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 Paci c 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
Lake while out running earlier that evening some 50 miles away on the Paci c 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 dif culties 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). 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) Sustainability2016,8, 113; doi:10.3390/su8020113
Sustainability2016,8, 113 2 of 25 and ying in beef from Anchorage. More recently in 2015, as the caribou population continued to struggle, they purchased and shipped in live reindeer and other animals to raise for food.Sustainability 2016, 8, 113 2 of 25 with extra moose hunts (competing with sport hunters) and flying in beef from Anchorage. More recently in 2015, as the caribou population continued to struggle, they purchased and shipped in live reindeer and other animals to raise for food. 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 subsistence project in which locals reported difficulty hunting the island’s caribou because they were hard to find, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge issued a Draft Environmental Assessment for Caribou Control on Kagalaska Island [1], the island next to Adak (Figure 1), and subsequently killed the few caribou they could find on the island in 2015. Caribou had swum to this island and refuge staff was concerned they would become established as invasive species, damage lichens, and “harm the wilderness character of the island”. Refuge staff also began a scoping process for removal of cattle from refuge lands on Wosnesenski Island in 2014, a former Aleut village, homestead, and ranch near the current community of Sand Point in the eastern part of the Aleutian region [2]. The animals are believed to damage wildlife, habitat, and historical and cultural sites. These plans and their execution were cause for alarm amongst island residents who depend upon the animal resources of their region. Land mammals ranging from beef and dairy cattle to buffalo to caribou have been introduced to key island sites for the purposes of supporting the islands’ people and those living throughout the region. Some of these ventures had commercial intent and mixed success and others are purely to provide food in a volatile marine economy. All of these communities experience extremely high shipping costs for groceries. Land mammals are thus subject to locally unwanted removal both by wolves and federal managers in the
supporting the islands’ people and those living throughout the region. Some of these ventures had commercial intent and mixed success and others are purely to provide food in a volatile marine economy. All of these communities experience extremely high shipping costs for groceries. Land mammals are thus subject to locally unwanted removal both by wolves and federal managers in the region. The local response in the Port Heiden case was to attempt to maintain hunting traditions using a legal exception available to them (ceremonial hunts) and later to introduce new species to alleviate food shortages and create a reliable supply for the community. The response in the Adak case was to protest the culling of caribou until it was scheduled by federal managers, and then accept the meat donated to them. Every remote Aleutian and western Alaska Peninsula community has introduced land mammals 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 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 subsistence project in which locals reported difficulty hunting the island's caribou because they were hard to find, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge issued a Draft Environmental Assessment for Caribou Control on Kagalaska Island [1], the island next to Adak (Figure), and subsequently killed the few caribou they could nd on the island in 2015. Caribou had swum to this island and refuge staff was concerned they would become established as invasive species, damage lichens, and harm the wilderness character of the island. Refuge staff also began a scoping process for removal of cattle from refuge lands on Wosnesenski Island in 2014, a former Aleut village, homestead, and ranch near the current community of Sand Point in the eastern part of the Aleutian region [2]. The animals are believed to damage wildlife, habitat, and historical and cultural sites. These plans and their execution
Refuge staff also began a scoping process for removal of cattle from refuge lands on Wosnesenski Island in 2014, a former Aleut village, homestead, and ranch near the current community of Sand Point in the eastern part of the Aleutian region [2]. The animals are believed to damage wildlife, habitat, and historical and cultural sites. These plans and their execution were cause for alarm amongst island residents who depend upon the animal resources of their region. Land mammals ranging from beef and dairy cattle to buffalo to caribou have been introduced to key island sites for the purposes of supporting the islands' people and those living throughout the region. Some of these ventures had commercial intent and mixed success and others are purely to provide food in a volatile marine economy. All of these communities experience extremely high shipping costs for groceries. Land mammals are thus subject to locally unwanted removal both by wolves and federal managers in the region. The local response in the Port Heiden case was to attempt to maintain hunting traditions using a legal exception available to them (ceremonial hunts) and later to introduce new species to alleviate food shortages and create a reliable supply for the community. The response in the Adak case was to protest the culling of caribou until it was scheduled by federal managers, and then accept the meat donated to them. Every remote Aleutian and western Alaska Peninsula community has introduced land mammals 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 shing both commercially and for personal use. They harvest salmon and other marine sh, sea mammals, shell sh, and seabirds. The primary land mammal, caribou, is only found naturally on the Alaska Peninsula and
Sustainability2016,8, 113 3 of 25 Unimak Island, the easternmost island in the Aleutians, colonized likely through swimming across False Pass (Figure). 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 con ict 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 [47] but generally enjoys a variety of abundant wild foods [8] for those with time, skills, equipment, health status, and income suf cient to support a hunting and shing lifestyle. Introduced land mammals are signi cant components
in a broader region that contends with subsistence access issues, environmental risk to foods, and high shipping and travel costs to obtain food [47] but generally enjoys a variety of abundant wild foods [8] for those with time, skills, equipment, health status, and income suf cient to support a hunting and shing lifestyle. Introduced land mammals are signi cant 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 [1013] . Indigenous groups also perform conservation; maintaining proper relationships with the spiritual and animal worlds is one way humans may participate in conservation [9,1416]. 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
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
Sustainability2016,8, 113 4 of 25 differences between urban and rural users about Nature nd both environmental conservationists and ranchers perceiving humans as external or above Nature [22]. People living in the Aleutians nd 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 signi cant 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 bene ts 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 sh and wildlife, including managing and monitoring subsistence harvests. Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act de nes 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 sh and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for personal family consumption; and for customary trade. Federal
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 sh 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 30Range and Feral Animal Management, Subpart BFeral 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
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
Sustainability2016,8, 113 5 of 25 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 sh species and constrained access to local resources. A food desert is de ned 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 sh 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 ights/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 suf cient, safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate food at all times to support a healthy life [24,26]. Loring and Gerlach [24] identi ed governance and policy challenges as drivers of food insecurity that prevent people from pursuing food security on their
Description
This paper discusses the introduction of land mammals in the Aleutian Islands and their impact on local economies.