Living with abundance, living with extraction
One thing that stood out in our conversation with Dr. Haliehana Stepetin from Akutan in the Aleutian Islands was how deeply industrial fishing shapes everyday life. Akutan is home to fewer than one hundred permanent residents, yet one of North America’s largest seafood processing plants operates there. During the fishing season, around 1,500 workers arrive from elsewhere to process fish landed by vessels operating in the Bering Sea.
For Indigenous communities, this creates a striking contrast. Unangax̂ Peoples, Peoples who are Indigenous to Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, continue to fish and harvest from the sea for subsistence, mostly on a small-scale using skiffs and gear, a significant contrast to the commercial fishing industry. Participating in the commercial fisheries is an important economic opportunity for local residents. And there are plenty of programs, specially created by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association for the region (other CDQ – community development quota organisations created under the Magnusen-Stevens Act) have programs to support locals in participating in commercial fisheries, especially through their IFQ (Individual fishing quota) program.
Dr. Stepetin described this as part of a longer history. Since Russian colonial times, e.g. from the mid of the 18th century (since 1741), the Aleutian Islands have been treated primarily as a place where resources are taken out. Today the species have changed from fur bearing animals to fish: pollock, cod, halibut, and crab – and the pattern remains familiar.
King crab: from local food to global commodity
We were particularly interested in red king crab. Dr. Stepetin explained that her people knew and harvested king crab long before the development of industrial fisheries. Crabs were collected seasonally along the shore, but they were never a major food source because many other marine resources were available. They are part of a group of foods considered tidal foods that support the diets, but that are not a staple – meaning they are much more difficult to preserve for winter or long periods of time.
The situation changed with the growth of commercial crab fisheries in the twentieth century. Industrial fishing expanded rapidly, stocks declined, and access to the fishery became concentrated in the hands of larger operators, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s. Before fisheries regulations were introduced, the fishery operated largely as a “derby fishery,” in which fishers competed to catch as much as possible in the shortest amount of time as long as they could. The absence of effective quotas led to overharvesting and contributed to severe declines in king and opilio crab populations. The opilio crab stock declined in the past few years. The fisheries only recently opened for this species after many years of being shut down (read here). As stocks declined, management measures became increasingly restrictive, and access to the fishery became concentrated among commercial operators only. Today, participation in the king crab fishery generally requires vessels, equipment, and capital investments that are beyond the reach of most local Indigenous residents. Dr. Stepetin noted that Norwegian fishers played a significant role in developing the commercial fisheries in the region, bringing with them vessels, technology, and capital. This pattern contributed to a broader history in which outside interests gained control over local marine resources. Today, many Indigenous residents participate in the fisheries, however, they are primarily not owners of boats. They, instead, are subjugated and relegated to roles of deckhand with hardly any opportunities to have their own boat or compete at the same level as the commercial fishing companies that now dominate the fisheries.
What can we learn from each other?
Our conversation also showed that Indigenous communities across the North face different challenges. In Sámi areas, discussions often focus on co-management, local decision-making, and Indigenous participation in governance. In Alaska, the situation is shaped by a different history involving Native corporations, federal agencies, industrial fisheries, and large-scale resource extraction.
The differences are important, but so are the similarities. Communities in both regions are asking how people can maintain their relationship with fish, rivers, and coastal environments while decisions are increasingly made elsewhere.
For Birgejupmi, this is exactly why North-to-North dialogue matters. The goal is not to copy solutions from one place to another, but to learn how different Indigenous communities respond to common pressures from industrial fisheries and outside investment to changing ecosystems and shifting governance systems.
