| This dissertation focuses on the politics of wildlife management in Alaska through a case study of introduced wildlife on the Kodiak Archipelago. Kodiak is a landscape of wildlife abundance, including introduced Sitka black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, mountain goats, reindeer, beavers, Vancouver Canada geese, and Plains bison. Despite abundance, people have experienced significant conflict and dissatisfaction with wildlife populations and management systems. Drawing on work in environmental history and political ecology, I argue that the paradox of conflict amidst abundance is caused by the persistence of competing unfulfilled visions for Kodiak amongst stakeholders, as well as uneven power between groups. Each stakeholder group idealizes a different Kodiak. Alutiiq villagers have envisioned Kodiak as a cornucopia for opportunistic wildlife harvesting, and have incorporated introduced wildlife into their subsistence lifestyles. Commercial hunters have imagined Kodiak as a profitable, private wildlife ranch for their clients seeking trophies. Wildlife managers have pictured Kodiak as a pristine wilderness where the "balance of nature" has been recovered through introduced wildlife eradications. Yet, each of these visions has remained unfulfilled. Through their work within state and federal community-based natural resource management systems, commercial hunters have established a dominant role in the creation of wildlife regulations on Kodiak. Their businesses, however, have been undermined by Kodiak's inaccessibility and large fluctuations in introduced ungulate populations. Commercial hunters' disproportionate power has rendered ineffective state and federal regulations that prioritize access to wildlife for subsistence uses by residents. Alutiiq villagers have responded to these frustrating hunting regulations by attempting to block outsiders through the restriction of Native corporation private property. Their efforts have been minimally successful, and have exacerbated racial tensions. Despite wildlife managers' concerns about introduced wildlife's ecological impacts, Kodiak's social, economic, and political contexts have disabled mitigation efforts and allowed wildlife introductions to continue. In the conclusion, I suggest ways in which wildlife-related conflicts on Kodiak and throughout Alaska can be minimized, allocation can be fairer, and ecosystems can become more stable. |
