Terry L. Haynes
Introduction
One of my first tasks as a new graduate student in the Joint Program in
Medical Anthropology at U.C., San Francisco and Berkeley in 1976 was to find
faculty advisors. Having spent the previous summer conducting historical research in
interior Alaska (Haynes 1976) and hoping to continue working there, I needed
guidance from faculty members knowledgeable about the Arctic and Subarctic.
Although he might not be listed as a specialist in these geographic areas and certainly
is better known for his work in South Asia, Professor Gerald Berreman made my short
list because he had conducted ethnographic research on the Aleutian Islands early in
his career and was generally familiar with Alaska (see Berreman 1954 and 1964).
I later enrolled in his Social Issues seminar (Anthropology 250G) and
nurtured my budding interest in research ethics and the social responsibilities we have
as anthropologists. I came to respect Gerry's longstanding concern for and personal
commitment to these imperatives. His infiuence inspired one of my colleagues,
Sandra Wood, and I to organize for the 1978 Southwestern Anthropological
Association conference a keynote symposium that focused on what we perceived as
inadequacies in the training of anthropologists for contemporary fieldwork. Our basic
premise was that the "6sink or swinm" method of training students to conduct fieldwork
and address ethical dilenunas is iffesponsible and a disservice to those among whom
we do research. Gerry kindly consented to serve as the discussant for this symposium
and presented hils usual provocative and candid insights to an attentive audience. The
Kroeber Anthropological Society later published the papers from this symposium and
several others that we solicited for this issue (Wood and Haynes 1979).
Gerry described his Social Issues seminar in 1979 as a course in applied social
science that examined the relevance of anthropological research, insights, and
teachig for understanding human problems. He persistently cautioned those of us
wanting. to engage in "relevant anthropology" outside of academia to think carefully
about the implications of working for government agencies, multinational
corporations, and other orglanizations whose objectives might conflict with our
responsibilities and obligations as anthropologists. I've never forgotten Gerry's oft-
repeated adage that policymakers use social scientists much as a drunk uses a
streetlight-for support, and not for illumination-and subsequently have concluded
that it applies equally to others in positions of power in both the public and private
Ethical Issues and Sulbsistence Research in A laska
274
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
sectors. Despite these admonitions, however, in 1982 I accepted a position with the
Division of Subsistence in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and
joined an exciting new social science research program in state government that was
being administered and staffed by anthropologists and like-minded professionals with
a keen interest in the human condition.
This paper is a general introduction to the Division of Subsistence research
program and describes steps taken to minirnize or avoid ethical issues that could
jeopardize the ability of staff to conduct fieldwork and report their research findings.
It illustrates the skills and tools that anthropology and anthropologists can bring to a
state government agency whose decision-making had previously been framed
principally by biologists and in biological tenms. A critical assessment of the
Division's work, including its research findings and other contributions to natural
resource planning and management in Alaska, are beyond the scope of this paper.
State and Federal Subsistence Statutes
In 1978, the Alaska Legislature passed the first state subsistence law, finding
that that "it is in the public interest to clearly establish subsistence use as a priority use
of Alaska's fish and game resources and to recognize the needs, customs, and
traditions of Alaskan residents." The state law defmed subsistence uses as,
the customary and traditional uses in Alaska of wild, renewable
resources for direct personal and family consumption as food, shelter,
fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation, for the makidng and selling of
handicraft articles out on nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife
taken for personal or family consumption, and for the customary
trade, barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption. [Alaska
Statute 16.05.940:26] -A.
T'his statue required the Alaska Boards of Fisheries and Game to adopt regulations
permitting subsistence uses to occur when a harvestable surplus of a resources has
been 'identified. In times of resource shortage, subsistence uses were to be assigned a
preference over commercial, sport, and personal uses of that resource. Finally, the
1978 law created the Division of Subsistence within ADF&G to "compile existing
data and conduct studies to gather information, including data from subsistence users,
on all aspects of the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the lives of residents of
the state"' (Alaska Statute 16.05.094).
In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), whose Title VIII was essentially the federal counterpart
to the Alaska subsistence law and applied to federal public lands in the new
conservation units (primarily national parks and wildlife refuges) created by this act.
ANIOLCA contained provisions that allowed the state to continue managing
Haynes
Ethical Issues and Subsistence Research in Alaska
275
subsistence harvests on federal public lands as long as the state law compliled with the
subsistence preference as defined in federal law. In order to comply with ANIOLCA,
the state law was revised in 1986 to specifically limit subsistence uses to rural
residents. However, in 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State
that the rural subsistence priority violated the "equal access" provisions in the Alaska
constitution. Although the state subsistence statute was not repealed, it no longer
contained the rural priority required for the state to retain its management authority for
subsistence on federal public lands.
Consequently, in 1990 the federal government assumed responsibility for
subsistence management of fish and wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska and
established an Office of Subsistence Management in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to admini'ster its program. Federal authority was later extended to certain
navigable waters in Alaska following a 1995 federal court ruling in Katie John et al. v.
United States of America that, for purposes of the federal subsistence statute, "public
lands" in Alaska included navigable waters on or adjacent to federal conservation
units. In spring 2001, an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the lower court decision. Alaska's governor must decide in October 2001
whether or not to appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The resulting system of "dual management" has generated considerable
controversy in Alaska and has resulted in duplication of certain functions that had
been performed by the ADF&G and the state's regulatory boards. For example, the
federal government only regulates subsistence uses on federal public lands
(comprising about 60 percent of all lands in the state), while the state retains authority
over all other harvest activities on federal public lands-~in addition to continuing to
regulate all uses--conmmercial, sport, personal, and subsistence-on state and private
lands. The federal subsistence regulations do not apply to endangered species,
migratory waterfowl, or  1*41%ne m mas, which are under the purview of other
federal. laws. Additional insights into the history of subsistence management in
Alaska and the current debate have been discussed elsewhere and will not be repeated
here (see Kelso 1982; Fall 1990; Caulfield 1992; Wolfe 1993; Bosworth 1995; and
Cultural Survival Quarterly 1998).
Not surprisingly, subsistence management has been and continues to be a
highly emotional, politicized, and unsettled issue that impacts the lives of many
Alaskans (indeed, subsistence is at the heart of the debate concerning opening a small
part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration). Rural
Alaskans, Natives and non-Natives alike, arguably are the most directly affected by
subsistence laws and regulations because of the continuingz importance of fish,
wildlife, plant, and marine resources to household and community economies in rural
areas. However, the political influence of rural Alaskans is waning as urban
population growth accelerates and outpaces that occunring in most rural areas of the
state. Vocal urban residents, lobbyists, and sportsman's associations object to laws
276
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
that restrict their access to hunting and fishing on federal public lands and have
vigorously opposed attempts to amend the state constitution to allow a rural
preference for subsistence uses on state-managed lands.  In such a climate,
information on -subsistence uses sometimes is not at center stage of the debate but
arguably remains very important.
Division of Subsistence
The Division of Subsistence (Division) commenced operations in 1979 and
established offices in rural and urban areas across the state. A few years ago the
statewide staff of about 35 included researchers training in biology, journalism, and
wildlife management, and as miany as eight Ph.D. anthropologists-rather impressive,
given that a few years earlier in 1980-81 only 1 1 doctoral level. cultural
anthropologists resided penmanently in Alaska (Feldman 1981:103). The Division's
research findings are reported in the Division of Subsistence Technical Paper Series,
and harvest data are stored in a computerized Community Profile Data Base (CPDB),
The division's 260+ technical papers and the CPDB contain a wealth of information
not available elsewhere on the subsistence use of renewable resources in about 200
rural Alaska communities, many of which are inhabited-predominantly by Alaska
Natives. In addition, the Division frequently conducts studies through contracts and
cooperative agreements with other agencies, with the resulting final reports sometimes
published by the sponsoring agency.
Conducting ethnographic research for use in the fish and wildlife management
arena raises a host of ethical issues like those discussed and debated in Gerry's
seminars. The Division's research findings are routinely at the center of land use
planning and resource management decisions, main   it imperative that what
Alaskans tell our staff about their uses of the land and its resources is recorded and
portrayed accurately. To do thi. successfully, respondents must trust Division staff
and be confident that providing information to a government agency will not work
against their best interests. At the same time, researchers must not make promises
regarding how study findings might be used to shape the debate or determine the
outcome of a particular resource management or regulatory issue.
There is always the possibility of the Division's research findings having
unintended negative consequences on subsistence users. That is why staff also
routinely work within ADF&G to educate managers and influence the decision-
maing process in other ways. For example, Division staff often serve as cultural
brokers between agency staff and rural Alaskans, and continually strive to reduce
stereotvpes that can hinder these interactions. Public mistrust ofLgovernment agzencies
is- not unusual in Alaska, so a continuing effort. must be made to dispel the stereotypes
that some people might have about subsistence research and about the true nature of
subsistence economies in Alaska.
Haynes
Et-hical Issues and Subsistence Research in Alaska
277
The Division's research program is administered systematically and includes
the following procedures that are designed to protect both the confidentiality of survey
respondents and the integrity of study findings.
Research ethics: Subsistence research involves human subjects and therefore
requires special considerations to protect those subjects from possible adverse effects
resulting from their voluntary participation in subsistence studies. The Division's
"Policy on Research Ethics" (Division of Subsistence 1984) builds on the "Ethical
Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North" developed by the Association of
Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (1981). These 17 principles deal with
informed consent, researcher conduct, confidentiality, and review of reports, and are
used as guidelines by our staff who ultimately must determine the extent of their
applicability in particular instances.  In addition, the policy contains specific
guidelines for protecting the privacy of human subjects and clarifying the ownership,
control, and release of data derived from subsistence studies.
Study design and community approval: Division staff always introduce a
proposed research plan to the governing body or bodies of the study community for
their input and approval. Studies are not conducted without prior approval from the
local government; in a few cases, research plans have been canceled when a proposed
study was not endorsed.
Local involvement: Whenever possible, and in the absence of bilingual staff
in the Division, one or more local residents will be hired and trained to assist in dat
collection and serve as interpreters when respondents prefer to communicate in their
native language. One commonly used research model involves hiring local residents
to conduct most if not all the data collection under the supervision of Division staff.
Such strategies provide short-term employment opportunities for rural residents and
provide one mechanism for educating community residents about the study goals and
objectives. Local research assistants can also help to ensure that survey questionnaires
are appropriate for that particular community and that the proper protocols are
followed. The Division now has a long history of collaborating with Alaska Native
organizations on subsistence studies and conducting training workshops for groups
that are planin to engage in their own subsistence data collection.
Confidentialty:- The identity of individual respondents and the information
they reveal to Division researchers 'is regarded as confidential information. Division
policy is to protect the privacy of human subjects. Staff members follow specifilc
procedures designed to preserve the anonymity of study participants so that
information manandin our records cannot be linked to identifiable persons. Field
notes and map biographies stored permanently in Division files are coded and names
are not used. Codes also replace personal names on survey forms, although a separate
sheet linking names with codes may be retained for scientific purposes, including
sample selection and data analysis. This information also facilitates comparison of
278
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
individual and household information from multiple studies of the same community
over time. Harvest data typically are reported as community totals. Maps depicting
areas used to harvest renewable resources typically are a composite for the entire
community covering multiple years and do not reveal specific informat'ion provided
by individual households.
Observing subsistence activities: Participant-observation is an important
tool in subsistence research and provides a context for better understanding the
quantitative and socioeconomic data recorded in household surveys. In the Division's
early years, baseline community studies often were conducted over a twelve-month
period so that seasonal subsistence activities could be observed throughout the annual
harvest cycle and relevant information described and recorded in field notes. Funding
constraints and the nature of many current research projects regrettably has limited the
time that staff can devote to observation of subsistence and related activities, with a
few notable exceptions.
Enforcement of regulations: Staff occasionally witness or are informed
about harvest violations while conducting fieldwork. Biologists in the ADF&G
mianagement divisions have enforcement powers and in similar circumstances would
be authorized, even obligated, to issue citations.  Division staff do not have
enforcement powers for this very reason: establishing and maitaiin rapport with
rural residents would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, and might compel
respondents to withhold important information during personal interviews. Indeed,
survey respondents would be unlikely to speak candidly about harvest activities if
telling the truth would result in citation or legal action. The harvesting of subsistence
resources sometimes occurs opportunistically and outside established state and federal
seasons. Subsistence research is designed in part to identify such disparities and seek
ways to accommodate traditional harvest practices in the formal regulations-if and
when legalizig such practices wyould not jeopardize the biological integrity of the
affected wildlife resource.
Community review: Drafts of fmal reports and maps depicting areas used
for seasonal subsistence activities are provided to the community and other study
collaborators for review and comment. Upon publication, copies of final reports and
maps are provided to the study communiities for their own use.
Disposition of study fmdings: As noted above, quantitative data derived
from subsistence studies are stored in the division's computerized CPDB, while study
findings generally are reported in the Division of Subsistence Technical Paper Series.
Final reports for some studies conducted vursuant to cooperative agreements or in
collaboration with other agencies are published separately or by the sponsoning
agency (see Fall and Utermohle 1995; Haynes, Andersen, and Simeone 2001).
Synopses of major study findings sometimes are prepared for distribution to the study
communities (see Georgette 2000; Andersen 2001) and to ensure that relevant
Haynes
Ethical Issues and Subsistence Research in Alaska
279
information is available in a timely manner for use in decision-making processes.
Staff also are encouraged to make presentations 'in publ'ic schools and at professional
conferences, and to submit articles for publication in professional journals (Wolfe and
Walker 1987; Andrews 1989; Haynes and Bosworth 1996). Finally, the Division
nlinais an Internet website that contains information about its research program and
about subsistence in Alaska.
Application of study rindings:  Although a research project may be
conducted to address a specific management question, the study findings may
eventually be used for other purposes. Once field data have been corrected, compiled,
explained, and safeguarded, they essentially become public information and are
subject to uses beyond the control of the Division. For this reason, staff must ensure
thiat study data are portrayed accurately and anonymously in final reports and
datab ases.
For example, maps depicting community moose hunting areas frequently are
included in technical reports. Some rural respondents have provided this information
reluctantly and asked how urban hunters would be prevented from using it to intrude
on their hunting areas and conceivably improve their odds of success. This has not
surfaced as a significant problem but an urban hunter once obtained a copy of a
techncal report specifilcally for this purpose, believing it would aid him in finding a
good area to hunt moose. From the Division's perspective, information is power, and
detailed maps provide vital documentation for use by decision-makers whose actions
can either protect habitat that is important for subsistence purposes or subject it to
competing anld conflicting uses.
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Although some of the subsistence
information routinely collected by the Division can be categorized as traditional
ecological knowledrge (TEK), it was.' not advertised as such for many years. More
recently, however, research projects are being designed specifically to acquire TEK
for application to management and regulatory issues and TEK information is being
made more accessible to educate the public (see Haynes and Wolfe 1999). This new
emphasis on TEK is in part a result of Native peoples in Canada successfully using
TEK to address resource management issues there; Alaska Natives have been
similarly well-positioned to emphasize the importance of TEK and to demonstrate
how it can be used by managers and policymakers. In some instances, legitimate
concerns have arisen about the ownership of traditional knowledge, how it should be
collected, and the extent to which it should be shared with government agencies.
Although the Division has not yet formulated specific policies and procedures
regarding the collection and disposition of TEK, our general research protocols
remain in place and will be amended as necessary in the coming months.
Cooperative management: The Division of Subsistence has maintained a
longstanding conunitment to educating and informing policymakers, managers,
280
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
planners, and the public about the role and importance of subsistence in the economy
of Alaskan communities, especially those in rural areas. However, subsistence users
have increasingly demanded a more direct role in the decision-making process and are
finding ways to more actively represent theirf own interests and rely less on
intermediaries. As they developed constructive working relationships with rural
Alaskans, Division staff often discovered that they were among the first ADF&G staff
to actually spend time in the community and show an interest in the ideas, opinions,
and experiences of local residents. This has compelled the Division to encourage
resource managers, planners, and biologists to more actively find ways to involve
rural Alaskans and Alaska Native organizations in their work. Doing so introduces
new ideas into natural resource planin  and management, and increases the
likelihood of subsistence users supporting the process and its outcome., It also
provides a forum for thoughtful discussion of biological research techniques, such as
radiocollaring of moose and muskox, which may conflict with cultural beliefs in
Alaska Native communities.
Some readers may conclude that the Division procedures and practices
discussed above simply state the obvious in describing what should be standard
procedure for anthropological research. In the Division's experience, however, not all
government agencies in Alaska routinely show the same respect and deference to rural
Alaskans. Instead, they spend only the time necessary to accomplish their task and
hopefully do so in time to catch a plane back home the same day. Division staff have
found (and been told) that our common sense procedures clearly set us apart from
many other government agencies and enhance our ability to establish and miaintain
constructive working relationships in rural communities..
Findings
The Division of Subsistence research program has compiled a substantial
body of information documenting the harvest and use of fish and wildlife resources by
rural Ailaskans. This quantitative and qualitative information has enabled staff to
maeinteresting and important theoretical contributions that advance our knowledge
of contemporary hunting and fishing groups, in addition to meeting the ongoing
demands of managers and policymakers for quantitative data. The following general
findings illustrate some of the Division's more noteworthy contributions to our
understanding of subsistence economies in Alaska:
*Rural Alaskans (who comprise about 20 percent of the state's residents and 49
percent of the Alaska Native population) annually harvest an estimated 43.7
million nounds usable weight of wild foods. This translates. into ahout 375
pounds per capita in rural areas. In comparison, urban Alaskans consume
about 22 pounds of wild food per capita, while the average American in the
continental U.S. uses about 220 pounds of domestic meat, fish, and poultry
annually.
Haynes
Ethical Issues and Subsistence Research in Alaska
281
*Subsistence harvests in Alaska vary considerably by geographic area, ranging
from 153 to 664 pounds per capita annually. Anadromous and freshwater fish
comprise the bulk of both the rural and urban wild food harvest in Alaska,
accounting for 59 percent and 68 percent, respectively-, of all wild foods
obtained for personal and family consumption. Marine mammals, land
mammals, and waterfowl are seasonally important and contribute significantly
to the economies of some households and communities. Although subsistence
hunt'ing and fishing accounts for only about two percent of the total harvest of
fish and wildlife in Alaska (compared to 97 percent for commercial fisheries
and one percent for recreational hunters and fishers)., this harvest provides a
significant proportion of the protein consumed in many rural communities
(Wolfe 2000).
*  While acknowledgilng the difficulty in assigning a dollar value to fish and
wildlife harvested for subsistence uses in Alaska (Brown and Burch 1992),
the estimated cost of imported foods that would be required to replace wild
foods ranges from about $131 million to $218 million annually (calculated at
$3.00 - $5.00 per pound replacement cost). This replacement cost varies
considerably across the state but approaches 59 percent of family income in
some Alaska Native households.
*  Subsistence is a component of a "mixed subsistence-market economy" in
many rural areas of Alaska. Extended family groups harvest fish and wildlife
resources using efficient small-scale technologies., such as fishwheels, gill
nets, motorboats, and snowmachines. Production is directed to meeting the
self-limiting needs of families and small communities, rather than focusing on
commercial markets. Interrnittent and seasonal cash employment supplements
subsistence production, in part because stable and full-time employment
opportunities are limited in many rural areas.
*  In addition to its economic significance, subsistence continues to reinforce
important social and cultural values. Subsistence activities are vital for
unifying families and communities,, especially but not exclusively in Alaska
Native villages. Extended family members typically cooperate in the harvest
and processing of subsistence resources, then share the products among
themselves and with others in the community (Magdanz and Utermohle
1998).
*  In many rural communities a small subset of households referred to as "super-
households" harvest most of the community's supply of wild foods. More
specifically, about 30 percent of the households often produce 70 percent or
Imore of the total community harvest of wild foods (Wolfe 1987). Distribution
of these resources occurs primarily among relatives and others with whom the
282
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
harvester has reciprocal social obligations. Subsistence foods in small
amounts also are bartered through customary trade networks.
Summi ary
The complexity of fish and wildlife management in Alaska today is only
partially a result of dual subsistence management by the state and federal
governments. Members of the public, special interest groups, and policymakers also
debate the merits of predator control, the impacts of all-terrain vehicles, and the
effects of development on productive fisheries and wildlife habitat. However, the
subsistence debate takes center stage because it has so deeply divided Alaskans and
generated a considerable amount of controversy for more than 20 years. In such
circumstances, resource management programs must be creative and responsive in
order to be successful. By establishing the Division of Subsistence in the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, state lawnmakers acknowledged the fact that both
natural science and social science data are essential components of the resource
management decision-mIakin process. Indeed, resource nmanagers now often admit
that they really nmanage human behavior or at least have more control over it than they
do over wildlife resources or the environment. -
Anthropologists sometimes choose to avoid applying their skills and expertise
to contemporary social issues, perhaps because doing so can be controversial,
denmanding, and require a major investment of time and resources, whereas pursuing
an esoteric or "safe" research topic might be less challenging but more pleasant.
Those of us working as applied anthropologists in the public sector must also
recognze that we might face ethical dilenumas in which our obligations as public
servants may conflict with our role as anthropologists. It is important to weigh this
position against the option of standing aside and doing nothing to contribute to an
informed decision-main  process. As public servants, staff in the Division of
Subsistence in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game arguably have made
important contributions to resource management and public policy by documenting
the workings of contemporary subsistence-based economies in rural Alaska. This
alone is not enough, however, as Gerry himself noted in his 1968 article, "Is
Anthropology Alive?":
In a world where anything we leaml is likely to be put to immediate
and effective use for ends beyond our control and antithetical to our
values, we must choose our research undertakings with an eye to their
implications. We must demand the right to have a hand or at least a
sav in the use of what we do as a condition for doing it. That demand
may most often fall short of realization even when it is granted, but
unless it is a minimal condition of our work we may become
instruments for inhumanity in the guise of humane scientists.
Haynes
Ethical Issues and Subsistence Research in Alaska
283
We must seek to apply our knowledge and skills to real problems,
defined by us and not simply accepted from the sources which
provide our funds. We must ask questions which address the
problems of our time rather than merely those which minimize or
obscure them.... This is the acceptance of the responsibility of the
social scientist. [Berreman 1968:395]
The Division of Subsistence has a legal mandate to collect information on all
aspects of hunting and fishing in the lives of state residents. This has recently
included branching out to assess of the effects on subsistence foods of disasters like
the E=on-Valdez oil spill (Fall and Field 1996) and of other types of contaminants
(Wolfe 1996). Staff must develop an appropriate study plan when a "real problem"' is
identified, obtain local approval and establish a working relationship with the study
population, collect the data, and then analyze this information and make it available
for application to resource use decision-making. Good information can be an
effective tool for educating and informing decision-makers, but the challenge comes
in presenting information in ways comprehensible to persons not trained in the social
sciences-and who may not want to hear what we have to say.
However one evaluates the performance of the Division as an applied
anhoology research program in a state government agency, we have taken steps to
mnimze the possibility of study findings being misrepresented or used to the
detriment of rural Alaskans. We continue to seek ways to ensure that, when it is
available, subsistence use information is available for use in decision-making
processes that affect or involve subsistence users across the state. With a staff
sensitive to cross-cultural issues and oriented toward working with the public, the
Division has played a vital role in strengthening the overall working relationship
between the Department of Fish and Game and rural Alaskans-and in bringing an
important new ingredient to the decision-making process. I believe anthropologists in
the Division of Subsistence are meeting the challenge of being responsible social
scientists and are making positive contributions to resource management in Alaska. In
doing so, they are demonstrating that anthropologists can work effectively in
government agencies without compromising their ethical principles, despite the
constraints inherent in the bureaucracy.
Works Cited
Andersen, David B.
2001 Local Hunting of Moose, Caribou, and Bear: 2000. Harvest Survey Results
for Middle Yukon and Kovukuk River Communities. Fairbanks. AK:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.
284
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
Andrews, Elizabeth F.
1989 A Low-Profile Subsistence Fishery: Pike Fishing in Minto Flats, Alaska.
Arctic 42(4):357-36 1.
Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (ACUNS)
1981   Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North. In
Proceedings, First International Symposium on Renewable Resources and
the Economy of the North. Milton M.R. Freeman, ed. Pp. 260-262.
Ottawa: ACUNS.
Berreman, Gerald D.
1954 Effects of a Technological Change in an Aleutian Village. Arctic
7(2): 102-107.
1964   Aleut Reference Group Alienation, Mobility, and Acculturation.
American Anthropologist 66(2):231-250.
1968  Is Anthropology Alive?: Social Responsibility in Social Anthropology.
Current Anthropology 9(5):391-396; 407-435.
Bosworth, Robert
1995   Biology, Politics, and Culture in the Management of Subsistence Hunting
and Fishing: An Alaskan Case History. In Human Ecology and Climate
Change: People and Resources in the Far North. David L. Peterson and
Darryll R. Johnson, eds. Pp. 245-259. Washington, DC: Taylor and
F rancis.
Brown, Thomas C., and Ernest S. Burch, Jr.
1992 Estimating the Economic Value of Subsistence Harvest of Wildlife in
Alaska. In Valuing Wildlife Resources in Alaska. George L. Peterson,
Cindy Sorg Swanson, Daniel W. McCollum, and Michael H. Thomas, eds.
Pp. 205-254. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Caulfield, Richard A.
1992 Alaska's Subsistence Management Regimes. Polar Record 28(164):23-32.
Cultural Survival Quarterly
1998 Crisis in the Last Frontier: The Alaskan Subsistence Debate. Volume 22,
Issue 3.
Division of Subsistence
1984 Policy on Research Ethics. Division of Subsistence, Research Notebook
Series, Report No. 2. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Fall, James A.
1990 The Division of Subsistence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game:
An Overview of its Research Programn and Findings: 1980-1990. Arctic
Anthropology 27(2):68-92.
Ethical Issues and Subsistence Research in Alaska
285
Haynes
Fall, James A. and L. Jay Field
1996 Subsistence Uses of Fish and Wildlife before and after the Exxon- Valdez
Oil Spill. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:819-836.
Fall, James A. and Charles J. Utermohle, eds.
1995  An Investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental
Shelf Development in Alaska, Vols. I-VI. Social and Economic Studies
Unit, OCS Study MMS-95-010, Technical Report No. 160. Anchorage:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska
OCS Region.
Feldman, Kerry D.
1981 Anthropology and Public Policy in Alaska: Recent Policy Related to Legal
Systems, Natilve Subsistence, and Commercial Fisheries. Policy Studies
Review 1(l):87-1 10.
Georgette, Susan
2000 Subsistence Harvests in Northwest Alaska: Caribou, Moose, Bear, Wolf,
and Wolverine, 1999-2000. Kotzebue: Division of Subsistence, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Haynes, Terry L.
1976 They Didn't Come in Four-Wheel Drives: An Introduction to Fortymile
History. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Fortymile
Resource Area, Tok, Alaska. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education.
Haynes, Terry L., and Robert G. Bosworth
1996 Social Scientists and Subsistence Resource Management in Alaska. High
Plains Applied Anthropologist 1(16):63-68.
HIaynes, Terry L., David B. Andersen, and William E. Simeone
2001 Denali National Park and Preserve: Ethnographic Overview and
Assessment. Report prepared for the National Park Service under tenms of
Cooperative Agreement CA 9910-7-0040. Fairbanks: Division of
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Haynes, Terry L. and Robert J. Wolfe, eds.
1999 Ecology, Harvest, and Use of Harbor Seals and Sea Lions: Interview
Materials from Alaska Native Hunters. Division of Subsistence Technical
Paper No. 249. Juneau: Department of Fish and Game.
Kelso, Dennis D.
1982 Subsistence Use of Fish and Game Resources in Alaska: Considerations i
Formulating Effective Management Policies. Division of Subsistence
Technical Paper No. 65. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
286
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
Magdanz, James and Charles J. Utermohle
1998 Family Groups and Subsistence. Cultural Survival Quarterly 22(3):51-52.
Wolfe, Robert J.
1987 The Super-Household: Specialization in Subsistence Economies. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological
Association.
1993  Subsistence and Politics in Alaska. In Politics and Environment in Alaska.
Alexander B. Dolitsky, ed. Pp. 13-28. Juneau, AK: Alaska-Siberia
Research Center Publication #5.
1996  Subsistence Food Harvests in Rural Alaska and Food Safety Issues. Paper
presented to the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Environmental Justice. Spokane, WA.
2000   Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2000 Update. Juneau: Division of
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Wolfe, Robert J., and Robert J. Walker
1987 Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and
Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):5 6-8 1.
Wood, Sandra J., and Teffy L. Haynes
1979 (198 1) So You Think You Want to do Fieldwork: The Changing Face of
Anthropological Research. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 59-
60:68-75.