12

Arctic Village 13

Arctic Village 14

Arctic Village 15

Arctic Village 16

Arctic Village 17

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 20

Arctic Village 21

Arctic Village 22

Arctic Village 23

Arctic Village 25

Arctic Village 27

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 30

Arctic Village 31

Arctic Village 34 Arctic Village 35

Arctic Village 36

Arctic Village 38

Birch Creek 1

Fairbanks 13

Fairbanks 30

Fort Yukon 14

Healy 1
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 196

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.47

All geese relations, Venetie

Arctic Village 11

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 34

Birch Creek 2

Fort Yukon 6

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 10

Fort Yukon 18

Fort Yukon 19
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

197

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.48

All duck relations, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Arctic Village 5

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 34

Birch Creek 1

Birch Creek 2

Fairbanks 5

Galena 1
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 198

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Arctic Village 11

Arctic Village 20

Birch Creek 1

Birch Creek 2

Chalkytsik 1

Eagle 1

Eagle 2

Fairbanks 14

Fairbanks 41

Fish & Game

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 14

Fort Yukon 16

Fort Yukon 28

Galena 1

Huslia 2

Huslia 3

Figure 7.49

All moose relations, Venetie
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

199

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.50

All salmon relations, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anchorage 52

Beaver 1

Beaver 3

Fairbanks 21

Fort Yukon 1

Fort Yukon 2

Fort Yukon 3

Fort Yukon 4

Fort Yukon 5

Fort Yukon 7

Fort Yukon 8

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 11

Fort Yukon 12

Fort Yukon 13

Fort Yukon 14

Fort Yukon 15

Fort Yukon 17

Fort Yukon 18

Fort Yukon 20

Fort Yukon 21

Fort Yukon 22

Fort Yukon 24

Fort Yukon 27

Kaltag 1

Stevens Village 1

Tanana 1
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 200

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.51

All Arctic grayling relations, Venetie

Arctic Village 34
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

201

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Arctic Village 2

Arctic Village 4

Arctic

Village

24

Arctic

Village

26 Arctic

Village

28

Arctic Village 30

Arctic

Village

32

Arctic Village 33

Arctic Village 34

Birch Creek 2

Fairbanks 4

Fairbanks 6

Fairbanks 11

Fairbanks 17

Fairbanks 32

Fairbanks 36

Fairbanks 39

Fairbanks 53

Fort Yukon 16

Fort Yukon 26

Unknown

Figure 7.52

All berry relations, Venetie
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 202

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.53

Cooperative harvesting relations, all resources, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Arctic Village 11

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 34

Birch Creek 2

Fairbanks 4

Fairbanks 5

Fairbanks 11

Fairbanks 14

Fairbanks 53

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 16

Fort Yukon 27

Galena 1
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

203

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.54

Shares relations, all resources, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anchorage 52

Arctic Village 1

Arctic Village 8

Arctic Village 10

Arctic Village 12

Arctic Village 13

Arctic Village 14

Arctic Village 16

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 20

Arctic Village 23

Arctic Village 25

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 31

Arctic Village 36

Fort Yukon 21

Kotzebue 9
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 204

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anaktuvuk Pass 21

Anchorage 14

Arctic Village 4

Arctic Village 7

Arctic Village 8

Arctic Village 10

Arctic Village 12

Arctic Village 13

Arctic Village 15

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 20

Arctic Village 25

Arctic Village 33

Arctic Village 34

Arctic Village 36

Barrow 1

Barrow 29

Beaver 3

Buckland 1

Eagle 1

Eagle 2

Fairbanks 7

Fairbanks 41

Fort Yukon 1

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 14

Fort Yukon 24 Fort Yukon 20

Fort Yukon 28

Galena 1

Healy 1

Huslia 2

Huslia 3

Kaltag 1

Kotzebue 9

Kotzebue 13

Noorvik 1

Nuiqsut 8

Tanana 1

Arctic Village 1 Arctic Village 23

 Figure 7.55 Processing relations (unvalued), all resources, Venetie
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

205

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.56

Sharing relations, all resources, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anaktuvuk Pass 21

Anchorage 14

Arctic Village 2

Arctic Village 3

Arctic Village 4

Arctic Village 5

Arctic Village 6

Arctic Village 7

Arctic Village 8

Arctic Village 9

Arctic Village 10

Arctic Village 12

Arctic Village 13

Arctic Village 14

Arctic Village 15

Arctic Village 16

Arctic Village 17 Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 20

Arctic Village 21

Arctic Village 22

Arctic Village 23

Arctic Village 24

Arctic Village 25

Arctic Village 26

Arctic Village 27

Arctic Village 28 Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 30

Arctic Village 32

Arctic Village 33

Arctic Village 34

Arctic Village 35

Arctic Village 38

Barrow 1

Barrow 29

Barrow 51

Barrow 59

Beaver 1

Beaver 3

Birch Creek 1

Birch Creek 2

Buckland 1

Chalkytsik 1

Eagle 1

Eagle 2

Fairbanks 4

Fairbanks 6

Fairbanks 7

Fairbanks 13

Fairbanks 17

Fairbanks 20

Fairbanks 24

Fairbanks 27

Fairbanks 30

Fairbanks 32

Fairbanks 36

Fairbanks 39

Fairbanks 41

Fish & Game

Fort Yukon 1

Fort Yukon 2

Fort Yukon 3

Fort Yukon 4

Fort Yukon 5

Fort Yukon 6

Fort Yukon 8

Fort Yukon 9

Fort Yukon 10

Fort Yukon 11

Fort Yukon 12

Fort Yukon 13

Fort Yukon 14

Fort Yukon 15

Fort Yukon 16

Fort Yukon 17

Fort Yukon 18

Fort Yukon 19

Fort Yukon 20

Fort Yukon 26

Fort Yukon 27

Fort Yukon 28

Huslia 2

Huslia 3

Kotzebue 13

Noorvik 1

Nuiqsut 8

Stevens Village 1

Tanana 1
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 206

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.57

Reciprocal relations, all resources, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Fairbanks 21

Fairbanks 41

Fort Yukon 7

Fort Yukon 11

Fort Yukon 22

Fort Yukon 24

Kaltag 1
Chapter 7 - Cooperation and Social Networks

207

LEGEND

Age of household head (years)

Unknown < 40 40 to 59 > 59

Flows of country foods and related ties

valued relations, scaled by edible pounds

unvalued relations, scaled by mean of all flows

NODES arranged with a spring-embedding, node-repulsion, equal edge 

algorithm, manually adjusted for readability. Strongly connected nodes 

are near the center; weakly connected nodes are around the edges. 

ARROWS are scaled by flows into each household. Reflexive flow 

relations (a household’s production for itself) are not shown.

SYMBOLS for surveyed households 

are scaled by flows of country foods 

(in edible pounds) into each household, 

including household’s own production. 

Couple head

Single female head

Single male head

Crew, group, or organization

Unsurveyed household

Household in another community

Figure 7.58

Other relations (unvalued), all resources, Venetie

Anaktuvuk Pass 19

Anchorage 52

Arctic Village 1

Arctic

Village 8

Arctic Village 10

Arctic Village 12

Arctic Village 13

Arctic Village 14

Arctic Village 16

Arctic Village 18

Arctic Village 19

Arctic Village 20

Arctic Village 23

Arctic Village 25

Arctic Village 29

Arctic Village 31

Arctic Village 34

Arctic Village 36

Fairbanks 17

Fairbanks 18

Fairbanks 19

Fort Yukon 21

Kotzebue 9

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

209

PART III – INTEGRATION 

AND DISCUSSION

Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

211

Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

To what extent has the subsistence sector of community 

economies persisted with greater involvement in the cash 

economy? Are village households food secure and 

are particular household characteristics correlated 

with food insecurity? How might future conditions 

reflecting possible ecological and/or economic 

changes affect mixed community subsistencecash systems? Are some communities and some 

households more resilient to change than others? 

This chapter draws on findings from this 

study, as well as secondary data, to address these 

questions, exploring dimensions of persistence, 

vulnerability, and resilience of households and 

mixed subsistence-cash systems. Our analysis 

takes a broad and generic view of resilience, which 

is necessary given the great uncertainty in future 

changes likely to affect communities of northern villages. Because of limited available baseline 

data and a lack of longitudinal data on household 

sharing and socio-economic attributes, there are 

also many uncertainties associated with understanding possible human responses to change. As 

well, drivers of change are multiple and interacting, 

so it is likely that responses to a suite of changes 

at the household level would be highly complex. 

It is therefore necessary to understand questions 

about possible futures as “projections” vs. predictions (i.e., plausible futures and not likely futures). 

The analysis here is undertaken in four stages 

(Figure 8.1). We first examine the persistence of 

subsistence as evidenced by the comparison of 

household employment and 

harvest data from 1977, 1988, 

and 2010 (the current study). 

Data from 1977 and 1988 are 

from North Slope Census 

data, provided and organized by Professor Matthew 

Berman of the Institute 

of Social and Economic 

Research at the University of 

Alaska Anchorage. Venetie, 

our Interior Alaska study 

community, is not included 

in this analysis because there 

are no comparable employment or harvest data. We 

then consider vulnerability 

in 3 ways. First, we examine 

levels of wild food dependence and food security 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 212

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

(and insecurity) at the household level as measured by our survey instrument. Next we assess 

the implications of 8 simple scenarios of potential 

shortfalls in the availability of core subsistence 

resources. Finally, households are grouped into 

9 categories, created by ranking all households 

from high to low across 2 dimensions simultaneously—household income and household harvest 

(pounds). These distributions are then overlaid 

to create 9 groups of households ranging from 

High Harvest-High Income to Low HarvestLow Income. Each of the 9 categories reflects 

unique categories at which households combine 

subsistence-cash activities and therefore reflect 

combinations of activities within a mixed economy. Vulnerability and resilience are then discussed 

as a potential outcome of other socio-economic 

household attributes. Four categories of household 

attributes, (i) harvest characteristics, (ii) economic inputs, (iii) household demographics, and (iv) 

social capital, across 12 key attributes are the basis 

for a discussion of household vulnerabilities and 

sources of resilience in the context of change. 

Persistence of the Subsistence-Cash 

System – 1977, 1988, 2010

Figure 8.2 and Table 8.1 indicate that the 

percentage of Wainwright households engaged in 

a mixed subsistence-cash economy increased over 

time (from 64% in 1977 to 81% in 2010) while those 

not engaged in either harvest or employment decreased (from 8% of households in 1977 to 0.0% of 

households in 2010). The percentage of Wainwright 

households engaged in some level of harvest 

increased through time (with or without employment) from 76% in 1977, to 81% in 1988, to 94% 

in 2010. At the same time, the total percentage of 

the population employed (with or without harvest) 

increased from 1977 to 1988 (81% to 94%), but fell 

slightly between 1988 and 2010 (94% to 87%). 

Data from Figure 8.2 and Table 8.1 show a 

different pattern in Kaktovik. The percentage of 

households combining employment with some 

level of harvest (i.e., pursuing a mixed economy) decreased from 1977 to 1988 (87% to 66%), 

Figure 8.2. Evidence of persistence in the mixed economy: Household engagement in subsistence and the 

cash economy, Wainwright and Kaktovik.
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

213

increased from 1988 to 2010, but did not attain 

levels documented in 1977 (87% compared to 

81%). The decline in the proportion of households 

that both hunted and worked from 1977 to 1988 

corresponds with an increase in the percentage 

of households (from 4% to 16%) employed and 

not harvesting, while other activity combinations 

remained consistent. This situation reversed from 

1988 to 2010, as the proportion of households 

employed but not harvesting decreased, while the 

proportion of households not employed but harvesting increased. The effect is a net increase in the 

proportion of households harvesting, regardless of 

employment level (from 70% to 93%) from 1988 

to 2010. Overall, the percentage of households 

harvesting, regardless of employment status, increased from 92% to 93% over the 30-year period. 

In 2010 (based on results from this study), 

more than 80% of households in both Wainwright 

and Kaktovik combined wage income and harvesting. In both villages, reported engagement 

in harvesting at some level, grew while employment fluctuated. The proportion of households 

employed but not harvesting in 1988 grew, and 

then declined from 1988 to 2010 in both Kaktovik 

and Wainwright. The proportion of households 

not employed but engaged in harvesting increased over the 30-year period in both villages. 

In summary, these findings show strong 

persistence of the mixed subsistence-cash economy 

over the 3.5 decades in spite of significant changes in social and economic conditions, including 

greater cash household inputs, more jobs, more 

travel outside the village by residents, significant 

changes in governance structures, improved access 

to health care and education, improved communications with the greater world and better 

village infrastructure. The US Census data show 

household income rising in the years 1990, 2000, 

and 2009–2010 in Kaktovik: $10,078 to $22,031 

to $31,809, and in Wainwright: $9,095 to $16,710 

to $27,820 (US Census Bureau 1993, 2003; current project data 2009–2010), not accounting for 

inflation. These findings raise questions about 

common assumptions among some theorists and 

policy makers that greater engagement in the 

cash economy will inevitably result in a decrease 

in subsistence (See BurnSilver et al., 2016).

Wild Food Consumption and Food 

Security

The Sharing Project survey asked household heads to estimate what proportion of their 

household food intake was wild food during the 

last 12 months. While surveys of household heads 

do not provide the level of precision of highly 

structured food consumption recall studies, they 

do give a rough measure of household dependence on wild foods, which serve as one proxy 

of household sensitivity to future changes in 

availability of wild foods. In addition to a USDA 

food security protocol, the question was posted: 

"If you think about all the food your household 

consumes as represented by 10 fingers, how many 

fingers would represent your household’s wild 

food consumption and how many would represent your consumption of store-bought food?” 

Across the 3 communities, 24%, 34% and 

38% of households in Kaktovik, Wainwright, and 

Venetie, respectively, 

indicated that 50% of their 

diet was made up of wild 

foods (Figure 8.3a–c). 

Looking specifically at patterns by community, 15% 

of Kaktovik households 

reported they consumed 

a diet of 10% wild foods 

and 24% percent reported 

that their diet consisted 

of 25% wild foods. About 

Table 8.1. Evidence of persistence.

Employed 

- 

Harvested 

No. (%)

No 

Employment 

- Harvested 

No. (%)

Employed - 

No Harvest 

No. (%)

No 

Employment 

- No Harvest 

No. (%)

Sample 

Size 

No. 

HHs

WAI

1977 56 (64.4) 10 (11.5) 14 (16.1) 7 (8.1) 87

1988 91 (79.1) 2 ( 1.7) 17 (14.8) 5 (4.4) 115

2010 118 (80.8) 19 (13.0) 9 ( 6.2) 0 (0.0) 146

KAK

1976 55 (87.3) 3 ( 4.8) 4 ( 6.4) 1 (1.6) 63

1988 37 (66.1) 2 ( 3.6) 16 (28.6) 1 (1.8) 56

2010 56 (81.2) 8 (11.6) 4 ( 5.8) 1 (1.5) 69
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 214

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 8.3a. Self-reported percentage of consumed foods that 

were wild food vs. store-bought, Kaktovik.

Figure 8.3b. Self-reported percentage of consumed foods that 

were wild food vs. store-bought, Wainwright.

Figure 8.3c. Self-reported percentage of consumed foods that 

were wild food vs. store-bought, Venetie.

30% of Kaktovik households consumed 

between 30–40% wild foods. Four percent 

of households reported a diet of between 

80–90% wild foods (Figure 8.3a). In 

Wainwright, about 28% of the households 

consumed between 30–40% wild foods. 

Seven percent of households reported a 

diet of between 80–90% wild foods and 

about 8% of households consumed a diet 

consisting of 10% wild foods (Figure 

8.3b). Similar to Wainwright, about 28% 

of Venetie households consumed between 

30–40% wild foods. Three percent of 

households reported a diet of between 

80–90% wild foods. About 15% of households consumed a diet of 10% wild foods 

(Figure 8.3c). These findings do not reflect 

differences in consumption by members 

within a household, such as the extent to 

which older household members consumed wild foods as compared to younger 

members within the same households. 

Measures of food security and insecurity were captured using a USDA food 

security assessment protocol, modified 

to differentiate subsistence and storebought foods. (See Chapter 3, Methods, 

and interview instruments in Appendix 

I, questions on “Food Security”.) The 

USDA protocol states that households that 

score “Low” or “Very Low” on a 12-point 

scale are considered “Food Insecure.” 

Conversely, households that score as 

either "Marginal" or "High" on this scale 

are categorized as "Food Secure." The two 

North Slope study communities reported similar levels of household insecurity 

(Table 8.2). Kaktovik reported 40% of 

households as insecure (20% Low and 

20% Very Low), and Wainwright reported 

44% of households as insecure (23% Low 

and 21% Very Low). Venetie reported a 

lower level of food insecurity overall, at 

34% (20% Low and 14% Very Low). All 

three communities reported similar proportions of households with “High” food 

security (35%, 38% and 38% for Kaktovik, 

Wainwright and Venetie, respectively). 
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

215

Figures 8.4a–c present food security 

data broken down by income categories 

for households. Both high and low food 

security were found across the range of 

households, irrespective of harvest level 

or income. These findings suggest that at 

the community level there is little relationship between household subsistence 

harvest levels, total household income, 

and food security. In Kaktovik, 9 of the 

23 households (39%) in the high harvest 

tercile were categorized as food insecure. In Wainwright, 9 of 27 households 

(33%) in the high harvest tercile were 

categorized as food insecure. In Venetie, 

23 of 48 households (48%) in the high 

harvest tercile were categorized as food 

insecure. Considering both harvest and 

income, we found that 40% percent of 

Kaktovik, 48% of Wainwright, and 36% 

of Venetie households that had both high 

harvest and high incomes scored as Food 

Insecure. Only 20% of High Income–High 

Harvest households in Kaktovik reported high food security. In Wainwright 

and Venetie this value was higher: 43% 

in Wainwright and 48% in Venetie. 

Spearman’s rank order correlations 

were run between Food Security raw 

scores and a range of household socio-demographic, economic, and harvest 

variables. In general, there were few 

significant correlations and the relationships were not strong. Raw Food Security 

scores in Wainwright were positively 

correlated with household size (rs(8)= 

0.18, p < 0.05), the size of a households 

Permanent Fund Dividend (rs(8)=.214, 

p<0.01) and the amount a HH received 

in public assistance (rs(8)=.295, p<0.01). 

Food security was negatively related to 

HH job earnings (rs(8)=-.268, p<0.05). 

In Kaktovik HH Development Stage was 

negatively correlated with Raw Food 

Security Scores (rs(8)=-.278, p<0.05). No 

correlations were significant in Venetie.

Figures 8.5a–c depict categories of 

food security from a network perspective 

Figure 8.4a. Food security, Kaktovik.

Figure 8.4b. Food security, Wainwright.

Figure 8.4c. Food security, Venetie.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 216

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 8.2. Cross tabulation of household food security status, 12-month period for the 3 study communities 

with shaded area indicating “food insecure”.

Kaktovik Wainwright Venetie Total

Count % Within 

community Count % Within community Count % Within community Count % Within community

1 High Food Security 23 35% 56 38% 32 38% 111 38%

2 Marginal Food 

Security 16 25% 26 18% 23 27% 65 22%

3 Low Food Security 13 20% 34 23% 17 20% 64 22%

4 Very Low Food 

Security 13 20% 30 21% 12 14% 55 19%

Total 65 100% 146 100% 84 100% 295 100%

across all local households in the three communities. Households are arranged within the graph 

based on overall connectedness across total flows of 

food across all social relationships. The size of each 

node represents the relative inflow of wild foods to 

households in pounds only from one social relationship—sharing. Household nodes are colored 

green if “food secure” (either high food security 

or marginally secure), and red if “food insecure” 

(either low or very low food security). Results 

illustrate somewhat counter-intuitively that food 

insecure households are located in diverse positions 

across community networks. Similarly, household 

actively receiving through sharing are dispersed 

throughout village networks. Some food insecure 

households are central within networks and others appear at the periphery. Some food insecure 

households are large receivers of food through 

sharing (large circles), but not all. Those receiving 

significant amounts of food through sharing scored 

as both food secure and food insecure (large circles 

are both red and green), suggesting that sharing 

could be mitigating food insecurity in some cases 

but not all. These results suggest that food security 

status in communities is complex. The USDA food 

security protocol is designed to measure current 

levels of food security. However, when preliminary food security results were discussed with 

communities, researchers asked why a high harvest-high income household might score as food 

insecure. The response was that successful hunters 

are keenly aware that hunting “success” is always 

fragile, so may “feel” food insecure even given 

significant previous success with provisioning. The 

food security protocol is structured in such a way 

that respondents are reporting on actual behaviors (i.e. Did you cut back on meals?, Did you lose 

weight?), and so ideally should avoid this perceptual bias. However, how and if these perceptions 

affected people’s responses to the questions and, 

in turn, our calculations of food security scores 

are questions worthy of future consideration.

Household Harvest and Giving Levels: 

Do They Relate? 

An important finding of this study is the 

high degree of heterogeneity in economic, social 

and harvest patterns among households in villages. Household socio-demographic and economic 

attributes vary widely (see Chapter 6) and consequently, we would expect households to have 

different degrees of adaptive capacity (i.e., based on 

a wide array of available assets) for responding to 

forces of change. This section highlights these differences in harvesting, receiving, and giving across 

households, which sets a foundation for assessing 

the implications for household vulnerability. 

Patterns of household-level harvest and inflows by community were described in Chapter 7 

(see Figures 7.2 for Kaktovik, 7.3 for Wainwright, 

and 7.4 for Venetie). These results highlight that 

not all households were equal in their level of 

inflow (pounds of wild foods flowing into households) and the number and diversity of social 

relationships that were sources of these flows. 

These results also illustrate that skewed relationship 
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

217

8.5a. Kaktovik.

8.5b. Wainwright.

8.5c. Venetie.

Figure 8.5a–c. Food security represented in household sharing networks with magnitude of inflows.

Red: Food insecure households

Green: Food secure households

Size: lbs of inflows
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 218

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Figure 8.6. Shape of total inflow distributions in pounds for 

Kaktovik, Venetie, and Wainwright (from left to right).

characterizing the logic of the “30:70 rule” holds 

true in the 3 study communities (Figure 8.6). In 

Kaktovik and Venetie, household inflows were 

strongly skewed toward particular households 

as responsible for large proportions of total inflow within villages (30%:81% and 30%:93%, 

respectively). In Wainwright 30% of households 

were responsible for 76% of total flows of food. 

Figure 8.7a–e examines the sources of total 

inflow (in pounds) by the proportion of total flow 

represented by specific social relationships (Y-axis). 

Individual households are ranked by total inflow, 

high to low, on the X-axis. For households with 

high inflow, most of the food coming into households stems from own and cooperative harvest 

activities (black and grey colors within individual bars). Aggregated whaling relationships for 

Wainwright and Kaktovik (white color; Captains’, 

Crew, Towing, Helper and Feasting shares) explain 

a significant proportion of inflows at the high 

and low ends of the distribution, although raw 

amounts are highest for households ranked highest 

for inflows (Figures 8a and 8c). These patterns are 

illustrated more clearly in Figures 8.7d and 8.7e, 

in which whaling flows for the North Slope villages are broken down further by feast shares and 

all other sources of whaling shares. Venetie total 

flows (Figure 8c) are lower overall than Wainwright 

and Kaktovik as they do not engage in whaling. 

However, the shape of the distribution 

and patterns of flow from high to low 

harvesters is remarkably similar to that 

observed in North Slope communities. 

A few households were highly 

ranked in terms of total inflow based 

primarily on sharing and shares for 

helping (green and blue colors, respectively). However, these 3 graphs illustrate 

that for households at the low end of 

the inflow gradient, social relationships 

represent almost 100% of total pounds of 

food coming into households. There are 

exceptions, as households at the lower 

end do harvest (indicated by black color), 

but social relationships are disproportionately more important for households 

at the low end of the inflow gradient. 

Figure 8.8 takes a similar approach to illustrate the relationship between harvest rank 

and households as sources and receivers of inkind contributions. The X-axis in this diagram 

ranks households by harvest only (not by total 

inflow). Bars represent counts of ties. These 

graphs do not include bowhead or beluga harvests, as harvests for these species are crew and 

community-focused, not household based. Blue 

bars show contributions received by households 

(inDegree). Green bars illustrate contributions 

given by households (outDegree). Households 

that harvested intensively are also highly active 

in terms of in-kind giving to and receiving contributions from others. However, households that 

harvest little are also engaged in in-kind contributions around subsistence activities (labor, giving 

groceries, gas, ammunition, lending equipment, 

etc.), albeit at lower levels. The engagement of 

these households in wider subsistence activities 

would be invisible in a traditional harvest study 

but are clearly delineated in this network study. 

Taking Figures 8.7 and 8.8 together illustrates 

layers of social relationships of harvest, cooperation and sharing. Some households are extremely 

active in harvesting, others less so. Combining 

food sharing, other social relationships and in-kind 

contributions suggests that additional lines of connectivity and cooperation exist (giving/receiving of 
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

219

8.7b. Wainwright.

8.7c. Venetie.

Figure 8.7. Distributions of food inflows by households, for a) Kaktovik, b) Wainwright, and c) Venetie.

8.7a. Kaktovik.

Figure 8.7d. Kaktovik whaling.

Figure 8.7e. Wainwright whaling.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 220

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

contributions) that could translate into a additional connectivity in times of need. As already noted, 

this study documented patterns of sharing and 

cooperation only during one 12-month study period. The time arch of cooperation and reciprocity 

across social relationships in these communities is 

clearly much longer than this time horizon. These 

contribution relationships represent a form of social capital that could become more active at some 

future time as relationships or conditions change.

Who Gives and Who Receives?

If sharing contributes to resilience of the 

community, we would expect that households with 

high harvest would contribute to those with less 

harvest. Figure 8.9 shows total household outflows 

for all three communities combined against household harvests on a log-log scale (again without 

beluga or bowhead whaling included). Outflows 

here represent the sum of all pounds from sharing, shares to helpers, trading and purchase as 

reported by receivers. Results indicate a positive 

relationship between harvest and outflows, i.e., 

households that harvest more or give more than 

households with lower harvests. The r2

 value for 

the relationship was 0.388 (p < 0.01). One hundred 

sixteen households (of 300) were not reported 

as sources of food to other households (0 line, 

X-axis), although they may have been cited as 

sources of other non-food contributions to others. 

Other households reported no harvest, and yet 

they were the reported source of outflows to other 

households (households located on 0 line, Y-axis). 

These households are redistributing food they 

received from others, through re-giving of food 

received primarily through sharing and helping 

shares. These households illustrate the process 

of redistribution. All households clustered at the 

origin (zero giving and zero inflow) are non-Native teacher households in these communities.

Linear regressions were run to predict who 

gives (dependent variable). Independent variables were i) pounds of harvested core species, 

ii) age of household head, iii) number of hunters 

in the household, iv) household income, and 

v) the household dependency ratio (household 

size:no. of dependents). Strong predictors were 

pounds of harvested core species in all three 

Figure 8.8. Comparing unvalued flows – Processing 

and in-kind contribution, all communities.

Blue = Processing and in-kind contributions – indegree (Labor, 

equipment, gas, groceries, cash.) 

Green = Processing and in-kind contributions – outdegree (Labor, 

equipment, gas, groceries, cash.)

Kaktovik

Wainwright

Venetie
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

221

Table 8.3. Who gives? (184 of 300 households give)

Kaktovik: F-value = 11.07, p<0.000; r2 =.65, df =34

Wainwright: F-value = 7.67, p<0.000; r2 =.32, df =87

Venetie: F-value = 8.54, p<0.000; r2 =.46, df= 54

*** p-value <0.001, **p-value < 0.01, * p-value < .05

Figure 8.9. Relationship between giving and harvest pounds represented on a log-log scale, all communities 

combined.

communities (β= .51, for Kaktovik, β= .30 for 

Wainwright, β= .32 for Wainwright). Age was 

also significant in Kaktovik and Venetie (β= .4.5 

and 2.1, respectively) (Kaktovik: F-value=11.07, 

p<0.000; r2 =.65, df=34; Wainwright: F-value=7.67, 

p<0.000; r2 =.32, df=87; Venetie: F-value=8.54, 

p<0.000 ; r2 =.46, df=54). (Table 8.3). 

These results are disaggregated by community in Figure 8.10a–f. The X-axis in these figures 

is household ranked by total household harvest 

without whales included. Harvest terciles (High, 

Medium and Low – left to right) are indicated by 

vertical black lines. The patterns of outflow are similar across each community—high-ranked harvest 

households give more food to others (Note that the 

rank of households on the X-axis is reversed from 

the previous figure). As shown in Figure 8.10 (a–c), 

there are very few households in the top harvesting 

terciles that were not cited as sources of food (n = 

1 in Kaktovik, n =1 in Wainwright, and n = 1 in 

Venetie). These analyses, however, do not indicate 

the directionality of flows of food. In other words, if 

a household is a source of food for others, in whose 

general direction does that food flow—other high 

harvesters, or to those who harvest little? To understand these patterns of directionality, we started 

with households harvest terciles (high, medium, 

low), calculated the amount of outflow generated 

within each tercile, and subsequently identified the 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 222

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska Figure 8.10. Log outflows of food from a) Wainwright, b) Kaktovik and c) Venetie households and flows between giving (source) and receiving (sink) households in d) Wainwright, e) Kaktovik and f) Venetie. Curved arrows in 8d illustrate directionality of flows from source to sink households. Black dotted arrows illustrate the hypothesized direction of flow based on Wolfe’s 1987 description of super households.

d e f

Wainwright Kaktovik Venetie
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

223

amount of outflow that stayed within that tercile, 

or flowed outward to households in other terciles. 

These results are graphed in Figure 8.10 (d–f). 

Terciles are represented in these graphs as both 

sources (givers of food – z axis) and sinks (receivers of food – x axis). If giving households were 

consistently giving to those with lower harvests, 

all outflow would flow from households in high 

harvest terciles into lower harvesting terciles and 

the height of bars would increase from left to right. 

This expected relationship is indicated by the black 

dotted lines. Results do support Wolfe's (1987) 

general hypothesis that super-households would 

also be the source of a majority of flow down the 

harvest distribution. Curved arrows above Figure 

8d also illustrate that households give to households with like harvest levels, i.e. high harvesters 

give to other high harvesters. Results therefore 

indicate a pattern that is more complex than just 

high harvesters giving to those who harvest less. 

The pattern in Wainwright supports the hypothesized flow from high to low harvesters, where high 

harvesters (source tercile—blue columns) channel 

8,000 pounds to medium harvesters and more 

than 14,000 pounds to low harvest households. 

Medium Wainwright harvesters (as sources—red 

columns) distribute more than 4,000 pounds 

to other medium harvesters (first red column), 

and send ~3,000 pounds and 3,400 pounds to 

other households in medium- and low-harvesting terciles, respectively. Even households from 

the low harvest tercile (green bars) give some 

food to high- and medium-harvest households, 

but a majority of food given by these households is given to other low-harvest households. 

In Kaktovik and Venetie proportionally more 

harvested food is given to other high harvesting 

households (and other medium harvest households), although food does flow to low harvester 

households. Looking at medium-harvest households, the same pattern of decreasing flow exists 

in Kaktovik and Venetie. Interestingly, low harvest 

households in Wainwright, Kaktovik, and Venetie, 

respectively, give away 300%, 1030%, and 850% 

percent above what they harvested themselves by 

weight. Possible explanations are that these households were either able to give out more than they 

harvested because of food shared to them from 

other households (re-distributing shares or gifts 

they received) or they may have given food they still 

had stored from previous seasons (i.e. foods harvested at a time not covered by the study period). 

Aggregate movement of food based on sharing or 

shares for helping between high and medium harvest terciles ranges from a low of 14% (Wainwright 

medium-harvesting households) to a high of 54% 

(Kaktovik medium-harvesting households), with an 

average of 24 and 40% across the 3 communities. 

Study findings describing outflows patterns 

so far have been presented in the context of only 

harvest. However, as households were engaged in a 

mixed economy, giving and receiving patterns may 

reflect local perceptions of “need” that incorporate 

Figure 8.11. Income terciles, Wainwright, Kaktovik and Venetie (left to right).
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 224

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

the cash and other economic resources available to 

households. Consequently, we incorporate income 

into the analysis below. Similar to the approach 

used for harvest, household income distributions 

are divided into high, medium, and low terciles 

(Figure 8.11). Gross household income inclusive 

of employment, assistance, retirement and dividends is the basis for income categories. Income 

terciles were subsequently overlaid onto existing 

household harvest terciles to produce nine categories. Households are members of one category 

across 9 possible harvest -income combinations. 

Distributions across these categories are the basis 

for a discussion of household adaptive capacity 

in the following section. First, we describe giving 

and receiving patterns within the mixed economy in detail using the example of Wainwright. 

Similar to the preceding figures, in Figures 

8.12 and 8.13 households are represented as sources and sinks for outflows of food based on their 

membership in the 9 harvest by income categories. 

The blue bars in both figures represent Wolfe’s 

“super-households,” or high harvest households. 

Within each harvest category there are high, 

medium, and low income households. High income–high harvest households in Wainwright 

are the sources of a majority of harvested food 

given to other households. There is variability 

across giving magnitude by income across all 

harvest categories, although clearly, high harvest–high income households give the most. 

Figure 8.13 reverses the perspective and 

illustrates which harvest-income categories receive the most harvested food in the aggregate 

for Wainwright. The black dotted line illustrates 

expectations if low harvest households were recipients of giving from households at the high end of 

the harvest gradient. Patterns do illustrate that Low 

Harvest and Low Income households receive the 

most food by weight than other harvest-income 

categories, although high harvest–high income and 

medium harvest–medium income households also 

receive significant amounts of food from others. 

High income but low harvest households, however, 

Figure 8.12. Givers in a mixed economy, 

Wainwright example.
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

225

do not receive nearly as much as low-income 

households, suggesting that givers differentiate 

those without access to fresh subsistence food and 

high income from those with low harvest and few 

economic resources. Results here suggest an interesting question. Who is “needy” within a mixed 

economy? Whereas it may have been clear who was 

in need when households depended historically on 

subsistence as a way of life, definitions of need may 

have changed with the rise in employment options. 

In qualitative interviews, respondents spoke of 

single mothers, the sick and elders as particularly 

in need. Is a household still in need however, if they 

work full time and cannot get out to hunt? Results 

here suggest that these households still receive 

food from others, but less so that other categories. 

These findings support that social relations in the form of cooperation and sharing 

persist and may act as sources of resilience for 

community households. (See BurnSilver et al. 

2016 for additional discussion on the dynamics of giving and receiving within the mixed 

economies of Kaktovik and Wainwright.)

Household Profiles of Adaptive 

Capacity

Assessing household adaptive capacity is 

a critical step in understanding household vulnerability to social-ecological changes. To use 

the concept of adaptive capacity in the context 

of household mixed subsistence-cash systems 

for the 3 communities, we created “mixed livelihood adaptive capacity profiles” by identifying 

5 categories, each with quantifiable sub-variables (Table 8.4). The first category, Subsistence 

Engagement, measured the sub-variables (in blue): 

•	 1a) amount of equipment held by 

the household (no. of all-terrain 

vehicles, snowmobiles, and boats) 

•	 1b) number of hunters residing 

in the household,

•	 1c) total pounds harvested by household 

members during the study period, and 

•	 1d) total pounds of core species inflows. 

Figure 8.13. Who receives food in a mixed economy, Wainwright example. 

The black arrow illustrates the hypothesized direction of food given based on Wolfe’s 1987 description of super households giving to others 

who harvest less. Red arrows highlight potential need for food for High and Low Income households within the Low Harvest category.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 226

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 8.4. Measures of household adaptive capacity in subsistence-cash system.

Variable Categories Abbreviation Variable Description Implications for Adaptive 

Capacity 

Subsistence Engagement

Equipment Equipment (No.)

Allows hunters to access 

resources and in some 

cases do so on special 

conditions

Hunters Hunters per household 

(No.)

Labor force for harvesting 

and retrieving; more 

efficiency in hunting with 

more eyes and bodies

Harvest Core Total Harvest Core (lbs) More food to use and less 

dependence on store

Inflow Core Total Inflow Core (lbs) More food to use and less 

dependence on store

Economic

Job Mos:Adults

Ratio of Total Months 

Employed to No. of Adults 

in Household Can substitute for 

harvested food if there is 

a shortfall; can allow for 

purchase of equipment 

if special needs are 

identified

HH Income Gross Household Income 

($)

Wage Earnings Wage Earnings ($)

Elders Income Elders Income ($)

Dividend Income Dividend Income ($)

Assist. Income Assistance Income ($)

Demographic

Household size Household size (No.) Labor force for processing 

food

Depend. Ratio No. Minors: No. Adults 

and Elders in Household

Fewer minors and elders, 

less non-producing 

members; greater 

number of elders, more 

knowledge

Social Capital 

OutDegree Contributions OutDegree Contributions 

(No. Ties)

Greater connectivity, 

greater likelihood of 

support in times of 

need; greater access 

to resources in times 

of scarcity; greater 

emotional support

OutDegree Food OutDegree Food (No. Ties)

InDegree Contributions InDegree Contributions 

(No. Ties)

InDegree Food InDegree Food (No. Ties)

The economic category (in red) captured 

the cash sector, with measures including: 

•	 2a) the ratio of the number of months 

employed to the number of adults 

residing in the household, 

•	 2b) total gross household income, 

•	 2c) total wage earnings, 

•	 2d) total elders’ retirement income, and 

•	 2e) household income from 

types of social assistance

•	 2f) household dividend income (village 

and regional corporations and state). 

The third category (in green) represents 

household demographics, including 

•	 3a) household size, and 

•	 3b) a dependency ratio reflecting 

minors:number of adults and 

elders in the household.
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

227

Social capital, the fifth category (in 

orange), included the variables 

•	 5a) out-degree of non-food 

contributions (number of ties), 

•	 5b) out-degree of food, measured 

by number of ties, 

•	 5c) in-degree of contributions 

as number of ties, and 

•	 5d) in-degree food as number of ties. 

Contributions here sum processing 

ties between households and counts of 

categories for other non-food categories, 

including; equipment lent and repaired, cash, 

ammunition, supplies, and other labor. 

Figures 8.14, 8.15 and 8.16 use spider graphs 

(also called radar graphs) to represent household 

adaptive capacity, simultaneously across each 

measure. Adaptive capacity is conceptualized as 

Table 8.5. Distribution of households across harvest by income categories.

 Katkovik Wainwright Venetie

Harvest x Income Categories No. % No. % No. %

High Harvest

High Income 10 14.3 22 15.1 16 19.1

Med Income 8 11.4 16 11.0 8 9.5

Low Income 5 7.1 10 6.9 4 4.8

Medium Harvest

High Income 6 8.6 11 7.5 7 8.3

Med Income 11 15.7 17 11.6 14 16.7

Low Income 7 10.0 21 14.4 7 8.3

Low Harvest

High Income 7 10.0 12 8.2 6 7.1

Med Income 5 7.1 15 10.3 5 6.0

Low Income 11 15.7 22 15.1 17 20.2

Total Households 70 146 84

Key to Radar Graph Variables (Figures 8.14–8.18)

Variable Categories Abbreviation Variable Description

Harvest

Equipment Equipment (No.)

Hunters Hunters (No.)

Harvest Core Total Harvest Core (lbs)

Inflow Core Total Inflow Core (lbs)

Economic

Job Mos:Adults No. of Months Employed: No. of Adults in Household

HH Income Household Income ($)

Wage Earnings Wage Earnings ($)

Elders Income Elders Income ($)

Dividend Income Dividend Income ($)

Assist. Income Assist. Income ($)

Demographic

Household size Household size (No.)

Depend. Ratio No. Minors: No. Adults and Elders in Household

Social Capital

OutDegree Contr. OutDegree Contributions (No. Ties)

OutDegree Food OutDegree Food (No. Ties)

InDegree Contr. InDegree Contributions (No. Ties)

InDegree Food InDegree Food (No. Ties)
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 228

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska Figure 8.14. Household profiles, Kaktovik.
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

229

Figure 8.15. Household profiles, Wainwright.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 230

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska Figure 8.16. Household profiles, Venetie.
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

231

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Equipment (No.)

Hunters (No.)

Total Harvest Core (lbs)

Total Inflow Core (lbs)

Household Income ($)

Job Mos.:Adults

Wage Earnings ($)

Elders Income ($)

Dividend Inccome ($)

Assistance Income ($)

Household size

Dep. Ratio (C:P)

outContributions

outDegree Food

InContributions

inDegree Food

High Income - High Harvest 

n=12 (18.5%) 

H3

H5

H8

H14

H15

H16

H21

H26

H27

H35

H38

H52

H55

H57

H59

H65

H73

H77

H83

H89

Whaling Crew C

Reciprocal	

Unreciprocated	

Egonet	–	Kaktovik	Household	5	

Equipment	

Hunters	(No.)	

Total	Harvest	Core	(lbs)	

Total	Inflow	Core	(lbs)	

inDegree	Food	

inDegree	ContribuHons	

outDegree	ContribuHons	

outDegree	Food	

Household	Size	

Dep.	RaHo	(C:P)	

	Assistance	Income	($)	 Dividend	Income	($)	 Elders	Income	($)	

Wage	Earnings	($)	

Job	Mos.:Adults		

Households	Income	($)	

High	Income	–	High	Harvest	Households	

n=12	(18.5%)	

Geodesic	Distance	of		2	to/from	Ego	

HH5	

Equipment (No.)

Hunters (No.)

Total Harvest Core (lbs)

Total Inflow Core (lbs)

Household Income ($)

Job Mos.:Adults

Wage Earnings ($)

Elders Income ($)

Dividend Inccome ($)

Assistance Income ($)

Household size

Dep. Ratio (C:P)

outContributions

outDegree Food

InContributions

inDegree Food

Low Income - Low Harvest

n=9 (13.8%)

Low	Income	–	Low	Harvest	Househoulds		

n=9	(13.8%)	

H14

H41

H44

H77

Reciprocal	 H79

Unreciprocated	

Egonet	Household	41	

Equipment	

Hunters	(No.)	

Total	Harvest	Core	(lbs)	

Total	Inflow	Core	(lbs)	

inDegree	Food	

inDegree	ContribuMons	

outDegree	ContribuMons	

outDegree	Food	

Household	Size	

Dep.	RaMo	(C:P)	

	Assistance	Income	($)	

Dividend	Income	($)	 Elders	Income	($)	

Wage	Earnings	($)	

Job	Mos.:Adults		

Households	Income	($)	

Geodesic	Distance	of		2	to/from	Ego	

HH41	

Figure 8.17. Radar graph of High Harvest - High Income Households, 

and one egonet of a household from this category, Kaktovik.

Figure 8.18. Radar graph of Low Harvest - Low Income Households, and 

one egonet of a household from this category, Kaktovik.

the capacity to adapt following 

based on a household’s access to a 

range of resources and asset types 

(Kofinas et al. 2014, Berman et al., 

2016). There are 9 radar graphs 

per village, reflecting the 9 harvest 

by income categories described 

earlier. The number of households 

within unique Harvest - Income 

groups varies (Table 8.5). Values 

are standardized from 0 to 1 

by village (i.e., each household 

attribute value was divided by 

the highest value documented 

per village). The standardized 

means for each Harvest by Income 

category are represented on the 

spider graphs. As values were 

standardized separately for each 

community, the standardized 

values cannot be compared 

directly across communities. 

Attribute ranges for Kaktovik 

and Wainwright were similar, 

but as reported in the findings 

of Chapter 6, Venetie harvest 

and income household attributes 

are significantly lower than the 

North Slope villages, making 

direct comparisons problematic. 

The percentage and number 

of households within each harvest 

by income group are displayed as 

9 graph images that range from 

High Harvest – High Income 

households to Low Harvest – Low 

Income households (Figures 

8.14–8.16). Looking at conditions across Harvest - Income 

categories, it is clear that there are 

differences between the financial, 

productive, demographic, and 

social capabilities (i.e., connectedness) of household groups within 

each community. We use these 

differences to inform a discussion 

of household-level vulnerability. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 232

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Table 8.5 describes the distribution of households across harvest by income groups. High 

Harvest- High Income, Medium Harvest – Medium 

Income and Low Harvest – Low Income categories 

have the highest frequencies of households across 

all three communities. High Harvest – Low Income 

households are the most infrequent, however, they 

are highly active givers and receivers within villages despite few economic resources (See Figures 

8.14-8.16). The majority of non-local teachers are 

in the Low Harvest – High Income categories in 

all three communities. Visually there are intuitive 

and striking differences in the assets and capabilities of households across these income categories 

by harvest groups. High harvest – high income 

households on average have many subsistence 

assets (both hunters and equipment), hunt actively, have high average inflows, have significant 

economic resources, tend to have larger families, 

and are highly connected (both giving and receiving food and contributions). These households 

are diversified economically and have deep and 

numerous connections with others. In contrast, 

Low Income – Low Harvest households across 

the 3 communities generally depend on a much 

more constricted set of livelihood activities, economic resources and social relationships. An 

important take away message is that households 

in villages are not homogeneous in their activities, assets, or connectedness and these differences 

have implications in terms of the relative abilities 

of households to adapt to changing conditions. 

As an example here we presented 2 households 

from Kaktovik, HH5 and HH41. Figures 8.17 and 

8.18 replicate the radar graphs for Kaktovik, High 

Harvest - High Income households (Figure 8.17) 

and Low Harvest – Low Income categories (Figure 

8.18). Each figure also shows the egonets of these 

2 households. Egonets represent all existing ties 

between a household (ego) and all other households with which it is connected. All ties from ego 

to other households in Kaktovik are graphed up 

to a path length of 2 (i.e., all households located 

along a unique path of 2 steps to and from each 

ego household). Reciprocated and non-reciprocated ties within egonets are also indicated. HH5 

in Kaktovik was a High Harvest - High Income 

household with 7 members, 4 of whom were fully 

employed. All members were active hunters and 

the household represented 3 generations (an Elder 

household). Hunters actively hunted and fished for 

all core Kaktovik species as well as 4 other noncore species, harvesting 18,000+ lbs. The household 

received 620 lbs of meat/fish from other households across 74 inDegree ties, and gave out 3,141 

lbs, across 94 outDegree ties. This was a household 

active in both the cash and subsistence side of the 

mixed economy that had many hunters and was 

strongly connected to other households through 

both giving and receiving relationships – some 

reciprocated and some not. In contrast, HH41 

was a Low Income - Low Harvest household was 

a single 38-year-old man (i.e., a developing household), who was employed for 3 months (of 12), 

hunted 1 species (for 14 lbs), gave 2 contributions 

to others (outDegree ties), but received 161 lbs 

between attending whaling feasts and Nalukataq

and from other households (across 17 inDegree 

ties). Pounds of whale represented 65% of his total 

wild food inflow and he gave no food to others. The 

egonet of this individual is very small and consists 

of unreciprocated ties to himself from others. 

Vulnerability theory (Adger 2006) would suggest that these 2 households do not have the same 

level of vulnerability to different types of shocks 

and stresses because their adaptive capacity differs, 

even assuming a similar level of sensitivity and set 

of exposures. Inclusion of social ties in the analysis implies that the absence of household assets 

could be mitigated through sharing and cooperation with other households, although the possible 

extent of such cooperation is not predicted here. 

Scenarios of Change: Part 1– GrossLevel Implications of Change 

In this section we present a set of hypothetical 

scenarios to reveal potential gross-level implications of change within the 3 communities (See 

Table 8.6). Our simple approach was to subtract 

the contributions of specific resources or groups of 

resources, and calculate the total shortfall within 

communities as a percentage of pounds lost. These 

calculations are based on our findings for Kaktovik, 

which had a total of 223,615 pounds of inflow 

during the study period, Wainwright with 404,082 
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

233

a) Scenario #1 - Assumes total loss in core marine and coastal ecosystem services (i.e., no bearded seal, 

smelt, Dolly Varden, beluga, and bowhead)

Total lbs of flow Lbs from loss of resources % of loss

Wainwright 404,082 193,011 48

Kaktovik 223,615 135,182 60

Total 627,697 328,193 52

b) Scenario #2 - Assumes total loss in core coastal ecosystem services (i.e., no geese, ducks, smelt, Seal, 

beluga and bowhead)

Wainwright 404,082 206,015 51

Kaktovik 223,615 138,192 62

Total 627,697 344,207 55

c) Scenario #3 - Assumes total loss in core marine mammals (i.e., bearded Seal, beluga and bowhead)

Wainwright 404,082 169,798 42

Kaktovik 223,615 113,576 51

Total 627,697 283,373 45

d) Scenario #4 - Assumes total loss in caribou

Wainwright 404,082 198,067 49

Kaktovik 223,615 72,449 32

Total 627,697 270,516 43

Interior Alaska Community/ Venetie Scenarios

e) Scenario #5 - Assumes total loss in moose

Total # # moose % of loss

Venetie 92,034 28,320 31

f) Scenario #6 - Assumes total loss in caribou

Venetie 92,034 29,925 33

g) Scenario #7 - Assumes total loss in caribou and moose

Venetie 92,034 59,244 64

h) scenario #8 - Assumes total loss in core fish (greyling and salmon) 

Venetie 92,034 22,916 25

Table 8.6. Scenarios of change in harvested ecosystem services at the community level.

pounds, and Venetie with 92,034 total pounds. 

We present the scenarios geographically, first the 

scenarios for the 2 North Slope communities, and 

then for the interior Alaska community, Venetie. 

These scenarios present a rough assessment of 

possible impacts and do not consider how communities could exercise agency by re-organizing or 

making use of existing or new social networks to 

compensate for shortfalls (e.g., gifts or exchanges 

received from another region). The section that 

follows considers the heterogeneity of households, 

or differences in their level adaptive capacity as 

described in previous section, and how changes in 

ecosystem services or economic conditions may 

affect households with different levels of assets.

Clearly, subtracting the pounds harvested 

of 1 or more species from the total inflows to a 

community is a simplistic approach to understanding the impacts of change on communities. 

The approach does, however, highlight the level 

of dependence communities have on subsistence 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 234

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

harvesting and thus, their potential sensitivity to 

changes in these ecosystem services. It also provides 

a method for describing community sensitivity 

where few quantifiable measures are available. 

Scenario #1 – Loss of All Core Marine Resources (Table 

8.6a): Scenario #1 considers the implications of a 

total loss of core marine species for Kaktovik and 

Wainwright studied in this project. Those core 

species include bearded seal, smelt, Dolly varden, 

beluga, and bowhead. Such a hypothetical scenario could be the consequence of these species 

being deemed at a regional level to be unhealthy 

to consume and therefore not hunted, such as a 

catastrophic shock to the marine system resulting 

from a large-scale and highly dispersed offshore 

oil spill. The findings for Scenario #1 show that 

Kaktovik had the greatest proportion of its harvest 

from these core species, and thus, the scenario 

resulted in a 60% loss of total pounds harvested for the study period. Wainwright’s loss would 

also be significant, resulting in a 48% shortfall. 

Scenario #2 - Loss of all Core Coastal Resources (Table 

8.65b): Scenario #2 considers a loss of all core 

coastal ecosystem services and foods, including geese, ducks, smelt, Dolly varden, beluga, 

and bowhead. The cause of this scenario could 

be similar to #1, but with the added impact on 

the near-shore coastal system used by waterfowl. Here we find that a possible loss of these 

resources would reduce both communities’ harvest by 51 to 62% for Wainwright and Kaktovik, 

respectively. Combining the harvested pounds of 

both communities, the decline would be 344,207 

pounds of wild foods in a one-year period. 

Scenario #3 - Loss of 3 largest Marine Resources (Table 

8.6c): This scenario assumes the total loss of the 

3 largest marine subsistence resources—bearded 

seal, beluga, and the culturally important critical 

bowhead. The result shows that these resources are a high proportion of total take of the 2 

North Slope communities, representing 45% of 

total pounds. This value does not account for 

the implications of such a loss to people who 

strongly identify with these species, nor the 

food that is additionally distributed outside of 

Wainwright and Kaktovik to other communities. 

Scenario #4 – Loss of Caribou on North Slope (Table 

8.6d): Scenario #4 assumes a total loss of caribou for the 2 North Slope communities, which 

could be a consequence of caribou population 

cycles, climate change, or a landscape change 

that redirected herd movements, making it impossible for hunters to access this species. While 

both of the coastal communities are known as 

“whalers” and self-identify as such, the results of 

this scenario reveal the high dependence on this 

terrestrial resource, particularly for Wainwright 

where 49% of total inflows are caribou meat. 

Scenarios #5–Loss of Interior Alaska Core Species (Table 

8.5e–h): These scenarios examine the potential loss 

for Venetie represented by core subsistence resources in several combinations—the loss of caribou, 

moose, caribou and moose, and the 2 core fish species, grayling and salmon. Interestingly, caribou and 

moose are almost equal in magnitude for Venetie, 

representing declines of 31% and 33%, respectively, 

in spite of the community’s location at the margin 

of the range of the Porcupine and Central Arctic 

Herd ranges (Table 8.5e–f). The close geography 

and kinship relationships of Venetie with Arctic 

Village residents provide a source of resilience as 

caribou harvested in Arctic Village commonly 

make their way to Venetie, either as sharing or as 

exchanges for species like salmon that are not easily 

harvested in Arctic Village or as non-food contributions (i.e. gas, supplies, ammunition). Changes 

in moose habitat quality, a shift in the migratory 

patterns of caribou, or a change in hunting regulations that would dramatically reduce hunting 

of these species could therefore have a significant 

impact on the community’s access to foods. The 

magnitude of decline represented by catastrophic 

declines in both these species is 64% (Table 8.5g). A 

decline in grayling and salmon fishery could result 

in a 25% decrease in pounds harvested (Table 8.5h). 

Scenarios of Change: Part Two—

the Household Level 

We use the table of household attributes 

(Figure 8.19) and the 9 Harvest – Income categories of households to consider the implications 

of scenarios of change at the household level. As 

noted, our results indicate significant heterogeneity 
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

235

Figure 8.19. Thinking about resilience – Exposures ripple through communities, Wainwright.

An economic shock (red box) might affect low income households first, while an ecological shock (blue box) could negatively affect the 

success of high harvesting households initially. However, the dynamics of social relationships suggest that there would be ripple effects of 

both these exposures as lower income households may contribute less to hunting efforts of others (red arrow), or there is less for successful 

hunters to redistribute (blue arrows). 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 236

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

of access to particular combinations of economic, 

productive, social, and demographic assets within 

communities. How does the distribution of assets 

across these household groups help to assess the 

capacity of different types of households to respond 

to change? This study has highlighted the role of social structures and relationships to redistribute food 

and resources within communities, but these patterns differ significantly across households. So how 

might changes ripple through communities to affect 

community scale resilience? Below, we outline a series of thought experiments around specific types of 

potential exposures (i.e., sources of change within 

villages) that were described to researchers during 

focus groups, interviews, and community meetings. 

Scenario 1: Harvest Shortfall - In times of resource 

shortfall, it is clear that social capital (networks 

of sharing and cooperation) could potentially 

buffer against food insecurity. Results show that 

high harvesters are the source of significant wild 

foods for other high harvesters as well as other 

households within communities. Medium and 

low harvesters also give and redistribute food 

and other resources to others, such as equipment 

and labor. If the changes resulted in significant 

decreases in overall harvest or harvest of a traditionally harvested species representing significant 

resource flows (i.e., bowhead, caribou, or moose), 

high-income households theoretically would be 

more capable of replacing wild foods with storebought foods in the short term, and thus be more 

likely to meet their nutritional needs. If overall 

harvest declined, then flows through the sharing 

network could decline, thereby decreasing flows 

of wild food down the harvest distribution (high 

to low harvesters). In our interviews (as reported 

in Chapter 5), respondents reported that "if there 

is less available, sharing would not stop, but everyone could receive less overall." Food security 

particularly for low-harvest households could 

decline under this scenario. Shortfalls in wild foods 

may be made up by store-bought food if cash or 

assistance is available. However, the replacement 

of wild foods with store-bought foods over the 

short and long term could come with significant social costs that extend beyond the realm 

of nutrition, such as changes in dietary patterns 

of youth who are being socialized to a traditional diet, and the anxiety over loss of culture.

Scenario 2: Change in Resource Distribution or Hunters’ 

Access - This scenario explores how various household characteristics may allow limited or ongoing 

harvesting in the event of changes in resource 

distribution (e.g., a change in caribou migration 

patterns) or a resource becoming less accessible (i.e., lowering of river levels or trail blockage 

because of forest fires). In this scenario we could 

expect that equipment and income would be 

important either to allow households to go farther 

or to access a resource in a different way. Highincome households would have the resources 

(gear and money) to go farther and faster, whereas 

those same resources could be out of reach for 

low-income households. Having a diversity of 

gear types (boat with a propeller and jet options, 

and an all-terrain vehicle) would also enhance 

adaptive capacity. The number of hunters in a 

household may also be helpful in these cases, as 

harvesters could be more available to match with 

resource availability (versus being constrained 

when a household has one harvester who must 

work certain hours). Social relationships may 

offset this situation, however, if households without resources to purchase or update equipment 

can borrow equipment from others or travel with 

other households who own this equipment. 

Scenario 3: An Increase in the Cost of Hunting - There 

are several variants of this scenario worthy of 

consideration. One is a dramatic increase in fuel 

costs at the pump, affecting the costs of traveling 

on the land to access important resources. Like the 

scenario described above, we can anticipate that 

households economically at the margin would be 

most dramatically affected, while households with 

higher cash availability might still have enough 

of an economic buffer to travel as needed. Again, 

social relationships (i.e., social capital) could 

potentially be an important source of adaptive 

capacity through sharing and cooperation (i.e., 

cooperative hunting or contributing in return for 

shares). Even cash-poor households could contribute money or gas to others who are active. 

Scenario 4: Change in Employment - What is the 

consequence of the loss of a job or jobs by high 

harvesters or members of high harvesting households, or if unemployed households become 

employed? The household profiles illustrate that 
Chapter 8 - Persistence, Vulnerability, and Resilience

237

there are individuals within households who are 

very productive harvesters, and who work full-time 

and manage their weekends and off-work periods 

to maximize hunting and fishing (High Income 

- High Harvest households; n = 10, 12, and 16 in 

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, respectively). 

Likewise, there are households with individuals 

who do not work, but who are prolific hunters with 

great importance within local sharing and cooperation networks (n = 5, 10, and 4 households in 

Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, respectively). 

In either case, one may ask what happens if these 

individuals either become employed (losing time to 

be out on the land) or lose a job (losing economic 

resources they had available to do subsistence)? 

Because both these types of households are disproportionately important in terms of sharing 

food, equipment, etc., across households within 

communities, a change in their status may have 

ramifications beyond just their respective households. Respondents discussed this with researchers 

informally and described how experienced hunters 

made an effort to “train up” younger hunters so 

they could take over, and pointed out individuals 

who did not engage in subsistence when younger, 

only to become more involved with experience 

and maturity. There is a lack of longitudinal data 

that combines economic, subsistence and social 

information that could track such transitions. 

The research of Magdanz et al. (2009) on 

salmon fishing in Teller, Alaska provides a glimpse 

into the potential flexibility of super-household status in villages. Using 10-year panel data, 

they found that the super-household role might 

more flexible than assumed. Households among 

the top tercile of salmon harvesters in one year 

moved between the middle and bottom terciles 

of harvesters in other years. An explanation is 

that different households in communities assume the super-household role over time. 

Combining Scenarios—Harvest and 

Economic Changes

Combining scenarios provides a greater 

appreciation for how multiple exposures could 

ripple through households within a community. 

Figure 8.19 reproduces the adaptive capacity spider 

graphs for the example of Wainwright. A decline 

in employment or a decrease in availability of a 

particular resource might affect only a proportion 

of households within a village. However, given the 

structure of networks and the flows of food and 

contributions through these communities highlighted by this study, it is likely that the effects 

would be more widespread than just those initially 

impacted. For example, an ecological shock might 

negatively affect the success of high harvesting 

households (Figure 8.19 – blue box), but may have 

disproportionately negative community-wide 

effects on distribution as high harvesters redistribute more food on aggregate (blue arrows). There is 

less overall for successful hunters to redistribute. 

In contrast, the loss of employment opportunities 

– for example a downturn in high-paying borough 

employment - might strongly affect high income 

households (Figure 8.19 – red box). With fewer 

economic resources, high income HHs may be 

less able to contribute less to subsistence efforts 

of others (red arrows). In contrast, if food costs 

rise, these changes affect low income households 

disproportionately. Lower income households 

might be less able to contribute important subsistence resources to active hunters/fishers and 

the situation could place additional pressure on 

successful harvesters to share with those in need. 

In short, these thought experiments suggest that households will be differentially affected 

by presses and pulses of change, based on the 

adaptive capacity conferred by assets available 

to them. We therefore suggest that households 

with more economic resources in combination 

with important productive, demographic, and 

social attributes are likely to be less vulnerable to change. Those without either economic 

or social connections (i.e., those at the edge of 

village social networks) may have very low adaptive capacity and in turn be more vulnerable. 

Conclusion 

Community resilience is a dynamic process 

that is extremely difficult to predict a priori, especially given the tremendous capacity for human 

agency—for people to re-organize, re-invent, and 

extend their social networks and economic and 

subsistence activities to new spheres when faced 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 238

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

with adversity and the need for survival. The data 

from this study illustrate considerable complexity 

within communities, but a strong dependence on 

subsistence resources. There would be considerable social and economic costs if key resources 

were no longer available. Study findings, however, 

present a single-year snapshot of conditions of 

households within these three communities. How 

will household attributes contribute or subtract 

from shortfalls at the community level? Can the 

mobilization of resources and efforts at collective 

action involving many community households 

result in innovative responses to these scenarios? 

What is the level of flexibility within communities to respond to the loss of important hunters 

and providers? While it is difficult to answer these 

questions, it is clear that persistence, resilience, 

and vulnerability at the household and community levels are related to a great degree to the role 

of social relationships, such as sharing and cooperation. That said, discussions with household 

heads suggested that while communities depend 

on high levels of social capital in subsistence, they 

are flexible and thus able to adapt to many emerging conditions, the combinations of exposures 

could present significant difficulties. Longitudinal 

testing of the validity of adaptive capacity indicators under cumulative conditions of change 

emerges here as a key area for future research. 

¤
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

239

Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

The Sharing Project applied social science research 

methods, including social network analysis, to 

document the subsistence-cash system of 3 Alaska rural 

communities, capturing sharing and cooperation with 

quantifiable measures. The study marks the first 

time that the magnitude of food flowing between 

households was documented, with measures based 

on literature of subsistence and ethnographically 

informed categories that represent subsistence 

household sharing and cooperation. The project 

generated an extensive and rich dataset on a 

number of aspects about communities—household 

demographics and types of employment, the 

cash sector of household economies, harvest—

including level of engagement in household and 

cooperative hunting across multiple species, 

patterns and magnitudes of sharing, shares, and 

other forms of material and non-material exchange 

of subsistence resources, qualitative accounts of 

why community residents share, and measurements 

of household food security. The study is 

unique in that it documented 3 components 

of these mixed economies simultaneously—

harvest, economic activities and the social 

relationships that commonly knit subsistence 

activities together in northern communities.

It’s not surprising that the results of the study 

echo what local residents have articulated for 

years—that subsistence sharing and cooperation 

are extensive and actively practiced as elements of 

Alaska Native culture, and thus, reflect traditional 

values and an underlying indigenous worldview. 

In addition to the project’s findings on sharing and 

cooperation, the study explored questions related to 

community vulnerability and resilience by examining the persistence of subsistence-cash economic 

activities through time, the degree of dependence 

on subsistence foods, levels of household food 

security, characteristics that reflect potential household-level vulnerabilities, and the relationships 

between household harvesting and total household inflows of subsistence foods and household 

income. These findings aid decision makers at all 

level to understand better how communities may 

respond to the future conditions of ecological, 

economic, climatic, social, and or cultural change.

Among the most important contributions of 

the project are that resource management agencies and local communities now have detailed and 

quantified data on subsistence patterns and cultural norms that represent a baseline against which 

future changes can be measured. These data can 

be used in NEPA assessments to avoid, mitigate, 

and evaluate impacts associated with oil and gas 

development. Resource management and other government agencies can also make use of the study’s 

findings to assess the implications of possible 

disruption of subsistence resources and subsistence 

activities from multiple drivers of change (e.g., development with climate change) on various criteria 

of household well-being. Researchers can also draw 

on study findings to address important questions 

about the dynamics of community mixed economies and the vulnerabilities and resilience of these 

systems, and using empirically based evidence, 

begin the difficult process of identifying indicators of adaptive capacity at the community level. 

In the sections below we provide a set of 

middle-rage propositions (Glaser and Strausss 

1967) based on findings of the study, followed by 

general discussion, outstanding questions, and 

recommendations for future research. The discussion included here is not exhaustive. Entire volumes 

can be written about several sub-findings of study. 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 240

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

1. Meaningful partnerships with local communities 

are important in achieving research success. 

The success of this project can be attributed, in 

large part, to the team’s directed efforts at achieving 

a meaningful and high level of community participation in the study, which can be attributed to 

i) a long period of trust building (i.e., researchers’ 

time in community) before the survey was administered; ii.) forming and working closely with Local 

Project Advisory Committees in each community 

that informed project decisions on design; iii.) 

having continuity in members of the research team 

who were interacting with local residents; iv.) local 

leaders who were outspoken about their support of 

the study and who encouraged residents to participate; v.) co-interviewing of household heads by 

select local residents with UAF graduate students; 

active and repeated communication of project 

results to various entities (i.e., to community 

leaders, community residents at large, co-management boards); and vi.) disseminating a series of 

“Community Reports of Sharing Project Findings” 

to individual households written in plain language, 

which made the study accessible to local residents. 

Consequently, the initial study preparation resulted in an extraordinarily high level of participation 

in the survey by household head respondents and 

thus, generated one of the best datasets on subsistence-cash economies for communities of Alaska. 

It is noteworthy that in Kaktovik the research 

team consistently heard considerable concern 

about participation (more than in other communities), with expressions of fear that the project’s 

results may be “used against the community.” 

At the recommendation of the Local Project 

Advisor Committee we produced and distributing a short video about the study that sought to 

clarify project objectives, methods and potential 

benefits, made in collaboration with two local 

Harold Haveolook School students. The video 

included local leaders endorsing the study and 

a DVD copy of the video was distributed to all 

households before administering the survey. It 

was agreed beforehand the film was only for local 

viewing and thus, is not included with this report. 

Two of the three successful Kaktovik whaling 

captains in fall of 2009 ultimately chose not to be 

interviewed, resulting in an incomplete picture 

of the community’s whaling network. However, 

80% of household heads did participate in the 

survey. It is impossible to know now, if and how 

the video increased the level of participation in 

the survey, however, anecdotal discussions with 

community members suggest that it did alleviate some community concerns. With humility 

we mention that in 2011 the Sharing Project and 

its community partners were honored to receive the Secretary of the Department of the 

Interior’s “Partnerships in Conservation Award.” 

2. In small, naturally bounded populations, 

survey methods can quantify flows of food and 

key resources among households, providing a 

new quantitative social indicator of important 

social structures in communities over time.

Development of a method for successfully 

documenting the magnitude of flows of food and 

resources from subsistence sharing and cooperation within communities is a major contribution of 

this study, with the method significantly informed 

through ethnography. We found that household 

heads were capable of recalling inflows to their 

households with good detail, identifying both 

sources and quantities. Estimating pounds of food 

often required substantial “back of the envelope” 

calculations of reported quantities. The study’s 

interview process put a greater burden on respondents, requiring additional time in interviews, with 

whaling captain interviews in some cases being several hours in duration. Documenting the magnitude 

of resource flows also extended to non-material 

contributions, such as loaning of equipment to a 

neighbor for a hunting trip or providing cash for 

gas in exchange for receiving shares of the harvest. 

These findings suggest that future studies can be 

replicated with good accuracy and comparability. 

3. Social relations involving inter-household 

cooperation represent a significant 

portion of household inflows.

A major finding of the study is that between 

67–75% of all food flowing between households 

in all three communities is the result of social 

relationships. Only approximately one-quarter of 
Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

241

documented subsistence food flowing into households in Kaktovik and Wainwright was based on 

household members’ hunting/fishing/gathering 

of subsistence foods by themselves. In Venetie, 

own hunting constituted about one-third of all 

subsistence foods flowing to and between households within the village. While food sharing has 

received the majority of attention in the qualitative 

ethnographic literature and in popular and policy 

narratives around subsistence, other social relationships important within community networks are 

understudied and not well understood. This study 

documented significant sharing of food and nonfood resources. However, cooperative harvesting 

was a particularly important mechanism of food 

flow across all villages and “shares for helping” also 

emerged as significant sources of food and other 

resources for households. Cooperative hunting in 

Kaktovik and Wainwright includes cooperative 

hunting for both non-whale species and bowhead 

and beluga whales (shown in Tables 7.5, and 7.13 as 

“Crew Shares, Towing Shares, and Captains’ Shares” 

– an average of 2,309 lbs per 33 crew members in 

Kaktovik and 1,500 lbs per 53 crew members in 

Wainwright). From 3 harvested bowhead whales, 

102,600 lbs flowed into Kaktovik households and 

an additional 18,800 from beluga. From 3 whales 

in Wainwright, ~132,300 lbs of bowhead was 

received and an additional 11,800 lbs of beluga.

Ethnographic accounts have previously 

noted the critical role of group cooperation in 

harvesting in pre-contact times, such as groups’ 

pre-contact use of Inukshuks (i.e., human-made 

landmarks made of stone) by Iñupiat to direct 

animals to hunters (Burch 1972, Burch 1972) and 

fences by Gwich’in for capturing large numbers 

of caribou (Nelson 1973, Warbelow et al. 1975). 

Anthropologists have also suggested that the 

introduction of firearms and the repeating rifle 

in particular changed the social organization of 

hunting by making harvesting a more individualistic activity (e.g., Caulfield 1983). While that change 

did affect the size of the cooperative harvesting 

groups (e.g., fewer large communal hunts than in 

the past for species like caribou), the findings of 

this study show that the cultural practice of cooperative hunting persists across species in all three of 

the communities (Tables 7.6, 7.14 and 7.21). Why? 

Cooperative harvesting has many benefits, such 

as adding a social dimension to being out “on the 

land” with friends or kin, teaching younger hunters, increasing safety in case of accident (i.e., safety 

in numbers), additional labor when butchering 

and transporting large animals such as moose, and 

increasing the number of observers when looking 

for game. The formalized and highly structured 

whaling crews of Wainwright and Kaktovik represent classic examples of large-scale cooperation in 

subsistence. Crew relationships also extend beyond the harvest of bowhead to other subsistence 

species (e.g., ducks) to meet crew members’ needs 

as well as for formal sharing events staged by the 

crews (e.g., Nalukatuk in both North Slope villages). Examples of cooperation also extend beyond 

hunting/fishing and gathering, to include labor 

exchanges (cooking, child care, etc.), subsistence 

food processing, gear lending/exchanges, and contributions of and trading for fuel and ammunition. 

Many speculate and even question to what extent 

cooperation remains a part of today’s modern-day 

subsistence economy in Alaska Native rural villages. The findings from this study demonstrated 

that in many ways these communities continue to 

realize the ideals of cooperation that are a central 

tenet of their traditional culture. Cultural norms 

are not static and there have been changes over 

time in hunting techniques, technology and hunting patterns based on household employment 

patterns. However, results presented here suggest 

that the residents of these communities are making 

a conscious effort (i.e., exercising human agency) 

to maintain aspects of their traditional culture. 

The spectra of total assimilation into the dominant society predicted by researchers in the 1960s 

(e.g., (Chance and Trudeau 1963; Murphy and 

Steward 1956, Chabot 2003) has not occurred. 

4. There are disparities in cash household income 

in each community, however, differences in 

household income were not systematically 

reflected in households’ engagement and 

production of subsistence foods. 

Findings show that income levels in communities are variable, and range from low to 

high (Figure 8.11). Average household income 

in Venetie was less than 50% that of Wainwright 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 242

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

and Kaktovik ($36,500 compared to $82,845 in 

Kaktovik and $91,191 in Wainwright). While various forms of non-employment cash income (i.e., 

state, village, and regional corporation dividends 

and social assistance) to households contribute 

to household income, employment income is the 

primary sources of cash for most households. 

Government-related employment in all three village 

economies represented the largest source of employment (55% in Wainwright, 61% in Kaktovik 

and Venetie), with high-paying jobs on the North 

Slope accounting for the difference between 

low household income levels in Venetie versus 

higher levels in the two Iñupiat communities. 

Higher income at the household level typically translated into more and better equipment for 

subsistence, more funds for fuel, and potentially 

more resources to purchase store-bought foods 

both in the event of harvesting shortfalls and as 

a primary source of food for some households. 

This finding alone suggests a greater vulnerability for Venetie households where cash availability 

is more limited. Higher dependence on cash can 

also require greater adjustment if there is a change 

in employment. Employment income in all three 

villages is positively correlated with subsistence 

harvest and total inflows of food to households, 

although many correlations are not strong (Tables 

6.43-6.48). We found that many households with 

moderate and high total incomes and levels of 

employment are engaged in subsistence activities in 

terms of hunting and processing. Similarly, many 

households who do not hunt actively still contribute 

to the hunting of others and help to process food 

and attend feasts. This pattern is clear across all 

three communities regardless of household income 

levels. In spite of low overall income, comparable 

numbers of Venetie households are engaged in 

subsistence activities. Food security goals, cultural 

norms and cultural identity emphasizing subsistence values are possible explanations as to why 

the pattern is found across all three communities. 

Not captured in our data or the discussion 

here are levels of household financial support 

available to community members beyond the 

categories of transfer payments and employment. Key here are social and health services 

and subsidies for housing and fuel costs. These 

cash inputs are derived through government 

services and support, such as the at-the-pump 

fuel subsidies of the North Slope Borough. 

5) Respondents’ narratives about sharing indicate 

that households share with relatives and both share 

and “help” other households who are “in need.” 

Patterns of outflows indicate that a significant 

proportion of food does flow from households with 

high producers to households in lower-producing harvest terciles (Figure 8.10d-f), supporting 

the “need-based” giving of food and help to those 

with “less.” This suggests that sharing serves a 

social welfare function for community well-being. Qualitative results support this narrative of 

giving. People reported many reasons for sharing, 

from spiritual and worldview rationales, including a “good feeling” that follows from giving, 

contributions to community cohesion, and tradition. Clearly there is no single stated rationale. 

Those “in need” were described as single mothers, households without hunters, and elders, who 

had “given to many over the years, so should 

receive now that they aren’t active anymore.” 

Additionally, results indicate substantial food 

flows between high producers and medium producers and within producer categories (high to 

high producers, medium to medium producers). 

Some food flowed even between low producers and from low producers upward to medium 

and high producers. Low harvest households in 

Wainwright, Kaktovik, and Venetie, respectively, gave away 300%, 1,030%, and 850% percent 

above what they harvested themselves by weight, 

presumably because of food they had received 

from others and then redistributed or they were 

giving away food they had stored from the previous year. Bodenhorn (2000) articulated multiple 

narratives for giving and cooperation in the title 

of her seminal paper as “It’s good to know who 

your relatives are, but we were taught to share with 

everybody.” Qualitative results indicate that when 

hunting was poor, kinship relationships become 

important when deciding with whom to share. 

Some respondents stated that sharing declined 

when game was scarce, while others described 

sharing more widely when game was less available, 
Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

243

so that more people could “get a taste”. Based on the 

findings of this study, we hypothesize that patterns 

of connectivity can be explained in additional 

detail by accounting for kinship relationships. 

Evidence from northwest Alaska ADFG studies 

have found similar results (Magdanz et al. 2002). 

No data on kinship relationships between households were gathered in this study and thus, further 

research will be needed to explore this hypothesis. 

6) Women and men play different roles 

in the subsistence-cash economy of 

the three study communities. 

While gender was not a primary focus of 

this study, results indicate that men and women 

engaged in subsistence activities differently across 

communities. Generally, men were named more 

frequently as the sources of food (Table 7.24 and 

7.25 shaded areas) and the flows associated with 

food were greater for men in all communities. 

However, results show clearly that women were 

active in subsistence activities and responsible 

for between 29-38% of total ties by count across 

social relationships. They were particularly important for the flows of particular species between 

households, for instance beluga in Wainwright, 

berries in Venetie and Dolly varden in Kaktovik. 

Women accounted for between 37-46% of processing ties within respondent households. 

7) Patterns of sharing and cooperation varied 

by the resource and type of interaction. 

The social organization as shown by social networks underlying hunting and distribution patterns 

reflect the abundance of the resource per unit harvested, timing within a hunting season, geographic 

distribution of the resource by origin, the food’s role 

in the subsistence diet, household preferences, the 

social organization of the hunt by communities, and 

other factors. Network graphs by resource and relation illustrate both the variability and similarities 

of distribution patterns across communities. For 

example, patterns of ties for caribou in Wainwright, 

Kaktovik and Venetie illustrate how important the 

species is by weight, but also socially. Caribou is 

generally harvested by partners or small groups 

of hunters. Total flow for caribou is highest for 

Venetie of all species and 2nd highest for Kaktovik 

and Wainwright after Bowhead (Tables 7.8, 7.16 

and 7.23). Caribou ties were the most numerous 

in Kaktovik and Wainwright and second highest 

(after moose) in Venetie. Average degree per network node for caribou followed the same pattern. 

Caribou-based ties in the North Slope communities 

evidenced the highest density of all species across 

all social relationships (cooperative hunting, helper 

shares, sharing, processing, contributions, etc.). 

This contrasts sharply from patterns identified for 

beluga in Kaktovik and Wainwright. While beluga 

harvesting in both Wainwright and Kaktovik occurs 

based primarily on a community hunt, distribution 

patterns differ markedly. Wainwright distribution 

is undertaken from the beach at the community scale (i.e. a central star pattern). Successful 

Kaktovik beluga hunting groups, however, distribute directly from one of the hunters’ homes. 

Households receive shares from individual hunters 

rather than from the community hunt. In contrast, Bearded seal relations in Kaktovik illustrate 

the role played by a limited set of high-producing 

households and sharing relations with Inuvialuit of 

the Western Canadian Arctic, many of whom have 

kinship relations with Kaktovik Inuvialuit (Chance 

1990, Freeman et al. 1992). Bowhead distribution patterns are clearly differentiated from other 

resources in terms of the important role of crews 

in community-scale distribution of food through 

captain’s feasts and Nalukatuq and the critical 

role that the wider community plays in contributing to the efforts of the whaling crew annually. 

The sparse pattern of sharing money, which 

contrasts strongly with those found for subsistence 

resources, provides an interesting case of how the 

cash economy functions based on a set of parallel 

but potentially very different set of behavioral rules 

than does subsistence cooperation and sharing. 

Networks of cash relations are generally much less 

dense than those for food resources. Results here 

echo those of Magdanz (2011) and Collings (2011), 

suggesting that cash occupies a different meaning than food within the context of subsistence. 

8) The diversity of cooperative and sharing patterns 

for different resources reflects a polycentric (i.e., not 

centralized or uniform in all cases) configuration of 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 244

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

subsistence behaviors that potentially contribute 

to the overall resilience of the system.

In their study of social institutions, Ostrom 

(2010) and others discussed the contributions 

of “polycentric institutions” to the resilience of a 

social-ecological system. Polycentric refers to a 

multi-dimensional, multi-level authority system of 

decision-making (i.e., not centralized). Applying 

that definition to networks of subsistence sharing 

as informal community institutions implies they 

function with no central authority and are instead 

an emergent behavior of people (i.e., households), 

often working independently as well as interdependently. The theory of polycentric institutions 

argues that this strategy of decision making is 

self-organized, and therefore more responsive to 

change. If we view each type of resource x social 

relationship network (e.g., caribou-sharing or 

cooperative moose-hunting) as characterized by 

a unique set of high producers, distributors, and 

receivers, the suite of networks in a community 

are theoretically capable of responding to a diverse set of conditions of resource availability. This 

description corresponds to the concept of network 

multiplexity in that most households are engaged 

with others through more than one kind of network. The idea of different sharing and cooperative 

networks as an assemblage of polycentric informal 

institutions is an idea worthy of further exploration. The logic here is that being connected to other 

households through multiple networks is better 

(i.e., is more stable or confers greater food security 

for households) than being connected through, 

few and sparse networks. These concepts contribute to a broader understanding of “connectivity” 

and its outcomes for households within mixed 

economies in the context of adapting to change. 

9) The pattern of production to total inflow 

is similar to the prediction of Wolfe’s (2009) 

“30:70 rule”, although more skewed based 

on a smaller proportion of harvesters

This study extended Wolfe’s “30:70 rule” on 

harvesting and redistribution to study harvest 

and inflow relationships between households and 

their roles within community subsistence production systems. In Wainwright, 30% of households 

accounted for 76% of the total inflow of food to 

households. In Kaktovik and Venetie, distributions 

were more skewed. Thirty percent of Kaktovik 

households accounted for 81% of the total inflow 

of food to households, while in Venetie, 30% of 

households accounted for 93% of total food flowing 

between HHs (Figure 8.6). Social relationships of 

sharing and shares were particularly important for 

households at the low end of the harvest distribution (Figures 8.7a, 8.7c and 8.7e). These patterns 

raise several questions with respect to community 

resilience and vulnerability. On the one hand, a 

small and core number of subsistence food producers suggests a persistent division of hunting effort 

in subsistence at the community level, leaving other 

households to engage in subsistence in other ways 

(processing, contributing, redistributing through 

sharing) (Figure 8.8), and be highly productive 

in the wage economy. Results indicate that even 

this level of production generates additional food 

that is redistributed. However, dependence on a 

small proportion of producers also sets up vulnerabilities. Would a dramatic decrease in the 

proportion of harvesting households seriously 

affect food production and ultimately households 

meeting their food needs? Should we assume this 

type of change would have implications to total 

redistribution? This change is plausible if there 

were a dramatic increase in kinds of employment 

for key hunters that limited time for hunting or a 

change in fuel prices affecting the ability of hunters to get out, or if there were a change in culture 

affecting motivation to hunt. Viewed from a more 

longitudinal perspective, these patterns of subsistence, sharing and cooperation raise the question 

whether the more recent findings of this study 

represent a greater polarization of hunting effort 

from those documented by Wolfe in the 1980s. 

10) There was a positive relationship 

between high household harvest and 

outflow (i.e., giving) to others. 

We calculated outflows from “source” households to other households in communities by 

summing pounds of food from gifting, helper 

shares, and trading. There is a positive relationship 

between hunting productivity across core species 

and outflows to other households, i.e. those who 
Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

245

hunt more give more (Figure 8.9 - r2 = 0.388). This 

result does not include whaling as these activities 

are not undertaken individually. However, there 

is substantial variability in this relationship. Not 

all highly productive households are the source 

of significant outflows (Figures 8.10a–c). Some 

households that hunt or fish little on their own 

remain the source of significant food given to others based on redistribution of food they received. 

One clear subgroup with negligible harvest, few 

ties, receiving or giving of food were a majority of 

non-Native teachers in the study communities. 

Results support the suggestion made by 

Wolfe and Walker (1987) that at the community scale, super-households (i.e., households 

with high levels of hunting productivity) would 

also act as super-providers. But again, the study 

documented substantial variability in the directionality of giving (Figure 8.10d–f). 

We examined a set of predictors to see 

which ones best explained household outflows 

(in pounds). Independent variables considered 

included harvest (lbs), age of household head, 

number of hunters in households, income and 

household dependency ratio. Household hunting 

productivity in pounds was the strongest predictor of giving across all communities (Wainwright, 

ß = 0.30; Kaktovik ß = 0.51; and Venetie, ß= 

0.32; p< .01), while age was a significant positive predictor of giving in Kaktovik and Venetie 

(Kaktovik ß = 4.5; and Venetie, ß= 2.1; p< .05). 

11) Households across the 3 communities 

were highly connected, but super households 

play a key role in distribution. 

While the three communities studied all 

evidence households strongly connected in networks, a range of network metrics (i.e., degree 

distribution, level of reciprocity, modularity) 

shows that some households are more connected and important within networks than others. 

There are few outliers and separated components 

within villages although clearly, some households remain at the edge of community networks. 

Some highly connected households conform 

to Wolfe’s (1987) description of “super-hunting 

households.” However, households other than 

super-households also lie at the center of community networks based on their overall connectedness 

(i.e. combined indegree and outdegree ties). 

Inflow distributions demonstrate the expected skewed shape within villages (30:70 rule) and 

suggest that in Kaktovik and Venetie, there is even 

stronger dependence on fewer key hunters. The 

analysis discussed in Chapter 8 and point #9 above 

illustrate that if conditions change such that key 

individuals are less able to successfully hunt or 

share/redistribute subsistence foods. Longitudinal 

data presented in Chapter 8 illustrate that communities have been able to adapt to a variety of 

social and economic changes. Past adaptations, 

however, do not guarantee adaptation in the future. 

Although results presented in this study 

provide important clues to existing structures and 

patterns of sharing and cooperation, a weakness 

associated with the data is that results represent sharing and cooperation relationships for 

only one point in time. While results indicate 

the characteristics of households that share and 

cooperate significantly and hunt productively, they do not indicate conclusively how these 

households would respond to potential perturbations; including higher prices, conditions of 

resource scarcity, or greater opportunities for 

employment. In other words, we are left to ask 

how flexible are these documented sharing and 

cooperative networks? When one super-household hunts less, does another step in and fulfill 

their role within a community? Without longitudinal data there are serious limitations associated 

with answering this question with any certainty. 

Magdanz et al. (2009) explored the super-household phenomenon with 10-year panel 

data of household salmon harvests for multiple 

Alaska villages, and found that the super-household role might be more flexible than assumed. 

Households among the top tercile of salmon 

harvesters in one year fell to the middle or bottom terciles of harvesters in other years. Likewise, 

households in the middle tercile occupied top-producer status in other years. An explanation is that 

different households in communities may assume 

the super-household role over time. Nonetheless, 

mixed livelihoods in communities have exhibited 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 246

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

considerable stability, which intuitively implies 

some flexibility in hunting and provider roles 

through time at the household level. However, the 

sources of that stability cannot be discerned from 

single species harvest data alone, or from one year 

of comprehensive harvest data, or from the economic attributes of individuals and households. 

This finding represents a challenge in thinking 

forward about what results in this study imply for 

household vulnerability and resilience. There may 

be some built-in social flexibility in communities to 

respond to changing household circumstances that 

dictate hunting productivity (i.e., job opportunities, 

sickness or injury, age limitations, etc.), but less 

flexibility to respond to ecological changes through 

distributive mechanisms of cooperation and sharing affect both hunters and receiving households 

alike. Thus, the ability of households and communities to respond to change in resource availability 

remains a key question to answer in arctic research.

12) Households both gave and received 

subsistence foods through networks that 

extend beyond the home community. 

The structure of the survey instrument focused attention on village households as receivers. 

Using this approach, networks of both receivers and givers within villages were constructed. 

However, one page at the end of the survey also 

documented “giving” by Kaktovik and Wainwright 

households to other households outside of their 

communities. The specific question posed was: 

In most of this survey, we have asked how 

your household got your traditional foods. 

On this page, we ask the opposite question, with much less detail. During the last 

12 months, did anyone in your household 

GIVE traditional foods or provide equipment, or other help to someone in [study 

community name] or ANOTHER community? (Emphasis original). 

Results from this question were not 

species-specific as gifting responses were 

aggregated into four categories (marine mammals, fish, game, and equipment) and no 

magnitudes were reported associated with 

this gifting data (Figures 7.40 and 7.40). 

Results indicate that households give subsistence food and minimal equipment widely 

beyond village boundaries. Respondent households 

reported 1,572 total instances of gifting, across 

all species groups to households in other Alaska 

communities and towns. Of the 1,572 total gifting 

reports, 69 reports (4.4%) were for gifts to people 

who did not live in Alaska, and 42 of those reports (3%) were to people who lived in Inuvialuit 

communities just across the border in Canada. 

•	 Alaska 1,503 ties (96%) 

•	 Other States 24 ties (2%) 

•	 Canada 42 ties (3%) 

•	 Norway 2 ties (0.1%) 

•	 U.K. 1 tie (0.1%)

All but three of the international gifting 

cases were gifts to residents of Aklavik and Inuvik, 

Northwest Territories from residents of Kaktovik. 

The remaining gifts to international persons 

occurred face to face with individuals present at 

the time in Kaktovik and Wainwright. To consider these cases of gifting in the context of ALL 

sharing data from our study, we can combine data 

from the gifting question above with all other 

reported inflows and outflows (“sharing”). There 

was a total of 12,061 ties or flows from individual sources received by households or individuals. 

For the project as a whole, 99.43% of all reported 

ties and flows were within Alaska. This sharing 

occurred in a culture where working together and 

sharing traditional food are foundational values.

13) Subsistence has persisted in spite 

of residents’ greater engagement in 

the cash sector of the economy. 

Perhaps one of the most telling sources of 

evidence of social resilience is the persistence 

of behavior and system elements through time 

(Chapin et al. 2009). There has been considerable 

debate and speculation about the long-term persistence (and degradation) of subsistence activities 

in rural Alaska communities since engagement in 

the market economy. A comparative analysis of 

past household data for North Slope communities 

of Kaktovik and Wainwright, along with findings 

from this study, show that subsistence systems 
Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

247

in these three villages persist in spite of households’ continued and increased engagement in 

the cash sector of the economy. Currently there is 

concern regarding the implications of oil and gas 

development in combination with climate change 

as a likely future for the region (BurnSilver et al 

submitted). Assessing the vulnerability of households and communities in this scenario is not a 

simple task. As is often the case, projecting future 

conditions requires that assumptions be made, 

meaningful indicators or variables of change be 

identified, and key relationships capturing system 

dynamics be established and applied. This study, 

while providing rich and detailed findings about the 

subsistence-cash economy of community households in three villages, is limited in what can be said 

about responses to future conditions. One aspect 

of that limitation is that little is known about the 

dynamics of sharing and cooperation in times of 

resource scarcity or with landscape and seascape 

change, as noted above. As well, human agency 

adds more complexity to the question of emergent 

responses. In spite of these deficiencies and limitations, there are dimensions of community and 

household vulnerability that were explored in this 

study. (See Chapter 8.) In spite of these uncertainties, it is evident from the findings in this study that 

sharing and cooperation are elements of an active 

and historically resilient subsistent-cash economy, 

providing many households with a level of food 

security that would not be available otherwise. 

14) There was significant household food 

insecurity across the range of household types in 

all three communities, as measured by the USDA 

food security instrument protocol, which raises 

considerable concern and several questions. 

We were surprised to find that households of 

all three communities reported high food insecurity (Kaktovik 45%; Wainwright 43%; Venetie 

35%), results which are similar to food security studies undertaken in the Canadian Arctic 

(Academies 2014). Interestingly, correlations 

between household scale characteristics and level 

of food security were found. Despite high inflows, 

some households reported food insecurity, suggesting that the insecurity may be seasonal, or 

respondents perceived food as potentially insecure. 

However, the USDA questions are about actual 

behavior (e.g., did you miss meals or go hungry) 

and not perceptions. If the measures are correct, 

the findings suggest that a total decrease in subsistence food inflows at the village level would 

have implications for a significant portion of 

the community’s households. More research in 

both the methods and findings related to household and community food security are needed. 

15) Households heterogeneity translates 

into different levels of household and 

community adaptive capacity. 

Many arctic studies describe community 

vulnerability based on coarse or non-existing 

household-level data. Our results indicated significant heterogeneity in the combinations of 

economic, socioeconomic and productive circumstances characterizing households across 

all three communities (see #4 above), and indicates that this tendency to portray community 

vulnerability as “monolithic” or homogeneous 

is highly problematic. The adaptive capacity of 

households in the communities studied here is 

dependent on the combination of abilities, economic capital and social relationships available to 

them. Scaling-up from household to community 

vulnerability may be additionally dependent on 

additional community-scale variables not focused on here, such as community leadership

The findings of this study illustrate that 

household diversity within communities in terms of 

productive and demographic characteristics, social 

relationships (diversity, strength and magnitude) 

and economic activities matter to vulnerability. The 

broader vulnerability literature suggests that diversity in household characteristics can translate into 

different sensitivities and adaptive capacity, and 

therefore heterogeneous outcomes as households 

encounter opportunities and constraints. Therefore, 

profiles of communities as homogeneously “resilient” or “vulnerable” archetypes are problematic. 

At the least, these analyses should carefully distinguish potential outcomes across the range of 

household variability whenever possible. This 

study’s categorization of households by 9 income 

and harvest groups suggests, for example, that some 
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 248

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

households are more vulnerable than others under 

different conditions of change (i.e., low-income, 

unconnected, and low-harvest households are 

more vulnerable to high food and fuel prices than 

high-income, connected, and high-harvest households). These measures serve as a starting point for 

much-needed empirically testing the sensitivity of 

indicator of household adaptive capacity. Questions 

regarding sharing and cooperation (i.e., collective 

action) under future conditions, however, are difficult to assess, especially given the one-time nature 

of our data (see #11 above). The consequence of 

households experiencing stress that affects access 

to subsistence foods could result in significant 

food insecurity, out-migration of certain members 

of the community population, and other forms 

of social disruption. This finding suggests that 

policy makers should be vigilant in decisions that 

could negative affect the flow subsistence foods. 

Recommendations and outstanding 

questions for future research

While this study presents many conclusive 

findings, the assessment of vulnerability and 

resilience of northern communities to oil and 

gas development, climate change, and economic 

change are best characterized as exploratory. While 

findings show that the 3 communities have a high 

dependence on subsistence foods, that sharing and 

cooperation among household members contribute 

significantly to community well-being, and disruption of the subsistence system would potentially 

have a negative effect, knowledge of specific responses to future conditions is not well understood. 

To advance the study of subsistence sharing 

and to assess the potential implications of social-ecological changes on subsistence, additional 

research is needed. First, research is needed to 

explore alternative methodologies for capturing 

community-level sharing that do not require a 

census interviewing of all community household 

heads. To arrive at such methods would require 

experimentation and careful statistical analysis. 

From our experience with this study, further investigations are worth the effort, particularly given 

the current problem of respondent burnout and 

the high cost of research. Second, there is a need 

to repeat a similar research protocol during several 

seasons for comparable results, especially when 

harvesting and/or economic conditions differ. The 

flexibility to conduct research in a year when there 

is fewer caribou or a limited number of whales 

harvested would likely advance our understanding 

of the ways households respond to varying conditions and the variability characterizing dynamics of 

sharing and cooperation. This area of research may 

also identify how resource shortfalls manifest at 

the household level and what resources are needed 

to assist communities as a whole and highly vulnerable households in particular under conditions 

of hardship. Third, the study’s findings on food 

security (i.e. high levels of food insecurity) raise 

questions about the method for the assessment. 

Follow-up questions and perhaps food recall studies 

paired with the food security survey of this study 

may test its validity and reliability. Four, in spite of 

findings that subsistence systems have persisted for 

decades in combination with a cash economy, questions regarding future culture change should not be 

ignored. Past persistence cannot be used to assume 

future resilience. How then will the subsistence 

sector respond to greater infusions of cash? While 

addressing this line of questioning is important, it 

is equally important that it be addressed without 

assumptions of inevitable decline. We should not be 

surprised to find that the subsistence sector increases as more cash finds its way to villages through 

new oil and gas development. Finally, it is also 

important to consider scenarios in which North 

Slope oil and gas production decline to very low 

levels and thus affect employment, social services, 

and fuel subsidies. How would communities and 

households respond to significant reductions in 

services and subsidies if these lead to a reduced 

access to commodity goods? These are some of the 

questions that are worthy of study and build on 

the results of this project, contribute to the policy 

process, and advance understanding of social-ecological system dynamics in northern Alaska. 

Conclusion

Alaskan Natives of the North Slope and interior Alaska have maintained traditional practices 

of extensive sharing and cooperation in subsistence. Practices are underpinned by a worldview 
Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusion

249

and cosmology of respect through reciprocity in 

human-environment and human-human relationships. This study successfully quantified how that 

worldview manifests among households within 

3 Alaskan Native communities as sharing and cooperation. Today community residents of Kaktovik, 

Wainwright, and Venetie can rightfully take pride 

in the extent to which their cultural traditions persist and provide for the well-being of others. In this 

way, sharing and cooperation in subsistence connects households together into networks and is a 

measurable form of community resilience. Evidence 

from this study also demonstrates that while some 

households of communities are more vulnerable 

than others, communities as a whole are also vulnerable to particular kinds of change. Policy makers 

are advised to take notice and maintain, and where 

possible, strengthen the community attributes that 

support sharing and cooperation, while at the same 

time being mindful of the level of risk and potential 

harm of some policy decisions. The study concludes 

by recommending more studies on community 

and household resilience and vulnerability, using 

strong empirically based analyses, which lead to a 

better understanding of the consequence of future 

actions. As demonstrated by this study, it is imperative that such studies be undertaken in strong 

collaboration with study communities to ensure the 

best possible research results and to appropriately 

learn with and from the subjects of the research. 

¤

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

251

Bibliography & 

appendices

Bibliography

Appendix I - Survey Instruments

Appendix II - Conversion Table

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

253

Bibliography

ACIA (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Adger, W. N. (2000). “Institutional Adaptation to Environmental Risk under the Transition in Vietnam.” Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers 90(4): 738-758.

Adger, W. N. (2000). “Social and Ecological Resilience: Are they related?” Progress in Human Geography 24(3 ): 347-

364.

Adger, W. N. (2006). “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16(3): 268-281.

Adger, W. N. and A. Winkels (2007). Vulnerability, poverty and sustaining well-being. Handbook of sustainable 

development. G. Atkinson, S. Dietz and E. Neumayer. Massachusetts, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.: 189-206.

Allen-Arave, W., M. Gurven and K. Hill (2008). “Reciprocal altruism, rather than kin selection, maintains nepotistic 

food transfers on an Ache reservation.” Evolution and Human Behavior 29(5): 305-318.

Anders, G. (1983). “The Role of Alaska Native Corporations in the Development of Alaska.” Development and Change 

14(4): 555-575.

Arctic Council (2013). Arctic Resilience Interim Report. Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience 

Centre

Arnold, R. D. (1976). Alaska Native land claims, Alaska Native Foundation Anchorage.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Basic Books, Inc.

Barnhart, J., L. Brown, J. Evak, J. A. Fall, S. Georgette, L. Hutchinson-Scarborugh, G. Jennings, J. Magdanz, R. Mason, R. 

Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Pedersen, J. Seitz, S. Skaggs, R. T. Stanek, L. Tomrdle, C. J. Utermohle and V. Vanek (1995a). 

An investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Shelf Development in Alaska, I. Introduction. MMS 

95-0010. J. A. Fall and C. J. Utermohle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, U.S. 

Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. Volume 1.

Barnhart, J., L. Brown, J. Evak, J. A. Fall, S. Georgette, L. Hutchinson-Scarborugh, G. Jennings, J. Magdanz, R. Mason, 

R. Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Pedersen, J. Seitz, S. Skaggs, R. T. Stanek, L. Tomrdle, C. J. Utermohle and V. Vanek 

(1995b). An investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Shelf Development in Alaska, II. Prince 

Willam Sound. MMS 95-0011. J. A. Fall and C. J. Utermohle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence, U.S. Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. Volume 2.

Barnhart, J., L. Brown, J. Evak, J. A. Fall, S. Georgette, L. Hutchinson-Scarborugh, G. Jennings, J. Magdanz, R. Mason, R. 

Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Pedersen, J. Seitz, S. Skaggs, R. T. Stanek, L. Tomrdle, C. J. Utermohle and V. Vanek (1995c). 

An investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Shelf Development in Alaska, III. Lower Cook Inlet. 

MMS 95-0012. J. A. Fall and C. J. Utermohle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, U.S. 

Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. Volume 3.

Barnhart, J., L. Brown, J. Evak, J. A. Fall, S. Georgette, L. Hutchinson-Scarborugh, G. Jennings, J. Magdanz, R. Mason, 

R. Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Pedersen, J. Seitz, S. Skaggs, R. T. Stanek, L. Tomrdle, C. J. Utermohle and V. Vanek 

(1995d). An investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Shelf Development in Alaska, IV. Kodiak 

Island. MMS 95-0013. J. A. Fall and C. J. Utermohle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

U.S. Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. Volume 4.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 254

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Barnhart, J., L. Brown, J. Evak, J. A. Fall, S. Georgette, L. Hutchinson-Scarborugh, G. Jennings, J. Magdanz, R. Mason, R. 

Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Pedersen, J. Seitz, S. Skaggs, R. T. Stanek, L. Tomrdle, C. J. Utermohle and V. Vanek (1995e). 

An investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Shelf Development in Alaska, V. Alaska Peninsula 

and Arctic. MMS 95-0014. J. A. Fall and C. J. Utermohle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence, U.S. Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. Volume 5.

Barnhart, J., L. Brown, J. Evak, J. A. Fall, S. Georgette, L. Hutchinson-Scarborugh, G. Jennings, J. Magdanz, R. Mason, R. 

Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Pedersen, J. Seitz, S. Skaggs, R. T. Stanek, L. Tomrdle, C. J. Utermohle and V. Vanek (1995f). 

An investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Shelf Development in Alaska, VI. Conclusions. 

MMS 95-0015. J. A. Fall and C. J. Utermohle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, U.S. 

Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. Volume 6.

Berman, M., Kofinas, G., and Burnsilver, S. (2016). Measuring Community Adaptive and Transformative Capacity in 

the Arctic Context. Arctic Sustainabilities. G. F. a. G. Wilson, Heidelberg: Springer.

Bernard, H. R. (1988). Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology. NewBery Park, Sage Press.

Bickel, G., M. Nord, C. Price, W. Hamilton and J. Cook (2000). Guide to measuring household food security. US 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation.

Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology: A Case Study in Archaeological Formation Processes. Academic 

Press, New York.

Bockstoce, J. R. (1986). Whales, Ice, and Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic. Seattle, University of 

Washington Press.

Bockstoce, J. R. (2009). Furs and frontiers in the far North: The contest among Native and foreign nations for the Bering 

Strait fur trade. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.

Bodenhorn, B. (1988). “Whales, souls, children, and other things that are’ good to share’: core metaphors in a 

contemporary whaling society.” Cambridge Anthropology 13(1): 1-19.

Bodenhorn, B. (2000a). “He used to be my relative’: Exploring the bases of relatedness among Iñupiat of northern 

Alaska.” Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship: 128-148.

Bodenhorn, B. (2000b). “It’s Good to Know Who Your Relatives Are but We Were Taught to Share with Everybody : 

Shares and Sharing among Inupiaq Households.” SENRI Ethnological Studies 53: 27-60.

Bodenhorn, B. A. (1989). ‘THE ANIMALS COME TO ME, THEY KNOW I SHARE’: INUPIAQ KNISHIP, CHANGING 

ECONOMIC RELATIONS AND ENDURING WORLD VIEWS ON ALASKA’S NORTH SLOPE. PhD Thesis, 

University of Cambridge.

Bodfish, W. (1991). Kusiq: an Eskimo life history from the Arctic coast of Alaska, University of Alaska Press.

Boorman, S. A. and H. C. White (1976). “Social Structure from Multiple Networks. II. Role Structures.” American 

Journal of Sociology 81(6): 1384-1446.

Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett and L. C. Freeman (2002). “Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis.” 

Supply Chain Management 45(2): 5-22.

Borgatti, S. P. and X. U. N. Li (2009a). “On Social Network Analysis in a Supply Chain Context.” Journal of Supply Chain 

Management 45(2): 5-22.

Borgatti, S. P., A. Mehra, D. J. Brass and G. Labianca (2009b). “Network Analysis in the Social Sciences.” Science

323(5916): 892-895.

Braund, S. R., D. C. Burnham, T. P. Holmes, L. Moorehead and J. A. Kruse (1988). North Slope Subsistence Study 

Barrow, 1987. Stephen Braund and Associates. Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska 

Anchorage, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

88-0080.

Braund, S. R., D. C. Burnham, E. Loring, L. Moorehead, T. P. Holmes and J. A. Kruse (1989a). North Slope Subsistence 

Study Wainwright, 1988. Stephen Braund and Associates Institute of Social and Economic Research University of 

Alaska Anchorage, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study 

MMS 89-0078.
Bibliography

255

Braund, S. R., T. P. Holmes, J. A. Kruse, L. Moorehead, E. Witten, D. C. Burnham and S. Stoker (1989b). North Slope 

Subsistence Study Barrow, 1988. Stephen Braund and Associates, Institute of Social and Economic Research 

University of Alaska Anchorage, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS 

Region. OCS Study MMS 89-0077.

Braund, S. R., E. Loring, L. Moorehead, D. C. Burnham, J. A. Kruse, S. Stoker, M. Glen, E. Witten and T. P. Holmes 

(1989c). North Slope Subsistence Study Wainwright, 1988 and 1989. Stephen Braund and Associates, Institute 

of Social and Economic Research Iniversity of Alaska Anchorage, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral 

Management Service Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 91-0073.

Braund, S. R. and J. Kruse, Eds. (2009). Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to 

Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska. MMS OCS Study Number 2009-006, Stephen R. Braund & 

Associates.

Brøsted, J. (1975). Ulgunik: a report on integration and village organization in Alaska. Copenhagen, Brøsted.

Brower, H. K., T. P. Olemaun and T. Hepa (2000). North Slope Borough Subsistence Harvest Documentation Project: 

Data for Kaktovik, Alaska for the Period December 1, 1994, to November 30, 1995. Barrow, Alaska, Department 

of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough.

Buckland, R. B. and G. Gérard (2002). Goose production, Rome: United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization.

Burch, E. S. (1975). Eskimo kinsmen: Changing family relationships in northwest Alaska, St. Paul: West Publishing 

Company.

Burch, E. S. (2006). Social life in northwest Alaska: The structure of Inupiaq Eskimo nations, University of Alaska Press.

Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Harvard university press.

Butts, C. T. (2009). “Revisiting the Foundations of Network Analysis.” Science 325(5939): 414-416.

Caulfield, R. (1983). Subsistence Land Use in Upper Yukon Porcupine Communities, Alaska. Juneau, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Caulfield, R. A. (1992). “Alaska’s subsistence management regimes.” Polar Record 28(164): 23-32.

Chabot, M. (2003). “Economic changes, household strategies, and social relations of contemporary Nunavik Inuit.” 

Polar Record 39(01): 19-34.

Chambers, R. and G. Conway (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. I. D. P. 296. 

Brighton, Sussex, UK., Institute of Development Studies.

Chance, N. A. (1966). The Eskimo of North Alaska. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Chance, N. A. (1990). The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: an Ethnography of Development. United States of America, Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston.

Chapin III, F. S., M. Hoel, S. R. Carpenter, J. Lubchenco, B. Walker, T. V. Callaghan, C. Folke, S. A. Levin, K.-G. Mäler 

and C. Nilsson (2006). “Building resilience and adaptation to manage Arctic change.” AMBIO: A Journal of the 

Human Environment 35(4): 198-202.

Chapin III, F. S., G. P. Kofinas, C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, P. Olsson, N. Abel, R. Biggs, R. L. Naylor, E. Pinkerton and 

D. M. S. Smith (2009). Resilience-based stewardship: strategies for navigating sustainable pathways in a changing 

world. Principles of ecosystem stewardship, Springer: 319-337.

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto & Singapore, John Wiley & Sons.

Collings, P. (2011). “Economic strategies, community, and food networks in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, 

Canada.” Arctic 64(2): 2007-2219.

Collings, P., G. Wenzel and R. G. Condon (1998). “Modern food sharing networks and community integration in the 

central Canadian Arctic.” Arctic 51(4): 301-314.

Condon, R. G., P. Collings and G. Wenzel (1995). “The best part of life: Subsistence hunting, ethnicity, and economic 

adaptation among young adult Inuit males.” Arctic 48(1): 31-46.

Dahl, J. (2000). Saqqaq: an Inuit hunting community in the modern world, University of Toronto Press.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 256

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Damas, D. (1972). “Central Eskimo Systems of Food Sharing.” Ethnology 11(3): 220-240.

Davidson, D. J. (2010). “The Applicability of the Concept of Resilience to Social Systems: Some Sources of Optimism 

and Nagging Doubts.” Society & Natural Resources 23 1135-1149.

DeFries, R., G. P. Asner and J. Foley (2006). “A Glimpse Out the Window: Landscapes, Livelihoods, and the Environment.” 

Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 48(8): 22-36.

Denham, W. W. and D. R. White (2005). “Multiple measures of Alyawarra kinship.” Field Methods 17(1): 70-101.

Dunne, J. A., R. J. Williams and N. D. Martinez (2002). “Food-web structure and network theory: the role of connectance 

and size.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(20): 12917-12922.

Einarsson, N., J. N. Larsen, A. Nilsson and O. R. Young, Eds. (2004). Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR). 

Akureyri, Iceland, Stefansson Arctic Institute.

Erdos, P. and A. Renyi (1959). “On random graphs I.” Publicationes Mathematicae 6: 290-297.

Estrada, E. and Ö. Bodin (2008). “Using Network Centrality Measures to Manage Landscape Connectivity.” Ecological 

Applications 18(7): 1810-1825.

Fall, J. A., R. Miraglia, W. Simeone, C. J. Utermohle and R. J. Wolfe (2001). Long-Term Consequences of the Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill for Coastal Communities of Southcentral Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division 

of Subsistence, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2000-0032.

Fuller, A. S. and J. C. George (1997). Evaluation of Sutsistence Harvest Data from the North Slope Borough 1993 Census 

for Eight North Slope Villages: for the calendar year 1992. Barrow, Alaska, Department of Wildlfie Management, 

North Slope Borough.

Galginaitis, M. (2014). Monitoring Cross Island Whaling Activities, Beaufort Sea, Alaska: 2008-2012 Final Report, 

Incorporating ANIMIDA and cANIMIDA (2001-2007). Anchorage, AK, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Region.

Ganapathy, U. (1996). Interactions between wage employment and subsistence lifestyle: oil development on the North 

Slope, Alaska. Doctor of Philosophy in Economics-Marine Resources, University of Rhode Island.

Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strausss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, 

Adline and Atherton.

Goerner, S. J., B. Lietaer and R. E. Ulanowicz (2009). “Quantifying economic sustainability: Implications for freeenterprise theory, policy and practice.” Ecological Economics 69(1): 76-81.

Goodreau, S. M. (2006). “Assessing the Effects of Human Mixing Patterns on Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 

Interhost Phylogenetics Through Social Network Simulation.” Genetics 172(4): 2033-2045.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). “The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.” Sociological Theory 1(1): 201-233.

Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling, Eds. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural 

Systems. Washington, Island Press.

Gurven, M., W. Allen-Arave, K. Hill and A. M. Hurtado (2001). “Reservation food sharing among the Ache of Paraguay.” 

Human Nature 12(4): 273-297.

Gusey, W. F. (1983). Bowhead. Houston, Texas, Environmental Affairs, Shell Oil Company.

Hall, E. S. J., Ed. (1976). Contributions to anthropology: the interior peoples of northern Alaska. National Museum 

of Man Mercury Series. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 49. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada 

Henrich, N. and J. P. Henrich (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. New York, 

Oxford University Press.

Hess, B. (1993). Taking Control: The North Slope Borough: The Story of Self Determination in the Arctic. Barrow, 

Alaska, North Slope Borough Public Information Division.
Bibliography

257

Holland, J. H. (1992). “Complex adaptive systems.” Daedalus: 17-30.

Hovelsrud-Broda, G. (2000). “”Sharing”, Transfers, Transactions and the Concept of Generalized Reciprocity.” SENRI 

Ethnological Studies 53: 193-214.

Hughes, C. C., K. B. Smith, E. Carpenter, N. A. Chance, R. Cohen, S. P. Dunn, E. Dunn, R. Dunning, I. Gurvich, L. 

Fineberg, J. J. Honigmann, H. Israel, H. Kleivan, G. Nellemann and J. W. VanStone (1965). “Under Four Flags: 

Recent Culture Change Among the Eskimos [and Comments and Reply].” Current Anthropology 6(1): 3-69.

Ivie, P. and W. S. Schneider (1988). Wainwright: land use values through time in the Wainwright area, North Slope 

Borough and the Anthropology and Historic Preservation Section of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University 

of Alaska.

Jackson, M. O. (2011). Chapter 12 - An Overview of Social Networks and Economic Applications*. Handbook of Social 

Economics. J. Benhabib, A. Bisin and M. O. Jackson, North-Holland. Volume 1: 511-585.

Jenness, D. (1962). Eskimo Administration: I: Alaska. Arctic Institute of North America. Technical Paper No. 10.

Jensen, A. M. (2014). The archaeology of north Alaska: Point Hope. Foragers of Point Hope the Biology and 

Archaeology of Humans on the edge of the Alaskan Arctic. C. E. Hilton, B. M. Auerbach and L. W. Cowgill, 

Cambridge University Press: 11-35.

Jorgensen, J. G. and G. I. Langmuir (1990). Oil Age Eskimos. Berkeley, Univ of California Press.

Jorgenson, J. G. (1995). Social Indicators Study of Alaska Coastal Villages VI. Analysis of the Exon Valdez Spill Area, 

1988-1992. MMS. Human Relations Area Files, Inc. New Haven, Connecticut, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mineral Management Service Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 94-0064.

Kassam, K.-A. and W. T. Council (1964). Passing on the Knowledge: Mappping Human Ecology in Wainwright, Alaska. 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Arctic Institute of North America.

Kishigami, N. (2000). “Contemporary Inuit food sharing and hunter support program of Nunavik, Canada.” The Social 

Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and Modern Hunter-Gatherers(53): 171-192.

Kishigami, N. (2004). “A New Typology of Food-Sharing Practices among Hunter-Gatherers, with a Special Focus on 

Inuit Examples.” Journal of Anthropological Research 60(3): 341-358.

Kishigami, N. (2013). “On Sharing of Bowhead Whale Meat and Maktak in an Inupiat Community of Barrow, Alaska, 

USA.” Bulletin of the Hokkaido Museum of Northern Peoples 22: 1-19.

Kofinas, G., D. Clark, G. K. Hovelsrud, L. Alessa, H. Amundsen, M. Berman, F. Berkes, F. S. C. III, B. Forbes, J. Ford, C. 

Gerlach and J. Olsen. (2013). Adaptive and Transformative Capacity. Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013. Arctic 

Council. Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre: 71-91.

Kofinas, G. P., F. S. Chapin III, S. BurnSilver, J. I. Schmidt, N. L. Fresco, K. Kielland, S. Martin, A. Springsteen and T. 

S. Rupp (2010). “Resilience of Athabascan subsistence systems to interior Alaska’s changing climate.” Canadian

Journal of Forest Research 40:: 1347-1359.

Koster, J. (2011). “Interhousehold Meat Sharing among Mayangna and Miskito Horticulturalists in Nicaragua.” Human 

Nature 22(4): 394-415.

Krech III, S. (1979). “Interethnic Relations in the Lower Mackenzie River Region.” Arctic Anthropology 16(2): 102-122.

Kruse, J., B. Poppel, L. Abryutina, G. Duhaime, S. Martin, M. Poppel, M. Kruse, E. Ward, P. Cochran and V. Hanna 

(2008). Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA). Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe. V. 

Moller, D. Huschka and A. C. Michalos. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands. 33: 107-134.

Kruse, J. A. (1991). “Alaska Iñupiat Subsistence and Wage Employment Patterns: Understanding Individual Choice.” 

Human Organization 50(4): 317-326.

Kruse, J. A. (1992). Alaska North Slope Inupiat Eskimo and Resource Development: Why the Apparent Success? 

presented at American Association for the Advancement of Science. Chicago.

Kruse, J. A. and K. Foster (1986). Changes in rural Alaska settlement patterns. Anchorage, University of Alaska: 

Institute of Social and Economic Research.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 258

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Kruse, J. A., R. G. White, H. E. Epstein, B. Archie, M. Berman, S. R. Braund, F. S. Chapin, J. Charlie, C. J. Daniel and J. 

Eamer (2004). “Modeling sustainability of Arctic communities: an interdisciplinary collaboration of researchers 

and local knowledge holders.” Ecosystems 7(8): 815-828.

Langdon, S. and R. Worl (1981). Distribution and Exchange of Subsistence Resources in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska, 

U.S. Department of Fish and Game: 126.

Langdon, S. J., Ed. (1986). Contemporary Alaskan Native Economies. Lanham, University Press of America.

Langdon, S. J. (1994). The Native People of Alaska. Anchorage, Greatland Graphics.

Lansing, J. S. and J. N. Kremer (1993). “Emergent Properties of Balinese Water Temple Networks: Coadaptation on a 

Rugged Fitness Landscape.” American Anthropologist 95(1): 97-114.

Larsen, J. N. and G. Fondahl (2015). Arctic Human Development Report: Regional Processes and Global Linkages. 

Copenhagen, Denmark, Norden: pp.507.

Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge, Cambridge University 

Press.

Libbey, D. (1983). Kaktovik area cultural resource survey, North Slope Borough Planning Department.

Lonner, T. (1986). Subsistence as an Economic System in Alaska: Theoretical Observations and Management 

Implications. Contemporary Subsistence Economies of Alaska. S. J. Langdon. Lanham, University Press of 

America, Inc.: 15-29.

Luton, H. H. (1985). Effects of Renewable Resource Harvest Disruptions on Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Systems: 

Wainwright, Alaska. Technical Report 91. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska OCS Social Economic Studies Program 

United States. Minerals Management Service. Alaska OCS Region, John Muir Institute.

Magdanz, J. S., D. S. Koster, L. Naves and P. Fox (2011). Subsistence Harvests in Northwest Alaska, Buckland and Kiana, 

2003 and 2006. Anchorage, Alaska, ADF&G Division of Subsistence.

Magdanz, J.S., E. Trigg, A. Ahmasuk, P. Nanouk, D. S. Koster and K. Kamletz (2009). Patterns and Trends in Subsistence 

Salmon Harvests, Norton Sound–Port Clarence Area, Alaska 1994–2003. American Fisheries Society Symposium.

Magdanz, J. S., R. R. Walker and R. R. Paciorek (2004). The Subsistence Harvests of Wild Foods by Residents of 

Shungnak, Alaska, 2002. Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 279: 88.

Magdanz, J. S., C. J. Utermohle and R. J. Wolfe (2002). The Production and Distribution of Wildfood in Wales and 

Deering, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Technical Paper 259.

Metcalfe, D. and K. T. Jones (1988). “A Reconsideration of Animal Body-Part Utility Indices.” American Antiquity 

53(3): 486-504.

Milan, F. A. (1967). “The acculturation of the contemporary Eskimo of Wainwright, Alaska.” University Of Alaska. 

Anthropological Papers 11(2): 1-95.

Milgram, S. (1967). “The small world problem.” Psychology Today 2(1): 60-67.

Morehouse, T. A. and L. Leask (1980). “Alaska’s North Slope Borough: oil, money and Eskimo self-government.” Polar 

Record 20(124): 19-29.

Murphy, R. and J. Steward (1956). “Tapper and Trappers: Parallel Process in Acculturation.” Economic Development and 

Culture Change 4: 393-408.

National Research Council (2003). Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North 

Slope. Committee on the Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. 

Washington, National Academy of Sciences.

Nelson, R. (1973). Hunters of the Northern Forest: Designs for Survival Among the Alaskan Kutchin. Chicago, University 

of Chicago Press.

Nelson, R. K. (1969). Hunters of the northern ice. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Nelson, R. K. (1981). Harvest of the Sea: Coastal Subsistence in Modern Wainwright. Wainwright, North Slope 

Bourough’s Coastal Management Program: 1-126.
Bibliography

259

Nielson, J. M. (1977). Kaktovik, Alaska: an overview of relocations, North Slope Borough.

Nowak, M. (1975). “Subsistence Trends in a Modern Eskimo Community.” Arctic 28(1): 21-34.

Nuttall, M. (2000). Choosing kin: sharing and subsistence in a Greenlandic hunting community, Routledge - Taylor & 

Francis Group.

Okada, M. M. (2010). The Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches for measuring Traditional Food 

Sharing on Communities of the North Slope of Alaska. Master’s Thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Osgood, C. (1936). “Contributions to the Ethnography of the Kutchin (reprinted 1970).” Yale University Publications 

in Anthropology Number 14, New Haven.

Ostrom, E. (2010). “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American 

Economic Review 100(3): 641-672.

Overpeck, J., K. Hughen, D. Hardy, R. Bradley, R. Case, M. Douglas, B. Finney, K. Gajewski, G. Jacoby, A. Jennings, 

S. Lamoureux, A. Lasca, G. MacDonald, J. Moore, M. Retelle, S. Smith, A. Wolfe and G. Zielinski (1997). “Arctic 

Environmental Change of the Last Four Centuries.” Science 278(5341): 1251-1256.

Pedersen, S. (1990). Caribou Hunting: Land Use Dimensions, Harvest Level, and Selected Aspects of the Hunt During 

Regulatory Year 1987-88 in Kaktovik, Alaska. Technical Paper 172. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Pérez-Escamilla, R., A. M. Segall-Corrêa, L. K. Maranha, M. d. F. A. Sampaio, L. Marín-León and G. Panigassi (2004). 

“An adapted version of the US Department of Agriculture Food Insecurity module is a valid tool for assessing 

household food insecurity in Campinas, Brazil.” The Journal of Nutrition 134(8): 1923-1928.

Plattner, S. (1989). Economic Anthropology, Stanford University Press.

Poppel, B. and J. Kruse (2009). The Importance of a Mixed Cash- and Harvest Herding Based Economy to Living in the 

Arctic - An Analysis on the Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA). Quality of Life and the Millennium 

Challenge. V. Møller and D. Huschka, Springer. 35: 27-42.

Raboff, A. P. (1999). “Preliminary Study of the Western Gwich’in Bands.” American Indian culture and research journal 

23(2): 1-25.

Remie, C. (1984). How Ukpaktoor Lost His Buttock and What He Got in Exchange for it: Cultural Changes Amongst 

the Arviligdjuarmiut of Pelly Bay, Northwest Territories, Canada. Life and survival in the Arctic: Cultural changes 

in the Polar regions. G. Nooter, The Hague: Government Printing Office: 97-120.

Rex, P. C. (1994). A settlement study of the village of Wainwright, Alaska. Masters Thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, Free Press 

Rogers, G. W. (1970). Change in Alaska: the 1960’s and after. Change in Alaska: People, Petroleum and Politics. G. W. 

Rogers. College, University of Alaska Press, College.

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. London, Routledge.

Schneider, W. and D. Libbey (1979). Native Livelihood and Dependence: A Study of Land Use Values Through 

Time. Native livelihood and dependence: a study of land values through time. N. S. Borough. Anchorage, U.S. 

Department of Interior.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working paper 72.

Sharman Haley (2004). “Institutional Assets for Negotiating the Terms of Development: Indigenous Collective Action 

and Oil in Ecuador and Alaska.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 53(1): 191-213.

Slobodin, R. (1981). Kutchin. Handbook of North American Indians: The Subarctic. Washington, Smithsonian Institute. 

6: 514-532.

Spencer, R. F. (1959). The North Alaskan Eskimo: A study in ecology and society. Washington, Smithsonian Institution 

Press.

Stern, P. (2005). “Wage labor, housing policy, and the nucleation of Inuit households.” Arctic Anthropology 42(2): 66-81.

Strausss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury 

Park, Sage Publications.
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02 260

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Strausss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Swindale, A. and P. Bilinsky (2006). “Development of a universally applicable household food insecurity measurement 

tool: process, current status, and outstanding issues.” The Journal of Nutrition 136(5): 1449S-1452S.

Turner, B. L., E. F. Lambin and A. Reenberg (2007). “The emergence of land change science for global environmental 

change and sustainability.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(52): 20666-20671.

Tussing, A. R., G. W. Rogers and V. Fischer (1971). Alaska pipeline report: Alaska’s economy, oil and gas industry 

development, and the economic impact of building and operating the trans-Alaska pipeline. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska.

Usher, P. J. (1981). Subsistence or Recreation? The Future of Native Wildlife Harvesting in Northern Canada. Proceedings, 

First International Symposium on Renewable Resources and the Economy of the North. M. Freeman. Ottawa, 

Association of Canadian University of Northern Studies, Canada Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program: 56-71.

VanStone, J. W. (1960). “A Successful Combination of Subsistence and Wage Economies on the Village Level.” Economic 

Development and Cultural Change 8(2): 174-191.

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter and A. Kinzig (2004). “Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-

-ecological systems.” Ecology and Society 9(2).

Walker, B. H., J. M. Anderies, A. P. Kinzig and P. Ryan (2006). “Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems 

Through Comparative Studies and Theory Development: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Ecology and Society 

11(1).

Warbelow, C., D. Roseneau and P. Stern (1975). The Kutchin Caribou Fences of Northeastern Alaska and the Northern 

Yukon. Chapter IV. Studies of Large Mammals along the Proposed Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline Route from 

Alaska to British Columbia. Biological Report Series. Volume Thirty Two. J. R. D., Renewable Resources Consulting 

Services Ltd.: p. 129.

Watts, D. J. and S. H. Strogatz (1998). “Collective dynamics of `small-world’ networks.” Nature 393(6684): 440-442.

Wenzel, G. W. (1981). “Clyde Inuit adaptation and ecology: The organization of subsistence.” Musée National de 

l’Homme. Collection Mercure. Division d’Ethnologie. Service Canadien d’Ethnologie. Dossier Ottawa.

Wenzel, G. W. (1995). “Ningiqtuq: 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.” SENRI Ethnological Studies (53): 61-85.

Wenzel, G. W., G. K. Hovelsrud-Broda and N. Kishigami, Eds. (2000). The social economy of sharing: resource allocation 

and modern hunter-gatherers, National Museum of Ethnology.

Wiklund, E., G. Finstad, L. Johansson, G. Aguiar and P. Bechtel (2008). “Carcass composition and yield of Alaskan 

reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) steers and effects of electrical stimulation applied during field slaughter on 

meat quality.” Meat Science 78(3): 185-193.

Wolfe, R. J. (2004). Local Traditions and Subsistence: A Synopsis from Twenty-Five Years of Research by the State of 

Alaska. Technical Paper No. 284. Juneau, Alaska Department of Fish and Game: 89.

Wolfe, R. J. (1984). “Commercial fishing in the hunting-gathering economy of a Yukon River Yup’ik society.” Etudes/

Inuit/Studies 8: 159-183.

Wolfe, R. J. and R. J. Walker (1987). “Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development 

Impacts.” Arctic Anthropology 24(2): 56-81.

Wolfe, R., C. L. Scott, W. E. Simeone, C. J. Utermohle and M. C. Pete (2009a). The “Super-Household” in Alaska Native 

Subsistence Economies. National Science Foundation.

Wolfe, Robert, Cheryl Scott, William Simeone, Charles Utermohle, and Mary Pete (2009b) The “Super-Household” in 

Alaska Native Subsistence Economies: A Report to the National Science Foundation, ARC 0352611. San Marcos: 

Robert J. Wolfe and Associates.
Bibliography

261

Woodburn, J. (1998). Sharing is not a form of exchange: An analysis of property-sharing in immediate return huntergatherer societies. Property relations: renewing the anthropological tradition. C. M. Hann. Cambridge, Cambridge 

University Press: 48-63.

Worl, R. (1980). The North Slope Inupiat Whaling Complex in Alaska Native Culture and History. Alaska Native 

Culture and History. W. B. Workman and Y. Kotani. Osaka, Japan National Museum of Ethnology. 4: 305-320.

Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

263

Appendix i

The Survey Instrument

THE SHARING PROJECT SURVEY

KAKTOVIK, ALASKA

COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

NATIVE VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

PO BOX 42 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA - FAIRBANKS

KAKTOVIK, AK 99747 BOX 75700

FAIRBANKS, AK 99775

907-640-2042 907-474-7078

DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SECTION

ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH & GAME BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

BOX 689 3801 CENTERPOINT DRIVE, SUITE 500

KOTZEBUE, AK 99752 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503-5202

800-478-3420 907-334-5283

 For more information about the project, contact Gary Kofinas

 School of Natural Resources & Agricultural Sciences, UAF

 (907) 474-7078, gpkofinas@alaska.edu

HOUSEHOLD ID:

COMMUNITY ID: KAKTOVIK 177

RESPONDENT ID:

INTERVIEWER: 

INTERVIEW DATE: 

START TIME:

STOP TIME:

DATA CHECKED BY:

DATA CODED BY:

DATA ENTERED BY:

SUPERVISOR:

OMB Control # 1010-0184

Expiration Date: 09-30-2013
Study of Sharing to Assess Community Resilience

CONSENT FORM COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 177

Consent Form

Identify who is the “head” or “heads” of the household. Give copy of one-page summary about 

the project to respondent. Read or summarize to person/people to be interviewed. 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Native Village of Kaktovik are partnering in a project on 

sharing relationships that are part of the mixed economy of the North Slope and Interior Alaska. The 

project is funded by BOEMRE (The Bureau of Ocean Environment Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement). As a part of the project, I would like to interview you about the ways your household is 

supported economically and the ways traditional foods come into your household. 

Many studies have tried to document the harvest of wild foods, but they have not accounted for the 

sharing that helps to support families in village Alaska. This project is different. Similar to other projects, 

we would like to ask how much wild food your household harvested last year, who lived in your 

household, and what kind of jobs and income your family members had last year. But we would also like 

to ask you about the ways that traditional foods came into your household – either through sharing, 

cooperative hunting, exchanges of equipment, gifting, or other forms of help. We are documenting sharing 

to understand how households manage for environmental and economic changes, such as oil and gas 

development and climate change. Having this information now will help Kaktovik document the effects of 

these changes in the future. 

This project involves the villages of Wainwright, Kaktovik and Venetie. It is our goal to interview the heads

of every household in all three villages. 

We expect that the interview will take about 1 to 1 1/2 hours to complete. As a thank you for your time, we

would like to give you $50 per hour of interviewing time, up to a maximum of $100. 

Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to not answer certain questions. Your name 

will remain anonymous. We will not put your name or the name and location of any households in our 

reports. If you would like to complete this interview in your own language, we will arrange to have a 

translator join us. Please do not hesitate to ask questions or clarification at any time during the interview. 

Once the survey is completed, the connection between respondents and responses will be destroyed. 

All the information from the project will be returned to the Native Village of Kaktovik for its review before 

the information is released as a report. A summary about the project will be made available to residents of 

each village through posters, reports, and public meetings. A copy of the summary report will be mailed to 

you. As well, we will use the information from our study to write papers to be presented at conferences or 

written for professional journals. 

To summarize: 

• Participation in the interview and parts of the interview is voluntary and anonymity will be 

maintained. 

• Your name will not appear on the survey. 

• Neither your name nor the name of anyone else will appear in any reports or papers. 

• The Native Village of Kaktovik will review the final report before it is released. 

• Results from interviews will be summarized, returned to the communities, and distributed for 

discussion. 

• A copy of the summary report will be mailed to you. 

►Are you willing to be interviewed? ................................................................................... Yes No 

 If NO, stop interview. If YES, continue and read the following example. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (PRA) STATEMENT: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) requires us to inform you that we collect this

information to obtain knowledge of subsistence issues in Alaska communities and how they relate to future oil and gas drilling. Responses are 

voluntary. Proprietary data are covered under FOIA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting for this study, is estimated to average 1.5 

hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions and answering the questions. Direct comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 5438, Minerals Management Service, 1849 C 

Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20240 

THANK YOU! 
ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 177

The diagram above shows how wild foods were shared among households in Shungnak in 2002. Each 

box is a household. The lines between the households show the flow of wild foods from one house to 

another. At a glance, you can see how much sharing there was. Many of the elder households (brown 

boxes) and single elder households (triangles) are near the center of the diagram, which means they are 

near the center of the sharing network. The younger households (yellow) tend to be on the edges of the 

network. As they age, we would expect them to move towards the center.

This diagram is an example of social network analysis. To draw it, we asked questions like: 

 - Who killed the moose your household used?

 - Who cut the fish your household used?

 - Who helped with your household bills?

Your answers to these questions help us describe sharing and cooperation, important parts of life in 

Kaktovik. We do not expect you to remember everyone who helped your household. We hope you can 

remember the most important people.

We do not use names on our surveys. Instead, we have developed codes for everyone in your 

community. To properly code people who do not live in this community, we do enter names on a tear-off 

sheet. After non-local names have been coded for anonymity, this sheet will be removed from the survey.
HOUSEHOLD (HH) MEMBERS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

WHO lived in this HH?

Is this If NOT here since birth...

person How is Is this Last Lived Where is When From

answering this person Is this grade in this did this where

questions person MALE person How old completed this village person's person did this

Person on this related to or Alaska is this in since birth move person

Code survey? HEAD 1? FEMALE? Native? person? school? birth? home? here? move?

ID# 00000 circle relation circle circle age grade circle community year community

01

Next, enter spouse or partner. If HH has a SINGLE HEAD, leave next row BLANK.

02

DEMOGRAPHICS SHARING SURVEY: 177

Y N

HEAD

HEAD

17 Y N M F Y N

Y N

16 Y N M F Y N Y N

15 Y N M F Y N

Y N

14 Y N M F Y N Y N

13 Y N M F Y N

Y N

12 Y N M F Y N Y N

11 Y N M F Y N

Y N

10 Y N M F Y N Y N

09 Y N M F Y N

Y N

08 Y N M F Y N Y N

07 Y N M F Y N

Y N

06 Y N M F Y N Y N

05 Y N M F

Y N

Y N M F Y N Y N

Below, enter children first (oldest to youngest), then grandchildren, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and other HH members.

04 Y N M F

Y N

Y N

First, I would like to ask about the people in your HH. By this, I mean the people who sleep at your house and are permanent members of your

family. This includes college or high school students who return home every summer. I am NOT interested in people who lived with you temporarily,

even if they stayed several months. I will not ask questions about them in the rest of the survey.

03 Y N M F Y N Y N

Y N M F Y N Y N

Page 1
DIVIDEND INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR DIVIDEND INCOME HH ID

Next, I have some questions about your HH's income and expenses.

During the last 12 MONTHS, did any members of your HH receive a dividend

from the Alaska PERMANENT FUND, from a REGIONAL or VILLAGE Native Corporation, or from other investments?................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

If YES, continue below...

2010 PFD* 2009-10 ASRC** KIC

$1,281 / PERSON $5,439 / 100 SHRS $ / 100 SHRS

Person Did this IF NO.... In 2009, how much DIVIDEND income

Code person how much did this person receive from...

Use same receive was this Alaska Alaska Other

code as a FULL person's Native Native Dividend

*previous Alaska PFD Alaska PFD REGIONAL VILLAGE Income

page in 2010? in 2010? Corporations? Corporations? (Stocks, Bonds) Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 circle dollars dollars dollars dollars enter text

HEAD 01

DIVIDENDS

1 6 910000000

Next, enter dividend income for spouse or partner. If HH has a SINGLE HEAD, leave next row BLANK.

HEAD 02

DIVIDENDS

2 6 910000000

Below, enter dividend income for the rest of the HH in the same order as the previous page.

PERSON 03

DIVIDENDS

3 6 910000000

PERSON 04

DIVIDENDS

4 6 910000000

PERSON 05

DIVIDENDS

5 6 910000000

PERSON 06

DIVIDENDS

6 6 910000000

PERSON 07

DIVIDENDS

7 6 910000000

PERSON 08

DIVIDENDS

8 6 910000000

PERSON 09

DIVIDENDS

9 6 910000000

PERSON 10

DIVIDENDS

10 6 910000000

PERSON 11

DIVIDENDS

11 6 910000000

PERSON 12

DIVIDENDS

12 6 910000000

PERSON 13

DIVIDENDS

13 6 910000000

PERSON 14

DIVIDENDS

14 6 910000000

PERSON 15

DIVIDENDS

15 6 910000000

PERSON 16

DIVIDENDS

16 6 910000000

PERSON 17

DIVIDENDS

17 6 910000000

NETWORK: 67 COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 0

/Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

$ /Yr

Y

$

N $ $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr $

$ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr $ $

/Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

* PFD is Permanent Fund Dividend; **ANRC is Alaska Native Regional Corporation; ***ANVC is Alaska Native Village Corporation

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

Page 2
JOBS FOR EACH PERSON IN THE HH, 16 YEARS OLD AND OLDER HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did any members of your HH earn money from a JOB or from SELF EMPLOYMENT?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

WORK SCHEDULE...

What kind of For whom In the past year, In the past year

work did did he or she what months how much did

Person he or she do work did he or she he or she earn

Code in this job? in this job? work in this job? in this job?

order | role | res. 00000 job title employer circle each month worked circle one gross income

1 6 910100000

2 6 910100000

3 6 910100000

4 6 910100000

5 6 910100000

6 6 910100000

7 6 910100000

8 6 910100000

9 6 910100000

10 6 910100000

11 6 910100000

12 6 910100000

EMPLOYMENT: 23 SHARING SURVEY: 177

For each member of this HH born before 1994, please list EACH JOB held during the last 12

months. For HH members who did not have a job, write: RETIRED, UNEMPLOYED, STUDENT,

HOMEMAKER, etc. There should be ONE ROW FOR EACH JOB held by a member of this HH

born before 1994. There should be AT LEAST one row for each member of this HH born before

1994 (this includes anyone who is 16 years old or older).

N

PT

FT

O

N

PT

FULL TIME

PT $

OC

N

PART TIMESHIFT - FULL TIMEON-CALL, VARIESSHIFT - PART TIME

$

OC

$

SP

OC

SP

FT / Yr

$

PT SF

/ Yr

SP

SF SP

S OC

O

PT

SF

O

S

O

S PT

S

S O

This page asks about jobs and income. We ask about jobs and income because we are trying to understand all parts of the community economy.

Many people use wages from jobs to support their hunting/fishing/gathering activities.

SF

FT

FT / Yr

SF

SP

SP

/ Yr

$

/ Yr

OC / Yr

SP

/ Yr

$

SP

$ / Yr

$

$ / Yr

OC / Yr

FT PT

SP

SF

FT

OC SP $

FT

/ Yr

PT / Yr SP $

PT OC SP $

OC

OC

SF

SF

SF

SF OC

OC

A SF

A

A

J

J

J

M

A

A

J F

M

M

A

A M

J

J A

J

J

A

J

J

A

O

S O

FT

FT

S

FT

FT

PT

S

O

PT

PT

O

12TH JOB

D

9TH JOB DN

N

D

N

A

M J

J

J

J

J

J

J

JM

SF

8TH JOB

10TH JOB

D

N

S

FT

O

A

A

M

M

A

11TH JOB J F

4TH JOB

5TH JOB

6TH JOB

7TH JOB J

M A

1ST JOB

D

DN

2ND JOB N

3RD JOB

N D

D

J F M

J F

M

N

J F

F

J F

D

D J

D

N M

F M

M

M

M

J F

AF

A

AJ

J A

M A

A

J

J FM

D

M A M

M A

M

J F

M

O

M J A S O

J

SJ

S

J

J

 WORK SCHEDULE

1 - Fulltime (35+ hours/week)

2 - Parttime (<35 hours/week)

3 - Shift (2 wks on/2 off, etc.)

4 - Irregular, on call

5 - Shift - part time

0 - Unemployed

 GROSS 

INCOME

 is the same as 

TAXABLE 

INCOME

on a W-2 form.

If a person is SELF-EMPLOYED (selling carvings, 

crafts, bread, etc.), list that as a separate job. Enter 

"sewer," "carver," "baker," etc. as JOB TITLE. Work 

schedule usually will be "ON CALL." For gross 

income from self employment ("profit"), enter 

revenue MINUS expenses.

If a person is UNEMPLOYED, specify 

retired, unemployed, disabled, student, 

or homemaker as the JOB TITLE.

TRAPPING, SEWING, or CARVING 

for barter or sale IS a job. 

Page 3
OTHER INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR INCOME THAT IS NOT EARNED FROM WORKING HH ID

During the last 12 MONTHS, did any member of your HH receive any kind of OTHER INCOME,

such as UNEMPLOYMENT, ...SOCIAL SECURITY , or ...CHILD SUPPORT?................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

If YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did YOUR HH receive from...

HH ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

...Energy ...CITCO ....Weather- WIC* Food 

 Assistance ization Stamps

OTHER INCOME RECEIVED

BY ENTIRE HH

1 6 910000000 9 34 11

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did ELDERS in your HH receive from...

ELDER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Person ...Social ...Pensions & ...Senior Care 

order | role | res. Code Security Retirement (Longevity) 

1ST ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

1 6 910000000 7 5 6 

2ND ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

2 6 910000000 7 5 6 

3RD ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

3 6 910000000 7 5 6 

4TH ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

4 6 910000000 7 5 6 

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did OTHER MEMBERS of your HH receive from...

JOB PROGRAMS CHILD PROGRAMS ** PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Person ...Workers' ...Supplemental ...Foster ...Child ...Adullt Public ...Temporary

order | role | res. Code Unemployment Compensation Security Care Support Assistance Assistance

1ST OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

1 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

2ND OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

2 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

3RD OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

3 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

4TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

4 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

5TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

5 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

6TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

6 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

7TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

7 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

8TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

8 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

*WIC is The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; ** Children's programs like foster care and child support are 

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

$ /Yr /Yr $ /Yr

$ $ /Yr /Yr

$

$ /Yr

/Yr

$

$

/Yr /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

$ /Yr

$

/Yr $

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr /Yr $ $ /Yr

$

$

/Yr $ $/Yr

$ /Yr $

$

$ $ /Yr

$ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr $ $

$ /Yr $

$

$

$

$ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr /Yr

/Yr $ /Yr

/Yr /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

$

/Yr

$ /Yr $

$

/Yr

/Yr /Yr

$

$

$ /Yr $

$ /Yr

$ /Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr

$

$

$

$ /Yr /Yr /Yr

$ $ /Yr

$

/Yr $ /Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr /Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr /Yr

/Yr

$

$ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

$ /Yr $

/Yr $

$ /Yr

$

$

$

/Yr

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

$

/Yr $

/Yr

considered as parent or guardian income, not child income. 

NOTE: IF a respondent gives you MONTHLY income, calculate ANNUAL INCOME. This is (monthly amount) x (months received) = (annual 

amount). For example, if a respondent gets a $100 pension every month, calculate $100 x 12 = $1,200. If respondent got $1,200 in unemployment 

for three months, calculate $1,200 x 3 = $3,600. If income changes month to month, use typical monthly income.

$

$

$

$

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

$/Yr

Page 4
MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HH ID 

We've heard from many people that it is VERY expensive to live in Wainwright. This page tries to capture how much your HH is spending on basic bil

I'm going to read a list of typical HH costs. Please tell me HOW MUCH your HH usually spent on each bill in a MONTH last year.

HOUSING HEATING FUELS UTILITIES GROCERIES

Rent or Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Propane Water & Phone Cable 

Mortagage? in Summer? in Winter? Electricity Sewer? Internet? Television? Groceries?

During the last 12 months, WHO from OUTSIDE your HH contributed to paying your HH's bills? Include anyone who helped even one time.

Person In a TYPICAL MONTH, how much did this person contribute to YOUR HH'S expenses for...

Code ...GAS / HOUSING ...HEATING FUELS ...UTILITIES ...GROCERIES Comments?

order, res. & role 00000 $ $ $ $ enter text

1ST CASH

SOURCE

1 6 910000000

2ND CASH

SOURCE

2 6 910000000

3RD CASH

SOURCE

3 6 910000000

4TH CASH

SOURCE

4 6 910000000

5TH CASH

SOURCE

5 6 910000000

6TH CASH

SOURCE

6 6 910000000

7TH CASH

SOURCE

7 6 910000000

8TH CASH

SOURCE

8 6 910000000

9TH CASH

SOURCE

9 6 910000000

10TH CASH

SOURCE

10 6 910000000

11TH CASH

SOURCE

11 6 910000000

12TH CASH

SOURCE

12 6 910000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo $

/ Mo $

GAS

Boat, 4x4, 

Truck, Snowgo

$ / Mo

/ Mo / Mo $ $ / Mo / Mo

/ Mo $ / Mo $ / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$

$ / Mo

/ Mo

$

$ $ / Mo $

$

$/ Mo

$ / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$

$

/ Mo

/ Mo $

$

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo / Mo

$

/ Mo / Mo

$

$

/ Mo

$

$

/ Mo

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

/ Mo $

$/ Mo

/ Mo

$ $ / Mo $ $ $ / Mo $ / Mo / Mo

$ / Mo

$ / Mo / Mo / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo / Mo

$ $/ Mo

$/ Mo

$

$

$ / Mo

$

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

$

$

$

$

$

/ Mo

$

$

$

$

Page 5
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 6
EQUIPMENT HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH use equipment like boats,*snowmachines (snowmobiles),

or freezers to harvest or transport or store traditional foods?....................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

If "NO," skip this page and the next page.

If "YES", continue on this page...

For each equipment type OWNED by this household in 2010, ask...

.... Over 12 mos. PURCHASES REPAIRS

did how many ... ... ...

your _______ how many how much did how much did 

HH use did your did your your HH spend your HH spend 

_______? HH own? HH buy? TO BUY ______? TO REPAIR _____? Comments

circle number number dollars dollars enter text

BOAT(S)

980110000

OUTBOARD MOTOR(S)

980120000

980210100

ATV(S), 4-WHEELER(S)

980210200

FREEZER(S)

980600100

TRUCK(S)

SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES

950000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

N

Y N

Y N

*Local terminology for "snowmobile" is "snowmachine". The term "snowmachine" is 

used throughout the rest of the survey instrument.

/ Yr

$

$ / Yr

/ Yr

Y N / Yr $

Y

$

N

Y N

Y

$

$ / Yr

$

I am going to read a list of some equipment and supplies that people use in Wainwright. Please tell me if someone in your HH OWNED or USED this 

equipment in the last 12 months. For equipment that your HH owned, I would like to know how much your HH spent in the last 12 months to buy, 

repair, and supply this equipment.

/ Yr

/ Yr

$

$

/ Yr

$ / Yr

$

/ Yr $

980220100

SNOWMACHINE(S) 

/ Yr

/ Yr

$ / Yr

$

/ Yr

$

/ Yr

If ALL the equipment in a category

belonged to people in other HHs, enter

a ZERO. This space is just for

equipment owned by members of this

HH. Do NOT count equipment that DID

NOT WORK at any time during the

past year. 

If the equipment belonged to someone

in another HH, but was used by

someone in this HH, answer "YES."

SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES

include:

ammunition, nets, hunting and

fishing clothes, buckets, tubs,

camp supplies, etc.

Page 7
EQUIPMENT SOURCES HH ID 

If HH did NOT use equipment for to hunt/fish/gather/process traditional food, skip to the next page.

If HH DID use equipment for to hunt/fish/gather/process traditional foods, continue on this page...

During the last 12 months...

During the last 12 months... Who are the pple

..What other HHs ...WHAT equipment did this person provide for your HH's use? NOTE: This from other HHs

lent your HH list is for people who repaired 

equipment OUTSIDE your the equipment 

for hunting own HH your HH used to

or fishing? hunt/fish/gather?

order | role | res. 00000 circle ALL that apply order | role | res. 00000

1ST EQUIPMENT 1ST REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

1 9 1 7

2ND EQUIPMENT 2ND REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

2 9 2 7

3RD EQUIPMENT 3RD REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

3 9 3 7

4TH EQUIPMENT 4TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

4 9 4 7

5TH EQUIPMENT 5TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

5 9 5 7

6TH EQUIPMENT 6TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

6 9 6 7

7TH EQUIPMENT 7TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

7 9 7 7

8TH EQUIPMENT 8TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

8 9 8 7

9TH EQUIPMENT 9TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

9 9 9 7

10TH EQUIPMENT 10TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

10 9 10 7

11TH EQUIPMENT 11TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

11 9 11 7

12TH EQUIPMENT 12TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

12 9 12 7

13TH EQUIPMENT 13TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

13 9 13 7

14TH EQUIPMENT 14TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

14 9 14 7

15TH EQUIPMENT 15TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

15 9 15 7

16TH EQUIPMENT 16TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

16 9 16 7

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE 

SNOWMACHINE BOAT OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK OTHER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT

SNOWMACHINE

CAR OR 

TRUCK

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT SNOWMACHINE

BOAT

BOAT

SNOWMACHINE

BOAT

BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT

SNOWMACHINE BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINEOUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINECAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

Page 8
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 9
INTRODUCTION TO NETWORKS HH ID 

The next section asks about subsistence foods.

For most foods, we will briefly ask how much your HH got last year between May 1, 2010 and April 30, 2011.

But for seven important foods, we will ask about the different ways those foods came into your HH, for

example; through 1) your own HH hunting, 2) hunting with others, 3) your contributions to the hunting

of other HHs, and 4) sharing or trading.

The foods we will ask about are:

CARIBOU

DALL SHEEP

GEESE

ARCTIC CHAR

BELUGA WHALE

BOWHEAD WHALE

BEARDED SEAL

INTRODUCTION TO NETWORKS COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 0 

Page 10
CARIBOU SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Caribou (eat, sew, carve)? Y N

Receive Caribou? Y N

Give Caribou away? Y N

Try to harvest Caribou? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that caribou might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any CARIBOU while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?............................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211000000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211000000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211000000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211000000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211000000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211000000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211000000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211000000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211000000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211000000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211000000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211000000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Who in your HH killed CARIBOU last 

year?

How many CARIBOU did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many caribou EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months.

INCLUDE caribou the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include caribou the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed

to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 11
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive CARIBOU as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211000000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211000000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211000000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211000000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211000000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211000000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211000000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211000000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211000000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211000000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211000000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211000000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 211000000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 211000000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many caribou each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while 

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE caribou the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received CARIBOU as a share 

when hunting with others?

Page 12
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHERS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of CARIBOU

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if caribou was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members CARIBOU did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211000000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211000000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211000000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211000000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211000000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211000000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211000000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211000000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211000000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211000000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211000000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211000000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211000000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211000000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211000000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT GAVE THEM GASOLINE

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIES

of 

CARIBOU?

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE THEM CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Page 13
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give CARIBOU to your HH, or did you receive CARIBOU

by trading or buying it from someone living in a Kaktovik HH or in another community?...................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person CARIBOU did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211000000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211000000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211000000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211000000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211000000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211000000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211000000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211000000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211000000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211000000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211000000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211000000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211000000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211000000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211000000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211000000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177 AMMO

CARIBOU?

EQUIPMENTGASOLINE

Y N S ? S GAS AMMO FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

OTHER WILD FOODOTHERLABOR

CARIBOU

?

T P EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P AMMO OTHER LABOR EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. FOODLABOR T P GAS SUBS. FOOD

Y N S ? S T P AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

T P OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

T P

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P AMMO

Y N S ? S T AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

EQUIP. GAS

GAS

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P

Page 14
CARIBOU: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away CARIBOU for your HH?.................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, smoked, or put away CARIBOU for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 211000000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 211000000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 211000000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 211000000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 211000000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 211000000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 211000000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 211000000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 211000000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 211000000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 211000000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 211000000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 211000000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 211000000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 211000000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 15
DALL SHEEP SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HOUSEHOLD ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your household (HH)

kill any DALL SHEEP while hunting alone, or with other people living in this household?............................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HOUSEHOLD only

Who in THIS HOUSEHOLD hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this household.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 212200000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 212200000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 212200000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 212200000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 212200000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 212200000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 212200000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 212200000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 212200000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 212200000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 212200000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 212200000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 212200000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 212200000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 212200000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 212200000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Who in your household killed DALL 

SHEEP last year?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many dall sheep EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED for subsistence

use during the last 12 months. INCLUDE dall sheep the household members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include

dall sheep the household ate fresh, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

How many DALL SHEEP did this 

person kill?

*SURVEYOR: Respondents should specify the applicable unit of measure for that resource, and when appropriate, how much they received.

PAGE 16
DALL SHEEP SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HOUSEHOLD ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your household (HH)

receive DALL SHEEP as their share from hunting together with people from other households?.................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HOUSEHOLD HUNTERS from OTHER HOUSEHOLDS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 212200000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 212200000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 212200000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 212200000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 212200000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 212200000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 212200000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 212200000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 212200000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 212200000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 212200000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 212200000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 212200000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 212200000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 212200000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 212200000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many dall sheep each member of their household RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12

months while hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE dall sheep the household received as a share

then gave away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received DALL SHEEP as a 

share when hunting with others?

PAGE 17
DALL SHEEP SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HOUSEHOLD ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your household (HH) get any SHARES of DALL SHEEP

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other households, but did NOT actually hunt with them?............................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as 

a comment, and follow up by asking if the meat was a gift. If so, note on next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HH'S only What did YOUR HOUSEHOLD do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members DALL SHEEP did

of your HH members of your household

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 212200000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 212200000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 212200000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 212200000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 212200000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 212200000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 212200000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 212200000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 212200000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 212200000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 212200000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 212200000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 212200000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 212200000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 212200000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 212200000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

GAVE 

AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

LOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM SUPPLIES

of DALL 

SHEEP?

GAVE THEM AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORGAVE THEM GASOLINE

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE THEM CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE

SUPPLIE

S

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE

SUPPLIE

S

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIE

S

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

PAGE 18
DALL SHEEP SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HOUSEHOLD ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your household (HH) receive DALL SHEEP

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another household in Kaktovik or in another community?.... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HOUSEHOLDS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HOUSEHOLD trade?

did your person DALL SHEEP did Was

household KILL your household receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 212200000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 212200000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 212200000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 212200000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 212200000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 212200000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 212200000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 212200000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 212200000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 212200000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 212200000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 212200000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 212200000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 212200000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 212200000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 212200000

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177 SUBSISTENCE FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

DALL 

SHEEP?

DALL 

SHEEP?

GASOLINEAMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENT

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR T

Y N S ?

Y N S ? EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

G

AMMO

GAS AMMO

G T P GAS

P SUBS. 

FOOD

Y N S ? G OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G

T P

GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G

T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR G

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? GTP GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P

T P

Y N S ? G

Y N S ?

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

G GAS AMMO

Y N S ? GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

G T P

AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

GAS

EQUIP. OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR T P GAS

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP.

G

G T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GTP GAS

Y N S ? G T P AMMO FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ?

GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

PAGE 19
DALL SHEEP: PROCESSORS HOUSEHOLD ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away DALL SHEEP for your household (HH)?.......................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, or put away DALL SHEEP for your household, including people living in your household?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this household, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 212200000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 212200000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 212200000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 212200000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 212200000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 212200000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 212200000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 212200000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 212200000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 212200000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 212200000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 212200000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 212200000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 212200000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 212200000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 212200000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this 

household.

PAGE 20
HARVESTS: LARGE LAND MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt other large land mammals

such as GRIZZLY BEAR or MUSKOXEN?......................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT these large land mammals?.................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number specify* enter text

GRIZZLY BEAR

210800000

MUSKOXEN

212000000

MOOSE

211800000

GRIZZLY BEAR

210800000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

Did your HH use or hunt for any other large mammals in the last 12 months?....................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

LAND MAMMALS: 10 SHARING SURVEY: 177

*SURVEYOR: Respondents should specify the applicable unit of measure for that resource (number or proportions of animals, fish or berries, 

buckets, etc.), and when appropriate, how many were killed, gathered or received. All units will be transformed to weight in pounds during analysis.

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many large land mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE large land mammals you gave away, ate

fresh, dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with

others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sew, carve, apply medicinally, etc.)Receive?Try to Harvest?

Y NGive Away?

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Page 21
GEESE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Geese (eat, use for crafts)? Y N

Receive Geese? Y N

Give Geese away? Y N

Try to harvest Geese? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Geese might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any GEESE while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410499009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410499009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410499009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410499009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410499009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410499009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410499009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410499009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410499009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410499009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410499009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410499009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Who in your HH killed GEESE last 

year?

How many GEESE did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many geese EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months.

INCLUDE geese the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include geese the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 22
GEESE SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive GEESE as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410499009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410499009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410499009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410499009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410499009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410499009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410499009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410499009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410499009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410499009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410499009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410499009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 410499009

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 410499009

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 410499009

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 410499009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many geese each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE geese the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received GEESE as a share 

when hunting with others?

Page 23
GEESE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHERS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES from GEESE

hunting because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?....................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if geese were a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members GEESE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410499009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410499009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410499009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410499009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410499009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410499009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410499009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410499009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410499009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410499009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410499009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410499009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410499009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410499009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410499009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410499009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

OTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENT

of hunted 

GEESE?

GAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 24
GEESE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give GEESE to your HH, or did you receive GEESE

by trading or buying some from someone living in a Kaktovik HH or in another community?............................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person GEESE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410499009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410499009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410499009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410499009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410499009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410499009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410499009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410499009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410499009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410499009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410499009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410499009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410499009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410499009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410499009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410499009

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

GEESE? GEESE?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 25
GEESE: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, pluck, or put away GEESE for your HH?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, plucked, or put away GEESE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 410499009

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 410499009

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 410499009

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 410499009

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 410499009

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 410499009

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 410499009

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 410499009

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 410499009

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 410499009

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 410499009

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 410499009

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 410499009

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 410499009

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 410499009

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 410499009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 26
NOTES:

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 27
HARVESTS: MIGRATORY BIRDS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt other migratory birds,

such as OTHER DUCKS or ?..................................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT these migratory birds?.................................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

PTARMIGAN

421804000

TUNDRA SWAN

410699000

SANDHILL CRANE

410802000

 COMMON EIDER

KING EIDER

410206040

OTHER DUCKS

410299009

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of migratory birds?....................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

BIRDS AND EGGS: 15 VENETIE: 363

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many migratory birds ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE migratory birds you gave away, ate fresh,

fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others, report

ONLY YOUR SHARE of the hunt.

Use? (eat, trade, apply medicinally, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Page 28
ARCTIC CHAR SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Eat Arctic Char? Y N

Receive Arctic Char? Y N

Give Arctic Char away? Y N

Try to harvest Arctic Char? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that smelt might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

catch any ARCTIC CHAR while fishing alone, or with other people living in this HH?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH fished with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Caught Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 125002003

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 125002003

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 125002003

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 125002003

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 125002003

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 125002003

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 125002003

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 125002003

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 125002003

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 125002003

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 125002003

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 125002003

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Who in your HH caught ARCTIC 

CHAR last year?

How many ARCTIC CHAR did 

this person catch?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many arctic char EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months,

including with rod and reel. INCLUDE arctic char the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include arctic char

the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 29
ARCTIC CHAR SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE FISHING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive ARCTIC CHAR as their share from fishing together with people from other HHs?............................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HH FISHERS from OTHER HHS

How many did this person Who fished with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 125002003

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 125002003

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 125002003

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 125002003

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 125002003

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 125002003

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 125002003

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 125002003

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 125002003

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 125002003

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 125002003

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 125002003

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 125002003

14TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 125002003

15TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 125002003

16TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 125002003

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many arctic char each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months,

including with rod and reel while fishing with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE arctic char the HH received as

a share then gave away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received ARCTIC CHAR as a 

share when fishing with others?

Page 30
ARCTIC CHAR SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE FISHING OF OTHERS HHID

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of

harvested ARCTIC CHAR because they contributed to the fishing effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually fish with them?............ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if the fish was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members ARCTIC CHAR did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 125002003

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 125002003

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 125002003

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 125002003

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 125002003

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 125002003

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 125002003

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 125002003

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 125002003

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 125002003

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 125002003

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 125002003

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 125002003

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 125002003

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 125002003

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 125002003

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

OTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENT

of ARCTIC 

CHAR?

GAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 31
ARCTIC CHAR SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give ARCTIC CHAR to your HH, or did you receive ARCTIC CHAR

by trading or buying them from someone living in a Kaktovik HH or in another community?................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person ARCTIC CHAR did Was

HH CATCH your HH receive this 

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 125002003

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 125002003

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 125002003

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 125002003

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 125002003

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 125002003

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 125002003

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 125002003

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 125002003

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 125002003

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 125002003

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 125002003

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 125002003

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 125002003

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 125002003

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 125002003

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

ARCTIC 

CHAR?

ARCTIC 

CHAR?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 32
ARCTIC CHAR: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away ARCTIC CHAR for your HH?............................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, smoked, froze, or put away ARCTIC CHAR for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 125002003

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 125002003

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 125002003

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 125002003

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 125002003

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 125002003

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 125002003

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 125002003

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 125002003

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 125002003

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 125002003

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 125002003

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 125002003

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 125002003

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 125002003

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 125002003

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 33
HARVESTS: FISH HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY fish for other fish like

BROAD WHITEFISH or GRAYLING?................................................................................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO FISH for these other species?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

BROAD WHITEFISH

126404003

GRAYLING

125200003

ARCTIC CISCO

126406023

TOMCOD (SAFFRON COD)

121010003

BLUE COD (ARCTIC COD)

121002003

LAKE TROUT

125010003

MUDSHARK (BURBOT)

124800003

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use any other kind of fish?..................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

SALMON & NON-SALMON FINFISH: 04 & 06 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Y N Y N

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many fish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH FISHED the last

12 months, including with rod and reel. INCLUDE fish you gave away, ate fresh,

dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If fishing with others,

report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.

Use? (eat, trade, feed to dogs, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Page 34
BEARDED SEAL (UGRUK) SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Bearded Seal (eat, sew, carve)? Y N

Receive Bearded Seal? Y N

Give Bearded Seal away? Y N

Try to harvest Bearded? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Ugruk might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any BEARDED SEAL while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 300802000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 300802000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 300802000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 300802000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 300802000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 300802000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 300802000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 300802000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 300802000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 300802000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 300802000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 300802000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Who in your HH killed BEARDED 

SEAL last year?

How many BEARDED SEAL did 

this person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many bearded seal EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12

months. INCLUDE bearded seal the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include bearded seal the HH ate

fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 35
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive BEARDED SEAL as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?........................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 300802000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 300802000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 300802000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 300802000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 300802000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 300802000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 300802000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 300802000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 300802000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 300802000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 300802000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 300802000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 300802000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 300802000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 300802000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 300802000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many bearded seal each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months

while hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE bearded seal the HH received as a share then gave

away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received BEARDED SEAL as a 

share when hunting with others?

Page 36
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHHID H

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BEARDED SEAL

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if Ugruk was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BEARDED SEAL did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 300802000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 300802000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 300802000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 300802000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 300802000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 300802000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 300802000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 300802000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 300802000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 300802000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 300802000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 300802000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 300802000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 300802000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 300802000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 300802000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

OTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENT

of BEARDED 

SEAL?

GAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 37
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give BEARDED SEAL to your HH, or did you receive BEARDED SEAL

by trading or buying it from someone living in a Kaktovik HH or in another community?...................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BEARDED SEAL did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this 

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 300802000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 300802000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 300802000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 300802000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 300802000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 300802000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 300802000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 300802000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 300802000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 300802000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 300802000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 300802000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 300802000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 300802000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 300802000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 300802000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P AMMO SUBS. FOOD Y N S ? S T

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

STP AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

BEARDED 

SEAL?

BEARDED 

SEAL?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 38
BEARDED SEAL: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, render into oil, or put away BEARDED SEAL for your HH?............................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, rendered into oil, or put away BEARDED SEAL for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 300802000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 300802000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 300802000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 300802000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 300802000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 300802000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 300802000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 300802000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 300802000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 300802000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 300802000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 300802000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 300802000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 300802000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 300802000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 300802000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 39
NOTES:

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 40
 BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Beluga (eat, use as medicine)? Y N

Receive Beluga? Y N

Give Beluga away? Y N

Try to harvest Beluga? Y N

IF ALL NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

Did your household get a share from BELUGA whale harvested in the last 12 months?................................................................................... Y N 

IF YES...how much did your household receive?

Source Amount 

Code Received Units Comments

order | role | res. 00000 number 

BELUGA WHALE

slab

1 1 301602000

BELUGA WHALE

slab

1 1 301602000

What did your household do to receive their share of beluga? (For example: was a member of your HH: in a boat that hunted, or did they provide

 a boat, or did they help cut and process beluga, OR something else?)

Hunted Beluga Y N

Provided hunting boat Y N (circle all that apply)

Helped cut up beluga Y N

Just received a share Y N

Other Comment: 

 from THIS HH only Cut Hunted

Person ( C ) ( H )

Code

order | role | res. 00000

1ST C H

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301602000

2ND C H

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301602000

3RD C H

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301602000

4TH C H

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301602000

5TH C H

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301602000

6TH C H

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301602000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

People in HH who cut, 

or hunted beluga

Circle

Page 41
 BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARING & TRADES HH ID 

We have talked about shares. Now...during the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone ELSE give BELUGA to your household

or did you receive BELUGA by trading with someone living in a Kaktovik household or in another community?................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your did Was

HH your HH receive this

receive from this person? SHARING,

Amount or TRADE?

Received Units Comments

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301602000

2ND PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301602000

3RD PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301602000

4TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301602000

5TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301602000

6TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301602000

7TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301602000

8TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301602000

9TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301602000

10TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301602000

11TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301602000

12TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301602000

13TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301602000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR S GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

EQUIP.

S T

AMMO

S T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR S T EQUIP. GAS

T

AMMO

S T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

S T GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

S T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR S EQUIP. GAS AMMO

AMMO

S T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAS

TS

S T

T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

EQUIP. EQUIPMENT

GASOLINE

EQUIP. GAS

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

S T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Beluga?

AMMO

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORAMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR S EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Page 42
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 40
BOWHEAD WHALE CAPTAIN'S PAGE (1 of 3) HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, was anyone in your household the captain of an ACTIVE bowhead whaling crew?....................... Y N (Circle)

By "active," we mean registsered with the AEWC to hunt bowhead whale last year

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

Who were the members of your BOWHEAD crew?

CREW MEMBERS & CREW CONTRIBUTIONS

During the last 12, months, what did this person provide for your whaling crew? 

Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST MEMBER

YOUR CREW

1 3 301606000

2ND MEMBER

YOUR CREW

2 3 301606000

3RD MEMBER

YOUR CREW

3 3 301606000

4TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

4 3 301606000

5TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

5 3 301606000

6TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

6 3 301606000

7TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

7 3 301606000

8TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

8 3 301606000

9TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

9 3 301606000

10TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

10 3 301606000

11TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

11 3 301606000

12TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

12 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177 PROVIDED EQUIPMENT PROVIDED LABOR PROVIDED GASOLINE OR OIL PROVIDED FOOD COOKED FOOD PROVIDED SUPPLIES PROVIDED CASH OTHER CONTRIBUTION

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES

PERSON 

CODE

CASH OTHER

EQUIPMENT LABOR

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL

GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

EQUIPMENT LABOR

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL

SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

OTHER

GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED

FOOD COOKED

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES

SUPPLIES CASH

CASH OTHER

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED

SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

FOOD COOKED EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL

SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED

SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

Page 41
BOWHEAD WHALE CAPTAIN'S PAGE (2 of 3) HH ID 

continued from previous page

Who were the members of your BOWHEAD crew? (continued)

CREW MEMBERS & CREW CONTRIBUTIONS

During the last 12, months, what did this person provide for your whaling crew? 

Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle ALL that apply enter text

13TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

13 3 301606000

14TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

14 3 301606000

15TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

15 3 301606000

16TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

16 3 301606000

17TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

17 3 301606000

18TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

18 3 301606000

19TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

19 3 301606000

20TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

20 3 301606000

21TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

21 3 301606000

22TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

22 3 301606000

23TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

23 3 301606000

24TH MEMBER

YOUR CREW

24 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177 PROVIDED EQUIPMENT PROVIDED LABOR PROVIDED GASOLINE OR OIL PROVIDED FOOD COOKED FOOD PROVIDED SUPPLIES PROVIDED CASH OTHER CONTRIBUTION

PERSON 

CODE

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

CASH OTHER

LABOR

LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED EQUIPMENT

GAS & OIL COOKED SUPPLIES CASH

SUPPLIES

OTHER EQUIPMENT FOOD

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED CASH OTHER SUPPLIES

CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES

LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

LABOR

EQUIPMENT

CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES

COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD

LABOR GAS & OIL EQUIPMENT FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH EQUIPMENT OTHER

LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT

LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH EQUIPMENT OTHER

Page 42
BOWHEAD WHALE CAPTAIN'S PAGE (3 of 3) HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone NOT ON YOUR CREW contribute to your whaling effort?.............................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

Who else contributed to your whaling effort?

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHERS (NOT ON CREW)

During the last 12, months, what did this person provide for your whaling crew? 

Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

1 3 301606000

2ND CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

2 3 301606000

3RD CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

3 3 301606000

4TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

4 3 301606000

5TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

5 3 301606000

6TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

6 3 301606000

7TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

7 3 301606000

8TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

8 3 301606000

9TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

9 3 301606000

10TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

10 3 301606000

11TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

11 3 301606000

12TH CONTRIBUTOR

TO YOUR CREW

12 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177 PROVIDED EQUIPMENT PROVIDED LABOR PROVIDED GASOLINE OR OIL PROVIDED FOOD COOKED FOOD PROVIDED SUPPLIES PROVIDED CASH

PERSON 

CODE

OTHER CONTRIBUTION

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT LABOR

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES OTHER

OTHER

CASH

LABOR GAS & OIL CASH EQUIPMENT FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT LABOR

FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL OTHER

LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT

EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED SUPPLIES CASH OTHER

SUPPLIES CASH OTHER EQUIPMENT LABOR GAS & OIL FOOD COOKED

Page 43
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: CREW SHARES HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Bowhead Whale (eat, carve)? Y N Who in your household What crew were they on?

was on a whaling crew? 

Receive Bowhead Whale? Y N PERSON CODE CREW CODE

Give Bowhead Whale away? Y N

Try to harvest Bowhead Whale? Y N

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

CAPTAIN AND CREW from THIS HH only

How much did this person receive as a CAPTAIN's or CREW or TOWING SHARE from...

Whale 1 (G. Kaleak Crew) Whale 2 (George Tagarook Crew) Whale 3 (James Lampe Crew)

Shares Amount Shares Amount Shares Amount

Received Received Units Received Received Units Received Received Units

order | role | res. 00000 CA, T, CR number number *spec. number number *spec. number number *spec.

1ST 

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301606000

2ND 

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301606000

3RD 

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301606000

4TH 

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301606000

5TH 

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301606000

6TH 

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301606000

7TH 

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 301606000

8TH 

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 301606000

9TH 

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 301606000

*spec.="specify"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

List people from above who were on 

whaling crews 

What kind 

of share? 

CAptain, 

Towing or, 

CRew? 

Person Code

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Bowhead Whale 

might have come into your HH...

Page 40
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES from BOWHEAD WHALE 

because they contributed to the hunting effort of whaling crews, but were not actually crew members?.............................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this 

comment, and follow up by asking if whale was a gift. If so, note on the next page

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BOWHEAD WHALE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301606000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301606000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301606000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301606000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301606000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301606000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301606000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301606000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301606000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301606000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301606000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301606000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

of BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 41
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FROM FEASTS HH ID

In 2010 - did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BOWHEAD WHALE at a feast?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

ge.

COMMENTS

Units

number number *spec

Did anyone in your household bring home a share from the captain's lunch/dinner given by George Tagarook last FALL? Y N (Circle)

IF YES, complete this section. IF NO, got to next whale on this page..

COMMENTS

...Captain's FEAST (2010)

No. of People Amt. 

Who Got Shrs Rec'd Units

00000 number number *spec.

Did anyone in your household get a share from the captain's lunch/dinner given by George Kaleak last FALL? Y N (Circle)

IF YES, complete this section. IF NO, got to next whale on this page..

COMMENTS

...Captain's FEAST (2010)

No. of People Amt. 

Who Got Shrs Rec'd Units

number number *spec.

Did anyone in your household get a share from the captain's lunch/dinner given by James Lampe last fall? Y N (Circle)

IF YES, complete this section. IF NO, go to next page.

...Captain's FEAST (2010)

No. of People Amt. COMMENTS

Who Got Shrs Rec'd Units

number number *spec.

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Did members of 

your HH attend 

Nalukataq?

How much did ALL MEMBERS of this 

household receive as a share from...

No of people 

who Got 

Shares

Amt. 

Rec'd 

2ND 

WHALE

circle

3RD 

WHALE

Crew 

Code

Crew 

Code

How much did ALL MEMBERS of this 

household receive as a share from...

FIRST 

WHALE

Crew 

Code

How many people in your household 

received shares from...

Y N

Nalukataq 2010

Page 42
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARING & TRADES HH ID 

We have talked about shares. Now...during the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone ELSE give BOWHEAD to your household

or did you receive BOWHEAD by trading with someone living in a Kaktovik household or in another community?.................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your BOWHEAD WHALE did Was

HH your HH receive this

receive from this person? SHARING,

Amount or TRADE?

Received Units Comments

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301606000

2ND PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301606000

3RD PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301606000

4TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301606000

5TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301606000

6TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301606000

7TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301606000

8TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301606000

9TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301606000

10TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301606000

11TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301606000

12TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301606000

13TH PERSON

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 177

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

S T

T SUBS. 

FOOD S GAS

EQUIP. GAS AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

SUBS. 

FOOD

S T GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

S T AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS OTHER LABOR EQUIP.

S SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

T

S T SUBS. 

FOOD

S T GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. FOOD

S T GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

S T EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

T SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

S

OTHER 

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

GASOLINEAMMO

GAS AMMO

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENT

Page 43
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 44
HARVESTS: MARINE MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt for other marine mammals,

such as WALRUS or RINGED SEAL?....................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT these other marine mammals?..................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

WALRUS

301400000

RINGED SEAL

300810000

SPOTTED SEAL

300812000

POLAR BEAR

300400000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of marine mammals?................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

MARINE MAMMALS: 12 SHARING SURVEY: 177

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many marine mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE marine mammals you gave away, ate

fresh, dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with

others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the hunt.

Use? (eat, carve, sew, trade, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Page 45
HARVESTS: SMALL LAND MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt small land mammals,

such as GROUND SQUIRREL or MARMOT?........................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT small land mammals?................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

GROUND SQUIRREL

222802000

MARMOT

221800000

WOLF

223200000

WOLVERINE

223400000

ARCTIC FOX

220802000

PORCUPINE

222600000

SNOWSHOE HARE

221004000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of small mammals?...................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

LAND MAMMALS: 10 SHARING SURVEY: 177

In the last 12 months, did your 

HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many small land mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE small land mammals you gave away, ate

fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others,

report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sell, trade, sew, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Page 46
HARVESTS: BERRIES HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY pick berries,

such as SALMONBERRIES or BLUEBERRIES?....................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO PICK berries?.......................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

SALMONBERRIES

601022002

BLUEBERRIES

601002002

CRANBERRIES

601004002

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or pick any other kind of berries?.................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

PLANTS: 17 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

In the last 12 months, did your 

HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many berries ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH PICKED the

last 12 months. INCLUDE berries you gave away, ate fresh, lost to spoilage, or got

by helping others. If picking with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sell, trade, sew, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Page 47
FOOD AND EQUIPMENT SHARING HH ID 

foods or provide equipment, or other help to someone in Wainwright or ANOTHER community?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

 Enter HH ID codes in the space provided. The map on the following page may help people remember HHs they helped.

Now check the boxes to show the goods and services that MEMBERS OF YOUR HH provided to each HH...

1 HH ID____________ 6 HH ID____________ 11 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

2 HH ID____________ 7 HH ID____________ 12 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

3 HH ID____________ 8 HH ID____________ 13 CAKE WALKS/OTHER 

DONATIONS

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

4 HH ID____________ 9 HH ID____________ 14 THANKSGIVING FEAST

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

5 HH ID____________ 10 15 CHRISTMAS FEAST

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

NETWORK: 67 SHARING COMPOSITE SURVEY: 177

In most of this survey, we have asked how your HH got your traditional foods. On this page, we ask the opposite question, with 

much less detail. During the last 12 months, did anyone in your HH GIVE traditional

Please list the most important HHs that members of your HH provided with fish, game, marine mammals or equipment. IF your HH gave to Feasts that 

were associated with Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays, other community get togethers, funerals or Nalukatuk, please indicate this as well.

Page 48
FOOD AND EQUIPMENT SHARING HOUSEHOLD ID 

MAP SHARING COMPOSITE SURVEY: 177

Page 49
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 50
FOOD SECURITY HH ID 

Think about all your HH's food, both traditional and store-bought... 

STATEMENT 1. We WORRIED that our HH would not have ENOUGH FOOD. HH1

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES...

...in which months did this happen?..................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

or your HH couldn't get BOTH KINDS of food?.................................................................................................... SUB STOR BOTH

STATEMENT 2. We could not get the kinds of foods we wanted to eat because of a LACK OF RESOURCES. HH2

By "lack of resources," we mean your HH did NOT have what you needed to get out on the land to hunt, fish, gather OR to buy food at the store.

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES...

...in which months did this happen?..................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

STATEMENT 3. The food we had JUST DID NOT LAST, and we could not get more. HH3

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

Now, think just about your HH's TRADITIONAL food... 

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

Now, think just about your HH's STORE-BOUGHT food... 

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

If NO statement above WAS TRUE for this HH, go to the next page. 

If ANY statement above WAS TRUE for this HH, continue on this page... 

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever CUT THE SIZE OF YOUR MEALS OR SKIP AD1

MEALS because the HH could not get the food that was needed?............................................................................. N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?............................................................................................................ N D J F M A M J J A S O

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever EAT LESS THAN YOU FELT YOU SHOULD AD2

because the HH could not get the food that was needed?........................................................................................... NY?

AD3

In the last 12 months, were adults in the HH ever HUNGRY BUT DID NOT EAT because there was not N Y ?

enough food?................................................................................................... AD4

In the last 12 months, did adults in the HH LOSE WEIGHT because there was not enough food?............................ N Y ?

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever NOT EAT FOR A WHOLE DAY AD5

because there was not enough food?.......................................................................................................................... N Y ?

AD5a

If YES, in which months did this happen?............................................................................................................ N D J F M A M J J A S O

FOOD SECURITY: 201 SHARING SURVEY: 177

STATEMENT 5. The STORE-BOUGHT food we had just did not last, and we could not get more. HH5

Whether or not people in a HH have enough of the kinds of food they want to eat is sometimes a good indicator of how well they are doing. The 

questions on this page have been asked all over the United States to find out if Americans have enough to eat. I am going to read you FIVE 

statements about different food situations. Please tell me whether EACH statement was true for your HH in the last 12 months.

...did this happen because your HH couldn't get WILD (nikipiaq) foods, your HH couldn't get STORE-BOUGHT foods,

...what resources were lacking that prevented your HH from getting the kinds of foods it wanted? (please list responses in space below)

STATEMENT 4. The TRADITIONAL food we had just did not last, and we could not get more. HH4

Page 51
FOOD CONSUMPTION & SHARING HH ID 

FOOD CONSUMPTION EXERCISE

enter #

Surveyor: Write down the number of fingers cited for TRADITIONAL FOODS (T) and STORE BOUGHT (SB)........................... T

SB

Decision

Codes

Who in this household decides HOW to share this caribou?

How does this person decide HOW MUCH of the caribou to share?

SHARING IN GOOD TIMES VERSUS SCARCE TIMES

Can you remember of a year when your HH had lots of traditional foods (a year when hunting was very, very good)? circle Y N

 If yes, what year was that? Yr?

Can you remember a year when your household did not have lots of wild foods? circle Y N

 If yes, what year was that? Yr?

Different?

How did those two years differ in the way your household shared? circle one

Difference

Codes-HH

How did those two years differ in the way the community shared? 

Difference

Codes-Com

PERCENTAGE OF FOOD FROM WILD RESOURCES: 33 SHARING SURVEY: 177

If my ten fingers represent ALL THE FOOD that members of your HH ate in the past 12 months, please tell me how many

fingers were store-bought foods and how many were harvested foods – that is, nikipiaq.

Y N

Traditional 

Foods 

Blocks

I am going to give you a situation - You have just gotten a fat caribou. 

SHARING DECISIONS: We are trying to understand more about how the sharing occurs between people and HHs. 

Page 52
SHARING CONTINUED HH ID

CHANGES IN SHARING RELATIONSHIPS

Has sharing in your household changed in the last 10 years? circle Y N

IF YES: How has it changed in the past 10 years? Cause 

Codes

What caused the changes? Cause 

(Discuss things that strengthen and weaken sharing) Codes

HH WB

Finally, how does sharing contribute to the well-being of your household? Codes

COM WB

How does sharing contribute to the well-being of your community? Codes

(OR What is the role of sharing in making Kaktovik what it is?)

SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 53
COMMENTS HH ID 

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS?

INTERVIEW SUMMARY:

BE SURE TO FILL IN THE STOP TIME ON THE FIRST PAGE!!!!

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 177

Page 54
CODE WORKSHEET FOR OUT-OF-TOWN SOURCES & RECIPIENTS

If people outside of Sharing Survey are named on a network page, please keep track of their codes on this page.

Once a person has been assigned a code from this page, use the same code each time he or she is mentioned in the survey.

CODE PERSON'S NAME COMMUNITY NEW CODE RELATION SEX AGE

Estimate COMMENTS

M F

0034 M F

0037 M F

0035 M F

0036 M F

0023 M F

0028 M F

0026 M F

0024 M F

0025 M F

0022

Male

Female

(circle)

M F

0021 M F

For coding purposes only. This 

name is not entered in the 

database.

Entered after 

all surveys are 

completed

Used in 

this 

Survey

Kin 

relationship 

to HH head

Where this person 

lives. If NOT in Alaska, 

enter state.

0027 M F

0029 M F

0031 M F

0030 M F

0032 M F

0038 M F

0039 M F

0040

0033 M F
CODE WORKSHEET FOR OUT-OF-TOWN SOURCES & RECIPIENTS

If people outside of Sharing Survey are named on a network page, please keep track of their codes on this page.

Once a person has been assigned a code from this page, use the same code each time he or she is mentioned in the survey.

CODE PERSON'S NAME COMMUNITY NEW CODE RELATION SEX AGE

Estimate COMMENTS

Male

Female

(circle)

For coding purposes only. This 

name is not entered in the 

database.

Entered after 

all surveys are 

completed

Used in 

this 

Survey

Kin 

relationship 

to HH head

Where this person 

lives. If NOT in Alaska, 

enter state.

0001

0002

0003

0004

0005

0006

0007

0008

0009

0010

0011

0012

0013

0014

0015

0016

0017

0018

0019

0020

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F
SUBSISTENCE AND SHARING SURVEY

VENETIE, ALASKA

COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

VENETIE VILLAGE COUNCIL SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

BOX 81119 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA - FAIRBANKS

VENETIE, AK 99781 BOX 75700

FAIRBANKS, AK 99775

907-849-8212 907-474-7078

DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SECTION

ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH & GAME BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

BOX 689 3801 CENTERPOINT DRIVE, SUITE 500

KOTZEBUE, AK 99752 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503-5202

800-478-3420 907-334-5283

For more information about the project, contact Gary Kofinas, Project Leader

 School of Natural Resources & Agricultural Sciences, UAF

 (907) 474-7078, gpkofinas@alaska.edu

HOUSEHOLD ID:

COMMUNITY ID: VENETIE 363

RESPONDENT ID:

INTERVIEWER: 

INTERVIEW DATE: 

START TIME:

STOP TIME:

DATA CODED BY:

DATA ENTERED BY:

SUPERVISOR:

OMB Control # 1010-0184

Expiration Date: 09-30-2013
Study of Sharing to Assess Community Resilience

CONSENT FORM VENETIE: 363

Consent Form

Identify who is the “head” or “heads” of the household. Give copy of one-page summary about 

the project to respondent. Read or summarize to person/people to be interviewed. 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Venetie Village Coucil are partnering in a project on sharing 

relationships that are part of the subsistence–cash economy of the North Slope and Interior Alaska. The 

project is funded by the BOEMRE, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement. As a part of the project, I would like to interview you about the ways your household is 

supported and the ways subsistence foods come into your household. 

Many studies have tried to document subsistence, but they have not accounted for the sharing that helps 

to support families in village Alaska. This questionnaire is different. Similar to other projects, we would like 

to ask how much fish and game your household harvested last year, who lived in your household, and 

what kind of jobs and income your family members had last year. But we would also like to ask you about 

the ways that subsistence foods came into your household – either through sharing, cooperative hunting, 

exchanges of equipment, gifting, or other forms of help. We are documenting sharing to understand how 

households manage for environmental and economic changes, such as oil and gas development and 

climate change. Having this information now will help this village keep track of the changes in the future. 

This project involves the villages of Wainwright, Kaktovik and Venetie. It is our goal to interview the head 

of every household in all three villages. 

We expect that the interview will take about 1 to 1 1/2 hours to complete. As a thank you for your time, we

would like to give you $50 per hour of interviewing time, up to a maximum of $100. 

Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to not answer certain questions. Your name 

will remain anonymous. We will not put your name or the name and location of any households in our 

reports. If you would like to complete this interview in your own language, we will arrange to have a 

translator join us. Please do not hesitate to ask questions or clarification at any time during the interview. 

Once the survey is completed, the connection between respondents and responses will be destroyed. 

All the information from the project will be returned to the Venetie Village Council for its review before the 

information is released as a report. A summary about the project will be made available to residents of 

each village through posters, reports, and public meetings. A copy of the summary report will be mailed to 

you. As well, we will use the information from our study to write papers to be presented at conferences or 

written for professional journals. 

To summarize: 

• Participation in the interview and parts of the interview is voluntary and anonymity will be 

maintained. 

• Your name will not appear on the survey. 

• Neither your name nor the name of anyone else will appear in any reports or papers. 

• The Traditional Councils of each community will review the final report before it is released. 

• Results from interviews will be summarized, returned to the communities, and distributed for 

discussion. 

• A copy of the summary report will be mailed to you. 

►Are you willing to be interviewed? ................................................................................... Yes No 

 If NO, stop interview. If YES, continue and read the following example. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (PRA) STATEMENT: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) requires us to inform you that we collect this

information to obtain knowledge of subsistence issues in Alaska communities and how they relate to future oil and gas drilling. Responses are 

voluntary. Proprietary data are covered under FOIA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting for this study, is estimated to average 1.5 

hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions and answering the questions. Direct comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 5438, Minerals Management Service, 1849 C 

Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20240 

THANK YOU! 
ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS VENETIE: 363

The diagram above shows how wild foods were shared among households in Shungnak in 2002. Each 

box is a household. The lines between the households show the flow of wild foods from one house to 

another. At a glance, you can see how much sharing there was. Many of the elder households (brown 

boxes) and single elder households (triangles) are near the center of the diagram, which means they are 

near the center of the sharing network. The younger households (yellow) tend to be on the edges of the 

network. As they age, we would expect them to move towards the center.

This diagram is an example of social network analysis. To draw it, we asked questions like: 

 - Who killed the moose your household used?

 - Who cut the fish your household used?

 - Who paid your household bills?

Your answers to these questions help us describe sharing and cooperation, important parts of 

subsistence life. We do not expect you to remember everyone who helped your household. We hope you 

can remember the most important people.

We do not use names on our surveys. Instead, we have developed codes for everyone in your 

community. To properly code people who do not live in this community, we do enter names on a tear-off 

sheet. After non-local names have been coded for anonymity, this sheet will be removed from the survey.
HOUSEHOLD (HH) MEMBERS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

WHO lived in this HH?

Is this If NOT here since birth...

person How is Is this Last Lived Where is When From

answering this person Is this grade in this did this where

questions person MALE person How old completed this village person's person did this

Person on this related to or Alaska is this in since birth move person

Code survey? HEAD 1? FEMALE? Native? person? school? birth? home? here? move?

ID# 00000 circle relation circle circle age grade circle community year community

01

Next, enter spouse or partner. If HH has a SINGLE HEAD, leave next row BLANK.

02

DEMOGRAPHICS VENETIE: 363

First, I would like to ask about the people in your HH. By this, I mean the people who sleep at your house and are permanent members of your

family. This includes college or high school students who return home every summer. I am NOT interested in people who lived with you temporarily,

even if they stayed several months. I will not ask questions about them in the rest of the survey.

03 Y N M F Y N Y N

Y N M F Y N

Y N M F

Y N

Y N

05

Y N

Y N M F Y N Y N

04

06 Y N M F Y N

Y N

Y N

Below, enter children first (oldest to youngest), then grandchildren, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and other HH members.

Y N M F Y N

Y N

08 Y N M F Y N Y N

07 Y N M F Y N

Y N

10 Y N M F Y N Y N

09 Y N M F Y N

Y N

12 Y N M F Y N Y N

11 Y N M F Y N

Y N

14 Y N M F Y N Y N

13 Y N

Y N

15 Y N M F Y N

M F Y N

M F Y N

Y N

HEAD

HEAD

17 Y N M F Y N

Y N

16 Y N
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

DIVIDEND INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR DIVIDEND INCOME HH ID

Next, I have some questions about your HH's income and expenses.

During the last 12 MONTHS, did any members of your HH receive a dividend

from the Alaska PERMANENT FUND, from a REGIONAL or VILLAGE Native Corporation, or from other investments?................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

If YES, continue below...

2009 PFD* 2009 ANRC** 2009 ANVC***

 $1,281 / PERSON $ / 100 SHARES $ / 100 SHARES

Person Did this IF NO.... In 2009, how much DIVIDEND income

Code person how much did this person receive from...

Use same receive was this Alaska Alaska Other

code as a FULL person's Native Native Dividend

*previous Alaska PFD Alaska PFD REGIONAL VILLAGE Income

page in 2009? in 2009? Corporations? Corporations? (Stocks, Bonds) Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 circle dollars dollars dollars dollars enter text

HEAD 01

DIVIDENDS

1 6 910000000

Next, enter dividend income for spouse or partner. If HH has a SINGLE HEAD, leave next row BLANK.

HEAD 02

DIVIDENDS

2 6 910000000

Below, enter dividend income for the rest of the HH in the same order as the previous page.

PERSON 03

DIVIDENDS

3 6 910000000

PERSON 04

DIVIDENDS

4 6 910000000

PERSON 05

DIVIDENDS

5 6 910000000

PERSON 06

DIVIDENDS

6 6 910000000

PERSON 07

DIVIDENDS

7 6 910000000

PERSON 08

DIVIDENDS

8 6 910000000

PERSON 09

DIVIDENDS

9 6 910000000

PERSON 10

DIVIDENDS

10 6 910000000

PERSON 11

DIVIDENDS

11 6 910000000

PERSON 12

DIVIDENDS

12 6 910000000

PERSON 13

DIVIDENDS

13 6 910000000

PERSON 14

DIVIDENDS

14 6 910000000

PERSON 15

DIVIDENDS

15 6 910000000

PERSON 16

DIVIDENDS

16 6 910000000

PERSON 17

DIVIDENDS

17 6 910000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

$

* PFD is Permanent Fund Dividend; **ANRC is Alaska Native Regional Corporation; ***ANVC is Alaska Native Village Corporation

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr /Yr

$

$

$ /Yr

$

Y N $ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

$

/Yr

/Yr $

/Yr $

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr

/Yr

$

$

/Yr

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr

$ $

$ $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr

/Yr $ /Yr

$

$

/Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

$ $

Y N $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr

$ /Yr

/Yr

$ $ /Yr

/Yr $ /Yr $

Y N $ /Yr

$

$

$

/Yr

/Yr /Yr

$

/Yr $ /Yr

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr
JOBS FOR EACH PERSON IN THE HH, 16 YEARS OLD AND OLDER HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did any members of your HH earn money from a JOB or from SELF EMPLOYMENT?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

WORK SCHEDULE...

What kind of For whom In the past year, In the past year

work did did he or she what months how much did

Person he or she do work did he or she he or she earn

Code in this job? in this job? work in this job? in this job?

order | role | res. 00000 job title employer circle each month worked circle one gross income

1 6 910100000

2 6 910100000

3 6 910100000

4 6 910100000

5 6 910100000

6 6 910100000

7 6 910100000

8 6 910100000

9 6 910100000

10 6 910100000

11 6 910100000

12 6 910100000

EMPLOYMENT: 23 VENETIE: 363

N D

A N D

M ND S

O

FMA

O

M J

JM

M A

M A

F

A

J M M A

M

1ST JOB

F

FJ

2ND JOB J

3RD JOB

J F

4TH JOB

5TH JOB

O

J

J

M

6TH JOB

7TH JOB

J O

S

12TH JOB

F

9TH JOB JA

M J

J

J

10TH JOB

F

J

11TH JOB

J

S

S

8TH JOB

F

F M

F

J A

M

M A J

M A J A

A M

N D

M A

M A

M

MA O

FJ

J

F

J

A

S O

S

S

O

A

A

OJ

J

J

M

M

M

D

A

J J

D

D

NOA

J

J

J

J N

M S J J

S

S

A

OA FT

FT

O

O

N

S

A

A

S

/ Yr

PT OCSF SP $

SF OC

/ Yr

FT

OC

PT

PT

FT

FT

SP $

FT PT SF

SF OC

OC $

SP

$

PT

PT

SF

SP

OC

$

$

OC / Yr

SP $ / Yr

$

/ Yr

/ Yr

/ Yr

$

This page asks about jobs and income. We ask about jobs and income because we are trying to understand all parts of the community economy.

Many people use wages from jobs to support subsistence activities.

SF

FT

FT / Yr

SF

SP

SP

N

D

PT

SF

D

N

D

N PT

N

N D

PT

SF

FT / Yr

$

PT SF

SP

SF SP / Yr

SF / Yr

OC $

SP

$

SP

OC / Yr

FT

PART TIMESHIFT - FULL TIMEON-CALL, VARIESSHIFT - PART TIME

SP

FT OC

OC

OC

J

For each member of this HH born before 1994, please list EACH JOB held during the last 12

months. For HH members who did not have a job, write: RETIRED, UNEMPLOYED, STUDENT,

HOMEMAKER, etc. There should be ONE ROW FOR EACH JOB held by a member of this HH

born before 1994. There should be AT LEAST one row for each member of this HH born before

1994 (this includes anyone who is 16 years old or older).

J

PT

FT

D

J

PT

FULL TIME

J

 WORK SCHEDULE

1 - Fulltime (35+ hours/week)

2 - Parttime (<35 hours/week)

3 - Shift (2 wks on/2 off, etc.)

4 - Irregular, on call

5 - Shift - part time

0 - Unemployed

 GROSS 

INCOME

 is the same as 

TAXABLE 

INCOME

on a W-2 form.

If a person is SELF-EMPLOYED (selling carvings, 

crafts, bread, etc.), list that as a separate job. Enter 

"sewer," "carver," "baker," etc. as JOB TITLE. Work 

schedule usually will be "ON CALL." For gross 

income from self employment ("profit"), enter 

revenue MINUS expenses.

If a person is UNEMPLOYED, specify 

retired, unemployed, disabled, student, 

or homemaker as the JOB TITLE.

TRAPPING, SEWING, or CARVING 

for barter or sale IS a job. 
OTHER INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR INCOME THAT IS NOT EARNED FROM WORKING HH ID

During the last 12 MONTHS, did any member of your HH receive any kind of OTHER INCOME,

such as UNEMPLOYMENT, ...SOCIAL SECURITY , or ...CHILD SUPPORT?................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

If YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did YOUR HH receive from...

HH ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

...Energy ...Weather- Food WIC* 

Assistance ization Stamps 

OTHER INCOME RECEIVED

BY ENTIRE HH

1 6 910000000 9 34 11

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did ELDERS in your HH receive from...

ELDER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Person ...Social ...Pensions & ...Senior Care 

order | role | res. Code Security Retirement (Longevity) 

1ST ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

1 6 910000000 7 5 6 

2ND ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

2 6 910000000 7 5 6 

3RD ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

3 6 910000000 7 5 6 

4TH ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

4 6 910000000 7 5 6 

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did OTHER MEMBERS of your HH receive from...

JOB PROGRAMS CHILD PROGRAMS ** PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Person ...Workers' ...Supplemental ...Foster ...Child ...Adullt Public ...Temporary

order | role | res. Code Unemployment Compensation Security Care Support Assistance Assistance

1ST OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

1 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

2ND OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

2 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

3RD OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

3 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

4TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

4 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

5TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

5 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

6TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

6 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

7TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

7 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

8TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

8 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

*WIC is The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; ** Children's programs like foster care and child support are 

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

$

considered as parent or guardian income, not child income. 

NOTE: IF a respondent gives you MONTHLY income, calculate ANNUAL INCOME. This is (monthly amount) x (months received) = (annual 

amount). For example, if a respondent gets a $100 pension every month, calculate $100 x 12 = $1,200. If respondent got $1,200 in unemployment 

for three months, calculate $1,200 x 3 = $3,600. If income changes month to month, use typical monthly income.

$

$

$

$ /Yr

$

$

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$ $ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr $ $ /Yr /Yr

$ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$

$

/Yr

/Yr

$ $

/Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr /Yr $

$

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr

$

$

$ $

/Yr /Yr

$ /Yr

$ /Yr $

/Yr

$

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr

$ $ /Yr $/Yr $

/Yr $

$

$ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr $ $ /Yr

$ /Yr /Yr

$ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr

/Yr /Yr /Yr $

$

/Yr /Yr /Yr

$

$

/Yr

$ /Yr $ $ /Yr

$

$

$ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

$

$

/Yr $

$ /Yr $ $ /Yr

/Yr /Yr

/Yr

/Yr $

$ /Yr

$ /Yr $ $ /Yr $ $ /Yr /Yr $ /Yr

$ /Yr /Yr

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr $

$

/Yr

$ $ /Yr

$ /Yr $

$ /Yr

$ /Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr $

$ $ /Yr
MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HH ID 

I'm going to read a list of typical HH bills. Please tell me HOW MUCH your HH spent on each bill in a TYPICAL MONTH last year.

HOUSING HEATING FUELS UTILITIES GROCERIES

Rent or Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Water & Cable 

Mortagage? in Summer? in Winter? Wood? Electricity Sewer? Phone? Television? Groceries?

During the last 12 months, WHO contributed to paying your HH's bills? Include anyone who helped you pay your bills.

Person In a TYPICAL MONTH, how much did this person contribute to YOUR HH'S expenses for...

Code ...HOUSING ...HEATING FUELS ...UTILITIES ...GROCERIES Comments?

order, res. & role 00000 $ $ $ $ enter text

1ST CASH

SOURCE

1 6 910000000

2ND CASH

SOURCE

2 6 910000000

3RD CASH

SOURCE

3 6 910000000

4TH CASH

SOURCE

4 6 910000000

5TH CASH

SOURCE

5 6 910000000

6TH CASH

SOURCE

6 6 910000000

7TH CASH

SOURCE

7 6 910000000

8TH CASH

SOURCE

8 6 910000000

9TH CASH

SOURCE

9 6 910000000

10TH CASH

SOURCE

10 6 910000000

11TH CASH

SOURCE

11 6 910000000

12TH CASH

SOURCE

12 6 910000000

13TH CASH

SOURCE

13 6 910000000

14TH CASH

SOURCE

14 6 910000000

15TH CASH

SOURCE

15 6 910000000

16TH CASH

SOURCE

16 6 910000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ / Mo

$

$

$

$

$

$ / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$

$ / Mo

$ / Mo / Mo

$

$

$ / Mo / Mo

$

$ $ / Mo $

/ Mo

/ Mo $

$

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

$

$

/ Mo

$ / Mo $ / Mo / Mo

/ Mo $ $

$

/ Mo

$

$ $

/ Mo / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo $

/ Mo

/ Mo

$

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$

/ Mo $ / Mo

$ / Mo

$

/ Mo $

$

$/ Mo / Mo

$

$

$

$ / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

/ Mo / Mo

/ Mo $ / Mo $ / Mo

$

/ Mo / Mo $

/ Mo

$

/ Mo

$

/ Mo / Mo $

$ / Mo / Mo

/ Mo $ $

$

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

/ Mo $

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$

$/ Mo

/ Mo $

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo
FINANCIAL INFORMATION NETWORK HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone in this HH try to find a job, get a grant, or get some other kind of financial assistance?..................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...job ...grant ...assistance

opportunities? opportunities? opportunities?

Code Code Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

1 4 900000000

2ND FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

2 4 900000000

3RD FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

3 4 900000000

4TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

4 4 900000000

5TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

5 4 900000000

6TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

6 4 900000000

7TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

7 4 900000000

8TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

8 4 900000000

9TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

9 4 900000000

10TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

10 4 900000000

11TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

11 4 900000000

12TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

12 4 900000000

13TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

13 4 900000000

14TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

14 4 900000000

15TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

15 4 900000000

16TH FINANCIAL

INFO SOURCE

16 4 900000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

In the last 12 months,

which individuals and organizations PROVIDED INFORMATION to your HH about jobs, grants and other financial matters?
SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT SOURCES HH ID 

If HH did NOT use equipment for subsistence, skip to the next page.

If HH DID use equipment for subsistence, continue on this page...

During the last 12 months... During the last 12 months...

...Who OWNED ...WHAT equipment did this person provide for your HH's use? ...WHO Repaired

the equipment the equipment

your HH your HH

used for used for

subsistence? subsistence?

order | role | res. 00000 circle ALL that apply order | role | res. 00000

1ST EQUIPMENT 1ST REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

1 9 1 7

2ND EQUIPMENT 2ND REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

2 9 2 7

3RD EQUIPMENT 3RD REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

3 9 3 7

4TH EQUIPMENT 4TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

4 9 4 7

5TH EQUIPMENT 5TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

5 9 5 7

6TH EQUIPMENT 6TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

6 9 6 7

7TH EQUIPMENT 7TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

7 9 7 7

8TH EQUIPMENT 8TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

8 9 8 7

9TH EQUIPMENT 9TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

9 9 9 7

10TH EQUIPMENT 10TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

10 9 10 7

11TH EQUIPMENT 11TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

11 9 11 7

12TH EQUIPMENT 12TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

12 9 12 7

13TH EQUIPMENT 13TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

13 9 13 7

14TH EQUIPMENT 14TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

14 9 14 7

15TH EQUIPMENT 15TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

15 9 15 7

16TH EQUIPMENT 16TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

16 9 16 7

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINECAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER BOAT

SNOWMACHINE BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT

BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINEOUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINE

BOAT

BOAT

CAR OR 

TRUCK

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER BOAT SNOWMACHINE

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

OTHER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE 

SNOWMACHINE BOAT

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK
SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH use equipment like boats, *snowmachines (snowmobiles),

or freezers to harvest or store subsistence foods?....................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

If "NO," skip this page and the next page.

If "YES", continue on this page...

For each equipment type OWNED by this household in 2010, ask...

Over 12 mos. ... PURCHASES REPAIRS GASOLINE

how many did ... ... ... ...

________ your how many how much did how much did how much did

did your HH use did your your HH spend your HH spend your HH spend

HH own? ______? HH buy? TO BUY ______? TO REPAIR _____? on GAS for _____?

number circle number dollars dollars dollars

BOAT(S)

980110000

OUTBOARD MOTOR(S)

980120000

980210100

ATV(S), 4-WHEELER(S)

980210200

FREEZER(S)

980600100

SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES

950000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

SNOWMACHINE(S) 

/ Yr

/ Yr

$ / Yr

$

/ Yr

$

/ Yr / Yr

Y N / Yr

Y N

/ Yr

Y N $

$

/ Yr

Y N $

$ / Yr $

$ / Yr

$

I am going to read a list of some equipment and supplies that people use for subsistence. Please tell me if someone in your HH OWNED or USED 

this equipment in the last 12 months. For equipment that your HH owned, I would like to know how much your HH spent in the last 12 months to buy, 

repair, and supply this equipment.

/ Yr

/ Yr $ / Yr

Y N $

Y N

n/a

$ $ / Yr

$ n/a

Y N $ / Yr SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES include:

ammunition, nets, hunting and fishing clothes,

buckets, tubs, camp supplies, etc.

n/a

*Local terminology for "snowmobile" is "snowmachine". The term "snowmachine" is 

used throughout the rest of the survey instrument.

$

Y N

/ Yr $

/ Yr $ / Yr

/ Yr $

If ALL the equipment in a category

belonged to people in other HHs, enter a

ZERO. This space is just for equipment

owned by members of this HH. Do NOT

count equipment that DID NOT WORK at

any time during the past year. 

If the equipment belonged to someone

in another HH, but was used by

someone in this HH, answer "YES."
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
INTRODUCTION TO NETWORKS HH ID 

The next section asks about subsistence foods.

For most foods, we will briefly ask how much your HH got last year (between the months of October 2009 

and October 2010) .

But for six important foods, we will ask about the different ways those foods came into your HH, for

example; your own hunting, hunting with others, your contributions to the hunting of other HHs, and sharing.

The 6 foods we will ask about are:

VENETIE: As well, because many people in VEE are related to people from regions 

CARIBOU where marine mammals are hunted, we will ask if members of your HH

MOOSE received Bearded Seal, Beluga whale or Bowhead whale from others. 

DUCKS

GEESE

GRAYLING

WHITEFISH

BERRIES

INTRODUCTION TO NETWORKS VENETIE: 363
HARVESTS: LARGE LAND MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt large land mammals for subsistence,

such as CARIBOU or MOOSE?.......................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT large land mammals?............................................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number specify* enter text

CARIBOU

211000000 << CODER: Summarize network harvests here.

MOOSE

211800000 << CODER: Summarize network harvests here.

DALL SHEEP

212200000

BLACK BEAR

210600000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

Did your HH use or hunt for any other large mammals in the last 12 months?....................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

LAND MAMMALS: 10 VENETIE: 363

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Give Away?

SURVEYOR: If respondent answers NO to ALL moose questions here,

continue on this page, but skip the moose source pages.

SURVEYOR: If respondent answers NO to ALL caribou questions here,

continue on this page, but skip the caribou source pages.

Y N

*SURVEYOR: Respondents should specify the applicable unit of measure for that resource (number or proportions of animals, fish or berries, 

buckets, etc.), and when appropriate, how many were killed, gathered or received. All units will be transformed to weight in pounds during analysis.

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many large land mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED for subsistence use the last 12 months. INCLUDE large land mammals

you gave away, ate fresh, dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping

others. If hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sew, carve, apply medicinally, etc.)Receive?Try to Harvest?
CARIBOU SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any CARIBOU while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?............................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211000000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211000000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211000000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211000000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211000000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211000000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211000000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211000000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211000000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211000000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211000000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211000000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 211000000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 211000000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who in your HH killed CARIBOU last 

year?

How many CARIBOU did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many caribou EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use during the

last 12 months. INCLUDE caribou the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include caribou the HH ate fresh,

dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive CARIBOU as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211000000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211000000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211000000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211000000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211000000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211000000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211000000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211000000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211000000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211000000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211000000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211000000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 211000000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 211000000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who received CARIBOU as a share 

when hunting with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many caribou each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while 

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE caribou the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of CARIBOU

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if caribou was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members CARIBOU did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211000000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211000000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211000000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211000000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211000000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211000000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211000000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211000000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211000000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211000000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211000000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211000000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211000000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211000000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211000000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE THEM CASH

of 

CARIBOU?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIES
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive CARIBOU

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?............................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person CARIBOU did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211000000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211000000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211000000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211000000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211000000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211000000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211000000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211000000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211000000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211000000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211000000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211000000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211000000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211000000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211000000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211000000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

P FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G T EQUIP. GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ?

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBSISTENCE FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINE

CARIBOU

?

AMMO

CARIBOU?
CARIBOU: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away CARIBOU for your HH?.................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, smoked, or put away CARIBOU for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 211000000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 211000000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 211000000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 211000000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 211000000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 211000000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 211000000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 211000000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 211000000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 211000000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 211000000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 211000000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 211000000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 211000000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 211000000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 211000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
CARIBOU: SUPPORT NETWORK HHID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for CARIBOU during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Caribou Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Caribou? Caribou? Caribou? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 211000000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 211000000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 211000000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 211000000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 211000000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 211000000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 211000000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 211000000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 211000000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 211000000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 211000000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 211000000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 211000000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 211000000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 211000000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 211000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about caribou hunting. During the last 12 

MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
NOTES HH ID 

: 00 VENETIE: 363
MOOSE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH 

kill any MOOSE while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211800000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211800000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211800000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211800000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211800000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211800000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211800000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211800000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211800000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211800000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211800000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211800000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211800000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 211800000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 211800000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 211800000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many moose EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use during the

last 12 months. INCLUDE moose the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include moose the HH ate fresh,

dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who in your HH killed MOOSE last 

year?

How many MOOSE did this 

person kill?
MOOSE SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive MOOSE as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?...................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211800000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211800000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211800000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211800000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211800000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211800000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211800000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211800000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211800000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211800000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211800000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211800000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211800000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 211800000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 211800000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 211800000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many moose each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE moose the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received MOOSE as a share 

when hunting with others?
MOOSE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of MOOSE

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HH s, but did NOT actually hunt with them?................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if moose was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members MOOSE did

of your HH members of your HH 

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211800000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211800000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211800000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211800000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211800000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211800000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211800000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211800000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211800000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211800000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211800000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211800000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211800000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211800000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211800000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211800000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT GAVE THEM GASOLINE GAVE THEM AMMO

of MOOSE?

GAVE THEM SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE THEM CASH

FOOD

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS
MOOSE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive MOOSE

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?............................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HH S only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person MOOSE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211800000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211800000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211800000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211800000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211800000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211800000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211800000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211800000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211800000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211800000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211800000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211800000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211800000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211800000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211800000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211800000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363 SUBSISTENCE FOOD

MOOSE?

GASOLINEAMMO

MOOSE?

OTHERLABOREQUIPMENT

OTHER 

LABOR GTP SUBS. FOOD

FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

EQUIP. AMMO FOOD

LABOR GAS

EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ?

Y N S ? T AMMO

AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

G

GAS

P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

P SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? FOODLABOR G T

Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ?

FOOD

LABOR T P SUBS. FOOD

SUBS. 

FOOD EQUIP. GAS AMMO

GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

FOOD

LABOR GTP

Y N S ? G AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD T P

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? T P G SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR
MOOSE: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away MOOSE for your HH?....................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, or put away MOOSE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 211800000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 211800000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 211800000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 211800000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 211800000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 211800000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 211800000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 211800000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 211800000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 211800000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 211800000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 211800000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 211800000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 211800000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 211800000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 211800000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH .
MOOSE: SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for MOOSE during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Moose Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Moose? Moose? Moose? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 211800000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 211800000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 211800000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 211800000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 211800000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 211800000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 211800000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 211800000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 211800000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 211800000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 211800000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 211800000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 211800000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 211800000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 211800000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 211800000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about moose hunting. During the last 12 

MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

HARVESTS: MIGRATORY BIRDS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt migratory birds for subsistence,

such as WHITE-FRONTED GEESE or COMMON EIDER?...................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT migratory birds?............................................................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

WHITE-FRONTED GEESE

410410000 << CODER: Summarize network harvests here.

CANADA GEESE Y N Y N Y N Y N

410404990 << CODER: Summarize network harvests here.

COMMON EIDER Y N Y N Y N Y N

410206020

KING EIDER Y N Y N Y N Y N

410206040

OTHER DUCKS Y N Y N Y N Y N

410299009 << CODER: Summarize network harvests here.

PTARMIGAN Y N Y N Y N Y N

421804000

TUNDRA SWAN Y N Y N Y N Y N

410699000

SANDHILL CRANE Y N Y N Y N Y N

410802000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of migratory birds?....................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

BIRDS AND EGGS: 15 VENETIE: 363

SURVEYOR: If respondent answers NO to ALL canada geese questions

here, continue on this page, but skip the geese source pages.

SURVEYOR: If respondent answers NO to ALL other ducks questions here,

continue on this page, but skip the ducks source pages.

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

SURVEYOR: If respondent answers NO to ALL white-fronted geese

questions here, continue on this page, but skip the geese source pages.

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Use? (eat, trade, apply medicinally, etc.)Receive?

Y N

Give Away?

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many migratory birds ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED for subsistence use the last 12 months. INCLUDE migratory birds you

gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If

hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the hunt.

Try to Harvest?
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

GEESE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any GEESE while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410499009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410499009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410499009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410499009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410499009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410499009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410499009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410499009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410499009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410499009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410499009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410499009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 410499009

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 410499009

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 410499009

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 410499009

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who in your HH killed GEESE last 

year?

How many GEESE did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many geese EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use during the

last 12 months. INCLUDE geese the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include geese the HH ate fresh,

froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

GEESE SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive GEESE as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410499009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410499009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410499009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410499009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410499009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410499009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410499009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410499009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410499009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410499009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410499009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410499009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 410499009

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 410499009

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 410499009

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 410499009

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who received GEESE as a share 

when hunting with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many geese each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the hunt. INCLUDE geese the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

GEESE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of GEESE

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if birds were a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members GEESE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410499009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410499009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410499009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410499009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410499009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410499009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410499009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410499009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410499009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410499009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410499009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410499009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410499009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410499009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410499009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410499009

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOR

of GEESE?

LOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

GEESE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive GEESE

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?.......................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person GEESE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410499009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410499009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410499009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410499009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410499009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410499009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410499009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410499009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410499009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410499009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410499009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410499009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410499009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410499009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410499009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410499009

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

OTHER 

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P

T P

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G

OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO

GEESE? GEESE?

SUBSISTENCE FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

GEESE: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, pluck, or put away GEESE for your HH?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, plucked, or put away GEESE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 410499009

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 410499009

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 410499009

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 410499009

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 410499009

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 410499009

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 410499009

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 410499009

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 410499009

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 410499009

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 410499009

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 410499009

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 410499009

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 410499009

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 410499009

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 410499009

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
FAMILY NETWORKS PROTOTYPE 10/21/2010

GEESE: SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for GEESE during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Geese Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Geese? Geese? Geese? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 410499009

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 410499009

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 410499009

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 410499009

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 410499009

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 410499009

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 410499009

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 410499009

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 410499009

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 410499009

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 410499009

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 410499009

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 410499009

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 410499009

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 410499009

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 410499009

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about geese hunting. During the last 12 

MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
NOTES HH ID 

: 00 VENETIE: 363
DUCK SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any DUCKS while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?.............................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 430299000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 430299000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 430299000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 430299000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 430299000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 430299000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 430299000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 430299000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 430299000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 430299000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 430299000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 430299000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 430299000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 430299000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 430299000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 430299000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who in your HH killed DUCKS last 

year?

How many DUCKS did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many ducks EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use during the

last 12 months. INCLUDE ducks the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include ducks the HH ate fresh,

froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.
DUCK SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive DUCKS as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?..................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How many did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 430299000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 430299000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 430299000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 430299000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 430299000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 430299000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 430299000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 430299000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 430299000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 430299000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 430299000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 430299000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 430299000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 430299000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 430299000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 430299000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who received DUCKS as a share 

when hunting with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many ducks each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months

while hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the hunt. INCLUDE ducks the HH received as a share then gave away, fed

to dogs, or lost to spoilage.
DUCK SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of DUCKS 

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if birds were a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members DUCKS did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 430299000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 430299000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 430299000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 430299000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 430299000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 430299000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 430299000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 430299000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 430299000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 430299000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 430299000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 430299000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 430299000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 430299000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 430299000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 430299000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE THEM CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

GASGAVE THEM GASOLINE

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIES

of DUCKS ?

LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT
DUCK SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive DUCKS 

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying them from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community? Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person DUCKS did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 430299000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 430299000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 430299000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 430299000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 430299000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 430299000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 430299000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 430299000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 430299000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 430299000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 430299000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 430299000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 430299000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 430299000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 430299000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 430299000

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

T P

SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR EQUIP. FOODLABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GTP

Y N S ? OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ?

GAS AMMO

T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR G T P

Y N S ? G

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR G T P

Y N S ?

Y N S ?

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR G T P

G T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ?

GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR G T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P

Y N S ?

GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR G EQUIP.

FOOD

LABOR GTP SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR

GAS AMMO

EQUIP. GAS AMMO FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G

Y N S ?

Y N S ?

SUBS. 

FOOD

SUBS. 

FOOD P

Y N S ?

SUBS. 

FOOD T P

T

T

G

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? AMMO

P EQUIP. GAS FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

G T EQUIP. GAS OTHER 

LABOR

G

SUBSISTENCE FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOR

P SUBS. 

FOOD

EQUIPMENT

DUCKS ? DUCKS ?

GASOLINEAMMO
DUCK PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, pluck, or put away DUCKS for your HH?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, plucked, or put away DUCKS for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 430299000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 430299000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 430299000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 430299000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 430299000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 430299000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 430299000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 430299000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 430299000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 430299000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 430299000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 430299000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 430299000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 430299000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 430299000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 430299000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
DUCK SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for DUCKS during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Ducks ? Ducks? Ducks? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 430299000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 430299000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 430299000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 430299000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 430299000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 430299000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 430299000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 430299000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 430299000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 430299000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 430299000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 430299000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 430299000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 430299000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 430299000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 430299000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about duck hunting. During the last 12 

MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
HARVESTS: FISH HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY catch fish for subsistence,

such as CHUM SALMON or GRAYLING?.......................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE FISH or TRY TO FISH?...................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

CHUM SALMON

111000003

GRAYLING

125200003 << CODER: Summarize network harvests here.

WHITEFISH

126400000

KING SALMON

113000003

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use any other kind of fish?..................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

SALMON OR OTHER FISH: 04 & 06 VENETIE: 363

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

SURVEYOR: If respondent answers NO to ALL grayling questions here,

continue on this page, but skip the grayling source pages.

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y NGive Away?

Try to Harvest?

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many fish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH FISHED for

subsistence use the last 12 months, including with rod and reel. INCLUDE fish you

gave away, ate fresh, dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others.

If fishing with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.

Use? (eat, trade, feed to dogs, etc.)Receive?
SALMON SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

catch any SALMON while fishing alone, or with other people living in this HH?........................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH fished with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Caught Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 110000000

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 110000000

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 110000000

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 110000000

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 110000000

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 110000000

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 110000000

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 110000000

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 110000000

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 110000000

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 110000000

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 110000000

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 110000000

14TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 110000000

15TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 110000000

16TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 110000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many salmon EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use during the

last 12 months, including with rod and reel. INCLUDE salmon the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home.

Include salmon the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who in your HH caught SALMON last 

year?

How many SALMON did this 

person catch?
SALMON SOURCES: SHARES FROM FISHING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive SALMON as their share from fishing together with people from other HHs?...................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HH FISHERS from OTHER HHS

How many did this person Who fished with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 110000000

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 110000000

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 110000000

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 110000000

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 110000000

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 110000000

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 110000000

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 110000000

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 110000000

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 110000000

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 110000000

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 110000000

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 110000000

14TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 110000000

15TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 110000000

16TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 110000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many salmon each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months,

including with rod and reel while fishing with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the catch. INCLUDE salmon the HH received as a

share then gave away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received SALMON as a share 

when fishing with others?
SALMON SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of SALMON

because they contributed to the fishing effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually fish for with them?................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if the fish was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE? 

did members SALMON did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 110000000

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 110000000

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 110000000

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 110000000

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 110000000

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 110000000

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 110000000

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 110000000

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 110000000

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 110000000

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 110000000

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 110000000

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 110000000

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 110000000

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 110000000

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 110000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT GAVE THEM GASOLINE

GAVE 

CASH

of SALMON?

GAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS
SALMON SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive SALMON

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in this community or in another community?................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person SALMON did Was

HH CATCH your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 110000000

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 110000000

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 110000000

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 110000000

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 110000000

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 110000000

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 110000000

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 110000000

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 110000000

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 110000000

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 110000000

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 110000000

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 110000000

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 110000000

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 110000000

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 110000000

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR EQUIPMENT

Y N S ? G SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS

SUBSISTENCE FOODGASOLINEAMMO

WHITEFISH?WHITEFISH?

AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P OTHER LABOR G EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

G

Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? T P G SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR
SALMON: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away SALMON for your HH?...................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, or put away SALMON for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 110000000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 110000000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 110000000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 110000000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 110000000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 110000000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 110000000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 110000000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 110000000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 110000000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 110000000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 110000000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 110000000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 110000000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 110000000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 110000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
SALMON: SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH fished for SALMON during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member fished, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member fished, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Fishing 

to Fish For for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Salmon? Salmon? Salmon? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 110000000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 110000000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 110000000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 110000000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 110000000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 110000000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 110000000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 110000000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 110000000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 110000000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 110000000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 110000000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 110000000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 110000000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 110000000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 110000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about fishing for whitefish. During the last 12 

MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
NOTES HH ID 

: 00 VENETIE: 363
GRAYLING SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

catch any GRAYLING while fishing alone, or with other people living in this HH?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH fished with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Caught Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 125200003

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 125200003

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 125200003

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 125200003

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 125200003

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 125200003

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 125200003

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 125200003

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 125200003

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 125200003

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 125200003

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 125200003

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 125200003

14TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 125200003

15TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 125200003

16TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 125200003

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Who in your HH caught GRAYLING 

last year?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many grayling EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use during

the last 12 months, including with rod and reel. INCLUDE grayling the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home.

Include grayling the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

How many GRAYLING did this 

person catch?
GRAYLING SOURCES: SHARES FROM FISHING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive GRAYLING as their share from fishing together with people from other HHs?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HH FISHERS from OTHER HHS

How many did this person Who fished with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 125200003

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 125200003

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 125200003

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 125200003

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 125200003

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 125200003

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 125200003

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 125200003

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 125200003

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 125200003

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 125200003

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 125200003

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 125200003

14TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 125200003

15TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 125200003

16TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 125200003

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many grayling each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months,

including with rod and reel while fishing with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the catch. INCLUDE grayling the HH received as

a share then gave away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received GRAYLING as a share 

when fishing with others?
GRAYLING SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of GRAYLING 

because they contributed to the fishing effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually fish with them?...................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if the fish was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members GRAYLING did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 125200003

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 125200003

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 125200003

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 125200003

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 125200003

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 125200003

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 125200003

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 125200003

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 125200003

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 125200003

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 125200003

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 125200003

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 125200003

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 125200003

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 125200003

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 125200003

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE THEM CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE THEM SUPPLIES

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE THEM AMMO

GAVE 

AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORGAVE THEM GASOLINE

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT

of 

GRAYLING ?
GRAYLING SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive GRAYLING 

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?........................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person GRAYLING did Was

HH CATCH your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 125200003

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 125200003

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 125200003

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 125200003

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 125200003

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 125200003

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 125200003

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 125200003

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 125200003

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 125200003

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 125200003

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 125200003

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 125200003

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 125200003

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 125200003

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 125200003

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ?

Y N S ? T P AMMO FOOD

LABOR GAS SUBS. FOOD G

GTP AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS

P SUBS. 

FOOD

T P

Y N S ? FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ?

G

G

T

AMMO

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS

EQUIP. OTHER 

LABOR

T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR G

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G

GAS AMMO

T P

T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G

Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G T P

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

GAS AMMO

T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G

G

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? T P EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? GTP

AMMO

GAS AMMO

G T P GAS

Y N S ?

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

G

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENT

T P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

GRAYLING? GRAYLING?

SUBSISTENCE FOODGASOLINEAMMO
GRAYLING : PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away GRAYLING for your HH?.................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, or put away GRAYLING for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 125200003

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 125200003

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 125200003

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 125200003

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 125200003

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 125200003

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 125200003

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 125200003

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 125200003

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 125200003

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 125200003

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 125200003

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 125200003

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 125200003

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 125200003

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 125200003

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
GRAYLING : SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH fished for GRAYLING during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member fished, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member fished, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Fishing 

to Fish for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Grayling ? Grayling ? Grayling ? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 125200003

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 125200003

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 125200003

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 125200003

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 125200003

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 125200003

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 125200003

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 125200003

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 125200003

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 125200003

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 125200003

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 125200003

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 125200003

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 125200003

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 125200003

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 125200003

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about fishing for grayling. During the last 12 

MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
HARVESTS (VENETIE): MARINE MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH EVER take part in hunting marine mammals for subsistence?......................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT marine mammals?........................................................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

BOWHEAD WHALE

301606000

BEARDED SEAL

meat or oil

300802000

BELUGA WHALE

301602000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of marine mammals?................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

MARINE MAMMALS: 12 VENETIE: 363

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Please estimate how many marine mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED for subsistence use the last 12 months. INCLUDE marine mammals you

gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If

hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the hunt.

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

Use? (eat, carve, sew, trade, etc.)

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any BEARDED SEAL while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 300802000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 300802000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 300802000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 300802000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 300802000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 300802000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 300802000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 300802000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 300802000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 300802000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 300802000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 300802000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 300802000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 300802000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 300802000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 300802000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many bearded seal EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use

during the last 12 months. INCLUDE bearded seal the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include bearded

seal the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who in your HH killed BEARDED 

SEAL last year?

How many BEARDED SEAL did 

this person kill?
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive BEARDED SEAL as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?........................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 300802000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 300802000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 300802000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 300802000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 300802000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 300802000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 300802000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 300802000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 300802000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 300802000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 300802000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 300802000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 300802000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 300802000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 300802000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 300802000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many bearded seal each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months

while hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the hunt. INCLUDE bearded seal the HH received as a share then gave away, fed

to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received BEARDED SEAL as a 

share when hunting with others?
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BEARDED SEAL

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if seal was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BEARDED SEAL did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 300802000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 300802000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 300802000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 300802000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 300802000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 300802000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 300802000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 300802000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 300802000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 300802000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 300802000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 300802000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 300802000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 300802000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 300802000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 300802000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

LOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMO

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

OTHERLABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

of BEARDED 

SEAL?

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive BEARDED SEAL

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?.......................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BEARDED SEAL did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 300802000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 300802000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 300802000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 300802000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 300802000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 300802000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 300802000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 300802000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 300802000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 300802000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 300802000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 300802000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 300802000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 300802000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 300802000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 300802000

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

OTHER 

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD EQUIP. GAS FOODLABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO SUBSISTENCE FOOD OTHER LABOR EQUIPMENT GASOLINE AMMO

BEARDED 

SEAL?

BEARDED 

SEAL?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOR
BEARDED SEAL: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, render into oil, or put away BEARDED SEAL for your HH?............................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, made oil, or put away BEARDED SEAL for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 300802000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 300802000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 300802000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 300802000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 300802000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 300802000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 300802000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 300802000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 300802000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 300802000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 300802000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 300802000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 300802000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 300802000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 300802000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 300802000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
BEARDED SEAL: SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for BEARDED SEAL during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... Seal Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of Rules, Regulations, 

Bearded Seal? Bearded Seal? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 300802000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 300802000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 300802000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 300802000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 300802000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 300802000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 300802000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 300802000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 300802000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 300802000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 300802000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 300802000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 300802000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 300802000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 300802000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 300802000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about seal hunting. During the last 12 MONTHS, 

from whom did members of your HH learn about...

Please list the most 

important person first. 

INCLUDE people in 

this HH.

... 

The condition of 

Bearded Seals
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
NOTES HH ID 

: 00 VENETIE: 363
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any BELUGA WHALE while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301602000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301602000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301602000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301602000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301602000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301602000 _

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 301602000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 301602000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 301602000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 301602000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 301602000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 301602000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 301602000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 301602000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 301602000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 301602000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many beluga whale EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use

during the last 12 months. INCLUDE beluga whale the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include beluga

whale the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who in your HH killed BELUGA 

WHALE last year?

How many BELUGA WHALE did 

this person kill?
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FROM HUNTING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive BELUGA WHALE as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?..................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301602000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301602000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301602000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301602000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301602000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301602000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 301602000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 301602000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 301602000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 301602000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 301602000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 301602000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 301602000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 301602000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 301602000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 301602000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how much beluga whale each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12

months while hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the hunt. INCLUDE beluga whale the HH received as a share then

gave away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received BELUGA WHALE as a 

share when hunting with others?
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BELUGA WHALE

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and then ask if the beluga was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BELUGA WHALE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301602000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301602000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301602000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301602000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301602000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301602000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301602000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301602000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301602000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301602000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301602000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301602000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301602000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301602000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301602000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301602000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

LOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMO

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

OTHERLABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

of BELUGA 

WHALE?

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive BELUGA WHALE

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?......................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BELUGA WHALE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301602000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301602000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301602000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301602000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301602000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301602000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301602000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301602000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301602000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301602000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301602000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301602000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301602000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301602000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301602000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301602000

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

OTHER 

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

Y N S ? G T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? G T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD EQUIP. GAS FOODLABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO SUBSISTENCE FOOD OTHER LABOR EQUIPMENT GASOLINE AMMO

BELUGA 

WHALE?

BELUGA 

WHALE?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOR
BELUGA WHALE: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, render into oil, or put away BELUGA WHALE for your HH?............................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, made oil, or put away BELUGA WHALE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 301602000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 301602000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 301602000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 301602000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 301602000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 301602000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 301602000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 301602000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 301602000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 301602000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 301602000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 301602000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 301602000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 301602000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 301602000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 301602000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
BELUGA WHALE: SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for BELUGA WHALE during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... Whale Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of Rules, Regulations, 

Beluga Whale? Beluga Whale? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 301602000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 301602000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 301602000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 301602000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 301602000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 301602000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 301602000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 301602000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 301602000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 301602000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 301602000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 301602000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 301602000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 301602000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 301602000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 301602000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about hunting for beluga whale. During the last 

12 MONTHS, from whom did members of your HH learn about...

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

... 

The condition of 

Beluga Whales 
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
NOTES HH ID 

: 00 VENETIE: 363
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES from BOWHEAD WHALE 

because they contributed to the hunting effort of whaling crews, but were not actually crew members?.............................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if whale was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BOWHEAD WHALE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301606000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301606000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301606000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301606000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301606000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301606000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301606000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301606000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301606000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301606000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301606000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301606000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301606000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301606000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301606000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

of BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINE

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive parts of BOWHEAD WHALE

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?.......... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BOWHEAD WHALE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301606000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301606000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301606000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301606000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301606000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301606000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301606000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301606000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301606000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301606000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301606000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301606000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301606000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301606000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301606000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301606000

S="SOMETIMES"; ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? GTP

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G T P OTHER LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? T P

G

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR G EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? T P OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G T P OTHER LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? T P

G

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR G EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? T P OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G T P EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G T P OTHER LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

Y N S ? T P

G

GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR G EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? T P OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G EQUIP.

T P

T P

GAS AMMO

GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G

Y N S ? G T EQUIP.

BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

SUBSISTENCE FOODEQUIPMENT

P SUBS. 

FOOD

OTHERLABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

GASOLINEAMMO
BOWHEAD WHALE: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, or put away BOWHEAD WHALE for your HH?........................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, or put away BOWHEAD WHALE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 301606000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 301606000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 301606000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 301606000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 301606000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 301606000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 301606000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 301606000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 301606000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 301606000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 301606000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 301606000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 301606000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 301606000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 301606000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 301606000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
BOWHEAD WHALE: SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH hunted for BOWHEAD WHALE during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member hunted, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member hunted, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... ... Bowhead Hunting 

to Hunt for the Population size of The Condition of Rules, Regulations, 

Bowhead Whale? Bowhead? Bowhead ? and Management? 

Person Code Person Code Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 301606000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 301606000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 301606000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 301606000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 301606000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 301606000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 301606000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 301606000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 301606000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 301606000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 301606000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 301606000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 301606000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 301606000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 301606000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 301606000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE and ORGANIZATIONS that provided information to your HH about bowhead hunting. During the last 12 MONTHS,

from whom did members of your HH learn about...

Please list the most 

important person first. 

INCLUDE people in 

this HH.
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
NOTES HH ID 

: 00 VENETIE: 363
HARVESTS: SMALL LAND ANIMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt small land animals for subsistence,

such as GROUND SQUIRREL or MARMOT?........................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT small land animals?...................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

GROUND SQUIRREL

222802000

MARMOT

221800000

WOLF

223200000

WOLVERINE

223400000

ARCTIC FOX

220802000

LYNX

221600000

MARTEN

222000000

RED FOX

220804000

MUSKRAT

222400000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of small mammals?...................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

LAND MAMMALS: 10 VENETIE: 363

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Receive?Give Away?

In the last 12 months, did your 

HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many small land animals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED for subsistence use the last 12 months. INCLUDE small land animals

you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If

hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sell, trade, sew, etc.)Try to Harvest?

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N
HARVESTS: BERRIES HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY pick berries for subsistence?............................................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO PICK berries?.......................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

BLUEBERRIES

601002002

CRANBERRIES

601004002

SALMONBERRIES

601022002

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or pick any other kind of berries?.................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

PLANTS: 17 VENETIE: 363

In the last 12 months, did your 

HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many berries ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH PICKED for

subsistence use during the last 12 months. INCLUDE berries you gave away, ate

fresh, dried, froze, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If picking with others,

report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the what you picked.

Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Y N

Y N

Use? (eat, sell, trade, cook, etc.)

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N
BERRY SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

pick any Blueberries or Cranberries alone, or with other people living in this HH?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

PICKERS from THIS HH only

Who in THIS HH picked with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Picked Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 601000000

2ND PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 601000000

3RD PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 601000000

4TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 601000000

5TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 601000000

6TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 601000000

7TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 601000000

8TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 601000000

9TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 601000000

10TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 601000000

11TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 601000000

12TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 601000000

13TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 601000000

14TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 601000000

15TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 601000000

16TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 601000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many buckets of berries EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED for subsistence use

during the last 12 months. INCLUDE berries the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include berries the HH

ate fresh, dried, froze, or lost to spoilage.

Who in your HH picked BERRIES last 

year?

How many BERRIES did this 

person pick?
BERRY SOURCES: SHARES FROM PICKING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

receive BERRIES as their share from picking together with people from other HHs?.................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

PICKERS from THIS HH PICKERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who picked with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 601000000

2ND PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 601000000

3RD PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 601000000

4TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 601000000

5TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 601000000

6TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 601000000

7TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 601000000

8TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 601000000

9TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 601000000

10TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 601000000

11TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 601000000

12TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 601000000

13TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 601000000

14TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 601000000

15TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 601000000

16TH PICKER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 601000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many buckets of berries each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12

months while picking with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the berries picked. INCLUDE berries the HH received as a share

then gave away, or lost to spoilage.

Who received BERRIES as a share 

when picking with others?
BERRY SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BERRIES

because they contributed to the picking effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually pick with them?................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this, 

and follow up by asking if the berries were a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE? 

did members BERRIES did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 601000000

2ND PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 601000000

3RD PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 601000000

4TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 601000000

5TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 601000000

6TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 601000000

7TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 601000000

8TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 601000000

9TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 601000000

10TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 601000000

11TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 601000000

12TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 601000000

13TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 601000000

14TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 601000000

15TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 601000000

16TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 601000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT GAVE THEM GASOLINE

GAVE 

CASH

of BERRIES?

GAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS
BERRY SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH receive BERRIES

either as a gift, in a trade, or by buying it from someone living in another HH in Venetie or in another community?.......................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BERRIES did Was

HH PICK your HH receive this a

receive the from this person? GIFT,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 601000000

2ND PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 601000000

3RD PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 601000000

4TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 601000000

5TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 601000000

6TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 601000000

7TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 601000000

8TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 601000000

9TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 601000000

10TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 601000000

11TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 601000000

12TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 601000000

13TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 601000000

14TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 601000000

15TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 601000000

16TH PICKER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 601000000

S="SOMETIMES" ?="DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR EQUIPMENT

Y N S ? G SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS

SUBSISTENCE FOODGASOLINEAMMO

BERRIES? BERRIES?

AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR T P OTHER LABOR G EQUIP.

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

G

Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? T P G GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? T P G SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? G EQUIP. GAS

Y N S ? G T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR
BERRY PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone put away or clean BERRIES for your HH?.................................................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who put away or cleaned BERRIES for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 601000000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 601000000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 601000000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 601000000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 601000000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 601000000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 601000000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 601000000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 601000000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 601000000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 601000000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 601000000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 601000000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 601000000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 601000000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 601000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.
BERRY SUPPORT NETWORK HH ID 

Ask the questions on this page IF ANY MEMBER of this HH picked BERRIES during the last 12 months.

IF NO HH member picked, skip this page.

IF ANY HH member picked, continue on this page...

INFO SOURCES

...When and Where ... 

to Pick for the Condition of the 

Berries? Berries? 

Person Code Person Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 00000 enter text

1ST

INFO SOURCE

1 4 601000000

2ND

INFO SOURCE

2 4 601000000

3RD

INFO SOURCE

3 4 601000000

4TH

INFO SOURCE

4 4 601000000

5TH

INFO SOURCE

5 4 601000000

6TH

INFO SOURCE

6 4 601000000

7TH

INFO SOURCE

7 4 601000000

8TH

INFO SOURCE

8 4 601000000

9TH

INFO SOURCE

9 4 601000000

10TH

INFO SOURCE

10 4 601000000

11TH

INFO SOURCE

11 4 601000000

12TH

INFO SOURCE

12 4 601000000

13TH

INFO SOURCE

13 4 601000000

14TH

INFO SOURCE

14 4 601000000

15TH

INFO SOURCE

15 4 601000000

16TH

INFO SOURCE

16 4 601000000

NETWORK: 67 VENETIE: 363

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

I'd like you to think about the PEOPLE that provided information to your HH about berry picking. During the last 12 MONTHS, from whom did 

members of your HH learn about...
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
SUBSISTENCE FOOD RECIPIENTS HH ID 

foods or provide equipment or information to someone in ANOTHER Venetie HH or ANOTHER community?................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

 Enter HH ID codes in the space provided. The map on the following page may help respondents remember HHs they helped.

Now check the boxes to show the goods and services that MEMBERS OF YOUR HH provided to each HH...

1 HH ID____________ 6 HH ID____________ 11 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

2 HH ID____________ 7 HH ID____________ 12 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

3 HH ID____________ 8 HH ID____________ 13 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

4 HH ID____________ 9 HH ID____________ 14 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

5 HH ID____________ 10 HH ID____________ 15 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

NETWORK: 67 SHARING COMPOSITE SURVEY: 0 

In most of this survey, we have asked how your HH got your subsistence foods. On this page, we ask the opposite question, 

with much less detail. During the last 12 months, did anyone in your HH GIVE subsistence

Please list the most important HHs that members of your HH provided with fish, game, marine mammals or equipment. Do not include instances of 

giving that were associated with Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays, community feasts or Nalukatuk.
SUBSISTENCE FOOD RECIPIENTS HOUSEHOLD ID 

MAP SHARING COMPOSITE SURVEY: 0 
FOOD SECURITY HH ID 

Think about all your HH's food, both subsistence and store-bought... 

STATEMENT 1. We WORRIED that our HH would not have ENOUGH FOOD. HH1

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES...

...in which months did this happen?..................................................................................................................... J F M A M J J A S O N D

or your HH couldn't get BOTH KINDS of food?.................................................................................................... SUB STOR BOTH

STATEMENT 2. We could not get the kinds of foods we wanted to eat because of a LACK OF RESOURCES. HH2

By "lack of resources," we mean your HH did NOT have what you needed to get out on the land to hunt, fish, gather OR to buy food at the store.

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES...

...in which months did this happen?..................................................................................................................... J F M A M J J A S O N D

STATEMENT 3. The food we had JUST DID NOT LAST, and we could not get more. HH3

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... J F M A M J J A S O N D

Now, think just about your HH's SUBSISTENCE food... 

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... J F M A M J J A S O N D

Now, think just about your HH's STORE-BOUGHT food... 

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... J F M A M J J A S O N D

If NO statement above WAS TRUE for this HH, go to the next page. 

If ANY statement above WAS TRUE for this HH, continue on this page... 

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever CUT THE SIZE OF YOUR MEALS OR SKIP AD1

MEALS because the HH could not get the food that was needed?............................................................................. N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?............................................................................................................ J F M A M J J A S O N D

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever EAT LESS THAN YOU FELT YOU SHOULD AD2

because the HH could not get the food that was needed?........................................................................................... NY?

AD3

In the last 12 months, were adults in the HH ever HUNGRY BUT DID NOT EAT because there was not N Y ?

enough food?................................................................................................... AD4

In the last 12 months, did adults in the HH LOSE WEIGHT because there was not enough food?............................ N Y ?

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever NOT EAT FOR A WHOLE DAY AD5

because there was not enough food?.......................................................................................................................... N Y ?

AD5a

If YES, in which months did this happen?............................................................................................................ J F M A M J J A S O N D

FOOD SECURITY: 201 VENETIE: 363

The questions on this page have been asked all over the United States to find out if Americans have enough to eat. We would like to know if people 

in your village have enough to eat. I am going to read you FIVE statements about different food situations. Please tell me whether EACH statement 

was true for your HH in the last 12 months.

...did this happen because your HH couldn't get SUBSISTENCE foods, your HH couldn't get STORE-BOUGHT foods,

...what resources were lacking that prevented your HH from getting the kinds of foods it wanted? (please list responses in space below)

STATEMENT 4. The SUBSISTENCE food we had just did not last, and we could not get more. HH4

STATEMENT 5. The STORE-BOUGHT food we had just did not last, and we could not get more. HH5
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
FOOD CONSUMPTION & SHARING HH ID 

FOOD CONSUMPTION EXERCISE

FOOD CONSUMPTION EXERCISE

enter #

Surveyor: Write down the number of blocks that are in the pile for TRADITIONAL FOODS...................................................................... 

SHARING DECISIONS

How do members of your HH make decisions about WHEN and HOW to share? Decision

Codes

SHARING IN TIMES OF SCARCITY VERSUS ABUNDANCE

Different?

circle one

Do members of your HH share wild foods differently when they have been successful in hunting,

compared to when they have been unsuccessful?........................................................................................................................................... 

If YES...

...How is sharing different? Difference

Codes

STABILITY OF SHARING RELATIONSHIPS

In your opinion, how STRONG are your sharing relationships with other HHs? Stability

Codes

I have put 10 blocks on the table. Use these blocks to represent ALL THE FOOD that members of your HH ate in the past 12 months.

Please divide these blocks into two piles, one that represents traditional food – that is, nikipiaq – and the other that represents storebought food?

Y N

Traditional 

Foods 

Blocks
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
RESILIENCE MEASURES HH ID 

problem circle one enter text circle one enter text

More Forest

Fires

Caribou

Not Coming South

Fewer

Moose

Too Many

Predators

Increasing

Energy Costs

Increasing

Food Costs

Higher

Fuel Costs

Unresponsive

Policy Makers

Lack of 

Employment

RESILIENCE MEASURES VENETIE: 363

Has this situation 

affected your family 

PRIOR 

 to the YEAR 2000?

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

COST OF LIVING OTHER

Y N

Y N

Y N

ANIMAL POPULATIONS

Y N

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Y N

Y N

Y N

In interviews with community members in Venetie, people identified a number of situations that they are encountering. These situations are linked to 

climate, development proposals, and economic and social conditions. We are interested in finding out how your family has responded to these 

situations in the past and in the present, and how your family thinks they will respond in the future. CLIMATE

If YES, what did your family do

to deal with this situation

in this DECADE,

that is, SINCE the YEAR 2000?

Y N

Y N

If YES, what did your family do

to deal with this situation

PRIOR to the YEAR 2000?

Y N

Y N

Has this situation 

affected your family 

during this 

DECADE,

that is, SINCE the 

YEAR 2000?

Y N
RESILIENCE MEASURES HH ID 

Continued from previous page.

Follow rows across both pages.

problem circle one enter text circle one

More Forest

Fires

Caribou

Not Coming South

Fewer

Moose

Too Many

Predators

Increasing

Energy Costs

Increasing

Food Costs

Higher 

Fuel Costs

Unresponsive

Policy Makers

Lack of 

Employment

RESILIENCE MEASURES VENETIE: 363

NOT

ABLE

COST OF LIVING

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

OTHER

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

Y N

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

Y N

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

At this time, do you think your family is able

to respond to this situation?

Somewhat 

Able

VERY

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

Y N

Y N

NOT

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

NOT

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

Very Able

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

Not at All 

Able

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

Moderately 

Able

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

SOMEWHAT 

ABLE

Do you think this 

situation will affect 

your family in 

FUTURE YEARS?

Y N

Y N

ANIMAL POPULATIONS

Y N

If YES, what do you think

your family will do

to deal with this situation

in FUTURE YEARS?

VERY

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

VERY

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

MODERATELY 

ABLE

Y N

GOVERNMENT POLICY CLIMATE

Y N
COMMENTS HH ID 

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS?

INTERVIEW SUMMARY:

BE SURE TO FILL IN THE STOP TIME ON THE FIRST PAGE!!!!

COMMENTS: 30 VENETIE: 363
CODE WORKSHEET FOR OUT-OF-TOWN SOURCES & RECIPIENTS

If people outside of VENETIE are named on a network page, please keep track of their codes on this page.

Once a person has been assigned a code from this page, use the same code each time he or she is mentioned in the survey.

CODE PERSON'S NAME COMMUNITY NEW CODE RELATION SEX AGE

Estimate COMMENTS

0012 M F

0007 M F

0009 M F

0011 M F

0010 M F

0002

Male

Female

(circle)

M F

0001 M F

For coding purposes only. This 

name is not entered in the 

database.

Entered after 

all surveys are 

completed

Used in 

this 

Survey

Kin 

relationship 

to HH head

Where this person 

lives. If NOT in Alaska, 

enter state.

0003 M F

0008 M F

0006 M F

0004 M F

0005 M F

0018 M F

0019 M F

0020 M F

0013 M F

0017 M F

0015 M F

0016 M F

0014 M F
CODE WORKSHEET FOR OUT-OF-TOWN SOURCES & RECIPIENTS

If people outside of VENETIE are named on a network page, please keep track of their codes on this page.

Once a person has been assigned a code from this page, use the same code each time he or she is mentioned in the survey.

CODE PERSON'S NAME COMMUNITY NEW CODE RELATION SEX AGE

Estimate COMMENTS

Male

Female

(circle)

For coding purposes only. This 

name is not entered in the 

database.

Entered after 

all surveys are 

completed

Used in 

this 

Survey

Kin 

relationship 

to HH head

Where this person 

lives. If NOT in Alaska, 

enter state.

0021 M F

0022 M F

0023 M F

0025 M F

0024 M F

0033 M F

0026 M F

0027 M F

0028 M F

0031 M F

0032 M F

0029 M F

0030 M F

0034 M F

0039 M F

0035 M F

0036 M F

0040 M F

0037 M F

0038 M F
THE SHARING PROJECT SURVEY

WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA

COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

WAINWRIGHT TRADITIONAL COUNCIL SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

PO BOX 184 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA - FAIRBANKS

WAINWRIGHT, AK 99782 BOX 75700

FAIRBANKS, AK 99775

907-763-2535 907-474-7078

DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SECTION

ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH & GAME MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

BOX 689 3801 CENTERPOINT DRIVE, SUITE 500

KOTZEBUE, AK 99752 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503-5202

800-478-3420 907-334-5283

 For more information about the project, contact Gary Kofinas

 School of Natural Resources & Agricultural Sciences, UAF

 (907) 474-7078, gpkofinas@alaska.edu

HOUSEHOLD ID:

COMMUNITY ID: WAINWRIGHT 364

RESPONDENT ID:

INTERVIEWER: 

INTERVIEW DATE: 

START TIME:

STOP TIME:

DATA CHECKED BY:

DATA CODED BY:

DATA ENTERED BY:

SUPERVISOR:

OMB Control # 1010-0184

Expiration Date: 09-30-2013
Study of Sharing to Assess Community Resilience

CONSENT FORM COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 0

Consent Form

Identify who is the “head” or “heads” of the household. Give copy of one-page summary about 

the project to respondent. Read or summarize to person/people to be interviewed. 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Wainwright Traditional Council are partnering in a project on 

sharing relationships that are part of the mixed economy of the North Slope and Interior Alaska. The 

project is funded by BOEMRE (The Bureau of Ocean Environment Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement). As a part of the project, I would like to interview you about the ways your household is 

supported economically and the ways traditional foods come into your household. 

Many studies have tried to document the harvest of wild foods, but they have not accounted for the 

sharing that helps to support families in village Alaska. This project is different. Similar to other projects, 

we would like to ask how much wild food your household harvested last year, who lived in your 

household, and what kind of jobs and income your family members had last year. But we would also like 

to ask you about the ways that traditional foods came into your household – either through sharing, 

cooperative hunting, exchanges of equipment, gifting, or other forms of help. We are documenting sharing 

to understand how households manage for environmental and economic changes, such as oil and gas 

development and climate change. Having this information now will help Wainwright document the effects 

of these changes in the future. 

This project involves the villages of Wainwright, Kaktovik and Venetie. It is our goal to interview the heads

of every household in all three villages. 

We expect that the interview will take about 1 to 1 1/2 hours to complete. As a thank you for your time, we

would like to give you $50 per hour of interviewing time, up to a maximum of $100. 

Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to not answer certain questions. Your name 

will remain anonymous. We will not put your name or the name and location of any households in our 

reports. If you would like to complete this interview in your own language, we will arrange to have a 

translator join us. Please do not hesitate to ask questions or clarification at any time during the interview. 

Once the survey is completed, the connection between respondents and responses will be destroyed. 

All the information from the project will be returned to the Wainwright Traditional Council for its review 

before the information is released as a report. A summary about the project will be made available to 

residents of each village through posters, reports, and public meetings. A copy of the summary report will 

be mailed to you. As well, we will use the information from our study to write papers to be presented at 

conferences or written for professional journals. 

To summarize: 

• Participation in the interview and parts of the interview is voluntary and anonymity will be 

maintained. 

• Your name will not appear on the survey. 

• Neither your name nor the name of anyone else will appear in any reports or papers. 

• The Wainwright Traditional Council will review the final report before it is released. 

• Results from interviews will be summarized, returned to the communities, and distributed for 

discussion. 

• A copy of the summary report will be mailed to you. 

►Are you willing to be interviewed? ................................................................................... Yes No 

 If NO, stop interview. If YES, continue and read the following example. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (PRA) STATEMENT: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) requires us to inform you that we collect this

information to obtain knowledge of subsistence issues in Alaska communities and how they relate to future oil and gas drilling. Responses are 

voluntary. Proprietary data are covered under FOIA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting for this study, is estimated to average 1.5 

hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions and answering the questions. Direct comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 5438, Minerals Management Service, 1849 C 

Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20240 

THANK YOU! 
ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 0

The diagram above shows how wild foods were shared among households in Shungnak in 2002. Each 

box is a household. The lines between the households show the flow of wild foods from one house to 

another. At a glance, you can see how much sharing there was. Many of the elder households (brown 

boxes) and single elder households (triangles) are near the center of the diagram, which means they are 

near the center of the sharing network. The younger households (yellow) tend to be on the edges of the 

network. As they age, we would expect them to move towards the center.

This diagram is an example of social network analysis. To draw it, we asked questions like: 

 - Who killed the moose your household used?

 - Who cut the fish your household used?

 - Who helped with your household bills?

Your answers to these questions help us describe sharing and cooperation, important parts of life in 

Wainwright. We do not expect you to remember everyone who helped your household. We hope you can 

remember the most important people.

We do not use names on our surveys. Instead, we have developed codes for everyone in your 

community. To properly code people who do not live in this community, we do enter names on a tear-off 

sheet. After non-local names have been coded for anonymity, this sheet will be removed from the survey.
HOUSEHOLD (HH) MEMBERS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

WHO lived in this HH?

Is this If NOT here since birth...

person How is Is this Last Lived Where is When From

answering this person Is this grade in this did this where

questions person MALE person How old completed this village person's person did this

Person on this related to or Alaska is this in since birth move person

Code survey? HEAD 1? FEMALE? Native? person? school? birth? home? here? move?

ID# 00000 circle relation circle circle age grade circle community year community

01

Next, enter spouse or partner. If HH has a SINGLE HEAD, leave next row BLANK.

02

DEMOGRAPHICS SHARING SURVEY: 364

Y N

HEAD

HEAD

17 Y N M F Y N

Y N

16 Y N M F Y N Y N

15 Y N M F Y N

Y N

14 Y N M F Y N Y N

13 Y N M F Y N

Y N

12 Y N M F Y N Y N

11 Y N M F Y N

Y N

10 Y N M F Y N Y N

09 Y N M F Y N

Y N

08 Y N M F Y N Y N

07 Y N M F Y N

Y N

06 Y N M F Y N Y N

05 Y N M F

Y N

Y N M F Y N Y N

Below, enter children first (oldest to youngest), then grandchildren, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and other HH members.

Y N

Y N M F

Y N

Y N

Y N

04

First, I would like to ask about the people in your HH. By this, I mean the people who sleep at your house and are permanent members of your

family. This includes college or high school students who return home every summer. I am NOT interested in people who lived with you temporarily,

even if they stayed several months. I will not ask questions about them in the rest of the survey.

03 Y N M F Y N Y N

Y N M F

Page 1
DIVIDEND INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR DIVIDEND INCOME HH ID

Next, I have some questions about your HH's income and expenses.

During the last 12 MONTHS, did any members of your HH receive a dividend

from the Alaska PERMANENT FUND, from a REGIONAL or VILLAGE Native Corporation, or from other investments?................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

If YES, continue below...

2010 PFD* 2009-10 ASRC** OLGOONIK***

$1,281 / PERSON $5,439 / 100 SHRS $850 / 100 SHRS

Person Did this IF NO.... In 2009, how much DIVIDEND income

Code person how much did this person receive from...

Use same receive was this Alaska Alaska Other

code as a FULL person's Native Native Dividend

*previous Alaska PFD Alaska PFD REGIONAL VILLAGE Income

page in 2009? in 2009? Corporations? Corporations? (Stocks, Bonds) Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 circle dollars dollars dollars dollars enter text

HEAD 01

DIVIDENDS

1 6 910000000

Next, enter dividend income for spouse or partner. If HH has a SINGLE HEAD, leave next row BLANK.

HEAD 02

DIVIDENDS

2 6 910000000

Below, enter dividend income for the rest of the HH in the same order as the previous page.

PERSON 03

DIVIDENDS

3 6 910000000

PERSON 04

DIVIDENDS

4 6 910000000

PERSON 05

DIVIDENDS

5 6 910000000

PERSON 06

DIVIDENDS

6 6 910000000

PERSON 07

DIVIDENDS

7 6 910000000

PERSON 08

DIVIDENDS

8 6 910000000

PERSON 09

DIVIDENDS

9 6 910000000

PERSON 10

DIVIDENDS

10 6 910000000

PERSON 11

DIVIDENDS

11 6 910000000

PERSON 12

DIVIDENDS

12 6 910000000

PERSON 13

DIVIDENDS

13 6 910000000

PERSON 14

DIVIDENDS

14 6 910000000

PERSON 15

DIVIDENDS

15 6 910000000

PERSON 16

DIVIDENDS

16 6 910000000

PERSON 17

DIVIDENDS

17 6 910000000

NETWORK: 67 COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 0

N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ $ /Yr /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$

$ /Yr

/Yr

* PFD is Permanent Fund Dividend; **ANRC is Alaska Native Regional Corporation; ***ANVC is Alaska Native Village Corporation

$ /Yr

Y N $ /Yr $ /Yr $

Page 2
JOBS FOR EACH PERSON IN THE HH, 16 YEARS OLD AND OLDER HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did any members of your HH earn money from a JOB or from SELF EMPLOYMENT?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

WORK SCHEDULE...

What kind of For whom In the past year, In the past year

work did did he or she what months how much did

Person he or she do work did he or she he or she earn

Code in this job? in this job? work in this job? in this job?

order | role | res. 00000 job title employer circle each month worked circle one gross income

1 6 910100000

2 6 910100000

3 6 910100000

4 6 910100000

5 6 910100000

6 6 910100000

7 6 910100000

8 6 910100000

9 6 910100000

10 6 910100000

11 6 910100000

12 6 910100000

EMPLOYMENT: 23 SHARING SURVEY: 364

OC

N

For each member of this HH born before 1994, please list EACH JOB held during the last 12

months. For HH members who did not have a job, write: RETIRED, UNEMPLOYED, STUDENT,

HOMEMAKER, etc. There should be ONE ROW FOR EACH JOB held by a member of this HH

born before 1994. There should be AT LEAST one row for each member of this HH born before

1994 (this includes anyone who is 16 years old or older).

N

PT

FT

O

N

PT

FULL TIMEPART TIMESHIFT - FULL TIMEON-CALL, VARIESSHIFT - PART TIME

PT $

SF

/ Yr

SP

$

OC

$

SP

OC

FT / Yr

$

PT SF

/ Yr

SP

SF SP

S OC

O

PT

SF

O

S

O

S PT

S

S O

This page asks about jobs and income. We ask about jobs and income because we are trying to understand all parts of the community economy.

Many people use wages from jobs to support their hunting/fishing/gathering activities.

SF

FT

FT / Yr

SF

SP

SP

SP

OC $ / Yr

/ Yr

$

/ Yr

OC

SP $ / Yr

$

SP

SF OC $

OC / Yr

FT PT

SP

SF

FT

OC

/ Yr

$

/ Yr

PT SP $ / Yr

PT OC SP $

J

J

J

OC

OC

SF

SF

FT

FT

AJ FT

M

FT

A

A

A

J

J

M

A

A

J F

M

M

A

A M

J

J A

J

J

A

J

J

A

S

PT

S

O

PT

PT

O

S O

FT

12TH JOB

D

9TH JOB DN

N

D

N S FT F

O

M J

J

J

J

J

M

J J M

SF

8TH JOB

10TH JOB

D

N

S

A

11TH JOB J F

4TH JOB

5TH JOB

A

A

M

M

6TH JOB

7TH JOB

M A

1ST JOB

D

DN

2ND JOB N

3RD JOB

J

N D

D

M

D

N

J F

F

J F

D

D

J F

J FM

J F

N M

FMA

AJ

J A

M A

AM

J

J FM

AF

D

M A M

M A

M

J F

M

OJ

S O

M J AJ S O

J

S

 WORK SCHEDULE

1 - Fulltime (35+ hours/week)

2 - Parttime (<35 hours/week)

3 - Shift (2 wks on/2 off, etc.)

4 - Irregular, on call

5 - Shift - part time

0 - Unemployed

 GROSS 

INCOME

 is the same as 

TAXABLE 

INCOME

on a W-2 form.

If a person is SELF-EMPLOYED (selling carvings, 

crafts, bread, etc.), list that as a separate job. Enter 

"sewer," "carver," "baker," etc. as JOB TITLE. Work 

schedule usually will be "ON CALL." For gross 

income from self employment ("profit"), enter 

revenue MINUS expenses.

If a person is UNEMPLOYED, specify 

retired, unemployed, disabled, student, 

or homemaker as the JOB TITLE.

TRAPPING, SEWING, or CARVING 

for barter or sale IS a job. 

Page 3
OTHER INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR INCOME THAT IS NOT EARNED FROM WORKING HH ID

During the last 12 MONTHS, did any member of your HH receive any kind of OTHER INCOME,

such as UNEMPLOYMENT, ...SOCIAL SECURITY , or ...CHILD SUPPORT?................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

If YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did YOUR HH receive from...

HH ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

...Energy ...CITCO ....Weather- WIC* Food 

 Assistance ization Stamps

OTHER INCOME RECEIVED

BY ENTIRE HH

1 6 910000000 9 34 11

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did ELDERS in your HH receive from...

ELDER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Person ...Social ...Pensions & ...Senior Care 

order | role | res. Code Security Retirement (Longevity) 

1ST ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

1 6 910000000 7 5 6 

2ND ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

2 6 910000000 7 5 6 

3RD ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

3 6 910000000 7 5 6 

4TH ELDER

INCOME RECIPIENT

4 6 910000000 7 5 6 

During the last 12 MONTHS, how much did OTHER MEMBERS of your HH receive from...

JOB PROGRAMS CHILD PROGRAMS ** PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Person ...Workers' ...Supplemental ...Foster ...Child ...Adullt Public ...Temporary

order | role | res. Code Unemployment Compensation Security Care Support Assistance Assistance

1ST OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

1 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

2ND OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

2 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

3RD OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

3 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

4TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

4 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

5TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

5 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

6TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

6 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

7TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

7 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

8TH OTHER

INCOME RECIPIENT

8 6 910000000 12 8 10 41 15 3 52

*WIC is The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; ** Children's programs like foster care and child support are 

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

$

$ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr $

/Yr

$ $ /Yr /Yr

/Yr $

$ /Yr

/Yr

$

$

/Yr /Yr $ /Yr

$ /Yr

$ /Yr

$

$ /Yr /Yr /Yr $

$ /Yr

/Yr

$ $ /Yr

$

/Yr $

$ /Yr $

/Yr $

$

$ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr $ $

$ /Yr

$

$

$

$ /Yr $

/Yr $ /Yr /Yr

/Yr $ /Yr

/Yr /Yr $ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr $

$

/Yr

/Yr /Yr

$

$ /Yr $/Yr $

$ /Yr $ $ /Yr $

$ /Yr

$

$

$ /Yr /Yr /Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr

$

/Yr $ /Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$

/Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr /Yr

$ /Yr $ /Yr

$ $ /Yr

/Yr

/Yr

$

$ /Yr $ /Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

$ /Yr $

/Yr $

$ /Yr

$

$

$

/Yr

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

$

/Yr $

/Yr

considered as parent or guardian income, not child income. 

NOTE: IF a respondent gives you MONTHLY income, calculate ANNUAL INCOME. This is (monthly amount) x (months received) = (annual 

amount). For example, if a respondent gets a $100 pension every month, calculate $100 x 12 = $1,200. If respondent got $1,200 in unemployment 

for three months, calculate $1,200 x 3 = $3,600. If income changes month to month, use typical monthly income.

$

$

$

$

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr

/Yr $

$

/Yr

/Yr

$ /Yr

$

/Yr

Page 4
MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HH ID 

We've heard from many people that it is VERY expensive to live in Wainwright. This page tries to capture how much your HH is spending on basic bil

I'm going to read a list of typical HH costs. Please tell me HOW MUCH your HH usually spent on each bill in a MONTH last year.

HOUSING HEATING FUELS UTILITIES GROCERIES

Rent or Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Water & Phone Cable 

Mortagage? in Summer? in Winter? Electricity Sewer? Internet? Television? Groceries?

During the last 12 months, WHO from OUTSIDE your HH contributed to paying your HH's bills? Include anyone who helped even one time.

Person In a TYPICAL MONTH, how much did this person contribute to YOUR HH'S expenses for...

Code ...GAS / HOUSING ...HEATING FUELS ...UTILITIES ...GROCERIES Comments?

order, res. & role 00000 $ $ $ $ enter text

1ST CASH

SOURCE

1 6 910000000

2ND CASH

SOURCE

2 6 910000000

3RD CASH

SOURCE

3 6 910000000

4TH CASH

SOURCE

4 6 910000000

5TH CASH

SOURCE

5 6 910000000

6TH CASH

SOURCE

6 6 910000000

7TH CASH

SOURCE

7 6 910000000

8TH CASH

SOURCE

8 6 910000000

9TH CASH

SOURCE

9 6 910000000

10TH CASH

SOURCE

10 6 910000000

11TH CASH

SOURCE

11 6 910000000

12TH CASH

SOURCE

12 6 910000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo $

GAS

Boat, 4x4, 

Truck, Snowgo

$ / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo / Mo $ / Mo $ / Mo

/ Mo $ / Mo $ / Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$

$ / Mo

/ Mo

$

$

/ Mo $

$/ Mo

/ Mo $

$ / Mo

$ / Mo

$/ Mo

/ Mo $

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$ $

/ Mo / Mo

$

$ $

$ / Mo

/ Mo

$

$

/ Mo

/ Mo / Mo

$

/ Mo

$

$

/ Mo

/ Mo $

$/ Mo

/ Mo

$ $ / Mo $ $ $ / Mo $ / Mo / Mo

$ / Mo

$ / Mo / Mo / Mo

/ Mo

$

/ Mo

$

$

$ $/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$ / Mo

$

$

$

$

$

$/ Mo

/ Mo

/ Mo

$

$

$

$

$

$

Page 5
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 6
EQUIPMENT HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH use equipment like boats, *snowmachines (snowmobiles),

or freezers to harvest or transport or store traditional foods?....................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

If "NO," skip this page and the next page.

If "YES", continue on this page...

For each equipment type OWNED by this household in 2008, ask...

.... Over 12 mos. PURCHASES REPAIRS

did how many ... ... ...

your _______ how many how much did how much did 

HH use did your did your your HH spend your HH spend 

_______? HH own? HH buy? TO BUY ______? TO REPAIR _____? Comments

circle number number dollars dollars enter text

BOAT(S)

980110000

OUTBOARD MOTOR(S)

980120000

980210100

ATV(S), 4-WHEELER(S)

980210200

FREEZER(S)

980600100

TRUCK(S)

SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES

950000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

N

Y N

Y N

Y N

*Local terminology for "snowmobile" is "snowmachine". The term "snowmachine" is 

used throughout the rest of the survey instrument.

/ Yr $

/ Yr $ / Yr

/ Yr $

$

$ / Yr

Y

$

N

Y N

Y

$ / Yr

$

I am going to read a list of some equipment and supplies that people use in Wainwright. Please tell me if someone in your HH OWNED or USED this 

equipment in the last 12 months. For equipment that your HH owned, I would like to know how much your HH spent in the last 12 months to buy, 

repair, and supply this equipment.

/ Yr

/ Yr

$

$

$

/ Yr

$ / Yr

980220100

SNOWMACHINE(S) 

/ Yr

/ Yr

$ / Yr

$

/ Yr

$

/ Yr

If ALL the equipment in a category

belonged to people in other HHs, enter

a ZERO. This space is just for

equipment owned by members of this

HH. Do NOT count equipment that DID

NOT WORK at any time during the

past year. 

If the equipment belonged to someone

in another HH, but was used by

someone in this HH, answer "YES."

SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES

include:

ammunition, nets, hunting and

fishing clothes, buckets, tubs,

camp supplies, etc.

Page 7
EQUIPMENT SOURCES HH ID 

If HH did NOT use equipment for to hunt/fish/gather/process traditional food, skip to the next page.

If HH DID use equipment for to hunt/fish/gather/process traditional foods, continue on this page...

During the last 12 months...

During the last 12 months... Who are the pple

..What other HHs ...WHAT equipment did this person provide for your HH's use? NOTE: This from other HHs

lent your HH list is for people who repaired 

equipment OUTSIDE your the equipment 

for hunting own HH your HH used to

or fishing? hunt/fish/gather?

order | role | res. 00000 circle ALL that apply order | role | res. 00000

1ST EQUIPMENT 1ST REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

1 9 1 7

2ND EQUIPMENT 2ND REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

2 9 2 7

3RD EQUIPMENT 3RD REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

3 9 3 7

4TH EQUIPMENT 4TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

4 9 4 7

5TH EQUIPMENT 5TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

5 9 5 7

6TH EQUIPMENT 6TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

6 9 6 7

7TH EQUIPMENT 7TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

7 9 7 7

8TH EQUIPMENT 8TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

8 9 8 7

9TH EQUIPMENT 9TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

9 9 9 7

10TH EQUIPMENT 10TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

10 9 10 7

11TH EQUIPMENT 11TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

11 9 11 7

12TH EQUIPMENT 12TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

12 9 12 7

13TH EQUIPMENT 13TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

13 9 13 7

14TH EQUIPMENT 14TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

14 9 14 7

15TH EQUIPMENT 15TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

15 9 15 7

16TH EQUIPMENT 16TH REPAIR

SOURCE SOURCE

16 9 16 7

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE 

SNOWMACHINE BOAT OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

OTHER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

BOAT CAR OR 

TRUCK

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

BOAT SNOWMACHINE

BOAT

BOAT

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR BOAT

BOAT

BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINEOUTBOARD 

MOTOR

BOAT

SNOWMACHINE BOAT

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

SNOWMACHINE

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

OUTBOARD 

MOTOR

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

CAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINE

SNOWMACHINECAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

SNOWMACHINE

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

SNOWMACHINE

CAR OR 

TRUCK

ATV OR

4-WHEELER

CAR OR 

TRUCK

Page 8
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 9
INTRODUCTION TO NETWORKS HH ID 

The next section asks about subsistence foods.

For most foods, we will briefly ask how much your HH got last year between November 1, 2009 and October 31, 2010

But for seven important foods, we will ask about the different ways those foods came into your HH, for

example; through 1) your own HH hunting, 2) hunting with others, 3) your contributions to the hunting

of other HHs, and 4) sharing or trading.

The foods we will ask about are:

CARIBOU

GEESE/DUCKS

SMELT

BELUGA WHALE

BOWHEAD WHALE

BEARDED SEAL

INTRODUCTION TO NETWORKS COMPOSITE SHARING SURVEY: 0 

Page 10
CARIBOU SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Caribou (eat, sew, carve)? Y N

Receive Caribou? Y N

Give Caribou away? Y N

Try to harvest Caribou? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that caribou might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any CARIBOU while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?............................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211000000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211000000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211000000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211000000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211000000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211000000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211000000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211000000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211000000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211000000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211000000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211000000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many caribou EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months.

INCLUDE caribou the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include caribou the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed

to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who in your HH killed CARIBOU last 

year?

How many CARIBOU did this 

person kill?

Page 11
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive CARIBOU as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 211000000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 211000000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 211000000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 211000000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 211000000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 211000000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 211000000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 211000000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 211000000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 211000000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 211000000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 211000000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 211000000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 211000000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many caribou each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while 

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE caribou the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Who received CARIBOU as a share 

when hunting with others?

Page 12
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHERS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of CARIBOU

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if caribou was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members CARIBOU did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211000000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211000000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211000000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211000000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211000000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211000000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211000000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211000000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211000000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211000000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211000000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211000000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211000000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211000000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211000000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT GAVE THEM GASOLINE GAVE THEM AMMO GAVE THEM SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

of 

CARIBOU?

GAVE THEM CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

Page 13
CARIBOU SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give CARIBOU to your HH, or did you receive CARIBOU

by trading or buying it from someone living in a Wainwright HH or in another community?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person CARIBOU did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 211000000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 211000000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 211000000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 211000000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 211000000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 211000000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 211000000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 211000000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 211000000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 211000000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 211000000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 211000000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 211000000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 211000000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 211000000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 211000000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364 AMMO

CARIBOU?

OTHERLABOR

CARIBOU

?

EQUIPMENTGASOLINE

Y N S ? S GAS AMMO OTHER WILD FOOD FOOD PROCESSING LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P AMMO OTHER LABOR

Y N S ? S T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Y N S ? S AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. FOODLABOR T P GAS SUBS. FOOD

Y N S ? S T P AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

T P SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR EQUIP.

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER LABOR EQUIP.

T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR T P EQUIP.

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

T P

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

Y N S ? S T P GAS AMMO

Y N S ? S T AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP.

EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR P

Page 14
CARIBOU: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away CARIBOU for your HH?.................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, smoked, or put away CARIBOU for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 211000000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 211000000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 211000000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 211000000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 211000000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 211000000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 211000000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 211000000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 211000000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 211000000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 211000000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 211000000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 211000000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 211000000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 211000000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 15
HARVESTS: LARGE LAND MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt other large land mammals

such as GRIZZLY BEAR or MUSKOXEN?......................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT these large land mammals?.................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number specify* enter text

GRIZZLY BEAR

210800000

MUSKOXEN

212000000

MOOSE

211800000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

Did your HH use or hunt for any other large mammals in the last 12 months?....................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

LAND MAMMALS: 10 SHARING SURVEY: 364

*SURVEYOR: Respondents should specify the applicable unit of measure for that resource (number or proportions of animals, fish or berries, 

buckets, etc.), and when appropriate, how many were killed, gathered or received. All units will be transformed to weight in pounds during analysis.

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many large land mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE large land mammals you gave away, ate

fresh, dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with

others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sew, carve, apply medicinally, etc.)Receive?Try to Harvest?

Y NGive Away?

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Page 16
GEESE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Geese (eat, use for crafts)? Y N

Receive Geese? Y N

Give Geese away? Y N

Try to harvest Geese? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Geese might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any GEESE while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410499009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410499009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410499009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410499009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410499009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410499009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410499009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410499009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410499009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410499009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410499009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410499009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who in your HH killed GEESE last 

year?

How many GEESE did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many geese EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months.

INCLUDE geese the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include geese the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 17
GEESE SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive GEESE as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?....................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410499009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410499009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410499009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410499009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410499009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410499009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410499009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410499009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410499009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410499009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410499009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410499009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 410499009

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 410499009

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 410499009

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 410499009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who received GEESE as a share 

when hunting with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many geese each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE geese the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 18
GEESE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHERS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES from GEESE

hunting because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?....................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if geese were a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members GEESE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410499009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410499009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410499009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410499009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410499009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410499009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410499009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410499009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410499009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410499009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410499009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410499009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410499009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410499009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410499009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410499009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

of hunted 

GEESE?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 19
GEESE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give GEESE to your HH, or did you receive GEESE

by trading or buying some from someone living in a Wainwright HH or in another community?........................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person GEESE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410499009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410499009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410499009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410499009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410499009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410499009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410499009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410499009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410499009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410499009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410499009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410499009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410499009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410499009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410499009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410499009

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

GEESE? GEESE?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 20
GEESE: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, pluck, or put away GEESE for your HH?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, plucked, or put away GEESE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 410499009

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 410499009

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 410499009

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 410499009

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 410499009

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 410499009

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 410499009

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 410499009

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 410499009

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 410499009

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 410499009

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 410499009

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 410499009

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 410499009

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 410499009

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 410499009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 21
NOTES:

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 22
DUCKS SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Ducks (eat, use for crafts)? Y N

Receive Ducks? Y N

Give Ducks away? Y N

Try to harvest Ducks? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Ducks might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any DUCKS while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410299009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410299009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410299009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410299009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410299009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410299009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410299009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410299009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410299009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410299009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410299009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410299009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who in your HH killed DUCKS last 

year?

How many DUCKS did this 

person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many ducks EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months.

INCLUDE ducks the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include ducks the HH ate fresh, dried, froze, fed

to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 23
DUCKS SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive DUCKS as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?...................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How many did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 410299009

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 410299009

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 410299009

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 410299009

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 410299009

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 410299009

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 410299009

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 410299009

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 410299009

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 410299009

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 410299009

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 410299009

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 410299009

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 410299009

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 410299009

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 410299009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who received DUCKS as a share 

when hunting with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many ducks each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months while

hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE ducks the HH received as a share then gave away, fed to

dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 24
DUCKS SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHERS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of the DUCKS 

harvested because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if Ducks were a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members DUCKS did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410299009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410299009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410299009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410299009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410299009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410299009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410299009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410299009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410299009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410299009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410299009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410299009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410299009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410299009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410299009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410299009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

of harvested 

DUCKS ?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 25
DUCKS SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give CARIBOU to your HH, or did you receive DUCKS 

by trading or buying them from someone living in a Wainwright HH or in another community?........................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person DUCKS did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this 

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 410299009

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 410299009

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 410299009

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 410299009

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 410299009

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 410299009

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 410299009

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 410299009

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 410299009

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 410299009

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 410299009

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 410299009

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 410299009

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 410299009

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 410299009

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 410299009

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

DUCKS ? DUCKS ?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 26
DUCKS : PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, pluck, or put away DUCKS for your HH?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, singed, plucked, froze, or put away DUCKS for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 410299009

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 410299009

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 410299009

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 410299009

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 410299009

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 410299009

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 410299009

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 410299009

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 410299009

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 410299009

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 410299009

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 410299009

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 410299009

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 410299009

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 410299009

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 410299009

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 27
HARVESTS: MIGRATORY BIRDS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt other migratory birds,

such as or ?............................................................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT these migratory birds?.................................................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

PTARMIGAN

421804000

TUNDRA SWAN

410699000

SANDHILL CRANE

410802000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of migratory birds?....................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

BIRDS AND EGGS: 15 VENETIE: 363

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many migratory birds ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE migratory birds you gave away, ate fresh,

fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others, report

ONLY YOUR SHARE of the hunt.

Use? (eat, trade, apply medicinally, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Page 28
SMELT SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Eat Smelt? Y N

Receive Smelt? Y N

Give Smelt away? Y N

Try to harvest Smelt? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that smelt might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

catch any SMELT while fishing alone, or with other people living in this HH?.............................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH fished with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Caught Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 120406003

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 120406003

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 120406003

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 120406003

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 120406003

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 120406003

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 120406003

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 120406003

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 120406003

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 120406003

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 120406003

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 120406003

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who in your HH caught SMELT last 

year?

How many SMELT did this 

person catch?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many smelt EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12 months,

including with rod and reel. INCLUDE smelt the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include smelt the HH

ate fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 29
SMELT SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE FISHING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive SMELT as their share from fishing together with people from other HHs?......................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

FISHERS from THIS HH FISHERS from OTHER HHS

How many did this person Who fished with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 120406003

2ND FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 120406003

3RD FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 120406003

4TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 120406003

5TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 120406003

6TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 120406003

7TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 120406003

8TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 120406003

9TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 120406003

10TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 120406003

11TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 120406003

12TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 120406003

13TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 120406003

14TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 120406003

15TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 120406003

16TH FISHER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 120406003

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who received SMELT as a share when 

fishing with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many smelt each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months,

including with rod and reel while fishing with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE smelt the HH received as a

share then gave away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 30
SMELT SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE FISHING OF OTHERS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of

harvested SMELT because they contributed to the fishing effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually fish with them?......................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if Smelt was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How many to earn your SHARE?

did members SMELT did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 120406003

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 120406003

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 120406003

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 120406003

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 120406003

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 120406003

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 120406003

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 120406003

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 120406003

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 120406003

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 120406003

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 120406003

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 120406003

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 120406003

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 120406003

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 120406003

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

of harvested 

SMELT?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 31
SMELT SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give CARIBOU to your HH, or did you receive SMELT

by trading or buying them from someone living in a Wainwright HH or in another community?........................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How many what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person SMELT did Was

HH CATCH your HH receive this 

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 120406003

2ND FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 120406003

3RD FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 120406003

4TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 120406003

5TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 120406003

6TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 120406003

7TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 120406003

8TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 120406003

9TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 120406003

10TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 120406003

11TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 120406003

12TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 120406003

13TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 120406003

14TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 120406003

15TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 120406003

16TH FISHER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 120406003

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

SMELT? SMELT?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 32
SMELT: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, smoke, or put away SMELT for your HH?........................................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, smoked, froze, or put away SMELT for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 120406003

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 120406003

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 120406003

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 120406003

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 120406003

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 120406003

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 120406003

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 120406003

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 120406003

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 120406003

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 120406003

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 120406003

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 120406003

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 120406003

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 120406003

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 120406003

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 33
HARVESTS: FISH HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY fish for other fish like

LEAST CISCO or GRAYLING?........................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO FISH for these other species?.......................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

LEAST CISCO

126406063

GRAYLING

125200003

ARCTIC CHAR

125002003

TOMCOD (SAFFRON COD)

121010003

BLUE COD (ARCTIC COD)

121002003

KING SALMON

113000003

COHO SALMON

112000003

CHUM SALMON

(Dog Salmon)

111000003

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use any other kind of fish?..................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

SALMON & NON-SALMON FINFISH: 04 & 06 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Y N Y N

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many fish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH FISHED the last

12 months, including with rod and reel. INCLUDE fish you gave away, ate fresh,

dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If fishing with others,

report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.

Use? (eat, trade, feed to dogs, etc.)Receive?Give Away?Try to Harvest?

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Page 34
BEARDED SEAL (UGRUK) SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Bearded Seal (eat, sew, carve)? Y N

Receive Bearded Seal? Y N

Give Bearded Seal away? Y N

Try to harvest Bearded? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Ugruk might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any BEARDED SEAL while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 300802000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 300802000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 300802000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 300802000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 300802000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 300802000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 300802000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 300802000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 300802000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 300802000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 300802000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 300802000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who in your HH killed BEARDED 

SEAL last year?

How many BEARDED SEAL did 

this person kill?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many bearded seal EACH MEMBER OF THEIR HH HARVESTED during the last 12

months. INCLUDE bearded seal the HH members gave away, even if they gave it away without bringing it home. Include bearded seal the HH ate

fresh, dried, froze, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 35
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive BEARDED SEAL as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?........................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 300802000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 300802000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 300802000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 300802000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 300802000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 300802000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 300802000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 300802000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 300802000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 300802000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 300802000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 300802000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 300802000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 300802000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 300802000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 300802000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who received BEARDED SEAL as a 

share when hunting with others?

INSTRUCTIONS: We want respondents to estimate how many bearded seal each member of their HH RECEIVED AS A SHARE in the last 12 months

while hunting with others. We want them to report only THEIR SHARE of the take. INCLUDE bearded seal the HH received as a share then gave

away, fed to dogs, or lost to spoilage.

Page 36
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHHID H

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BEARDED SEAL

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if Ugruk was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BEARDED SEAL did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 300802000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 300802000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 300802000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 300802000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 300802000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 300802000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 300802000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 300802000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 300802000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 300802000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 300802000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 300802000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 300802000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 300802000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 300802000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 300802000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

of BEARDED 

SEAL?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 37
BEARDED SEAL SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give CARIBOU to your HH, or did you receive BEARDED SEAL

by trading or buying it from someone living in a Wainwright HH or in another community?.................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BEARDED SEAL did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this 

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 300802000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 300802000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 300802000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 300802000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 300802000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 300802000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 300802000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 300802000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 300802000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 300802000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 300802000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 300802000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 300802000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 300802000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 300802000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 300802000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

BEARDED 

SEAL?

BEARDED 

SEAL?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 38
BEARDED SEAL: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, render into oil, or put away BEARDED SEAL for your HH?............................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, rendered into oil, or put away BEARDED SEAL for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 300802000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 300802000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 300802000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 300802000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 300802000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 300802000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 300802000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 300802000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 300802000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 300802000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 300802000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 300802000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 300802000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 300802000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 300802000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 300802000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 39
NOTES:

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 40
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: HOUSEHOLD'S OWN HARVESTS HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Beluga (eat, use as medicine)? Y N

Receive Beluga? Y N

Give Beluga away? Y N

Try to harvest Beluga? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Beluga might have come into your HH...During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH

kill any BELUGA WHALE while hunting alone, or with other people living in this HH?................................................................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HHonly

Who in THIS HH hunted with this person?

Please use these spaces ONLY for members of this HH.

Person Number Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Killed Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number **specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301602000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301602000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301602000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301602000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301602000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301602000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 301602000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 301602000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 301602000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 301602000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 301602000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 301602000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 211000000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who in your HH killed BELUGA 

WHALE last year?

How many BELUGA WHALE did 

this person kill?

#REF!

Page 41
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FROM COOPERATIVE HUNTING HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did you or anyone from your HH

receive BELUGA WHALE as their share from hunting together with people from other HHs?....................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

HUNTERS from THIS HH HUNTERS from OTHER HHS

How much did this person Who hunted with this person?

receive as a share?

Person Amount Person Person Person Person Person Person

Code Received Units Code Code Code Code Code Code

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1ST HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301602000

2ND HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301602000

3RD HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301602000

4TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301602000

5TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301602000

6TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301602000

7TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 301602000

8TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 301602000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 301602000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 301602000

11TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

11 1 301602000

12TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

12 1 301602000

13TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

13 1 301602000

14TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

14 1 301602000

15TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

15 1 301602000

16TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

16 1 301602000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Who received BELUGA WHALE as a 

share when hunting with others?

#REF!

Page 42
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING WITH THE HUNTING OF OTHHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES of BELUGA WHALE

because they contributed to the hunting effort of other HHs, but did NOT actually hunt with them?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a 

comment, and follow up by asking if Beluga was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE?

did members BELUGA WHALE did

of your HH members of your HH

get a SHARE receive as SHARES?

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301602000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301602000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301602000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301602000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301602000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301602000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301602000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301602000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301602000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301602000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301602000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301602000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301602000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301602000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301602000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301602000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

FOOD

LABOR

of BELUGA 

WHALE?

FOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABORLOANED THEM EQUIPMENTGAVE THEM GASOLINEGAVE THEM AMMOGAVE THEM SUPPLIESGAVE THEM CASH

Page 43
BELUGA WHALE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give CARIBOU to your HH, or did you receive BELUGA WHALE

by trading or buying it from someone living in Wainwright HH or in another community?..................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BELUGA WHALE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this 

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301602000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301602000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301602000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301602000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301602000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301602000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301602000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301602000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301602000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301602000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301602000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301602000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301602000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301602000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301602000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301602000

S="SOMETIMES" ?= "DON'T KNOW"

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

S T P AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. GAS

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S T

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. FOOD Y N S ?

AMMO FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR STP EQUIP. GAS SUBS. 

FOOD Y N S ?

BELUGA 

WHALE?

BELUGA 

WHALE?

OTHER WILD FOODFOOD PROCESSING LABOROTHERLABOREQUIPMENTGASOLINEAMMO

Page 44
BELUGA WHALE: PROCESSORS HHID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, or put away BELUGA WHALE for your HH?.................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, rendered into oil (?), or put away BELUGA WHALE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 301602000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 301602000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 301602000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 301602000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 301602000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 301602000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 301602000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 301602000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 301602000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 301602000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 301602000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 301602000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 301602000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 301602000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 301602000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 301602000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 45
NOTES:

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 46
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: CREW SHARES HH ID 

In the last 12 months, did members of your household: 

circle one

Use Bowhead Whale (eat, carve)? Y N

Receive Bowhead Whale? Y N

Give Bowhead Whale away? Y N

Try to harvest Bowhead Whale? Y N

Now we'll begin to go through the different ways that Bowhead Whale might have come into your HH...First, during the last 12 MONTHS,

...was anyone in your HH on a SUCCESSFUL BOWHEAD WHALE CREW, either as a captain or a crew member?

Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

CAPTAIN AND CREW from THIS HH only

Was this How much did this person receive as a share from...

person Whale 1 Whale 2 Whale 3

a whaling Shares Amount Shares Amount Shares Amount

captain? Received Received Units Received Received Units Received Received Units

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number number *spec. number number *spec. number number *spec.

1ST HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

1 1 301606000

2ND HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

2 1 301606000

3RD HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

3 1 301606000

4TH HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

4 1 301606000

5TH HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

5 1 301606000

6TH HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

6 1 301606000

7TH HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

7 1 301606000

8TH HUNTER Y N

IN THIS HOUSE

8 1 301606000

9TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

9 1 301606000

10TH HUNTER

IN THIS HOUSE

10 1 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

*spec.="specify"

Person Code

Who was on a whaling crew in this 

HH last year?

Y N

Y N

Page 47
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARES FOR HELPING HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone in your HH get any SHARES from BOWHEAD WHALE 

because they contributed to the hunting effort of whaling crews, but were not actually crew members?.............................. Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page... Note: If respondent replies that they did "nothing" to earn their share, note this as a

comment, and follow up by asking if whale was a gift. If so, note on the next page.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only What did YOUR HH do

From WHOM How much to earn your SHARE? 

did members BOWHEAD WHALE did 

of your HH members of your HH 

get a SHARE receive as SHARES? 

Amount

Received Units Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 number *specify circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301606000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301606000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301606000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301606000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301606000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301606000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301606000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301606000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301606000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301606000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301606000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301606000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301606000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301606000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301606000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364 FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR LOANED THEM EQUIPMENT GAVE THEM GASOLINE GAVE THEM AMMO GAVE THEM SUPPLIES GAVE THEM CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

of BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

CASH

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

EQUIP.

LOAN

GAVE 

GAS

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

CASH

GAVE 

AMMO

GAVE 

SUPPLIES

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Page 48
BOWHEAD WHALE SOURCES: SHARING, TRADES, & PURCHASES HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS, did anyone give BOWHEAD to your HH, or did you receive BOWHEAD

by trading or buying it from someone living in a Wainwright HH or in another community?......................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

aIF YES, continue on this page...

.

MEMBERS of OTHER HHS only If this was a trade,

From WHOM Did this How much what did YOUR HH trade?

did your person BOWHEAD WHALE did Was

HH KILL your HH receive this

receive the from this person? SHARING,

Amount TRADE, or

Received Units PURCHASE? Comments

order | role | res. 00000 circle one number *specify circle one circle ALL that apply enter text

1ST HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

1 3 301606000

2ND HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

2 3 301606000

3RD HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

3 3 301606000

4TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

4 3 301606000

5TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

5 3 301606000

6TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

6 3 301606000

7TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

7 3 301606000

8TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

8 3 301606000

9TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

9 3 301606000

10TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

10 3 301606000

11TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

11 3 301606000

12TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

12 3 301606000

13TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

13 3 301606000

14TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

14 3 301606000

15TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

15 3 301606000

16TH HUNTER

FROM OTHER HH

16 3 301606000

S="SOMETIMES"; ?="DON'T KNOW" S

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364 OTHER WILD FOOD FOOD PROCESSING LABOR OTHER LABOR GASOLINE AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR

FOOD

LABOR

BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

BOWHEAD 

WHALE?

EQUIPMENT

Y N S ? S T P EQUIP. SUBS. 

FOOD GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? OTHER LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P

STP

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S EQUIP.

GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR STP GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? OTHER LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P

STP

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S EQUIP.

GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR STP GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P

STP

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S EQUIP.

GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO

OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? S T P

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR STP GAS AMMO

SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR Y N S ? OTHER 

LABOR EQUIP. GAS AMMO

T P

STP

OTHER 

LABOR Y N S ? S EQUIP. SUBS. FOOD

FOOD

LABOR GAS AMMO

Y N S ? S T P EQUIP. GAS AMMO SUBS. 

FOOD

FOOD

LABOR

OTHER 

LABOR

Page 49
BOWHEAD WHALE: PROCESSORS HH ID 

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did anyone cut, dry, freeze, or put away BOWHEAD WHALE for your HH?........................................................................ Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

During the last 12 MONTHS, who cut, dried, froze, or put away BOWHEAD WHALE for your HH, including people living in your HH?

If any people named on the previous two pages for food processing labor also processed food used by this HH, enter them again here.

PROCESSORS

Person

Code Comments?

order | role | res. 00000 enter text

1ST

PROCESSOR

1 2 301606000

2ND

PROCESSOR

2 2 301606000

3RD

PROCESSOR

3 2 301606000

4TH

PROCESSOR

4 2 301606000

5TH

PROCESSOR

5 2 301606000

6TH

PROCESSOR

6 2 301606000

7TH

PROCESSOR

7 2 301606000

8TH

PROCESSOR

8 2 301606000

9TH

PROCESSOR

9 2 301606000

10TH

PROCESSOR

10 2 301606000

11TH

PROCESSOR

11 2 301606000

12TH

PROCESSOR

12 2 301606000

13TH

PROCESSOR

13 2 301606000

14TH

PROCESSOR

14 2 301606000

15TH

PROCESSOR

15 2 301606000

16TH

PROCESSOR

16 2 301606000

NETWORK: 67 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Please list the most 

important person 

first. INCLUDE 

people in this HH.

Page 50
NOTES:

SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 51
HARVESTS: MARINE MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt for other marine mammals,

such as WALRUS or RINGED SEAL?....................................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT these other marine mammals?..................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

WALRUS

301400000

RINGED SEAL

300810000

SPOTTED SEAL

300812000

POLAR BEAR

300400000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of marine mammals?................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

MARINE MAMMALS: 12 SHARING SURVEY: 364

In the last 12 months, did 

members of your HH....

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many marine mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE marine mammals you gave away, ate

fresh, dried, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with

others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the hunt.

Use? (eat, carve, sew, trade, etc.)Try to Harvest?

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Receive? Give Away?

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Page 52
HARVESTS: SMALL LAND MAMMALS HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY hunt small land mammals,

such as GROUND SQUIRREL or MARMOT?........................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO HUNT small land mammals?................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

GROUND SQUIRREL

222802000

MARMOT

221800000

WOLF

223200000

WOLVERINE

223400000

ARCTIC FOX

220802000

LYNX

221600000

MARTEN

222000000

RED FOX

220804000

SNOWSHOE HARE

221004000

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or hunt any other kind of small mammals?...................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

LAND MAMMALS: 10 SHARING SURVEY: 364

In the last 12 months, did your 

HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many small land mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH

HUNTED the last 12 months. INCLUDE small land mammals you gave away, ate

fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others,

report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sell, trade, sew, etc.)Try to Harvest?

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Receive? Give Away?

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Page 53
HARVESTS: BERRIES HH ID 

Do members of your HH USUALLY pick berries,

such as SALMONBERRIES or BLUEBERRIES?....................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did members of your HH USE or TRY TO PICK berries?.......................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next harvest page.

If YES, continue on this page...

Amount 

Harvested? Units Comments?

resource name circle Y or N for each number *specify enter text

SALMONBERRIES

601022002

BLUEBERRIES

601002002

CRANBERRIES

601004002

During the last 12 MONTHS,

did your HH use or pick any other kind of berries?.................................................................................................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF YES, enter the name in a blank row and answer the questions in the table above.

PLANTS: 17 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Receive? Give Away?

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

In the last 12 months, did your 

HH...

For each resource HARVESTED, ask...

Please estimate how many berries ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HH PICKED the

last 12 months. INCLUDE berries you gave away, ate fresh, lost to spoilage, or got

by helping others. If picking with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the take.

Use? (eat, sell, trade, sew, etc.)Try to Harvest?

Page 54
FOOD AND EQUIPMENT SHARING HH ID 

foods or provide equipment, or other help to someone in Wainwright or ANOTHER community?.................................................... Y N (Circle)

IF NO, go to the next page.

IF YES, continue on this page...

 Enter HH ID codes in the space provided. The map on the following page may help people remember HHs they helped.

Now check the boxes to show the goods and services that MEMBERS OF YOUR HH provided to each HH...

1 HH ID____________ 6 HH ID____________ 11 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

2 HH ID____________ 7 HH ID____________ 12 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

3 HH ID____________ 8 HH ID____________ 13 HH ID____________

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

4 HH ID____________ 9 HH ID____________ 14 FUNERALS/OTHER COMM'TY

FEASTS

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

5 HH ID____________ 10 HH ID____________ 15 THANKSGIVING AND

CHRISTMAS FEASTS

Provided Fish? Provided Fish? Provided Fish?

Provided Game? Provided Game? Provided Game?

Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals? Provided Marine Mammals?

Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment? Provided Equipment?

NETWORK: 67 SHARING COMPOSITE SURVEY: 0 

In most of this survey, we have asked how your HH got your traditional foods. On this page, we ask the opposite question, with 

much less detail. During the last 12 months, did anyone in your HH GIVE traditional

Please list the most important HHs that members of your HH provided with fish, game, marine mammals or equipment. IF your HH gave to Feasts that 

were associated with Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays, other community get togethers, funerals or Nalukatuk, please indicate this as well.

Page 55
FOOD AND EQUIPMENT SHARING HOUSEHOLD ID 

MAP SHARING COMPOSITE SURVEY: 0

Page 56
NOTES HH ID 

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 57
FOOD SECURITY HH ID 

Think about all your HH's food, both traditional and store-bought... 

STATEMENT 1. We WORRIED that our HH would not have ENOUGH FOOD. HH1

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES...

...in which months did this happen?..................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

or your HH couldn't get BOTH KINDS of food?.................................................................................................... SUB STOR BOTH

STATEMENT 2. We could not get the kinds of foods we wanted to eat because of a LACK OF RESOURCES. HH2

By "lack of resources," we mean your HH did NOT have what you needed to get out on the land to hunt, fish, gather OR to buy food at the store.

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES...

...in which months did this happen?..................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

STATEMENT 3. The food we had JUST DID NOT LAST, and we could not get more. HH3

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

Now, think just about your HH's TRADITIONAL food... 

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

Now, think just about your HH's STORE-BOUGHT food... 

In the last 12 months, was this ever true for your HH?................................................................................................ N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?.................................................................................................................... N D J F M A M J J A S O

If NO statement above WAS TRUE for this HH, go to the next page. 

If ANY statement above WAS TRUE for this HH, continue on this page... 

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever CUT THE SIZE OF YOUR MEALS OR SKIP AD1

MEALS because the HH could not get the food that was needed?............................................................................. N Y ?

If YES, in which months did this happen?............................................................................................................ N D J F M A M J J A S O

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever EAT LESS THAN YOU FELT YOU SHOULD AD2

because the HH could not get the food that was needed?........................................................................................... NY?

AD3

In the last 12 months, were adults in the HH ever HUNGRY BUT DID NOT EAT because there was not N Y ?

enough food?................................................................................................... AD4

In the last 12 months, did adults in the HH LOSE WEIGHT because there was not enough food?............................ N Y ?

In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your HH ever NOT EAT FOR A WHOLE DAY AD5

because there was not enough food?.......................................................................................................................... N Y ?

AD5a

If YES, in which months did this happen?............................................................................................................ N D J F M A M J J A S O

FOOD SECURITY: 201 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Whether or not people in a HH have enough of the kinds of food they want to eat is sometimes a good indicator of how well they are doing. The 

questions on this page have been asked all over the United States to find out if Americans have enough to eat. I am going to read you FIVE 

statements about different food situations. Please tell me whether EACH statement was true for your HH in the last 12 months.

...did this happen because your HH couldn't get WILD (nikipiaq) foods, your HH couldn't get STORE-BOUGHT foods,

...what resources were lacking that prevented your HH from getting the kinds of foods it wanted? (please list responses in space below)

STATEMENT 4. The TRADITIONAL food we had just did not last, and we could not get more. HH4

STATEMENT 5. The STORE-BOUGHT food we had just did not last, and we could not get more. HH5

Page 58
FOOD CONSUMPTION & SHARING HH ID 

FOOD CONSUMPTION EXERCISE

enter #

Surveyor: Write down the number of fingers cited for TRADITIONAL FOODS (T) and STORE BOUGHT (SB)........................... T

SB

Decision

Codes

Who in this household decides HOW to share this caribou?

How does this person decide HOW MUCH of the caribou to share?

SHARING IN GOOD TIMES VERSUS SCARCE TIMES

Can you remember of a year when your HH had lots of traditional foods? circle Y N

 If yes, what year was that? Yr?

Can you remember a year when your household did not have lots of wild foods? circle Y N

 If yes, what year was that? Yr?

Different?

How did those two years differ in the way your household shared? circle one

Difference

Codes-HH

How did those two years differ in the way the community shared? 

Difference

Codes-Com

PERCENTAGE OF FOOD FROM WILD RESOURCES: 33 SHARING SURVEY: 364

If my ten fingers represent ALL THE FOOD that members of your HH ate in the past 12 months, please tell me how many

fingers were store-bought foods and how many were harvested foods – that is, nikipiaq.

Y N

Traditional 

Foods 

Blocks

I am going to give you a situation - You have just gotten a fat caribou. 

SHARING DECISIONS: We are trying to understand more about how the sharing occurs between people and HHs. 

Page 59
SHARING CONTINUED HH ID

CHANGES IN SHARING RELATIONSHIPS

Has sharing in your househould changed in the last 10 years? circle Y N

IF YES: How has it changed in the past 10 years? Cause 

Codes

What caused the changes? Cause 

(Discuss things that strengthen and weaken sharing) Codes

HH WB

Finally, how does sharing contribute to the well-being of your household? Codes

COM WB

How does sharing contribute to the well-being of your community? Codes

SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 60
COMMENTS HH ID 

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS?

INTERVIEW SUMMARY:

BE SURE TO FILL IN THE STOP TIME ON THE FIRST PAGE!!!!

COMMENTS: 30 SHARING SURVEY: 364

Page 61
CODE WORKSHEET FOR OUT-OF-TOWN SOURCES & RECIPIENTS

If people outside of Sharing Survey are named on a network page, please keep track of their codes on this page.

Once a person has been assigned a code from this page, use the same code each time he or she is mentioned in the survey.

CODE PERSON'S NAME COMMUNITY NEW CODE RELATION SEX AGE

Estimate COMMENTS

M F

M F

0033 M F

0037 M F

0035 M F

0036 M F

0034

0023 M F

0028 M F

0026 M F

0024 M F

0025 M F

0022

Male

Female

(circle)

M F

0021 M F

For coding purposes only. This 

name is not entered in the 

database.

Entered after 

all surveys are 

completed

Used in 

this 

Survey

Kin 

relationship 

to HH head

Where this person 

lives. If NOT in Alaska, 

enter state.

0031 M F

0030 M F

0027 M F

0029 M F

0032 M F

0038 M F

0039 M F

0040
CODE WORKSHEET FOR OUT-OF-TOWN SOURCES & RECIPIENTS

If people outside of Sharing Survey are named on a network page, please keep track of their codes on this page.

Once a person has been assigned a code from this page, use the same code each time he or she is mentioned in the survey.

CODE PERSON'S NAME COMMUNITY NEW CODE RELATION SEX AGE

Estimate COMMENTS

Male

Female

(circle)

For coding purposes only. This 

name is not entered in the 

database.

Entered after 

all surveys are 

completed

Used in 

this 

Survey

Kin 

relationship 

to HH head

Where this person 

lives. If NOT in Alaska, 

enter state.

0001

0002

0003

0004

0005

0006

0007

0008

0009

0010

0011

0012

0013

0014

0015

0016

0017

0018

0019

0020 M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F

M F
Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Appendix II

The Conversion Table

Appendix II - The Conversion Table

Appendix II. Standard conversion factors for individual species to pounds, developed by ADFG.

Sum of ConvFactor Column Labels

Row Labels Individual Pounds Gallons Pints 

(16 fl. oz) Quarts Cups (8 fl. oz)

Plastic 

carrying bag 

(2 gal.)

Arctic char 2.80 1.00

Arctic cisco 0.70 1.00 10.00

Arctic cod 0.11 1.00

Arctic fox 0.00 1.00

Arctic ground squirrel 

(parka) 0.50 1.00

Bearded seal 420.00 1.00

Beaver 20.00 1.00

Belukha 700.00 1.00

Bering cisco 1.40 1.00

Black bear 88.00 1.00

Blackberry 1.00 6.50 1.63

Blueberry 6.00 1.00 6.50 0.81 1.63 0.41

Bowhead 28,677.00 1.00

Brant 2.28 1.00

Broad whitefish 3.25 1.00

Brown bear 86.00 1.00

Burbot 4.20 1.00

Caribou 136.00 1.00

Chinook salmon 12.40 1.00

Chum salmon 6.00 1.00

Clams 1.00 2.00

Coho salmon 5.20 1.00

Common eider 4.15 1.00

Crowberry 1.00 6.50 1.63 0.41

Dall sheep 104.00 1.00

Deer 0.00 1.00

Dolly Varden 3.30 1.00

Eider 4.15 1.00

Grayling 0.90 1.00 5.00

Grouse 1.00

Halibut 20.00 1.00

Herring 0.20 1.00

Humpback whitefish 2.10 1.00 5.00

King eider 2.67 1.00

Lake trout 4.00 1.00

Land otter 0.00 1.00
OCS Study BOEM 2015-023 • AFES MP 2015-02

Kofinas et al. (2016) • Subsistence Sharing and Cooperation Networks: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska

Sum of ConvFactor Column Labels

Row Labels Individual Pounds Gallons Pints 

(16 fl. oz) Quarts Cups (8 fl. oz)

Plastic 

carrying bag 

(2 gal.)

Least cisco 1.75 1.00 5.00 10.00

Lingcod 4.20 1.00

Low bush cranberry 1.00 6.50 0.81 1.63

Lynx 0.00 1.00

Marmot 5.00 1.00

Marten 0.00 1.00

Mink 0.00

Moose 538.00 1.00

Muskox 152.00 1.00

Muskrat 1.80 1.00

Northern pike 3.30 1.00

Other wild berry 1.00 6.50 0.81 1.63 0.41 10.00

Pink salmon 2.10 1.00

Plants/greens/

mushrooms 1.00 4.00

Polar bear 372.00 1.00

Porcupine 8.00 1.00

Ptarmigan 1.00 1.00 10.00

Puffballs 1.00 4.00

Rainbow smelt 0.14 1.00

Rainbow trout 2.30 1.00

Raspberry 1.00 6.50 1.63

Red fox 0.00 1.00

Ringed seal 74.00 1.00

Round whitefish 0.70 1.00 5.00

Saffron cod 0.21 1.00

Salmon 1.00

Salmonberry 1.00 6.50 0.81 1.63 0.41 10.00

Sandhill crane 6.75 1.00

Sculpin 0.21 1.00

Sheefish 11.10 1.00

Smelt 0.14 1.00

Snow geese 4.00 1.00

Snowshoe hare 2.00 1.00

Sockeye salmon 5.00 1.00

Spotted seal 98.00 1.00

Strawberry 6.50

Standard conversion factors for individual species to pounds, continued.
Appendix II - The Conversion Table

Sum of ConvFactor Column Labels

Row Labels Individual Pounds Gallons Pints 

(16 fl. oz) Quarts Cups (8 fl. oz)

Plastic 

carrying bag 

(2 gal.)

Tundra swan (whistling)- 

season unknown 11.21 1.00

Tundra swan eggs 0.63 1.00

Unknown char 3.30 1.00

Unknown ducks 1.88 1.00

Unknown ducks, season 

unknown 1.88 1.00

Unknown geese 3.24 1.00

Unknown non-salmon 

fish 3.30 1.00

Unknown salmon 6.00 1.00

Unknown smelt 0.14 1.00

Unknown swan 11.21 1.00

Unknown trout 3.30 1.00

Walrus 770.00 1.00

Weasel 0.00 1.00

Whitefish 2.10 1.00

White-fronted geese 4.20 1.00

Wild rhubarb 1.00 4.00

Wild rose hips 1.00 4.00

Wolf 0.00 1.00

Wolverine 0.00 1.00

Standard conversion factors for individual species to pounds, continued.