Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska: Geographic and seasonal patterns

Abstract

We estimated the annual harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis and their eggs by Alaska’s rural residents and described seasonal and geographic patterns. Subsistence in Alaska refers to patterns of resource use typical of rural, remote regions where Indigenous people are a high proportion of the population. Rural communities in Alaska rely on the legally-allowed spring-summer harvest of migratory birds for food and socio-cultural wellbeing, in addition to harvests in the fall-winter general hunting season. We based harvest estimates on a large dataset (637 community-years) composed from multiple sources. The estimated annual average harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane by rural residents was 270,641 birds/year (68% in spring-summer, 32% in fall-winter) and 36,692 eggs/year in the 2004–2015 reference period. Harvest estimates for ducks, swans, and Sandhill Crane were lower than in the 1980s–1990s. Harvest amounts, seasonality, and species composition distinguished regional patterns for the Pacific-Aleutian mainland and islands, Bering Sea mainland, St. Lawrence-Diomede islands, North Slope, and Interior Alaska-Upper Copper River. Rural residents accounted for 79% of the total waterfowl harvest in Alaska and high proportions of the total Pacific Flyway harvest for several species of sea ducks, geese, swans, and Sandhill Crane. Alaska’s Indigenous people are important partners in harvest management and conservation of migratory birds. Harvest data are needed to inform efficient and appropriate decisions to achieve management goals. This study can facilitate collaboration for harvest management and conservation across Alaska and the flyways by helping diverse users to understand their contributions to the total harvest.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in
rural Alaska: Geographic and seasonal
patterns
Liliana C. NavesID
1
*, Jason L. Schamber
2
1Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, United States of
America, 2Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska,
United States of America
*liliana.naves@alaska.gov
Abstract
We estimated the annual harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis and
their eggs by Alaska’s rural residents and described seasonal and geographic patterns.
Subsistence in Alaska refers to patterns of resource use typical of rural, remote regions
where Indigenous people are a high proportion of the population. Rural communities in
Alaska rely on the legally-allowed spring-summer harvest of migratory birds for food and
socio-cultural wellbeing, in addition to harvests in the fall-winter general hunting season. We
based harvest estimates on a large dataset (637 community-years) composed from multiple
sources. The estimated annual average harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane by rural
residents was 270,641 birds/year (68% in spring-summer, 32% in fall-winter) and 36,692
eggs/year in the 2004–2015 reference period. Harvest estimates for ducks, swans, and
Sandhill Crane were lower than in the 1980s–1990s. Harvest amounts, seasonality, and
species composition distinguished regional patterns for the Pacific-Aleutian mainland and
islands, Bering Sea mainland, St. Lawrence-Diomede islands, North Slope, and Interior
Alaska-Upper Copper River. Rural residents accounted for 79% of the total waterfowl har-
vest in Alaska and high proportions of the total Pacific Flyway harvest for several species of
sea ducks, geese, swans, and Sandhill Crane. Alaska’s Indigenous people are important
partners in harvest management and conservation of migratory birds. Harvest data are
needed to inform efficient and appropriate decisions to achieve management goals. This
study can facilitate collaboration for harvest management and conservation across Alaska
and the flyways by helping diverse users to understand their contributions to the total
harvest.
Introduction
As migratory birds are shared by diverse user groups, management of their harvests involves
coordination at the local, regional, and flyway levels by engaging federal, state, and tribal gov-
ernments as well as non-governmental organizations in the United States (U.S.) and abroad [1,
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 1 / 31
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Naves LC, Schamber JL (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
Editor: Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva, MARE –
Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre,
PORTUGAL
Received: February 6, 2024
Accepted: July 2, 2024
Published: July 25, 2024
Copyright: ©2024 Naves, Schamber. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: "This study used
harvest data previously published and publicly
available at the Community Subsistence
Information System of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence (http://
www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/) and other previous
surveys referenced in the “Materials and Methods”
section. We also used data collected in the harvest
survey of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-
Management Council (AMBCC). The AMBCC is
composed of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

2]. For administrative and coordination purposes, Alaska belongs to the Pacific Flyway,
together with other 11 western states. Alaska provides healthy and productive habitats for mil-
lions of breeding and migrating waterfowl and Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis from migratory
flyways in the Americas and beyond [3]. The productive waters and coastal habitats of the
Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean surrounding Alaska also support wintering waterfowl,
especially sea ducks and Emperor Goose Anser canagicus [4,5].
The objective of this study was to estimate the harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane and
their eggs for all rural regions in Alaska including breakdown by seasons. We combined multi-
year data to portray the annual average harvest for the 2004–2015 period in ways that are easily
accessible and usable by managers, researchers, resource users, and other stakeholders. We dis-
cussed geographic and seasonal harvest patterns in the context of current management and
conservation priorities. Data on the amounts, seasonality, and species composition of subsis-
tence harvests help users to understand their contributions to the total harvest and support
participation of Indigenous people in management and conservation for migratory birds [2,6,
7]. Harvest data are also important to understand the socio-ecological relevance of Alaska’s
biological resources and to inform harvest management at the region, state, and flyway levels.
This study provides a foundation to inform and enable collaboration in harvest management.
Annual bird harvest monitoring in parts of rural Alaska started in the 1980s, during the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan [8–12]. The annual harvest survey of the
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC) started in 2004 and expanded har-
vest monitoring to other regions [2,13]. Bird harvest data also have been collected as part of
broader surveys in selected communities and years [e.g., 14–16]. Harvest estimates have been
available mostly at the community and region levels. Diverse geographic scales for reporting
and annual variation in the estimates make it difficult to understand the Alaska-wide harvest.
Previous studies estimated Alaska-wide waterfowl harvest for the 1980s–1990s, but the avail-
able dataset did not enable estimates of bird and egg harvest detailed at the species level and by
season [17–19]. These previous studies highlighted that waterfowl and Sandhill Crane repre-
sented about 90% of the annual bird harvest in rural Alaska, including large proportions of the
total harvest in the Pacific Flyway for Emperor Goose (endemic to the Bering Sea), Brant
Branta bernicla, and several species of sea ducks.
Socio-economic and regulatory context
For millennia, Alaska Native, Indigenous people—Inupiaq; St. Lawrence Island Yupik; Central
Yup’ik; Athabascan; Alutiiq-Sugpiaq and Unangax^-Aleut; and Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, and Tsim-
shian—have harvested wild foods, including many species of birds, throughout the year fol-
lowing their seasonal availability [17]. In Alaska, subsistence means a way of life centered on
customary, non-commercial uses of wild resources 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 values, traditions, and local economies of Indigenous people and
other rural residents who share similar resource use patterns. Subsistence encompasses a
mixed harvest-cash economy based on a domestic mode of production, seasonal cycles of har-
vests, networks of distribution and exchange of wild foods, traditional land use patterns,
beliefs, and worldviews [20]. These patterns of resource use are typical of remote Alaska com-
munities with a high proportion of Indigenous residents (5 AAC 99.025 (12) (I)) [18,21–23].
The harvest sector of this economy is more reliable and stable than the cash sector. Communi-
ties in rural Alaska tend to have depressed employment rates and a high prevalence of sea-
sonal-only and low-income jobs, which contrast with the high cost of living.
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 2 / 31
(ADF&G), and the Native Caucus with Indigenous
representatives from across Alaska. Since the
inception of the AMBCC harvest survey in 2004,
the Native Caucus required that these data are not
to be released at the household and community
levels and that survey results are to be reported
only aggregated at larger geographic areas.
Accordingly, the AMBCC harvest data were
collected under the common understanding that
data provided by survey participants were to
remain confidential at the household and
community levels (Alaska Statute 16.05.815). For
this reason, AMBCC harvest data used in this study
were not made publicly available. Inquiries about
AMBCC data access may be addressed to the
AMBCC Executive Director (https://www.fws.gov/
office/alaska-migratory-birds/alaska-migratory-
bird-co-management-council). Reasons for which
the AMBCC Native Caucus required AMBCC
harvest data to remain confidential at the
household and community levels are related to a
complex management history and distrust
resulting from the treatment of Indigenous peoples
by government organizations. The AMBCC Native
Caucus has concerns that harvest data may be
used for law enforcement, punitive purposes or in
other ways that may harm subsistence users. In
2018, the USFWS and the ADF&G presented a joint
apology to Alaska Indigenous peoples for
unintended harm resulting from insensitive past
harvest regulations for the harvest of migratory
birds. Efforts to build trust continue, but
relationships between Indigenous subsistence
users and fish and wildlife agencies in Alaska still
are tenuous".
Funding: This study was funded by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid
in Wildlife Restoration Act (grants F21AF03238-01
and F23AF00467-00, LCN) and by the divisions of
Subsistence and of Wildlife Conservation of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The funders
had no role in study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.

Wild foods are rich in nutrients and support a healthier diet than processed foods [24].
Wild foods provided 189% of the daily protein needs and 26% of the daily caloric needs for
rural Alaska residents in the early 2000s [25]. Subsistence harvests in rural Alaska amount to
36.9 million edible pounds per year including fish (53%), land and marine mammals (23% and
14%, respectively), plants (4%), shellfish (3%), and birds and eggs (3%) [25]. Although birds
and eggs are a small part of the total harvest in weight, they are harvested primarily in spring,
when other resources are scarce. Bird and egg harvests also add diversity to the diet and are
socially and culturally important [17].
Historically, the arrival of migratory birds in spring alleviated hunger and starvation in
Northern Indigenous communities. Wild foods stored in the previous harvest season were
depleted in spring, after a long Arctic winter. Enforcement of the spring-summer harvest clo-
sure established by the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) caused hardships for Indige-
nous communities in Alaska as they depended on wild foods for survival [26]. In 1997,
following decades of efforts by Indigenous leaders, the bird treaties with Canada and Mexico
were amended to legally allow the Alaska spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory
birds [2,27,28]. The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC) was created
in 2000 to provide a meaningful role for Indigenous people in harvest management and con-
servation of migratory birds [29]. The AMBCC has three voting partners: the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the
Native Caucus with Indigenous representatives from regions across Alaska. In 2018, the
USFWS and the ADF&G presented a joint apology to Alaska Indigenous people for unin-
tended harm resulting from insensitive past harvest regulations for the harvest of migratory
birds [30]. Efforts to build trust continue, but relationships between Indigenous subsistence
users and fish and wildlife agencies in Alaska still are tenuous.
Harvest regulations for waterfowl and other migratory birds in Alaska include a spring-
summer subsistence season (2 April–31 August; 50 CFR 92) in addition to a fall-winter general
hunting season (1 September–26 January, 107-day season dates vary by hunt zone; 50 CFR 20)
[31,32]. Bird harvest regulations in Alaska do not refer to user ethnicity. Eligibility to partici-
pate in the spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds is based on regions or com-
munities of residence that have spring-summer harvest traditions and excludes unqualified
urban areas. For urban Alaska residents from Euro-American cultural traditions, contempo-
rary bird hunting usually evolved from recreational pursuits [33]. Alaska’s urban communities
are supported by a capital economy, where families earn income in wage-market employment
and food is primarily imported from southern agricultural sources.
Some aspects remain unsettled about the rules for where and when migratory birds can be
legally harvested in Alaska. First, regulations for migratory bird harvest largely differ between
the two regulatory seasons and are substantially less restrictive in the spring-summer season.
Second, there are no legal provisions to accommodate subsistence harvest of migratory birds
in rural regions in the fall-winter season. Restrictive regulations in the fall-winter season con-
trast with traditional harvest practices of Indigenous communities. Harvest data for all regula-
tory seasons are important to inform decisions that can help harmonize values and goals of
diverse stakeholders.
Materials and methods
Study area
Alaska’s vast geography (665,400 mi
2
) includes marine, coastal, wetland, boreal forest, and
other ecosystems in Arctic and sub-Arctic western North America. A few urban centers con-
centrate more than half of the state’s human population (about 730,000 people).
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 3 / 31

Approximately 250 small communities are remote and accessible only by aircraft, boat, or in
winter by snowmobile. About half of the population in the remote communities are Indige-
nous [21].
In this study we used the term “rural” to refer to the communities and regions eligible to par-
ticipate in the Alaska spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds, and we used the
term “urban” to refer to the communities and regions ineligible to participate in this harvest
(Fig 1) (50 CFR 92.5) [31]. This geographic framework adopted for harvest management reflects
relevant socio-ecological and regulatory domains. The eligible area includes 202 communities
with a total population of about 87,000 people during the 1990s–2010s (S1 Table in S1 File)
[21]. We divided the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta) management region into “Coast”
and “Inland” and the Bering Strait-Norton Sound region into “Mainland” and “St. Lawrence-
Diomede Islands” because of distinct patterns in waterfowl species composition and abun-
dance. We combined the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet management regions because of similar
waterfowl species composition and abundance (Fig 1). We did not report waterfowl harvests
for Southeast Alaska because in this region the resources opened for harvest in the spring-sum-
mer subsistence season include only eggs of the Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens.
This study represented harvests based on the region of residence of hunters. We assumed
that harvests by rural residents largely happened within the boundaries of their region of resi-
dence. Surveys in rural communities documented harvests by year-round resident households,
Fig 1. Alaska’s rural regions as defined in this study. Adapted from management regions for the spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory
birds [31].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g001
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 4 / 31

including harvests that may have happened outside the boundaries of their community of resi-
dence. For Indigenous people in Alaska, land and resources are organized into defined geo-
graphic areas to which access and use are traditionally allocated among kinship groups. As the
Indigenous populations (originally semi-nomadic) re-organized into sedentary communities,
land use areas evolved into community-use areas [20]. Kinship-based land use patterns now
overlap with and are somewhat affected by modern socio-economic and political boundaries
including those defined by harvest management systems. In contrast, land use patterns of
Alaska urban residents (mostly south-central Alaska, Fairbanks, and Juneau) often involve
harvest areas largely separated from their community and region of residence. Urban residents
can harvest in rural regions in the fall-winter general hunting season and often do so, especially
at locations on the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian-Pribilof Islands, and Kodiak Archipelago (e.g.,
Adak, Saint Paul, Cold Bay, Unalaska, Larsen Bay, and Kodiak City).
Data sources and treatment
We compiled previously available harvest data for waterfowl and Sandhill Crane for rural
regions to estimate an annual average harvest in the 2004–2015 reference period, which is con-
sistent with changes in harvest regulations starting in 2003 that legally allowed the spring-sum-
mer subsistence harvest of migratory birds. The basic data unit was a community-year, i.e., a
harvest survey conducted in a specific community and year. The dataset (637 community-
years) included data from the AMBCC harvest survey (416 community-years) [34], Commu-
nity Subsistence Information System (CSIS) from the ADF&G Division of Subsistence (164
community-years) [16], and other sources (57 community-years) [14,15,35–39].
The ADF&G does not have a formal institutional review board for social sciences research.
Nevertheless, the ADF&G Division of Subsistence has conducted social sciences research
applied to resource management in collaboration with local communities throughout Alaska
for about 45 years, contributing more than 600 research products in this field. Senior staff
reviewed and approved research methods for this study following technical and ethical stan-
dards [40,41]. Additional approval of research methods was not required, especially as this
study did not involve new data collection.
Data collection in the multiple used sources followed ethical principles including informed
consent, voluntary participation, anonymity, confidentiality, and community review of draft
findings [40,41]. In all sources, data were collected in household surveys collaboratively con-
ducted with Indigenous organizations and local research assistants. Participation in the sur-
veys was voluntary for communities and households. Community consent was usually
formalized as written tribal council resolutions. Consent was also obtained from all individual
households. Participation of households selected for sampling was typically above 80%.
We broadly shared draft results of this study with federal, state, and Native AMBCC part-
ners asking for their review. A four-page summary of results was also produced to facilitate
review. We updated the draft manuscript considering all review input.
Two-thirds of the dataset (492 community-years) pertained to the 2004–2015 reference
period (S1 Table, S2 Fig in S1 File). We also included some older (110 community-years in
1982–2003) and more recent data (35 community-years in 2016–2020) to supplement infor-
mation for less-often surveyed regions. Of the 202 communities in the sampling frame, only
nine communities (4%) in four regions were not represented in the dataset.
We also compiled published harvest data for the fall-winter general hunting season from
the Harvest Information Program (HIP), which is managed by the USFWS in collaboration
with state wildlife agencies [42,43]. All hunters (residents of Alaska rural and urban regions,
other U.S. states, and other countries) intending to harvest waterfowl in the spring-summer or
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 5 / 31

fall-winter hunting seasons in Alaska are required to purchase a state waterfowl conservation
tag, also known as the state duck stamp. State stamp holders may be selected for the HIP har-
vest survey. Finally, we also compiled unpublished data on issued Alaska state duck stamps,
which are managed by the ADF&G Division of Administrative Services.
We excluded some available harvest data because of incompatibility among sources and
other analytical constraints: (a) AMBCC data affected by missing data issues; (b) most commu-
nity-years without information on season of harvest; and (c) 1989–1992 surveys in the Gulf of
Alaska-Cook Inlet and Kodiak Archipelago (supplemental, older data), as usual harvest pat-
terns were likely disrupted immediately following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill [44]. With
the intent of focusing on the data that most accurately represented community harvests, we
also excluded community-years for which the sampling proportion was less than 45% of the
total households or the sample size was smaller than 45 households (including AMBCC data
for 2016 and later when methodological changes reduced sampling rates at the community
level [45]). Surveys in small communities usually had sampling rates above 45% (and nearing a
census), thus this approach did not cause their under-representation in the dataset. We
acknowledge this was a high data-quality threshold, but it was enabled by a relatively large
quantity of data available. We also excluded data prior to 1997 from regions for which more
recent data were available (S1 Table in S1 File); this threshold intended to represent current
harvest patterns and reduce overlap with the 1980–1996 period represented in previously avail-
able harvest estimates [19].
We limited the Emperor Goose data to 1987–2016 (609 community-years; years outside the
2004–2015 reference period consisted of limited supplemental data for regions less often sur-
veyed), when harvest of this species was closed due to its low abundance [46–48]. We did not
estimate Emperor Goose harvest for the period after the harvest was re-opened in 2017 because
data were unavailable for some regions and some data were incompatible with the analytical
approach used in this study.
The household harvest surveys used in this study relied on species identification by respon-
dents and did not employ biological sampling (e.g., a parts collection survey [49]). Species
identification issues may result from challenges in distinguishing look-alike species and differ-
ences between genetics-based taxonomy and local ethno-taxonomies (e.g., female eiders and
scoters). Household harvest surveys in Alaska use multi-species categories because of diverse
study foci, species identification issues, and a need for conciseness in surveys involving dozens
to hundreds of animal and plant species. We standardized data from the original sources into
the following multi-species categories: wigeons, teals, scaups, goldeneyes, mergansers, Canada/
Cackling geese, and swans. We reserved the use of plural in species names to indicate these
multi-species categories. Favoring conciseness, the surveys often did not explicitly ask about
harvest of uncommon species such as Redhead Aythya americana and Ruddy Duck Oxyura
jamaicensis, which hunters may only occasionally encounter. A few records of Redhead harvest
were included in the category “ducks (other, unidentified).”
We divided the year into spring (April–June: pre-breeding migration, arrival at breeding
grounds, egg laying, and incubation), summer (July–August: chick rearing), and fall-winter
(September–March: post-breeding migration and wintering) broadly reflecting seasonal phe-
nology and availability of migratory birds in Alaska. We presented only annual egg harvest
estimates, as eggs are available for about a month in spring-summer in any given location.
Data analysis
We followed analytical methods developed in previous studies [50–52]. We calculated harvest
estimates by extrapolating data from surveyed households and communities to represent all
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 6 / 31

households and communities in the rural regions. First, we calculated community-level har-
vest for the AMBCC data based on household raw data (S3 Appendix-equation 1 in S1 File).
Then, we combined these harvest estimates with the other data sources that reported at the
community level. Although we used a large dataset, data were insufficient to estimate Alaska-
wide harvest for individual years while properly accounting for geographic patterns. For com-
munities surveyed more than once, we averaged annual harvest and variance at community
level before calculating region-wide estimates. Thus, estimates represented an annual average
harvest in the 2004–2015 period (i.e., harvest was not summed over years). At the region level,
we extrapolated community-level estimates to account for the few communities not repre-
sented in the dataset (S3 Appendix-equation 2 in S1 File). But for most regions, all communi-
ties were represented in the dataset. We then summed region estimates into Alaska-wide
estimates. Harvest estimates did not account for wounding loss (birds struck but not
retrieved).
We calculated community-level variance for the AMBCC survey from household raw data
(S3 Appendix-equations 3.a and 3.b in S1 File). For other sources, we retro-calculated commu-
nity-level variance based on reported confidence intervals assuming that all surveys used sim-
ple random sampling (equation 3.c in S1 File). We calculated region-level variance using
formulas for two-stage sampling: communities were primary sampling units and households
were secondary sampling units (S3 Appendix-equations 4.a–4.c in S1 File; [50]). We summed
region-level variance into Alaska-wide variance. We calculated confidence intervals as per-
centages of harvest estimates (S3 Appendix-equations 5.a and 5.b in S1 File). We analyzed data
using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27.
Results
Harvest amounts and species composition
The estimated annual average harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane by rural hunters in
Alaska was 270,641 birds/year in the 2004–2015 period (Tables 1–3,Fig 2A, S4 Table in S1
File). The seasonal distribution of the harvest was 58% in spring, 10% in summer, and 32% in
fall-winter (for harvests with documented seasons; Table 3, S5 Fig in S1 File). The species/cate-
gories that accounted for at least 5% of the waterfowl and Sandhill Crane harvest included:
Canada/Cackling geese (16%), White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons (15%), Mallard Anas pla-
tyrhynchos (11%), scoters (9%), Northern Pintail Anas acuta (8%), King Eider Somateria spect-
abilis (5%), Black Scoter Melanitta americana (5%), and Brant (5%) (Table 2,Fig 2A).
Comparing amounts of total waterfowl harvest among regions, relatively high harvest
(about 60,000 birds/year) occurred in the Y-K Delta Coast (23% of the total waterfowl harvest)
and Y-K Delta Inland (21%) (Fig 3A). Intermediary harvest (about 15,000–30,000 birds/year
or 6%–10%) occurred in Interior Alaska East, Kodiak Archipelago, Bristol Bay, Bering Strait
Mainland, North Slope, and Northwest Arctic. The remaining regions had a relatively low har-
vest (up to about 6,000 birds/year or 2%; Gulf of Alaska-Cook Inlet, Aleutian-Pribilof Islands,
St. Lawrence-Diomede Islands, Interior Alaska West, and Upper Copper River).
The estimated harvest of waterfowl eggs in rural regions was 36,692 eggs/year (Table 4, S6
Table in S1 File). Species/categories that accounted for at least 5% of the waterfowl egg harvest
included Canada/Cackling geese (22% of the total egg harvest), White-fronted Goose (19%),
ducks (unidentified) (9%), geese (unidentified) (8%), Common Eider Somateria mollissima
(7%), Northern Pintail (7%), swans (6%), and Brant (5%) (Table 2,Fig 2B). The regions
accounting for most of the waterfowl egg harvest were Y-K Delta Coast (56%), Bering Strait
Mainland (16%), and Y-K Delta Inland (11%) (Fig 3B).
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 7 / 31

Table 1. Overview of annual average harvest and abundance index for waterfowl and Sandhill Crane that regularly breed or occur in Alaska, 2004–2015.
Species that regularly breed or occur
in Alaska
Alaska abundance
index
Harvest (birds/year)
Alaska rural
a
Alaska HIP
survey
b
Alaska
total
a,b
Lower 48 Pacific
Flyway
b
Spring-
summer
Fall-
winter
Unknown
season
Annual Fall-winter Annual Fall-winter
Wigeons - 3,914 4,300 349 8,563 10,536 19,099 397,606
American Wigeon Mareca
americana
803,699 - - - 10,492 - 396,104
Eurasian Wigeon M.penelope - - - - 44 - 1,502
Gadwall M.strepera 2,009 5 586 48 639 996 1,635 186,437
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 540,343 13,715 15,738 659 30,112 20,833 50,945 958,689
Northern Pintail A.acuta 1,033,099 13,662 8,340 385 22,387 7,391 29,778 263,975
Northern Shoveler Spatula clypeata 462,228 2,181 1,578 28 3,787 2,771 6,558 272,446
Teals - 2,623 5,435 198 8,256 7,530 15,786 568,224
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 686,727 - - - - 7,465 - 515,442
Blue-winged Teal Spatula discors 1,642 - - - - 65 - 52,782
Canvasback Aythya valisineria 62,093 1,274 525 2 1,801 153 1,954 24,547
Redhead A.americana† 1,718 - - - 52 52 21,216
Scaups 855,557 7,711 3,635 25 11,371 2,090 13,461 105,977
*Greater Scaup Aythya marila - - - - - 735 - 16,505
Lesser Scaup A.affinis - - - - - 595 - 36,410
Ring-necked Duck A.collaris 48,674 - - - - 760 - 53,062
Common Eider Somateria mollissima 8,300 3,592 739 5 4,336 - - -
*King Eider S.spectabilis 20,269 13,008 898 0 13,906 - - -
Common and King eiders - 16,600 1,637 5 18,242 67 18,309 0
*‡Spectacled Eider S.fischeri 20,971 296 119 0 415 0 415 0
*‡Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri 86,282 69 133 0 202 0 202 0
Alaska-breeding population 149 - - - - - - -
Pacific population 86,282 - - - - - - -
Eiders (unidentified) - 1,116 126 91 1,333 0 1,333 0
Scoters 321,070 17,145 6,490 141 23,776 3,505 27,281 4,648
Surf Scoter M.perspicillata - 2,616 895 11 3,522 2,032 5,554 3,310
White-winged Scoter M.deglandi - 4,724 1,912 33 6,669 878 7,547 1,255
*Black Scoter Melanitta americana - 9,457 3,542 72 13,071 595 13,666 83
Scoters (unidentified) - 348 141 25 514 0 514 0
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus
- 1,412 1,943 105 3,460 1,577 5,037 83
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 124,884 2,880 1,211 22 4,113 230 4,343 295
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 49,991 1,083 2,326 66 3,475 1,338 4,813 37,107
Goldeneyes 50,705 2,149 4,199 43 6,391 2,887 9,278 29,715
Common Goldeneye Bucephala
clangula
- - - - - 1,111 - 26,942
Barrow’s Goldeneye B.islandica - - - - - 1,776 - 2,773
Mergansers 29,036 573 640 12 1,225 1,940 3,165 10,443
Common Merganser Mergus
merganser
- - - - - 1,013 - 4,560
Red-breasted Merganser M.
serrator
- - - - - 921 - 524
Hooded Merganser Lophoytes
cucullatus
- - - - - 6 - 5,359
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 8 / 31

Table 1. (Continued)
Species that regularly breed or occur
in Alaska
Alaska abundance
index
Harvest (birds/year)
Alaska rural
a
Alaska HIP
survey
b
Alaska
total
a,b
Lower 48 Pacific
Flyway
b
Spring-
summer
Fall-
winter
Unknown
season
Annual Fall-winter Annual Fall-winter
Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 224 - - - - 7 7 9,235
Ducks (other, unidentified) - 1,080 707 87 1,874 0 1,874 0
Greater White-fronted Goose Anser
albifrons
941,899 36,509 5,065 150 41,724 818 42,542 66,064
Mid-continent population 269,139 - - - - - - -
Pacific population 628,950 - - - - - - -
*Tule A.a.elgasi 14,445 - - - - - - -
Lesser Snow Goose Anser caerulescens 213,809 7,000 1,600 0 8,600 4 8,604 66,074
Western Arctic population 31,328 - - - - - - -
Wrangell Island population 166,750 - - - - - - -
Ross’s Goose Anser rossi - - - - - 28 28 13,208
*Brant Branta bernicla 150,200 10,187 2,446 6 12,639 1,342 13,981 1,733
Canada/Cackling geese - 28,665 13,252 91 42,008 6,370 48,378 293,351
Minima Cackling Goose Branta
hutchinsii minima
273,458 - - - - - - -
Aleutian Cackling Goose B.h.
leucopareia
125,442 - - - - - - -
*Taverner’s Cackling Goose B.h.
taverneri
45,770 - - - - - - -
*Dusky Canada Goose B.
canadensis occidentalis
12,231 - - - - - - -
*Lesser Canada Goose B.c.
parvipes
5,927 - - - - - - -
Vancouver Canada Goose B.c.
fulva
- - - - - - - -
*‡Emperor Goose Anser canagicus 25,408 1,988 1,186 5 3,179 0 3,179 0
Geese (unidentified) - 406 58 0 464 0 464 0
Swans 3,908 1,535 25 5,468 64 5,532 1,150
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 137,751 - - - - - - 1,136
Western population 125,325 - - - - - - -
Eastern population 15,384 - - - - - - -
‡Trumpeter Swan C.buccinator 19,633 - - - - - - 14
Lesser Sandhill Crane Antigone
canadensis
31,393 3,700 1,406 31 5,137 1,122 6,249 716
Pacific coast population 16,140 - - - - 744 - 0
Mid-continent population 15,253 - - - - 368 - 716
Total - 181,851 86,216 2,574 270,641 73,641 344,282 3,332,939
Harvest:
(a)
this study,
(b)
Harvest Information Program (HIP) [42,43].
Alaska abundance index [43,53–59]: Abundance indices are heterogenous among species depending on the geographic area, demographic contingents (e.g., breeding,
non-breeding, hatch-year birds), and populations represented in different estimates as well as whether estimates are corrected for incomplete detection. Additional
information for population data is available in S1 Dataset.
*: Species of conservation concern [60].
‡
: Species not opened for harvest in the 2004–2015 spring-summer subsistence season at least in some management units [31].
-: Data unavailable.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.t001
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 9 / 31

Table 2. Annual average harvest estimates for waterfowl and Sandhill Crane and their eggs in rural Alaska by period, 1980–2015.
Species or categories Harvest estimates (birds/year, eggs/year)
1980–1989
a
1980–1995
b
1980–1996
c
1993–2012
d
2004–2015
e
Birds Eggs Birds Eggs Birds Eggs Birds Eggs Birds Eggs
Ducks 210,448 - 209,454 9,294 197,575 - - - 151,422 12,751
Wigeons - - - - 16,415 - - - 8,563 211
Gadwall - - - - 576 - - - 639 0
Mallard - - - - 44,866 - - - 30,112 1,507
Northern Pintail - - - - 41,016 - - - 22,387 2,397
Northern Shoveler - - - - 2,881 - - - 3,787 298
Teals - - - - 12,563 - - - 8,256 461
Canvasback - - - - 1,316 - - - 1,801 62
Scaups - - - - 8,407 - - - 11,371 104
Common Eider - - - - 6,919 - 4,460 3,496 4,336 2,720
King Eider - - - - 16,469 - 16,203 925 13,906 691
Spectacled Eider - - - - 1,127 - 222 25 415 14
Steller’s Eider - - - - 438 - 230 50 202 29
Eiders (unidentified) - - - - - - - - 1,333 113
Surf Scoter - - - - 967 - 2,765 15 3,522 23
White-winged Scoter - - - - 3,506 - 7,538 47 6,669 52
Black Scoter - - - - 8,451 - 11,617 78 13,071 85
Scoters (unidentified) - - - - 4,689 - - - 514 0
Harlequin Duck - - - - 2,217 - 2,080 0 3,460 0
Long-tailed Duck - - - - 10,341 - 4,020 1,027 4,113 326
Bufflehead - - - - 3,916 - 3,782 62 3,475 35
Goldeneyes - - - - 6,973 - 7,252 17 6,391 73
Mergansers - - - - 1,977 - 1,556 52 1,225 106
Ducks (other, unidentified) - - - - 1,545 - - - 1,874 3,444
Geese 79,655 - 111,228 5,244 120,015 - - - 108,614 20,589
White-fronted Goose - - - - 30,950 - - - 41,724 6,870
Snow Goose - - - - 9,018 - - - 8,600 106
Brant - - - - 14,945 - - - 12,639 1,889
Canada/Cackling geese - - - - 61,094 - - - 42,008 8,200
Emperor Goose - - - - 4,008 - - - 3,179 521
Geese (unidentified) - - - - - - - - 464 3,003
Swans 6,894 - 10,604 1,016 9,953 - - - 5,468 2,093
Sandhill crane 5,283 - 8,874 787 7,200 - - - 5,137 1,259
Total waterfowl and Sandhill Crane 302,280 - 340,160 16,341 334,743 - - - 270,641 36,692
Total seabirds - - 19,382 115,344 36,418 - - - 24,315
f
150,781
f
Total shorebirds - - 741 2,741 1,411 - - - 2,783
g
4,678
g
Migratory birds (other, unidentified) 4,962 - - 9,295 - - - - - -
Total migratory birds 307,242 83,603 360,283 143,721 372,572 - - - 297,739 192,151
Sources:
(a)
n = 151 community-years [17];
(b)
n = 244 community-years [18];
(c)
n = 298 community-years [19];
(d)
n = 418 community-years [61];
(e)
n = 637 community-years [this study];
(f)
n = 545 community-years [51]; and
(g)
n = 775 community-years [52].
-: Data unavailable.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.t002
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 10 / 31

Table 3. Estimated annual average harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane (birds/year) in Alaska rural regions by season, 2004–2015.
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Wigeons 1 1,257 265 1 1,328 1,854 1,487 457 19 705 31 502 656 8,563
Spring 1 632 172 1 254 868 834 294 0 190 2 2 0 3,250
Summer 0 62 10 0 190 246 109 4 0 25 0 2 16 664
Fall-winter 0 559 83 0 884 740 530 159 19 159 29 498 640 4,300
Unknown 0 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 331 0 0 0 349
Gadwall 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 55 36 532 12 639
Spring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 5
Summer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fall-winter 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 34 529 12 586
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 48
Mallard 24 2,341 788 5 3,994 4,700 6,036 976 218 4,184 901 3,866 2,079 30,112
Spring 10 1,655 409 1 1,130 2,369 2,751 664 119 2,069 30 247 92 11,546
Summer 14 175 67 0 554 438 507 35 23 151 23 10 172 2,169
Fall-winter 0 507 312 4 2,307 1,893 2,731 277 76 1,436 847 3,533 1,815 15,738
Unknown 0 4 0 0 3 0 47 0 0 528 1 76 0 659
Northern
Pintail
43 2,514 3,818 130 6,163 3,184 2,259 571 40 2,610 296 383 376 22,387
Spring 28 1,621 1,808 107 1,308 1,728 1,241 467 25 1,488 6 37 13 9,877
Summer 11 341 1,069 17 1,836 224 127 3 4 126 15 0 12 3,785
Fall-winter 4 546 941 6 3,018 1,232 866 101 11 643 275 346 351 8,340
Unknown 0 6 0 0 1 0 25 0 0 353 0 0 0 385
Northern
Shoveler
0 398 350 1 960 1,022 606 80 15 282 7 1 65 3,787
Spring 0 195 240 1 154 437 340 68 11 155 0 0 2 1,603
Summer 0 71 24 0 328 121 27 0 0 7 0 0 0 578
Fall-winter 0 128 86 0 478 464 239 12 4 96 7 1 63 1,578
Unknown 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 28
Teals 11 408 363 3 922 1,212 667 236 19 1,331 892 1,317 875 8,256
Spring 11 200 215 3 146 434 303 107 9 410 68 199 9 2,114
Summer 0 28 21 0 121 179 26 3 2 117 2 0 10 509
Fall-winter 0 179 127 0 655 599 338 126 8 607 822 1,118 856 5,435
Unknown 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 0 0 0 198
Canvasback 0 139 23 1 59 719 618 29 14 92 23 58 26 1,801
Spring 0 85 20 1 18 539 364 22 10 42 6 0 0 1,107
Summer 0 14 1 0 13 62 74 0 3 0 0 0 0 167
Fall-winter 0 40 2 0 28 118 180 7 1 48 17 58 26 525
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Scaups 9 499 68 0 707 7,054 694 47 4 101 49 2,051 88 11,371
Spring 3 333 51 0 170 5,321 337 40 2 72 8 553 6 6,896
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 11 / 31

Table 3. (Continued)
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Summer 6 51 1 0 82 628 43 0 0 4 0 0 0 815
Fall-winter 0 100 16 0 455 1,105 314 7 2 15 41 1,498 82 3,635
Unknown 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 25
Common Eider 2,068 59 335 1,438 277 26 0 1 0 64 68 0 0 4,336
Spring 1,199 41 219 593 207 23 0 1 0 35 0 0 0 2,318
Summer 827 6 61 320 12 0 0 0 0 9 39 0 0 1,274
Fall-winter 37 12 55 525 58 3 0 0 0 20 29 0 0 739
Unknown 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
King Eider 6,907 29 160 522 5,019 250 0 0 0 657 349 13 0 13,906
Spring 3,110 25 156 221 4,201 236 0 0 0 621 17 1 0 8,588
Summer 3,713 3 1 130 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,420
Fall-winter 84 1 3 171 245 14 0 0 0 36 332 12 0 898
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spectacled
Eider
145 0 19 147 28 6 0 1 12 56 1 0 0 415
Spring 122 0 3 36 17 6 0 1 0 24 0 0 0 209
Summer 23 0 8 47 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 87
Fall-winter 0 0 8 64 9 0 0 0 5 32 1 0 0 119
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Steller’s Eider 26 38 53 15 39 1 0 0 0 12 18 0 0 202
Spring 20 0 0 6 9 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 47
Summer 6 0 3 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Fall-winter 0 38 50 4 22 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 133
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eiders
(unidentified)
1,138 71 4 0 9 5 0 0 0 99 0 7 0 1,333
Spring 497 65 3 0 9 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 585
Summer 525 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 531
Fall-winter 116 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 126
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 91
Surf Scoter 0 230 11 4 105 1,627 402 32 0 147 44 845 75 3,522
Spring 0 175 9 2 72 1,529 237 26 0 59 2 388 11 2,510
Summer 0 41 1 1 4 7 41 0 0 11 0 0 0 106
Fall-winter 0 12 1 1 29 91 115 6 0 77 42 457 64 895
Unknown 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
White-winged
Scoter
2 134 24 12 213 2,013 3,264 25 21 76 75 761 49 6,669
Spring 1 85 24 1 167 1,666 1,821 17 7 44 1 220 10 4,064
Summer 1 6 0 3 6 34 601 0 7 0 0 0 2 660
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 12 / 31

Table 3. (Continued)
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Fall-winter 0 43 0 8 40 313 809 8 7 32 74 541 37 1,912
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
Black Scoter 4 830 169 12 618 6,974 789 145 26 403 58 2,851 192 13,071
Spring 3 623 137 1 401 5,801 487 133 9 281 3 964 67 8,910
Summer 0 72 0 6 32 342 56 2 10 22 2 0 3 547
Fall-winter 1 65 32 5 185 831 246 10 7 100 53 1,887 120 3,542
Unknown 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 72
Scoters
(unidentified)
0 2 0 0 0 0 384 19 0 24 8 76 1 514
Spring 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 7 0 21 0 0 0 348
Summer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fall-winter 0 2 0 0 0 0 42 12 0 0 8 76 1 141
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 3 0 0 0 25
Harlequin
Duck
0 8 7 199 50 123 57 5 0 190 307 2,480 34 3,460
Spring 0 6 1 54 6 90 9 4 0 126 22 971 3 1,292
Summer 0 0 4 71 0 1 12 0 0 0 4 26 2 120
Fall-winter 0 2 2 74 44 32 36 1 0 64 253 1,407 28 1,943
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 76 1 105
Long-tailed
Duck
99 677 104 155 559 1,084 580 107 0 39 53 595 61 4,113
Spring 36 562 50 87 124 841 369 104 0 24 0 209 14 2,420
Summer 30 74 2 49 31 161 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 460
Fall-winter 17 35 52 19 404 82 98 3 0 15 53 386 47 1,211
Unknown 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Bufflehead 0 8 36 0 32 351 863 58 6 58 98 1,832 133 3,475
Spring 0 4 35 0 13 178 454 55 3 20 0 258 6 1,026
Summer 0 4 0 0 0 33 17 0 0 0 1 0 2 57
Fall-winter 0 0 1 0 19 140 381 3 3 34 97 1,523 125 2,326
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 4 0 51 0 66
Goldeneyes 1 73 32 5 129 1,283 983 60 26 260 201 2,873 465 6,391
Spring 0 58 22 2 51 858 472 54 8 169 0 205 69 1,968
Summer 1 8 0 0 21 71 53 0 1 12 1 5 8 181
Fall-winter 0 7 10 3 57 354 450 6 17 71 199 2,638 387 4,199
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 1 25 1 43
Mergansers 3 5 3 20 232 99 113 2 3 320 101 158 166 1,225
Spring 3 0 3 2 107 72 82 2 3 181 10 10 48 523
Summer 0 4 0 5 6 1 21 0 0 9 4 0 0 50
Fall-winter 0 1 0 13 119 26 10 0 0 119 86 148 118 640
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 13 / 31

Table 3. (Continued)
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 12
Ducks (other,
unidentified)
127 494 61 2 239 125 163 97 36 301 55 104 70 1,874
Spring 72 349 13 0 84 76 69 49 14 149 11 0 3 889
Summer 36 7 9 0 47 6 7 0 7 62 5 0 5 191
Fall-winter 19 137 39 2 108 43 87 48 15 80 39 28 62 707
Unknown 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 76 0 87
Ducks, total 10,608 10,214 6,693 2,672 21,686 33,712 19,965 2,948 459 12,066 3,671 21,305 5,423 151,422
Spring 5,116 6,714 3,590 1,119 8,648 23,076 10,490 2,115 220 6,199 188 4,267 353 72,095
Summer 5,193 972 1,283 654 3,866 2,554 1,834 47 64 555 96 43 232 17,393
Fall-winter 278 2,415 1,820 899 9,168 8,082 7,472 786 175 3,692 3,356 16,691 4,834 59,668
Unknown 21 113 0 0 4 0 169 0 0 1,620 31 304 4 2,266
White-fronted
Goose
11,556 2,203 805 18 12,413 9,072 3,608 825 1 1,199 0 0 24 41,724
Spring 11,056 1,751 669 12 8,103 7,073 3,120 776 0 943 0 0 0 33,503
Summer 447 67 28 0 1,733 395 299 4 0 20 0 0 13 3,006
Fall-winter 49 385 108 6 2,577 1,604 181 45 1 98 0 0 11 5,065
Unknown 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 138 0 0 0 150
Snow Goose 521 434 3,849 986 1,664 702 396 27 9 2 1 0 9 8,600
Spring 493 430 3,564 123 1,202 594 336 21 6 0 0 0 0 6,769
Summer 23 0 69 69 5 16 46 3 0 0 0 0 0 231
Fall-winter 5 4 216 794 457 92 14 3 3 2 1 0 9 1,600
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brant 1,407 829 2,452 373 5,582 320 66 30 2 558 1,004 15 1 12,639
Spring 1,045 677 1,984 141 4,267 269 62 28 1 442 208 0 0 9,124
Summer 313 120 116 60 389 29 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 1,063
Fall-winter 49 32 352 172 926 22 4 2 1 83 787 15 1 2,446
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6
Canada/
Cackling geese
572 4,121 4,374 74 15,073 10,094 2,365 1,273 26 2,821 657 325 233 42,008
Spring 512 3,220 2,508 33 6,262 7,459 1,679 1,104 20 1,699 23 90 12 24,621
Summer 47 235 225 19 2,536 471 263 10 0 183 42 0 13 4,044
Fall-winter 13 661 1,641 22 6,275 2,164 418 159 6 858 592 235 208 13,252
Unknown 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 81 0 0 0 91
Emperor Goose 1 55 134 794 1,285 178 0 2 0 169 536 25 0 3,179
Spring 1 55 112 203 907 101 0 0 0 70 76 0 0 1,525
Summer 0 0 9 168 235 40 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 463
Fall-winter 0 0 13 423 143 37 0 2 0 98 445 25 0 1,186
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 14 / 31

Table 3. (Continued)
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Geese
(unidentified)
182 97 0 0 0 24 5 39 1 89 14 2 11 464
Spring 182 95 0 0 0 18 2 25 0 79 0 0 2 403
Summer 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Fall-winter 0 1 0 0 0 6 1 14 1 10 14 2 9 58
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Geese, total 14,239 7,739 11,614 2,245 36,017 20,390 6,440 2,196 39 4,838 2,212 367 278 108,614
Spring 13,289 6,228 8,837 512 20,741 15,514 5,199 1,954 27 3,233 307 90 14 75,945
Summer 830 423 447 316 4,898 951 610 17 0 231 61 0 26 8,810
Fall-winter 116 1,083 2,330 1,417 10,378 3,925 618 225 12 1,149 1,839 277 238 23,607
Unknown 4 5 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 225 5 0 0 252
Swans 32 99 422 71 1,867 2,650 72 15 8 231 0 0 1 5,468
Spring 30 47 260 33 976 1,928 42 14 5 154 0 0 0 3,489
Summer 1 5 47 21 219 123 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 419
Fall-winter 1 46 114 17 672 599 28 1 3 53 0 0 1 1,535
Unknown 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 21 0 0 0 25
Sandhill Crane 13 77 1,146 108 2,329 1,011 136 39 0 229 4 0 45 5,137
Spring 9 56 562 42 1,674 735 66 31 0 120 0 0 0 3,295
Summer 4 3 40 51 157 75 5 5 0 31 3 0 31 405
Fall-winter 0 18 544 15 498 201 60 3 0 52 1 0 14 1,406
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 26 0 0 0 31
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.t003
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 15 / 31

Geographic and seasonal harvest patterns
Pacific-Aleutian Mainland and Islands—Waterfowl harvest by hunters residing in the mostly
maritime Gulf of Alaska-Cook Inlet, Kodiak Archipelago, and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands
regions had a predominant fall-winter component (at least 79% of the annual total harvest)
and high diversity of dabbling and sea ducks (Fig 4, S7 Fig in S1 File). Elements typical of indi-
vidual regions in this group included a relatively high harvest of scaups on the Kodiak Archi-
pelago and geese on the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands (Brant, Canada/Cackling geese, and
Emperor Goose). Total waterfowl harvest amounts were low to intermediary in these regions.
Bering Sea Mainland—Waterfowl harvests in the Bristol Bay, Y-K Delta Coast and Inland,
Bering Strait Mainland, and Northwest Arctic regions had a strong spring component, a high
species diversity (including coastal species such as eiders, Brant, Emperor Goose), and rela-
tively high harvests of swans and Sandhill Crane (Fig 4, S8A–S8E Fig in S1 File). Substantial
fall harvests also occurred in these regions for some species (e.g., Mallard, White-fronted
Goose, Canada/Cackling geese). Total waterfowl harvests in these regions were intermediate
to high reflecting their extensive wetland ecosystems.
St. Lawrence-Diomede Islands—Waterfowl harvests by hunters residing on the pelagic
islands of the Bering Sea were relatively low and presented a distinct seasonal pattern and spe-
cies composition (Fig 4, S8F Fig in S1 File). This harvest had relatively strong summer (20%)
and fall-winter (46%) components and a low species diversity, primarily represented by eiders
(mostly reported as Common Eider), Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus, Long-tailed
Duck Clangula hyemalis, Brant, Snow Goose Anser caerulescens, and Emperor Goose.
Fig 2. Species composition and amounts of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane (A) and their eggs (B) harvested by rural hunters in Alaska, annual
average 2004–2015.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g002
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 16 / 31

North Slope—Waterfowl harvest by hunters residing in this high Arctic region were inter-
mediary, mostly lacked a fall-winter component, and had a low species diversity being primar-
ily composed of eiders (mostly reported as King Eider) and geese (especially White-fronted
Goose) (Fig 4, S9 Fig in S1 File).
Interior Alaska-Upper Copper River—Waterfowl harvest in the landlocked Interior Alaska
(West and East) and Upper Copper River had a strong spring component (similar to other
Alaska regions), but lacked coastal species such as eiders, Brant, and Emperor Goose (Fig 4,
S10 Fig in S1 File). Total waterfowl harvest amounts were low to intermediary in these regions.
Harvests in Alaska by rural residents and other users
Residents of Alaska rural regions accounted for 17% of the annual average number of Alaska
duck stamps issued (2004–2015; Fig 5, S11 Table in S1 File). Fall-winter harvest by rural resi-
dents (86,216 birds/year; this study) was higher than harvests estimated from the HIP survey
(73,641 birds/year) [42,43], which included residents of Alaska urban and rural regions, other
U.S. states, and other countries who purchased an Alaska duck stamp (Table 1). For lack of
better options, we assumed the HIP survey represented harvest primarily by users other than
Alaska rural residents (hereinafter “other users”). An unknown level of overlap exists in fall-
Fig 3. Regional harvest amounts of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane (A) and their eggs (B) byrural hunters in Alaska, annual average 2004–2015.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g003
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 17 / 31

winter harvests represented in the HIP survey and in this study. However, results from these
two datasets suggest substantial differences in the populations sampled by household surveys
in rural regions and by the HIP survey. First, the composition of species in fall-winter harvests
estimated from the HIP survey included higher proportions of dabbling ducks than fall-winter
harvest estimates from this study for rural regions (S12 Fig in S1 File). Second, participation of
rural residents in the HIP program by region often was incommensurate with levels of fall-
Fig 4. Regional seasonality of the harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane by rural huntersin Alaska, annual average 2004–2015.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g004
Fig 5. Alaska state duck stamps issued by region of residence of stamp holders. (A) 1999–2022 Annual values; (B) annual average for the 2004–2015
reference period in this study. Rural regions were defined in this study as those eligible to participate in the Alaska spring-summer subsistence harvest
of migratory birds. Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Division of Administrative Services unpublished data.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g005
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 18 / 31

winter harvest (S13 and S14 Figs in S1 File). For example, the Y-K Delta Coast and Inland
regions accounted for 12% of annual average number of duck stamps issued to Alaska rural
residents, but 39% of the fall-winter rural harvest. In contrast, the Kodiak Archipelago, Bristol
Bay, Gulf of Alaska-Cook Inlet, and Bering Sea Mainland regions accounted for 62% of the
annual average number of ducks stamps issued to rural residents, but 37% of the fall-winter
rural harvest.
Spring-summer and fall-winter harvests by rural hunters represented at least 79% of the
total harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in Alaska, including fall-winter harvest by other
users (Table 1). As a proportion of rural residents participate in the HIP survey, 21% is likely
an overestimate of the contribution of other users to the total harvest in Alaska. In addition,
the total number of birds harvested in Alaska is likely smaller than the sum of estimates
obtained from household surveys in rural communities and the HIP survey.
Harvests by rural hunters in Alaska represented 7% of the total waterfowl harvest in the
Pacific Flyway (species combined); this percentage was largely defined by a high contribution
of dabbling ducks to the harvest in the Lower-48 part of the Pacific Flyway (Table 1,Fig 6A).
Rural hunters in Alaska accounted for most of the total Pacific Flyway harvests for the four
eider species, two scoter species, Harlequin Duck, Long-tailed Duck, Brant, Emperor Goose,
swans, and Sandhill Crane (Fig 6B and 6C).
Discussion
Management implications
Portraying rural harvests in relation to other harvests in Alaska and the Pacific Flyway can
facilitate collaboration for harvest management and bird conservation across Alaska’s regions
and flyways by helping users to understand their contributions to the total harvest. This study
can also help to inform regulatory decisions to achieve collaboratively defined management
goals, support sustainable harvest opportunities, and stabilize or reverse bird population
declines. For example, collaborative actions to temporarily reduce some spring harvest may
support stable Emperor Goose numbers [62].
The seasonality of harvests and species composition in rural Alaska are significant from a
harvest management perspective. The legally-allowed spring-summer harvest of migratory
birds is unique to Alaska and Canada. This exception intended to provide for food and socio-
cultural needs of northern Indigenous people. Sixty-eight percent of harvests in rural Alaska
occurred during spring-summer (pre-breeding and nesting) thus including a higher propor-
tion of breeding-age birds than harvests during fall-winter. Adult birds have higher annual
survival and reproductive value for populations than immature birds [63–66]. Nevertheless,
healthy bird populations have withstood some levels of spring-summer harvest, which has
occurred in Alaska for millennia without known widespread declines of bird populations
across species. Indigenous users often have different values related to spring-summer bird har-
vesting than stakeholders with science training or a sport hunting perspective. For example,
Indigenous users are more comfortable with effects of spring-summer harvesting on bird pop-
ulations than other stakeholders [62]. In addition, Indigenous users often do not identify with
principles and tools commonly used in science-based harvest management that evolved within
Euro-American contexts [67]. While recognizing different values, collaboration in harvest
management must remain attentive and responsive to indications of weakening bird
populations.
Waterfowl harvests in rural Alaska included species of conservation concern and popula-
tions that are closely regulated or closed to harvest during the fall-winter season (Table 1,Fig
6C). It is often challenging to develop effective management strategies and to evaluate the
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 19 / 31

impact of harvests on bird populations because of uncertainty and biases in assessments of
both harvest and populations [68]. Most data on the abundance of waterfowl in Alaska refer to
incomplete assessments (indices) of the number of birds breeding or occurring in Alaska
(Table 1,S1 Dataset). Harvests in Alaska include birds breeding elsewhere. Most Common
and King eiders harvested in Alaska are likely Canada-breeding birds not included in popula-
tion surveys conducted in Alaska. Spectacled Eiders counted on breeding grounds in Alaska
are a small part of their total number that occur in Alaska, including Russia-breeding birds
that winter in the Bering Sea south of Alaska’s St. Lawrence Island. Most (>95%) Steller’s
Eiders that occur in Alaska in spring, fall, and winter are part of the Pacific population that
breeds in Russia. Most waterfowl abundance data for Alaska do not allow to estimate harvest
rates (Table 1,S1 Dataset).
Fig 6. Annual waterfowl and Sandhill Crane harvest in the Pacific Flyway by user groups, 2004–2015 annual average. (A) Proportion of the total
harvest, species combined. (B) Amount of harvest (birds/year) by species. (C) Proportion of harvest by species. *: Species or populations of
conservation concern. ǂ: Species/categories that represented at least 5% of the harvest in rural regions in Alaska. Sources: harvest data for rural
regions in Alaska [this study]; fall-winter harvest data for other users [42,43].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g006
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 20 / 31

Efforts continue to improve bird population and harvest data. But it is challenging and
expensive to quantify bird populations and harvests over large geographic areas that ade-
quately encompass relevant population units and socio-ecological processes [69–71]. These
challenges highlight the need for harvest management approaches that have more flexible
information needs, that are more inclusive of diverse ways of knowing (specifically local and
Indigenous knowledge), and that are more conducive to build trust and collaboration among
researchers, managers, and diverse resource users. It may be beneficial to reassess expectations
about the kinds of data and levels of precision that could be reasonably achieved in the foresee-
able future. Trust and collaboration are important to learn how to work with different kinds of
information available while accounting for their limitations. This study highlights the need for
continuous collaboration, outreach, and education about species of conservation concern and
those closed to harvest.
We estimated Emperor Goose harvest during the period when its harvest was closed (3,179
birds/year, Table 3) [46–48]. The 1987–2016 harvest closure was unable to completely suppress
subsistence harvest, but it likely reduced harvests. It is also possible that some harvesters were
unwilling to report illegally taken birds, so harvest estimates for the closure period may be
biased low. Re-opening harvest may have resulted in increased take as well as harvest reporting
rates. Harvest estimates available for some regions in 2017–2020 after the hunt was re-opened
amounted to an average 6,251 birds/year (S15 Table, S16 Fig in S1 File) [67,72]. While
acknowledging that harvest estimates for Emperor Goose often have wide confidence intervals,
these estimates have shown consistent patterns for regions and seasons. The Y-K Delta and
Bering Strait-Norton Sound regions accounted for 87% of the annual Emperor Goose harvest
during 2017–2020, thus collaboration with residents of these regions plays a key role in harvest
management.
Geographic and seasonal harvest patterns
Patterns of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane harvest by rural Alaska residents quantified in this
study aligned with and complemented the earlier qualitative description [17]. Waterfowl hunt-
ing was highest in spring and largely decreased during summer in most rural regions (Fig 5).
In summer, subsistence and commercial fishing (especially for salmon) are main activities in
many rural regions [25]. Also, traditional customs and current harvest regulations curtail bird
harvest during nesting and chick rearing so birds can breed and multiply.
Geographic and seasonal patterns of harvests in this study reflected the availability of bird
species during their annual migration cycle and the distribution of habitats favorable to water-
fowl. In the Bering Sea mainland regions (Bristol Bay, Y-K Delta Coast and Inland, Bering
Strait Mainland, and Northwest Arctic), a strong spring harvest component, but also fall har-
vests, reflected high bird abundance on primary breeding grounds as well as southward migra-
tion from northern regions. Waterfowl harvests in the southern coastal regions (Aleutian-
Pribilof Islands, Kodiak Archipelago, and Gulf of Alaska-Cook Inlet) were characterized by a
strong fall-winter component as several species of waterfowl migrate through (dabbling ducks
and geese) and overwinter (e.g., scaups, goldeneyes, Brant, Emperor Goose, and scoters) in
these regions. In the North Slope, birds out-migrate after a brief breeding season and are
mostly unavailable for harvest in fall-winter. Bird harvesting in this region happened primarily
in spring, but also in late summer during the post-breeding migration. In the St. Lawrence-
Diomede Islands region, waterfowl harvests were about evenly distributed between spring-
summer and fall-winter reflecting various migration patterns between eastern and western
Beringia for breeding and molting in spring, summer, and fall.
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 21 / 31

In several regions, spring was the largest component of the annual waterfowl harvest—Y-K
Delta, Interior Alaska, Upper Copper River, Northwest Arctic, and Bering Strait Mainland.
Diverse factors likely play a role in defining this pattern. These regions are important bird
breeding grounds [3]. For people in rural Alaska, arriving migratory birds are often the first
source of fresh food after a long winter. Spring is also a preferred season to harvest some water-
fowl species (e.g., Emperor Goose) because they are fat and are considered tastier at this time
of the year, or because they are not molting body feathers (embedded pin feathers interfere
with consumption of the skin) [73]. Also, harvest activities during fall are often focused on
other resources such as moose, caribou, berries, and fish.
Harvest amounts over the decades
In recent decades, waterfowl and Sandhill Crane (this study) represented 91% of the annual
average number of migratory birds harvested in rural Alaska including seabirds (8%) and
shorebirds (1%) (Table 2,Fig 7A) [51,52]. Waterfowl eggs represented 19% of the total num-
ber of eggs of migratory birds harvested in rural Alaska including eggs of seabirds (78%) and
shorebirds (2%) (Fig 7B). A higher contribution of eggs of seabirds and geese to the total egg
harvest is related to colonial breeding in some of these species, as the concentration of
resources in time and space usually increases harvest efficiency.
It is unclear if some differences in harvest estimates over the decades were due to changes
in harvest amounts or differences in datasets (Table 2). Harvest estimates for 1980–1989 [17]
were based on a substantially smaller dataset than subsequent studies (e.g., the Aleutian-Pribi-
lof and St. Lawrence-Diomede islands were not represented and harvest data by seasons and
species were largely unavailable). Thus, we focused comparisons between results from this
study (2004–2015) with harvest estimates for 1980–1996 [19], which included estimates at the
species/category level.
Fig 7. Harvest of migratory birds (A) and their eggs (B) in rural regions in Alaska, annual average 2004–2015. Sources: waterfowl and Sandhill
Crane [this study], seabirds [51], and shorebirds [52].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.g007
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 22 / 31

Harvest estimates for geese in this study were comparable to those previously available for
1980–1996 [19]. Harvest estimates for ducks were 23% lower in this study, but it was difficult
to parse differences at the species level. For example, quantifying the harvest of eiders and sco-
ters at the species level was challenging because of species identification issues (especially
females) and frequent use of multi-species categories in harvest surveys. Some duck species/
categories that showed the most reduced harvests (30%–50%) included wigeons, Northern
Pintail, and Long-tailed Duck, which are species harvested in larger numbers as compared to
other ducks. Harvest estimates in this study also were 45% lower for swans and 29% lower for
Sandhill Crane than in the previous estimates. Similarly to waterfowl and Sandhill Crane, evi-
dence of reduced seabird harvest in rural regions of Alaska in recent decades also supports
some reduction in the overall bird harvest [51].
Estimates of the harvest of sea ducks and their eggs in rural Alaska were available for the
1993–2012 period [61]. We updated harvest estimates for sea ducks to represent a more recent
period and included additional data for the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and Kodiak Archipelago
regions. The updated harvest estimates for sea ducks were similar to (within 1%) those previ-
ously available but estimates for sea duck eggs harvest were 36% lower (Table 2). This differ-
ence was largely due to lower harvest estimates for eggs of Common Eider and Long-tailed
Duck, which were primarily harvested in the Bering Strait Mainland region (Table 4). It is
unclear if this difference was due to socio-ecological factors or challenges in harvest assess-
ment. We refer to Rothe et al. (2015) [61] for discussion of harvest patterns and management
topics pertaining to sea ducks.
The amendments to migratory bird treaties ratified in 1997, which legally authorized the
spring-summer harvest in Alaska, stipulated that subsistence harvests should remain at tradi-
tional levels relative to bird population sizes [2]. This stipulation resulted from concerns dur-
ing the amendment process that the legal authorization of the spring-summer harvest and
potential human population growth in rural Alaska could result in greatly increased harvests
[74]. This study representing the 2004–2015 reference period support that bird harvests did
not increase in rural Alaska after regulations allowing the spring-summer subsistence harvest
of migratory birds were first implemented in 2003 (Table 2) (see also [75]). Considering
increases in waterfowl populations (especially geese) in recent decades, it is possible that har-
vests in rural Alaska decreased proportionally to at least some bird populations [76].
Harvest assessment
Differences in the amounts and species composition of fall-winter harvests for rural regions
(this study) as compared with estimates from the HIP survey suggest that HIP underestimated
fall-winter harvests in Alaska. Indigenous hunters in rural Alaska tend to show low participa-
tion in agency-led harvest management tools such as hunting licenses, stamps, permits, man-
datory harvest reporting, and reporting of banded birds taken [77,78]. For example,
mandatory reporting for the Emperor Goose and Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus fall-win-
ter harvest permits has been ineffective to quantify rural harvests [67]. Alaska Native leaders
have opposed the requirements for state and federal duck stamps and obtained an exemption
from the federal duck stamp requirement [2]. Overcoming these challenges will take long-
term collaboration with hunters. This study highlights the need for an assessment of the repre-
sentation of diverse user groups in the HIP harvest estimates for Alaska and of options for
making HIP data more applicable for harvest management, perhaps as providing separate har-
vest estimates for residents of Alaska rural regions and other users.
Subsistence harvests can show large annual variation in their amounts and composition
related to socio-economic and ecological factors [79]. Overall, spring accounted for 58% of the
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 23 / 31

Table 4. Estimated annual average harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane eggs (eggs/year) in Alaska rural regions, 2004–2015.
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Wigeons 0 12 13 0 77 78 23 0 0 8 0 0 0 211
Gadwall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mallard 3 97 209 1 449 441 104 0 3 188 0 8 4 1,507
Northern
Pintail
7 226 525 5 1,062 388 66 4 5 109 0 0 0 2,397
Northern
Shoveler
0 8 7 0 190 30 61 0 2 0 0 0 0 298
Teals 0 0 66 0 233 125 26 0 2 9 0 0 0 461
Canvasback 0 0 5 0 11 5 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 62
Scaups 0 12 31 0 22 35 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 104
Common Eider 108 12 2,311 205 50 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 2,720
King Eider 68 41 467 77 27 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 691
Spectacled
Eider
0 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Steller’s Eider 0 0 17 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
Eiders
(unidentified)
48 2 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 113
Surf scoter 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 23
White-winged
Scoter
8 0 4 0 12 0 18 0 0 0 0 10 0 52
Black Scoter 5 0 11 0 14 5 18 0 0 0 0 32 0 85
Scoters
(unidentified)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harlequin
Duck
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Long-tailed
Duck
8 0 228 41 38 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 326
Bufflehead 0 06 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 0 35
Goldeneyes 0 0 5 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 73
Mergansers 1 0 52 15 0 5 0 0 0 7 11 15 0 106
Ducks (other,
unidentified)
190 321 217 0 1,355 749 62 0 0 421 69 25 35 3,444
Ducks, total 446 731 4,243 354 3,579 1,870 422 4 13 749 124 177 39 12,751
White-fronted
Goose
263 20 24 7 6,222 318 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 6,870
Snow Goose 10 0 36 0 34 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
Brant 30 52 220 9 1,568 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,889
Canada/
Cackling geese
35 812 592 10 5,918 668 67 0 0 73 0 0 25 8,200
Emperor Goose 0 0 68 3 437 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 521
(Continued)
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 24 / 31

Table 4. (Continued)
Species or
categories
North
Slope
Northwest
Arctic
Bering
Strait
Mainland
St. Lawrence-
Diomede Is.
Y-K
Delta
Coast
Y-K
Delta
Inland
Interior
Alaska
East
Interior
Alaska
West
Upper
Copper
River
Bristol
Bay
Aleutian-
Pribilof Is.
Kodiak
Archipelago
Gulf of
Alaska-
Cook Inlet
Alaska
rural
total
Geese
(unidentified)
601 416 168 0 1,029 565 123 0 0 55 0 15 31 3,003
Geese, total 939 1,300 1,108 29 15,208 1,599 198 0 0 137 0 15 56 20,589
Swans 81 111 349 7 1,014 487 15 0 0 29 0 0 0 2,093
Sandhill Crane 11 83 234 6 758 107 57 0 0 3 0 0 0 1,259
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135.t004
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 25 / 31

total waterfowl harvest in rural Alaska. Annual variation in spring breakup pace and condi-
tions can determine bird hunting opportunity. Travel becomes difficult and hazardous as ice
and snow deteriorate [17]. Annual variation in harvest amounts and composition makes it
challenging to depict the full range of harvests and to detect temporal changes. This study
benefited from a large dataset accumulated over decades with broad geographic coverage and
multiple years of data for individual communities. Notably, such large datasets are often
unavailable for harvest assessment and are unlikely to become available due to limited
resources [61,71,80]. Understanding socio-ecological factors that affect intrinsic characteris-
tics of the data as well as harvest patterns is important to improve collaboration among stake-
holders regarding harvest assessment and to optimize uses of the available data, even if the
data are imperfect [69,70]. Future harvest assessment efforts could also benefit from emerging
analytical approaches to accommodate uncertainty and variability in harvest data [81].
Harvest data historically have been and will continue to be key to ensure a meaningful role
for Alaska Native people in migratory bird harvest management and conservation, to ensure
that harvests remain sustainable, and to address allocation issues [2,27]. The data used in this
study representing the 2004–2015 period were already retrospective because of limited avail-
ability of and incompatibility with more recent data. The AMBCC annual harvest survey—the
main data source used in this study—was not conducted after 2019 due to insufficient funds
and disagreement over survey goals. Because of large variation in annual harvest estimates, an
updated bird harvest assessment for rural Alaska would require multiple years of data repre-
senting the diverse regions. This study highlights the importance of harvest monitoring to
inform management and conservation.
Supporting information
S1 File. Tables, figures, and appendix.
(PDF)
S2 File. Stovall (2000) bird harvest survey, Kodiak 1999.
(PDF)
S3 File. Webb (2000) bird harvest survey, Koyukuk-Nowitna 1998–1999.
(PDF)
S1 Dataset. Waterfowl population data, Alaska 2004–2015.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to many researchers and local surveyors who conducted the 1982–2020 sur-
veys and to the households that reported their harvests. We thank Margaret Cunningham for
assistance in compiling harvest data; Gayle Neufeld for designing the map; Adam Knight for
editing and formatting; and Jerad Spencer, Thomas Fletcher, and Bryan Hitchcock for provid-
ing the HIP enrollment data. We also appreciate the helpful comments and diverse perspec-
tives provided by Tom Rothe, Patty Schwalenberg, Caroline Brown, Julian Fischer, and David
Safine on a draft manuscript. We also thank Julian Fischer and David Safine for their help
compiling bird population data.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Liliana C. Naves.
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 26 / 31

Data curation: Liliana C. Naves, Jason L. Schamber.
Formal analysis: Liliana C. Naves.
Funding acquisition: Liliana C. Naves, Jason L. Schamber.
Writing – original draft: Liliana C. Naves, Jason L. Schamber.
Writing – review & editing: Liliana C. Naves, Jason L. Schamber.
References
1. Anderson MG, Alisauskas RT, Batt BDJ, Blohm RJ, Higgins KF, Perry MC, et al. The migratory bird
treaty and a century of waterfowl conservation: A century of waterfowl conservation. J Wildl Manag.
2018; 82:247–259.
2. Schwalenberg PK, Naves LC, Mengak LF, Fall JA, Rothe TC, Sformo TL, et al. Co-management in
Alaska: A partnership among Indigenous, state, and federal entities for the subsistence harvest of
migratory birds. In: Hoagland SJ, Albert S, editors. Wildlife stewardship on tribal lands: Our place is in
our soul. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2023. pp. 206–227.
3. Audubon Alaska. Important bird areas of Alaska, v3. Anchorage: Audubon Alaska; 2014. http://
databasin.org/datasets/f9e442345fb54ae28cf72f249d2c23a9
4. Derksen DV, Peterson MR, Savard J-PL. Habitats of North American sea ducks. In: Savard J-PL, Derk-
sen DV, Esler D, Eadie JM, Skean VW, editors. Ecology and conservation of North American sea
ducks. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. pp. 469–528.
5. Uher-Koch BD, Buchheit RM, Eldermire CR, Wilson HM, Schmutz JA. Shifts in the wintering distribution
and abundance of Emperor Geese in Alaska. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2021; 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gecco.2020.e01397
6. Fienup-Riordan A. Yaqulget qaillun pilartat (What the birds do): Yup’ik Eskimo understanding of geese
and those who study them. Arctic. 1999; 52:1–112.
7. Zavaleta E. The emergence of waterfowl conservation among Yup’ik hunters in the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta, Alaska. Hum Ecol. 1999; 27:231–266.
8. Copp JD, Roy GM. Results of the 1985 survey of waterfowl hunting on the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta,
Alaska. Corvallis: Oregon State University, Department of Fish and Wildlife; 1986. https://ecos.fws.gov/
ServCat/Reference/Profile/107980
9. Mitchell DC. Native subsistence hunting of migratory waterfowl in Alaska: A case study demonstrating
why politics and wildlife management don’t mix. In: McCabe RE, editor. Resource management: First
line of national defense. Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
ference, 21–26 March 1986. Reno, Washington: Wildlife Management Institute; 2000. pp. 527–534.
10. Pamplin WL Jr. Cooperative efforts to halt population declines of geese nesting on Alaska’s Yukon-Kus-
kokwim delta. In: McCabe RE, editor. Resource management: First line of national defense. Transac-
tions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 21–26 March 1986.
Reno, Washington: Wildlife Management Institute; 2000. pp. 487–506.
11. Wentworth C. Subsistence migratory bird harvest survey, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 2001–2005 with
1985–2005 species tables. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Pro-
grams; 2007. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/01_Wentworth%20(2007)%
20Y-K%20Delta%201985-2005.pdf
12. Wentworth C. Subsistence migratory bird harvest survey, Bristol Bay, 2001–2005 with 1995–2005 spe-
cies tables. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Programs; 2007.
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/02_Wentworth%20(2007)%20Bristol%
20Bay%201995-2005.pdf
13. Naves LC, Mengak LF, Keating JM. Alaska subsistence harvest of birds and eggs, 2019–2020, Alaska
Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence Technical Paper No. 474; 2021. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP479.pdf
14. Kawerak, Inc. 2002 Migratory bird harvest data collection project, Bering Strait-Norton Sound region.
Nome: Kawerak, Natural Resources Department, Subsistence Resources Division; 2004. https://www.
adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/03_Kawerak%20(2004)%202002%20Migratory%20Bird
%20Harvest%20Data,%20sm.pdf
15. Bacon JJ, Hepa TR, Brower Jr. HK, Pederson M, Olemaun TP, George JC, et al. [2009] Estimates of
subsistence harvest for villages on the North Slope of Alaska, 1994–2003. Barrow: North Slope Bor-
ough, Department of Wildlife Management; 2011rev. https://www.north-slope.org/wp-content/uploads/
2022/04/MASTER-SHDP-94-03-REPORT-FINAL-and-Errata-info-Sept-2012.pdf
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 27 / 31

16. Community Subsistence Information System. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsis-
tence; 2024 [cited 8 Apr 2024]. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/
17. Wolfe RJ, Paige AW, Scott CL. The subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska. Juneau: Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 197; 1990. http://www.
adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp197.pdf
18. Paige A, Wolfe RJ. The subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska: Compendium and 1995
update. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No.
228; 1997. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/Tp228.pdf
19. Paige A, Wolfe RJ. The subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska: 1996 Update. Juneau: Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence; 1998.
20. Wolfe RJ, Ellanna LJ. Resource use and socioeconomic systems: Case studies of fishing and hunting
in Alaskan communities. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Tech-
nical Paper No. 61; 1983. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp061.pdf
21. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020 Decennial Census and American Community Survey data. Washington: U.
S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Explore Census Data Homepage; 2024 [cited 8
Apr 2024]. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
22. Wolfe RJ, Walker RJ. Subsistence economies in Alaska: Productivity, geography, and development
impacts. Arct Anthropol. 1987; 24:56–81.
23. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Customary and traditional use worksheet: Migratory game birds,
featuring Emperor Goose. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence
Special Publication No. BOG 2017–01; 2017. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/
regprocess/gameboard/pdfs/2017-2018/sw/subsistence_2017-01.pdf
24. Unger S. Qaqamii^gux^: Traditional foods and recipes from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands: Nourishing
our mind, body, and spirit for generations. Anchorage: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc;
2014.
25. Fall JA. Regional patterns of fish and wildlife harvests in contemporary Alaska. Arctic. 2016; 69:47–64.
26. Burwell M. “Hunger knows no law”: Seminal Native protest and the Barrow duck-in of 1961. Anchorage:
Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, 12 March
2005; 2005.
27. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Subsistence hunting of migratory birds in Alaska and Canada, Final
Environmental Assessment. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 1980. https://ecos.fws.gov/
ServCat/DownloadFile/242070
28. Loring PA, Gerlach SC. Food, culture, and human health in Alaska: An integrative health approach to
food security. Environ Sci Policy. 2009; 12: 466–478.
29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Alaska migratory birds
office [Internet]. 2024 [cited 8 Apr 2024]. https://www.fws.gov/office/alaska-migratory-birds/alaska-
migratory-bird-co-management-council
30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Apology for harmful impacts
of past bird harvest prohibitions [Internet]. 2018 [cited 8 Apr 2024]. https://www.fws.gov/node/
267704
31. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 50 CFR Part 92: Migratory bird subsistence harvest
in Alaska. 2024. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-92#92.22
32. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 50 CFR Part 20: Migratory bird hunting. 2024.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-20
33. Powell LA. Principles for management of fisheries and wildlife: The manager as decision-maker. 1st
ed. San Diego: Cognella; 2020.
34. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council Harvest Assess-
ment Program. Alaska Department of Fish and Game [Internet]. [cited 8 Apr 2024]. https://www.adfg.
alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.AMBCC
35. Webb DD. Subsistence waterfowl harvest survey: Galena, Huslia, Nulato, Koyukuk, Kaltag, Hughes,
Ruby, 1998. Galena: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Koyukuk-Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge Com-
plex; 1999.
36. Stovall R. Subsistence migratory bird harvest survey report for the Kodiak Island villages. Kodiak: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge; 2000.
37. Ahmasuk A, Trigg E, Magdanz J, Robbins B. Bering Strait region local and traditional knowledge pilot
project: A comprehensive subsistence use study of the Bering Strait region. North Pacific Research
Board Project No. 643. Nome: Kawerak, Inc.; 2008. https://meridian.allenpress.com/jfwm/article-
supplement/204262/pdf/fwma-08-01-10_s01/
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 28 / 31

38. Tahbone ST, Trigg EW. 2009 Comprehensive subsistence harvest survey Savoonga, Alaska. Final
Report for Agreement NA07NMF4720082 CFDA#11.472. Nome: Kawerak, Inc.; 2011. http://www.
fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/112016-JFWM-086/suppl_file/fwma-08-01-10_s04.pdf
39. Harcharek Q, Kayotuk CS, George JC, Pederson M. Qaaktugvik/Kaktovik subsistence harvest report
2007–2012. Barrow: North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management; 2018. https://www.
north-slope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2018_Kaktovik_Harvest_final_for_web.pdf
40. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. Alaska Federation of Natives guidelines for research. University of
Alaska Fairbanks; 1993 [Internet]. [cited 8 Apr 2024]. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IKS/afnguide.html
41. U.S. National Science Foundation. Principles for the conduct of research in the Arctic. Prepared by the
Interagency Social Science Task Force at the direction of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Com-
mittee; 2018. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/conduct.jsp
42. Seamans ME. Status and harvests of Sandhill Cranes: Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colo-
rado River Valley, and Eastern Populations. Administrative Report. Lakewood: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2022. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/status-and-harvest-of-sandhill-cranes-2022.pdf
43. Olson SM [compiler]. Pacific Flyway data book, 2023: Migratory bird abundance, harvest, and hunter
activity. Vancouver: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2023.
44. Fall JA. Changes in subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources following the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Evaluating and communicating subsistence seafood safety in a cross-cultural context: Lessons learned
from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Pensacola: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC); 1999. pp. 51–104.
45. Otis D, George TL, Doherty P. Comparison of alternative designs for the Alaska migratory bird subsis-
tence harvest survey. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conser-
vation Biology; 2016. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/05_Survey_Review%
20II_2014-2018.pdf
46. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Management plan for the Emperor Goose. Anchorage:
c/o Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council Executive Director; 2016. https://www.
alaskamigratorybirds.com/images/regulations/management/AMBCC_Emperor_Goose_Management_
Plan_Sept2016.pdf
47. Pacific Flyway Council. Management plan for the Emperor Goose. Pacific Flyway Study Committee and
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Portland: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Migratory Bird Management; 2006.
48. Pacific Flyway Council. Management plan for the Emperor Goose. Vancouver: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2016. https://pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Eg_plan.pdf
49. Carney SM. Species, age, and sex identification of ducks using wing plumage. Jamestown: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center; 1992. https://www.fws.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/species-age-and-sex-identification-of-ducks-using-wing-plumage_0.pdf
50. Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1977.
51. Naves LC. Geographic and seasonal patterns of seabird subsistence harvest in Alaska. Polar Biol.
2018; 41:1217–1236.
52. Naves LC, Keating JM, Tibbitts TL, Ruthrauff DR. Shorebird subsistence harvest and indigenousknowl-
edge in Alaska: Informing harvest management and engaging users in shorebird conservation. Condor.
2019; 121:1–19.
53. Bollinger KS, Platte RM. Aerial population samples of Common Eiders and other waterbirds during the
breeding season northwestern Alaska 2006–2009. Fairbanks: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Migratory Bird Management; 2012.
54. Dau CP, Bollinger KS. Aerial population survey of Common Eiders and other waterbirds in nearshore
waters and along barrier islands of the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska, 2–7 July 2011. Anchorage: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2012.
55. Dunham KD, Osnas EE, Frost CJ, Fischer JB, Grand JB. Assessing recovery of Spectacled Eiders
using a Bayesian decision analysis. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0253895 PMID: 34197512
56. Groves DJ. The 2015 North American Trumpeter Swan survey. Juneau: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2017.
57. Swaim MA. Abundance and trend of waterbird populations on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska,
1988–2016. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2017.
58. Wilson HM, Larned WW, Swaim MA. Abundance and trends of waterbird breeding populations on the
Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska, 1986–2017. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migra-
tory Bird Management; 2018. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/192555
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 29 / 31

59. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Waterfowl population status, 2023. Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2023.
60. Warnock N. The Alaska red and yellow watchlist 2017. Anchorage: Audubon Alaska; 2017. https://ak.
audubon.org/conservation/alaska-watchlist
61. Rothe TC, Padding PI, Naves LC, Robertson GJ, Savard J-PL, Derksen DV, et al. Harvest of sea ducks
in North America: A contemporary study. In: Savard J-PL, Derksen DV, Esler D, Eadie JM, Skean VW,
editors. Ecology and conservation of North American sea ducks. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. pp.
417–467.
62. Mengak LF, Naves LC, Schamber JL. Survival estimates and hunter outreach are priorities for the col-
laborative harvest management of Emperor Goose in Alaska. Ornithol Appl. 2022; 124:duac036.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duac036
63. Martin K. Patterns and mechanisms for age-dependent reproduction and survival in birds. Am Zool.
1995; 35:340–348.
64. Juillet C, Choquet R, Gauthier G, Lefebvre J, Pradel R. Carry-over effects of spring hunt and climate on
recruitment to the natal colony in a migratory species. Stephens P, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2012; 49:1237–
1246.
65. Lyver PO, Jones CJ, Belshaw N, Anderson A, Thompson R, Davis J. Insights to the functional relation-
ships of Māori harvest practices: Customary use of a burrowing seabird, modeling customary harvest
strategies. J Wildl Manag. 2015; 79:969–977.
66. Dooley J, Osnas E, Zimmerman G. Analyses of Emperor Goose survey data and harvest potential.
Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management and Alaska Migra-
tory Bird Co-Management Council; 2016.
67. Naves LC, Schamber JL, Mengak LF, Keating JM, Fall JA. Emperor Goose fall–winter harvest monitor-
ing and hunter’s perspectives in Alaska. Conserv Sci Pract. 2023; 5:e12928. https://doi.org/10.1111/
csp2.12928
68. Koneff MD, Zimmerman GS, Dwyer CP, Fleming KK, Padding PI, Devers PK, et al. Evaluation of har-
vest and information needs for North American sea ducks. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12:e0175411. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175411 PMID: 28419113
69. Johannes RE. The case for data-less marine resource management: Examples from tropical nearshore
finfisheries. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998; 13:243–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01384-6
PMID: 21238285
70. Bremer S, Glavovic B. Mobilizing knowledge for coastal governance: Re-framing the science–policy
interface for integrated coastal management. Coast Manag. 2013; 41:39–56.
71. Gallo-Cajiao E, Morrison TH, Woodworth BK, Lees AC, Naves LC, Yong DL, et al. Extent and potential
impact of hunting on migratory shorebirds in the Asia-Pacific. Biol Conserv. 2020; 246:108582. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108582
72. Naves LC, Mengak LF. Bird and egg harvest on the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and the Kodiak Archipel-
ago, 2020. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper
No. 493; 2023. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP493.pdf
73. Naves LC, Mengak LF, Fall JA. Indigenous knowledge and perspectives of subsistence users about
Emperor Goose in Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence;
2024.
74. Day A. Northern Natives, migratory birds, and international treaties. Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; 1969.
75. Alcorn D. The effectiveness of the 1996 protocol amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada
establishing the Alaska migratory bird co-management process. Anchorage: University of Alaska, Pub-
lic Administration Master’s Program; 2008. https://www.alaskamigratorybirds.com/images/treaties/
Capstone.pdf
76. Fischer JB, Stehn RA, Bowman TD, Platte RM, Eldridge WD, Hodges JL, et al. Coordinated aerial and
ground surveys document long-term recovery of geese and eiders on the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta,
Alaska, 1985–2014. In: Shuford WD, Gill RE Jr, Handel CM, editors. Trends and traditions: Avifaunal
change in western North America. Camarillo: Western Field Ornithologists; 2018. pp. 148–160. https://
westernfieldornithologists.org/docs/2020/Avifaunal_Change/Fischer/Fischer_et_al-Avifaunal_Change.
pdf
77. Naves LC, Turek MF, Simeone WE. Subsistence–personal use salmon harvest, Southeast–Yakutat
Management Region, 1996–2006. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sub-
sistence Technical Paper No. 350; 2010. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP350.pdf
78. Schmidt JI, Chapin FS. Relationship of community characteristics to harvest reporting: Comparative
study of household surveys and harvest tickets in Alaska. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2014; 19:334–346.
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 30 / 31

79. Fall JA, Braem NS, Brown CL, Hutchinson-Scarbrough LB, Koster DS, Krieg TM. Continuity and
change in subsistence harvests in five Bering Sea communities: Akutan, Emmonak, Savoonga,
St. Paul, and Togiak. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr. 2013; 94:274–291.
80. Naves LC, Rothe TC. Managing harvests of seabirds and their eggs. In: Young L, VanderWerf EA, edi-
tors. Conservation of marine birds. San Diego: Academic Press; 2023. pp. 345–367.
81. Smith AC, Villeneuve T, Gendron M. Hierarchical Bayesian integrated model for estimating migratory
bird harvest in Canada. J Wildl Manag. 2022; 86:e22160. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22160
PLOS ONE
Harvest of waterfowl and Sandhill Crane in rural Alaska
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307135 July 25, 2024 31 / 31