*5.3. Storytelling Scenario Results*

The first question in the project was to ask participants to describe what sustainability in the community of Ninilchik meant to them. This definition was extensively explored in Gordon, 2021, but I will briefly summarize it here [57]. A sustainable Ninilchik was described as a place that will "carry on through generations and be here ... for those to come . . . for my kids, and my future grandchildren" (personal communication, interview 6, 26 February 2018). Participants emphasized they did not want their present actions to jeopardize the future of coming generations. They identified social, ecological, and economic aspects of sustainability and included the importance of transmitting Indigenous Knowledge, culture, and subsistence practices. Participants wanted the community to be able to have enough employment and small businesses for people to provide for their families. They described a thriving social community with a large population at the school and engaged youth staying away from drugs and alcohol. In regard to ecology, they see a sustainable Ninilchik having flourishing fish, animal, berry, and tree populations. They identified the Tribe playing an important role in a sustainable and well future for their community as they not only provide jobs but arrange social gatherings and run the subsistence fishing net. This description of a sustainable Ninilchik was more grounded in the optimistic future than the present, and to achieve it, participants identified the role of self-determination which is explored in Gordon and Datta, 2021 [67]. Ecological sustainability was closely linked to subsistence practices.

Previous studies on the population in Ninilchik demonstrate extensive involvement and reliance on subsistence for food which was further confirmed by this case study. For example, a 1998 study by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) identified 96 percent of Ninilchik households involved in subsistence harvesting which included

berry picking, fishing, gathering plants, bird hunting, and moose hunting with an average harvest by household of 439.5 pounds and a per person fish harvest of 81 pounds [68]. A survey conducted in 2002 by ADF&G interviewed 100 Ninilchik households and found that 96 percent harvested fish at approximately 82 pounds per person [69]. The Ninilchik Village Tribe hired a survey company to conduct a subsistence survey in 2014 and this survey found that of the 44 people surveyed through a simple random sample, 30 people hunted, 36 people fished, 7 people trapped, and 30 people gathered [70].

Participants in the EFR storytelling scenarios confirmed this extensive reliance on subsistence. One person explained how sustainability and subsistence are tied together in Ninilchik, "There's the sustainability of keeping the subsistence lifestyle that I think is prevalent, and should be, a cornerstone of who we are" (personal communication, interview 15, 6 March 2018). Subsistence is a cultural practice that has been handed down to each new generation and is a central part of being a member of the Ninilchik Tribe and community. Participants in Ninilchik detailed the food they hunted and gathered from the land to include multiple types of fish, moose, razor clams, and multiple types of berries. A large percentage of community members use subsistence to supplement their food purchased at grocery stores. Participants explained that without subsistence they would not get enough to eat and would either go hungry or would have to move away from the community to a larger city that had cheaper groceries. They emphasized that food security was not the only reason they valued subsistence, it was important to their wellbeing and spiritual fulfillment to be able to subsist from the land and to live sustainably and pass on cultural practices to their children and grandchildren. This is consistent with a definition of subsistence specific to Alaska Natives which identifies that it is not only about gathering food; it is an integral part of individual and community identity and culture through sharing food, storytelling, song, dance, and eating together [71].

Youth not only learn subsistence from their families but through the Tribe as well. The Tribe runs the youth education leadership program (YELP) through a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grant to reduce suicide and substance abuse. Through utilizing culture as a protective factor from these adverse issues, youth are taken out on the land by the Elder Outreach Program Coordinator to learn subsistence activities such as fishing salmon with a set net and digging razor clams across the Cook Inlet from Ninilchik, as the Ninilchik beach is closed to clamming. Youth learn how to clean and process the fish and clams through canning as well as learning to smoke the salmon. They provide the processed subsistence food to Elders in the community that are no longer able to practice subsistence themselves. This sharing of food and youth providing to Elders is an important part of Tribal culture.

Having sustainable use of resources is of vital importance to interviewees as living off the land through subsistence practices to provide for their families brings a sense of self-worth. Subsistence is a central part of the Ninilchik Village Tribal culture. As one interviewee explained, "Our culture ... what I was taught and how I was brought up was what you need to do to survive in this environment. And, you know, we don't have songs necessarily or a language other than Russian. We don't have a bunch of dances, regalia, things like that that other Tribes have" (personal communication, interview 9, 27 February 2018). Sadly, colonization resulted in a lot of cultural loss in the community and subsistence is a central aspect of culture Tribal members hold dear. One Tribal member summed up just how important subsistence is, "I can't live without a king salmon. I can't live without a moose. I can't live without a clam. Okay, that's me. That's my DNA" (personal communication, interview 12, 1 March 2018). As many Tribal members have their identity tied to subsistence, this is one reason the Tribe has fought so hard for subsistence rights.

Participants that worked for the Tribe provided extensive information on how NVT struggled and fought legal battles, just like other Alaska Native Tribes, to maintain their sovereignty, self-determination, and subsistence rights. NVT worked for years, from 2006 to 2016, to be able to practice their subsistence rights granted to them as

rural residents though ANILCA to fish on the federal parts of the Kasilof and Kenai Rivers [17]. As explained above, this right to subsistence was not based on the fact that NVT is an Alaska Native Tribe with subsistence practices since time immemorial, but is instead based on rural preference. NVT sought to fish for Ninilchik residents (Native and non-Native) who were not able to do it themselves, only catching the number of fish allowed by the number of permits a year which depended on the number of people who signed up. At the time of my research, it was 25 fish per head of household with five additional for each family member for an approximate total of 2000 sockeye salmon total for a year to be harvested by the NVT net.

The Ninilchik Traditional Council (NTC), the governing body of the Tribe, took a proposal to the Southcentral Regional Advisory Council of the Board in early 2014 to fish on the rivers which was recommended to the Board and followed by NTC submitting operational plans for their gillnets in both rivers. The Kasilof River plan was approved for 2015, but the Kenai River plan was not [20]. NTC argued they had a right to fish; however, they were not allowed to fish in the Kenai River, and in October 2015 they sued the federal government in *Ninilchik Traditional Council v. Towarak* et al. [20]. In 2016, with their court case still ongoing, the Board allowed NTC to put a gillnet in the Kenai River on an experimental permit which was then allowed in subsequent years.

Arguments cited against the Kenai gillnet included biologists saying that it would lower fish counts, preventing fish species from swimming up the rivers to spawn [72]. While the river waters that Ninilchik sought to fish on were federal land, commercial and sport fishermen fishing at the mouth of the Kenai River in the Cook Inlet are on state managed marine waters. These same biologists were not arguing against commercial and sport fishing at the mouth of these rivers which take approximately 98 percent of the yearly fish catch with subsistence taking less than 1 percent [72]. As one participant explained, "fishing became a way to get money to buy food instead of a way to just get food and everybody got really excited about that ... subsistence is basically outlawed on the Kenai Peninsula which is bizarre" (personal communication, interview 17, 7 March 2018). While ANILCA [17] says it prioritizes subsistence users, the State of Alaska says gives subsistence users "reasonable opportunity" and if there are only sufficient populations for subsistence use, regulations will be adopted "that eliminate other consumptive uses to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses" [73]. One participant explains their absolute frustrations:

"Sue the shit out of the state and the feds and tell them to shut it all down. If subsistence can't happen and the subsistence users cannot go out there, *they're causing such a burden on the fish* [emphasis mine], then shut it down. Shut sports fishing down. Shut commercial fishing down. And shut the guides down ... I'm pretty sure, probably within 2 weeks, the state would go, hmmm, we really need to figure this out because there's a lot of people that are pissed. And then they'd figure it out. But the problem we have is we can't hold them [the state of Alaska] accountable (personal communication, interview 1, 21 February 2018)

The commercial and sports fishing lobbies have much more money and sway with the political appointees managing State waters than subsistence users; subsistence is not prioritized by the State and has not been for a long time [74,75].

Participants explained that there are problems in the current way fish and wildlife are managed in the Ninilchik area, managed in an unsustainable way. With colonial management decisions threatening their culture, the Tribal members were very concerned. One interviewee spoke about subsistence management not including Indigenous Knowledge and how that made them feel, "No one wants to listen to the people that actually are out here ... They don't listen. They're not listening to me. I mean, I don't have a college education, so, that goes right out the window right away, anything I say. I'm too dumb for them to listen" (personal communication, interview 1, 21 February 2018). This participant was emphasizing that perspectives actually listened to in management decisions were only those of scientists, so even though this person was a holder of Indigenous Knowledge, they were made to feel dumb and without a college education their Knowledge was not of value.

Participants felt that management decisions are being made by officials in offices far from the community, not considering what local populations observe in their regular use of resources. The decisions are in fact made by the state or the Board, depending on what land is in question. Multiple participants shared with me a very recent example of local and Indigenous knowledge being ignored in Ninilchik around the razor clam population. NVT notified the state repeatedly over the years that the size of clams and their numbers were diminishing on the local beach. Regardless, the state kept the per person limits high, allowing not only the approximately 800 rural residents from Ninilchik to dig clams but allowing urban residents from the Kenai, Soldotna, and Anchorage areas as well, totaling over half a million people.

When the clams were finally less than half their usual size, the beaches were closed to clamming to let the populations regrow [16]. As one participant said, "Put the state in charge of the mosquito population and it'll be gone. If you want to kill something off, put the state in charge of managing it. They managed to kill off our clams" (personal communication, interview 7, 26 February 2018). This was very hard for Ninilchik residents as clamming was a part of their culture. They had harvested clams for generations and had recipes and fond memories of family gatherings around clamming. By excluding local and Indigenous Knowledge from management decisions and not taking an Indigenous approach to stewardship, the food security of Ninilchik residents as well as their cultural traditions and subsistence practices were harmed, taking away a resource they depended upon for their food security and culture. Since beaches were closed in 2014, children from babies to 8-year-old have now not been able to participate in clamming on the beaches outside their homes and this cultural practice has not been passed down. Beaches across the Cook Inlet are available for residents with access to a boat.

Ninilchik locals believe in sustainable harvesting so that future generations will be able to still live in the area and not only gather food but be able to practice their culture of subsistence. One non-Native participant I talked to described how they see NVT participating in fish and wildlife stewardship:

The state and the federal government need to step out and let the Tribe do what the Tribe does. They've managed that resource since the beginning of time. They understand it. They understand the reproductive cycles. They understand the lifespan. They understand the climates that are going to be involved. They have history, and they can look back and they can see those cycles ... The Tribe recognized the problem [low counts of clams, fish, and/or animals] a long time ago, 90 percent of the time. They don't get surprised. They see it coming. You hear the Elders whispering about it and talking about it and nobody listening to them. You've got to listen to the Elders. They're the memory in the room. (personal communication, interview 15, 6 March 2018)

When looking at the data from the 20-year optimistic future, participants were excited to talk about Tribal sustainable management practices based on Indigenous Knowledge resulting in fish and animal populations returning to levels that could be harvested. Many older participants reflected back on how populations were in their youth and how they were optimistic things could be like that again with proper management through Indigenous Knowledge. One participant explained, "We would hunt and fish and fill our freezer and not have to buy meat. That would be ideal" (personal communication, interview 11, 1 March 2018). Participants identified the return of crab, shrimp, and abalone populations for harvest from the ocean with strong salmon and halibut populations in their optimistic future scenarios. They also talked about increased abundance of berries.

At the time of the study from 2018 to 2019 and as of 2022, R. Greg Encelewski is on the Southcentral Regional Advisory Council. He is also NTC's President of the board of directors. Yet, participant after participant I talked to explained that the current management systems run by both the state and federal governments are not considering local and

Indigenous Knowledge. Participants explained that they get laughed at when trying to provide information on animal counts that have been passed down through oral history and that, unlike biologists, they are never listened to. Indigenous Knowledge is vital to sustainable resource stewardship due to the observations people living in the areas make about how things are changing. Participants explained that the decisions the Board and state make are based on biologist input more than local observations, and biologists do not have the day-to-day observation of the fish and wildlife populations which is one thing that makes Indigenous Knowledge so powerful and valuable.

Ultimately, participants see management decisions as being politically-based and not based on the actual fish and wildlife counts. One participant explained, 'Somehow you're going to have to get away from political management... If we want a resource to thrive, we have to have good nonpolitical management and the state is just 100 percent political. So, when they're managing, they're managing by, "What does the sport fishing industry want?" ... They'll get a call from the commissioner, from the governor, and say, "No we want this, sportfisherman are saying close this down." So, politics unfortunately plays too much in state management' (personal communication, interview 7, 26 February 2018). Over half of those I talked to explained that the Tribe needed to be involved in this management on a larger scale than they are currently allowed so that they can provide the generations of Indigenous Knowledge they possess on the local fish and animal populations to not only manage them sustainably but to also have subsistence rights.
