Noatak National Preserve sport hunter survey: Caribou hunters from 2010 - 2013
Fix PJ and Ackerman AW. 2015. Noatak National Preserve sport hunter survey: Caribou hunters from 2010 - 2013. Natural Resource Report. NPS/NOAT/NRR—2015/1005. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
In 2011 National Park Service researchers from the Western Arctic Parklands initiated a project to understand the social-ecological system related to caribou hunting in Noatak National Preserve. The goals of the project were to gain insight into caribou migration patterns, and factors that might impact migration; gather data to increase understanding of longstanding tensions between local subsistence users and nonlocal hunters, including the nonlocal hunters’ use of licensed big-game transporter aircraft; evaluate nonlocal hunters’ experience in the park and acceptability of potential management actions. Components of the project included tracking caribou through the use of radio collars, acoustic monitoring of motorized sound levels by source in the preserve, documenting traditional ecological knowledge of residents of the village of Noatak, development of a multi-year database of big-game commercial transporter and client activity in the preserve, and a survey of nonlocal hunters arriving by transporter. This report presents findings of the nonlocal hunter survey. In spring 2014, a mail survey was administered to nonlocal sport hunters who hunted in the Noatak National Preserve between 2010 and 2013 and entered the preserve via a licensed big-game transporter. The 16-page survey was divided into five sections to measure topics of interest. Regarding some of the conflict issues forming the context of this study, nonlocal sport hunters did not perceive a conflict with local hunters/residents, nor did they evaluate issues that are of concern to local residents (e.g., nonlocal hunters causing caribou to shift migration patterns, meat becoming spoiled in Kotzebue, trash and human waste around nonlocal hunter’s campsites) as a problem. While interactions among nonlocal hunters definitely had negative impacts on some respondents, for the majority of hunters interactions were close to expectations and did not result in a negative impact. Thus, results suggest thatthe social carrying capacity among nonlocal hunters does not, on average, appear to be exceeded, and it would logically follow that nonlocal hunters would not see a justification for management actions that further restrict use. To further understand the implications of a future management action it would be critical to monitor the effects of said action on hunting groups. However, transporter and acoustic monitor data show that along significant segments of the Noatak River in the western half of the preserve there is potential for both direct and indirect interactions between nonlocal and local hunters. Nonlocal hunting parties that float the Noatak River could be targeted with messages regarding local hunting practices. Approximately half of respondents did not recall receiving information on subsistence areas to avoid, land ownership boundaries, and local, traditional hunting practices. The NPS should increase its effort in disseminating information regarding these topics. A monitoring program should be set up to assess whether efforts to increase awareness were effective as well as whether it had any effect on the tensions between local subsistence users and nonlocal hunters. Three-hundred eighty-four surveys were returned (response rate = 34%); 12 of those respondents hunted only moose and were excluded from further analysis, yielding a sample size of 372. The sample data closely matched the transporter database sport hunter population with regard to residency and whether the group harvested a caribou or not.
- Type
- Published Report
- Authors
- Fix, Peter; Ackerman, Andrew
- Date of Issue
- 2015-08
- Publisher
- National Park Service
- Units
- ARCN , NOAT , NRSS
- Keywords
- Caribou, Hunting, NOAT, Notak National Preserve, Overflights, Subsistence, user conflict
- Subjects
- Ecological Framework: Human Use | Consumptive Use | Consumptive Use , Ecological Framework: Human Use | Visitor and Recreation Use | Visitor Use