Research

INTRODUCTION

Social-ecological context

Harvest management occurs within social-ecological contexts including people with differing needs and values, variable ecological factors, and multiple kinds of uncertainty. Consideration of diverse knowledge and perspectives held by researchers, managers, and user groups is key to addressing challenges in harvest management (e.g., establish common objectives and a framework for collaboration), minimizing negative impacts of conflict, and enhancing the sustainability of natural resources (Drew and Henne 2006, Redpath et al. 2013, Norström et al. 2020).

Local and Indigenous knowledge (IK) can bridge information gaps and broaden participation for effective harvest management and conservation (Blanchard 1994, LaDuke 1994). By living in close contact with nature, Indigenous people have developed worldviews and knowledge over generations blending ecology, geography, history, beliefs, and values. Indigenous knowledge is embedded in languages, harvesting practices, stories, and place names (Lyver et al. 2015, Berkes 2018).

The objective of this study was to document IK and perspectives of subsistence users about Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus) to support use of both Indigenous and scientific knowledge in harvest management. We conducted key respondent interviews and a literature search on previously documented IK and related science-based ecological knowledge about Emperor Goose.

Declining Emperor Goose numbers led to a harvest closure starting in 1986 (PFC 2006). As the population index reached the threshold for harvest authorization, harvest was re-opened in 2017 (AMBCC 2016, PFC 2016). However, Emperor Goose numbers available for a sustainable harvest remain limited (Dooley et al. 2016). The population index used for harvest management reached the threshold for conservation measures in 2019, 2021, and 2023, and it reached the threshold for harvest closure in 2024 (USFWS 2024:64-65). By “integrating Indigenous and scientific knowledge” we mean a long-term process that enables partners to reconsider and expand their perspectives while collaboratively working to support the sustainability of wildlife and fish populations and the wellbeing of resource users (Nadasdy 2003, Ainsworth et al. 2020). This study complemented documentation of perspectives about Emperor Goose harvest management and conservation in Alaska held by diverse stakeholders, as previous efforts have addressed managers, researchers, and urban hunters (Mengak et al. 2022, Naves et al. 2023).

The Emperor Goose is a migratory species endemic to coastal habitats in the Bering Sea including Alaska and Russia (Fig. 1). Emperor Geese primarily breed on the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta and in smaller numbers on the Seward Peninsula and Saint Lawrence Island in Alaska and the Chukotka Peninsula in Russia (Schmutz et al. 2020, Lewis et al. 2021). In late June-August, second-year and older geese become flightless for a few weeks while they molt flight feathers. Adults raising goslings molt on the breeding grounds. Emperor Geese in western Alaska not engaged in raising goslings (immature, nonbreeding, and failed breeders) migrate to Saint Lawrence Island and the north Chukotka Peninsula to molt (Hupp et al. 2007). During fall and spring, Emperor Geese migrate along coastal areas of Bristol Bay and the Alaska Peninsula. They winter on the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, and Kodiak Archipelago in Alaska and on the Commander Islands in Russia (Hupp et al. 2008, Uher-Koch et al. 2021).

The Emperor Goose is a focus of stewardship in Alaska, where most of the global population occurs. Emperor Geese are food and a cultural resource for Alaska Native, Indigenous people (ADF&G 2017, Naves and Schamber 2024). Non-Indigenous people also hunt Emperor Geese (Naves et al. 2023, ADF&G 2025a). This species is also sought after by bird watchers, despite its remote distribution. Molting areas in Russia are important for Emperor Goose, where Indigenous and non-Indigenous people also hunt the Emperor Goose (Syroechkovski and Klokov 2007). We were unable to address Indigenous knowledge and perspectives about the Emperor Goose in Russia because of language barriers, insufficient funding, and diplomatic challenges.

The Emperor Goose distribution in Alaska overlaps the homelands of several Indigenous people: Central Alaskan Yup’ik (Yup’ik), Saint Lawrence Island Yupik, Iñupiaq, Aleut/Unangam, and Alutiiq/Sugpiaq (Fig. 1, Table 1). Indigenous people have lived for millennia on the vast land that is now the state of Alaska. These cultures flourished and developed distinct ways of life based on hunting, fishing, and gathering in distinct ecosystems, but they share core values such as a strong connection to ancestral lands and reliance on experiential knowledge and wild foods (Yupiktak Bista Inc. 1974, Langdon 2014). Contact with Euro-American settlers starting in the 1750s brought wide socioeconomic and cultural changes. Large-scale climate and environmental changes now also impact northern communities (Norton-Smith et al. 2016). Harvesting and sharing wild resources improve food security and support traditional social structures for Alaska Native people amidst rapid change in all aspects of life (USFWS 1980, Moerlein and Carothers 2012).

In Alaska, subsistence means a way of life centered on non-commercial traditional uses of wild animals and plants for food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, crafts, transportation, sharing, and bartering (AS 16.05.940.34, ANILCA-Title VIII section 803). This definition derives from the traditional economy and culture of Indigenous people and other people who have adopted similar ways of life. Complexity and ambiguity in subsistence laws reflect an ever-growing competition for fish and wildlife in Alaska (Wheeler and Thornton 2005).

Regulatory framework

Alaska Native people have harvested animals and plants for millennia following seasonal availability (USFWS 1980). In 1918, the U.S. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to conserve and restore bird populations depleted by commercial hunting. The Treaty closed harvest for birds and their eggs from March 10 through August 31 each year. However, spring bird harvest alleviated hunger for northern Indigenous people when other resources were scarce. The spring harvest closure caused hardships for Indigenous communities and conflict with management agencies (Fienup-Riordan 1999). Efforts to ease this conflict led to the 1997 Treaty amendment to legally authorize the Alaska spring-summer subsistence harvest and include subsistence users in harvest management (Schwalenberg et al. 2023).

Migratory bird harvest regulations in Alaska include the spring-summer subsistence and fall-winter general hunting seasons. Eligibility for the subsistence season is based on permanent residence in regions or communities that have customary and traditional harvest and excludes unqualified urban areas. Spring-summer regulations are defined considering recommendations made by the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC)—a partnership comprised of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the Native Caucus with Indigenous representatives from across Alaska.

Harvest regulations for the spring-summer subsistence season have been designed to allow continuation of traditional practices and socioeconomic structures, including sharing of wild foods in kinship relations. Subsistence economies are based on sharing networks, where high-harvest households provide foods and other resources to less productive households (BurnSilver et al. 2016). Harvest regulations for the spring-summer season (including Emperor Geese) do not involve a harvest quota for birds and eggs, special permit, bag limit, or mandatory harvest reporting (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 2025a; Federal Register vol. 82, no. 63, page 16298). Harvest data including the spring-summer harvest season have been collected in voluntary household harvest surveys (Naves et al. 2021, Naves and Mengak 2023). The Kodiak Archipelago and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands regions are eligible for the subsistence harvest, but as Emperor Goose availability in these regions is limited in spring-summer, hunters mostly rely on fall-winter opportunities (Fig. 1; U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 2025b).

In contrast, eligibility for the fall-winter general hunting season applies to all Alaska residents and nonresidents. Fall-winter regulations are defined via federal and state processes. In 2017-2021, the fall-winter hunt had an annual quota of 500 or 1000 Emperor Geese (depending on the population index), and hunters were required to obtain a special permit and to report harvest activities (ADF&G 2025b). An unlimited number of permits was available to Alaska residents. Twenty-five drawing (lottery) permits were annually available to nonresidents. The season bag limit for permit holders was one Emperor Goose.

Participation of rural and Indigenous users in Emperor Goose harvest management and reporting is key, as these users account for most of the current harvest. Harvest by Alaska urban residents and nonresidents was much curtailed by the fall-winter bag limit of one Emperor Goose, despite their substantial interest in less restrictive harvesting opportunities. In 2017-2020, three-fourths of the annual average harvest of about 6300 Emperor Geese occurred in spring-summer, and harvest by subsistence-eligible residents (spring-summer and fall-winter) accounted for 98% of the annual harvest (Naves et al. 2023, Naves and Mengak 2023, Naves and Schamber 2024). Emperor Goose harvest estimates involve substantial annual variation and uncertainty (wide confidence intervals) because of characteristics intrinsic to the data (Copp and Roy 1986:H-15, Otis et al. 2016). Nevertheless, decades of harvest data have portrayed consistent regional and seasonal patterns (Wentworth 2007a, 2007b, Naves and Schamber 2024).

METHODS

Key respondent interviews

We followed ethical principles for human subjects research including input in study design, informed consent, voluntary participation and anonymity, and opportunity for data review (Alaska Federation of Natives 2013, National Science Foundation 2018). We asked AMBCC partners to review draft interview questions, conducted two pilot interviews with subsistence users, and revised the methods accordingly. Interview questions addressed respondents’ geographic reference and demographics, Emperor Goose ethnotaxonomy, harvest timing and methods, uses, cultural importance, ecology, local issues, and harvest management (Appendix 1). We used the harvest management regions defined for the spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska as the geographic framework for data collection and analysis while considering homelands of main Indigenous groups and the Emperor Goose seasonal cycle (Fig. 1). This approach was consistent with the scale at which harvest management is implemented.

The pool of interview candidates had 117 people including members of federal and state regional harvest management bodies, candidates suggested by the AMBCC, and candidates suggested by interview respondents (chain referral). We attempted to interview primarily Indigenous respondents because they were less represented than other stakeholders in previous studies, but we did not preclude participation of other ethnic groups (Mengak et al. 2022, Naves et al. 2023). We attempted to interview men, women, elders, and active harvesters representing diverse demographics who harvest, share, and use Emperor Geese.

We initially planned for in-person interviews but had to interview by phone due to public health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following an initial phone communication, we mailed interview candidates information on the study’s objective, interview questions, a consent form, and a pre-stamped envelope for returning the completed consent form. We attempted to contact the candidates again after delivery of the interview packet to schedule an interview. We attempted to contact candidates by phone three times at each stage of this process. We acknowledge that communication by phone was sometimes affected by poor phone connection, hearing impairments, and limited non-verbal clues which are more available in in-person interactions. We do not advocate for conducting traditional knowledge interviews by phone if in-person interviews are possible. Nevertheless, we have no indication that communication by phone substantially affected the quality of the data presented in this study.

We interviewed 37 respondents (31 men, 6 women) residing in 20 communities between November 2020 and June 2021 (Appendix 2-Table A1). Most interviews were individual, one interview had two respondents, and another had three respondents. The pilot interviews had two interviewers, and all others had one interviewer. All interviews were audio-recorded and averaged 77 minutes. Respondents’ age ranged from 19 to 85 (Appendix 2-Fig. A1). All except one respondent (97%) identified themselves as Indigenous. The interviewer read the consent information and each interview question. About one-third of respondents opted for anonymity. We explained to respondents that they could say “I don’t know” and decline to answer any question. Respondents received a monetary honorarium in recognition of their time.

Data collection on ethnotaxonomy included Indigenous and English names for all geese species occurring in Alaska. To develop interview materials, we researched the literature and inventoried previously documented names for geese. First, we asked respondents to name geese based on color drawings and audio-recordings of vocalizations. Then, we asked respondents to review names for geese compiled from the literature and presented in the written interview materials. We asked respondents if they were familiar with previously documented names, although such familiarity does not necessarily imply knowing to which bird(s) a name applies.

Literature review: Previously documented Indigenous and scientific knowledge

We gathered previously documented ethnographic information pertaining to Emperor Goose in Alaska to supplement the geographic and cultural coverage of this study (e.g., Nelson 1887, Brandt 1943, Fienup-Riordan 1994, 2007, Ballanger 2004, Unger 2014). Notably, some previous studies focusing on species of management interest included topics about Emperor Goose (Wolfe and Paige 1995, Fienup-Riordan et al. 1996, Paige et al. 1996, Georgette and Iknokinok 1997, Fienup-Riordan 1999, Georgette 2000), including unpublished information from interviews conducted in 1997 in the communities of Akutan and Nikolski archived at the ADF&G Division of Subsistence (Naves et al. 2024).

We researched the natural sciences literature pertaining to the life history and ecology of Emperor Goose. Presenting an exhaustive compilation of the natural sciences literature about Emperor Goose was beyond the scope of this study. We integrated relevant scientific information as it relates to IK and harvest management.

We presented in the Results section information from the interviews conducted in this study, previously documented IK, and related ecological information from the scientific literature. This approach intended to facilitate integration of information, conciseness, and a coherent information flow. We provided sources for all information derived from the literature. The diverse sources of information gathered in this study spanned several decades. Some knowledge reflected temporal changes in ecological factors, for example, a reduced use of Saint Lawrence Island by molting Emperor Goose. In some instances, there was no evidence to infer if change of knowledge and perspectives occurred across decades and the factors potentially involved.

Data analysis and review

We transcribed interview audio-recordings verbatim. Two of the authors reviewed all audio-recordings and transcripts to ensure accuracy. We presented some interview quotes in Appendix 2 to illustrate the data and provide a direct voice to respondents (additional content in Naves et al. 2024). We slightly edited quotes for clarity and conciseness while respecting respondents’ word choices (“[...]” indicates omitted text). We used Nvivo 12 Pro (QSR International Pty Ltd, Doncaster, ASTL) to code the qualitative data. The data were initially deductively coded based on interview questions (Appendix 1). Responses for each question were then interactively sub-coded based on emergent themes and sub-themes linking codes across interview questions. Some themes and sub-themes occurred under more than one question. We then summarized information from responses based on geographic regions to connect knowledge and perspectives to the Emperor Goose annual cycle.

Respondents represented most regions within the Emperor Goose range in Alaska. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to enlist participants from the mainland portion of the Bering Strait-Norton Sound region. About 1000 Emperor Geese nest on the north shore of the Seward Peninsula (Paige et al. 1996, Lewis et al. 2021). Emperor Geese are harvested in relatively low numbers in this area (Naves and Schamber 2024). Interviews for the Bering Strait-Norton Sound region represented the communities of Gambell and Savoonga, on Saint Lawrence Island.

Most results for the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands refer to the entire region as wintering grounds for Emperor Goose. However, within this region, some knowledge and harvest patterns seemed typical of the Pribilof Islands, where Emperor Goose occur primarily during migration.

We summarized the ethnotaxonomy data across entire interviews as the number of respondents (by language) who indicated familiarity with geese names. Alaska Native languages have diverse dialects. Additionally, variant words and spellings are common as Indigenous languages are primarily spoken (Fortescue et al. 2010, Jacobson 2012). Assessing dialectical variations and localisms in geese ethnotaxonomy was beyond our reach. We followed spelling from dictionaries unless unavailable, and favoring conciseness, we did not report all variant spellings. We reported our understanding of the use of geese names based on information from the literature, interviews in this study, and meaning of names (etymology). Mistakes and omissions are ours, and we continue to welcome guidance to correct them.

We asked respondents to rate their support for conservation and harvest management actions using a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly oppose to strongly favor (adapted from Mengak et al. 2022). Some respondents did not use the 5-point scale, so we combined responses into a 3-point scale coded as “oppose” (1), “neither oppose nor favor” (2), and “favor” (3). Higher mean ratings indicate higher favorability than lower ratings. Main differences in the ecological and regulatory contexts pertained to Emperor Goose wintering and breeding grounds. Thus, we calculated mean ratings for residents of the Kodiak Archipelago and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands (wintering grounds), residents of other regions (breeding, molting, and migration areas), as well as all regions combined.

We mailed a hard copy of an expanded draft report to all interview respondents asking for their review (Naves et al. 2024). We asked federal, state, and Native AMBCC partners to review draft results. A four-page summary was produced to facilitate review of draft results. This paper includes input received during all review stages.

RESULTS

Geese ethnotaxonomy

We identified 42 names for geese in five Indigenous languages and 14 names in English (Appendix 2-Tables A2 and A3). Some names (e.g., neqleq, laqiq) were used for more than one species, especially Canada/Cackling geese (Branta canadensis and B. hutchinsii), White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons), and Brant (Branta bernicla). Beach goose usually referred to Emperor Goose but occasionally to Brant. Yellow-legged goose usually referred to White-fronted Goose but occasionally to Emperor Goose. This pattern may reflect diverse dialects and localism, mismatches between local ethnotaxonomies and genetics-based taxonomy, errors in documented use of names, variable language fluency, and loss of knowledge about bird names.

Some names described the species appearance (tuutangayak, nacaullek, iqsraġutilik, uuxali-x̂) or behavior (tingmak kikiyouk, chugumadan laga). Some names compared species, for example teghqilkagpak (Siberian Yupik/Akuzipik) used for Canada Goose literally means large Brant. Names often were onomatopoeic (imitated geese vocalizations) (e.g., laqiq, neqleq, neqlernaq). Some names or variants occurred in diverse languages (e.g., lagiq, neqleq, kanguq) and may be onomatopoeic and/or loan words (adopted from another language with little or no modification; Appendix 2-Table A2). Onomatopoeic names were traditionally pronounced with inflection to further resemble bird sounds (Brandt 1943:93). In conversation, people traditionally used to refer to a bird by imitating its sound, independently of the bird having an onomatopoeic name (Russell and West 2003:44).

Some species names were also used for broader categories. Lagiq (Yup’ik) referred to Canada/Cackling geese as well as unspecified goose. Leghlleq (Siberian Yupik/Akuzipik) referred to Emperor Goose and to unspecified goose (Appendix 2-Table A2). Names indicating nested ethnotaxonomic categories likely reflected the local availability of species, their relative contribution to harvest, and cultural relevance (Russell and West 2003:50).

Ethnotaxonomies may include categories for sex, age, and ecological attributes (Simeone and Kari 2002). A Yup’ik respondent identified hatch-year Emperor Goose (with gray feathers on the head) as nacaullegaq. Nonbreeding geese (of any species) are referred to in Yup’ik language as kangniq (Appendix 2-Quote 1). In Siberian Yupik/Akuzipik, molting geese are known as iingtaq (Badten et al. 2008). Male and female geese differ in their behaviors but cannot be identified based on external morphology. Arctic-breeding geese reach breeding maturity in about three years and a proportion of breeding-age geese do not breed every year (Petersen 1992).

Respondents from most regions (except Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago) often explained that they and other people in their communities mostly use names for geese (and other birds) in their Indigenous languages (Appendix 2-Figs. A2-A4). Some respondents seemed unfamiliar with English names for geese. Nevertheless, respondents often did not know the meaning (etymology) of Indigenous geese names. Reduced knowledge about the etymology of names can result from language shift (Krupnik 2017).

Respondents from the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago mostly used English names for geese and were unfamiliar with names in their Indigenous languages (Appendix 2-Figs. A5 and A6). Some respondents explained that they often refer to geese without identifying species. These tendencies suggest advanced stages of language shift (from Indigenous to Russian to English) and some IK loss, consistent with earlier contact of Aleut and Alutiiq people with Russo-American cultures as compared with other Alaska Native people (Langdon 2014).

The name beach goose was commonly used by Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago residents, but it was not used by residents of other regions [Appendix 2-Figs. A2-A6 (this study) and Quote 2 (Wolfe and Paige 1995)]. Use of beach goose by Indigenous inhabitants of the Aleutian Islands was reported as early as the late 1800s (Nelson 1887:89). This ethnotaxonomic pattern likely relates to Emperor Goose’s nearly exclusive use of marine coastal environments during the nonbreeding period (Gibson and Byrd 2007:229-241). Although Emperor Goose closely associate with coastal environments across their range, at breeding grounds they are found up to 10 miles inland (Saalfeld et al. 2017, Schmutz et al. 2020).

Use of habitats by Emperor Goose and ecological interactions

Respondents from all regions described marine coasts, bays, and lagoons as important habitats for Emperor Goose as well as freshwater sources within marine environments, which hunters use as predictors of its occurrence. Respondents in this study identified 53 places important for Emperor Goose and 14 other places were mentioned in previous studies (Fig. 1, Appendix 2-Table A4; Wolfe and Paige 1995, Paige et al. 1996, Georgette and Iknokinok 1997, Georgette 2000). The spatial distribution of these places also reflected respondents’ land use patterns including traditional harvest areas and areas used in commercial fishing. Among 125 place names in Orth (1971) referring to geese (including unspecified geese), 14 places were within the Emperor Goose range. Collectively, these places and place names refine information on habitat use by Emperor Goose.

Saint Lawrence Island residents described Emperor Goose migrations and highlighted use of southeast lagoons for molting and staging (Appendix 2-Quote 3; Fay and Cade 1959). Respondents in this study said Emperor Goose usually feed on seaweed, eelgrass, mussels, grasses, and fresh berries (in fall) and overwintered berries (in spring; Fienup-Riordan et al. 1996). Respondents obtained this information from observation of Emperor Goose behavior and from assessing contents in the digestive tract of harvested birds. Respondents were attentive to factors affecting the body condition of Emperor Goose such as storms, frozen bays, and favorable weather (Appendix 2-Quotes 4 and 5). Some respondents from the Bristol Bay region associated the body condition of migrating Emperor Goose with the availability of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) spawn (Appendix 2-Quote 6). Herring spawn is an important food for sea ducks and other birds during the pre-breeding period (Bishop and Green 2001, Bond and Esler 2006, Lewis et al. 2007).

Respondents reported that foxes are an important predator of Emperor Goose (particularly young, sick, and injured birds) and their eggs. Jaegers (Stercorarius spp.), gulls, and the Common Raven (Corvus corax) also predate eggs and goslings. One respondent noted increased numbers of ravens. Some respondents reported shooting foxes and jaegers to protect goose eggs and goslings. Respondents from the Aleutian Islands mentioned that removal of introduced foxes and rats (by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge) from some islands has benefited bird populations.

Respondents from all regions observed within their lifetime that bird migrations are occurring earlier in spring and later in fall, and they attributed this change to global warming (Uher-Koch et al. 2021). A respondent thought the warmer weather caused geese to have more lice. Some respondents mentioned impacts of coastal erosion and melting permafrost on habitats important for geese (Appendix 2-Quote 7).

Migration cycle and availability for harvest

Respondents across regions collectively described the occurrence of Emperor Goose during its migration cycle (Fig. 2A): Y-K Delta in March-October; Northwest Arctic in May-June; Saint Lawrence Island in April-November; Aleutian Islands yearlong (but mainly in September-May); Kodiak Archipelago in August-May (but mainly in October-April); and Bristol Bay in March-June and August-November. The timing of spring and fall migration varied annually depending on seasonal transitions.

Respondents emphasized that bird harvest including Emperor Goose are traditionally curtailed during nesting and chick rearing (Figs. 2B and 2C). Other factors that affected the timing and opportunity to harvest Emperor Geese were the weather, access, harvest closures, other activities, and costs (Fig. 3). There was a preference for hunting at times when the geese have no pin feathers (not molting) and are fatter (tastier). In the Y-K Delta and Bristol Bay, there was a preference for harvesting Emperor Geese in spring (Appendix 2-Quote 8), but some harvest also occur in fall in these regions (Fig. 2B; Naves et al. 2023, Naves and Schamber 2024). On Saint Lawrence Island, Emperor Goose eggs are usually not harvested, and flightless (molting) Emperor Geese are harvested in late summer.

In the Bristol Bay region, Emperor Goose harvest often occurs in conjunction with harvest primarily directed to King Eider Somateria spectabilis and seals (Appendix 2-Quote 9). In this region, Emperor Goose harvest is facilitated by offshore winds that push the migrating geese onshore (Appendix 2-Quote 10).

Respondents from the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak Archipelago said Emperor Geese are fatter and tastier in late fall. They explained that Emperor Geese arriving in September-October is often molting body feathers, thus harvesting mostly happens in October-November. In the Kodiak Archipelago, respondents indicated that Emperor Goose harvest coincided with the fall-winter regulatory waterfowl season (8 October-22 January). Some hunters preferred adult Emperor Goose over juveniles (identified by gray feathers on the head) (Appendix 2-Quote 11; Wolfe and Paige 1995). The Emperor Goose is the only goose species present during winter in the Aleutian Islands. But short daylight and storms in December-February are unfavorable for waterfowl hunting in the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak Archipelago. Some residents of these regions voiced unwillingness to harvest birds in spring as they prepare to breed (Appendix 2-Quote 12).

Emperor Goose occurrence and harvest on the Pribilof Islands seemed to differ from the Aleutian Islands. A Pribilof Island respondent explained that Emperor Geese are usually present in April-June and September-October and are usually harvested in April-May (Appendix 2-Quote 13). The Emperor Goose seems to occur in relatively low frequency and numbers on the Pribilof Islands (Appendix 2-Quote 14; Wolf and Paige 1995).

Harvest methods and practices

Most respondents said that the Emperor Goose is not specifically targeted and is one of many species in the seasonal harvest cycle including other birds, Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), clams, Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), seals, walrus, wood, and berries. High cost of harvesting gear and supplies (especially fuel) was also mentioned, as people cannot afford to seek only specific resources.

Some respondents nevertheless referred to hunting efforts directed at the Emperor Goose, especially in conditions and places where it congregates. Naturally, coastal residents have more access to Emperor Goose. People from coastal areas who moved away often visit their original communities for harvesting purposes. Coastal areas tend to be more productive and attract hunters from inland communities (Appendix 2-Quote S15). Saint Lawrence Island respondents reported on harvest directed at flightless Emperor Geese in summer but added that this practice was more common in the past.

Respondents used shotguns to take Emperor Geese. One respondent from Savoonga used to catch flightless Emperor Geese with a dipnet. Respondents used natural features as blinds, or blinds built to hunt seals. Some respondents used or heard of using decoys to hunt Emperor Geese. Two respondents from the Aleutian Islands used dogs to retrieve downed birds (we did not specifically ask about hunting dogs). Some local residents mentioned that hunting Emperor Geese in the Kodiak Archipelago road system required a boat because harvesting is closed within 500 feet of the shoreline in the spring-summer and fall-winter seasons (Federal Register vol. 68, no. 139, page 43010). Diverse methods were used in the past to harvest birds such as bolas, nets, spears, snares, and clubs (Fienup-Riordan 2007, Corbett 2017).

Some Y-K Delta respondents in this study referred to drives for harvesting flightless geese and ducks, but drives seemed uncommon in recent decades. Bird drives were important harvest events in the Y-K Delta until about the 1970s, often involving entire communities with planning, coordination, and camaraderie (Nelson 1899:135, Fienup-Riordan 1994:23, Fienup-Riordan et al. 1996). In late July-August, dozens of men and boys and multiple boats rounded up flightless birds. Drives likely yielded the most bountiful bird harvest, where hundreds to thousands of birds were shared within communities. As a preferred species for bird skin parkas, Emperor Goose was historically sought after in drives (Brandt 1943:92, 279, Klein and Seim 1965:9-10, Fienup-Riordan 1999).

Use as food and materials

Respondents indicated that the Emperor Goose is currently used most for food. Wild foods comprise much of the diet in remote communities in Alaska and are healthier than store-bought, processed foods (Appendix 2-Quote 16). Birds harvested in spring are usually consumed fresh as a welcome change of diet, after eating preserved foods for a long winter. Wild foods are key for the cultural and emotional well-being of Indigenous people (Appendix 2-Quote 17). Traditionally, the arrival of migratory birds alleviated hunger. Modern socioeconomic structures aim at improving food security, but spring bird harvest still has practical, cultural, and emotional value (Schwalenberg et al. 2023).

Whether the Emperor Goose is a preferred food seems to vary between individuals, regions, and times of the year (based on variable physiological states during migration, breeding, and molting). Some respondents explained that the Emperor Goose was and still is a favorite food. Sometimes people save or harvest Emperor Geese for special occasions like Thanksgiving, Christmas, and birthdays. Historically, the Emperor Goose has been a favored bird of the Aleut/Unangam people of the Aleutian Islands (Unger 2014:225). Emperor Geese may not be particularly favored on the Pribilof Islands (Wolfe and Paige 1995, this study).

Respondents reported that they often gutted Emperor Goose soon after harvest to preserve freshness, that it is easier to pluck birds while they are still warm, and that they often skinned birds that had pin feathers. Respondents usually preserved birds in freezers, occasionally by air drying, and less often by salting. Birds may be frozen whole, with or without feathers. Some said the feathers keep frozen birds fresher. In the past, Emperor Goose and other birds were air dried, smoked, salted, packed in snow, and stored in wooden barrels (Unger 2014:57). Traditionally, children helped with plucking and cleaning birds (Veltre and Veltre 1983).

Respondents explained that Emperor Goose was often boiled or made into a soup, but also roasted, fried, browned, and canned. Lightly boiling or roasting was referred to as “half cooked.” Foods are often dipped in seal oil. Few respondents mentioned eating Emperor Goose eggs. One respondent boiled the eggs before freezer storage. Unger (2014) presented recipes for goose roast and soup. Birds’ breast, legs, neck, back, wings, skin, fat, heart, gizzard, and liver are usually consumed whereas the head, feet, intestines, stomach, kidneys, and tongue are sometimes consumed (Veltre and Veltre 1983, Unger 2014, Naves and Fall 2017).

Some respondents mentioned uses that were common in the past such as using a wing as a broom; skins for parkas; and down to stuff bedding, pillows, and clothing (Appendix 2-Quote 18; ADF&G Division of Subsistence Archives). Feathered skins of Emperor Geese were preferred for winter parkas because they are particularly warm (Nelson 1887:31, Brandt 1943:279, Fienup-Riordan 2007:206, 209). Socioeconomic and technological changes led to increased use of store-bought items (Appendix 2-Quote 19). One respondent saved the feathers for artists to use. One Hooper Bay resident mentioned the use of Emperor Goose feathers for people to learn how to make dance fans, while Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus feathers are usually preferred. One respondent used goose wings to train hunting dogs. In the Aleutian Islands, a fatty broth made from Emperor Goose was used to heal a sore throat (Wolfe and Paige 1995).

Other cultural connections

Respondents most often did not recall stories, songs, and other cultural items specifically involving Emperor Goose. A respondent from Saint Lawrence Island remembered fragments of stories and songs about Emperor Goose and two respondents from Akutan knew a song (Appendix 2-Quote 20). However, we were unable to obtain further information. Respondents often mentioned the prohibition of Indigenous languages and masked dances resulting in loss of language, culture, and knowledge. Some respondents explained that such cultural connections may have existed in the past (Appendix 2-Quote 21).

Emperor Goose harvesting related to respondents’ core values such as connection to the land, sharing, and appreciation of elders (Appendix 2-Quote 22). Connection to the land traditionally includes deliberate observation of weather, tides, animal behavior, and ecological processes (Appendix 2-Quote 23).

Sharing Emperor Goose, especially with elders and others who cannot hunt, was an important part of harvesting. Traditional foods are a special treat for elders. Sharing harvested birds is one of the first lessons in hunters’ education. Respondents said that a young hunter’s first goose must be shared with elders or prepared into a meal for sharing with relatives. Some said sharing practices had not changed. One respondent said people may post on Facebook asking to receive wild foods. Another said freezers make it easier to preserve geese and share them later. Some thought sharing has decreased together with decreased geese harvesting.

When asked about traditional rules related to Emperor Goose harvest, most respondents referred to not wasting as a core Indigenous value. Not wasting encompassed harvesting, processing, and consuming wild foods: harvest only what is needed, do not overharvest, only shoot at animals that can be effectively killed and retrieved, retrieve all harvested animals, prevent spoilage by timely processing harvested foods, consume all stored foods, consume all edible parts, do not leave food on the plate, eat all leftovers, and use inedible parts as materials. Respect also determines proper disposition of inedible parts (Appendix 2-Quote 24). All actions to prevent waste demonstrate respect and gratitude for animals’ ultimate offer (Nadasdy 2003:79-94).

Abundance over decades

Respondents often said that, during their lifetime, Emperor Goose numbers increased after a period of low abundance. Some respondents of the Kodiak Archipelago seemed particularly emphatic about higher Emperor Goose numbers. This emphasis is consistent with a recent change in the use of wintering areas by Emperor Goose related to climate change, with a higher proportion of the population now wintering on the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Archipelago, closer to breeding areas in western Alaska (Uher-Koch et al. 2021). Higher spatial concentration of Emperor Goose on the Kodiak Archipelago may lead to a local perception of increased abundance beyond the actual total population growth.

Some respondents indicated that Emperor Goose numbers have not rebounded to previous levels. Some attributed reduced Emperor Goose abundance to human activities including noise pollution due to motorized vehicles. Respondents explained concerns about reduced use of the Bristol Bay region by migrating Emperor Goose and other birds as related to increased commercial fishing for Pacific herring in spring and less food available for birds (Appendix 2-Quote 25). Respondents explained that human activities caused a reduction in the numbers of Emperor Goose that breed and molt on Saint Lawrence Island and displaced birds to less accessible areas (Appendix 2-Quote 26) (Lehman 2019:40).

One respondent related change in birds’ body size with variable population levels (Appendix 2-Quote 27). This observation has parallels in the scientific literature as unfavorable ecological factors can be related to reduced body size (phenotypic variation) and mass within bird populations with implications for fecundity and survival (Cooch et al. 1991).

In a previous study, Yup’ik elders associated fluctuations in goose populations with spring storm surge floods in the Y-K Delta coast, among other factors (Fienup-Riordan 1999). Spring floods of variable amplitude and geographic extension destroy goose nests and scatter eggs, causing breeding failure (Haverkamp et al. 2022, Thompson et al. 2023).

Harvest patterns in recent decades and sustainability

Most respondents thought that Emperor Goose harvest decreased during their lifetime. Several respondents stopped hunting Emperor Goose or harvested fewer during the 1986-2016 harvest closure for this species. In general, people hunt less nowadays because of availability of store-bought foods, changing food preferences, more time spent indoors, and other factors (Appendix 2-Quote 28). The 1918-2002 spring-summer harvest closure for migratory birds impacted subsistence practices related to birds in Alaska (Appendix 2-Quote 29). It is possible that the demise of drives for flightless geese and ducks since about the 1970s affected the amount and timing of bird harvesting specially in the Y-K Delta (Nelson 1899:135, Brandt 1943:92, 279, Klein and Seim 1965:9-10, Fienup-Riordan 1994:23, 1999, Fienup-Riordan et al. 1996).

Respondents mentioned changes in economic activities affecting Emperor Goose harvest. On Saint Lawrence Island, respondents thought that harvest of flightless Emperor Goose (July) is much reduced because fewer geese now use the island, but also because people are busy commercial fishing for Pacific halibut from late June to September. Aleutian Islands’ residents associated reduced Emperor Goose harvest with the closure of some winter fisheries (Appendix 2-Quote 30).

About two-thirds of respondents (68%) thought the current Emperor Goose harvest is sustainable (Fig. 4; question 28 in Appendix 1). Many of the respondents with this opinion (67%) were residents of the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago, and some attributed their opinion to the observation of increasing Emperor Goose numbers.

Perspectives on harvest management

Meanings and goals for management and conservation

Respondents addressed biological research, harvest assessment, values, and harvest management approaches. Respondents recounted traumatic experiences with enforcement of bird harvest regulations. They also referred to challenges for harvest management while recognizing Indigenous sovereignty. Some perceived harvest management as a way to control people. Respondents understood Indigenous participation and IK as essential to build trust and collaboration in harvest management (Appendix 2-Quote 31). Some emphasized the need for communication, so people understand the reasons for restrictive harvest regulations.

One respondent thought harvest management should be conservative because some harvest may not be accounted for (Appendix 2-Quote 32). In fact, the required harvest reporting for the fall-winter Emperor Goose permit has been ineffective to quantify harvest because not all hunters obtain a permit and report their harvest (Naves et al. 2023).

Respondents discussed sustainability of resources and protecting access to wild foods. Not overharvesting and not wasting were again common themes. Some mentioned curtailing harvest during specific times and harvesting more abundant species as conservation measures. Some defined conservation as habitat protection (Appendix 2-Quote 33). Respondents often discussed connections between conservation, knowledge, and culture (Appendix 2-Quote 34).

Some Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago respondents resented restrictive fall-winter harvest regulations. One respondent felt the regulations favored regions where birds occur in spring-summer (Appendix 2-Quote 35).

Harvest during the breeding season

Respondents across regions highlighted the importance of protecting breeding Emperor Goose to support population growth and harvest opportunities. Respondents highly valued eggs as the starting point for goose abundance (Appendix 2-Quote 36). Leaving eggs in the nest also shows empathy and respect for birds as sentient beings (Appendix 2-Quote 37; Fienup-Riordan 1999).

Bird harvesting is traditionally curtailed during nesting and chick rearing. Some comments referred to curtailing harvest in the pre-laying period (Appendix 2-Quote 38). But it was sometimes unclear if respondents perceived pre-laying as part of the breeding season. Emperor Geese often arrive paired in breeding grounds; widowed birds may be unable to re-mate in time for breeding or may incur additional energy costs that prevent them from breeding (Brandt 1943, Petersen 1992).

Some respondents voiced concerns about impacts of spring-summer harvesting on the Emperor Goose population (Appendix 2-Quote 39). However, some respondents clarified they did not intend to interfere with harvest opportunities for other subsistence hunters (Appendix 2-Quote 40).

Rating conservation and harvest management tools

We asked respondents to rate their support or opposition to 14 harvest management tools. Respondents were often unfamiliar with or felt unaffected by harvest regulations for regions other than that of their residence, or they did not want to interfere with harvest opportunities in other regions. In all regions, respondents supported protecting breeding and wintering habitats, outreach and education, and predator control (Fig. 5). But respondents were unsure about how to further protect habitat in Alaska. Some respondents who did not oppose predator control pondered the risks of directly managing animal populations and recognized the ecological role of predators.

Allowing only harvest for elders and ceremonial use had relatively high rating in all regions (Appendix 2-Quote 41). However, some respondents were unsure about how such regulations would be implemented. Some elders felt Emperor Goose harvesting should be for everyone. Respondents were uncertain about ceremonial uses involving Emperor Goose. Closing egg harvest also had strong support, especially by residents of regions within the Emperor Goose core breeding areas.

Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago residents indicated higher support for some actions aiming at reducing spring-summer harvest than residents from other regions (extend 30-day closure, establish harvest quota, reduce season length). Some actions aiming at reducing fall-winter harvest were rated lower by residents from the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago than by residents from the other regions (reduce harvest quota, reduce season length).

Increase law enforcement, introduce a drawing permit, and close all harvest had the lowest ratings. Some who supported law enforcement referred to the loss of Indigenous knowledge about harvest restraint (Appendix 2-Quote 42). Some respondents were concerned that restrictive regulations and law enforcement are additional barriers to accessing wild foods, traditional lands, and knowledge gathered from the land. Some respondents who supported restrictive measures highlighted the need for users’ participation in management (Appendix 2-Quote 43).

Respondents welcomed further exchanges between users, biologists, and managers including information about Emperor Goose ecology, behavior, and population dynamics. Some stressed a need for educating youth about harvesting and advocated for this information in schools. Others thought communication must include harvesters, tribal councils, and the broader community. One respondent suggested that messages must be positive and constructive (Appendix 2-Quote 44).

DISCUSSION

Geese ethnotaxonomy

Language and ethnotaxonomy are gateways into IK, cognitive systems, and worldviews (Nadasdy 2003:5-6). Ethnotaxonomy and IK studies help to develop a common vocabulary for subsistence users, researchers, and managers to work together. Collaborative efforts to preserve Indigenous languages also help mending relations and building trust.

This study improved the understanding of geese ethnotaxonomy in diverse Alaska Native languages and illustrated various levels of language shift across regions (Krupnik 2017). We also portrayed how ethnotaxonomic research requires a broad approach beyond a single focal species because ethnotaxonomic categories may be nested, names may apply to multiple species, and categorization often differs between local ethnotaxonomies and genetics-based, scientific taxonomy. Nevertheless, this study potentially under-represented respondents’ ability to identify geese species due to communication challenges (poor phone connection, hearing impairments, and limited non-verbal communication) and a disconnect between the ability to quickly name species in an interview and the ability to apply such knowledge in a more natural setting of daily life (Diamond and Bishop 1999, Godoy et al. 2005).

Documentation of geese ethnotaxonomy is possibly more complete for the Yup’ik language, which is better preserved than other Alaska Native languages due to a relatively late contact of Yup’ik people with Euro-American cultures (Langdon 2014). Additionally, geese are particularly conspicuous in the Yup’ik homeland and culture. The Y-K Delta provides key nesting and migration habitat for geese at the continental scale (Saalfeld et al. 2017). Geese harvest in the Y-K Delta represent the highest contribution of birds to the subsistence diet across Alaska regions (Fall 2016, Naves and Schamber 2024).

Emperor Goose ecology across its range and Indigenous homelands

This study highlighted the value of integrating Indigenous and scientific knowledge across the entire range and annual cycle of migratory species. Western Alaska residents were most familiar with Emperor Goose breeding ecology, while Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago residents were mostly familiar with Emperor Goose wintering ecology. Respondents voiced a desire to know about the lives of geese beyond their respective homelands. Experiential IK of individual cultural groups reflects a defined seasonal and spatial coexistence with the animals that occur within their homelands (Lopez 1986:130, Naves et al. 2019). Knowledge combined across homelands and cultural groups generally aligned with scientific knowledge and further described habitat use by Emperor Goose.

Emperor Goose ecology in Alaska is relatively well documented in scientific literature (Rockwell et al. 1996, Hupp et al. 2007, 2008, Schmutz et al. 2020, Uher-Koch et al. 2021, Lewis et al. 2021, Thompson et al. 2023). Emperor Goose is a conspicuous species, has a relatively limited range, and has been a research focus in Alaska for decades due to conservation concerns. Like IK, the scientific research often is locally based. However, dedicated efforts in scientific research have built upon individual pieces and new technologies (satellite imagery, telemetry, and statistical modeling) have allowed researchers to address vast geographic areas. In contrast, integrating IK across Indigenous homelands and cultures seems less common (Gagnon et al. 2020).

The scientific literature is often inaccessible and poorly known to the broader public and even relevant audiences, such as Emperor Goose subsistence users in Alaska. Dedicated communication and outreach efforts strive to compile, simplify, and improve access to scientific information (Davenport and Zeller 2020). In contrast, IK is originally built with local participation, includes local values, is shared by trusted messengers, and readily accessible to local communities. Indigenous knowledge includes relational, emotional, and spiritual connections with nature which are virtually absent in scientific knowledge, such as recognition of animals as sentient beings (Nadasdy 2003). Such dynamics related to trust play a role on how diverse stakeholders engage with IK and scientific knowledge in the context of Emperor Goose harvest management.

Harvest management

Indigenous people desire to participate in harvest management (Jack 2002, this study). This study provided additional opportunity to listen to Indigenous users while Emperor Goose management is being evaluated (AMBCC 2016, PFC 2016). We included knowledgeable individuals who usually do not directly interact with the harvest management bodies for migratory birds. This study also facilitated communication with researchers and managers during the planning and review phases.

Respondents portrayed Emperor Goose as an important resource, although not a main food item or cultural focus. Emperor Goose belonged to a wide diversity of animals and plants seasonally harvested for food and other uses. Resources harvested in relatively small amounts support food security and add diversity to the diet (Hill 2018). Historically, animals provided indispensable materials (e.g., Emperor Goose skin parkas). Access to diverse resources is important to maintain IK and languages (Nadasdy 2003).

Diverse social-ecological contexts make it challenging for Indigenous users to have a unified voice in Emperor Goose harvest management and conservation. Nevertheless, the need for a unified voice is formalized within the decision-making structure of the AMBCC where the Native Caucus collectively has one vote (state and federal partners also have one vote each). Historically, a unified voice and consensus-based decision-making have been key for Indigenous people to negotiate with outside influences about topics critical for their well-being such as land claims, access to health care and education, and harvest management (Alaska Federation of Natives 2025). In this study, individual interviews likely helped to moderate group and cultural dynamics that may discourage free speech on sensitive topics (Fienup-Riordan 1999). Accounting for diverse perspectives among subsistence users helps to develop harvest management approaches that are broadly acceptable and meaningful for local people.

Egg harvest closure was the only action directly aimed at limiting Emperor Goose harvest that was broadly supported by subsistence users (Fig. 5). In contrast, partners whose perspectives largely derive from scientific knowledge have shown little enthusiasm for this action (Mengak et al. 2022). Biological research has indicated that egg survival and breeding success (as demographic factors) have a lower impact on geese populations than adult mortality (Schmutz et al. 1997, Koons et al. 2014, Hilde et al. 2020). The high importance that subsistence users attribute to eggs as the starting point of new generations of geese reflects traditional worldviews, perhaps including observation over generations of impacts of spring flooding on breeding geese (Fienup-Riordan 1999). Indirect biological and cultural processes may enhance the efficacy of egg harvest closure as a conservation action. Egg harvest opportunity may increase chances that adults are simultaneously taken. Flushing incubating birds and egg harvesting (even if not the entire clutch) lead to reduced nest survival (Thompson et al. 2023). The limited information available suggests that Emperor Geese do not commonly lay additional eggs to replace those lost during the laying period or after incubation has started (Schmutz et al. 2020). Egg harvest closure conveys a need for overall restraint and aligns with Yup’ik traditional moral based on responsible individual decision-making (Fienup-Riordan 1999). Sorting out the efficacy of egg harvest closure as a conservation action in a timely manner may be impractical. For example, inter-species nest parasitism complicates an evaluation of the production of replacement eggs by Emperor Goose (Petersen 1992). In the short term, in respect for Indigenous perspectives, egg harvest closures should not be dismissed, but considered together with additional conservation actions as need based on the status of the Emperor Goose population.

It may be unclear for some partners how Indigenous traditional harvest management currently operates to prevent overharvest. In interviews in this study, themes related to Indigenous traditional harvest management included not overharvesting, self-restraint, not wasting, times to curtail harvest, and ensuring harvest opportunities for future generations (Fienup-Riordan 1999, Jack 2002). For non-Indigenous managers, such concepts lack quantifiable measures relative to indices of Emperor Goose abundance. Local availability of Emperor Goose—information used by subsistence hunters to prevent overharvest—may not reflect population level trends because birds concentrate in some locations and their habitat use changes over time. Some traditional Indigenous worldviews sometimes still voiced in management meetings (e.g., the more taken, the more will return; Fienup-Riordan 1999) seem irreconcilable with science-based harvest management and global impacts of human activities on wildlife in the modern world, including large-scale habitat loss and changes to climate and ecosystems. Future dedicated research and documentation of Indigenous traditional harvest management can support values-based harvest management for migratory birds and Emperor Goose (Peloquin and Berkes 2009).

LITERATURE CITED

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish & Game). 2017. Customary and traditional use worksheet: Migratory game birds, featuring Emperor Geese. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Special Publication No. BOG 2017-01.

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish & Game). 2025a. Alaska Board of Game. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish & Game). 2025b. Alaska waterfowl hunting regulations summary.https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=waterfowlhunting.resources

Alaska Federation of Natives. 2013. Alaska Federation of Natives guidelines for research. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. University of Alaska Fairbanks. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IKS/afnguide.html

Alaska Federation of Natives. 2025. Alaska Federation of Natives history. https://nativefederation.org/history/

Ainsworth, G. B., S. M. Redpath, M. Wilson, C. Wernham, and J. C. Young. 2020. Integrating scientific and local knowledge to address conservation conflicts: Towards a practical framework based on lessons learned from a Scottish case study. Environmental Science & Policy 107:46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.017

AMBCC (Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council). 2016. Management plan for the Emperor Goose. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. https://www.alaskamigratorybirds.com/images/regulations/management/AMBCC_Emperor_Goose_Management_Plan_Sept2016.pdf

Badten (Aghnaghaghpik) L. W., V. O. Kaneshiro (Uqiitlek), M. Oovi (Uvegtu), C. Koonooka (Petuwaq), and S. A. Jacobson. 2008. St. Lawrence Island Siberian Yupik Eskimo dictionary. Alaska Native Language Center. University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA.

Ballanger, J. S. 2004. Emperor Goose traditional ecological knowledge pilot study, summer 2003. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Berkes, F. 2018. Sacred Ecology. 4^th Edition. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Bishop, M. A., and S. P. Green. 2001. Predation on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) spawn by birds in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fisheries Oceanography 10(S1):149-158. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1054-6006.2001.00038.x

Blanchard, K. A. 1994. Culture and seabird conservation: The north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Pages 294-310 in D. N. Nettleship, J. Burger, and M. Gochfeld, editors. Seabirds on islands: Threats, case studies, and action plans. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Bond, J. C., and D. Esler. 2006. Nutrient acquisition by female Harlequin Ducks prior to spring migration and reproduction: Evidence for body mass optimization. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84(9):1223-1229. https://doi.org/10.1139/z06-111

Brandt, H. 1943. Alaska bird trails: Adventures of an expedition by dog sled to the delta of the Yukon River at Hooper Bay. The Bird Research Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

BurnSilver, S., J. Magdanz, R. Stotts, M. Berman, and G. Kofinas. 2016. Are mixed economies persistent or transitional? Evidence using social networks from Arctic Alaska. American Anthropologist 118(1):121-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12447

Copp, J. D., and G. M. Roy. 1986. Results of the 1985 survey of waterfowl hunting on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7. Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Cooch, E. G., D. B. Lank, R. F. Rockwell, and F. Cooke. 1991. Long-term decline in body size in a Snow Goose population: Evidence of environmental degradation? Journal of Animal Ecology 60(2):483-496. https://doi.org/10.2307/5293

Corbett, D. 2017. Saĝdaĝ—To catch birds. Arctic Anthropology 53(2):93-113. https://doi.org/10.3368/aa.53.2.93

Davenport, E., and T. Zeller. 2020. Emperor goose outreach and education campaign. Division of Migratory Bird Management and International Data Systems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region. Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Diamond. J., and K. D. Bishop. 1999. Ethno-ornithology of the Ketengban people, Indonesian New Guinea. Pages 17-45 in D. L. Medin, and A. Atran, editors. Folkbiology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3042.003.0003

Dooley, J., E. Osnas, and G. Zimmerman. 2016. Analyses of Emperor Goose survey data and harvest potential. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region. Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Drew, J. A., and A. P. Henne. 2006. Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: Integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice. Ecology and Society 11(2):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01959-110234

Fall, J. A. 2016. Regional patterns of fish and wildlife harvests in contemporary Alaska. Arctic 69(1):47-64. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4547

Fay, F. H., and T. J. Cade. 1959. An ecological analysis of the avifauna of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. University of California Press Publications in Zoology 63(2):73-150.

Fienup-Riordan, A. 1994. Boundaries and passages: Rule and ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo oral tradition. The Civilization of the American Indian Series Volume 212. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Fienup-Riordan, A. 1999. Yaqulget qaillun pilartat (What the birds do): Yup’ik Eskimo understanding of geese and those who study them. Arctic 52(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic905

Fienup-Riordan, A. 2007. Yuungnaqpiallerput, The way we genuinely live: Masterworks of Yup’ik science and survival. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Fienup-Riordan, A., V. Kaganak, and W. Chayalkun. 1996. Yaqulget qaillun pilartat munaseng ulerpagaaqan, What the birds do when their places are flooded: Yup’ik knowledge of storm surges and goose ecology. Association of Village Council Presidents, Natural Resources Department, Bethel, Alaska, USA.

Fortescue, M., S. A. Jacobson, and L. Kaplan. 2010. Comparative Eskimo dictionary with Aleut cognates. 2^nd Edition. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

Gagnon, C. A., S. Hamel, D. E. Russell, T. Powell, J. Andre, M. Y. Svoboda, and D. Berteaux. 2020. Merging Indigenous and scientific knowledge links climate with the growth of a large migratory caribou population. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(9):1644-1655. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13558

Georgette, S. 2000. Subsistence use of birds in the Northwest Arctic region, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 260.

Georgette, S., and S. Iknokinok. 1997. St. Lawrence Island Migratory Bird Harvest Study, 1996. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage and Kawerak Inc., Nome, Alaska, USA.

Gibson D. D., and G. V. Byrd. 2007. Birds of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Series in Ornithology No. 1. The Nuttall Ornithological Club and The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Godoy, R., V. Reyes-García, E. Byron, W. R. Leonard, and V. Vadez. 2005. The effect of market economies on the well-being of Indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:121-138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120412

Haverkamp, P. J., I. Bysykatova-Harmey, N. Germogenov, and G. Schaepman-Strub. 2022. Increasing Arctic tundra flooding threatens wildlife habitat and survival: Impacts on the critically endangered Siberian Crane (Grus leucogeranus). Frontiers in Conservation Science 3:799998. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.799998

Hilde, C. H., M. Gamelon, B. E. Sæther, J. M. Gaillard, N. G. Yoccoz, and C. Pélabon. 2020. The demographic buffering hypothesis: Evidence and challenges. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35(6):523-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.02.004

Hill, E. 2018. Humans, birds and burial practices at Ipiutak, Alaska: Perspectivism in the Western Arctic. Environmental Archaeology 24(4):434-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2018.1460031

Hupp, J. W., J. A. Schmutz, C. R. Ely, E. E. Syroechkovskiy Jr., A. V. Kondratyev, W. D. Eldridge, and E. Lappo. 2007. Moult migration of Emperor Geese Chen canagica between Alaska and Russia. Journal of Avian Biology 38(4):462-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2007.03969.x

Hupp, J. W., J. A. Schmutz, and C. R. Ely. 2008. The annual migration cycle of Emperor Geese in western Alaska. Arctic 61(1):23-34. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4

Jack, C. T. 2002. Canenermiut lifeways and worldview and western fish and wildlife management. Master Thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

Jacobson, S. A. 2012. Yup’ik Eskimo dictionary. 2^nd Edition. Alaska Native Language Center. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

Klein, D. R., and D. E. Seim. 1965. Availability and utilization of migratory waterfowl in western Alaska. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland. Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region. Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Koons, D. N., G. Gunnarsson, J. A. Schmutz, and J. J. Rotella. 2014. Drivers of waterfowl population dynamics: From teal to swans. Wildfowl Journal 4:169-191.

Krupnik, I. 2017. Siberian Yupik names for birds: What can bird names tell us about language and knowledge transitions? Etudes Inuit Studies 41(1-2):179-213. https://doi.org/10.7202/1061438ar

LaDuke, W. 1994. Traditional ecological knowledge and environmental futures. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 5(1):127-148.

Langdon, S. J. 2014. The Native people of Alaska: Traditional living in a northern land. 5^th Edition. Greatland Graphics, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Lehman, P. E. 2019. The birds of Gambell and St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Studies of Western Birds No. 4. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, USA.

Lewis, T. L., D. Esler, and W. S. Boyd. 2007. Foraging behaviors of Surf Scoters and White-winged Scoters during spawning of Pacific herring. Condor 109(1):216-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/109.1.216

Lewis, T. L., T. J. Dimarzio, and J. L. Schamber. 2021. Distribution and population size of Emperor Geese during the breeding season on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Arctic 74(1):12-21. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic72055

Lyver, P. O. B., C. J. Jones, N. Belshaw, A. Anderson, R. Thompson, and J. Davis. 2015. Insights to the functional relationships of Mâori harvest practices: Customary use of a burrowing seabird. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(6):969-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.906

Lopez, B. H. 1986. Arctic dreams: Imagination and desire in a northern landscape. Random House Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Mengak, L. F., L. C. Naves, and J. L. Schamber. 2022. Survival estimates and hunter outreach are priorities for the collaborative harvest management of emperor goose in Alaska. Ornithological Applications 124(4):duac036. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duac036

Moerlein, K. J., and C. Carothers. 2012. Total environment of change: impacts of climate change and social transitions on subsistence fisheries in northwest Alaska. Ecology and Society 17(1):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04543-170110

Nadasdy, P. 2003. Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774851886

National Science Foundation. 2018. Principles for conducting research in the Arctic. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/conduct.jsp

Naves, L. C., J. M. Keating, T. L. Tibbitts, and D. R. Ruthrauff. 2019. Shorebird subsistence harvest and Indigenous knowledge in Alaska: Informing harvest management and engaging users in shorebird conservation. Condor: Ornithological Applications 121(2):duz023. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duz023

Naves, L. C., A. J. Knight, and L. F. Mengak. 2021. Alaska subsistence harvest of birds and eggs, 2004-2020 data book, Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Special Publication No. 2021-05.

Naves, L. C., J. L. Schamber, L. F. Mengak, J. M. Keating, and J. A. Fall. 2023. Emperor Goose fall-winter harvest monitoring and hunter’s perspectives in Alaska. Conservation Science and Practice 5(6):e12928. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12928

Naves, L. C., L. F. Mengak, and J. A. Fall. 2024. Indigenous knowledge and perspectives of subsistence users about Emperor Goose in Alaska. Draft Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Naves L. C., and J. A. Fall. 2017. Calculating food production in the subsistence harvest of birds and eggs. Arctic 70(1):86-100. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4630

Naves, L. C., and L. F. Mengak. 2023. Bird and egg harvest on the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and the Kodiak Archipelago, 2020. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 493.

Naves, L. C., and J. L. Schamber. 2024. Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska: Geographic and seasonal patterns. Plos One 19(7):e0307135. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135

Nelson, E. W. 1887. Report upon natural history collections made in Alaska between the years 1877 and 1881. U.S. Signal Service, Arctic Series no. 3, part 1. Birds of Alaska. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.53909

Nelson, E. W. 1899. The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report for 1896-1897. Volume 18, Part I. Pp. 1-518. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.

Norström, A. V., C. Cvitanovic, M. F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A. T. Bednarek, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B. M. Campbell, J. G. Canadell, S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E. A. Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich, J.-B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. Le Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder, M.-F. Loutre, A. M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G. D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes, C. I. Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van Putten, and H. Österblom. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3:182-190 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Norton-Smith, K., K. Lynn, K. Chief, K. Cozzetto, J. Donatuto, M. H. Redsteer, L. E. Kruger, J. Maldonado, C. Viles, and K. P. Whyte. 2016. Climate change and Indigenous peoples: A synthesis of current impacts and experiences. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-944. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA. https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-944

Orth, D. J. 1971. Dictionary of Alaska place names. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 567. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp567

Otis, D., T. L. George, and P. Doherty. 2016. Comparison of alternative designs for the Alaska migratory bird subsistence harvest survey. Colorado State University, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Paige, A. W., C. L. Scott, D. B. Andersen, S. Georgette, and R. J. Wolfe. 1996. Subsistence use of birds in the Bering Strait region, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 239.

Peloquin, C., and F. Berkes. 2009. Local knowledge, subsistence harvests, and social-ecological complexity in James Bay. Human Ecology 37:533-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9255-0

Petersen, M. R. 1992. Reproductive ecology of Emperor Geese: Annual and individual variation in nesting. Condor 94(2):383-397. https://doi.org/10.2307/1369211

PFC (Pacific Flyway Council). 2006. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Emperor Goose. Emperor Goose Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study Committee, care of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.

PFC. 2016. Management plan for the Emperor Goose. Pacific Flyway Council, care of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Vancouver, Washington, USA.

Redpath, S. M., J. Young, A. Evely, W. M. Adams, W. J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, R. A. Lambert, J. D. C. Linnell, A. Watt, and R. J. Gutierrez. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(2):100-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021

Rockwell, R. F., M. R. Petersen, and J. A. Schmutz. 1996. The Emperor Goose: An annotated bibliography. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska No. 25.

Russell, P. N., and G. C. West. 2003. Bird traditions of the Lime Village Area Dena’ina: Upper Stony River ethno-ornithology. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. Center for Cross-Cultural Studies. University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA.

Saalfeld, S. T., J. B. Fischer, R. A. Stehn, R. M. Platte, and S. C. Brown. 2017. Predicting waterbird nest distributions on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 81(8):1468-1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21322

Schmutz, J. A., R. F. Rockwell, and M. R. Petersen. 1997. Relative effects of survival and reproduction on the population dynamics of Emperor Geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(1):191-201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802428

Schmutz, J. A., M. R. Petersen, and R. F. Rockwell. 2020. Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus), version 1.0. In A. F. Poole, editor. Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.empgoo.01

Schwalenberg, P. K., L. C. Naves, L. F. Mengak, J. A. Fall, T. C. Rothe, T. Sformo, J. J. Fischer, and D. E. Safine. 2023. Co-management in Alaska: A partnership among Indigenous, state, and federal entities for the subsistence harvest of migratory birds. Pages 206-227 in Hoagland, S. J., and Albert S., editors. Wildlife stewardship on tribal lands: Our place is in our soul. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Simeone W. E., and J. Kari. 2002. Traditional knowledge and fishing practices of the Ahtna of the Copper River, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 270.

Syroechkovski Jr. E., and K. B. Klokov. 2007. Waterfowl subsistence harvest survey in Yakutia and Chukotka, 2004. Goose, Swan and Duck Study Group of Northern Eurasia. Moscow, Russia.

Thompson, J. M., B. D. Uher-Koch, B. L. Daniels, J. A. Schmutz, and B. S. Sedinger. 2023. Nest traits and major flooding events influence nest survival of Emperor Geese while regional environmental variation linked to climate does not. Ornithological Applications 125(2):duad008. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duad008

Uher-Koch, B. D., R. M. Buchheit, C. R. Eldermire, H. M. Wilson, and J. A. Schmutz. 2021. Shifts in the wintering distribution and abundance of Emperor Geese in Alaska. Global Ecology and Conservation 25:e01397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01397

Unger, S. 2014. Qaqamiiĝux̂: Traditional foods and recipes from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1980. Subsistence hunting of migratory birds in Alaska and Canada. Final Environmental Assessment for the 1979 Protocol Amendment for the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States of America.

USFWS. 2024. Waterfowl population status, 2024. Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 2025a. Code of federal regulations. Title 50: Wildlife and fisheries; Part 92: Migratory bird subsistence harvest in Alaska. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-92#92.22

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 2025b. Code of federal regulations. Title 50: Wildlife and fisheries; Part 20: Migratory bird hunting. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-20

Veltre, D. W., and M. J. Veltre. 1983. Resource utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 88.

Wentworth, C. 2007a. Subsistence migratory bird harvest survey Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta 2001-2005 with 1985-2005 species tables. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Birds and State Programs in cooperation with Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Wentworth, C. 2007b. Subsistence migratory bird harvest survey Bristol Bay 2001-2005 with 1995-2005 species tables. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Wheeler, P., and T. Thornton. 2005. Subsistence research in Alaska: A thirty-year retrospective. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3(1):69-103.

Wolfe, R. J., and A. W. Paige. 1995. The subsistence harvest of Black Brant, Emperor Geese, and eider ducks in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 234.

Yupiktak Bista Inc. 1974. Does one way of life have to die so another can live? A report on subsistence and the conservation of the Yupik lifestyle.