Sustainability 08 00113 v2

sustainability
Article
Kelp-Fed Beef, Swimming Caribou, Feral Reindeer,
and Their Hunters: Island Mammals in
a Marine Economy
Katherine Reedy
Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Ave, Stop 8005, ID 83209-8005, USA;
reedkath@isu.edu; Tel.: +1-208-282-2629; Fax: +1-208-282-4944
Academic Editor: Werner T. Flueck

Received: 8 December 2015; Accepted: 19 January 2016; Published: 26 January 2016
Abstract: Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula residents have selectively introduced land mammals
to their primarily marine based economy over the past two centuries. This paper describes these
many introductions, contexts, and the longer term roles of these cattle, sheep, reindeer, and other
land mammals in discrete island settings and the regional food economy based upon interviews in
ten communities and comprehensive household surveys in eight of these. Caribou are indigenous
and traditionally hunted in other parts of the state but are legally “invasive” in island contexts now
managed by the federal government. Access to land and natural resources by Alaska Natives and
rural peoples is regulated by state and federal agencies, but Aleutian residents have shaped their
environment and engineered food sources to support their communities. This paper demonstrates
that hardline approaches to removing invasive land mammal species will have human consequences
and an integrated management policy emphasizing food security and conservation that includes
reducing the density of these introduced species is most appropriate.
Keywords: aleutians; introduced species; invasive species; subsistence; conservation; food security
1. Introduction
In March 2010, former graduate student Crystal Callahan and I were staying in a Port Heiden,
Alaska, bed and breakfast working on a subsistence project when the telephone rang. The owner’s
sister answered the phone and let out a shriek and a wail. News that a special education teacher was
killed by wolves outside the small village of Chignik Lake while out running earlier that evening some
50 miles away on the Pacific side had reached across the Alaska Peninsula. People in Port Heiden
knew the young woman, an avid runner, who had traveled to their community to assist their students
as a Lake and Peninsula Borough School District employee. This tragedy was not a total surprise to
residents. In ongoing interviews for our project, Port Heiden residents had reported being chased by
wolves, stalked, losing their dogs, fear of losing children, caribou deaths, few caribou calves surviving,
the burden of closed caribou seasons, and the difficulties in hunting wolves. At the time, caribou
hunting had been closed to the local communities for several years because of low numbers and weak
calf recruitment considered to be the result of wolf predation. The Alaska Department of Fish and
Game’s (ADF and G) response following the teacher’s death was to conduct an aerial hunt and remove
several wolves near Chignik Lake (Figure 1). ADF and G had also conducted limited wolf-control
culling operations on the Alaska Peninsula to help the caribou population rebound. Locals reported
killing every wolf they could (the legal limit is 10 wolves per day between 10 August and 30 June within
the predator control area). They also applied for ceremonial permits through the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, which allowed them to hunt a caribou bull for a potluck only following a death in the
village. They supplemented the loss of food with extra moose hunts (competing with sport hunters)
Sustainability 2016, 8, 113; doi:10.3390/su8020113 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113
Sustainability 2016, 8, 113
2 of 25
2 of 25
with extra moose hunts (competing with sport hunters) and flying in beef from Anchorage. More
and flying ininbeef
recently 2015,from
as theAnchorage. More recently
caribou population continuedinto2015, as the
struggle, theycaribou population
purchased continued
and shipped in live to
struggle, they purchased and shipped in live
reindeer and other animals to raise for food. reindeer and other animals to raise for food.
Figure 1. Regional Map of Alaska showing relevant locations.

Figure 1. Regional Map of Alaska showing relevant locations.
In 2014, a year after conducting a subsistence survey of Adak, Alaska, as part of a second
In 2014, a year
subsistence afterinconducting
project which localsa reported
subsistence survey
difficulty of Adak,
hunting theAlaska,
island’s as part of
caribou a second
because theysubsistence
were
project in which
hard to find,locals
the reported difficultyNational
Alaska Maritime hunting the island’s
Wildlife caribou
Refuge because
issued a DrafttheyEnvironmental
were hard to find,
Assessment
the Alaska Maritimefor Caribou
National Control
Wildlifeon Kagalaska
Refuge issued Islanda Draft
[1], theEnvironmental
island next to Adak (Figure for
Assessment 1), and
Caribou
subsequently killed the few caribou they could find on the island
Control on Kagalaska Island [1], the island next to Adak (Figure 1), and subsequently killedin 2015. Caribou had swum to this
the few
island and refuge staff was concerned they would become established as invasive species, damage
caribou they could find on the island in 2015. Caribou had swum to this island and refuge staff
lichens, and “harm the wilderness character of the island”. Refuge staff also began a scoping process
was concerned they would become established as invasive species, damage lichens, and “harm the
for removal of cattle from refuge lands on Wosnesenski Island in 2014, a former Aleut village,
wilderness character of the island”. Refuge staff also began a scoping process for removal of cattle
homestead, and ranch near the current community of Sand Point in the eastern part of the Aleutian
from region
refuge[2].lands
Theon Wosnesenski
animals Island
are believed to in 2014, wildlife,
damage a formerhabitat,
Aleut village, homestead,
and historical and ranch
and cultural sites. near
the current community
These plans and theirofexecution
Sand Point were incause
the eastern
for alarmpart of the island
amongst Aleutian region
residents [2].depend
who The animals
upon are
believed to damage
the animal wildlife,
resources habitat,
of their region.andLand historical
mammals and cultural
ranging fromsites.
beefThese
and dairyplans andtotheir
cattle execution
buffalo to
caribou have been introduced to key island sites for the purposes of supporting
were cause for alarm amongst island residents who depend upon the animal resources of their region. the islands’ people
Landand those living
mammals rangingthroughout
from beefthe and
region.
dairySome of these
cattle ventures
to buffalo had commercial
to caribou have been intent and mixed
introduced to key
success and others are purely to provide food in a volatile
island sites for the purposes of supporting the islands’ people and those living throughout marine economy. All of the
these
region.
Somecommunities
of these venturesexperience extremely high shipping costs for groceries.
had commercial intent and mixed success and others are purely to provide food in
Land mammals are thus subject to locally unwanted removal both by wolves and federal
a volatile marine economy. All of these communities experience extremely high shipping costs for groceries.
managers in the region. The local response in the Port Heiden case was to attempt to maintain
Land mammals are thus subject to locally unwanted removal both by wolves and federal managers
hunting traditions using a legal exception available to them (ceremonial hunts) and later to
in theintroduce
region. The newlocal response
species in thefood
to alleviate Portshortages
Heiden case was toaattempt
and create to maintain
reliable supply for thehunting traditions
community.
usingThea legal
response in the Adak case was to protest the culling of caribou until it was scheduled by federal to
exception available to them (ceremonial hunts) and later to introduce new species
alleviate food shortages
managers, and create
and then accept a reliable
the meat donated supply for the community. The response in the Adak case
to them.
Everythe
was to protest remote
culling Aleutian
of caribouand until
western
it was Alaska Peninsula
scheduled community
by federal managers,has introduced
and then acceptland the
meat mammals
donated to onthem.
their peninsula landscapes, home islands, or on nearby accessible islands, and uses
these introduced
Every remote Aleutian species andforwestern
food. These
AlaskaAleutPeninsulaand community
Alutiiq are has historically
introduced andlandcurrently
mammals
marine-oriented, hunting seabirds and marine mammals, gathering on the beaches and in berry
on their peninsula landscapes, home islands, or on nearby accessible islands, and uses these introduced
species for food. These Aleut and Alutiiq are historically and currently marine-oriented, hunting
seabirds and marine mammals, gathering on the beaches and in berry patches, and fishing both
commercially and for personal use. They harvest salmon and other marine fish, sea mammals, shellfish,
and seabirds. The primary land mammal, caribou, is only found naturally on the Alaska Peninsula and
Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 3 of 25
Unimak Island, the easternmost island in the Aleutians, colonized likely through swimming across
False Pass (Figure 1). Calculated and expensive decisions to introduce land mammals to other locations
have supported local people for two centuries.
This paper considers the role of introduced land mammals in the region by examining their
introduction and development, their local management, local uses and values, and the legal structure
around introduced species. The purpose is to demonstrate the contribution of these animals in
a predominately marine environment to community sustainability and to evaluate the vulnerable
places and potential risks to communities due to their removal from islands partially or entirely
within the national wildlife refuge. Historically, Aleut and Alutiiq peoples were foragers, directly
harvesting from their environment and not producing their own food. Engineering their food sources
by introducing species generally goes against the dominant foraging model of hunter-gatherers [3].
In some of these Aleutian cases, indigenous peoples are becoming pastoralists and herders, providing
their animals with water, food, and protection from predators. In most other cases, the people have
created a feral, wild land mammal hunting opportunity in which the foraging lifestyle is maintained.
They have also created sport hunting opportunities to support their local economies. I argue that by
generating new and consistent food sources, the people have greater food security, a healthier and
more varied diet, valuable hunting habits and food sharing, and strong human-animal relationships.
These relationships are passively supported by state government but challenged by conservation and
preservation models of wilderness and federal policy initiatives that conflict with local realities.
2. Problem and Methods

The few cases of land mammals in the Aleutians currently targeted by federal managers for
removal are a subset of conditions in a broader region that contends with subsistence access issues,
environmental risk to foods, and high shipping and travel costs to obtain food [4–7] but generally
enjoys a variety of abundant wild foods [8] for those with time, skills, equipment, health status, and
income sufficient to support a hunting and fishing lifestyle. Introduced land mammals are significant
components of the abundance and diversity available. The clash of development and conservation, the
mosaics of land ownership and interests, the uneven access to seafood, and the goal of food security
variously impact the roles of these animals in regards to their hunters and users.
2.1. Development and Conservation

The removal of animals as a conservation concern is part of an ideology that disallows developing
resources for near- and long-term uses for humans. This ideology focuses on protection of habitat
and the environment that expressly rejects human involvement [9]. Anthropological critiques of the
conservation community frequently intersect in protected areas over particular species and peoples [10–13].
Indigenous groups also perform conservation; maintaining proper relationships with the spiritual and
animal worlds is one way humans may participate in conservation [9,14–16]. Ideas of nature are very
different around the globe; the dominant concept of nature as singular perhaps needs replacing with
“natures” with their own identities and the multiple “sciences” we construct to explain them [17].
Political ecology captures societal connections to ecological systems, and specifically power relations
in ownership, access, and control over land and resources [18]. Political ecology theories explore the
role of competing interests in ecological contexts and demonstrate that political relations of hierarchy,
access, and power are always involved in environmental perceptions [19,20]. Sheridan’s analyses of
cattle ranching in the contested American West fragmented by urban sprawl and extractive industries,
for example, highlight the complex nature of economics, ecosystem management, development, and
government regulation [21,22]. He critiques environmental organizations and federal managers who
bring “ecological morality plays with pristine ‘befores’ and degraded ‘afters’” into discussions of
habitat conservation and land management. He concludes that, with advances in range ecology,
“ranching is one of the few industries with the potential to be truly sustainable, and compatible, with
other land uses” [21]. The essentialisms deployed in the creation of Wilderness and the philosophical
differences between urban and rural users about Nature find both environmental conservationists and
ranchers perceiving humans as external or above Nature [22].
People living in the Aleutians find it perfectly rational to increase their food supply and diversity
on their local lands. Their sense of the islands are as places to develop to support their communities
where possible. Still “Federal agencies now have to recognize that native plants and animals have
an inherent right to exist”, the “bureaucratic and symbolic capital of wildlife increased” [22]. These agencies
are also interested in supporting consumers of wild landscapes, such as birders and wildlife viewers,
which are a specialized, seasonal group in the Aleutians, and are infrequent enough to be considered
significant contributors to the local economy. They do not contend with food shortages or extreme
costs for basic supplies. People on the islands are left wondering who benefits from these actions at all.
2.2. Land Ownership and Management

The mosaic of land ownership of these islands is complex. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) of 1971 carved up sections of the islands for municipalities, regional and village
corporations, state and federal lands. The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR)
was created in 1980 by Congress to combine eleven previously existing refuges and add additional
acreage to form its current 3.5 million acres of wilderness. Most Aleutian Islands had been part of
a refuge since 1913.
A purpose of the refuge is to provide opportunity for subsistence uses by local residents that are
consistent with conservation of the fish and wildlife, including managing and monitoring subsistence
harvests. Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act defines subsistence uses as,
“the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources
for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools or transportation;
for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and
wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for
personal family consumption; and for customary trade.”
Federal managers have mandates to control invasive species on federal lands and restore native
species. AMNWR personnel have taken a hardline approach to removing feral livestock as “the most
destructive biological force against natural biodiversity on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
islands” especially on islands that are “entirely refuge owned and have uncontrolled feral, abandoned
cattle grazing without any federal permit, grazing lease or collection of grazing fees” (Ebbert 2013).
On lands that are completely within the refuge, the goal is for invasive species elimination and
managers have the legal authority to remove them. From the Code of Federal Regulations,
50 CFR Ch. 1 Part 30—Range and Feral Animal Management, Subpart B—Feral Animals
§ 30.11 Control of feral animals. (a) Feral animals, including horses, burros, cattle, swine,
sheep, goats, reindeer, dogs, and cats, without ownership that have reverted to the wild
from a domestic state may be taken by authorized Federal or State personnel or by private
persons operating under permit in accordance with applicable provisions of Federal or
State law or regulation.
On islands with mixed ownership, the role of the refuge is more complex. At the time of the
creation of the AMNWR, permitted cattle grazing occurred on refuge land on Caton, Wosnesenski,
Umnak, Unalaska, and Akun Islands. Reindeer grazing occurred on Atka, Umnak, St. Paul, and
St. George Islands. Only the Atka reindeer were “feral” at the time. Over time, fences were not
maintained and the animals were not branded and the refuge managers were concerned about the
herds depleting the range. Grazing rights and permits are seen as no longer compatible with federal
management of these islands and are no longer issued. Cattle were removed from several uninhabited
islands but wander between Native selected islands and a refuge island at low tide in the Sanak group.
Cattle are “free roaming” on seven islands and designated “abandoned” as such by refuge managers
because of the absence of fences and regular attendance, the absence of herding and husbandry.
They are destructive of natural vegetation and habitat and “unauthorized”, according the managers
but their eradication is at odds with local communities.
2.3. Food Security

This analysis emphasizes food security in this political ecology context. Food security is a critical
area of investigation in the arctic where climate change and socioeconomic pressures are affecting rural
people’s ability to obtain traditional, locally available, wild foods as well as store-bought options [23,24].
Food security in remote locations varying in accessibility must be at least partly place-based in which
the food is produced near to where it is consumed to improve health, connect people to the land, and
offset the challenges of transporting food.
The Aleut people historically had food sovereignty, independently providing their own food
by directly harvesting the lands and waters. The modern political and environmental landscape has
commercialized many wild fish species and constrained access to local resources. A “food desert” is
defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as an urban neighborhood or rural town without
ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food [25]. Aleutian communities have access to fresh
and healthy food if they harvest it themselves. The affordability of harvesting many fish and marine
mammals is constrained by a host of factors involving management and industrialization, among
many [7]. The affordability of store-bought foods is low, and the items that are available are typically
foods that store a long time in cans and freezers. Unpredictable weather, expensive and limited air
service (two flights/week in most communities in ideal conditions) further limits food availability.
In the absence of foods harvested themselves, the Aleutians are a food desert. As shown below, the
costs of groceries overshadowed most other household expenses.
Food security is having access to sufficient, safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate food at all times
to support a healthy life [24,26]. Loring and Gerlach [24] identified governance and policy challenges
as drivers of food insecurity that prevent people from pursuing food security on their own terms and
controlling their own lands and resources. An integrated food policy that respects rural Alaska Native
people’s complete subsistence economy is long overdue.
2.4. Methods and Data

Data presented here are from two federally funded research projects addressing the current role
of subsistence harvesting for Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands Area residents, the social map of
food harvesting and distribution, and how subsistence activities are shaped by other socioeconomic
circumstances in eight Aleut/Unangan and Alutiiq communities. These studies assessed this
relationship, consequences of changing access, and the networks that facilitate sharing. Methods used
were comprehensive household surveys and interviews in eight communities of all harvesting and
sharing activities, income and expenses, crews and other social networks, and observed environmental
and species changes to reveal community concerns (Figure 2). Questions on the introduction and
use of land mammals formed a distinct part of the surveys and interviews, asking about all species
available, harvest quantities and methods, and whether users give or receive meat. The first project
is a Subsistence Study for the North Aleutian Basin contracted by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (2009–2012). It was a comprehensive subsistence study of four communities (Port Heiden,
Nelson Lagoon, False Pass, and Akutan) in advance of potential oil and gas exploration in Bristol
Bay. The development was canceled partway through the project, but the data collection was allowed to
continue. The second project was funded by the Office of Subsistence Management of the Department
of Interior and focused on similar data collection, absent the oil and gas development component, in
Unalaska, Nikolski, Atka, and Adak) (2012–2016). The research addressed the priority information
need for harvest data of salmon and all other species for subsistence use by Aleutian Islands
Area residents, methods and means by species, and traditional use and distribution practices.
Current detailed information on all subsistence harvests was needed for management of these species.
addressed the priority information need for harvest data of salmon and all other species for
subsistence use by Aleutian Islands Area residents, methods and means by species, and traditional
use and distribution
Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 practices. Current detailed information on all subsistence harvests was needed
6 of 25
for management of these species.
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Surveyed
Surveyed portions
portions of
of each
each of
of the
the study
study communities.
communities.
Both studies involved interviews with key informants and comprehensive household surveys
Both studies involved interviews with key informants and comprehensive household surveys with
with all available households in each community. Using household and community level data, the
all available households in each community. Using household and community level data, the studies
studies documented subsistence harvests, distribution practices and levels, social dynamics that
documented subsistence harvests, distribution practices and levels, social dynamics that contribute to
contribute to those practices, mapped harvest areas using GIS, and described household and
those practices, mapped harvest areas using GIS, and described household and community economics.
community economics. The studies also investigated the role of wild foods and products in
The studies also investigated the role of wild foods and products in household distribution networks,
household distribution networks, access to subsistence foods (regulatory, obtainability,
access to subsistence foods (regulatory, obtainability, socioeconomic and logistical), costs incurred, and
socioeconomic and logistical), costs incurred, and resources (e.g., equipment, crews) needed in order
resources (e.g., equipment, crews) needed in order to harvest. Surveys gathered ecological observation
to harvest. Surveys gathered ecological observation data in conjunction with species observations to
data in conjunction with species observations to evaluate climate change impacts on subsistence
evaluate climate change impacts on subsistence fish and other species. Interview data are also from
fish and other species. Interview data are also from two others communities not recently surveyed
two others communities not recently surveyed (King Cove and Sand Point) but extensively
(King Cove and Sand Point) but extensively interviewed over the past 15 years.
interviewed over the past 15 years.
Individual island cases are described using ethnohistorical documents and interviews with
Individual island cases are described using ethnohistorical documents and interviews with
hunters and community members. Aleutian residents described engineering their food sources
hunters and community members. Aleutian residents described engineering their food sources with
with culturally appropriate sources so they have a food safety net. The historical importance of these
culturally appropriate sources so they have a food safety net. The historical importance of these
developments provides a nuanced appreciation of modern subsistence traditional food and “customary
developments provides a nuanced appreciation of modern subsistence traditional food and
and traditional” use of wild natural resources in Alaska.
“customary and traditional” use of wild natural resources in Alaska.
Land mammal meat sharing was also analyzed for its strength within and between communities.
Land mammal meat sharing was also analyzed for its strength within and between
These data were mapped onto an inventory of land mammals that currently inhabit the islands
communities. These data were mapped onto an inventory of land mammals that currently inhabit
throughout the region. The overall relative contributions of land mammals were then weighed against
the islands throughout the region. The overall relative contributions of land mammals were then
the broader subsistence data in eight surveyed communities in order to assess their relative importance.
weighed against the broader subsistence data in eight surveyed communities in order to assess their
The replacement value was considered, along with general access and the costs of sharing. Finally the
relative importance. The replacement value was considered, along with general access and the costs
federal laws on grazing rights, permits, invasive species, are considered along with the impacts of
of sharing. Finally the federal laws on grazing rights, permits, invasive species, are considered along
federal actions. Federal managers and conservations were not interviewed for this project as that was
with the impacts of federal actions. Federal managers and conservations were not interviewed for this
not part of the funding, although phone and letter exchanges were made between the author and
project as that was not part of the funding, although phone and letter exchanges were made between
federal managers on the Adak/Kagalaska and Wosnesenski cases discussed below.
the author and federal managers on the Adak/Kagalaska and Wosnesenski cases discussed below.
3. Results: Aleutian Pastoralists, Ranchers, and Hunters
3. Results: Aleutian Pastoralists, Ranchers, and Hunters
Domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) were introduced in several Alaskan sites in the
Domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) were introduced in several Alaskan sites in the
late 1800s by Sheldon Jackson, the Commissioner of Education in Alaska, as development initiatives
late 1800s by Sheldon Jackson, the Commissioner of Education in Alaska, as development initiatives
and to prevent famine after low caribou populations and overexploitation by commercial whalers
and to prevent famine after low caribou populations and overexploitation by commercial whalers
left many villages destitute. The plan was also to assist Eskimo communities in transitioning
from hunter-gatherers to become more industrialized, cash based, and economically secure [27,28].
Many other arctic societies were using domestic or semi-domesticated reindeer, which became cultural
foundations in Siberia and Scandinavia amongst the Saami, Nenets, Koryak, Chukchi, for example [29–34],
but are not native to North America. Jackson brought reindeer from Siberia and indigenous Saami
people from Scandinavia to Alaska to assist in the development of the Seward Peninsula herding
project and teach the Alaska Natives to be nomadic herders [35]. Soon more Scandinavians than
Alaska Natives owned reindeer, prompting the Reindeer Act restricting ownership to Alaska Natives
in 1937. The Reindeer Service arm of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was created and managed grazing
permits, herding activities, and range conditions [35,36]. More recently, the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, maintains a research program dedicated to the development and promotion of reindeer
husbandry on the Seward Peninsula. The current 21 herders and 20,000 reindeer on the Seward
Peninsula are members of the Reindeer Herders Association of Kawerak, Inc., the regional non-profit
Native Corporation of the Seward Peninsula communities (http://www.kawerak.org/reindeer.html).
These reindeer compete with the native Western Arctic Caribou Herd (Rangifer tarandus granti) for
pasture and are defended and protected by their owners. The Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association
has assisted with logistics and advocacy in the development of reindeer herds in several Alaskan
sites, including the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and Umnak Island, and more recently in
Port Heiden.
In the Aleutians, the introduction of non-Native land mammals was first carried out by Russian
colonizers. The Russians traveled with their own food on the hoof. Russian Orthodox Priest Ivan
Veniaminov wrote of several communities and islands supporting cattle in the 1830s (Unalaska,
Belkofski, Unga, and Kashega) and swine (Unalaska, Makushin, Kashega, and Cherni) and others’
potential in supporting cattle breeding and horses because of the terrain, low snowfall, abundance of
greenery for feed, and fresh water sources [37]. Chickens, ducks, and goats were also brought in for
food. He did not believe the Aleut people would have the interest to learn husbandry and labor to be
successful, however.
Sheldon Jackson’s early experiments in reindeer husbandry began in the Aleutians. He campaigned
for support for his reindeer plan and raised funds to travel to Siberia in 1891. Jackson and Healy
traded guns, ammunition, cloth, and tobacco for 16 reindeer and had them sent to Unalaska in the
Aleutians. The animals barely survived the journey and were left on Amaknak Island to see if they
could tolerate a winter. The next summer they had increased by two. Jackson and Healy then made
more trips to Siberia to purchase reindeer for communities on the Seward Peninsula [35].
Most of the early introductions of species to Aleutian communities were as domestic animals
for the purposes of furnishing people with meat and milk, income, and entertainment. Several of
these sites were later abandoned because economic opportunities were appearing in other locations.
In these cases, people were not moved off the land but consciously relocated around fish processors
for employment, but the islands and the animals left behind remain in use. Local management of the
animals varies from fencing them in in a few cases to free roaming in most other cases, and they are no
longer considered domesticated. They are monitored for health and culled when too many. They are
left to elements in most cases, a management of natural selection by the harsh climate.
Faunal resources play significant roles in Aleutian life in diet and culture. The ethnonym of
the tribe in Unalaska, Qawalangin, for example, means “People of the Sea Lion”. Analyses of the
knowledge people have accumulated, the economics, and social and traditional activities involving
fauna have not been carried out comprehensively, but studies often focus on the central roles of marine
species of fish and sea mammals primarily because of their the traditional marine diet and because the
federal and state governments closely manage and regulate their harvest (e.g., via the Marine Mammal
Protection Act).
The current inventory of land mammals shows a large range and quantity of introduced species
(Table 1, Figure 3). The communities on the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island also hunt native
brown bear, wolves, fox, and wolverine, but these are not eaten, except for one portion of brown bear.
There are no other predators besides people on all other islands except for Unimak.
Table 1. Inventory of introduced land mammals on the islands (not comprehensive).
Introduced Current
Island Species Year Introduced Land Owners Livestock Population Notes
Population (2016)
Sanak Cattle 19th century, 1930s, 1950s Sanak Corporation, Sand Point, AK, USA 40
Horses 1950s Sanak Corp.
Caton Cattle 1950s AMNWR, Homer, AK, USA 80 0 USFWS removals 1980s
Long Cattle 1950s AMNWR Varies
Clifford Cattle 1950s AMNWR Varies
Chernabura Cattle 1950s AMNWR 90 0 USFWS removals 1980s
Unga Cattle 1985 Shumagin Corporation, Sand Point, AK, USA 0 100
Simeonof Cattle 1880s, 1940s AMNWR/Native Selected 235 0 USFWS killed 110 bulls, moved 115 to Unga in 1985
Popof Bison 1951 Shumagin Corp. 180
Wosnesenski Cattle 1938 AMNWR/Native Selected 129
Akun Cattle 1965 Akutan Corporation, Akutan, AK, USA 16 1000
Sheep 1965 Akutan Corp. 400 0
Unalaska Cattle 1920s Ounalashka Corporation, Unalaska, AK, USA 50 100s
Horses 1920s Ounalashka Corp. 1000
Sheep 1920s Ounalashka Corp. 400
Umnak Cattle 1790s, 1950s Chaluka Corporation, Nikolski, AK, USA 7000
Horses Chaluka Corp. 150
Bison 2009 Chaluka Corp. 12
Reindeer 1923 Chaluka Corp. 15,000
Sheep 1923 Chaluka Corp. 3300
Atka Reindeer 1914 Axtam Corporation, Atka, AK, USA 40 2500
Kagalaska Caribou 2010s AMNWR >16 >8 USFWS removals 2014
Adak Caribou 1950s AMNWR/Aleut Corporation, Anchorage, AK, USA 400 2600–2800
Figure 3. Locations of island and peninsula land mammals harvested by local residents.
Figure 3. Locations of island and peninsula land mammals harvested by local residents.
3.1. Island Ranching

3.1. Island Ranching
Cattle ranching have been tried in several sites (Sanak, Caton, Clifford, Chernabura, Simeonof,
Cattle ranching have been tried in several sites (Sanak, Caton, Clifford, Chernabura, Simeonof,
Wosnesenski, Akun, Unalaska, and Umnak Islands). Many of these islands continue to have cattle
Wosnesenski, Akun, Unalaska, and Umnak Islands). Many of these islands continue to have cattle
and there is currently one commercial operation remaining at the Bering Pacific Ranches at the
and there is currently one commercial operation remaining at the Bering Pacific Ranches at the former
former Fort Glenn on Umnak and Unalaska Islands. Fort Glenn was decommissioned in 1950 after a
Fort Glenn on Umnak and Unalaska Islands. Fort Glenn was decommissioned in 1950 after a brief
brief eight years as a U.S. airbase during World War II. Bering Pacific has leased the grazing range
eight years as a U.S. airbase during World War II. Bering Pacific has leased the grazing range until
until 2031. It is also the state’s largest cattle operation with an estimated 7000 animals. These cattle
2031.
are freeIt is also thebut
roaming, state’s
herdedlargest
by cattle operation
helicopters with breaks
between an estimated 7000 animals.
in the weather These
and with cattle are
cowboys onfree
the
roaming, but herded by helicopters between breaks in the weather and
ground. In October 2015, about 2000 bulls were rounded up and taken by landing craft to Chernofski with cowboys on the ground.
In October
Harbor on2015, about Island,
Unalaska 2000 bulls thenwere rounded
loaded ontoupa and
large taken by landing
livestock craft
carrier. to Chernofski
They have beenHarbor on
certified
Unalaska Island, then loaded onto a large livestock carrier. They have
organic, free-range and were headed to a slaughterhouse in British Columbia and a foreign market. been certified organic, free-range
and
Theywere headed for
are looking to aways
slaughterhouse
to enter theinAlaskaBritishorganic
Columbia beefand a foreign
market (just market.
like the They are Ranch
Sitkinak lookingnear for
ways
Kodiak to has
enter the Alaska organic beef market (just like the Sitkinak Ranch near Kodiak has done).
done).
The islands
The islands form formnatural
naturalfences
fencesand and thethe animals
animals feed
feed on on grasses,
grasses, lichens,
lichens, kelpkelp
and and seaweed.
seaweed. The
The animals are not treated with hormones or inoculations. The harsh
animals are not treated with hormones or inoculations. The harsh environment and rough winters environment and rough winters
naturally
naturally cull cull the
the weaker animals. Only
weaker animals. Only the the strong
strong cancan survive
survive the the weather
weather and and the
the result
result is
is aa large
large
frame,
frame, robust animal with heavy muscling. Ranchers assume some risk in the operation. A pilot was
robust animal with heavy muscling. Ranchers assume some risk in the operation. A pilot was
killed
killed inin 2010
2010 during
during aa crashcrash trying
trying toto free
free aa bull
bull from
from plastic
plastic wrap
wrap using
using hishis helicopter.
helicopter. They
They have
have
also
also been
been evacuated
evacuated during
during volcanic
volcanic eruptions
eruptions and and cattle
cattle have
have died
died from
from volcanic
volcanic ash.
ash.
On Sanak Island, a rancher from Idaho was hired in the 1950s
On Sanak Island, a rancher from Idaho was hired in the 1950s to develop an export to develop an export industry [38].
industry
He
[38].added
He addeddifferent breeds breeds
different of cattleoftocattle
the island
to theand horses
island andforhorses
herding forand livestock
herding andhusbandry.
livestock
Informants now living in Sand Point who were children on Sanak
husbandry. Informants now living in Sand Point who were children on Sanak recall hanging recall hanging a quarter or side ofa
beef
quarterin their
or sidehouse corridors
of beef in their in house
winter,corridors
and chopping
in winter,off pieces as needed.
and chopping offThey
piecesalso
as preserved
needed. They the
meat by salting it in barrels. Today, the island and the cattle are owned
also preserved the meat by salting it in barrels. Today, the island and the cattle are owned by the by the Sanak Corporation, the
Native village corporation based in Sand Point. Hunters from Sand
Sanak Corporation, the Native village corporation based in Sand Point. Hunters from Sand Point, Point, King Cove, False Pass, and
Nelson
King Cove, LagoonFalserequest
Pass, andpermission
Nelson from
Lagoon therequest
corporation president
permission frombefore going to thepresident
the corporation island. Users
beforeof
the island often include non-corporation member Aleuts from the
going to the island. Users of the island often include non-corporation member Aleuts from the region. Meat hunts on Sanak are
conducted
region. Meat in groups
hunts using
on Sanak fishing vessels.
are conductedThey will take 4-wheelers
in groups and swing
using fishing themThey
vessels. onto the
willbeach
take
using the power
4-wheelers block them
and swing on theonto seinethe
gear.
beachThey typically
using take 20
the power headoneach
block the time,
seinesplitting
gear. Theyandtypically
gutting
them
take 20 onhead
the island,
each time, but butchering
splitting and back at thethem
gutting home onvillage.
the island,They distribute
but butcheringthe back
meatattothemultiple
home
households,
village. They distribute the meat to multiple households, especially elders. The beef is used that
especially elders. The beef is used in a variety of standard American dishes. One in a
variety of standard American dishes. One that is more customary to the region is called chicudax,
is more customary to the region is called chicudax, which are small cuts of meat that are served with
gravy over rice. Poachers from the transient fishing fleet have been a small threat to this resource.
The Akun Island ranch began in 1965 by a couple from New Mexico working in Dutch Harbor
and a German immigrant friend they met there [39]. They applied to lease land through the Bureau
of Land Management and took 400 sheep, 15 heifers, one bull, 6 goats, two horses, laying hens and
a rooster by stock barge from Washington with another couple who had a leased grazing land on
Unalaska Island. They lived and worked on the island for 5 years, adding pigs and other animals, but
eventually gave up the business due to financial hardship.
The Akun ranch is now run by a cowboy, also from Idaho, employed by the Akutan Corporation.
The island has the runway and helicopter pad for accessing the nearby village of Akutan in which
there are no flat places large enough to build a runway. Fences cut cross the island to keep cattle from
wandering onto the runway but also for pasture rotation and letting the grasses grow back. The federal
government has commented on the operation and “threatened to shut it down”, according to locals.
“Archaeologists went out there” with federal money. “Anytime you take it (the money), there are
guidelines”, one man said,“SHPO (the State Historic Preservation Office) threatened to shut us down.
We need to fence off archaeological sites”. The rancher built a house in Trident Bay on Akun Island
and moves between the island and Akutan. He employs men from the village to help conduct harvests
and distribute meat to Akutan residents. There are 1000 cattle on the island, but it fluctuates between
500 and 1500 animals because of the conditions. “They’ll walk off cliff in whiteouts. Fishermen get
them in their drags. We see them floating”, said one Akutan man. Another said, “When it’s blowing in
one direction, cattle stack up against the fence”.
They are seeking USDA certification of the animals to sell meat to other communities but so far
the operation is for local use only, including cow bones for dogs in Akutan and Unalaska. The rancher
attended a Sustainable Livestock Conference sponsored by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, in
Anchorage in the late 2000s. Dubbed the “red meat conference” by local Akutaners, the topics focused
on the production of healthy meat and a healthy ecosystem, barriers to success, marketing, processing,
jobs, among many. The Akun ranch is described by villagers as “the #2 cattle outfit in the state”.
An interesting side note is that the Akutan fish processing plant near Akun employs a number of
immigrant North African peoples from the Sudan and Chad, including many Nuer and Dinka peoples,
which are the classic ethnographic cattle herdsmen studied and described in the 1930s [40,41].
Plans for introducing elk onto Akun were being made between Community Development Quota
(CDQ) group Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA) and the
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, Alaska, in 2013 but has been abandoned for now.
The intent was to manage the elk as subsistence animals and create diversity and economic opportunity
for the people of Akutan.
The Chernofski Sheep ranch at the western end of Unalaska Island has been in operation since the
1920s. It has had several owners and managers, most well-known are Milton and Cora Holmes (also
from Idaho) who operated the ranch through the 1980s. Milton also brought 50 cattle from Kodiak and
several saddle horses as riding stock (never consumed).The horses were poor as work animals on the
hummocky tundra and helicopters were added for herding. Both of these populations have increased
to about 1000 wild horses and hundreds of cattle near the sheep ranch of approximately 400 animals.
The sheep ranch remains in operation for fleece and meat. They graze on wild grasses, lichens, mosses
and seaweed. Its proximity to Fort Glenn means there is significant coordination of effort, including
herding by helicopter and sharing resources. When Akun was operating, communication between the
three ranches helped support one another [39].
Most of the cattle operations used federal wildlife refuge land and grazing permits were intially
issued. In the 1980s, the caretakers of cattle on Caton Island, Chernabura Island, and Simeonof Island
stopped paying the grazing permit fees. Fish and Wildlife deemed this a “conflict of regulations”
because grazing has to be managed. The cattle were designated abandoned and killed, first by open
hunting, then by helicopter where they were shot, moved to beaches, and hauled away on boats.
“Corporation cattle” on Sanak Island walk over to Long Island and several smaller islands owned by
the refuge at low tide (and referred to then as “trespass cattle” by the refuge) and may be a target soon.
Cattle on Wosnesenski became the new target of refuge removal of its estimated 200 animals in 2013.
The rationale explained by the refuge manager is that the grazing permit had expired and it was time
to remove them. Refuge personnel held a scoping meeting in Sand Point to explain the “conflict of
regulations” and met with former Wosnesenski Island residents, descendants of residents, and current
users of the island to investigate the value of the animals to the community. The animals are simply
“not permitted” from the standpoint of the refuge and they are financially benefitting only one Sand
Point Aleut man who sells the right to hunt. However, the local tribes and village corporations support
the case to leave the animals as is and allow the community member to manage their use. Refuge personnel
stated that the local people “see this as subsistence, but this is not as Alaskans should see it” [42].
Uninhabited does not mean unused or unmanaged. A project focusing on the long-term history
and use of Sanak Island proposed the concept of a land trust to explain the modern usage of the
uninhabited Native Corporation owned land [43]. The island was abandoned in the 1970s when
residents moved to new village sites where fish processing plants were established, but Sanak remains
firmly with the contemporary local subsistence economy and as a heritage site with a distinct tribe and
village corporation located in nearby Sand Point managing and using the island.
3.2. Food Security and the Diversity on Umnak

Nikolski is the smallest community in the Aleutians (population about 25) and the only village on
Umnak Island but has the most diverse land mammals and active programs to expand their choices.
The island’s Bering Pacific Ranches to the east are a separate operation from the village of Nikolski,
although beef occasionally is shared in the community. Instead, Nikolski’s Chaluka Corporation owns
15,000 reindeer, several hundred sheep, 150 horses, and a small herd of bison on the west end of the
island (Figure 4). Wild sheep, cattle and reindeer are harvested by locals for consumption. The majority
of cattle are at the eastern end of the island near Fort Glenn and are fairly inaccessible to residents
because of the terrain.
In 1926, a sheep ranch was established in Nikolski by the Aleutian Lifestock Company with
3300 rambouillet and delaine sheep from Montana by way of Chernofski. The operation employed
a Basque sheepherder and members of the local Aleut community as shearers and butchers. The meat
industry was not profitable, given the island’s distance from markets, but the wool fleece market was
more lucrative. Umnak was briefly nicknamed “The Wooly Island”.
Umnak bison ranching began in 2008 when three disease- and parasite-free calves were flown from
the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, Alaska, to Umnak Island in wooden crates. The main
intention of the Chaluka Corporation and the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development
Association (APICDA) Joint Ventures was to add new opportunities for sport hunters coming to
their Ugludax Lodge for reindeer hunting, wildlife viewing, and fishing adventures. They had their
island grasses inspected to make sure there was sufficient feed to support the large animals, and
they constructed a barbed electric fence to keep them enclosed on the south end of the island seven
miles from the village. The main purpose is to create a trophy sport hunting opportunity and bring
in clients who will pay for the opportunity. The goal, however, is for the meat to stay in the village.
When interviewed in 2013, Nikolski leaders described how they need to build up the herd, since it is
not big enough to hunt yet.
The Shumagin Corporation in Sand Point owns and manages the bison herd on Popof Island
that was introduced in 1951. This plains bison population also comes from the Alaska Wildlife
Conservation Center in Portage, Alaska, and islanders occasionally bring in new females by ferry to
diversify the gene pool. There are about 180 animals now. Interested hunters from the communities pay
$250 for a chance to hunt. The Corporation will draw 13–15 names from the pool in a lottery system.
Nikolski leaders are considering a similar model among options moving forward.
Currently, partnerships between APICDA, the Chaluka Corporation, and a sport guiding outfitter
offers guided hunts for trophy sized reindeer to sport hunters paying around $12,500 per animal and
$4500
islandstoisobserve
often the thebiggest
hunt (transportation
challenge to these costs not included—travel
hunts). to and from
This guide coordinates the islands
sport hunts on is often
both
the
Umnak and Atka. No hunting license is needed because the animals are privately owned.Atka.
biggest challenge to these hunts). This guide coordinates sport hunts on both Umnak and The
No hunting
majority of license
the meat is needed because
often stays the village.
in the animalsThe are privately
luxury lodgeowned. The majority
at Nikolski relies of on
theintroduced
meat often
stays
species in the
andvillage.
indigenousThe luxury
fish forlodge at Nikolski
its clients. Thererelies on introduced
is no “tourism”; species
these are andspecialized
indigenoushuntersfish for
its clients. There is no “tourism”;
seeking a particular experience. these are specialized hunters seeking a particular experience.
USDA
USDA laws laws prevent
preventthe thesale
saleofofthethemeat
meat soso
thethestore keeps
store keepsmeat in the
meat freezers
in the for people
freezers to take
for people to
as needed (including the anthropologists). Local men working for “the
take as needed (including the anthropologists). Local men working for “the IRA”, which stands for IRA”, which stands for Indian
Reorganization
Indian Reorganization Act andAct refers
andtorefers
the tribe,
to thehunt and
tribe, butcher
hunt reindeer
and butcher and cattle
reindeer andincattle
the fall andfall
in the spring.
and
In 2013, they took six beef cattle and five reindeer. They chop it up for stew
spring. In 2013, they took six beef cattle and five reindeer. They chop it up for stew meat, grind it, meat, grind it, and then
take it to take
and then the store
it to to
theput in to
store theput
freezer
in thesofreezer
peoplesocan take can
people it astake
needed. There is There
it as needed. no charge
is nofor this
charge
village service. Mutton is used less in Nikolski because the sheep are at the
for this village service. Mutton is used less in Nikolski because the sheep are at the far south end offar south end of the island
and hard to
the island andgethard
to. to get to.
Nikolski has
Nikolski has no no commercial
commercial fishing,
fishing, harbor
harbor or or dock. They find
dock. They find itit harder
harder toto catch
catch fish
fish such
such as as
halibut
halibut andand they
they are
are smaller
smaller when
when theythey dodo catch
catch them
them because
because of of the
the commercial
commercial fishermen
fishermen coming
coming
“too
“too close”
close” toto their
their community.
community.These Theseland landanimals
animalsare areananimportant
importantpart partof ofthe
thelocal
localeconomy.
economy.
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Nikolski
Nikolski horse
horse in
in Nikolski
Nikolski village,
village, 2013.
2013. Photo
Photo by
by K.
K. Reedy.
Reedy.
3.3. Adak and Kagalaska Caribou

3.3. Adak and Kagalaska Caribou
As referenced at the start of this article, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge removed
As referenced at the start of this article, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge removed
caribou from Kagalaska Island in the western Aleutians in the summer of 2015 following an
caribou from Kagalaska Island in the western Aleutians in the summer of 2015 following an Environmental
Environmental Assessment process and public comment period. The caribou were believed to have
Assessment process and public comment period. The caribou were believed to have swum across
swum across a narrow strait from Adak Island [44]. An extermination team took the Tiglax, the
a narrow strait from Adak Island [44]. An extermination team took the Tiglax, the USFWS vessel, to
USFWS vessel, to the island where they recruited one local to help butcher and distribute the meat.
the island where they recruited one local to help butcher and distribute the meat. They found and
They found and killed nine male caribou and distributed 1208 pounds of meat to Adak residents for
killed nine male caribou and distributed 1208 pounds of meat to Adak residents for an operational
an operational cost of $71,000. The community was grateful for the meat but most residents were
cost of $71,000. The community was grateful for the meat but most residents were opposed to the
opposed to the rationale for the hunt in the first place, which was to prevent damage to lichens and
rationale for the hunt in the first place, which was to prevent damage to lichens and other vegetation
other vegetation and the establishment of a herd. Caribou grazing could diminish migratory bird
and the establishment of a herd. Caribou grazing could diminish migratory bird use of the island by
use of the island by changing the vegetation structure. Federal wilderness stewards are required to
changing the vegetation structure. Federal wilderness stewards are required to manage for biological
manage for biological diversity and health of refuge lands and waters. ANMWR managers fear a
diversity and health of refuge lands and waters. ANMWR managers fear a step-wise invasion to
step-wise invasion to additional nearby islands, analogous to the fear of the Japanese invasion of
additional nearby islands, analogous to the fear of the Japanese invasion of western Aleutian Islands
western Aleutian Islands during World War II. Alaska Senator Murkowski responded on the waste
during World War II. Alaska Senator Murkowski responded on the waste of tax dollars and federal
of tax dollars and federal overreach following the hunt. In September 2015, Alaska Volcano
overreach following the hunt. In September 2015, Alaska Volcano Observers offered their helicopter to
Observers offered their helicopter to do a flyover of Kagalaska. A local resident was aboard and they
do a flyover of Kagalaska. A local resident was aboard and they spotted eight more caribou on the
spotted eight more caribou on the island. This could be the total or a minimum number since it was
island. This could be the total or a minimum number since it was not a coordinated survey covering
not a coordinated survey covering the whole island. It is unclear how long these animals have been
there [45]. The refuge will periodically return to control the caribou on Kagalaska.
A small herd of caribou were transferred to Adak Island from the mainland in 1958 by the U.S.
Navy for recreational hunting by base personnel and for an alternate food supply in case food
the whole island. It is unclear how long these animals have been there [45]. The refuge will periodically
return to control the caribou on Kagalaska.
A small herd of caribou were transferred to Adak Island from the mainland in 1958 by the U.S.
Navy for recreational hunting by base personnel and for an alternate food supply in case food transport
was interrupted due to storms, rationing, war time, or unforeseeable circumstances. The herd was
managed at about 400 animals by Navy personnel. Since the closure of the Adak Naval Air Station in
the 1990s, a small civilian community has formed and islanders continue to see the animals as a source
of everyday food but also in case barges or flight service are interrupted.
Adak supports local subsistence and sport hunters, Aleutian Islands subsistence hunters, Alaska
subsistence hunters, and fly-in sport hunters from around Alaska and Outside. Other Aleut hunters
travel there from communities throughout the Chain and the Alaska Peninsula to get their caribou
for themselves and their families (Figure 5). For example, several hunters surveyed in Unalaska are
also hunters on Adak, and they make annual trips to get caribou for their families. They are also
fishing for halibut, salmon and other marine fish, and think of Adak as a broader subsistence source
for all regional villages. Subsistence regulations for Unit 10 allow rural residents to harvest with
no limit. The small Aleut population on Adak moved there from Unalaska, Atka, King Cove, Sand
Point, and Anchorage. Caribou from Adak gets spread around to other Aleutian communities and
shared with family, friends, and elders. Other Adak residents include Iñupiaq families, Latinos, Samoans,
Eastern Europeans, African Americans, and Whites, several of who were formerly stationed on the island
with the Navy.
The island has split ownership between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and The Aleut
Corporation (TAC). The USFWS treats the caribou on Adak as invasive and does not actively manage
them. Hunters still must follow current regulations for the Game Management Unit 10. Resident and
nonresident sport hunters have no limit on cow caribou, but a daily bag limit of one per day, no more
than two bulls can be taken in a year, and no bulls may be taken between 1 January and 9 August.
The state sells bull tags to Nonresidents for about $350 each and the City of Adak is a vendor. The Aleut
Corporation also issues land use permits. Guide services are not required. Hunters from Alaska and
Outside help support the jet service to Adak, pay for unofficial guide services, spend money on hotels
and rental homes, rent vehicles, patron the restaurants, shop in the stores, and occasionally leave meat
behind. This activity represents a significant part of the local economy.
Sport hunting opportunities initially brought fame and interest to the island. The island supported
large caribou bulls that were reaching the Boone and Crockett point classification and the largest on
record was taken on Adak. Boone and Crockett classified the caribou as “reindeer” until they had been
on the island 50 years, and then reclassified them as indigenous caribou. Hunts after the 50 year mark
could be eligible for their point system. Sport hunting has been in decline, however, because of no
management of the herd. The “trophy” sized bulls have been hunted out recently by those seeking the
biggest bulls (often supported by guides), leaving nothing large to breed. The population is overrun
with smaller animals.
Several Adak Islanders reported that the herd is not reproducing like it would if it were healthy,
they have smaller or deformed antlers, they are not achieving the size that they used to, and are lighter
in color than they should be. One man reported a green slime inside an animal he hunted, indicating
an unknown health issue. They also noted double counting in the surveys because they move so much.
One resident mentioned he would like to see a full time State Trooper on the island to better monitor
the hunters. Locals reported having to put down animals that other hunters had wounded because
they did not know what they were doing.
Caribou are migratory by nature. When bounded on an island, it is reasonable to see why they
would cross to other islands. In interviews, islanders joked that they should catch them in their
subsistence nets as they swim across. These animals that “migrated” are likely the strongest bulls in
the herd, according to interviews with islanders. “Don’t shoot the wrong ones,” said one local hunter.
He noted that good herd bulls are better managers than any humans. Mature bulls would keep the
lesser bulls2016,
Sustainability from8, breeding
113 by fighting them off and establishing dominance. 14 of 25
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Jake
Jake Jacobsen,
Jacobsen,who
whowas
wasformerly
formerlystationed
stationedonon Adak
Adak in the
in the Navy,
Navy, packs
packs caribou
caribou quarters
quarters and
and rack for his sport hunter son Cole in 2002. Cole was born on the island in the early 1990s
rack for his sport hunter son Cole in 2002. Cole was born on the island in the early 1990s and returned and
returned
with withtohis
his dad dadPhoto
hunt. to hunt. Photo provided
provided by J. Jacobsen.
by J. Jacobsen.
The majority of animals are on USFWS land in the southern part of the island and are difficult to
The majority of animals are on USFWS land in the southern part of the island and are difficult
access without a boat. “By the time the out of towners are done, the caribou are so spooked,” said
to access without a boat. “By the time the out of towners are done, the caribou are so spooked,” said
one Adak local resident in an interview. “They have learned to stay at the south end of the island
one Adak local resident in an interview. “They have learned to stay at the south end of the island
because of hunters.” All the households that use caribou reported not getting enough for their
because of hunters.” All the households that use caribou reported not getting enough for their needs.
needs. “Not even an appetizer,” according to one Adak woman. When asked if she got enough
“Not even an appetizer,” according to one Adak woman. When asked if she got enough caribou for
caribou for her needs, another woman stated, “If we had gotten more, we would have needed it.”
her needs, another woman stated, “If we had gotten more, we would have needed it.” Because the
Because the animals are so difficult to hunt, Adak subsistence hunters wanted to get a permit for
animals are so difficult to hunt, Adak subsistence hunters wanted to get a permit for reindeer on
reindeer on the island, potentially compounding the impacts to the island.If the USFWS treated the
the island, potentially compounding the impacts to the island.If the USFWS treated the animals like
animals like they belonged there, they would likely develop a management plan for hunters to keep
they belonged there, they would likely develop a management plan for hunters to keep the overall
the overall population small and reduce the overall impact to the island. By treating the animals with
population small and reduce the overall impact to the island. By treating the animals with a blanket
a blanket policy of “invasive” they have neglected smarter policies that could meet many of their
policy of “invasive” they have neglected smarter policies that could meet many of their wilderness
wilderness goals. Their neglect has contributed to the current overpopulated and unhealthy
goals. Their neglect has contributed to the current overpopulated and unhealthy situation.
situation.
3.4. Feral Reindeer and Economic Development in Atka
3.4. Feral Reindeer and Economic Development in Atka
On Atka Island, 40 reindeer were introduced in 1914 to create a cash economy once sea otter
On Atka Island, 40 reindeer were introduced in 1914 to create a cash economy once sea otter
hunting was banned. The business had mixed success until Atka was evacuated during World War II
hunting was banned. The business had mixed success until Atka was evacuated during World War
and the village was burned down by the American military to prevent the Japanese from using the
II and the village was burned down by the American military to prevent the Japanese from using the
village if they advanced east. The community was rebuilt by the Navy after the war and residents
village if they advanced east. The community was rebuilt by the Navy after the war and residents
returned but the reindeer were turned loose (Figure 6) and now over 2500 head provide a source of meat.
returned but the reindeer were turned loose (Figure 6) and now over 2500 head provide a source of
The reindeer are hunted as needed. “When we want ‘em, we go get ‘em”, said one hunter.
meat.
They hunt by 4-wheeler and on foot and try to take two to three animals each. In harsh weather, “we’ll
The reindeer are hunted as needed. “When we want ‘em, we go get ‘em”, said one hunter. They
get the whole herd here rubbing up against the houses”. Meat goes to fill the elders’ freezers first, then
hunt by 4-wheeler and on foot and try to take two to three animals each. In harsh weather, “we’ll get
everyone else. Men who have day jobs will also receive meat from these hunts because they do not
the whole herd here rubbing up against the houses”. Meat goes to fill the elders’ freezers first, then
have extra time. “Every subsistence trip costs $500 in fuel and ammunition (for a group). We don’t
everyone else. Men who have day jobs will also receive meat from these hunts because they do not
go just to go. We have fun but we go because we have to. If we come home with nothing, it’s hard”.
have extra time. “Every subsistence trip costs $500 in fuel and ammunition (for a group). We don’t
They are also developing sport hunting on the island and have hosted “gametarians”, those who only
go just to go. We have fun but we go because we have to. If we come home with nothing, it’s hard”.
eat wild game, nothing domestic or farm raised.
They are also developing sport hunting on the island and have hosted “gametarians”, those who
only eat wild game, nothing domestic or farm raised.
Figure 6. Old reindeer fences on Atka Island, 2013. Photo by K. Reedy.

Figure 6. Old reindeer fences on Atka Island, 2013. Photo by K. Reedy.
3.5. From Ceremonial Hunts to Reindeer Husbandry

3.5. From Ceremonial Hunts to Reindeer Husbandry
Port Heiden (population 100) has struggled with the closure of caribou since 2006. It is a dietary
Port Heiden (population 100) has struggled with the closure of caribou since 2006. It is a dietary
staple that “has become a delicacy” on the Alaska Peninsula because of closures to hunting and low
staple that “has become a delicacy” on the Alaska Peninsula because of closures to hunting and low
abundance, according to one local hunter. “Our subsistence life has changed a lot since the caribou
abundance, according to one local hunter. “Our subsistence life has changed a lot since the caribou are
are gone”, he said,“You can’t make stew out of caribou tracks”. Caribou and moose meat formerly
gone”, he said,“You can’t make stew out of caribou tracks”. Caribou and moose meat formerly formed
formed 62 percent of the diet in 1987 [46] and only 23 percent of the diet in 2009 [47]. Port Heiden
62 percent of the diet in 1987 [46] and only 23 percent of the diet in 2009 [47]. Port Heiden residents
residents reported buying more store bought food since caribou hunting closed. “I’ve never seen so
reported buying more store bought food since caribou hunting closed. “I’ve never seen so much beef
much beef come into this town before”, said one hunter. “I used to buy zero. Now it’s about $4000 a
come into this town before”, said one hunter. “I used to buy zero. Now it’s about $4,000 a year in beef”.
year in beef”. He added, “I don’t even like it. We’re getting used to it”. Another woman mentioned
He added, “I don’t even like it. We’re getting used to it”. Another woman mentioned her beef costs
her beef costs as $600 for a box but $1000 for freight costs to get it to Port Heiden. She said it was
as $600 for a box but $1,000 for freight costs to get it to Port Heiden. She said it was hard to digest
hard to digest because she is not used to it.
because she is not used to it.
For the first time in ten years, Port Heiden was given the opportunity to apply for Tier II
For the first time in ten years, Port Heiden was given the opportunity to apply for Tier II permits
permits for a Spring 2016 hunt for caribou. The Native Village of Port Heiden’s November 2015
for a Spring 2016 hunt for caribou. The Native Village of Port Heiden’s November 2015 Facebook page
Facebook page showed their excitement to “once again taste the traditional game of our people”. In
showed their excitement to “once again taste the traditional game of our people”. In the interim years,
the interim years, however, they applied for and received ceremonial hunting permits from the
however, they applied for and received ceremonial hunting permits from the Alaska Department of
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These permits allow the residents to honor a death in the
Fish and Game. These permits allow the residents to honor a death in the community with a caribou
community with a caribou hunt and subsequent feast. Hunters said they will wait for a few deaths
hunt and subsequent feast. Hunters said they will wait for a few deaths and pool the permits, then
and pool the permits, then take teens and children out on the land to teach them to hunt. It is both
take teens and children out on the land to teach them to hunt. It is both poignant and disheartening to
poignant and disheartening to have to wait for deaths in the community in order to participate in a
have to wait for deaths in the community in order to participate in a traditional activity.
traditional activity.
In these non-hunting years, the Native Village of Port Heiden also began creating the Meshik
In these non-hunting years, the Native Village of Port Heiden also began creating the Meshik
Reindeer Farm. They received 29 reindeer by airplane from St. Michael, Alaska, in the Kawerak region
Reindeer Farm. They received 29 reindeer by airplane from St. Michael, Alaska, in the Kawerak
in early 2015. St. Michael has been herding for over a century and recently seeking new markets for
region in early 2015. St. Michael has been herding for over a century and recently seeking new
its animals and meat. Port Heiden had previously been a site of reindeer herding in the early 20th
markets for its animals and meat. Port Heiden had previously been a site of reindeer herding in the
century and residents wanted to bring it back to expand economic development for its community.
early 20th century and residents wanted to bring it back to expand economic development for its
A few herders from St. Michael and Shishmaref accompanied the shipment to train residents in Port
community. A few herders from St. Michael and Shishmaref accompanied the shipment to train
Heiden. They are raising herder dogs, building corrals and shelters, and training young men and
residents in Port Heiden. They are raising herder dogs, building corrals and shelters, and training
women to manage the operation (Figure 7). Their intent is to keep the meat in the community, sell it
young men and women to manage the operation (Figure 7). Their intent is to keep the meat in the
inexpensively to nearby villages, and incorporate it into the school lunch program.
community, sell it inexpensively to nearby villages, and incorporate it into the school lunch
There have been setbacks. In July 2015, a grizzly bear broke inside the fence and killed 15 of
program.
the 29 animals. The cost of feeding them is high and they advertise via their website and Facebook
There have been setbacks. In July 2015, a grizzly bear broke inside the fence and killed 15 of the
information for sponsoring a reindeer at different levels.
29 animals. The cost of feeding them is high and they advertise via their website and Facebook
information for sponsoring a reindeer at different levels.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 16of
16 of25
25
This reindeer herding effort is a reintroduction from the early 1920s [48,49]. The U.S. Reindeer
This reindeer herding
Service established herds oneffort
theis Alaska
a reintroduction
Peninsulafrom the early
in the early 1900s
1920s [48,49].
to helpThe the U.S. Reindeer
communities
Service established herds on the Alaska Peninsula in the early 1900s to help the communities
devastated by the 1918 Influenza Epidemic [49,50]. The government established a reindeer herd in devastated
by
thethe 1918
area andInfluenza
employed Epidemic
Inuit and [49,50]. The government
Athapaskan herders. Theestablished a reindeer
animals suffered herdunreliable
from in the area and
range
employed Inuit and Athapaskan herders. The animals suffered from unreliable range
conditions and volcanic ash dumps. Some of this herd was moved to the south end of Kodiak in 1921 conditions and
volcanic ash dumps. Some of this herd was moved to the south end of Kodiak
to establish there. The Port Heiden herd was absorbed by 1945 into wild caribou herds sweeping in 1921 to establish
there.
them The Port Heiden
up during herdseason.
rutting was absorbed by 1945Peninsula
The Alaska into wild caribou
Nationalherds sweeping
Wildlife Refugethem up during
manager is
rutting season. The Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge manager is concerned
concerned for the wild herds and range conditions to support them, and has stated that no grazing for the wild
herds
permitand
willrange conditions to support them, and has stated that no grazing permit will be granted.
be granted.
The
The goal of the
goal of the village
village now
now isis to
to create
create aa “sustainable food source”
“sustainable food source” that
that is
is cultural,
cultural, natural,
natural,
renewable,
renewable, and healthy in a volatile environment. Port Heiden villagers are making themselves into
and healthy in a volatile environment. Port Heiden villagers are making themselves into
farmers
farmers and
and cowboys
cowboys andand want
want toto expand
expand their
their operation
operation into
into other
other species
species like
like sheep
sheep andand chickens.
chickens.
Figure 7. Reindeer House, near Port Heiden, October 2015. Photo by Jaclyn Christensen.
Figure 7. Reindeer House, near Port Heiden, October 2015. Photo by Jaclyn Christensen.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
4.1. Human-Animal
4.1. Human-Animal Relationships
Relationships
Despite refuge
Despite refuge managers’
managers’ call call toto shift
shift “how Alaskans should
“how Alaskans should think”
think” about
about these
these animals,
animals,
non-native species are conceived of locally as Native food. They
non-native species are conceived of locally as Native food. They have been fixtures for have been fixtures for several
several
generations of
generations of Aleut
Aleut users,
users, the
the animals
animals are eating and
are eating and drinking
drinking the the resources
resources of of the
the Aleutian lands to
Aleutian lands to
take on Aleutian flavors, and they are supporting
take on Aleutian flavors, and they are supporting families. families.
These animals
These animals areare used
used for
for training
training young
young hunters.
hunters. At At the
the times
times whenwhen caribou
caribou hunting
hunting waswas
closed for
closed forKing
KingCove,
Cove,Nelson
Nelson Lagoon,
Lagoon, Cold
Cold Bay,Bay,
andandFalseFalse
Pass,Pass,
thosethose residents
residents could could takeyoung
take their their
young people out to Sanak Island to give them hunting training and
people out to Sanak Island to give them hunting training and experience. At the Niigugin Tanasxaaexperience. At the Niigugin
Tanasxaa
Culture Culture
Camp Camp
on Atka on Atka
Island, Island,
reindeer reindeer
hunting andhunting
butcheringandisbutchering
taught as aistraditional
taught aspractice
a traditional
to be
practice to be preserved.
preserved. Campers eat the meat. Campers eat the meat.
The feral
The feralwildness
wildnessof ofthethe animals
animals meansmeans that have
that they they to have to be hunted,
be hunted, not just
not just killed andkilled and
butchered.
butchered.
This This is anpart
is an important important part of the relationship.
of the relationship. The releaseThe release
of many of of
themany of the
animals wasanimals
not partwasof not
the
part of the initial plans, but people learned that the animals survive and even
initial plans, but people learned that the animals survive and even thrive without human involvement, thrive without human
involvement,
and turning them and loose
turning themnot
would loose
leadwould not lead todie
to catastrophic catastrophic
off. Insteaddie theoff. Instead
herds havethe herds
plenty of have
food
plenty
and of food
water and water
and return and wild
to a feral return to aAleut
state. feral hunters
wild state. Aleut hunters
expressed their love expressed
of hunting,their
notlove of
just to
hunting, not just to kill for food, and subscribe to the fair chase principles
kill for food, and subscribe to the fair chase principles expected of most hunters in the Lower 48. expected of most hunters
in theThere
Lower 48.many examples of introduced species taking on a greater cultural and nutritional
are
There are
significance over many examples
generations. of introduced
A classic species
case is found taking on
in Hawaii a greater
where the mostcultural and nutritional
dangerous hunting is
significance over generations. A classic case is found in Hawaii where the most dangerous hunting is
on the Big Island for the wild Hawaiian cow. At the end of the 18th century, British navy captain
on the Big Island for the wild Hawaiian cow. At the end of the 18th century, British navy captain George
Vancouver gifted the Hawaiian king Kamehameha four male and eight female Herefords from Mexico,
who placed the cows under a decade long hunting taboo called kapu. Hawaiians had domestic pigs on
the island but were not comfortable with cattle. The animals bred, broke out of their enclosures, and
fled to the mountains where they thrived. The kapu was lifted in 1830 but the cows were established,
and numbered 25,000 wild cattle by the 1840s. Mexican vaqueros were brought in the 1830s to teach
the Hawaiians to be cowboys (paniolos), but there were too many cows to manage. They have since
become large and feral, with 2000 pound bulls managing herds. Sport hunting operations with teams
of several hunters with high powered rifles are needed to take them down. The Hawaiian Department
of Land and Natural Resources considers them invasive species and wants them eradicated because
they are damaging the delicate island environment. They shoot from helicopters to keep the numbers
low. Local hunters see them as a traditional resource, producing up to 800 pounds of meat per animal,
and want to maintain the ability to hunt them [51].
From a regional perspective, the Aleutian residents see all their land mammals as traditional
resources, whether introduced or indigenous. Unimak Island (and the village of False Pass) was
suspended to caribou hunting 2009 for conservation reasons after a rapid decline in animals, from
thousands to hundreds in a short period of time. It is the only island with naturally occurring caribou
but also brown bears and wolves. Most of the island is part of the Alaska Maritime NWR but managed
by the nearby Izembek NWR. False Pass residents were concerned they were not able to subsistence
hunt the caribou, since the small community has federally-qualified subsistence users who depend
upon the animals. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game worked to develop plans to recover
“indigenous” caribou populations that dropped to below 300 animals and only 15 bulls and low calf
recruitment in 2010. ADF and G proposed to remove a wolf pack since predators were believed to be
the cause of calf mortality and overall decline. The aerial hunts were controversial, and blocked by
a federal judge. At the opposite end of the island chain on Adak Island, federal managers have worked
to remove “invasive” caribou that are colonizing nearby islands by swimming there. But these animals
are conceived of in the same ways by the local harvesters: they are a healthy, wild, harvestable food
choice for their communities. One False Pass resident took an Aleutian wide approach in evaluating
these cases. “The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing”.
The Aleutian environment is a working landscape for the people who live there. Island residents
describe other ways of engineering their own landscapes and waters. They might drop juvenile crab
in their bays to seed them. They grind up morel mushrooms and spread them around so more will
grow. They moved salmonberry bushes further out the chain where they are not yet established.
The introduction of land mammals is a natural extension of practices they have been employing
for generations.
4.2. Food Security

Food security is a stated goal of every extant land mammal project in the Aleutian region. On Unga
Island, for example, cattle were moved there from Simeonof Island for food, not business. The Alaska
Food Policy Council focuses on food security in Alaska and emphasizes nutritional, social, biophysical,
ecological, psychosocial, and safety dimensions [26]. In particular, they stress that, “In rural, predominately
Alaska Native communities, for example, wild fish and game are important for food security, not
just because they are readily available, but also because they are important to the preservation
and transmission of traditions and cultural practices, for the maintenance of social networks and
interpersonal relationships, and for supporting individuals’ sense of self-worth and identity” [26,52–54].
The Council promotes self-sufficiency and infrastructure to support local wild foods, agriculture
and gardening. Introduced land mammals are not a specific part of their recommendations, instead
fostering a forager and horticultural model of sustainability, but this could be an integral part of their
policies going forward.
In our2016,
Sustainability interviews
8, 113 and surveys, wild seafood and marine mammal access was declining or shifting 18 of 25
for every community. Several households throughout the region reported not receiving enough for
their needs.because
availability The reasons were many
of commercial and varied.
fishery bycatch.Islanders reported
They reported declines in
purchasing halibut
crab from availability
processors
because
more of commercial
frequently fishery bycatch.
than harvesting They reported
it themselves [7]. Manypurchasing
described crab from
their processors
dire financialmore frequently
circumstances
than harvesting it themselves [7]. Many described their dire financial
from the decline in community-based commercial fishing, whether as fishermen, business owners, circumstances from the decline
in community-based
or municipal
availability leaders,
because commercial
which
of commercialfishing,
negatively whether
impacts
fishery asthe
bycatch. fishermen,
ability
They business
to
reported harvest. owners,
purchasing crabor
Recovering municipal
from leaders,
wild seafood
processors
whichmore
access negatively
for many impacts
species the
is ability
difficult. to harvest.
They also Recovering
described wild
legal seafood access
uncertainties for many
surrounding
frequently than harvesting it themselves [7]. Many described their dire financial circumstances species
the is difficult.
harvest
They
of also described
endangered
from Stellerlegal
the decline sea
in uncertainties surrounding
lion.
community-based the harvest
commercial fishing, whetherof endangered
as fishermen,Steller
businessseaowners,
lion.
Figures
Figures 88 and
or municipal 9 show
andleaders,
9 show thethe
whichamounts
negatively
amounts of land
of mammals
impacts
landthe harvested
ability
mammals relative
to harvested
harvest. to other species
Recovering
relative wild
to categories
seafood
other species
and access
other for
speciesmany by species
community. is difficult.
These They also
species described
form a legal uncertainties
substantial part
categories and other species by community. These species form a substantial part of the local of thesurrounding
local the
subsistenceharvest
economy
of endangered
and are
subsistenceparticularly
economy Steller
andsea arelion.
significant in Atka, Nikolski,
particularly significantandinAdak,
Atka,where theyand
Nikolski, form the largest
Adak, whereportions
they form of
diet. portions of the diet. the amounts of land mammals harvested relative to other species
the largest
the
Figures 8 and 9 show
categories and other species by community. These species form a substantial part of the local
subsistence economy and are particularly significant in Atka, Nikolski, and Adak, where they form
the largest portions of the diet.
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Pounds usable weight
Pounds usable weight reported
reportedharvested
harvestedbybysurveyed
surveyed households
households byby species
species category
category in
in the
the Figure
study 8. Pounds usable weight reported harvested by surveyed households by species category in
years.
study years.
the study years.
Figure 9. Total Annual Pounds Harvested by major land mammal species, introduced and native, in
Figure 9. Total Annual Pounds Harvested by major land mammal species, introduced and native, in
Figure the
9.study
Total years.
the study years.Annual Pounds Harvested by major land mammal species, introduced and native, in
the study years.
In the eight communities surveyed, the project recorded 283 transactions of land mammal meat,
52 the
In of which were shared between
eightcommunities
communities surveyed, communities,
projectinvolving
theproject recorded154
283households and
transactions 17
oflandcommunities.
land mammalmeat,meat,
In the eight surveyed, the recorded 283 transactions of mammal
52 of Caribou,
of which
which werereindeer,
were shared and beef
shared between are the dominant
between communities, types of
communities, involvingmeat shared
involving 154 between
154 householdspeople.
households and 49 of the total
and 17 communities.
communities.
52 transactions recorded were of moose and all occurred within Port Heiden or between 17sport hunters
Caribou,
Caribou, reindeer, and beef are the dominant types of meat shared between people. of 49
theoftotal
the
and reindeer,
Port Heiden andand beefNelson
are theLagoon
dominant types(Figure
residents of meat10).
shared between
Figure 11 showspeople. 49 sharing
relative
transactions recorded were of moose and all occurred within Port Heiden or between sport hunters
and Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon residents (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows relative sharing
total transactions
Sustainability recorded
2016, 8, 113 were of moose and all occurred within Port Heiden or between 19 sport
of 25
hunters and Port Heiden and Nelson Lagoon residents (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows relative sharing
frequencies and
frequencies
frequencies and abundances
and abundances between
abundances between communities
between communities for
communities the major
for the
the major land
major land mammals
land mammals harvested
mammals harvested on
harvested on the
on the
the
islands.
islands. This
This demonstrates
demonstrates their
their importance
importance to
to the
the greater
greater region
region and
and beyond.
beyond.
islands. This demonstrates their importance to the greater region and beyond.
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Frequency
Frequency ofof land
land mammal
mammal exchanges
exchanges recorded
recorded inin one
one year
year in
in the
the eight
eight study
study
Figure 10. Frequency of land mammal exchanges recorded in one year in the eight study communities.
communities.
communities.
Figure
Figure 11.11. Movement
11. Movement
Movement of of land
of land mammal
land mammal products
mammal products in
in aaa single
products in single year
single year between
year between communities.
between communities. The
communities. The thickness
The thickness
thickness
Figure
of the
of the lines
the lines indicates
lines indicates the
indicates the relative
the relative frequency
relative frequency and
frequency and abundance
and abundance
abundance of of shared
of shared meat.
shared meat.
meat.
of
Purchasing groceries
Purchasing groceries is
groceries is not
is not aaa straightforward
not straightforward
straightforward process process either.
processeither. Nelson
either.Nelson Lagoon
NelsonLagoon
Lagoondoesdoes not
doesnot have
nothave
have aa
grocery store
a grocerystore
grocery and
storeand all food
andallallfood is flown
foodisisflown in from
flownininfrom
fromColdCold
ColdBay Bay
Bayoror King
orKing Cove
KingCove
Coveoror received
orreceived
receivedon on semi-annual
on semi-annual barges
semi-annual barges
barges
that deliver
that deliver to to Port
Port Moller,
Moller, about
about 25 25 miles
miles away
away and and ferried
ferried over
over to
to the
the village.
village. Stores
Stores in
in the
the other
other
villages (except Unalaska, which has several large grocery stores) are
villages (except Unalaska, which has several large grocery stores) are small, containing primarilysmall, containing primarily
canned, dried,
canned, dried, and
and frozen
frozen processed
processedfood foodthatthatcan
canbe
can beshipped
be shippedand
shipped andstored
and storedeasily.
stored easily.
easily.
Costs to
Costs to harvest
harvest are
are high
high and
and costs
costs to to
getget basic
basic supplies
supplies
to harvest are high and costs to get basic supplies are high (Table are are high
high (Table
(Table 2).Unalaska,
2). In
2). In Unalaska,
In Unalaska,
whichwhich
has
which
has
has several
several
several large,
large,large, well-stocked
well-stocked
well-stockedgrocery grocery stores,
stores,stores,
grocery a survey a survey respondent
respondent
a survey described
described
respondent some ofsome
described some of
his costshis costs
forcosts
of his the yearfor
for
the year
the year for
for his
his young
young family.
family. “I “I burn
burn 1010 oror 12
12 gallons
gallons going
going to
to Wislow
Wislow (that’s
(that’s $50
$50 each
each trip),
trip), $25
$25 toto
Broad Bay for salmon and maybe $300 a year on boat fuel. $600
Broad Bay for salmon and maybe $300 a year on boat fuel. $600 on crab pots. $2500 for a boat on crab pots. $2500 for a boat
trailer. $16,000
trailer. $16,000 on on an
an outboard
outboard engine
engine butbut it’s
it’s also
also used
used on on commercial
commercial charters
charters forfor halibut.
halibut. II shop
shop
for his young family. “I burn 10 or 12 gallons going to Wislow (that’s $50 each trip), $25 to Broad Bay
for salmon and maybe $300 a year on boat fuel. $600 on crab pots. $2,500 for a boat trailer. $16,000 on
an outboard engine but it’s also used on commercial charters for halibut. I shop when off island at
Costco for beef, coffee, butter and diapers, with three free bags on the airplane $500 at a time and two
or three times a year”.
In interviews and surveys, several Unalaska families reported that they did not receive enough
reindeer from Umnak or Chernofski beef or lamb for their needs. Chernofski beef, lamb, and mutton
can be purchased by people in Unalaska. Sometimes families will jointly pay for a side of beef. Users of
the animals consider them a healthy option in a region with high rates of Type 2 diabetes, heart
disease, and cardiovascular disease. They talk about how natural it is, “as organic as you can get”, and
healthy. Some villagers reported dislike the taste of beef because they grew up on fish, sea mammal,
and reindeer. One Unalaska woman said, “I’m not sure about the taste. I need to get used to it.”
Others tmentioned that the “kelp-fed beef is really tasty”.
Table 2. Income and Grocery Expenses in the study communities.
False Nelson Port

Adak Atka Nikolski Unalaska Akutan
Pass Lagoon Heiden
Average Annual Household Grocery
6623 11,226 3206 10,247 8217 9647 12,357 10,409
Expenses ($)
Average Annual Household Earned
76,449 53,123 40,753 108,924 53,957 72,175 76,884 84,605
and Other Income ($)
Percent of Income Spent on Groceries 9% 21% 8% 9% 15% 13% 16% 12%
Subsistence Division personnel have given dollar values to subsistence uses, recognizing that
it is not a direct value, “as subsistence products generally do not circulate in markets. However, if
families did not have subsistence foods, substitutes would have to be imported and purchased” [55].
They typically estimate replacement costs at a conservative $5 per pound. Table 3 shows estimates for
replacing land mammal meat harvested in a single study year in each community.
Table 3. Estimated Replacement Costs for land mammal meat harvested in the study years.
False Nelson Port

Adak Atka Nikolski Unalaska Akutan
Pass Lagoon Heiden
(2012) (2014) (2012) (2013) (2009)
(2009) (2009) (2009)
Land Mammals (Lbs Harvested) 4950 20,100 8954 850 1700 6810 1325 5238.6
Replacement Costs ($5/lb) 24,750 10,0500 44,770 4250 8500 34,050 6625 26,193
Lbs Harvested per capita 58 428 407 7 26 213 25 76
Replacement Costs ($ per capita) 287 2138 2035 35 129 1064 123 380
4.3. Habitat and Impacts

Communities are aware of the effect these animals have on the islands in high concentrations.
In Unalaska, people reported erosion and other impacts by land mammals. “Cattle and horses are
hard on the island. We gelded the stallions so they don’t make babies. We can't drink out of streams
by Summer’s Bay because of the horses. They wreck habitat. The more cattle we eat the better.”
Unalaska received a USFWS grant to geld the stallions in the small wild horse herd near town because
they do not want the problem of the western end’s wild horses, where there are several hundred, near
the community.
Conservation and management goals of the federal bodies see environmental impacts above all
else. The AMNWR staff considers the use of introduced land mammals on refuge lands eating greens,
drinking water, and tromping around to be “stealing” [2]. In this instance, the injured party is a vague,
ill-defined victim in minds of Aleut residents. Valorization of the native fauna, flora, and fish, for
ecotourism, birders, and the “national interest” of “public lands” is a tough sell to people trying to
make ends meet in a challenging environment.
5. Conclusions
In an otherwise marine oriented economy, land mammals have been introduced to complement,
not replace, marine fish and sea mammals, and to contribute to the diversity of food options for
Aleutian residents. This food is now traditional, an important part of the seasonal round, and a critical
offset to expensive food bills. Hunting the animals is an important part of the process. The classification
of meat is blurred in some instances. Caribou and reindeer are treated together in the new Unangan
traditional food guide. They are hunted and butchered in a similar manner wherever they are found
and recipes are interchangeable [8]. People use grinders for beef and reindeer meat to make it easier
for the elders to consume.
The “cheap” food in the Aleutians is still overpriced processed frozen products with a host of
nutritional consequences. Some see land mammals as healthier than sea mammals because heavy
metals and contaminants are not magnifying in their livers, although comparative studies have not
been carried out. The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) recommends land mammal foods
as healthier choices over store-bought processed foods.
Loring and Gerlach’s discussion of gardening in north Alaska poses relevant questions about the
rural development bias for Aleutian land mammals. Regulations and management of rural Alaskan
subsistence economies narrowly defines “customary and traditional” harvest and uses of specific
species. They state, “ . . . the etic definitions of Alaska Native culture have come to provide a source
of power and legitimacy for these communities, but their static nature betrays the reality: that it is
the strategy of flexibility, and special and temporal patterns of land use, that is most traditional to
these peoples, far more so than the specific harvest technologies and even the particular harvested
animals” [56].
The land mammal development has a similar result to fisheries in that there are no real production
costs, except for the newest venture in Port Heiden. The animals are wild and free, supporting
themselves and subject to the elements. Management still occurs in some locations, such as maintaining
fences to keep the animals out of certain streams or off certain beaches and in hiring cowboys from the
Lower 48 to improve and develop the herds. In most locations, they have been through a long process
of learning from their mistakes and getting fairly good at managing animals.
The genetic value of these cattle varieties in isolated and disease-free environments to the greater
cattle industry could be explored. On Chirikof Island, for example, after persisting for more than
a century with no apparent husbandry in recent decades, these cattle have become a naturalized
species with a genetic structure differentiated from common existing breeds that may be important for
conservation [57]. This unique genetic resource would lost through their destruction or removal.
The federal public lands system has protected millions of acres of forest, wildlife habitat, and open
spaces from development. Federal managers have acknowledged that they cannot take a top-down
approach but must instead honor the federal laws by pragmatically enforcing them though the
inclusion of the needs of islanders, their heritage, food resources, and economics. Charnley, Sheridan,
and Nabhan [58] recommend a type of “collaborative conservation” in which the montage of land ownership
and multiple visions for use and management are recognized and respected, and stakeholders are
engaged in discussions to reach common ground. For many Aleutian residents, conservation is
a vague justification for the removal of so much quality protein. Many residents who were living in
the communities during those initial restoration kills by the USFWS in the 1980s and the relocations of
land mammals recall a sudden shift in management. “All of a sudden these animals were hurting the
environment. They didn’t have a problem before as long as they were getting their (permit) money”.
It was an ideological shift at odds with the previous management and at odds with the local social
systems and use of the animals to produce their own food and lessen their dependence upon consumer
goods. The Western conservation model observes ecological impacts but is not tracking the social or
economic impacts to people relying on them. The federal managers are choosing the era in which to
“restore” islands to.
These existing animals and new introductions may demonstrate environmental consequences of
poverty and food insecurity. If the invasive species are so detrimental to the islands, then environmentalists
and federal managers should have a strong interest in improved local access to fisheries, marine
mammals, and localized economic growth. These would be good for the landscape and their goal
of “restoration”. They would target non-food species like horses for removal. The local interest
in adding more animals and new variety indicates that the introduced species are desired and are
having a positive impact alleviating food shortages and providing alternatives to local communities.
Without these animals and the food they provide, there will be greater “distancing” of people from
their own food and the sources of food, making them consumers [59]. The result will be greater
subsidies to support human life in a challenging Aleutian environment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would like to eradicate livestock on the islands that are entirely
or partially owned by the federal government, but the required National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process has resulted in public and agency comments that have thus far kept the Service from
removing cattle from a few locations. Local empowerment in this federal process would help account
for the social and economic realities of the affected human populations and consider alternatives
that allow access to the food sources they helped create. The State of Alaska has also expressed
support for rural food security and island cattle and caribou. Community members might benefit from
petitioning the Alaska Food Policy Council to explicitly evaluate the feral livestock situation in the
greater Aleutian region.
A compromise of reducing livestock density would address the legitimate concerns of the USFWS
for erosion and vegetation damage caused by grazing and trampling while retaining a population
from which a sustainable yield could still be harvested and genetic stock retained in the islands.
Many Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge islands have already seen a benefit to seabird and
waterfowl nesting through the eradication of foxes. The benefit of removing cattle on the few remaining
federal islands with livestock would likely be relatively small, at potentially great taxpayer expense,
and a reduction of local food security. Federal management policy that compartmentalizes animals as
invasive and requires extermination or removal solves few problems. These marginal communities
instead need an integrated food policy that places land mammals in a prominent position.
Acknowledgments: This work was partially funded by a study contract from the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (Contract #M08PC20053), a grant from the Office of Subsistence Management of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (#12-450), and the National Science Foundation. The author wishes to thank the people of the
Aleutians and Alaska Peninsula for their interest in the projects in the communities of Adak, Atka, Nikolski,
Unalaska, Akutan, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, King Cove, Sand Point, and Port Heiden. The author also wishes
to thank Crystal Callahan, Andrea Kayser, Liza Mack, Jake Jacobsen, Jaclyn Christensen, and three anonymous
reviewers for their generous contributions to the ideas in this paper.
Author Contributions: Katherine Reedy is the sole author of all drafts of this paper. The author is grateful to
anonymous reviewers for suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had a role in the design of
the study, but had no role in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript,
and in the decision to publish the results.
References
1. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Environmental Assessment of Caribou Control on Kagalaska Island,
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge; U.F.W. Service: Homer, AK, USA, 2014.
2. Ebbert, S. Feral Abandoned Cattle Grazing on Two National Wildlife Refuge Islands in Alaska. In Proceedings
of the Alaska Invasive Species Conference, Fairbanks, AK, USA, 5–7 November 2013.
3. Kelly, R.L. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways; Smithsonian Institution Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
4. Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Jeitner, C.; Burke, S.; Stamm, T.; Snigaroff, R.; Snigaroff, D.; Patrick, R.; Weston, J.
Mercury levels and potential risk from subsistence foods from the Aleutians. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 384,
93–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Pletnikoff, K.; Snigaroff, R.; Snigaroff, D.; Stamm, T. Ecocultural Attributes:
Evaluating Ecological Degradation in Terms of Ecological Goods and Services Versus Subsistence and
Tribal Values. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 1261–1272. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Hardell, S.; Tilander, H.; Welfinger-Smith, G.; Burger, J.; Carpenter, D.O. Levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) and Three Organochlorine Pesticides in Fish from the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12396.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Reedy, K.; Maschner, H. Traditional foods, corporate controls: Networks of household access to key marine
species in southern Bering Sea villages. Polar Rec. 2014, 50, 364–378. [CrossRef]
8. Unger, S. Qaqamiigux: Traditional Foods and Recipes from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands; Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2014.
9. Igoe, J. Conservation and Globalization: A Study of the National Parks and Indigenous Communities from East Africa
to South Dakota; Case Studies on Contemporary Social Issues; Thomson/Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 2004.
10. Brosius, J.P. Common Ground between Anthropology and Conservation Biology. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20,
683–685. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Haenn, N. The Power of Environmental Knowledge: Ethnoecology and Environmental Conflicts in Mexican Conservation;
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; p. 477.
12. Orlove, B.S.; Brush, S.B. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1996, 25,
329–352. [CrossRef]
13. Stevens, S. (Ed.) Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
14. Dowie, M. Conservation Refugees : The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples;
MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009.
15. Hensel, C. Co-management and co-optation: Alaska Native participation in regulatory processes. Cult. Surviv. Q.
1998, 22, 69–71.
16. Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2012.
17. Latour, B.; Porter, C. Politics of Nature: How the Bring the Sciences into Democracy; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004.
18. Wolf, E. Ownership and Political Ecology. Anthropol. Q. 1972, 45, 201–205. [CrossRef]
19. Nazarea, V.D. Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1999.
20. Robbins, P. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction; Critical Introductions to Geography; Blackwell Pub.:
Malden, MA, USA, 2004.
21. Sheridan, T.E. Cows, Condos, and the Contested Commons: The Political Ecology of Ranching on the
Arizona-Sonora. Hum. Organ. 2001, 60, 141–152. [CrossRef]
22. Sheridan, T.E. Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl: The Political Ecology of the
New American West. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007, 36, 121–138. [CrossRef]
23. Gerlach, S.C.; Loring, P.A. Rebuilding northern foodsheds, sustainable food systems, community well-being,
and food security. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C. Searching for Progress on Food Security in the North American North: A Research
Synthesis and Meta-analysis of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. ARCTIC 2015, 68, 380–392. [CrossRef]
25. U.S. Department of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Services.
Available online: https://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/fooddeserts.aspx (accessed on 2 December 2015).
26. Meter, K.; Goldenberg, M.P. Building Food Security in Alaska; Crossroads Resource Center: Minneapolis, MN,
USA, 2014; p. 16.
27. Burch, E.S.; Krupnik, I.; Dau, J. Caribou Herds of Northwest Alaska 1850–2000; University of Alaska Press:
Fairbanks, AK, USA, 2012.
28. Ellanna, L.; Sherrod, G. From Hunters to Herders: The Transformation of Earth, Society, and Heaven among the
Inupiat of Beringia; U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office: Anchorage,
AK, USA, 2004.
29. Anderson, D.G. Identity and Ecology in Arctic Siberia; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000.
30. Vitebsky, P. The Reindeer People : Living with Animals and Spirits in Siberia; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA,
USA, 2005.
31. Ziker, J. Raw and cooked in Arctic Siberia: Diet and consumption strategies in socio-ecological perspective.
Nutr. Anthropol. 2002, 25, 20–33. [CrossRef]
32. Kerttula, A.M. Antler on the Sea: The Yup'ik and Chukchi of the Russian Far East; Anthropology of Contemporary
Issues (Anthropology of Contemporary Issues); Cornell UP: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000; p. 180.
33. Krupnik, I. Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia; University Press of
New England: Hanover, NH, USA, 1993.
34. Beach, H. Reindeer-Herd Management in Transition: The Case Of Tuorpon Saameby in Northern Sweden.
In Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology; Distributed by Almqvist & Wiskell
International: Uppsala, Sweden; Uppsala Universitet: Uppsala, Sweden, 1981; p. 542.
35. Willis, R. A New Game in the North: Alaska Native Reindeer Herding, 1890–1940; Utah State University: Logan,
UT, USA, 2006; p. 277.
36. Simon, J.J.K. Twentieth-Century Iñupiaq Eskimo Reindeer Herding on Northern Seward Peninsula, Alaska;
University of Alaska Fairbanks: Fairbanks, AK, USA, 1999; pp. 2585–2586.
37. Veniaminov, I. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District; Pierce, R.A., Ed.; Alaska History, No. 27; Limestone Press:
Kingston, ON, Canada, 1984.
38. Reedy-Maschner, K.L.; Maschner, H.D.G. Sanak Island, Alaska: A Natural and Cultural History: Presented
to the Sanak Corporation, the Pauloff Harbor Tribe, and the Descendants of the People of Sanak Island, 1st ed.;
Idaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State University: Pocatello, ID, USA, 2012.
39. Dodd, J.B. Cow Woman of Akutan; Publication Consultants: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2014.
40. Aradanas, C.; Sepez, J. Accommodating Cultural Diversity in the Alaska Seafood Processing Industry: The
Transformation to a More “Welcoming Workplace”. In Quarterly Report; Alaska Fisheries Science Center:
Seattle, WA, USA, 2009; pp. 5–8.
41. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People;
Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1940.
42. Ebbert, S. Personal Communication with the Author on Adak and Wosnesenski Invasive Species; Reedy, K., Ed.;
Notes: Pocatello, ID, USA, 2014.
43. Reedy-Maschner, K.L.; Maschner, H.D.G. Sustaining Sanak Island, Alaska: A Cultural Land Trust.
Sustainability 2013, 5, 4406–4427. [CrossRef]
44. Ricca, M.; Weckerly, F.; Duarte, A.; Williams, J. Range expansion of nonindigenous caribou in the Aleutian
archipelago of Alaska. Biol. Invasions 2012, 14, 1779–1784. [CrossRef]
45. Sharrah, D. More Caribou on Kagalaska. In Adak Eagle's Call; Adak: City of Adak, AK, USA, 2015.
46. Fall, J.A.; Morris, J.M. Fish and Wildlife Harvests in Pilot Point, Ugashik, and Port Heiden, Alaska Peninsula,
1986–1987; Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Subsistence Division: Juneau, AK, USA, 1987.
47. Reedy-Maschner, K.L.; Maschner, H.D.G. Subsistence Study for the North Aleutian Basin; OCS Study: BOEM
2012-109; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Region: Anchorage,
AK, USA, 2012.
48. Plattet, P.; Lincoln, A. Introduction to Reindeer Herding on the Alaska Peninsula. Alask. J. Anthropol. 2014, 12, 4–22.
49. Lincoln, A. The History of Reindeer Herding on the Alaska Peninsula, 1905–1950. Alask. J. Anthropol. 2014,
12, 23–45.
50. Partnow, P. Making History: Alutiiq/Sugpiaq Life on the Alaska Peninsula; University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks,
AK, USA, 2001.
51. Ikagawa, M. Invasive ungulate policy and conservation in Hawaii. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 19, 270–283.
52. Fienup-Riordan, A. Hunting Tradition in a Changing World: Yup1 ik Lives in Alaska Today; Rutgers University Press:
New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2000.
53. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C. Food, culture, and human health in Alaska: An integrative health approach to
food security. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 466–478. [CrossRef]
54. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, C.; Harrison, H.L. Seafood as Local Food: Food Security and the Role of Salmon
Fisheries on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2013, 3, 13–30. [CrossRef]
55. Wolfe, R.J.; Bosworth, R.G. Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 Update; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division
of Subsistence: Juneau, AK, USA, 1994.
56. Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C. Outpost Gardening in Interior Alaska: Food System Innovation and the Alaska
Native Gardens of the 1930s through the 1970s. Ethnohistory 2010, 57, 183–199. [CrossRef]
57. MacNeil, M.D.; Cronin, M.A.; Blackburn, H.D.; Richards, C.M.; Lockwood, D.R.; Alexander, L.J. Genetic relationships
between feral cattle from Chirikof Island, Alaska and other breeds. Anim. Genet. 2007, 38, 193–197. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
58. Charnley, S., Sheridan, T., Nabham, G., Eds.; Stitiching the West back together: Conservation of Working Landscapes;
University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014.
59. Kneen, B. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON,
Canada, 1989.
© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 08 00113 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 08 00113 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Werner T. Flueck

Sustainability 2016, 8, 113; doi:10.3390/su8020113 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. Regional Map of Alaska showing relevant locations.

2. Problem and Methods

2.1. Development and Conservation

2.2. Land Ownership and Management

2.3. Food Security

2.4. Methods and Data

Table 1. Inventory of introduced land mammals on the islands (not comprehensive).

3.1. Island Ranching

3.2. Food Security and the Diversity on Umnak

3.3. Adak and Kagalaska Caribou

Figure 6. Old reindeer fences on Atka Island, 2013. Photo by K. Reedy.

3.5. From Ceremonial Hunts to Reindeer Husbandry

4.2. Food Security

Table 2. Income and Grocery Expenses in the study communities.

False Nelson Port

False Nelson Port

4.3. Habitat and Impacts

You might also like