The Traditional Migration

A presentation of the public television network of Alaska. On August 18, 1983, Village Representatives of the Native Organization Noonam Klutste met with biologists and other officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in a Bethel Bingo Hall. The local television station covered the gathering, but few people outside of Bethel heard about it. One of the most important meetings between Western Alaskan natives and the government quietly became history. The sole topic of discussion covered the survival of three species of geese that migrate to the Western Alaska Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge, the nation's largest such preserve. And while they spent hours going over bird counts and other

data the biologists had to offer, one thing surely was in the back of all their minds. How does Eskimo subsistence hunting figure into this? The possible answers they silently mulled over involve one of the most fundamental and sensitive issues in Alaska today. A topic so touchy, some people would prefer not to talk about it at all. migratory birds have always figured in the Inuit or Eskimo culture. Traditionally, they've been hunted as a dietary break between dwindling winter stores of dried fish and summer fishing. Today, as in the past, for the true subsistence hunters taking birds in the spring is a matter of survival. There's only one problem with what seems like a simple situation. Spring hunting of migratory birds has been internationally outlawed for the last 65 years. Since 1918, when the migratory bird treaty act was ratified between the United States and Canada, hunting has been banned to protect waterfowl during the spring breeding season. Subsistence hunting wasn't taken

into account, however, and left natives both in Alaska and Canada in the uncomfortable situation of violating the law to continue their lifestyle, and in addition, hunting birds that are presently declining in number. We have some real concern about the decline of some species that have their major nesting grounds on Yukon Delta. Jan Reif is the Acting Deputy Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska. He says that hunting is only a part of the reason tackling Canada geese, white front geese, and a black brand have dropped in population. Some people might argue that we have allowed over harvest, or want to species in certain locations. If you have other factors that are causing the decline, then hunting of them could contribute to the overall decline, but I would not say that hunting, sport hunting, per se, has been responsible for the decline, just like I would not say that subsistence hunting by

itself has been responsible. Wildlife biologists can't explain why in the last 15 years, cackling Canada geese have dropped in population from 350,000 to under 100,000. Why black brands have gone from 150,000 to 170,000 to 100,000 today, and why white front geese are half what they were in 1970. Dr. Dennis Raveling of the University of California at Davis has been studying migratory birds on the Yukon Delta, and is a recognized expert on the subject. We're concerned because of the large scale of the decline of these populations, and their lack of response to restrictions on hunting that have been placed on them in California, while other populations that live in the same area have responded in a gratifying manner, they've increased, which means that we do not understand all of the factors that are affecting them on a year-round basis, but particularly, of course, we lack information on what the impact of the

breeding biology is on the Yukon Delta. But solving the problem of declining geese runs into complex snags involving international law, Eskimo culture, waterfall management practices, and sport hunting, none of which are easy to deal with, and perhaps the most complicated part of the situation is the 1918 treaty that prohibits spring hunting. Now you have a law that's just not applicable to those that live on subsistence bird. Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski sits on the federal end of the dilemma, watching a treaty amendment slowly make its way through negotiations, which would change the law to make spring subsistence hunting legal. I think the whole thing needs to be re-examined and made applicable to the residents that live in the area for the time that the migratory birds are in those areas recognizing a traditional use of subsistence use of the migratory birds provide us as a lifestyle to the substance of the people.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Generally, we've had very good cooperation of people who recognize their circumstance and an necessity to try to give that a legal status, their traditions, some protection legally, well at the same time assuring protection of the species. I think that above all comes first in terms of our lifestyle. The treaty amendment that would essentially allow this lifestyle to continue in a legal sense has taken years to negotiate, and the best estimates have it ratified near the end of the decade. And one item slowing the approval is the amendments wording over harvest limits, which is based on what some consider a nebulous term, the existing take of birds, which would determine future regulations on what is being harvested today. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist Bill Eldridge. And the problem is nobody really knows what existing take is in the springtime. It's clear on the record that the United States made an attempt to use a wording

with the Russian treaty. The process to learn what the existing take is has been going on for three years. Every spring, the Fish and Wildlife Service recruits residents from selected villages to conduct harvest surveys. After a week of classes in management and birded identification, they returned to their villages and armed with a survey questionnaire. They visit a number of their neighbors, collecting information on how many birds they've taken and what species. Officials admit it's hard to get totally accurate information because hunting birds in the spring is illegal, and some people are reluctant to divulge their harvest. The latest report completed in 1982 concludes that because of inconsistent data, they aren't yet able to tell if subsistence hunting is increased, decreased, or remained the same.

Similarly, they aren't able to provide meaningful information that would help form possible regulatory limits once the treaty amendment is ratified, and until that time, strictly speaking, springs subsistence hunting is against the law. The U.S. government, the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recognized that need and has put forward a policy that worried is clearly a taking of minor birds for subsistence purposes, we will not recommend prosecution. And while this uncomfortable compromise extends over a year-by-year basis, the issue of declining goose populations complicates matters further. In the past, the first management action would be to cut back on hunting, usually sport hunting at the wintering grounds in the lower 48. But now sports hunters are calling for natives to reduce their take as well. That position has resulted in uneasy discussions,

such as this one in the Yukon Delta Village of Chivak last November, where both sides agreed something should be done, but couldn't agree who should sacrifice the most. I think the definition I would give of subsistence hunting would be to survive. The Deputy Director of Nuneam Clusty, John Paul Jones, believes a workable compromise is one that a committee of villagers called the Waterfall Conservation Committee put forth at the Chivak meeting. The WCC proposed that natives would halt hunting of the three declining species, the period between nesting and molting, roughly April 15th to August 15th, in exchange for a complete sport hunting moratorium on the geese. And I think that sports hunters can wait for a few years before they hunt us again until the population goes up again. We have the people up here that still have to live. And that's still there for that you were talking about.

We've had less discussion. We've looked at the data, time and again. And I think it's obvious that the populations are declining. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service offers some recommendations that hopefully will halt this decline. Even with these recommendations for a short-term solution, we will continue to seek better and longer-term solutions to the problem. At the Chivak meeting, Fish and Wildlife countered with proposals that were less restrictive. They asked natives to halt their hunting of the three goose species between nesting and molting, while leaving sports hunting at present levels, promising to restrict it if the populations don't improve. Red Hunt, Chief of the Wildlife Management Branch, are the California Department of Fish and Game. I would hope that we would start with something a little less than a moratorium. See how that would work out from our standpoint for the standpoint up here. A fish will say there are other birds available to hunt,

and they've encouraged natives to pursue them as a substitute. Still, natives are looking for more action from sports hunters. Pauline Green of Eek. We just hunt. We just take what we need. We don't waste birds. Usually in the lower for date, I guess they call it sport hunting. I guess that's what they call it. But up here, we just take the birds and take them and use them. We eat them.

We don't waste them. The villagers of Chifornix as Charlie Kai-Raiwok no longer enjoy what must have seemed like an unlimited resource, and he blames that on sports hunters. For many years, they never had to worry about the number of geese coming back up. They never had to worry about the population size, because it was always abundant. But after competition in this research was grew from in low 48, in sports hunters, they really start noticing that there'd be thousands and thousands of birds that would go down to wherever they wintered, and when spring came, they'd come in lesser numbers. But sports hunters and government officials say they've gone a long way to save the geese. One problem unique to California is loss of habitat. According to Dr. Dennis Raveling, more than 90% of the wetland habitat has been lost to agriculture and other development. Habitat protection is the state's primary concern.

If we lose more habitat, we're going to have less capability to support birds from the breeding grounds, no matter how many they can support. And we're doing three things specifically at the direction of our legislature. And one of those being, and most important, we're trying to hang on to the wetlands that we have, because they're not developed for other purposes. And we're trying to improve the second thing, we're trying to improve the quality of these wetlands for waterfowl. And the third thing at their direction that we're doing is to double the acreage that we now have in waterfowl. And that's going to take time and dollars. Both California and the federal government have managed to protect what habitat is left through a number of acquisition programs. But a lot of the land is in private ownership, felt aside specifically for hunters. And the fear is that if sports hunting is reduced much more, the interest in saving the lands will be lost. We've already lost so much habitat that, and part of what remains, is in private hands. And the reason that it remains in private hands is for use as hunting.

And if they can't hunt, they'll turn a marsh into a rice field. If I got, I hope those sports hunters don't say that, you know, they held with us enough, they're not going to try and reserve any lands down there. And I don't think anybody that has a human heart will let them do that. In addition to habitat protection, officials say hunting seasons have been reduced as have bag limits. And they point to a 1979 meeting in Cheeback, where they say sports hunters agree to cut back on their take if natives did the same. Dan Chapin of the California Waterfowl Association claims only the lower 48 hunters complied. We, in 1979, we took a step to reduce our take, and we did. In round numbers, in the species we're talking about, we've reduced it by 50%. I think it's now time for the people up here to four years later do what they said they would do in 1979,

to reduce their share of the take. That complaint was raised at the 1983 Cheeback meeting, and natives said they had indeed taken steps to cut back their harvest. We did make efforts, and we went out, sent people out to tell people that there are certain species that are in danger, or that their populations are going down, that the people trying to refrain from catching them. And the records show that our subsistence catch, since 1979, have fallen. And that this information was never transmitted down to the people in the lower 48. According to Chuck Hunt of the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge, an effort was indeed made to inform villagers of the problem,

but no data exists to back up the claims of an actual reduction. With this as history, the major question in the ongoing disagreements has become who will now make the hunting cutbacks as a short-term solution to the declining goose species. This is a goose-round-up filmed in the early 1950s. Villagers once heard of the geese during the molting period when the birds are flightless. Natives no longer hunt birds this way, and Charlie Kaichirok points to this as an example of how natives have voluntarily cut back on their harvest. That, he believes, means they are able to handle the problem themselves. It's been about 10 years since I've seen the last goose-round-up. And the really, it's voluntarily stopped that because they felt that was one way that they can help in maintaining stock. And we're trying to do something, we're trying to understand it.

Oscar Coagli of Bethel. We have probably been one of the best conservationists in the world because we have had to exist in our environment. And we take what is necessary to secure our survival from the land and its waters. Hunting and conservation groups are not convinced. While fish and wildlife officials emphatically say they aren't interested in blaming anyone for the decline, that a number of factors have caused the dropping population, others have their own ideas. Mike Mayer, Executive Vice President of the Waterfall Habitat Owners Alliance. I'm not trying to point fingers at anybody, but if you just look at bird-pop goose populations, it's the ones that breed in the YK Delta that appear to be in the most trouble. And to our knowledge, the YK Delta is the area where there is more spring hunting activity than other places in the Arctic.

And so, you can only conclude that something has to be done up here also. Dan Chapin asserts that habitat protection and sports hunting cutbacks have been significant enough in the past years to leave one issue under question. Subsistence hunting. Well, if the habitats the same and we dramatically decrease the California take, what is the left? Feelings such as Chapin's and Mayer's are behind recent threats to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce the spring hunting laws unless more is done to prevent further declines in geese. Chapin says in the past four years there's been a lot of talk but little action. In terms of actual results, we don't seem to be getting terribly far. So, what you have to do at that point in time if you're going to, if you just look around and see what options are still relevant to you. The option of a lawsuit is dreaded by most of the people involved, but even if such a suit were one official say,

they still wouldn't be able to enforce the law as mandated by a judge. In California where the majority of the geese involved winter, there is a well entrenched enforcement system in place. But in the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge, size and remoteness becomes a problem. They say the area is too big to effectively cover. Secondly, most of the Fish and Wildlife personnel are biologists and not trained in enforcement. And because of those drawbacks says Bill Horn, Deputy Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior, they can only hope for voluntary compliance. We'd have to have the entire United States Army committed a roaming around the ground to enforce this thing across the board if people didn't want to participate in good faith. And in terms of any management program that we embark upon to implement, we would hope that the people of Yukon Delta that you're referring to would do that on a voluntary basis. We would hope that they would police their own ranks if you want to call that and recognize it as to their own benefit to see that we do adhere to the various management programs that we set in motion.

We are not anticipating a rigid law enforcement program at this point in time. We would hope that it would never come to that. And to be quite candid with you, I'm not sure that we could throw it off if we tried to. But Dan Chapin doesn't believe the area in question is as large as the Fish and Wildlife people say it is. Because we're talking about at the most a narrow coastal band along the Bering Sea. And actually in real life within that band some rather clearly identified high density nesting areas. And these areas are known and they are not that extensive in nature. And we see no reason why it isn't feasible and also reasonable to enforce closures in those areas. Besides proposing voluntary harvest reductions as a short term solution and to appease sports hunters, the Fish and Wildlife Service has also been conducting research that will be used in formulating a long term management plan.

So Dr. Dennis rabbling thinks they have a lot yet to learn. The Refuge has instituted the program to attempt to get better information on what the human activity is up here and what the potential impacts are. So programs have begun, but they're not to the point where I would feel comfortable saying we know what the level of harvest is and what the impact of the population is. Part of the interest on the people in Pacific Flyway is to have that information so we can make the best determination of how each component throughout the life cycle of the bird is affecting it. And what's killed in California doesn't make sense by itself until we can put it together with what's killed in Alaska.

Besides survey camps, fish and wildlife biologists are also tagging a small number of geese with neck collars and leg bands. With formulas using ratios of marked birds to unmarked birds, they are able to determine survival rates. Burn bird biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service. We can't, as you say, get a very high percentage of them colored. It's more just knowing that we had say 150 colored birds from here and say in California, they see 75 of them in the fall, let's say. Well, they can follow those 75, you see, for the rest of the winter, and over the subsequent years, they can see what percentage of those birds continued to be viewed in the population and get some idea of survival rates that way. All this says John Paul Jones isn't as necessary as the Fish and Wildlife Service thinks. Natives, he beliefs, are more familiar with waterfall biology than the researchers.

Where we have our biologists is in our elders. And I think they have more scientific information than some of these people that come up to collect them. Because they've been here, other lives they've lived with it. The way people have done things traditionally simply have to be realigned to some degree, so that we can use the natural resources without causing adverse impacts to the populations. Dr. Lawrence Jan, Vice President of the Wildlife Management Institute, doesn't disagree that subsistence hunters may know about the geese, but he isn't sure they are aware of the situation all along the Pacific flyway. The route the birds use in migration from winter into breeding grounds. These people that have lived in these villages, of course, have got to expand their horizons, if you will, so they can appreciate that the birds that they see in certain seasons of the year are also seen by other people and other geographic areas. And it's a total wide perspective that's really encompasses all geographic areas used by the birds that should be the focus of an educational effort.

All parties agree that because of the isolation of the Yukon Delta, both villagers and lower 48 sports hunters aren't aware of the others' true circumstances. They say more understanding would go a long way to finalizing a short-term solution to the problem of declining geese. According to Red Hunt, some progress has been made by Californians visiting the Delta area. We came away convinced that, for example, its subsistence hunting needs to be continued. And we need to know the circumstances under which the harvest goes on. And what substitutes are there, just as it's important, I think, for the people up here to understand what we need to do down there. On the best interests of maintaining large populations on a sustained basis simply need to forge a very cooperative program among all parties, state, federal, native people, so that these populations can be perpetuated over time. No one falls that statement, but as we've seen, the problem has been to agree on a cooperative program.

Misunderstandings over lifestyle have partially slowed down that process, as well as a lack of clear information on bird mortality throughout the Pacific flyway. Everyone is concerned enough to realize that if the goose populations continue to drop, as Jan Reif of the Fish and Wildlife Service says, they could be placed on the endangered species list, which would prohibit hunting of them for everyone. And that comes back to the question of who will reduce their hunting. I think subsistence hunting must be examined in relation to the total harvest throughout the geographic range of the birds. That's the only realistic way to examine it. I think all of us are going to have to sacrifice if we're going to be successful in solving this problem. If you take your frame of mind away from Bethel and some locations where it's a cash economy, and you take yourself out to the village where it is, you know, living off the land. There are very few people there that are employed out there.

And the people depend on what they get from the land to survive for the winter. Thank you very much. A presentation of the Public Television Network of Alaska. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.