Research

INTRODUCTION

 

Positionality statement

Throughout this work, I have received many gifts in the form of stories and memories (Kimmerer 2013). I find myself with the honor of being their temporary caretaker. As such, I would like to extend protection to them (in reference to Apsáalooke Women and Warriors exhibit; Field Museum et al. 2023). Not only to protect them from those who might hear/read them, but also from my future self; may the holder of these gifts never betray the trust these gifts were presented in.

Background and motivation

Fisheries are classic examples of social-ecological systems (SESs), where ecological processes and human well-being are deeply interlinked and co-dependent (Chapin et al. 2009, Ostrom 2009). Increasingly, ecological change, such as warming waters, changing food webs, and declining abundance, is recognized as a central force that both affects and is affected by human decisions (Royce 1985, Hilborn and Walters 1992, Chapin et al. 2009). Sustainability, a core goal of SES governance, requires sustaining not only the natural capital of fish stocks and functioning ecosystems, but also human and social capital, including community capacity, cultural continuity, and decision-making institutions (Chapin et al. 2009).

Alaska’s salmon systems offer a critical example of such complex social-ecological interdependence. Management of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), hereafter referred to as salmon, has shifted through the centuries. Indigenous people of the Yukon River have been connected with salmon for at least 11,500 years (Halffman et al. 2015), but were displaced from stewardship roles following Russian and other European contact in the 1700s, with colonization, boarding schools, and attempts at forced assimilation. In 1960, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) was established to oversee fisheries management (ADF&G [date unknown]a).^[1] Since time immemorial, salmon have underpinned Alaska Natives’ food security and cultural identity (ICC-Alaska 2015, Moncrieff 2017, ICC-Alaska 2019, Voinot-Baron 2020, ICC 2021), while, more recently, supporting Alaska’s commercial and recreational fisheries (McKinley Research 2022). However, after centuries of sustainable Indigenous management, salmon populations, especially Chinook (O. tshawytscha) in the Yukon River, are experiencing multidecadal population decline. Researchers have identified mounting pressures from climate-driven changes in oceans (Cunningham et al. 2018, Crozier et al. 2021, NOAA, 2022, Siddon et al. 2022), riverine conditions (Von Biela 2020, 2022), and harvest stressors (Lamborn et al. 2025, Ianelli and Stram 2015) spanning jurisdictions and ecosystems. These pressures challenge the ability of current governance systems to meet the needs of ecological and social sustainability.

As the lead authority over salmon fisheries in the state today,^[2] ADF&G is tasked with navigating these tensions through seasonal access decisions, directed by scientific indicators and institutional mandates. ADF&G determines when, where, and how salmon can be harvested across three primary user groups, subsistence, commercial, and recreational, and in the Yukon River region, three salmon species (Chinook, fall and summer Chum, and Coho). These decisions are guided by constitutional and statutory obligations to uphold equal access (Alaska State Constitution 1959), protect “subsistence preference” (Subsistence Use and Allocation Statute 1986), and base management on the “best available scientific information” (Sustainable Salmon Management Policy 2000), while remining responsive to community input (Advisory Committees Statute 1959).

Yukon River salmon spawn only once in their natal streams, maturing in the Berring Sea and perishing after migration and reproduction (ADF&G [date unknown]b). Thus, inland harvest directly reduces reproduction. Every three years, ADF&G sets escapement goals (EGs), which are biological spawning targets intended to maintain reproductive sustainability (Carroll 2005). At the end of every year, ADF&G calculates escapement estimates (EEs), a measure of the actual spawners that season. It uses these estimates to make access decisions for the next year. These decisions are intended to bring harvest expectations in line with the EGs, and those decisions are updated as cumulative EE data becomes available in-season. These technical benchmarks are central to how ecological sustainability is defined and assessed.

However, there are no such requirements for social indicators of sustainability other than economic indicators (Charles 2011, Donkersloot et al. 2020). There are also increasing questions about how responsive the ecological or economic tools that guide these decisions are to socio-cultural dimensions, such as Indigenous rights (Charles 2011, Capistrano and Charles 2012), well-being (Donkersloot et al. 2020), and local knowledge (Carothers et al. 2021). The prolonged declines have prompted mounting restrictions on harvests, excluding commercial users since 2008 and subsistence users since 2019 (JTC 2023), culminating in a moratorium on all fishing until at least 2030 (Vick 2024). Discontent on the status of salmon abounds in the region’s news outlets (Wilcox 2021). However, to the best of our knowledge, there is little analysis in the scientific literature of the relationship between social and ecological sustainability indicators.

In this paper we characterize ADF&G’s implementation of policies intended to promote both ecological and social sustainability against benchmarks derived from our interpretations of policy. Our multimethod research investigates the ability of formal policies and their implementation to deliver on sustainability goals. We offer a layered evaluation: first, whether agencies charged with promoting sustainability are acting in accordance with their legislative mandates; second, whether that adherence yields the intended ecological and social outcomes; and finally, what changes in the policies or their implementation can achieve meaningful improvements in sustainability and equity. Although focused on Yukon River salmon fisheries, these methods can be applied to any SES governance striving toward “sustainability.”

Our policy analysis asks how the focal agency (ADF&G) uses the best available information in making access decisions, implementing its formal policies. We focus on pre-season and early-season decisions because they set harvest expectations and preparations for users. We create an ecological sustainability indictor, EE_norm that allows us to compare access decisions over time and across species and user groups, in terms of their consistency and effectiveness in sustaining salmon populations. We also examine how well access decisions reflect the legally mandated “subsistence preference” (for traditional users). Coupling this indicator with social sustainability measures derived from interviews with Indigenous experts afforded us an at once quantitative and culturally grounded picture of system efficacy.

METHODS

Policy analyses relied on the same novel dataset. These datasets combine public records of stock status information with access determinations across years, locations, species, and users.

Social sustainability measures relied on interview transcripts earned by observing Indigenous relational methodologies for trust building and “drinking tea” (Castleden 2012, Mbah et al. 2024). These methods outline ethical engagement with traditional users and tribal organizations, shaping before, during, and after conduct. The study protocol was approved by Carnegie Mellon University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB00000603), tribal organizations (Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Associations, Tanana Chiefs Council, Tamamta program at University of Alaska Fairbanks), and tribal councils and administrations (Minto, Nenena, and Manley Hot Springs). At the time of writing, projects were still ongoing (see Appendix 3 for more details).

Data collection

Stock status data (location, species, EE, and EG) and access decisions for 2003–2022, for all user groups were compiled from official records (see Appendix 1 for more information on data sources). We dropped records with no EG and observations with no EE (13% total observations).

For all users, we recorded only the first access decision for a year. From interviews and discussions with tribal liaisons (see Appendix 3 for more details), we understand that fish camps^[3] are an arduous process. Preparation for fish camps starts months before the salmon run (#17, 85). As revealed in our interviews, it is difficult for traditional users to respond to decisions that can change weekly in-season, which might leave them without needed equipment (#17, 73, 85).

Merging the stock status and access decision records produced a consolidated dataset, with yearly records of stock status, by species, location, and annual EE and EG, with corresponding access decision (allow, restrict, close) for each user group (subsistence, commercial, recreational).

Ecological sustainability

For ecological policy implementation, we examined consistency in the use of the best available information guiding pre- and start- season access decisions. We constructed a normalized measure of the discrepancy between stated policies (EG) and realized outcomes (EE; Eqn. 1). This measure used the lower bound of the stated policy to highlight the threshold below which sustainability was considered threatened. Normalizing allowed comparison of stock abundance across species (see Appendix 1). The measure is termed EE_norm.

(1)

In Eqn. 1, EE_norm,t is the stock status information guiding access decisions in year t, EG_Lower,t–1 is the lower bound of the policy goal in year t–1, EE_t–1 is the realized outcome of spawned salmon in year t–1.

We use observations of the prior year’s stock status, EE, as a proxy for the information available to inform management decisions for the subsequent year. Drainage-wide pre-season outlook ranges for Canada-origin salmon exist. However, they are limited (3 of 18 areas) and exclude many U.S.-origin stocks. In practice, ADF&G uses historical EEs as a “valid proxy” for EG calculations, supplanting age-structure data (Liller and Savereide 2023:4, Clark et al. 2017). The U.S.-Canada research authority, the Yukon River Panel, recently incorporated a lag-1 model into their suite of forecasting tools, concluding that it performs comparably to more data-intensive models because of “autocorrelation in the time series” and persistently low returns (JTC 2025:40). Given agency precedence, we chose one-year lagged data as a proxy for pre-season abundance.^[4]

For EE_norm, a positive or zero value indicates that an EE fell within an EG range for the previous year, and that subsequent harvest expectations will likely be met; a negative EE_norm indicates that EE fell below an EG target range, and future harvest expectations should be reduced. Regulating access in response to EE_norm should theoretically ensure a sustainable fishery in the same way using forecast data would.

We performed pairwise t-tests (Tukey Method) comparing EE_norm values for the three possible access decisions. Analyses were conducted across seven datasets: the entire dataset and datasets by species (Chinook, Chum, Coho) and users (subsistence, recreational, commercial), respectively. We performed Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Test using the stat package in R (R Core Development Team 2023).

This R package is robust to different sample sizes and holds tests at a family-wise error rate of 5%. However, because this study conducted seven sets of tests, analyses create a 30% probability of a type I error (Greenwood and Banner 2015, Ranganathan et al. 2016). For that reason, only differences significant at 0.01 level are discussed.

Social sustainability

Policy measures

One measure of social sustainability focuses on adherence to subsistence preference. Alaskan legislation requires ADF&G to provide a “reasonable opportunity” for subsistence uses first, before providing for other uses (Subsistence Use and Allocation of Fish and Game Statute 1986). Using the same dataset for ecological sustainability measures, we examined how well that principle has been followed in ADF&G decisions.

Our analysis asked, simply, whether decisions were more, equally, or less restrictive for subsistence users than for commercial and recreational users. For each year, for each species and location pair, we compared the access decisions between users. Quantifying instances when commercial and recreational users had more, less, or equal access than subsistence users. Cases where both user groups were “allowed” access, provide no test of access preference without considering magnitude, not done here.^[5]

Semi-structured Interviews

Social sustainability measures used by ADF&G are limited and do not capture the complexities of society for traditional users (Donkersloot et al. 2020). To overcome this, we relied on Indigenous relational methodologies to guide research ethics. Culminating in nine semi-structured interviews with traditional knowledge holders, occurring in July 2023 in Manley Hot Springs, Minto, Nenana, and Fairbanks. Interviews were 1–2 hours and were compensated $45 with an additional $35 for subsequent feedback sessions. Interviews and ethics were approved by CMU’s IRB (IRB00000603).

These interviews adapted methods of expert elicitation (Morgan et al. 2002, Morgan 2014). Traditional users are subsistence users who are knowledgeable about traditional practices and customs regarding salmon. Interviews asked traditional users to reflect on their perspectives regarding fisheries, access decisions, and the formal and informal policies guiding them (see Appendix 4: Interview Protocol). This study used respondent-driven (snowball) sampling, whereby participants recommend additional participants for recruitment, in addition to recommendations from tribal organizations, seeking diverse perspectives in each community (Heckathorn 1997). Interviews were conducted until saturation. Saturation is reached when successive interviews yield few (or no) additional concepts (Romney et al. 1986).

Qualitative analysis identified common and emerging themes in the interview transcripts. We include illustrative quotes relevant to policy recommendations. Quotes were selected using the core theoretical root terms: manag- (N = 52), restrict- (N = 30), clos- (N = 45), allow- (N = 24), regul- (N = 68), and access- (N = 1). The conceptual unit surrounding the terms were compiled and selected for relevance in describing the perspectives and experiences of traditional users. Participants were consulted to ensure the selected quotes and themes aligned with their perspectives, with revisions made as needed.

RESULTS

Ecological sustainability

The boxplot in Figure 1 displays mean EE_norm (ĒĒ_norm) values for each access decision for the full dataset, by user group, and by species (Appendix 2). For the full dataset, all decisions were associated with a mean positive (and median) EE_norm value, indicating, on average, that EE exceeded EG, with a few record Chum runs (EE_norm > 6) skewing means. Across decisions ĒĒ_norm appears similar for close and restrict, while appearing greater for allow.

Figure 2 shows trends in EE_norm through time. We see a tendency for EE_norm to approach zero throughout the time series for all species. We also note a tendency to reduce access to Chinook for all users, with blips of access reductions to all users for Chum and Coho. Chum access reductions coincide with noted population crashes for Chinook, which are incidentally caught in Chum summer runs (JTC 2025). We see that more than half of all closures occurred in the second half of the time series for all users (55%, 100%, and 78% for commercial, recreational, and subsistence, respectively). Restricting access to subsistence users targeting Chinook in the latter portion of the time series might reflect cultural allowances (JTC 2023).

Table 1 shows results of the Tukey pairwise t-tests, comparing the three kinds of decision. In the full dataset, values were statistically higher for allow decisions than for restrict or close decisions. But restrict and close decisions were not statistically different. The same pattern was observed for subsistence users.

This pattern was repeated somewhat for Chum and commercial users. For both Chum and commercial users, ĒĒ_norm was statistically greater for allow versus restrict. However, differences for Chum were more significant than Commercial (p-adj: < 0.001, 0.001, respectively). Recreational users saw statistical differences in ĒĒ_norm for close versus allow decisions (p-adj: 0.001) only.

There were no significant differences in ĒĒ_norm for Chinook or Coho access decisions. For Coho, there were no “restrict” decisions recorded, having limited geographic reach and data (N = 51). Chinook had comparable data quantity (N = 396) as the other groups, but also had no significant differences in ĒĒ_norm.

The Sustainable Salmon Management Policy empowers ADF&G to reduce access to fisheries to ensure ecological sustainability (positive or zero EE_norm; Sustainable Salmon Management Policy 2000). For ADF&G to be compliant with this legislation, increasingly restrictive access should be associated with increasingly poor stock status conditions, i.e. ĒĒ_normallow > ĒĒ_normrestrict > ĒĒ_normclose. We interpret application of the legislation to be consistent when means are statistically different in the expected directions: partial compliance when only one or two values are distinct, noncompliance when no values are different, and violation when these relationships are reversed. From these analyses, we conclude that ADF&G generally adheres to guidance from sustainable policies. However, there is room for greater adherence, especially for close versus restrict decisions, and for some species (Chinook, Coho) and users (commercial and recreational).

Social sustainability

Policy measures

According to the legislation, access decisions should be at least as restrictive for commercial and recreational users as for subsistence users. The top row in Table 2 shows that, among the 320 access decisions where comparisons were possible, they were more restrictive for commercial users in 142 cases, equally restrictive in 178 cases, and never less restrictive. The second row of Table 2 shows that access decisions were more restrictive for recreational users than for subsistence users in 27 cases, equally restrictive in 222, and less restrictive in 71 cases. These latter 71 cases appear to violate the subsistence preference principle. The cases where decisions are equally restrictive may also violate the subsistence preference principle, however, this analysis does not capture the magnitude of subsistence preference.

Interviews

The ultimate test for successful policy application is in perceptions of efficacy from system benefactors. To understand this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with traditional users. We illustrate them with representative quotes. We did not conduct a formal content analysis, lest that process impose our constructs on participants’ perspectives.

Synopsis

To our ears, the predominant themes revealed in the transcripts were broad, profound loss, with three participants using the term “heartbreak” (#5, 17, 30). All users on the Yukon River have seen mounting restrictions as the Chinook population continues to decline. When asked about the impact of the increasingly common closures and harsher restrictions, subsistence users, who preferred to be called “traditional” users, expressed physical, cultural, and spiritual loss and starvation. They also expressed frustration with the system, lack of voice in creating and implementing policies, and anxiety for the future. We heard both tangible and intangible costs levied on traditional users and their communities. We deal with each in turn, with participants indicated by randomly assigned numbers linked to transcripts.

Tangible costs

Restrictions can impose varied direct costs on traditional users. One lever available to ADF&G for protecting Chinook is restricting gear types. In principle, changes to allowable nets can enable Chinook to pass unharvested, while still harvesting non-salmon species (Lawful Gear Statute 1982). In practice, though, these changes require new nets (#85), at $100s–1000s per net (Pacific Net & Twine Lt [date unknown]). There have already been four such forced changes since 2001 (JTC 2023). Being caught with the wrong net incurs fees and net confiscation (#30).

Another lever to ADF&G is to shift harvest periods. However, short harvest windows, or windows for only non-salmon species is unrealistic. Fish camps are expensive and take months to prepare (#17, 73, 85). Gear, like a new fish wheel,^[6] can cost $2500 to make (#85) and require preparations starting in spring (#73, 85). Gasoline is essential for fish camps, but is expensive in remote regions, costing up to $15/gallon (#85). One family reportedly spends $378–$566^[7] every two weeks while at camp (#17). Limited access windows are inefficient in terms of time, money, and equipment costs (#17, 73, 85).

Fisheries closures remove a primary source of income. Fish sales have historically offset the costs of fish camp for many traditional users (#35, 65, 73, 85). Selling raw or dried salmon helped traditional users “make ends meet,” paying for vehicle repairs and food (#65, 85), even when traditional subsistence practices keep costs low (#5, 65, 73, 85). Many traditional users were also commercial users before 2008.

Before [restrictions and closures] I could ... provide for five to 10 families from my Mother’s smokehouse. ... we take care of a lot more than just our family when we're able to ... Participant 5

Even before restrictions, not everyone could afford to go to fish camp. However, sharing is an integral part of Indigenous lifeways that was actively practiced when Chinook populations were stronger (#5; Kimmerer 2013, ICC 2021). Sharing ensures that everyone has food for the winter (#5), with riches measured in the fullness of freezers (#5, 73, 85). Thus, restrictions and closures affect more than just fishing families (#17, 65).

Intangible costs

...my mom’s eyes light up when she sees the Chinook salmon, it’s so special. It just goes to show the meaning that the Chinook salmon have to the people on the river - so healing. [pause] Not being able to live your traditional lifestyle is very depressing. Even to the point of suicide. It causes alcoholism. Drugs. Abuse. It’s hard to think of it that way, but it is. ... it affects [us], not being able to live our lifestyle. I hate to make excuses, but it affects our wellbeing in a lot of different ways; physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing. Being able to live our way is a huge part of our wellbeing ... Participant 5

The importance of salmon cannot be overstated for the Salmon people.^[8] Salmon are protectors, honored relatives of Indigenous people (#5, 35, 73). Traditional users, and Indigenous people more generally, uphold a reciprocal relationship with salmon; the salmon give themselves to the people to sustain them throughout the winter; the people take care of the land and salmon so that the salmon can return abundant another summer. Through salmon, the people of the interior learned to be (Carothers et al. 2021). Through salmon and a millennium of reciprocity, the meaning of a traditional way of life has formed, evolved, and endured for traditional users (#5, 35, 73).

Restrictions alter traditional lifeways and negatively affect traditional user’s well-being. Not being able to “live our way” has cascading physical, mental, and spiritual effects (#5, 35, 41, 73). The change in diet from losing a key food source leads to health effects, such as “diabetes” (#5). It disrupts social networks and identity, contributing to depression, particularly in men who would otherwise embody the role of “provider” (#5). The mere presence of salmon is “healing” and “medicine” in this time of hardship (#5, 35). Restrictions change traditional practices (#5, 85) and infringe on tribal sovereignty. From traditional users’ perspectives, the way state and federal agencies manage fisheries affects culture.

... with [fishing seasons] being closed, it’s ... heartbreaking. ... to have that taken away from us ... that family connection. That’s ... what kept me connected with my brothers and sisters, ... my nieces and nephews ... it was ... a time for us to work together. To be together ... not being able to fish; not staying connected to your family, the land, the waterways, your culture - all of that gone. ... it’s extremely hard for me. Participant 30

Closures, not allowing any fishing, take away opportunities to connect with self, community, and culture (#30). Restrictions already threaten well-being on a multitude of levels, but there are still opportunities for connection, if only briefly (#35). Closures deny these opportunities. The unsustainability of stocks, prompting closures, is seen as a “failure” of Western management for traditional users (#5, 85). Although Elders feel a sense of culpability to their ancestors and next generations for letting the salmon “disappear in their lifetime” (#73). Closures are “scary” (#73), evoking a deep-rooted fear of losing that which upholds and sustains: the salmon and the way of life they enable and require.

... they keep saying “Oh, we got to save fish for our next generation,” but if we can’t fish, the next generation is not going to know what it’s like to eat fish ... how to take care of it, how to cut it, how to set nets ... just fish so they at least know how to do it. Participant 17

All traditional users interviewed expressed anxiety for continuity with future generations. The situation prompts difficult questions, like “who are we saving these fish for?” (#17) Fishing is a learned skill, and fish an acquired taste. Many interviews highlight how people “crave” fish during the season, and lament the day when people might never learn that craving, or how to catch, store, and prepare fish to satisfy it (#5,17, 73).^[9] Anxiety about what will happen to the children, now and in the future, permeates every interview with a traditional user (#5, 17, 30, 35, 41, 44, 73, 85).

Traditional users conveyed frustration at the systems that govern salmon (#5, 35, 41, 73, 85). Their way of life is being threatened by closures and restrictions, but their generational knowledge is not being used. Rather, it is disregarded as an “interesting fact” or “fixation” (#35, 41). Traditional users feel that the needs and opinions of other more “powerful” shareholders are given greater precedence (#5, 35, 41, 44, 65, 73, 85). Traditional users are deeply frustrated at their lack of voice within the system.

And yet, we [Native people] are the ones that are penalized by not being able to fish, but they [Industry] can make their ... record breaking profits ... why do we have to be the ultimate sacrifice? It just doesn’t make sense to me ... Participant 17

Traditional users expressed anger that during these times of harsh restrictions for their communities, industrial users have been allowed to fish. Industrial fisheries including pollock trawl fisheries, which catch Chinook as incidental bycatch, and in Area-M, an intercept fishery in the Aleutian Chain. Traditional users endure restrictions, while they see large-scale commercial fishing in the ocean go relatively unrestricted. There is a frustration that “we,” Native people, are heavily restricted while “they,” commercial fishers make “record-breaking profits.” Bycatch is particularly painful, evident in the views they shared, as Chinook are “wasted” (#17) or donated to coastal communities (NOAA 2018). For traditional users in the Interior, who see no donations, the perceived imbalance is astronomical. And for traditional users, it is telling of managements’, not just ADF&G’s, priorities.

DISCUSSION

Our analyses examine the sustainability of management along both social and ecological lines. Ecological sustainability is evaluated on a systematic basis by managers. However, social sustainability indicators are sparse and not operationalized or considered in conjunction with ecological indicators. Our analyses characterize ADF&G’s adherence and resulting outcomes for policies intended for both ecological and social sustainability, reporting empirical patterns and user perspectives. Overall, we find evidence of adherence to ecological sustainability policies, but see that current policies may not be written clearly on the right topics, and that the policies may be flawed, as Yukon River salmon fisheries, our examinations reveal, are ecologically and socially unsustainable.

Our interviews with traditional users paint a dire picture of the impacts of restrictions and closures on their communities. The interviews found that closures affect well-being more negatively than restrictions (#5, 30). Restrictions make connections difficult (#2, 35), whereas closures make it illegal. The statistical finding that closure and restriction decisions for traditional users have similar ĒĒ_norm values indicates that there may be latitude to restrict rather than close access for these users, with major benefits to social sustainability and limited impact on ecological sustainability.

This study also revealed that there is a tendency of ADF&G to prefer equal access over preferential access to subsistence users, showing that there is latitude in allocation within ADF&G. In preferring equal access, ADF&G follows the Alaska Constitutional requirement of equality, equal access (Alaska State Constitution 1959, Harrison 2012), rather than the legislative requirement of equity, access based on need (Sustainable Salmon Management Policy 2000, Donkersloot et al. 2020). This preference has seen ADF&G at odds with federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife allocation decisions as well (DeMarban 2022, 2023). Revising and more strictly adhering to these policies could provide immediate potential benefits from a deeper commitment to equity.

Reconsidering data usage patterns and definitions for agencies like ADF&G can also improve equity. Traditional users are frustrated that ADF&G ignores their inter-generational knowledge. ADF&G interprets the requirement of “best available scientific information” as limited to Western science (Sustainable Salmon Management Policy 2000, Harrison 2012), systematically excluding traditional knowledge, despite federal calls to implement traditional knowledge alongside scientific inquiry (OSTP 2021). Advisory councils, comprising community members (Advisory Committees Statute 1959) and Indigenous-led groups are tasked with bridging knowledge system gaps. However, Indigenous participants find them “frustrating” (Walsey and Brewer 2018), leaving them tired from lives of unfruitful advocacy (#5, 73, 85). Traditional users’ input needs to be gainfully integrated into decision making in a transparent manner, with revisions to policy and definitions as a fruitful first step.

Our studies sought sources of ecological failure in the policies and in their implementation. We find that the policy to direct access decisions in response to best available information is somewhat heeded, but there is room for greater adherence. Although decisions for some groups (Chum and subsistence, with commercial and recreational to an extent) follow ADF&G mandates for “sustainable management,” these decisions do not appear to have been sufficient to limit population decline. Indeed, over time, observed ĒĒ_norm values have increasingly trended toward zero, irrespective of policy adherence (see Fig. 2). State and federal initiatives indicate that “root causes” of decline are still unknown (ADF&G 2022:2, DOI et al. 2024). Our study shows that policy adherence is not the likely cause, whereas ineffectual policies might be contributors.

Research indicates that ecological decline is related to environmental and human drivers. Specifically, changing sea surface temperatures (Crozier et al. 2021, Lamborn et al. 2025), river temperatures (Von Biela 2020, 2022), and ocean food webs (Siddon et al. 2022), as well as pressure from hatcheries (Cunningham et al. 2018, Crozier et al. 2021, Lamborn et al. 2025) and offshore catch and bycatch (Lamborn et al. 2025) are correlated with decline. Within the current management structure, any revisions to policy would have to accommodate the effects of these directional shifts. Systems would need to be reimagined to capture dynamics not considered when models (Hilborn and Walter 1992), processes (ADF&G [date unknown]a), and steady-state paradigms (Chapin et al. 2009) were developed.

Our interviews with traditional users suggest that scientific reforms will continue to be inadequate without structural reform. Traditional users argue that SES management needs to consider salmon’s lifecycle as a cyclical whole, rather than as detachable parts (#41), thinking critically about user allocations. For traditional users, some of the greatest costs are intangible, in an economic sense, as they include the deep disrespect of management decisions (by ADF&G and others), to favor industrial ocean fishers over traditional, inland subsistence users, threatening culture and salmon. Any structural solution would have to involve the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council that controls industrial pollock fisheries (NPFMC 2021), and other (inter)national actors as well as ADF&G. Global management systems need to consider cost accruals and distributions across a salmons’ lifecycle.

Considering these findings, ecological trends, policy inconsistencies, and testimony from traditional users, we offer three key policy recommendations. One is to have ADF&G restrict, rather than close, access for subsistence users, even when population status is below threshold. Doing so could profoundly reduce impacts on Indigenous culture and well-being, while fulfilling the duty for “subsistence preference.” The policy would be especially valuable if restrictions were similar each year, thereby supporting a predictable annual rhythm and use of the same fishing gear. It is our understanding that the resultant increase in subsistence fishing would have little impact on salmon stocks, an assumption that fishery experts could examine. As mentioned, for traditional, subsistence user groups, having some access is vastly better than none.

A second policy recommendation is that the state proactively and publicly move from equality to equity as its guiding principle for access decisions, defining equity so that it reflects subsistence interests in a systematic, rights-based way (Charles 2011, Capistrano and Charles 2012). Cases where commercial and traditional users are the same people will take some thought. However, equity should be a primary concern during times of hardship, when completely denying access to subsistence users reinforces prevailing narratives of assimilation and erasure of Indigenous culture and traditions (#73).

A third policy recommendation is to afford Indigenous groups more meaningful roles in decision-making processes. Such direct participation would increase understanding of the (in)tangible costs and benefits of management decisions, while taking advantage of local and generational knowledge. We particularly recommend Indigenous representation in access decisions, so that they consider the needs of both salmon and the Salmon people. Some barriers, such as out-of-pocket costs for attending in-person meetings (#85), could be removed administratively. Others, such as a lack of shared understanding, regarding salmon and administrative procedures, will require co-creation with Indigenous and government participants (#5). A strong commitment to transparency would be needed to address traditional users’ feeling that decades of advocacy have had no positive effect (#5, 85, 73). A strong first step could be expanding definitions of “scientific information” to include traditional knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The implications of ineffectual and inequitable policies and the compounding impacts of climate change on Yukon Chinook mirrors those ascribed to global fisheries (Pauly et al. 2002): ecological and social unsustainability. With current policies, salmon cannot be sustainably managed. Their lifecycle stages are affected by uncoordinated agents from local to international levels. For ADF&G salmon management policies to be “sustainable,” global fisheries systems need to be restructured.

We end on a fundamental tension: Is the primary goal of management to allocate increasingly scarce resources, or is it to protect and preserve the cultures that rely upon them (#5)? The root causes of salmon decline are incompletely known, with climate change seemingly playing an important role (Crozier et al. 2021). Traditional users note that climate change is not something that fisheries agencies alone can tackle (“we can’t change temperatures” #41), but regulations on industry can achieve better outcomes within those constraints. We can imagine a better future where systems curb bycatch that reduce salmon populations, no longer imposing ultimate sacrifices on traditional users. Traditional users have sustained salmon over the centuries. They now need support to overcome systemic inequity, so that they can maintain stewardship in the face of climate change and extractive industries. As expressed in this closing quote:

Why do we have to feed the world? The Bering Sea wasn’t made to supply food for the whole damn country, let alone the world. ... we don’t have as many people that live in Alaska, but you’re affecting the people that do live here ... and that’s all industry and money ... Participant 41

__________

^[1] In the 1920s, commercial fisheries in the Yukon River region opened and periodically operated throughout the century, regulated under the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, then the Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service in 1940 (Pennoyer et al. 1965). Following statehood in 1959, ADF&G was established to manage in-land fisheries. Commercial fishing increased in the region through the 1970s–1980s, followed by a commercial collapse in the 1990s (Wolfe and Spaeder 2009) lasting until today (JTC 2023).
^[2] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) oversee management in federal waters.
^[3] Fish camps are where traditional users gather each summer to honor, harvest, process, and store salmon for the coming winter.
^[4] See Appendix 1 for a robustness test showing no statistical difference between recorded preseason estimates and our one-year lag abundance measure.
^[5] Over the period, the number of fish each user group was allowed to fish has changed, as has the amount harvested. As a general trend, recreational users (Max: 3.8k Chinook) tended to be allowed to harvest less salmon than either subsistence (Max: 63k Chinook) or commercial users (Max: 158k Chinook), but both subsistence and commercial users are harvesting in historically low amounts (Min: 0–1k Chinook; JTC 2025).
^[6] A gear type used by traditional (subsistence) users that employs baskets that rotate in the river current, scooping up fish and allowing easy live release with proper modifications.
^[7] Six, 15-gallon barrels at $4.20–$6.29 per gallon (Fairbanks and Manley Hot Springs gas prices in July 2023).
^[8] A clan name for Indigenous people of the Interior.
^[9] However, viewing the relationship through the context of feeding and taste loses the richness of the relationship, as used to negatively impacts sovereignty in the state (See Voinot-Baron 2020).

LITERATURE CITED

Advisory Committees. 1959. Alaska Statutes §16.05.260.

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26:413-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x

Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal 54:287-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00382

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2003-2022. Emergency orders and press releases - Sport Fishing. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska, USA. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/EONR/index.cfm?ADFG=main.home

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2022. Understanding the factors that limit Alaska Chinook salmon productivity. ADF&G, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska, USA.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). [date unknown]a. Our agency mission. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska, USA. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=about.mission

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). [date unknown]b. Chinook salmon. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska, USA. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=chinook.main

Alaska State Constitution art. 8. 1959.

Capistrano, R. C. G., and A. T. Charles. 2012. Indigenous rights and coastal fisheries: a framework of livelihoods, rights and equity. Ocean & Coastal Management 69:200-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.08.011

Carothers, C., J. Black, S. J. Langdon, R. Donkersloot, D. Ringer, J. Coleman, E. R. Gavenus, W. Justin, M. Williams, F. Christiansen, C. Stevens, B. Woods, S. Clark, P. M. Clay, L. Mack, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, A. Akall'eq Sanders, B. L. Stevens, and A. Whiting. 2021. Indigenous peoples and salmon stewardship: a critical relationship. Ecology and Society 26(1):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11972-260116

Carroll, A. 2005. What are escapement goals? Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=123

Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes 56:160-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x

Chapin III, F. S., C. Folke, and G. P. Kofinas. 2009. A framework for understanding change. Pages 3-28 in C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, and F. S. Chapin III, editors. Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_1

Charles, A. 2011. Human rights and fishery rights in small-scale fisheries management. Pages 59-74 in R. S. Pomeroy and N. L. Andrew, editors. Small-scale fisheries management: frameworks and approaches for the developing world. CABI, Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936075.0059

Clark, J., R. Brenner, and S. Freund. 2018. Compiled annual statewide Alaskan salmon escapement counts, 1921-2017. Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. https://doi.org/10.5063/610XRP

Clark, R., D. Eggers, A. Munro, S. Fleischman, B. Bue, and J. Hasbrouck. 2017. An evaluation of the percentile approach for establishing sustainable escapement goals in lieu of stock productivity information. In T. Quinn, J. Armstrong, M. Baker, J. Heifetz, and D. Witherell, editors. Assessing and managing data-limited fish stocks. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA. https://doi.org/10.4027/amdlfs.2016.08

Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). 2014. Guidelines for considering traditional knowledges in climate change initiatives. CTKW. https://climatetkw.wordpress.com/

Crozier, L. G., B. J. Burke, B. E. Chasco, D. L. Widener, and R. W. Zabel. 2021. Climate change threatens Chinook salmon throughout their life cycle. Communications Biology 4:222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01734-w

Cunningham, C. J., P. Westley, and M. D. Adkison. 2018. Signals of large scale climate drivers, hatchery enhancement, and marine factors in Yukon River Chinook salmon survival revealed with a Bayesian life history model. Global Change Biology 24:4399-4416. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14315

DeMarban, A. 2022. Biden administration sues state of Alaska over Kuskokwim River salmon fisheries. Anchorage Daily News, 18 May. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-alaska/2022/05/18/biden-administration-sues-state-of-alaska-over-kuskokwim-river-salmon-fisheries/

DeMarban, A. 2023. Alaska Federation of Natives joins feds in lawsuit against state over subsistence rights. Anchorage Daily News, 15 October. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2023/10/14/alaska-federation-of-natives-joins-feds-in-case-against-state-over-subsistence-rights/

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey (DOI, BLM, FWS, GS). 2024. Memorandum of Understanding: Gravel to gravel initiative.

Donkersloot, R., J. Black, C. Carothers, D. Ringer, W. Justin, P. Clay, M. Poe, E. Gavenus, W. Voinot-Baron, C. Stevens, M. Williams, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, F. Christiansen, S. Breslow, S. Langdon, J. Coleman, and S. J. Clark. 2020. Assessing the sustainability and equity of Alaska salmon fisheries through a well-being framework. Ecology and Society 25(2):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11549-250218

Field Museum and the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society at the University of Chicago. 2023. “Apsáalooke Women and Warriors.” 4 February–29 May 2023. Hosted at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. https://carnegiemnh.org/press/carnegie-museum-of-natural-history-presents-apsaalooke-women-and-warriors-february-4-may-29-2023/

Greenwood, M., and K. Banner. 2015. Multiple (pair-wise) comparisons using Tukey’s HSD and the compact letter display. Montana State University Library. https://arc.lib.montana.edu/book/statistics-with-r-textbook/item/59

Halffman, C. M., B. A. Potter, H. J. McKinney, B. P. Finney, A. T. Rodrigues, D. Y. Yang, and B. M. Kemp. 2015. Early human use of anadromous salmon in North America at 11,500 y ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(40):12344-12348. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509747112

Harrison, G. 2012. Alaska’s constitution; a citizen’s guide. Fifth edition. Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, USA.

Heckathorn, D. D. 1997. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems 44:174-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096941

Hilborn, R., and C. J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3598-0

Ianelli, J. N., and D. L. Stram. 2015. Estimating impacts of the pollock fishery bycatch on western Alaska Chinook salmon. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72:1159-1172. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu173

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC). 2021. Ethical and equitable engagement synthesis report: a collection of Inuit rules, guidelines, protocols and values for the engagement of Inuit communities and Indigenous knowledge from across Inuit Nunaat. ICC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC)-Alaska. 2015. Alaskan Inuit food security conceptual framework: how to assess the Arctic from an Inuit perspective: summary report and recommendations. ICC-Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC)-Alaska. 2019. The role of providing - Inuit management practices: youth, elder, active hunters and gatherers workshop report. ICC-Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River U.S./Canada Panel (JTC). 2023. Yukon River salmon 2022 season review-2023 outlook (Regional Information Report). Yukon River Panel Technical Committee.

Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River U.S./Canada Panel (JTC). 2025. Yukon River salmon 2024 season summary and 2025 outlook (No. Yukon JTC (25)-01).

Kimmerer, R. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Lamborn, C. C., J. Ohlberger, T. E. Walsworth, P. A. H. Westley, C. J. Cunningham, S. Wynsma, and J. W. Smith. 2025. A synthesis of factors related to trends in abundance and demography of Alaska Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Salmonidae): implications for research, management, and policy. Fish and Fisheries 26:520-532. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12895

Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications. 1982. Alaska Admin Code. §5.01.220

Liller, Z. W., and J. W. Savereide. 2022. Escapement goal review for select Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Region salmon stocks, 2023 (No. 22- 08). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Mbah, M. F., M. Bailey, and A. Shingruf. 2024. Considerations for relational research methods for use in Indigenous contexts: implications for sustainable development. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 27:431-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2185345

McKinley Research, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. 2022. Economic value of Alaska’s Seafood Industry. McKinley Research Group LLC, Anchorage, Juneau, Alaska, USA.

Moncrieff, C. 2017. How the people of the Yukon River value salmon; a case study of the lower, middle, and upper portions of the Yukon River. Yukon River Drainage Association, Trapper Creek, Alaska, USA.

Morgan, M. G. 2014. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:7176-7184. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319946111

Morgan, M. G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, and C. J. Atman. 2002. Risk communication: a mental models approach, risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. The Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program 34. NOAA, Washington, D.C., USA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2022. What’s behind Chinook and Chum salmon declines in Alaska? NOAA Fisheries. NOAA, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/whats-behind-chinook-and-chum-salmon-declines-alaska

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). 2021. Fishery management plan for the salmon fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska. NPFMC, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 2021. Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Federal Decision Making. OSTP, Washington, D.C., USA.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Pacific Net & Twine Ltd. [date unknown]. North Star Alaska Twist - #17 Sockeye & Chum Nets for River (100fm Bale). Pacific Net & Twine Ltd, British Columbia, Canada. https://pacificnetandtwine.com/products/north-star-alaska-twist-17-sockeye-chum-nets-for-river-100fm-bale

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guénette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418:689-695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01017

Pennoyer, S., K. Middleton, M. Jr. Morris. 1965. Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Area Salmon Fishing History. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska, USA.

R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Ranganathan, P., C. Pramesh, and M. Buyse. 2016. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: the perils of multiple testing. Perspectives in Clinical Research 7:106-107. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.179436

Ransbury, S. R., S. K. S. Decker, D. M. Jallen, C. M. Gleason, B. M. Borba, F. W. West, J. Clark, A. Padilla, J. Smith, and L. N. Forsythe. 2022. Yukon management area annual report, 2021. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Romney, A. K., S. C. Weller, and W. H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88:313-338. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.2.02a00020

Royce, W. F. 1985. Historical development of fisheries science and management. Presented at the Fisheries Centennial Celebration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/about-us/historical-development-fisheries-science-and-management

Siddon, E., A. Abelman, G. Adams, O. Ahkinga, D. Anderson, A. Andrews, K. Aydin, S. Barbeaux, C. Barnes, L. Barnett, J. Barrett, S. Batten, S. W. Bell, N. Bond, E. Bowers, C. Brown, T. Buser, M. Callahan, L. Castrodale, P. Chambers, and P. Chara. 2022. Ecosystem status report 2022: Eastern Bering Sea, stock assessment and fishery evaluation report. North Pacic Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Subsistence Use and Allocation of Fish and Game. 1986. Alaska Statutes § 16.05.258.

Sustainable Salmon Management. 2000. Alaska Admin. Code § 5.39.222.

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). 1971. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 1971. Department of Tribal Governance, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-3/alaskanativeclaimssettlementactancsa1971.php

Vick, G. 2024. Yukon River Agreement Proposed by Alaska & Canada. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. https://www.tananachiefs.org/yukon-river-agreement-proposed-by-alaska-canada/

Voinot-Baron, W. 2020. A bitter taste of fish: the temporality of salmon, settler colonialism, and the work of well-being in a Yupiaq fishing village. Ecology and Society 25(2):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11408-250204

Von Biela, V. R., L. Bowen, S. D. McCormick, M. P. Carey, D. S. Donnelly, S. Waters, A. M. Regish, S. M. Laske, R. J. Brown, S. Larson, S. Zuray, and C. E. Zimmerman. 2020. Evidence of prevalent heat stress in Yukon River Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 77:1878-1892. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2020-0209

Von Biela, V. R., C. J. Sergeant, M. P. Carey, Z. Liller, C. Russell, S. Quinn-Davidson, P. S. Rand, P. A. H Westley, and C. E. Zimmerman. 2022. Premature mortality observations among Alaska’s Pacific salmon during record heat and drought in 2019. Fisheries 47:157-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10705

Walsey, V., and J. Brewer. 2018. Managed out of existence: over-regulation of Indigenous subsistence fishing of the Yukon River. GeoJournal 83:1169-1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9879-y

Westley, P. A. H., J. C. Black, C. Carothers, and D. Ringer, 2021. State of Alaska’s salmon and people: introduction to a special feature. Ecology and Society 26(4):33. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12910-260433

Wilcox, M. 2021. ‘Salmon is life’: for Native Alaskans, salmon declines pose existential crisis. Civil Eats, 12 August. https://civileats.com/2021/08/12/salmon-is-life-for-native-alaskans-salmon-declines-pose-existential-crisis/

Wolfe, R. J., and J. Spaeder. 2009. People and salmon of the Yukon and Kuskokwim drainages and Norton Sound in Alaska: fishery harvests, culture change, and local knowledge systems. American Fisheries Society 70:349-379.