Plataforma Regional de la OIE sobre Bienestar Animal en Europa

In the past, interviewees have noted that there seems to have been a strong correlation between those places recreational visitors have wanted to use as campsites and those places that the Native Alaskan communities claim and use: “Surprisingly there are few really good campsites on the river” and most of the obvious choices have a long history of Native use, if not outright ownership as allotments (Morseth 1998). Morseth (2000) noted that the attributes that make an area desirable as a campsite or a pickup site for visitors are often the same attributes that make an area desirable historically as a campsite or allotment site. These include a sandy or rocky beach that is suitable for boat landings, a level bank in a clearing with exposure to breezes that might clear insects, the presence of nearby fishing holes, and possibly the presence of nearby firewood.

With visitors being drawn to attributes that define Native Alaskan use areas, some level of trespass on Native allotments, cabin sites, and camp sites has presented a challenge since the beginnings of recreational use along the Alagnak. Interviewees frequently expressed concern regarding the trespass on and use of allotment lands, as well as inadvertent damage or

“vandalism” to cabins and other features on allotment lands. Past researchers report “numerous complaints from the land owners about trespassing on Native allotments” (Katmai Research Project 1997). For example, the Estrada family allotment (01-132) was mentioned as a popular pull-out site for rafters and as a major point of contention. Some interviewees suggested that pilots asked clients to pull out there to catch flights at the end of river trips, but the Estradas were apparently opposed to this use. During her visit to the site in 1997, Michele Morseth reported seeing freshly trampled vegetation, fire pits and toilet paper on the allotment, while the borders had been marked with three “no trespassing” signs (Morseth 2000).

This has been an issue of recurring importance. In its comments on the draft 1983 Alagnak Wild River Management Plan, for example, Bristol Bay Native Corporation suggested that more emphasis was needed on potential visitor treatment and trespass on Native allotments, reflecting the fact that this was already a growing issue. In response, the NPS indicated that

“The National Park Service will work with local landowners, including Native corporations and Native allotment owners or applicants, to address trespass and

resource management problems and other issues of concern. The National Park Service will enter into cooperative agreements with the Bureau of Land

Management and the effected Native corporations to manage the two public use easements on the Alagnak River. The National Park Service will designate camping areas on public land at several locations to discourage trespass problems on adjacent private property” (NPS 1983, Appendix 1: 1-2).

On this theme, interviewees described an unambiguous history of collaboration with the National Park Service to remedy the issue over the years since this original Management Plan was

developed:

“One important (political) issue was in regard to land ownership and issues of trespass and vandalism along the Branch River. One corporation official told me he was trying to work with the National Park Service to develop a program in which users of the Wild and Scenic River corridor were informed of land ownership patterns and status before they embark upon their trips” (Katmai Research Project 1997: 7-8).

“He said they were trying to work with the Park Service on the issue of informing users of that river on the land status. He said that is a way they can work on solving problems of trespass, vandalism, etc. He said they have an enforcement officer for lands over there but it is difficult because people do not listen and want proof when he stops them and tries to keep them from using private lands. He said that the enforcement officer needs a camera and a map to carry with him. He also said these people and outfitters need to be informed prior to their trips. He said people camp wherever they please” (Katmai Research Project 1997: 10).53

A number of interviewees and meeting participants expressed concern regarding the accumulation of litter and human waste – not only on allotment lands, which is of special concern, but along the entire riparian corridor.54 Like other impacts discussed here, the

incautious disposal of these things implies “disrespect” in the view of some Native Alaskans who use the river corridor: “Allotment owners talk about the trash and toilet paper and vandalism and the disrespect of people using private land without asking” (Morseth 1998). A small number of individuals also referred to thefts being a problem in cabins along the Alagnak:

“He said he used to leave the door open to his house but cannot do so anymore, saying you have to lock everything. [He] said it is bad in the village but it is worse

over on the Branch were theft is real bad as cabins are always broken into. He said that people cabins are being vandalized and broken into more and more each year as the river gets busier. [He learned of a cabin where] someone over there stole a 100 gallon container of propane and two chain saws. He said that was just the most recent occurrence. He said a lot of the theft is also due to young people from the villages who he described as "lost"….[He] said locks don't even stop people over on the Branch and it is often better to leave things unlocked and take everything home when you leave” (Katmai Research Project 1997: 19).

A number of interviewees and meeting participants made passing references to the perceived adverse effects of all of this use of the shoreline on riparian plant gathering areas. The impacts of visitation on vegetation have also been documented by non-Native researchers traveling the river corridor. Curran noted that “There are no developed foot trails along the Alagnak Wild River corridor, although bears and anglers form informal paths along much of the river” (Curran 2003: 4). Likewise, on the topic of vegetation impacts, Morseth reported that

“The river could use some documentation on just how much people are

hammering vegetation. Judging from the NPS site, trails and bare spots develop quite quickly. Bears…seem to have had the greatest obvious impact on vegetation as seen from the river and they have made trails up banks and in the forest. Once one gets off the river the vegetation destruction by people becomes more

apparent…It looks like campers are the biggest offenders but other areas have developed trails—maybe originally from wildlife” (Morseth 2000).

Native Alaskan interviewees especially expressed concern regarding the impacts of visitors’ fires on vegetation. Some fires are said to have burned out of control and eliminated the vegetation over larger areas:

They talked of having tundra fires once in a while and said they are caused by lightning or by the carelessness of rafters or sport hunters or fishers. He said they leave fires going and don't always watch them or put them out when they leave. They said on the Branch they have put out more than one fire they have found unattended. They also said there is an island in the river down there that was completely burned a few years back” (Katmai Research Project 1997: 13).

Some non-resident visitors are said to build fires in tundra areas where the fire leaves a lasting impression; in contrast, Native Alaskan interviewees say of their own practices that “they were

taught never to make fires on the tundra and that it should be done only on the beaches” (Katmai Research Project 1997: 13). Here too, concepts of “disrespect” seem to explain some of these objections, with interviewees objecting to long-term physical impacts of short-term users.