United States 

Department of 

Agriculture Subsistence as a Component I - 

Forest Service of the Mixed ~conomic Base 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Research Paper NE-638 

in a Modernizing Community 

Ronald J. Glass 

Robert M. Muth 

Robert Flewelling 
Abstract 

Although subsistence activities in rural Alaskan communities are often examined in 

isolation, they are one component of mixed economic systems. Public and private 

sectors also play primary roles in socioeconomic well-being, and there is 

considerable interaction among the sectors. In this paper, the mixed economic 

base of a modernizing rural community is examined with emphasis on the 

interrelationships between personal use of natural resources and other sectors of 

the economy. 

Authors 

RONALD J. GLASS is a research economist with the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, Burlington, Vermont. He also has worked with the Economic 

Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 

economics from the University of Minnesota and the State University of New York 

at Syracuse, respectively. 

ROBERT M. MUTH has worked for the USDA Forest Service since 1970. He 

served with the Recreation Research Project in Seattle, Washington through 1977. 

He then spent 2 years in Washington, DC. Since 1979, he has worked as the 

Regional Social Scientist in Alaska where he has conducted a program of 

subsistence research for the past 5 years. He earned his Ph.D. in forestry (natural 

resource sociology) from the University of Washington. 

ROBERT FLEWELLING, formerly of the Cooperative Parks Studies Unit at the 

University of Washington, is a doctoral candidate in public health at the University 

of North Carolina. 

Manuscript received for publication 11 July 1989 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

100 Matsonford Road, Radnor, PA 19087 
Introduction 

The harvesting of natural resources for personal use is a 

major issue in rural Alaska. Federal and state laws 

designate subsistence as a priority use in natural resources 

planning and management. However, those in various 

disciplines disagree on the proper definition of subsistence 

and how to differentiate it from recreation. 

To gain information on a subsistence community, a 

cooperative study was conducted with the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game in Yakutat, Alaska, which.is 

designated as a subsistence community by the State of 

Alaska. As a result, local residents have a legal claim for 

subsistence priority in fish and wildlife allocations even 

though the level of dependency on natural resource 

gathering for personal use has been altered by the forces of 

modernization. 

Traditional subsistence communities in Alaska have evolved 

from a situation where the collection, distribution, and use 

of natural resources were critical for physical survival to one 

where mixed economic systems containing private (market), 

public (government), and subsistence sectors prevail (Glass 

and Muth 1989). Because there is considerable interaction 

among these components in rural Alaskan communities, it 

is necessary to examine the functioning of the whole 

community rather than to examine each component in 

isolation. In this paper, the mixed economic base of a 

modernizing rural community is examined with emphasis on 

the interrelationships between personal use of natural 

resources, especially fish and wildlife, and other sectors of 

the economy. Even if subsistence activities have evolved to 

a stage where they are more important in satisfying 

psychological and sociocultural needs rather than assuring 

material survival, they are an important component of the 

community's lifestyle and must be considered within the 

overall context of social well-being for effective resource 

allocation and other managerial decisions. 

Met hods 

Information on the use of renewable natural resources by 

residents of Yakutat was obtained through field interviews 

with 50 randomly selected households from a total 

population of 181 households established by preliminary 

reconnaissance during the 1984-85 winter. The interviews, 

which required approximately 2 hours each, were 

conducted by the Subsistence Division of the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game through a cooperative 

agreement with the USDA Forest Service. Data collected 

were for the 1984 calendar year. Yakutat is one of four 

communities for which similar data were collected; the 

results from the other communities will be covered in 

subsequent reports. Since the Subsistence Division 

reported the sample characteristics (Mills and Firman 1986), 

but made no inference to the community population, data 

analysis drawing inference to the community population for 

the household sample was completed by the Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station in Burlington, Vermont, in 

cooperation with the Alaska Region of the USDA Forest 

Service. Data from the household survey were augmented 

with information provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

Alaska State agencies, public utilities, and other research 

results. 

Community Setting 

Yakutat is an isolated community located on Monti Bay off 

the Gulf of Alaska, 212 air miles northwest of Juneau. While 

it does not have road connections to other points in Alaska 

or Canada, the community has a deep water port and a 

modern airport with daily jet service to Anchorage, Seattle, 

and points beyond. 

In 1980, the population of Yakutat was 561 of which 62 

percent were Native (Source: US. Bureau of the Census, 

1980 U.S. Census). Of the total population, 449 resided in 

the city proper with the majority of the remainder living 

along the 4-mile road connecting the city to the airport. 

The Yakutat area provides many opportunities for its 

residents to harvest fish, wildlife, and other renewable 

natural resources. Fish, shellfish, marine plants, and 

mammals are abundant. There are over 20 major salmon 

supporting drainages in the area; waters which also support 

both resident and sea-run trout (Environmental Services 

Limited 1983). Many species of waterfowl and shore birds 

are available seasonally as the area provides breeding 

grounds, resting and feeding areas along a major migration 

route, and overwintering areas for some species of 

waterfowl. Among the large ungulates, moose are most 

common. Although deer are a subsistence stable in much of 

southeastern Alaska, they are limited in the Yakutat area. 

Mountain goats are found in the higher elevations. Both 

brown and black bear are common as are furbearers and 

other small mammals. 

As previously mentioned, Yakutat has relatively good 

transportation service to outside points. Regular freight 

barge service is available to and from Washington State. 

Besides the regularly scheduled jet service, charter flights 

are offered by two companies and there are about 20 

privately owned planes in the community. Although there 

are no road connections to outside points, the Yakutat area 

has about 48 miles of state maintained roads of which 5 

miles are paved. An additional 43.5 miles of road are 

administered by the USDA Forest Service. A total of 348 

cars and trucks were registered in Yakutat in 1984. 

Modern communications and public utilities are available in 

Yakutat. Electricity is provided by the Yakutat Power 

Company which served 244 residences and 44 commercial 

customers in 1987. The Sitka Telephone Company provides 

telephone service in the community to 290 connections, 

both business and residential. One television channel is 

available through satellite and a majority of households 

have television sets (Environmental Services Limited 1983). 

Although radio reception from outside points is generally 

poor, there is a local FM station. Mail service and 
newspapers from Juneau and Anchorage are available on a 

daily basis by air. The city proper has centralized water and 

sewage systems. There is also weekly garbage pick up by a 

private firm as well as a local landfill area. 

Under Alaska law, Yakutat is a first-class city with a mayorcouncil form of government. Revenues are raised through a 

2-percent sales tax that is imposed only within the city 

limits. Law enforcement is provided by a village public 

safety officer as well as a full-time state trooper and a fish 

and wildlife protection officer, both of whom are assigned to 

the greater Yakutat area. There is a volunteer fire 

department. Public schooling is available through the 12th 

grade and selected college courses are available at night 

through the University of Alaska and Sheldon Jackson 

College. 

While Yakutat does not have a physician in residence, it 

does have a staffed community health clinic. Medical and 

dental care are available periodically through the year by 

visiting practitioners. In emergency situations, patients are 

flown to Anchorage, Juneau, or Seattle, the latter in 

extreme cases. 

The Mixed Economy of Yakutat 

The information gathered through the field interviewing 

indicated that Yakutat is a relatively affluent community 

(Table 1). Of the households sampled, 50 percent had 

incomes of $30,000 or more during 1984. Nearly onequarter of the respondent households had incomes of 

$50,000 or greater. On the other hand, 11 percent of the 

households had incomes that were less than $15,000 in 

1984. For the sample, mean annual household income for 

1984 was $42,500, while the median was $40,000. In terms 

of statistical inference, we can be 95 percent confident that 

the mean annual household income for the community was 

between $37,300 and $47,700 during 1984. 

These income levels are high, but they must be considered 

within the context of the inflated prices and wages that 

prevail in Alaska. While comparative figures are not 

available for Yakutat, it is noteworthy that a moderate 

budget to support a four-person family in Anchorage was 26 

percent more than that required to maintain the same 

standard in the contiguous states (Leask 1984). 

Furthermore, costs in Anchorage can be expected to be 

considerably lower than Yakutat for most imported items 

due to economies of scale and greater competition. Even 

so, the Yakutat income figures compare favorably with the 

estimated U.S. mean household income of $22,415 and 

median of $27,464 for 1984 (Source: US. Bureau of the 

Census). 

For the survey sample, the largest single contributor to 

household income was government employment (32 

percent) followed by commercial fishing. Note, however, 

that the commercial fishing estimates are gross income so 

they overestimate to the extent that the costs of production 

are not subtracted. Retail trade, logging, and construction 

provided smaller shares of the total of household income for 

the community. 

Public Sector 

As shown by the employment figures cited, the public sector 

has a major role in the economy of Yakutat. The State of 

Alaska does not have any broad-based taxes, but residents 

of the community pay local and federal taxes. They also 

receive the benefits of government services, social 

programs, employment opportunities, and other forms of 

economic stimulation. Although Yakutat may be 

geographically isolated, its residents have access to the 

same publicly financed programs as other United States' 

citizens and Alaskan residents. 

Information provided by the Alaska Department of Labor 

demonstrates the magnitude of government employment as 

well as its seasonal stability (Table 2). Commercial fishing is 

not included in these employment figures since it is not 

covered by Workmens' Compensation. Approximately onethird of average annual employment was through the 

government sector. Furthermore, government employment 

is quite stable, ranging from an average monthly 

employment of 60 in August to 79 in November of 1984. By 

contrast, employment in the private sector ranged from 95 

In February to 205 in June. Commercial fishing is also 

highly seasonal, so the stabilizing effect of the public sector 

in providing year-round employment opportunities is an 

important contribution to the community. For 1984. the 

average annual wage for government jobs was $24,535 as 

compared to $23,371 in the private sector. During 1985, the 

data indicate an even greater role for the public sector in 

providing employment opportunities. During that year, 

government employment accounted for 37.5 percent of 

average annual employment and 44.6 percent of total 

annual wages; again excluding commercial fishing. 

Unemployment compensation payments also contribute to 

the needs of physical survival, thus reducing dependency 

on direct consumption of natural resources to meet this end. 

During 1984, the Alaska Department of Labor reported 

paying 1,178 weeks of unemployment benefits totalling 

$133,386. Most benefits were paid from December through 

April, a period during which not only are job opportunities 

limited, but also many natural resources are less readily 

available and harvesting can be impaired by inclement 

weather. 

Besides providing direct employment and transfer 

payments, the public sector provides opportunities for 

additional employment and other forms of economic 

stimulation through capital investments in the community. 

From 1980 to 1986, the State of Alaska spent over $15 

million on capital improvements in Yakutat (Table 3). Over 

this 7-year period, the state investment in capital 

improvements amounted to $26,755 per person. During the 

calendar year in which the field survey was undertaken 

(1984), the state spent a total of almost $5.5 million on 

capital improvements in Yakutat, a per capita expenditure 

of $9,729. 
Table 1 .-Household income for residents of Yakutat, Alaska, 1984 

Estimated Cumulative 

Number of Percent Standard number of percent 

sample of all error households in of all 

Income range households households (Percent) community households 

Less than $5,000 1 2.2 2.2 4 2.2 

$70,000 to over 4 8.7 4.2 16 100.0 

Mean = 42,500 

Median = 40,000 

Standard error = 3,521 

Publicly owned and managed resources, including fish, Private Sector 

wildlife, and timber, provide the basis for additional 

economic opportunities in the Yakutat area. The timing, The private sector is the source of about two-thirds of the 

quantities, and distributional aspects in the allocation of total income reported by Yakutat households, though this is 

these resources by the public agencies can have a stimulated in part by public investment. Because of the 

pronounced effect on the local economy. Finally, all Alaskan regulations pertaining to disclosure, information on specific 

residents (men, women, and children) were eligible to categories of employment are not available through the 

receive $1,000 each from the Permanent Fund dividend Alaska Department of Labor. 

during 1984. 
Commercial fishing is the major economic activity within the 

private sector. However, the available data on numbers of 

fishermen, harvest, and earnings include both residents of 

Yakutat and fishers from other areas including some from 

out of state. There were 164 limited entry permits issued for 

the Yakutat area in 1984 as reported by the Alaska 

Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, 145 of these held 

by Yakutat residents. A total of 140 permittees actually 

fished. Regardless of the residency of commercial fishers, 

the harvest figures provide some interesting insights with 

respect to the species taken and the kinds of gear used 

(Table 4). In the Yakutat area, the principal commercial gear 

types used are set gill nets, handtrolling, and power trolling. 

Except for king salmon, set gill nets generally take the 

largest quantity of fish by measure of both numbers and 

pounds. Power trolling takes the greatest amount of the 

king salmon and is usually a major source of silver salmon. 

Although hand trolling produces smaller quantities, it is also 

effective for both king and silver salmon. 

By measures of number of fish and weight, red and silver 

salmon are the principal species taken. In 1984, these two 

species together accounted for over 85 percent of the 

number of salmon and weight of salmon commercially 

harvested. By both of these measures, silver salmon was 

the leading species in 1984, but this tends to vary from year 

to year. For example, red salmon was the leading species 

harvested in 1983. 

According to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry 

Commission, the total value of the commercial salmon 

harvest for the Yakutat area in 1984 was $3.646.422. Of this, 

the set gill net harvest was estimated at $2,305,102; 90 

percent of which was taken by resident permit holders. 

Although commercial fishing is the leading source of 

monetary income reported within the market sector, it 

should be reemphasized that this estimate represents gross 

income. It is noteworthy that 62 percent of nongovernment 

income during 1984 was reported as originating from 

sources other than commercial fishing and represented net 

income such as wages and salaries. As reported by the 

sample households, retail trade was the second largest 

source of income from the private sector. Although retail 

trade can be expected to remain fairly stable from year to 

year, other sources of income in the market sector are likely 

to fluctuate widely, such as logging, which fluctuates with 

Pacific Rim market conditions, and construction, which 

fluctuates with the level of public investment. 

Subsistence Sector 

Even with the relatively high household incomes, the 

residents of Yakutat are quite active in harvesting fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources for personal use. For 

the household sample, 37 percent of the members both 

hunted and fished, 32 percent fished but did not hunt, 1 

percent hunted but did not fish, and the remaining 30 

percent neither hunted nor fished. From the sample, we can 

be 95 percent confident that between 331 and 339 of the 

community residents fished and between 162 and 222 

hunted. 

Table 2.-Monthly employment by government and nongovernment sectors, 

Yakutat, Alaska, 1984 

Government Nongovernment 

Total Percent Percent 

Month employmenta Employment of total Employment of total 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

Decem ber 

Average 

monthly 

employment 

alnsured employment as reported by Alaska Department of Labor, Employment 

Security Division, Juneau, Alaska 
It should be emphasized that the traditional subsistence 

lifestyle involved much more than the harvesting of natural 

resources for the sake of physical survival alone. 

Subsistence involves patterns or networks of production, 

processing, distribution, exchange and consumption that 

act to help maintain a complex web of institutional 

relationships involving authority, respect, wealth, obligation, 

status, power, and other components of social structure 

(Berger 1985, Dowling 1968, Muth et al. 1987, Spencer 

1959). The extent to which current harvesting and related 

activities maintain the traditional lifestyle was only 

superficially pursued in the survey. While some information 

was collected in the household survey regarding the sharing 

and distribution system-a major component of traditional 

subsistence-the data are limited because estimates of the 

quantities of resources that exchanged hands were not 

collected. Information is available on the extent to which 

households gave or received specific resources but not the 

quantities involved. 

Almost all of the sample households (98 percent) reported 

receiving some fish, wildlife, or other resources from other 

households. There is a 95 percent probability that over 95 

percent of the households received resources from other 

households. Fish and shellfish were received most 

frequently, with over 70 percent of the sample receiving 

shrimp and scallops. Among finfish, halibut (58 percent), 

king salmon (46 percent), and a catchall category of "other 

fish" that included capelin, hooligan, herring, trout, as well 

as other saltwater and freshwater species (82 percent), 

were received most frequently. While several species of 

mammals were reported as being received, moose (62 

percent) and harbor seal (34 percent) were reported most 

frequently. Birds and plants also were received by 

respondent households but not with the frequency of the 

aforementioned. 

For most resource categories, the population of households 

who gave was smaller than that of those who received. For 

the respondent households, 86 percent (79 to 93 percent at 

Table 3.-State of Alaska capital appropriations for 

Yakutat, 1980 to 1987 

State of Alaska Capital expenditures 

Year capital appropriations per capita 

1980 

1981 

1982 

I983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

Total 

Based on 1980 U.S. Census estimate of population for 

Yakutat at 561. Source: State of Alaska, Office of 

Management and the Budget, Juneau, AK 

Table 4.-Commercial salmon harvest by gear type and species, Yakutat area, 1983 to 1985 

Commercial salmon harvest 

King Red Silver Pink Dog Total 

Year Gear type No. Ibs. No. Ibs. No. Ibs. No. Ibs. No. Ibs. No. Ibs. 

1983 Set gill net 976 15,158 152,527 1,000,777 81,541 778,434 25,278 95,920 11,195 95,663 271,517 1,985,952 

Troll 816 10,866 59 335 8,304 60,638 244 779 10 60 9,433 72,678 

Power troll 3,036 41,693 31 186 11,105 79,873 792 2,384 97 701 15,061 124,837 

Other - - 249 1,664 1 8 - - - - 250 1,672 

Total 4,828 67,717 152,866 1,002,962 100,951 918,953 26,314 99,083 11,302 96,424 296,261 2,185,139 

1984 Set gill net 1,062 20,101 102,545 676,608 182,256 1,827,203 19,870 82,335 32,230 295,011 337,963 2,901,258 

Troll 966 12,653 4 26 21,918 158,616 218 955 6 54 23,112 171,704 

Power troll 7,634 107,809 64 380 56,605 473,446 997 3,861 132 1,073 65,432 586,569 

Other - - 33 212 22 21 1 73 334 9 79 137 836 

Total 9,662 140,563 102,646 677,226 260,801 2,458,876 21,158 87,485 32,377 296,217 426,644 3,660,367 

1985 Set gill net 1,231 20,937 234,886 1,507,437 202,814 2,055,563 16,362 72,234 12,466 114,766 467,759 3,770,937 

Troll 1,988 28,440 17 79 33,231 239,433 1,697 5,847 22 159 36,955 273,958 

Power troll 6,975 119,497 222 1,270 165,884 1,260,278 7,554 24,510 696 5,367 181,331 1,410,904 

Other 1 18 66 430 30 308 - - 2 16 99 772 

Total 10,195 168,874 235,191 1,509,216 401,959 3,555,582 25,613 102,591 13,186 120,308 686,144 5,456,571 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, Juneau, AK 
the 95-percent confidence level) reported giving resources 

as compared to the 98 percent who received. Relatively few 

households gave shellfish even though they distributed 

these resources quite widely. As an example. only 12 

percent of the sample households reported giving shrimp, 

though 72 percent of the sample households received this 

species from other households. The number of households 

giving resources tended to be higher for species in which 

harvesting equipment was less specialized or such 

equipment was available because it was used for other 

purposes. Thus, finfish were given by larger numbers of 

households than many species of shellfish. Among the 

mammals, moose (22 percent) and harbor seal (18 percent) 

were reported as being given to other households most 

frequently. Berries were reported as being given to other 

households by 50 percent of the respondents. 

The household survey revealed that Yakutat residents 

harvested substantial quantities of edible resources. The 

mean harvest was 1107 pounds, and the median harvest 

820 pounds per household. For the community at the 

95-percent confidence level, the total harvest was between 

141,723 and 259,011 pounds. 

Approximately three-fourths of the total harvest by sampled 

households consisted of fish and marine invertebrates led 

by the salmon category which included all five species. Fish 

alone accounted for 57.5 percent of the harvest. Land 

mammals, with moose being the leading subcategory, 

accounted for 14 percent of the reported harvest. Note that 

some species may be critical to the food supply in specific 

situations because of their seasonal availability even if they 

are not major contributors in the total figures. As with most 

communities utilizing large quantities of fish, wildlife, and 

other natural resources, harvests among Yakutat residents 

vary with seasonal availability. 

Among the sample households, the leading species of 

salmon taken for personal consumption was red followed by 

silver and king, in that order (Table 5). At the 95-percent 

confidence level, estimated community harvests were 

between 2,407 and 5,203 for red salmon, 1,774 and 

3,583,for silver salmon, and 923 and 1,792 for king salmon. 

Pink salmon and dog salmon, the latter of which are 

relatively less abundant than the other species in the 

Yakutat area, are harvested in smaller quantities for 

personal consumption. 

The interrelationship between commercial and subsistence 

fishing is further demonstrated by the extent to which 

salmon caught under commercial licensing are used for 

personal use. Twe-nty-seven percent of all fish used for 

personal consumption were taken from the commercial 

harvest, the proportion varying considerbly by species and 

gear types. Gillnetting was the predominant means of taking 

red salmon, over 70 percent of these coming from 

noncommercial harvests. Gillnetting was responsible for 

over one-half of the harvest of each species except silver 

Table 5.-Salmon harvesta for personal use by species by gear type, Yakutat, Alaska, 1984 

Estimated harvest of salmon by species 

King Sockeye Pink Dog Silver All Species 

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard 

Gear type Number error Number error Number error Number error Number error Number error 

Non-commercial 

gillnetting 452 112 2,601 762 80 47 0 0 590 376 3,738 1,082 

Commercial 

gillnetting 380 132 1,003 364 174 99 163 145 710 223 2,463 789 

Non-commercial 

trolling 54 38 7 7 25 20 0 0 7 7 94 51 

Commercial 

trolling 98 45 0 0 36 36 0 0 177 89 31 1 130 

Rod and reel 372 132 300 147 117 52 40 24 1,231 313 2,069 478 

All methods 1,377 271 3,901 890 440 153 203 146 2,787 557 9,008 1,580 

aDue to missing information, the sum of individual species or gear type may not sum precisely to the total reported in the 

tables, since totals are based only on cases with valid information for every component available. 
salmon-it approached one-half. By contrast to the gillnet 

harvest, commercially licensed trolling exceeded 

noncommercial trolling as a source of salmon for personal 

use. Note that commercial fishermen in Yakutat do not 

participate in trolling for salmon to the extent that it is 

practiced in other parts of southeastern Alaska. Lastly. rod 

and reel fishing is widely practiced and is a major source of 

both silver and king salmon. 

While the survey did not pursue detailed information on 

inputs and costs of pursuing subsistence activities. it did 

inquire about the transportation modes used in harvesting 

fish and wildlife. Mechanized vehicles are purchased 

through the market sector and require fuel, service, and 

other marketed goods and services. In fact, 84 percent of 

the respondents indicated that members of their household 

used conventional automobiles, trucks (usually pickups), or 

both in their resource harvesting activities. Skiffs were used 

by 72 percent of the households and larger vessels by 18 

percent. All-terrain vehicles were used by almost one-half of 

the respondent households and snow machines by 12 

percent. Two households reported using airplanes in their 

fish and wildlife harvesting activities. The use of a particular 

vehicle does not infer ownership, or if owned by a 

household member, its primary use may not be for 

harvesting resources for personal use. 

Interaction Among Sectors 

Perhaps the best example of interaction among the 

components of Yakutat's mixed economy involves the 

harvesting of salmon whereby a publicly owned and 

managed resource is taken for both commercial purposes 

and personal use. Beside allocating a portion of the 

commercial catch for personal use, the same gear is often 

used for subsistence fishing. With respect to subsistence 

fishing, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

concluded: "Set gill nets were placed in the rivers often at 

the same locations and by the same individuals who 

commercially fished" (Mills and Firman 1986). 

The interrelationship between commercial fishing and 

personal use of salmon is further demonstrated by the 

household survey data. For those who reported income 

from commercial fishing, the average salmon harvest for 

personal use per person was 204 pounds as compared to 

an average harvest of 83 pounds for those who did not have 

income from commercial fishing. This difference was 

statistically significant at the .02 level. 

While both commercial and personal-use fishing use the 

same resource base, most of the pressure on the resource 

is for commercial purposes (Table 6). Except for king 

salmon for which the personal-use harvest is 12.3 percent 

(15.2 percent at the upper level at the 95-percent confidence 

level) of the total harvest, personal use is a minor 

component of the overall catch even at the higher ranges of 

the confidence intervals. In addition to the numbers of fish 

included in the table, there are also salmon caught for sport 

by nonresidents of Yakutat, but this too is relatively 

insignificant as compared to the commercial catch. 

Monetary income not only provides an alternative means for 

physical survival, but also provides the basis to invest in 

equipment that makes subsistence harvesting more 

efficient. Most of the traditional subsistence gear has been 

replaced by modern equipment such as metal and 

fiberglass boats, outboard motors, or even large watercraft, 

sonar devices, guns, ammunition, steel traps, and the like. 

Food preservation has largely changed from the use of 

traditional smoking and drying processes to home canning 

and freezing. While all of these technological advances 

have added efficiency in harvesting and preserving, they 

have made the residents of rural communities more and 

more intertwined with the other sectors of the economy. The 

result is that, for many people, cash income affords them 

Table 6.-Comparison of commercial and personal use harvest of salmon by species, Yakutat, Alaska, 1984 

Species of salmon 

King Red Silver Pink Dog 

Kind of Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

harvest harvested of total harvested of total harvested of total harvested of total harvested of total 

Commercial 9,662 87.5 102,646 96.3 260,801 98.9 21,158 98.0 32,377 99.4 

Personal use 1,377 12.5 3,901 3.7 2,787 1 .I 440 2.0 203 0.6 

Total 11,039 100.0 106,574 100.0 263,588 100.0 21,598 100.0 32,580 100.0 
opportunities to supplement their household food budgets 

through in-kind contributions of fish, wildlife, and other 

edible resources. For other people, however, cash income 

allows them to purchase and maintain harvest and 

processing technologies which serve to enhance their 

subsistence lifestyles (Muth 1990, Muth and Glass 1989). 

However, participation in the subsistence lifestyle has payoffs 

beyond the physical needs that it satisfies. In addition to 

serving critical roles in both supplementing income and 

providing a source of support during periods when 

monetary income becomes scarce or nonexistent, 

subsistence activities contribute to overall social well-being 

through a variety of social, cultural, and psychological 

functions. Nonetheless, monetary income has become a 

necessity to purchase the modernized inputs for 

subsistence production. Because this monetary income 

originates in the public and market sectors, contemporary 

rural communities in southeastern Alaska have developed 

truly integrated three-sector economies. 

Discussion 

The forces of modernization have had a pronounced effect 

in the Yakutat community and have reduced the level of 

dependency on subsistence activities for physical survival. 

Much traditional subsistence behavior evolved as a means 

of coping with the uncertainties of relying on direct 

consumption of natural resources, but the present situation 

is one where public programs alleviate much of this 

uncertainty. While sources of monetary income from both 

the market sector and public investment are apt to fluctuate 

over time, social progrems now assure a means of survival 

during the worst of times. Nonetheless, food gathering 

activities provide additional income, and support the 

sociocultural configurations of traditional institutional 

structures. 

The complex interrelationships that exist among the three 

components of the mixed economic systems of rural 

Alaskan communities make it particularly difficult to assess 

the impacts of alternative resource allocation and 

development strategies. For example, development that 

provides employment opportunities for local residents can 

have a material effect on the efficiency of food and other 

resource gathering activities even if the direct monetary 

benefits are distributed unevenly. If those who receive 

additional monetary income invest part of it into gear to be 

used in subsistence activities, the added efficiency can 

benefit others in the community through the traditional 

sharing and distribution systems. Furthermore, investment 

in capital goods that enhance the subsistence harvesting 

efficiency can be utilized for periods of time beyond that for 

which monetary income is available if income-producing 

alternatives are irregular. 

While the mixed economic base of a rural community may 

help insulate its residents from threats to physical survival 

brought on by resource competition, less clear are the likely 

impacts on other aspects of social well-being. The extent to 

which modernization has affected the traditional 

subsistence lifestyle is not yet clearly understood. For 

instance, the intrusion of new people into the community 

can adversely affect community cohesiveness and weaken 

social structures. On the other hand, the interaction of 

people from different cultures can foster better 

understanding by exposing both groups to new ideas and 

practices. When viewing declines in fish and wildlife 

populations brought about by natural or man-made 

phenomena, the impact on physical survival does not seem 

to have the relevance that it once did, but the effects on 

other social values may have become even more important. 

Even if local fish and wildlife populations were to decline 

temporarily as the result of an action that also provided 

additional local income and employment opportunities, 

community residents would have additional money to 

purchase substitute foods and to invest in subsistencerelated technology that permit greater harvesting efficiency 

and the ability to travel greater distances to gather resources. 

If physical survival is not contingent on subsistence 

gathering, one must consider the level of resource 

abundence necessary to induce people to engage in 

activities in which participation reaps its own rewards. In a 

sense, increased efficiency may have a negative effect in 

that resource needs can be satisfied so quickly that the time 

spent engaged in these self-rewarding activities decreases. 

Also one must consider how much appeal is lost when 

participation in subsistence activities is no longer necessary 

for physical survival. The context in which contemporary 

subsistence is practiced often makes it extremely difficult to 

differentiate it from fish and wildlife related recreation. 

For Yakutat, the relative importance of salmon as a 

component of the total subsistence harvest is another factor 

that insulates the community from the adverse impacts of 

reduced natural resource availability. Since the subsistence 

share of the total salmon harvest is small and subsistence is 

given priority as a resource use, any reduction in salmon 

stocks is likely to be absorbed by commercial fishers and 

sport fishers. Furthermore, it is not certain that commercial 

fishers will suffer losses in revenues in such an event 

because a widespread salmon scarcity, at least for the 

preferred species, will likely result in higher prices. 

In addition to bringing additional income into rural 

communities, resource development can create more 

competition for the available resources. Even where 

resources are relatively abundant, such as salmon in the 

Yakutat area, there can be a disruptive influence on 

traditional subsistence activities brought about by those 

viewed as intruders. 

Examining the economy of Yakutat from a three-sector 

perspective has provided a more realistic view of 

contemporary economic interactions. Even though only one 

community has been examined during one year, it has 

unveiled some critical areas and suggested where 

additional avenues of research may be fruitful. In order to 
gain better insight into how resource development and 

allocation changes might impact rural Alaskan communities, 

the following research, in no particular order of priority, is 

suggested: 

1. Develop a better understanding of the interaction within 

and among the three sectors of community economies. 

Even within the subsistence sector, little information is 

available on the quantities involved in the sharing and 

distribution system. Both long-run and short-run impacts 

on subsistence efficiency attributable to increased 

income are also needed. 

2. Ascertain the sensitivity of sociocultural benefits to 

reductions in availability. Since other sectors of the 

economy provide many of the necessities for physical 

survival, the sensitivity of the subsistence lifestyle to 

reduced fish and wildlife populations, along with more 

competition for the available physical supply, needs to 

be better understood. 

3. Assess the impact of exogeneous factors on the 

subsistence lifestyle. Aside from the effects that the 

intrusion of outsiders may have on fish and wildlife 

populations, the very existence of more people. different 

institutions, greater accessibility, and other factors can 

influence the subsistence lifestyle. 

4. Develop a better understanding of the exchange and 

distribution system. More information is needed on the 

quantities involved in the distribution of subsistence 

goods and the extent of coverage as rural communities 

become more diverse. The relevance to institutional 

constraints on harvesting and its impact on sharing also 

should be examined. 

5. Quantify the inputs and costs of subsistence harvesting. 

Although considerable effort has been placed on 

quantifying subsistence outputs, little has been done on 

the inputs and costs associated with alternative 

harvesting methods. Such information can be especially 

useful in determining levels of dependency on resource 

harvesting for personal use. 

6. Determine the income effect of subsistence activities. Not 

withstanding the sociocultural benefits of subsistence, 

resource harvesting also provides income, not only to 

those actually engaged in the harvesting of resources, 

but also to the other recipients. The contribution of 

subsistence harvesting to community standards of living, 

even in a material sense, should be an important 

consideration in resource allocation. 

Literature Cited 

Berger, Thomas R. 1985. Village journey. New York: Hill 

and Wang. 

Dowling, John H. 1968. Individual ownership and the 

sharing of game in hunting societies. American 

Anthropologist. 70:502-507. 

Environmental Services Limited. 1983. Yakutat. Juneau, 

AK: Prepared under contract with the Alaskan 

Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division 

of Community Planning. 

Glass, Ronald J.; Muth, Robert M. 1989. The changing role 

of subsistence in rural Alaska. Transactions of the 54th 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Conference: 224-232. 

Leask, Linda. 1984. Prices and incomes-Alaska and the 

U.S. 1980-1984. Alaska Review of Social and Economic 

Conditions. Vol. 21, No. 2. Anchorage, AK: University of 

Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. 

Mills, David D.; Firman, Ann S. 1986. Fish and wildlife use 

in Yakutat, Alaska: Contemporary patterns and changes. 

Tech. Pap. 131. Douglas, AK: Division of Subsistence, 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Muth, Robert M.; Ruppert, David E.; Glass. Ronald J. 1987. 

Subsistence use of fisheries resources in Alaska: 

Implications for Great Lakes fisheries management. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. , 1 l6:5lO-5l8. 

Muth, Robert M.; Glass Ronald J. 1989. Wilderness and 

subsistence limitations. In: Freilich, Helen R., compiler. 

Wilderness Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the 

National Wilderness Colloquium. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-51. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Muth, Robert M. 1990. Community stability as social 

structure: the role of subsistence use of natural 

resources in southeast Alaska. In: Lee, Robert G.; 

Burch, William R., Jr.; Field, Donald R. eds. Community 

and Forestry: Continuities and Natural Resources 

Sociology. Westview Press. 

Spencer, Robert F. 1959. The North Alaskan Eskimo: A 

study in ecology and society. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of American Ethnology. 

Bull. 171. 
Glass, Ronald J.; Muth, Robert M.; Flewelling, Robert. 1990. Subistence as 

a component of the mixed economic base in a modernizing 

community. Res. Pap. NE-638. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. 

In this paper, the mixed economic base of a modernizing rural community is 

examined with emphasis on the interrelationships between personal use of 

natural resources and other sectors of the economy. 

aU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19901748-070100024 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is in Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts 

Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State University 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services of 

the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and should be 

reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.