 

“£815
2 I572 - ARYw—

ﬁ;a‘-IA

‘6181 .3 #1218. 421 ta

20001 ”’33-! W

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

UNDERSTANDING NATIVE AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

presented by
KENDRA B. TABOR

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of Science degree in Forestry

7g/ﬁ/4I1TU [V //6C//{ I KIWI/b

 

 

Major Professor’s Sig ture

4/9/07

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Proj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

UNDERSTANDING NATIVE AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF SUSTAINABLE
FOREST MANAGEMENT

.By

Kendra B. Tabor

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Forestry

2009

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING NATIVE AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF SUSTAINABLE
FOREST MANAGEMENT

By
Kendra B. Tabor

Sustainable forest management (SFM) has become a prominent goal of current
forest management approaches within the Unites States. A growing body of literature
offers support for incorporating traditional and local knowledge (TEK) with current SF M
methods in an effort to improve management planning and policies (Gadgil et al., 1993;
DeWalt, 1994; Kimmerer, 2000). By seeking Native American perspectives and
incorporating traditional knowledge into current forest management methods, U.S. forest
managers have the potential to increase their understanding of relationships between
human, non-human, and the physical environment, thereby increasing their ability to
manage our nation’s forests more effectively for all stakeholders involved (Berkes, 1993;
DeWalt, 1994; Kloppenburg, 1991; Murdoch and Clark, 1994; Emery, 2001).

Using the qualitative data obtained from in-depth interviews and focus groups
conducted with two Native American communities, this study examines the absent
perspectives of Native American voices in the dialogue on sustainable forest
management. This study argues that bringing Native American viewpoints into
sustainable forest management will add key missing perspectives to the national and
global discussions. Results suggest that the abilities to maintain and manage natural
resources are central to the survival of Native American communities, their spiritual
beliefs, and their cultural practices, and that the human element in ecosystem functions is

an essential factor in sustainable forest management from a Native American perspective.

This thesis is dedicated to: my family, my friends, and most importantly my love, David.

Thank you 'all for your love and support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my committee members, professors Maureen
McDonough, Dennis Propst, and Tracy Dobson for their support and guidance
throughout this process. I would also like to thank Jessica Edel and Dori Pynnonen-
Valdez: great friends and colleagues who simultaneously served as my sounding board,
editors, and support group. I would especially like to thank the participants of the Leech
Lake Band of Ojibwe and the White Earth Band of Ojibwe for candidly offering me their

thoughts and opinions, in hopes that they will be heard and acknowledged.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW .............................. 8
2.1 The Beginning of Sustainable Forest Management in US. Forestry .......... 8
The Rio Earth Summit ..................................................................... 9
The Montreal Process and the Santiago Declaration ..................... 10
The National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003: .................... 12
2.2 Beneﬁts of Collaboration between Tribal and US. Forest Managers ....... 13
2.3 Historical Context ...................................................................................... 15
Historical Misperceptions .............................................................. 1 5
Changes Due to European Settlement ........................................... 16
Historical Native American Forest Uses, and Management .......... 18
2.4 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ............................................................ 21
2.5 Current Native American Forest Uses and Management Perspectives ..... 26
2.6 Summary and Research Questions ............................................................ 30
Research Objectives ....................................................................... 31
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................... 33
3.1 The Use of Qualitative Data ...................................................................... 33
3.2 Case Studies, In-depth Interviews, and Focus Groups .............................. 35
3.3 Research Protocol ...................................................................................... 40
3.4 Study Location ........................................................................................... 47
3.5 Analysis of Data ......................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 50
4.1 Participant Tribal Nations Introduction ..................................................... 50
The White Earth Band of Ojibwe .................................................. 51
The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe ................................................... 53
4.2 Historical and Current Tribal Uses and Forest Management Approaches 5 5
4.3 Deﬁnitions of Sustainable Forestry ........................................................... 62
4.4 Native American and Non-Native American Forest Management ............ 66

4.5 Barriers and Opportunities for Participation in Forest Management
Discussions ............................................................................................................ 70
4.6 Summary .................................................................................................... 74
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................... 76
5.1 Research Conclusions ................................................................................ 76
5.2 Research Limitations ................................................................................. 81
5.3 Management Implications .......................................................................... 81
5.4 Future Directions ....................................................................................... 82

V

5.5 Synopsis ..................................................................................................... 83

APPENDIX A: REVISED MONTREAL PROCESS CRITERIA AND INDICATORS .84

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM ............................................................ 89
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM FOR THE LEECH LAKE BAND OF

OJIBWE ............................................................................................................................. 91
APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................... 93
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 96
LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................... 98

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of in-depth study area in northern Minnesota. ................................... 43

Figure 2. Boundaries of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. ............................................. 1

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. White Earth (WE) Interviews ............................................................................. 94

Table 2. Leech Lake (LL) Interviews ............................................................................... 95

viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

In the United States, sustainable forest management (SF M) has become a
prevalent goal in current forest management approaches. SF M (described later in more
detail) incorporates ecological, economic, and social aspects in managing forest resources
while considering both future and present needs. SFM has been spurred by efforts to
restore the integrity and health of US. forests. Primarily, population and income levels
are two of the strongest inﬂuences that have affected the state of US. forests (USDA,
2004a). Increased population and income in the US. have ampliﬁed demands for all
forest resources, including timber, non-timber products, water, ﬁsh and wildlife, and
recreation. After World War II, income and population growth caused a need for an
expanded transportation infrastructure for automobiles, which led to suburbanization
(USDA, 2004a). Suburbs changed the landscape surrounding US. cities. Additionally,
increased transportation enabled people to reach more remote areas of forested land.
Finally, increased income and population drove consumer demands for US. agriculture,
which caused further changes in remote areas by leading to the clearing of large areas of
forestland to make room for crops.

Issues of water and air pollution have developed as a result of growth in
population, income, industry, and development. Furthermore, competitions for land use
have fragmented forest land across the US. Legislation such as the Clean Air Act of
1963 and the Clean Water Act of 1977 have made progress in reducing point sources of
pollution. However, problems of nonpoint pollution caused by erosion, agricultural
runoff, urban and residential development, and unsustainable forest practices for instance,

remain problematic in the US. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Forest Service (2004a) reports that between 1982 and 1997, 11.7 million acres of forest
land was changed into developed land, and 7.9 million acres of forest land was changed
to agricultural use. This is signiﬁcant because forests inﬂuence air and water quality.
Forests ﬁlter the air by serving as a carbon sink which improves air quality. They also
reduce erosion, ﬁlter runoff water, and improve water quality. Forests additionally supply
habitat for ﬂora and fauna, provide timber and non-timber products, as well as
recreational opportunities to communities. Therefore, understanding and working toward
forest health and restoration has become a principal goal in US. forest management.

Over the last two decades in particular, sustainable forest management (SFM) has
become a global, national, regional, and local priority shared by a broad range of interests
and diverse backgrounds. To address these global concerns regarding the environment
and sustainable development, the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (also known as the Rio Earth Summit), was held in 1992. One product of
this conference was a set of forest principles which called for proposals for action toward
achieving global sustainable forest management (SFM). The proposals for action targeted
the improvement of all realms of forestry, which spans from the ecological and economic
aspects to the social aspects (Sample et al., 2006).

Workshops held at the Summit discussed and rated the efﬁcacy of the efforts in
addressing each sustainable forest issue. Based on the set of forest principles, the
following issues were deemed to be factors that were either not included or un-
measurable by current standards: the monitoring, assessment, and reporting of social and
cultural aspects of forests, including Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) (Sample et

al., 2006). The workshops concluded that social and cultural forest issues could be

fortiﬁed by endorsing community-based stewardship and better reporting of information
such as traditional forest resource knowledge, and better planning for application of and
dissemination of research project results. Ultimately, it was decided that there needs to be
more collaborative efforts at all levels (national, regional, state, local) in the forest
community. Individual countries were challenged to use forest programs to involve
indigenous and local communities as participants in the formulation and implementation
of measures which could preserve or restore rights and privileges pertaining to local
forestlands, TEK, and forest biological resources (Sample et al., 2006).

The following year, Canada held an international workshop with experts on SF M
and sustainable development, which was called the Montreal Process. Their purpose was
to design an agreed upon method which nations could use to assess sustainable forest
management. In 1995, many of the nations who have boreal forests within their borders',
including the United States, signed the Santiago Declaration which summarized the goals
agreed upon during the Montreal Process. It further acknowledges the importance of
recognizing that characteristics of forests around the world are diverse in many ways (e.g.
political, economic, geographic, and environmental differences). As a signatory of the
Santiago Declaration, the United States has delegated the responsibility of measuring and
reporting on the degree to which the nation’s forests are sustainable to the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service).

SFM has become a priority for state and federal forest managers beginning in the
19905, in an effort to restore health to many of the nation’s forests. As a result of the

Santiago Declaration, in 2004, the ﬁrst US. report on sustainable forest management was

 

IThe countries of: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand.
the Russian Federation, the United States, and Uruguay (MPWG, 1998).

3

 

released, entitled, “National Report on Sustainable F orests--2003.” There are many
deﬁnitions of SFM. For the purposes of this study, the United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service deﬁnes sustainable forest management (SFM) as:

The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in such a way, and at a

rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity,

and vitality, and their potential to fulﬁll, now and in the future, relevant

ecological, economic, and social functions at local, national, and global

levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems (USDA,

2004a, p. 128).

In a review of the 2003 report, Sample et a1. (2006) found knowledge gaps in the
Forest Service’s ﬁrst report in 2003 in understanding SFM, including social and cultural
aspects of forests and in traditional knowledge. While many non-Native American
‘ communities in the US. have a long history of local knowledge, Native Americans have
inhabited North America longer than any other population that currently resides in the
US. They have the most in-depth history of local knowledge in the US. Knowledge gaps
in forest management could be ﬁlled by including the missing perspectives of Native
Americans in national discussions of SF M.

In working toward inclusive sustainable forest management for multiple uses, the
different values and cultures of all forested communities should be taken into account. It
becomes more possible to suit SFM to individual community attitudes and values when
an individual community’s culture is considered. As experts in their own local

knowledge, Native American communities in the United States have the potential to

develop sustainable forest management in their communities based on their perspectives
and values.

In order to consider viewpoints and forest management goals that are different
from one’s own social and cultural background, it is important to begin by understanding
the circumstances of the past. The ﬁrst European encounters with Native Americans
began during the colonization of North America. In the 16203, as Europeans began to
settle in North America, they gathered many misperceptions regarding Native American
ways of life (Cronon, 1983). For instance, Cronon (1983) accounts that Europeans
described Native American lifestyles as ones of abject poverty, for they could not
comprehend why Native Americans did not take advantage of the wealth of natural
resources that surrounded them. Furthermore, European settlers assumed that Native
Americans did nothing to manage the land. On the contrary, the open park-like forests
that the settlers found in North America were a result of active forest management
conducted by the Native Americans (Cronon, 1983; Denevan, 1999; Williams, 2001;
MacCleery, 2007). Native Americans have inherited generations of traditional knowledge
ﬁ'om their ancestors.

A growing body of literature offers support for incorporating traditional and local
knowledge with current forest management methods in an effort to improve SFM,
planning, and policies (Gadgil et al., 1993; DeWalt, 1994; Kimmerer, 2000). When TEK
is applied to natural resource management techniques, it brings the human dimension
(social, cultural, local knowledge) into forest management. Currently, the social, cultural
and TEK elements of this nation’s forests are lacking in “scientiﬁc forest management”

(Sample et al., 2006).

By seeking Native American perspectives and incorporating traditional
knowledge into current forest management methods, forest managers have the potential
to increase their understanding of relationships between human, non-human, and the
physical environment, thereby increasing their ability to manage our nation’s forests
more effectively for all stakeholders involved (Berkes, 1993; DeWalt, 1994;
Kloppenburg, 1991; Murdoch and Clark, 1994; Emery, 2001). The Native American
population in the US. has a rich heritage of TEK that has been passed down through
generations over thousands of years. Seeking their input will strengthen sustainable forest
management methods not only because of their valuable input and the addition of TEK,
but also because of their potential contribution to a broader understanding local SFM
issues.

Additionally, U.S. forest managers will beneﬁt in recognizing TEK as a useful
forest management method. It strengthens SFM by adding the connection of local
knowledge with scientiﬁc knowledge. There have been few opportunities in the US. for
tribal forest managers to work together with non-tribal forest managers to teach and
explain traditional forest management methods (IUFRO, 2005). Increased
communication between tribal and non-tribal forest managers who are charged with SFM
will beneﬁt both parties by allowing each to have a broader and richer knowledge and
understanding of their stakeholder communities in order to make more effective decisions
regarding forest management (IUFRO, 2005).

As non-tribal and tribal agencies work toward the goal of SF M, it is critical that
communications and collaborations are conducted using respectful and inclusive

approaches that are tailored to each individual community and culture. Along with a

history of traditional knowledge, Native Americans also possess a long history of deceit
and betrayal by dominant organizations and agencies, including the federal government.
Lack of communication between tribal and non-tribal agencies, and the perceived failure
of non-tribal agencies to respect as sovereign nations has develOped over time.

The purpose of this study is to achieve a greater understanding of Native
American perceptions on SF M. This study will contribute to the national SFM dialogue
in investigating the signiﬁcance of seeking new perspectives and tribal input on forest
management methods. The social and cultural aspects of forest management will be
researched as this study examines the attitudes and values of two Native American

communities in northwestern Minnesota regarding sustainable forest management.

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviewed for this study will address issues in the United States’
efforts to move toward sustainable forest management (SFM), and the beneﬁts of
collaborations between tribal and non-tribal forest management. Historical Native
American forest management will also be discussed. Finally, this chapter will focus on
the possible contribution of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in forest
management, and current Native American forest management will be discussed. The
premise of this chapter is that blending TEK and scientiﬁc knowledge in forest

management techniques will advance SFM efforts.

2.1 The Beginning of Sustainable Forest Management in US. Foresﬂ

In an effort to move toward sustainable forest management, the concept of
ecosystem management became popular in the United States as a means to prevent
further loss of biological diversity in the late 19805 and early 1990s. Ecosystem
management has the main goal of maintaining ecological integrity by: maintaining native
species populations, maintaining ecological processes, maintaining species’ evolutionary
potentials, and accommodating human use (Grumbine, 1994). In the United States,
sustainable forest management became a part of state and federal agency management
plans in the late 1980’s and 1990’s. This philosophy remains at present, as stated in the
US. Forest Service’s mission to: “Sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the
nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations (U.S. .
Forest Service, 2008, para. 8).” Native Americans have been using local ecosystem

management techniques for generations (Grumbine, 1994; Bengston, 2004). It is

important to look to historical Native American forest management, as they were forest

managers before European settlement occurred in North America.

The Rio Earth Summit

In pursuit of addressing the management issues of sustainability on a global scale,
the Rio Earth Summit was held in 1992. One product of this conference was a set of
forest principles, which were to be used as a platform for action toward achieving SFM
(Montreal Process, 2005). It was the aim of the Summit to ﬁnd ways to improve in all
areas of forestry, spanning from the ecological and economical, and including the social
aspects of forestry as well (Sample et al., 2006). The Summit workshops found that SFM
could be strengthened by greater collaboration and stewardship at all levels (national,
regional, local), and better reporting of stakeholder uses (including TEK). At the Rio
Earth Summit, nations were encouraged to create policies that will work towards creating
successful partnerships that will support land tenure law, improve access, and uphold the
rights of indigenous communities and their sustainable use of forest resources while
respecting the sovereignty of each nation. Workshops at the Summit focused on the need
for TEK and the collaboration of non-indigenous organizations was recognized as being
crucial in working toward better SFM. Finally, the Summit recognized that TEK should
be protected in that fair compensation for services provided and intellectual property

rights should be enforced.

The Montreal Process and the Santiago Declaration

In continuation of the progress made'at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, several
countries2 in 1993 met as a working group to develop Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for
the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. This
working group is also called the Montreal Process, which works toward furthering SF M
(MPWG, 1998). Their collective purpose was to develop a universal method that can be
used to assess SFM. In 1995, the Montreal Process Working Group, met once again to
place the C&I into an ofﬁcial policy statement called the Santiago Declaration. It
embodies their agreed upon goals of SFM. The declaration bonds these countries in their
commitment to sustainably conserve the temperate and boreal forests of the world
through SF M techniques. The most recent revision to the C&I (Appendix A) took place
at the Montreal Process Working Group’s seventeenth meeting in 2006, and these are the
C&I that will be referred to from this point forward (SWary Table, 2006).

The Santiago Declaration further articulates that it is of value to recognize the
environmental, geographic, political and economic differences in the characteristics of
forests around the globe. This includes the importance of introducing the Montreal
Process C&I to other places which have temperate and boreal forests so they can consider
implementation as well. The Santiago Declaration maintains that the Montreal Process
C&I must be looked at as ﬂexible, not set in stone. Because the principles behind the
C&I allow for dynamic change, the C&I must be updated and improved as new
understandings become evident. Its goal is to provide a template for assessing,

describing, and evaluating a nation’s progress toward sustainability (MPWG, 1998). In

 

2The countries of: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian
Federation, and the United States (MPWG, 1998).

10

accounting for the long-term effects of local populations and national economies, this
declaration requires that the entire biosphere be considered in the implementation of
sustainable management of forests to provide for present and future generations.

The ﬁrst ﬁve criteria of the Revised Montreal Process Criteria & Indicators
(Appendix A) detail the ecological and environmental aspects of forest sustainability
while the sixth and seventh criteria deal with social and economic factors respectively,
the sixth criteria is particularly related to this study. Each forest is geographically,
spatially, socio-economically and politically situated in different circumstances, thereby
the Santiago Declaration entrusts the development and implementation of SFM to the
abilities of local stakeholders and decision makers. For purposes of this discussion,
Criterion 6.5 is the most salient criterion in that it addresses cultural, social, and spiritual
needs and values.

In Criterion 6.5, Indicator 43 speciﬁcally measuresthe “area and percent of forest
managed primarily to protect the range of cultural, social and spiritual needs and values”
(Summary Table, 2006, p. 8). Indicator 44 measures the “importance of forests to people”
(Summary Table, 2006, p. 8). This is substantial in that these indicators assign worth to
services that have no monetary price attached to them. Indicators 43 and 44 underscore
the importance of considering the effects of local forest management not only on a
national scale, but also on an international level. These indicators are also an assessment
of monitoring the non-consumptive uses and values (i.e.: recreation, education, ecological
services, scenery, and values of existence). Criterion 6.5 recognizes these non-

consumptive uses in particular as integral to furthering SF M in the US.

11

The National Report on Sustainable F orests—2003 .'

In an effort to address SF M on a national scale, the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service produced the ﬁrst National Report on Sustainable
Forests in 2003 (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). The purpose of this and subsequent
sustainable forest reports is to measure the degree to which US. forests are moving
forward toward sustainability. While establishing a metric to measure SFM is an
important step toward achieving sustainable forest management (SFM), there is room for
improvement in further deﬁning and adjusting the criteria and indicators that describe
what SFM entails.

The Pinchot Institute for Conservation’s analysis of the 2003 report found, for
example, that there is a cultural and social knowledge gap in understanding of SFM.
Furthermore, the 2003 report is missing the perspectives and input of those who are
experts of traditional knowledge (Sample et al., 2006). This translates directly to the
missing input of Native Americans on discussions of SFM in the United States in that
Native American populations possess the greatest store of traditional knowledge in the
US, as they were here long before European settlers appeared. In making progress
toward deﬁning and implementing SFM in the United States, it is vital that these gaps be
ﬁlled. Seeking missing input on tribal management methods and perspectives on non-
tribal management is and will be important in bringing new input and perspectives to
SFM.

The Montreal Process Criteria & Indicators are innovative policies because they
support managing forests based around cultural and social values in addition to scientiﬁc

knowledge. However, there is a fundamental problem with the criterion addressing this

12

issue, Criterion 6.5 (Sample et al., 2006). The problem lies in that the indicators only
recognize that forests should be managed to consider social and cultural values. There is
no reliable metric to indicate in the degree to which forests are being managed with
regard to these indicators. For example, there is no way to interpret changes over time
that may occur with changes in social attitudes, beliefs and values.

There are barriers in SF M in discovering where these valued places are, for
instance, the intrusion of development (roads, loggers, etc.) and urban sprawl (USDA
Forest Service, 2004b). In order to effectively address the issue of social and cultural
values in SFM, a collaborative effort must be initiated for all levels of forest
management. Collecting complete and consistent data will close the knowledge gaps that
ultimately create bias in this criterion assessment by under-representing stakeholder

cultural, spiritual and social values in SFM (Sample et al., 2006).

2.2 Beneﬁts of Collaboration between Tribal and US. Forest Managers

In the United States, roughly l8 million acres of forestland lies on Indian
Reservations (IFMAT II, 2003). Native Americans have the potential to share their
perceptions and provide more dimensions to SFM in the US. Adding Native American
perceptions will more accurately reﬂect not only scientiﬁc knowledge, but multiple local
knowledge systems which will broaden deﬁnitions of forest productivity and
sustainability.

In a comparison of forest management goals between tribal, commercial and
federal agencies, the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (1993) found that
tribal resource management is more inclusive than non-tribal resource management in

considering multiple stakeholder uses on tribal forestlands. For instance, some tribal

l3

forests are managed solely to provide food, materials, crafts, medicine, as a place for
worship or contemplation, hunting, or recreation (non-timber uses), while other areas are
used for timber production (Morishima, 1997). There is a need for public forest managers
to understand more ﬁrlly the relationship between indigenous people and the land.
Agencies have an obligation to make sure the views of all citizens are included in
decisionmaking, and to be aware and informed of the social context in which decisions
need to be made. Forest managers who understand community perceptions in regards to
natural resource issues will be able to more effectively manage the forests for multiple
stakeholders. This affords a better understanding of the social context within which
decisions need to be made (Bengston, 2004).

SFM is extremely complicated on a national level, not to mention a regional level.
From a social and cultural standpoint, there are issues of land rights, public and private
land ownership, as well as industrial properties. Major discrepancies exist between
various pieces of data collected by different agencies, the state, and private owners which
translate to comparability problems when attempting to compile data at the national level.
In these instances, there is a serious lack of social and cultural input from a local
community standpoint (USDA Forest Service, 2004b). Additionally, social, cultural and
spiritual needs are being increasingly valued and taken into consideration by natural
resource managers in public forestlands (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). To fully assess
SF M on a regional or state level, then, social and cultural data collection in respect to
SF M needs to evolve in order to become more inclusive, consistent, reliable, and

comprehensive.

l4

In the interest of understanding the relationship between indigenous people in the
United States (Native Americans) and the land, it is beneﬁcial to acknowledge in each
situation that there are differences in perceiving nature which have been deﬁned by social
constructs as well as culture, class, and ethnicity. (Rocheleau et al., 1996). Hoogte and
Kingrna (2004) explained that thoughtful contemplation of the multiple layers involved in
policy making along with the need to consider the multiple intersections of each situation
is imperative in collaborative efforts. It has become critically important that the many
dimensions and stakeholders that are involved in SF M are acknowledged; it provides
managers with a glimpse into the potential for political sustainability that could be
incorporated in sustainability models (Arabas & Bowersox, 2004). I

In an effort to understand perceptions, attitudes, and values of a culture different
than one’s own, it is important to begin with the history and background on which current
perceptions and understandings have been built. In the following section, literature
regarding the implications of these perceptions and understandings of TEK and SFM will

be discussed.
2.3 Historical Context

Historical Misperceptions

It is important to address some common misunderstandings of historical forest
uses and management approaches regarding Native American natural resource
management (N RM), which have existed for centuries. For example, the early European
settlers originally misinterpreted the Native American lifestyle as one of poverty. It was
thought that Native Americans were living within an abundantly rich world surrounded

by marketable natural resources, yet they took no advantage of this wealth in an

15

economical manner (Cronon, 1983). The settlers could not grasp why Native Americans
did not institute a policy of land ownership. They did not understand why Native
Americans did not try to proﬁt from the abundance of mature forests and other raw goods
that were not being marketed.

A second common misunderstanding of historical Native American forest use is
due to the many depictions that have portrayed Native Americans as living in harmony
with the land. At one time, the general impression of the makeup of pre-settlement
forests, was that Native Americans had left the land relatively untouched (Day, 1953;
Williams, 2001).

Yet another misconstruction lies in imagining pre-settlement America to be an
untouched jungle of dense forests, which would make navigation nearly impossible
throughout the under canopy (Denevan, 1999). To the contrary, upon arrival European
settlers described the landscape they arrived in as vast areas of open, park-like forested
areas (Cronon, 1983; Denevan, 1999; Williams, 2001, MacCleery, 2007). After some
time, settlers began to understand that park-like landscape was no accident. Native
Americans had, in fact been managing the forests of America to suit their survival needs
for generations. The following discussion elaborates on the actual state of early forests in

the United States.

Changes Due to European Settlement

North American forests saw great changes from the pre-settlement era as
European settlers arrived. European settlers saw great ﬁnancial value in the abundance of
natural resources available in North America. The abundance of mature white pine and

other large hardwoods were seen as particularly valuable for ship-building by the

16

Europeans, for instance. Therefore much of the New England supply of timber went to
the British Royal Fleet. Of course, the colonists also took advantage of the ample timber
supply by making their furniture and houses with old growth trees valued for their long,
straight lines and continuous width (Cronon, 1983).

Vast areas of land were cleared and burned by settlers for agricultural land use
and for fuel as well. Where Native Americans used purposeﬁrl ﬁre to increase diversity,
settlers used purposeful burns with the intention of uniformity and order (McWilliams,
2001). These were major contributors to deforestation. Once the forests were cleared, the
soil had no way of maintaining its fertility, and nutrient depletion occurred. White pine
and the populations of other tree species, such as cedar and hickory, declined rapidly, and
were almost completely decimated in the lumber boom of the 19008 (Cronon, 1983). The
remaining trees of those valued species were mainly smaller, second growth trees, which
were not large enough to be marketable. Deforestation and depopulation were perhaps the
greatest landscape changes incurred by European settlement in America (Cronon, 1983,
MacCleery, 2007).

Deforestation changed many aspects of the landscape dynamic (Cronon, 1983,
MacCleery, 2007). The species composition of both the native ﬂora and fauna were
altered, there was an increase in temperature and precipitation extremes in deforested
areas, and the water-holding capacities of the soil were reduced. Deforestation also
increased stream levels and the likeliness of the occurrences of ﬂoods, reducing the
ground water tables. Much of the deforestation mandated by the European settlers was

done in the name of “progress of civilization”.

l7

Changes in forest structure were also caused by the decimation of Native
American populations with the arrival of European settlers. Native Americans sustained a
great loss in population due to their exposure to exotic European diseases for which they
lacked immunity. As a function of the drastic drop in the Native American populations, it
is likely that North America was more heavily forested in the 18005 than it had been in

the 15005.

Although different estimations taken at the time of European settlement vary, the
indigenous population in North America prior to European settlement ranged from
somewhere between eight to twenty million people (Cronon, 1983; Williams, 2001 ;
MacCleery, 2007). At one time, there were 600 different indigenous groups in North
America, each with their own lifestyles, values, spirituality, and knowledge that had been
handed down through the generations (Fiedel, 1987). Historians account that by the year
1800, the Native American population dropped to roughly one million people or less as
they succumbed to new European diseases and killings. Over time Native American
communities became ﬁagmented and forced onto smaller reservation areas. This
fragmentation has directly resulted in the loss of biodiversity in natural resources across

the settled areas of North America (Cronon, 1983).

Historical Native American Forest Uses, and Management

Traditionally, Native Americans have played a role in managing natural resources
in order to produce sustainable food and material supplies. Burning, pruning, coppicing
(maintaining trees at juvenile stages), weeding, transplanting, and sowing are just a few

methods practiced by indigenous resource management (Anderson, 1996; Martinez,

18

1999). Native Americans actively burned large sections of the forests with low intensity
ﬁres for various reasons.

Selective burning encouraged the “edge effect”, referring to areas in which there
were clearly deﬁned boundaries between forest and prairie. This created opportunity for
increased species diversity along the borders between forest and grasslands in which
many animal species thrive (e. g. deer, elk, beaver, hare, porcupine, turkey, quail, ruffed
grouse, and other ground nesting birds). By default, enhancing these animal populations
(Cronon, 1983; MacCleery, 2007) also resulted in an increase of predator populations,
which allowed eagles, hawks, lynxes, foxes, and wolves to ﬂourish. Native Americans
could then beneﬁt from the food supply that they had created (Cronon, 1983; Williams,
2001; MacCleery, 2007).

Native Americans would often conduct seasonal burns in the spring and fall, and
as a result the forest trees became widely spaced with few underbrush shrubs and many
grasses and herbs (Cronon, 1983; MacCleery, 2007). The reduction of forest undergrowth
made traveling much easier (Day, 1953). The appearance of many of the prairies and
grasslands found in pre-settlement times were as a direct result of frequently-set ﬁres, as
ﬁre provided ancillary beneﬁts. In addition to producing desirable tree species, ﬁres also
reduced insect pests such as ﬂeas and plant diseases, expedited hunting by driving out
game and also drove away enemies (Cronon, 1983; Williams, 2001; MacCleery, 2007).

Fires produced the supplementary effect of increasing the rate of nutrient return to
the forest soil, which allowed surviving trees and plants in the seed bank to regenerate
from ﬁre with vigor. These conditions favored species such as black and red raspberries

and other gathering foods. With more of an open canopy, light was then able to reach the

19

forest ﬂoor, encouraging further under canopy growth, such as new growth of beech,
sugar maple, red maple, black birch, and oak.

Prior to the decimation of pre-settlement Native American populations, North
American forests were managed by Native Americans to produce yields of certain
desirable plant and animal species. Many Europeans assumed that Native Americans
sustained themselves on whatever happened to grow in the forest (Cronon, 1983;
Denevan, 1999). They did not realize the deep ecological and seasonal understanding of
the land that the Native Americans possessed. For example, Native Americans lit ﬁres
which created full sun openings in the forest canopy ﬂoors, which fostered the growth of
birch, white pine, and other shrubs they needed in order to survive (Cronon, 1983). Fire is
perhaps the most recognizable form of forest management used by Native Americans. Of
course, natural forest ﬁres as well as other disturbances such as windstorms shift species
composition from one ecological make up to another. The species composition of pre-
settlement forests was due not only to that of natural disturbance, but also to a history of
human disturbances such as seasonal burns, which were put into motion by Native
Americans as well as European inﬂuences (Cronon, 1983).

Historically, Native Americans were active and successful in managing and
sustaining forests to serve their needs. They managed the forest for a variety of reasons:
to cultivate desirable plant and animal species, to reduce pests, to facilitate travel, and to
protect their communities from their enemies. The accumulated knowledge of a history of
active forest management has been passed down from generation to generation. Native
American communities across North America have acquired detailed traditional

knowledge from their elders on the subject of forest management.

20

2.4 Triditional Ecologi_cal Knowledge

There is a growing body of literature that advocates that local knowledge and
local standpoints should be incorporated with current forest management methods to
serve as a base for sustainable policy, planning, and management (Gadgil et al., 1993;
DeWalt, 1994; Kimmerer, 2000; see also Haraway, 1989 and Harding, 1986 for a
discussion on local knowledge).

From a Native American forest management perspective, the human connection
to and involvement with ecological processes are integral to the health and sustainability
of the forest and all natural resources. Traditional knowledge would greatly complement
scientiﬁc knowledge, particularly in local restorative efforts by adding a specialized
human local knowledge of the speciﬁc area. Furthermore, this intimate local knowledge,
referred to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) adds a human dimension to
ecosystem management. TEK implies that humans are connected to natural resources;
they are not separate entities from nature (Kimmerer, 2000).

Including TEK with modern forest management approaches using scientiﬁc
knowledge would add diversity to the natural resource management community. TEK can
complement scientiﬁc knowledge by improving forest managers’ understanding of local
ecological dynamics, and increase their ability to more inclusively and sustainably
manage our nation’s forests for multiple stakeholder values (Bengston, 2004). While
there is no one correct deﬁnition of TEK, Berkes (1999) has succinctly deﬁned TEK as:

A cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by

adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural

transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans)

'21

with one another and with the environment. ..is both cumulative and

dynamic, building on experience and adapting to changes” (Berkes, 1999,

p. 8).

TEK is the understanding of relationships between human, non-human, and the physical
environment possessed by indigenous peoples in communities that are directly dependent
on the land (Berkes, 1993; DeWalt, 1994; Kloppenburg, 1991; Murdoch and Clark, 1994;
Emery, 2001). Through extended observation, direct interaction, and experimentation,
TEK is the inherited knowledge of a speciﬁc location and its social and ecological
characteristics over time. TEK is rich in precise detail regarding the trends and deviations
of a place in which the knowledgeable person has direct experience. It is a valuable
resource for forest restoration efforts in ecosystem identiﬁcation and also incorporating
values and cultural ties to the land. A partnership between scientiﬁc knowledge and TEK
would be beneﬁcial in achieving a goal of forest sustainability by utilizing centuries of
local knowledge in addition to scientiﬁc methods.

In the ﬁeld of sociology, standpoint theory asserts that over time, scientiﬁc
knowledge has displaced other traditional knowledge systems and scientiﬁc researchers
have attained the status of unique authority (Smith, 1987; Haraway, 1989; Harding,
1986). Although contemporary standpoint theory is used in feminist literature, it has also
been adapted to investigating other issues of power, inequality, and social constructions.
Standpoint epistemology is centered on the notion that the worldview of disenﬁ'anchised
community members can more accurately identify whether research interests are truly
relevant, and if the research will be beneﬁcial and empowering to the participating

community as well as to the general population. Harding (1991) posits that those who

22

stand on the margins, ‘outsiders’, have particularly valuable ways of interpreting that can
help foster a more objective science.

Scientiﬁc approaches have not been able to achieve complete success when
studying complex ecological systems which occur on greater levels of time and space.
For instance, scientists have learned much about applying ecosystem management on a
small scale, such as managing a particular forest. However, there are still many issues in
applying ecosystem management over the entire boreal forest, for example. Although
modern scientiﬁc knowledge has been beneﬁcial in advancing our understanding of the
more straightforward systems of the natural world, it separates humanity from nature
(Gadgil et al., 1993). Scientiﬁc knowledge has allowed humans to take ﬁnancial
advantage of natural resources, and in some areas, through mismanagement and overuse,
environmental degradation of valuable natural resources has occurred. When it comes to
pursuing sustainable ecosystem management, scientiﬁc knowledge alone has not proven
to be sufﬁcient.

Natural resource managers and researchers often overlook the available value and
expertise to be gained from those who possess T EK (Emery, 2001). The use of TEK in
forest management can be very efﬁcient in restoring a speciﬁc geographic location. In
knowing how to improve the health of the land, for example, one must comprehend the
complex ecology of forest systems, and more importantly, realize and come to understand
the root source of the system imbalance (Gadgil, 1993), an understanding that is achieved
through local knowledge. Because TEK is based on localized knowledge of a speciﬁc
area, community members have established a long-standing relationship with the forest,

and specialized knowledge of local forestlands. Unlike traditional science, the philosophy

23

of TEK views natural systems as cyclical, not linear. Ecosystems are life cycles, and like
the seasons, they operate in a cyclical manner. The ﬂexible dynamic of TEK makes
change and disturbances expected events, and forest restoration and management then
works around such anticipated ecological changes (Kimmerer, 2000).

There are many facets to TEK. For example, gatherers and hunters need to have
considerable knowledge and skills to derive livelihood resources from plant matter.
Emery (2001) suggests that there are three speciﬁc dimensions to TEK: use (what plant to
use, how to harvest and prepare), ecology (how to ﬁnd it in useful quantities, recognition
of landscape characteristics, how to avoid over-harvesting, what time of year it is
available), and economics (knowing what a fair price for the product is-including
transportation, labor and equipment costs). These three aspects in combination with
traditional science are necessary in order for TEK to make signiﬁcant contributions in
ecological restoration efforts and natural resource management in general.

TEK is also intertwined with cultural foundations. Native Americans and other
indigenous people are found to focus on four different aspects in their learning processes:
the mind, body, spirit and emotion (Caj ete, 1994). Native Americans believe that humans
are a part of nature, and they have a responsibility of stewardship and agency to the land,
which is vital to maintaining ecosystem health and functioning. TEK is not objective
knowledge in the traditional sense of scientiﬁc knowledge and should not be considered
as such (Kimmerer, 2000). TEK is considered to be objective from the viewpoint of
standpoint theory. As many standpoint theorists have suggested, local knowledge is
entirely dependent upon the individual knowledge and perceptions acquired over

generations of inherited knowledge and experience situated within their local places and

24

cultures (Smith, 1987; Kimmerer, 1998, Martinez, 1999; Kimmerer, 2000). If local
knowledge is separated from the cultural aspects in TEK, both the accumulated
knowledge and the values that surround and sustain the knowledge are diminished in
quality. Natural resource managers are charged with the responsibility of managing
forests for multiple stakeholder groups with diverse values. Therefore scientiﬁc
knowledge, TEK, and local perspectives are all equally important in informing natural
resource managers (Kimmerer, 1998).

To hunters, anglers, and gatherers alike, successﬁrl harvests are linked closely
with the quality and reliability of their knowledge and observations about their local
environment. Kimmerer (2000, p.9) highlights, “TEK is not unique to Native American
culture. It is born of long intimacy and attentiveness to a homeland and can arise
wherever people are materially and spiritually integrated with their landscape.”
Traditional knowledge is embedded into the cultural way of living for many Native
Americans as well as some European communities in North America (Emery, 2001;
Martinez, 1999; McDonough et al., 1999; Kimmerer, 2000; Love & James, 2001).

Emery (2001), for instance, found that in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, many
Native Americans (as well as non-Native Americans) possess an extensive local
knowledge of the products they harvest, and they observe stewardship practices to assure
sustained non-timber forest product availability. Similarly, Love and James (2001)
further reported in their Washington State chanterelle mushroom study that Mexicans and
Southeast Asian populations immigrated to the western US. coast and took advantage of
harvesting marketable forest products such as bear grass and mushrooms beginning in the

19305. Love and James (2001) found that as the logging industry declines in the rural

25

Paciﬁc Northwest, former loggers often gather non-timber forest products to supplement
their incomes.

Traditional knowledge still has applicable value to communities across the US.
The outcomes community members gain based on traditional knowledge (e. g. mushroom
harvesting, crafts using birch, ﬁnding successful hunting, etc.) are not solely utilized by
individuals or households as supplemental income. In fact, gathering, harvesting, and
hunting keep TEK alive by providing opportunities for social fellowship, and for the
passing TEK skills onto younger generations (Emery, 2001).

On the whole, TEK has the ability to provide important information about the
ecology and social aspects of SF M. As a practice, gatherers encourage continued
availability of non-timber forest product through SFM. A blending of TEK and scientiﬁc
knowledge has been suggested as a combined methodology that could be used to
implement more ecologically and socially sustainable natural resource management

planning (DeWalt, 1994; Kimmerer, 2000).

2.5 Current Native American Forest Uses and Management Perspectives

Tribal sovereignty issues have developed as tribal nations are deciding to design
SFM programs based on cultural and ecosystem management principles (LaDuke, 1994).
Sovereignty is a top priority for many Native Americans (Bengston, 2004). There is a
long history of deceit and betrayal when looking at dominant organizations, agencies, and
the federal government in their treaty dealings with tribal nations (Cronon, 1983;
LaDuke, 1994; Rogers Huff & Pecore, 1995; “Native Struggles”, 1999; Bengston, 2004).
The survival of Native American governments and culture is inherently linked with

autonomous control and management of their natural resources (“Natural Struggles”,

26

1999). Without the ability to be autonomous in natural resource management of tribal
lands, it is virtually impossible for tribal nations to manage their forests to meet the needs
of their communities and support community members livelihoods spiritually, socially,
economically, and ecologically.

Tribal economic decisions are made after ﬁrst remembering that they are part of a
spiritual biosphere (a culture of spirituality, language, tradition, and land) that must be
preserved and maintained (Bengston, 2004). Priorities regarding forest management for
commercial activities are different than non-Native Americans. LaDuke (1994) conﬁrms
that to many, forests are the identity of the community. Generations of TEK concerning
animal relationships, medicinal plants, ceremonies, etc. lie within forested communities.

From a Native American perspective, cultural values play a signiﬁcant role in
affecting forest management ideals and perceptions. These values identify important
natural resources, and places which are to be respected and remain untouched. Bengston
(2004) illustrates the importance of traditional knowledge, in the deep historical
knowledge of ecosystems that Native Americans have handed down generation to
generation for thousands of years. Cultural values also identify which appropriate
management practices are to be used in signiﬁcant areas (Adamowicz, et al., 1998).
Cultural values are part of a community’s heritage and identity (“Natural Struggles”,
1999). Maintaining places of cultural signiﬁcance is therefore nonnegotiable. Quoting
from the Indigenous Peoples Restoration Network’s mission statement (SER, 1995),
Kirmnerer (2000) illustrates that:

Ecological restoration is inseparable from cultural and spiritual

restoration, and is inseparable from the spiritual responsibilities of care-

giving and world renewal. Collectively and individually, these indigenous
spiritual values must be central to the vision of ecological restoration.

27

Western science and technology. . .is a limited conceptual and
methodological tool; the “heads and hands” of restoration implementation.
Native spirituality is the “heart” that guides the head and hands (p. 6).

Native American culture expresses that people have a responsibility to be
stewards of the earth. Ecosystem management has been the prevalent management theme
for Native Americans in ensuring the sustainability of natural resources for thousands of
years in managing the land for their subsistence needs (Bengston, 2004). While pre-
settlement Native Americans actively managed the forest to continually renew
subsistence resources, Native American philosophy continues to impress the idea that
humans are directly responsible for their interactions with the earth to ensure survival to
the seventh generation (Clarkston, et al., 1992; LaDuke, 1994). Therefore, tribal foresters
work toward SFM plans that are carefully designed to consider the multitude of
stakeholders (ceremonial and sacred places, timber and non-timber product uses, hunting,
aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems, recreation, etc.).

Natural resources are at the center of many Native American economies. As in
any forest management, there is a need for a balance between ecological and economical
sustainability in tribal forestry as well. Many tribal nations’ economies derive a large
portion of their income ﬁ'om commercial timber sales. In 1994, LaDuke reported that
Indian Reservations in the United States contained roughly 56 billion board feet of timber
on 15 million acres of Native American land. The point being that, in addition to being
ecologically sustainable, forestry endeavors must also be economically sustainable. This
poses a unique challenge to Native American forestry. In addition to not compromising

the health of the forest while balancing economic returns, a balance must also be found in

protecting traditional cultural values and practices (LaDuke, 1994; Kimmerer, 2000;

28

Bengston, 2004). Along with timber income and job opportunities, Native Americans
presently use forest resources for arts and crafts, subsistence, spiritual, religious, and
cultural purposes as well as for hunting (Rogers Huff & Pecore, 1995; Bengston, 2004).

The ﬁrst Native American forest to be certiﬁed as sustainable in theU.S.is located
within the Menominee Indian Reservation in northeastern Wisconsin (Rogers Huff &
Pecore, 1995). The reservation spans 234,000 acres, with approximately 4,000
Menominee residents Menominee Tribal Enterprises (MTE) is the tribe-run corporation
responsible for forest management. Their management plan is based on sustainable and
intensive forest management. They manage for hardwood and softwood timber and pulp.
They have also instituted a shelterwood management program, which allows shade loving
pine seedlings to propagate and grow under mature canopy (Landis, n.d.).

Contrary to conventional timber harvesting methodology where the most valuable
trees are harvested, the MTE selectively harvest damaged trees ﬁrst, slow growing or
diseased trees second, and ﬁnally, they remove trees where more stand spacing in
necessary (leaving room for the most valuable timber to thrive). As the Menominee have
discovered, it is more expensive to sustainably harvest forests, and it is more difﬁcult to
ﬂex and react to changing market demands, at times making it difﬁcult for them to make
a proﬁt (Landis, n.d.). Regardless of proﬁt margins, however, MTE take pride in the fact
that they are managing their forests not for proﬁt, but for their tribal nation, and for their
nation’s future generations (Rogers Huff & Pecore, 1995).

Individual Native American perceptions on sustainable forest practices, however,
cannot be generalized to the general Native American population. Individuals and

communities will always differ in their values, concerns, and priorities on the topic of

29

land use and natural resource management issues (Jostad et al., 1996; Bengston, 2004).
Because each tribal nation is historically and geographically unique in their
circumstances, lessons learned from one community should not be generalized to the
greater Native American population, or to their tribal communities (McAvoy et al., 2000;
see also Haraway, 1989 and Harding, 1986 for a discussion on local knowledge). As
McAvoy et al. (2000) stated, “Native American nations vary considerably both culturally
and in situation, as do the individual communities within each nation” (p. 484).

In the interest of achieving SFM, a myriad of values and cultures must be
considered. Therefore, it is impossible to represent an individual community’s economic
situation, culture or ethnicity (Jackson, 1993; hooks, 2000; Stein, 2004) in any one
overarching statement. In this discussion of perspectives then, it is important to recognize
and emphasize that the order of priorities varies widely from between communities and
individuals regarding forest management (IUFRO, 2005). While at ﬁrst, this may appear
limiting, it is important to recognize that in local communities throughout North America,
there are stores of information that when compiled will create a vast resource of
knowledge. The applied value of localized knowledge with regard to SFM rests with the

broad diversity of speciﬁc knowledge that can be utilized in each community.

2.6 Summary and Research Questions

The livelihood of Native American nations and culture is linked with the control I
and management of natural resources (Bengston, 2004). The economic and cultural
beneﬁts of non-timber forest products (hunting, gathering food, ﬁrewood, medicine,
crafts, items for ceremonies, etc.) are vital to the survival of Native American

communities. Traditional knowledge should be respected, and conscious efforts should be

30

made in an effort to preserve as much knowledge as possible. Acknowledgement of and
respect for TEK and culture are the ﬁrst steps to be taken in working toward mutually
beneﬁcial natural resource management knowledge sharing between native and non-
native resource managers (Kimmerer, 2000).

Forested lands have been woven into the culture and livelihoods of Native
Americans for past and future generations. The relationship between forests and Native
Americans is extensive and complex (Mater, 2005). Forests are intertwined with many
Native American aspects of life, and therefore it is imperative to tribal nations that
indigenous rights are acknowledged, maintained and exercised. Inherent in tribal forest
management is the protection of sacred places, the improvement of environmental quality
of water and forest systems while balancing the tribal nation’s social and economic and
ecological needs. The primary goal in tribal forestry is to achieve a balance between
economic, ecological, and social returns by managing the forest and at the same time,
protecting its traditional cultural and spiritual areas in a sustainable way. Restoring
people’s relationship with the land is as important as restoring ecosystem functioning.
Research Objectives ,

This literature review makes the case that in order to achieve SFM, social and
cultural components must be considered in forest management decisions. Because Native
Americans are the population that has the most extensive history of forest management in
the US, and therefore have a rich history of TEK, it is important to hear and incorporate
their perspectives on SF M. The purpose of this study is to achieve a broader

understanding of Native American perceptions of SFM. In this attempt to achieve a

31

broader understanding of Native American perceptions of SFM, the following objectives
will be addressed:
1. Examine historical and current forest uses, and management approaches used by

tribal nations.
2. Examine the relationship between tribal deﬁnitions of sustainable forests.

3. Compare resource management practices developed through tribal traditions with

management practices currently advocated by natural resource professions.

4. Identify barriers and opportunities for tribal participation in the regional

discussions of sustainable forests.

32

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

This chapter will ﬁrst discuss the use of qualitative data and the beneﬁts of case

studies. The speciﬁc protocol on data collection for this study will then be outlined.

3.1 The Use of Qualitative Data

Techniques used in qualitative data are used in this research in an effort to bring
the maximum amount of depth and richness to the case study. Trochim (2006) has listed
several criteria for applying qualitative methods to a research question.

. The need for exploratory study, in that variables are not easily identiﬁed, theories
are not available to explain behavior of participants on their population of study;

0 The need to present a detailed view of the tOpic;

0 Where there is sufﬁcient time and resources to spend on extensive data collection
in the ﬁeld and detailed data analysis of “text” information;

o The nature of the research question.

Qualitative interview studies inform researchers to observe others in order to
gather the reality of a situation based on an individual’s or a community’s perception of
events. It allows the composition of in-depth descriptions which interconnect diverse
perspectives (Weiss, 1994). Qualitative methods help develop an entire picture or context
which aids in piecing together the puzzle pieces of the why and what questions of social
science (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). These methods enable a researcher to learn how
diverse communities translate actions and events that occur in all aspects of life.
Observed perspectives provide a rich background for actions and behaviors are revealed,

whereby they would have been lost using solely quantitative methods.

33

Quantitative and qualitative research techniques complement each other when
used together. Qualitative interview studies provide a better chance of discovering themes
and perspectives which would not be expected at the beginning of a study. This would
not be possible with quantitative methods (Yow, 1994). Qualitative data makes it possible
to identify patterns which develop theories that clarify the reasoning behind such
patterns.

Patricia Hill Collins (1991) speaks of the value of using standpoint theory in
qualitative research approaches. Standpoint theory centers on the idea that the researcher
is in a unique position of having the ability to see what is happening in a culture from the
perspectives of both the researcher and the participant. Her claim is that being with
participants, while still not being a part of their culture or, “outsider within”, lends
objectivity in that people in this position can observe patterns that immersed individuals
would otherwise be unable to see. Doing qualitative research using standpoint theory
allows participants to express experiences and observations in their own words through
their own experiences (Smith, 1979; Reinharz, 1992). It becomes possible to learn from
the experiences of others in asking participants what social and personal relations are
involved in generating their perception or their story (Smith, 1979; Reinharz, 1992). For
the purposes of this study, applying standpoint theory to this research acknowledges and
gives deference to Native American local knowledge and perceptions of SFM.

Conducting in-depth interviews with participants allow researchers to discover
which issues are most important to participants. It is important that social science
methods allow participants to illustrate their worldview as they have lived it (Smith,

1987; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Fonow & Cook, 1991). Perhaps one of the most

34

signiﬁcant beneﬁts of qualitative research is that it enables diverse audiences to
comprehend another individual or community’s situation looking from the inside out, as

the participant themselves experienced it (Weiss, 1994).

3.2 Case Studies, In-depth Interviews, and Focus Groups

A mixed-method approach of using qualitative methods of ﬁeld research (Babbie,

1998), as well as case study research (Yin, 1989; Reinharz, 1992) was utilized for this ’
research study, using in-depth interviews and focus groups. Field research requires the r
researcher travel to the areas being researched. This is an effective manner in which to I

gather principal data for the reason that the case study method allows more ﬂexibility,
given that data can be and is gathered in multiple ways: archival information, published
literature, personal interviews, direct observations, and focus groups (Marshall &
Rossman, 1989; van Staveren, 1997; Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Unlike quantitative studies which aim to produce generalizations and trends, case
studies focus on one issue or question or case. The many reasons for conducting case
studies include: observation and analysis of change over time, gathering information
regarding the importance of an issue for future impacts, and to further understand
interconnected patterns and relationships between events, people, and places, brining
depth to quantitative analysis, and simply put, to ask questions. Reinharz (1992, p. 174)
articulates that “. . .social science’s emphasis on generalizations has obscured phenomena
important to particular groups...” Case studies enable social researchers to connect with
actual people and grasp circumstances. They allow the reader to learn about and
understand the participants’ lived experiences as told from the perspectives of the

participants’ reality (Weiss, 1994). This is precisely why the case study is appropriate for

35

our research in partnership with Native American tribes regarding sustainable forest
management discussions. In order to recognize as many perspectives as possible, it is
important that social science has a method in which to reﬂect the multitude of diverse
experiences within various cultures.

This case study used the in-depth interview method to conduct personal
interviews and focus groups. In-depth interviews may consist of individual or group
interviews (Trochim, 2006). In-depth interviews are based around several general
questions designed to produce a dialogue about a particular issue or event. These
interviews are more like conversations, which designed to support the participant in
openly sharing their life experiences about the topic of interest. The researcher guides the
interview based on the participant responses to the open-ended questions they are asked.
In this way, the thoughts and Opinions of the participants appear rather than those of the
researcher (Reinharz, 1992). From these interviews, the researcher observes participant
thoughts, ideas and opinions regarding the issue being discussed. The information
gathering process can be recorded by either audio or video recorders, or simply by
written notes. These interviews are typically audio-recorded if consent is given, and a
transcript is made. The recorded conversations yield evidence produced from the guiding
questions asked by the interviewer, and content analysis commences (Yow, 1994).

There are many grounds on which it is recommended and deemed appropriate to
conduct focus groups and personal interviews. In-depth interviewing underscores the
importance of doing research avoiding preconceived assumptions or hypotheses
(Reinharz, 1992; Yow, 1994). Forums such as in-depth interviews permit researchers

admittance into participants’ own ideas, thoughts, and memories, and allow them, in their

36

own words, to share their own experiences (Reinharz, 1992). In this way, it is possible to
enable participants a larger role in forming the research project, and it creates a situation
where the researcher may develop a connection with the participants.

Quite possibly one of the most useful beneﬁts of in-depth interviewing is that it
becomes possible for the interviewer to immediately follow up on an interesting response
or to probe deeper when a response needs clariﬁcation. Another added beneﬁt to in-depth
interviewing is that the researcher will physically spend time with participants in the
research study location. If one is investigating a culture or community that is not their
own, this is an excellent way to build respect, and rapport with participants while at the
same time, being able to ﬁrst hand observe unspoken communications (e. g. body
language, facial expressions, personality traits, etc.). Echoing MacAvoy et al. (2000),
Bengston (2004, p.48) explains:

Gaining clear insights into the environmental perspectives of

ethnic and minority groups is often difﬁcult for forest managers,

policy makers, and researchers who are not part of these

communities. Differences in traditions, social mores, and language

create obstacles to communication and understanding, and histories

of exploitation often create profound distrust of government

institutions and their representatives. Social science methods used

to obtain information about attitudes, beliefs, and values of the

dominant culture are often inappropriate and ineffective when used

in the context of racial and ethnic communities. For example, mail

surveys are widely used in social science research but have not

been successful with Native Americans.

Focus groups and personal interviews consistently reveal information about all
levels of communities that would not normally be found in interview formats using close-

ended surveys, for example (Y ow, 1994). They can uncover social norms in a culture that

one was not previously aware of, and enlighten readers on the diversity of life within a

37

community. In her book Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Science,
Yow (1994) states that:

The in-depth interview can reveal a psychological reality that is the basis

for ideals the individual holds and for the things he or she does... closely

related is the way individuals see their own histories, both personal and

group with which they identify. This becomes important in understanding

a culture (p. 15).

By understanding the social dynamics of a culture, it becomes more possible to
learn how people come to certain worldviews, and the role the culture one is living in
plays in the origin of their thoughts and interpretations of issues (Y ow, 1994).
Clariﬁcation is vital in qualitative studies in uncovering underlying factors in inﬂuencing
participant decisionmaking in an event (Weiss, 1994; Yow, 1994).

While in-depth interviews certainly have their advantages, their limitations must
also be discussed. A major difference between qualitative research and quantitative
research is the fact that while quantitative studies may be replicated, qualitative studies
and case studies in particular cannot be replicated. Because qualitative studies are not
repeatable, the data is not generalizable to the greater population (Weiss, 1994). Some
claim that qualitative methods create a speciﬁc portrayal of the individual participants,
which cannot be duplicated, and are therefore not of particular value (Yow, 1994).
However, in qualitative data analysis, and in life in general, it is recognized that
circumstances and viewpoints change over time, so in these research scenarios where

case studies are conducted, there is no need for duplication or generalization. Case

38

studies are meant to be an account of a person or groups’ thoughts and memories about
an issue or event.

The potential for bias is another serious consideration when working with
qualitative methods. It is inevitable that some social scientists will have some
assumptions about their study before it even begins, especially if the researcher has
speciﬁc questions they would like to address about a speciﬁc matter. These types of
preconceptions could potentially bias the results by causing the researcher to (whether
consciously or subconsciously) frame their questions with a possible bias toward their
assumption. In qualitative analysis one might try to produce ﬁndings which support a
viewpoint or assumption the researcher carries by admitting facts which support their
theory while omitting facts which do not. This could make his or her argument the
strongest in the study analysis. In many cases, this bias can be resolved by having peers
_ critique and review the research analysis. In most situations, however, the primary goal of
the researcher is to learn rather than validate (Weiss, 1994). It is important that
researchers using qualitative data techniques commit themselves to telling the entire ‘
story. It is essential that the researcher develop a relationship with the participant where
they understand that the study would beneﬁt most by accurate information.

As the interviewer is certainly susceptible to bias and inﬂuence, so is the
participant (Y ow, 1994). Participants may consciously or unconsciously choose to leave
out certain facts, details, or events in an attempt to frame their discussion toward their
advantage. There will always be questions pertaining to accuracy with participant
interviews. Conventional knowledge accepts that as time goes by, memories become less

accurate then they were on the day of the particular event. However, research has found

39

that memories of a speciﬁc event fade most dramatically in the ﬁrst hour after the
occurrence and in the nine hours following the event than in any other subsequent time
period, be they weeks, months, or years. If issues of participant reliability surface, it
becomes the researcher’s responsibility to cross check with credible resources and
compare participant accounts to validate. It must be noted, that it is impossible to achieve
complete conﬁdence regarding any speciﬁc experience or detail regardless of the
evidence. The best possible scenario becomes that a provisional conclusion is produced
based on a thorough examination of the evidence (Y ow, 1994).

In some cases, reports involving participants from communities the researcher is
unfamiliar with may still be portrayed inaccurately regardless of the level evidence
examination. The data may be misinterpreted due to cultural differences. As Bengston
(2004) highlights, it is difﬁcult to have a clear understanding of a community when you
are not part of them. The following are potential obstacles: language, social norms,
histories of exploitation, distrust (Bengston, 2004). It is critical that researchers take time
to be reﬂective, and becomes critically aware of the social and cultural differences in
their habits and mannerisms compared. In order to most accurately represent a
population the researcher is not a member of, it is imperative that one educates oneself on
the cultural etiquettes of conversation and speech, as this is the main medium through

which communication and miscommunication takes place (Y ow, 1994).

3.3 Research Protocol

 

The purpose of this study was to achieve a greater understanding of tribal
perspectives of SF M. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with long-term

residents, including tribal and non-tribal members.

40

To begin the process of this case study, interviews, phone calls were made;
meetings were held, along with correspondences between those involved with the
organizations mentioned below in order to discover which tribal nations would be the
best suited to participate in this research. Consultations took place with the following
knowledgeable organizations: the Upper Mississippi River Forest Partnership, the Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Region 9 of the USDA PS, the Great Lakes
Forest Alliance, and Native American scholars at Michigan State University, various
tribal nations were recommended as ideal participants for this case study.

Tribal nations were recommended for participation based on counsel with the
College of the Menominee, and American Indian Studies experts at Michigan State
University. The participant pursuit began with a snowball sampling technique (Trochim,
2006). This is where a possible participant who meets the research criteria and parameters
is contacted and asked to recommend others who also fall within the research parameters,
and importantly, who would be interested in participating. For qualitative research of this
nature, it is important to enlist individuals who have deﬁnite characteristics or
experiences related to the research questions of this study (Walker, 1985). Phone calls
were made to Native American Reservations located within the Upper Mississippi River
Watershed. Their recommendations were considered on who should be involved, who to
contact ﬁrst, and what the appropriate protocol in contacting individual tribal
communities were.

As a result, twenty two individuals from Leech Lake and White Earth Indian
Reservations agreed to participate. White Earth and Leech Lake Reservations, located in

northern Minnesota (Figure 1), were identiﬁed as potential participants in this study

41

because they fell within the parameters set for the case study. The ﬁrst participant
parameter was that the tribal nations who agreed to participate must be federally
recognized. The second parameter required that some amount of the reservation land
exist within the boundaries of the Upper Mississippi River Basin (see Figure 2). Third,
the reservation land needed to have some forested land on it where active management
was being done. It was also preferred that the tribe had a natural resources management
department. Tribal nations in the southern part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin have

very small reservation boundaries, and do not have forestry programs.

42

White Earth Indian Reservation

  
  

Leech Lake Indian Reservation

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Location of in-depth study area in northern Minnesota.

43

    
 

ILLINOIS

St. Louis

MISSOURI

 

Figure 2. Boundaries of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
44

Before ﬁeld work began, it was necessary to obtain the proper approval from
Tribal Council members. Efforts were made to ensure that communications were
conducted using respectful and inclusive approaches that take into account the ways in
which values from different cultures and societies interact in each community.
Information related to our research goals were sent via mail to potentially interested
parties. An information packet was compiled. Enclosed was literature explaining the
Montreal Process, the Upper Mississippi River Forestry Partnership program, and a letter
explaining our research interests and questions. Next, approval by the Tribal Council was
sought. This was a lengthy process, as the Tribal Councils are extremely busy and
overloaded with paperwork and other matters of importance. The White Earth Band of
Ojibwe and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe approved our request to conduct research
and agreed to participate in our case study. Once approval was obtained, the project was
able to move forward and travel plans and interviews were scheduled.

The Michigan State University Institutional Review Board and the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved the informed consent form
that was created for this study (Appendix B). It contained the risks and beneﬁts of
participation, (which were also verbally explained to participants), as well as asking for
their consent to be recorded. Consent forms should include the following: the study
objectives, what is expected of the participant, who will have access to interview
material, an advisement of the risks and beneﬁts of participating, a statement underlining
the fact that participation is voluntary and can be withdrawn at anytime, and a way to
contact the researcher if questions should arise (Weiss, 1994). Additionally, upon the

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe’s granted approval, they provided participants with their

45

own informed consent form (Appendix C). If consent was granted to record the
interview, the conversation is subsequently transcribed and hand coded. To date, none of
the participants have objected to our informed consent form or to being audio-recorded.

Research data was obtained at the individual and community level via personal in-
deptlr interviews and focus groups. In the spring of 2006, a total of eight in-depth
interviews were conducted in northern Minnesota with community residents of the White
Earth Indian Reservation and the Leech Lake Indian Reservation (Appendix D). Four
personal interviews and two focus groups (with four and ﬁve participants, respectively)
were conducted with participants from White Earth. One personal interview and one
focus group (with nine participants) were conducted with participants from Leech Lake.
Participants were comprised of a blend of tribal members, employees of the tribe, and
community members who live within the reservation boundaries. Community residents
who were non-tribal members were also interviewed. Because of the diverse
landownership that checker-boards the reservation, they also make up a part of the
community, as do tribal members.

When informed consent was granted from the participants, the interviews were
recorded using a digital voice recorder, and were later transcribed and coded by hand.
The in-depth interviews lasted from a minimum time of roughly one and a half hours to a
maximum of three hours. The White Earth forestry department also made copies of the
interview questions that were sent to them, and left them for people to ﬁll out at their
leisure in a commons area. Five people ﬁlled them out, and the responses to those will be

incorporated into the rest of the report.

46

The research process of data collection was carried out using culturally
appropriate approaches with community members about forest uses past and present,
forest management on tribal lands, deﬁnitions of sustainability, measures of
sustainability, and views in participating in regional discussions regarding forest
management. Collaborating together with feedback from the Upper Mississippi Forest
Partnership, the semi-structured interviews and focus groups were centered on the same
several key questions (Appendix E). The key questions were offered to participants to
review and reﬂect upon prior to the interview. Distributing these questions allow the
participant to understand what expectations there are of the interview conversations,
enabling a more thoughtful discussion. The interview process was kept as ﬂexible as
possible. In each case, the participants were encouraged to guide the dialogue (Trochim,

2006).

3.4 Study Location

This case study took place in Northern Minnesota. In-depth interviews and focus
groups were conducted in participation with Leech Lake Reservation and White Earth
Reservation. The White Earth Reservation spans across three counties in Minnesota:
Becker, Clearwater, and Mahnomen. The reservation spans 850,000 acres. The Leech
Lake Reservation extends across Cass, Itasca, Beltrarni, and part of Hubbard counties.
Located within the reservation boundaries of Leech Lake are the headwaters of the

Mississippi River, which form in Itasca State Park.

47

3.5 Analysis of Data

The interview was the unit of analysis in this study and was selected for two
reasons. First, the focus groups were recorded with a digital voice recorder, not video
recorder. This makes it particularly difﬁcult to assign a speciﬁc dialogue exchange to one
speciﬁc participant. Second, a comment contributed by one participant may not have
surfaced had another participant not brought up that particular subject. Due to the
collaborative nature of focus groups, the responses offered by individual participants are
not independent, nor are they intended to be. One of the advantages to conducting focus
groups is the rich discussion produced by a group of individuals that likewise would not
occur in an individual interview. Therefore, each focus group and individual interview
was counted as one interview during analysis.

The digitally recorded in-depth interviews were transcribed by the researcher.
Every interview transcript was ﬁrst reviewed by the researcher who conducted the
interviews. This process included careﬁrlly reading the transcripts and then highlighting
text with potential codes. The transcripts were then handed to a second researcher to
check for potential bias, error in interpretations, and consistency in coding. Several
collaborative meetings took place where emerging themes were investigated in each
transcript. Along with each theme, codes were attached to parts of the text which
addressed speciﬁc interview questions. For example, the code “future generations” was
attached to the transcript when participants offered their deﬁnitions of sustainable forest
management. The frequencies at which codes appear in the transcript assist in drawing

out patterns and themes in analysis.

48

Code Development

Sorting and coding ﬁeld notes and transcripts for responses to the open-ended
interview questions are an integral part of data analysis. Coding entails breaking down
and organizing data produced from the guided by the interview questions into themes and
categories based on the characteristics of the participants’ responses and the dynamics of
the events in each in-depth interview.

The main code categories used were based on the list of interview questions in
Appendix E. The ﬁrst interview question, for instance asked, “Think about when you
were a child. How did you use the forest?” Participant responses to a topic area (e.g.
childhood forest uses) were coded based on content. For example, if a participant
mentioned in childhood that their grandmothers taught them about local forest plant uses,
that comment would then be sub-coded as “elder-youth ecology education”. Codes
occurring multiple times in more than one individual interview were deemed to be
potentially prevalent patterns or themes.

Once the coding and sorting of interviews was completed, observations and
descriptions of what has been learned from the interview process were made by
summarizing the interpreted meanings, and bringing out the articulate quotes and
meaningful phrases of each interview (Weiss, 1994). The researcher then correlated the
emerging patterns, themes, and relationships in how the data related to each other (Miles
& Huberman, 1984; Dey, 1993). The ﬁndings of the analysis will be discussed in the

following chapter.

49

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the conversations that took place in this study’s focus groups and
in-depth interviews are discussed below. This chapter discusses the research ﬁndings this
study has obtained through the qualitative methods of focus groups and in-depth
interviews conducted with participants from the White Earth and Leech Lake Indian

Reservations.

4.1 Partimant Tribal Nations Introduction

In establishing the proﬁles of the participants of this study, it is important to be
aware of the circumstances through which White Earth and Leech Lake Indian
Reservations were formed. White Earth and Leech Lake are two of six reservations that
make up the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (MCT), which was created in the Indian
Reorganization .Act of 1934. The other four tribes of the MCT are: Mille Lacs, Bois
Forte, Grand Portage, and Fond du Lac. The White Earth Indian Reservation was created
by the 1867 Treaty between the Mississippi Band of Chippewa Indians and the United
States government. The Leech Lake Indian Reservation boundaries were established by
the Treaties of 1855 and 1867.

Throughout the late 18005 and 19005, the White Earth Reservation along with
Leech Lake Reservation and countless other reservations, had been parceled by
government acts and treaties (Dawes Act of 1887, Nelson Act of 1889, Rice Commission
negotiations, Clapp Amendments of 1904 and 1906). The Dawes Act for example,
allotted 80 acres to each individual tribal member in 1887. Participants explained that due

to legislation such as the Nelson Act, townships with pine populations were annexed, and

50

then were made available for harvest by private companies. In the years shortly following
18 89, all of the pine in the reservation areas had been clearcut, and there was no effort of

reforestation. Native people did not beneﬁt from the pine harvests.

The White Earth Band of 0jibwe3

The White Earth Band of Ojibwe people to this day reside within the land base of
the White Earth Indian Reservation. The Reservation spans across three counties in
northwestern Minnesota: Becker, Clearwater, and Mahnomen. It is one of seven
Chippewa reservations in the state of Minnesota.

The governing entity of White Earth is its Tribal Council, which is comprised of
ﬁve members: Tribal Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and three District Representatives. All
happenings and decisions regarding White Earth are presented to, ﬁnalized and approved
by the Tribal Council. As of July of 2007, the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa
had an enrollment size of 19, 291 (MCT, 2007).

Within the White Earth Indian Reservation boundaries, there is a unique
topography which creates a variation in soil characteristics from fertile clay soils in the
west to sandy lower fertility soils in the east. Most of the forested land (360,637 acres) is
in the eastern half of the reservation. The forests were comprised of mature white and red
pine and mixed hardwood and softwood species before the lumber barons harvested all
the white pine. Aspen stands primarily regenerated after this, and some acres regenerated
to scrubland. The treasured white pine has not regenerated to its original population due

to ﬁre suppression. At present the forests consist of mostly even-aged stands with

 

3 The following information is taken from the 2002 White Earth IRMP.
5 1

species including: paper birch, young red and white pine, swamp conifers, black and
white spruce, balsam ﬁr, red and white oak, and swamp hardwoods.

White Earth has a complex mixture of land ownership in common with many
reservations across the United States. There is an assortment of tribal, trust land, state,
county, private, and federal land ownership. Much of the White Earth Indian Reservation
is now owned by non-tribal members. In 1975, 28,000 acres of lower-value land was
returned to White Earth. In the 1990’s, the White Earth Land Settlement Act acquired
10,000 acres for White Earth. Currently, approximately 8% of the reservation (63,000
acres) are owned and managed by the tribe (White Earth IRMP, 2002). Tribal members
own roughly 47,000 acres of the 400,000 forested acres on the reservation. Tribally-
owned forests produce a signiﬁcant amount of income to the White Earth Band of
Ojibwe: harvesting approximately 5.7 million board feet of timber year brings $50,000
per year to the tribe.

Unique to White Earth community members is the White Earth Land Recovery
Project (WELRP). Its mission taken from their website (www.nativeharvest.com) is “To
facilitate recovery of the original land base of the White Earth Indian Reservation while
preserving and restoring traditional practices of land stewardship, language ﬂuency,
community development and strengthening our spiritual and cultural heritage.” WELRP
is presently involved in many projects that range from alternative energy to land
acquisition to forest stewardship. They have recently been certiﬁed by the Forest
Stewardship Council in 2003 for sustainable forest management of their 200 acres sugar
bush fore5t. The WELRP forest is composed of aspen, sugar maple, birch, basswood,

ironwood, oak, and hazel brush.

52

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe”

Leech Lake Indian Reservation is located in northwestern Minnesota. The
headwaters of the Mississippi River (in Itasca State Park) are located within its
boundaries, and the Reservation extends across Cass, Itasca, Beltrarni, and part of
Hubbard Counties. Leech Lake has a unique situation in the United States because the
Reservation boundaries mirror the boundaries of the Chippewa National Forest almost
exactly.

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is governed by a ﬁve member elected Tribal
Council. There is a Chairman, secretary/treasurer, and representatives from three districts
of Local Indian Councils. Similar to the White Earth Indian Reservation, all happenings
and decisions regarding the Leech Lake Indian Reservation are also presented to,
ﬁnalized and approved by the members of the Tribal Council. The Leech Lake Band of
Minnesota Chippewa has an enrollment size close to 8,861 members (MCT, 2007).

Leech Lake and White Earth Indian Reservations, sit on the edge of the northern
boreal forest as well as the edge of the northern hardwood forests. Tirriber activities were
carried out by railroad and timber companies in the Leech Lake forests in the early 19005
are primarily responsible for the composition of the forest as it stands today (this is when
most of the timber logging took place). Pine was the most valuable species during that
time period, and the reservation area was entirely logged over. Consequently, many

wildﬁres ensued as a result of the large amount of pine slash accumulated. Over-mature

aspen stands now dominate much of the forested acreage. Second to aspen stands in

 

4 The following information was taken from the 2000 Leech Lake Draft IRMP.
53

predominance are northern hardwood forests. Because many of the northern hardwood
forests were high-graded in the past, the residual stands are of low quality.

Complicated land ownership patterns are also a challenge to tribal forest
management. Leech Lake, like White Earth land ownership throughout the Reservation is
composed of a complex patchwork of trust lands; county owned land, privately owned
land, commercially owned land, etc. Approximately 29,717 acres of the 864,158 acres on
the Leech Lake Reservation are trust lands. These trust lands are divided into tribal, band,
and allotted lands, where tribal lands are owned by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, band
lands are owned by Leech Lake, and ﬁnally, allotted lands are owned by individual
Indian and non-Indian owners. Roughly 74% of the land on Leech Lake Reservation is
commercial forest land (22,134 acres).

In this case study, standpoint theory is utilized because it is important for the
researcher is attempting to learn about a culture that is not their own. Additionally, the
researcher must recognize that each individual participant (themselves included) is in
some way situated in a unique position and views the world from their set of
circumstances, life experiences, and surrounding environment. From where one stands
individually, as a culture, or as a society, one can only see the issue ﬁom their particular
vantage point (Haraway, 2000). Qualitative research brings the value of allowing
multiple perspectives to make partial perceptions more complete. The efforts in this case
study work toward that goal in terms of understanding Native American perceptions of

sustainable forest management.

54

4.2 Historical and Current Tribal Uses; and Forest Management Approaches

Values and opinions change over time (Sample et al., 2006). To achieve an
accurate gauge in how sustainable forest management perceptions may change in the
ﬁrture, it is necessary to be informed of how attitudes and values in forest management
have changed. Focus groups and in-depth interviews revealed that the way White Earth
and Leech Lake Reservation forests have been managed has indeed changed over time.

Contrary to expectations, tribal members interviewed did not begin discourse on
this issue by relating to a pre-settlement period where indigenous Americans inﬂuenced
the land primarily by ﬁre management. To the tribal members interviewed, “the past”
was the time in history before their tribes took over forest management of tribal lands.
When participants were asked how the forest was managed historically, one participant
who is a White Earth tribal member responded, “Basically, we didn ’t have input until
1994 on how many acres were going to be harvested, what kind of forestry

practices were going to be used, or what kind of timber would be harvested. We

had no input.” Leech Lake’s natural resources department has been active since 1972
(and managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs), when both Leech Lake and White Earth
were granted hunting ﬁshing and gathering rights. White Earth took over management of
their natural resources department in 1994, and Leech Lake did so as well around that
time.

At present, the two tribal nations manage the forest sustainably for selective
harvesting and harvest rotations. Both Leech Lake and White Earth have written
Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs). Additionally, the USDA Forest Service

has drafted a Forest Management Plan for the Chippewa National Forest, which lies

55

within the boundaries of Leech Lake Indian Reservation. It becomes imperative that the
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the Chippewa National Forest stakeholders both come to
an agreement on the forest management style, due to the patchwork of land ownership
involved. When management decisions need to be made regarding forests in which many
stakeholders hold an interest, it is important to understand the social values each
stakeholder or land owner holds related to their forest.

Most of the participants in this study had lived in the area all of their lives. The
forest was a playground and a place to socialize for many of the participants. Non-tribal
members reported using the forest for more recreational purposes as children such as:
hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, birding, and hunting squirrel and deer. In an
effort to understand the relationships community members in White Earth and Leech
Lake have to the forest land in the community, participants were asked how they used the
forest as a child. One White Earth tribal member responded by saying, “The woods
were our entertainment, it was our livelihood. It was a lot of things personally,
growing up.” In the past, many people in the tribal community were dependent on the
forest for survival. Many of the tribal members interviewed had fathers who either
worked for logging companies or saw mills for a living. Several participants mentioned
helping their fathers work by peeling pulp or piling brush. Their fathers would leave the
reservation for weeks at a time to go on logging operations. It was expressed that there
was there was high unemployment on both reservations in participants’ childhoods. The
principal employers were the timber companies.

Plants harvested ﬁom the forests nearby are mainly used for ceremonies,

participants believe. They recalled from their childhoods that their families would grow

56

subsistence gardens, and deer hunt in the summer or trap in the winter to supplement their
fathers’ logging income. There were memories of ﬁsh camps and maple sugar camps.
Everything seemed to move with the seasons. Several tribal members we spoke with
shared their memories of growing up in tar paper shacks without running water and
electricity until they were at least ten years old. They remember that they had no hunting,
ﬁshing or gathering rights or licenses growing up. These participants are now roughly in
their 505. Some participants remember trading wild rice at the store as children with their
parents. They noted that they would, and still do trade other bands for some ceremonial
plants.

Several participants mentioned that they knew all the names of the trees, plants,
and mosses. Many memories included collecting ﬁrewood, balsam bough harvests, and
picking berries. More 50, participants recalled their grandmothers’ teachings about
medicinal plants. They emphasized the importance of knowing medicinal plants in their
childhoods because there weren’t many doctors in the area available to treat illnesses.

One member of White Earth stated:

One of the things I 've learned a lot of is the cultural aspects of the
forest. Such as what we use diﬁ’erent plants for: for medicine, for
pain, for some type of ceremony, or things we still really can 't
disclose to non-Indians. A lot of plants that we use are in the forest.
There are teas, there are medicines, and there are edible plants out
there that we still use.

In general, tribal members said they use the forest differently now compared to
when they were children. As adults, they are more interested in cultural aspects in the
forest now than they were as children. Written histories of White Earth and Leech Lake
are spotty at best, and oral histories are relied on to pass the history of these people on to
younger generations. As mentioned above, their grandparents and parents would spend

57

time in the woods showing them how to use certain plants and trees, and they would
teach their children how to hunt or ﬁsh. Spending time in the forest with their elders gave
children an opportunity to learn of their culture and heritage. As adults, participants say
they still hunt, ﬁsh, gather mushrooms, trap, tap maple sugar, and use other plants ﬁom
the forest. Although, several tribal members from Leech Lake interviewed expressed
concern that they do not feel that their children are picking up the culture and traditions
that were passed on to them as children in the forest. A tribal member ﬁ'om Leech Lake

spoke of his experience:

I think of change, not only in forest composition, but also change in
our kids. When I grew up, I hunted with my dad. We trapped,
brought deer home, rabbits, we ’d set nets. Now these kids don ’t want
to do that. They ’ve never been in the woods... They don ’t know what
it’s like to be out in the woods and be at peace. There’s a big
difference between my parents, me, and my kids... Things have really
changed. My dad, he taught me how to rice, and how to hunt, and
how to trap. I can teach my son, but this year we didn’t go hunting.
This is the ﬁrst year in 40 some years I didn’t go hunting. My son
didn ’t want to go, he was too busy, my dad couldn ’t go, and I didn ’t
feel like being out there anymore because I didn ’t have my dad or
my son with me. Things are changing.

The answer, “All of them,” echoed from tribal members and non-tribal members
alike when asked what plants and trees found in the local forests are considered
spiritually or culturally signiﬁcant. As one tribal member summarized about the local
forest, “It’s part of our beliefs, history, and culture.” Participants communicated that
each plant existing in the forest serves a unique ecosystem function and that everything
found in the forest is spiritually or culturally signiﬁcant to this community. Several tribal
members from White Earth as well as Leech Lake mentioned that there are many plants

and trees that are important to tribal communities for ceremonies, for crafts, and for

58

edible purposes. Those being: cedar, sweet grass, sage, tobacco, ash, white pine, sugar
maple, birch, Norway pine, aspen, elm, tamarack, choke cherries, hazel nuts, plumbs, and
mushrooms. The Leech Lake Department of Resource Management participates in an
Inventory Resources Project which is for tribal member use only. It contains details on
local native plants and their uses by community members. The Inventory Resource
Project has found that roughly half of all plant species in the area of Leech Lake Indian
Reservation have documented uses.

Tribal members and non-tribal members alike spoke a great deal about the mature
white pine stands which used to characterize their landscapes. Most of the white pine has
since been clearcut. As one White Earth tribal member understood about the history of
white pine:

In the late 18005, east of Naytahwaush, the white pine and red pine
were harvested. Someone asked the BIA if they could log dead and
downed timber. It wasn ’t regulated then, so they set ﬁres and said .
the red and white pines were dead...then they cut them. This was
before we knew red and white pine were ﬁre specialized species.
This was a trick for loggers.

White pine was seen as a valuable wood because of the size, and it was easily
manipulated. Leech Lake participants recalled that the white pine in their area was
clearcut in the late 18005 and early 19005 when the US. government opened the
reservation forests up to loggers as a result of the Nelson Act. They credit the decimation
of white pine populations in the area to the birth of the Chippewa National Forest. They
are symbolic of northwest Minnesota, and community members expressed that the white
pine populations are not regenerating. This has ecosystem impacts that change ﬂora and
fauna in the area. Bears, eagles, wolves, and osprey are a few of the wild animals that
thrive in white pine forests. When their habitat is no longer available, these animals must

59

search for new habitat elsewhere. Where areas have been clearcut, early succession tree
species such as aspen thrive, and displace the pine trees.

Leech Lake and White Earth tribal forestry departments have a responsibility to
tribal members to consider multiple forest uses in their management plans. Various non-
timber forest goods (speciﬁc species of trees, plants, and shrubs) are highly valued by
tribal members who choose to exercise their gathering rights. They are used for medicinal
purposes, berries, basket-making, boughs and other crafts not related to timber sales. For
example, balsam bough collection has become a popular means by which to supplement
income. Paper birch stands are signiﬁcant to the people of White Earth and Leech Lake
as well. One Leech Lake tribal member mentioned that Native American craﬁers can turn
a $13-25 piece of paper birch bark into a craft and receive $100-300 for their artistry.
Paper birch is mainly used for crafts in the area, but it is also valuable for its medicinal
qualities. Sugar bushes are also being preserved for sugaringopportunities. Furthermore,
sustaining wildlife is a high priority to tribal members. Forest management greatly
impacts wildlife in numerous ways and managers must consider the effect on both game
and non-game species.

Economically signiﬁcant trees found in local forests were highlighted by the non-
Native American participants, such as: white pine, Norway pine, maple, and birch, aspen.
One participant who lived within the White Earth Reservation boundaries noted that at
the time of the interview, the price of aspen was around $60 per cord, and the price of
paper birch was $5.50 per cord. They mentioned that sugar maples are important trees for
maple syrup production, but that the tree itself was not considered “big lumber” at the

time.

60

When White Earth and Leech Lake tribal members were asked during the
interviews if they were aware of any speciﬁc conservation initiatives associated with
signiﬁcant forest ﬂora or fauna, most were not aware of any stewardship or conservation
programs in the area. However, the White Earth Land Recovery Project was mentioned
as a local conservation initiative. Their mission is, “to facilitate recovery of the original
land base of the White Earth Indian Reservation, while preserving and restoring
traditional practices of sound land stewardship, language ﬂuency, community
development, and strengthening our spiritual and cultural heritage” (Native Harvest,
2004, para. 3).

Furthermore, both White Earth and Leech Lake tribal members who were tribal
employees mentioned that they meet with other tribes and share information at least once
a year with surrounding states (Wisconsin and Michigan) as well as the Native American
Fish and Wildlife Society, and the Intertribal Timber Council to discuss forest
management. One tribal of White Earth expressed:

No, um, not that I know of other than our own determination of
what plants need to be protected around here...There are some
stewardship programs, conservation programs, planting trees, and
that ’s all good, but in order to put this all together, our management
practices and everything, we don ’t see that being addressed very
much... We get together with other tribes and share our ideals and
management activities with them. If we see something that’s going to
be beneﬁcial, then we share that information on how we did it. We
get together at least once a year, not only the tribes in Minnesota,
but the tribes in Michigan and Wisconsin...1f we have something
pressing at a meeting that needs to be addressed; we address it when
we get together.

When one focus group of non-tribal members who live within the White Earth

Indian Reservation was asked about their awareness of conservation initiatives, they

61

spoke of their involvement with the Resource Steward Association of Becker County
(RSA). The RSA was described as a community watch dog group which is involved with
resource conservation on state, county and private lands. The group also works toward
forest restoration, and bringing back ﬁre to ecosystems to control overgrown hazel brush.
The RSA is also works toward the restoration of native forest wildﬂower species, such as
the showy lady’s slipper orchid. The RSA collaborates with the White Earth Land
Recovery Project (WELRP) on forestry issues, such as watching county logging
operations to ensure that regulations are followed. The focus group with RSA members
cited times when counties have trespassed beyond their forest property during a timber
harvest, onto WELRP land. The WELRP and RSA also work together against an
initiative in Minnesota that would allow the production of genetically modiﬁed wild rice.
The Resource Stewardship Association of Becker County is additionally engaged with
the conservation of old grth forest stands and reducing the invasion of exotic species.
Restoring white pine forests is also a priority, as it has not regenerated from the extensive

clearcutting that happened at the turn of the last century.

4.3 Deﬁnitions of Sustainable Forestry

While participant deﬁnitions of sustainable forestry differed on some levels, this
deﬁnition articulated by a participant of White Earth appears to encapsulate the general
deﬁnition given by both tribal and non-tribal members interviewed. In his role as a
manager of the forest, he deﬁnes sustainable forestry as, “maintaining a sustainable
population to harvest, but leave resources for the future in considering wildlife
and plant survival.” Moreover, tribal members and non-tribal members expressed a

certain “sense of place” feeling when they are in a healthy or sustainable forest. Sense of

62

place can brieﬂy be described as individuals having a personal relationship, emotional
attachment to a speciﬁc place, possibly with historical or cultural signiﬁcance (Williams
& Stewart, 1998).

Tribal deﬁnitions of sustainable forest management emphasized a cultural
component to the forest in their deﬁnitions. The previous participant went on to explain
that he differentiated the previous deﬁnition from his personal deﬁnition as a tribal
member:

My personal opinion of sustainable forestry is making sure that
there 's going to be a forest for future generations...Comparing our
age to the age of trees, we 're only here for a short time, and we have
to make sure that it's always going to be here for their use. That's the
way the Creator made it. You use what you need and you leave the
rest for the next generation. Then it's their turn to take care of the
resources after you 're gone.

A tribal member from Leech Lake deﬁned sustainable forestry in this way:

Well, there’s a lot of scenarios that go into that; socio-economic,
and what else...plants, you know, exotic species... I think if you
manage the forest in a sustainable way, you ’re taking care of the
land for the people. It is protecting the health of the people in
perpetuity. So you preserve the forest for future generations. Meet
the needs of the people today. That’s my understanding of it.

Sustainable forestry was deﬁned by a tribal member of White Earth as the following:

It means to me that we’re not out there tearing up the trails, scarring
up trees, and ripping everything to bits with diggers and heavy
equipment. You watch over your forest, clean the dead stuﬂ out and
just leave it alone. The forests made it until we came and started
chopping them down [laughter]. We need to try to get all the people
in the community together and teach them what kind of forests they
have, what kinds of plants they have, what good qualities they can
get out of them, what the bad qualities of the forests are. Get
everybody involved and keep those logging trucks out of there
[laughter].

63

Economics were deemed an essential component by non-tribal member
participants to their deﬁnitions of sustainability (e.g., employment and market values for
timber). As one participant expressed, “It would include economic development and
appropriate use that is beneﬁcial and not detrimental to environment. It would
include harvesting; not only preservation, but it would include wise use.” One
individual noted that there is a conﬂict between the values of the land for forest use :
versus forest use for real estate. The differentiation between tribal and non-tribal

deﬁnitions appeared to be: restoration as sustainability, not production as sustainability.

 

However, the economic components both in timber market value and employment, as
well as non-timber forest products as supplemental income are recognized as being
important to the viability of Leech Lake and White Earth tribal communities. Several
tribal members mentioned that traditionally, they haven’t had many people with business
skills in their community, but they can supplement their income with: crafting; black ash
basket making, sewing, beadwork for powwow garments, and making moccasins, and
with hunting and harvesting; harvesting mushrooms, and berries, leeches (for ﬁshing
bait),balsam boughs, wild rice, maple syrup, birch bark.

Participants who were non-tribal members articulated that their deﬁnition of
sustainable forestry depends on what the particular forest is being managed for; whether
the forest is being managed for timber production or non-timber purposes. Most of the
non-tribal community members interviewed appreciated the forest for its recreational
opportunities as well, “this place would be uninteresting without trees.” Forest
management at a landscape level, not just at a stand level was emphasized as being

important for long-term sustainability. They stressed the need for balance between the

64

economic, cultural and ecological components of forest management as well as the need
for successful joint management between agencies and tribal governments.

Another participant mentioned Lake Itasca State Park as the image (where the
Mississippi headwaters begin) of what a sustainable forest should look like:

There, you would see seasonal ﬂora, continuous ﬂowering is an
indicator of ecosystem functioning. There would be no earthworms
in the forest. There would be no exotic species; spotted knapweed,
aspen, curly pondweed, purple loosestrzfe, Eurasian milfoil. There
would be no ATVs, which help spread invasive species, among other
things. There would be old growth trees, and the existence of top
predators.

Tribal as well as non-tribal members emphasized a strong theme of forest
restoration, stable forest stand growth, and returning the forest to its historical condition.
Old growth forests were mentioned several times as an indicator of a sustainable forest.
Almost all of the participants underscored the importance of bringing back white pine
populations to their area and reducing aspen populations, and more of a conversion to
hardwood forests. The point was made several times by all participants in the interview
process that ecosystem functions are interconnected in affecting the overall health of a
forest. Seasonal ﬂora was noted as an indicator of continuous ﬂowering indicator of
ecosystem functioning. The presence of top predators and the absence of exotic species
and disease were prevalent in discussions of sustainability indicators. One tribal member
expanded on what indicators he considers in recognizing a sustainable forest:

Just by looking at what kinds of plants you have growing in it, you
know. I would say a sustainable forest deﬁnitely has to be growing
all the native plants back and stuﬂ because you wouldn ’t have
people in there smashing and killing them and it’s not as competitive
for the native plants to grow. My forest would be, well, we’re trying
to make a beautiful sugarbush out therefor our kids, you know, and
their kids. When all those big, overgrown poplar trees over-shading

65

the young maples are gone and thinned out a little more, that ’s how
I can tell my stand of forest is accomplished.

4.4 Native American and Non-Native American Forest Management

There were similarities in tribal and non-tribal forest management that were
mentioned by all participants. For example, the interviews reveal that both are focusing
more on selective harvesting and ecosystem management, and moving away from
clearcut methods. However, the consensus from the interviews conducted appears to be
that the tribes seem to be moving faster than non-tribal forest managers. Wetland
preservation and restoration was also listed as a similar goal in both tribal and non-tribal
forest management.

Although there are similarities between tribal and non-tribal forest management, a
clear trend has emerged from the in-depth interviews in that the traditional knowledge
handed down from generations in both White Earth and Leech Lake inﬂuences tribal
forest management. The Local Indian Councils and Tribal Councils are heavily involved
in forest management decisionmaking, and they ensure that forest management is in
agreement with local use. Regarding the differences and similarities between

management styles, one tribal member observed, “1 think it's the use of the forest.
Respect. Culturally and spiritually. Reservations are more apt to look at those
considerations. We try to manage it for everyone, not for just one speciﬁc reason.”

If there is an area of the forest that tribal members use, one participant for example,
mentioned a black ash stand that people use for basketry, the tribe would protect that area
ﬁ'om other uses. In the interviews, it became apparent that one difference between tribal

and non tribal management was based around tribal management having a culture of

66

respect, communication, the manner in which tribal forestry stresses the importance of
serving the community’s interests.

Another signiﬁcant difference participants noted between forest management
styles lies in the paper bureaucracy that lies within federal and state forest management.
As a result of the regulatory bureaucracy of forest management, participants remarked for
example, that when state forest managers attempt to make decisions from a distance, they
have no way of understanding the local dynamics of the impact their management
decision would make.

Additionally, tribal members mentioned that some non-tribal forest managers are
under pressure to harvest the annual allowable cut permitted. For instance, county harvest
methods (where they harvest the maximum annual allowable out) were mentioned by
both White Earth and Leech Lake participants as being in contrast to non-tribal
management where the primary focus in tribal forestry is onland management, not timber
income. White Earth mentioned that they typically under-harvest their forests. Some non-
tribal member participants from White Earth remarked on the careful timber harvests
tribal forest management conducts as opposed to the seemingly careless harvesting

techniques and clearcuts they have observed from local county forest management: “we
haven 't seen many tribal cuts, but are pretty sure they could tell if it wasn 't a
county harvest.”

Patchwork land ownership makes Leech Lake’s goal of ecosystem-based
management an arduous task. Complicated ownership makes it difﬁcult to get many
parties to agree to one management plan. At present, it is the goal of Leech Lake and

White Earth to bring tribal, band, and allotment lands back to a productive state (with

67

productivity being restoring over-mature stands to younger, healthier, and more vigorous
stands). For both tribal nations, one of their main goals is tribal land acquisition, in order
to facilitate a more contiguous land management effort. Tribal members unanimously
agreed that local forests are important to their communities, and that sustainable forest
management is a goal that is being pursued.

When the tribal forestry departments have a management plan, they seek input
from Tribal Council and Community Representatives. They institute management plans
based on what the community’s needs are in addition to the land’s needs. They refrain
from doing management if it is an important site to a tribal member. Leech Lake and
White Earth both protect areas that are traditionally used by Band members. They are
“off limits” for timber harvests and public use. For example: maple syrup camps, ﬁsh
camps, medicine collection, burial sites, balsam harvests, birch bark harvests, cedar
harvests, black ash harvests, sweet grass areas, wild rice areas, and other areas. One tribal
member ﬁom Leech Lake contributed their thoughts on how decisions made on adjacent
non-tribal lands affect tribal land:

I think a lot of the plants that are traditionally gathered are greatly
impacted because of the timber management. The clearcutting. They
need to start doing more selective cutting. Sometimes a clearcut is a
surprise to a lot of people in the community because when they do
bring a project to the table, a lot of the tribal members don ’t really
understand what it is that they’re saying... There ’s no diversity in the
trees-or anything after a clear cut. That’s what you see occurring
more and more.

Both Leech Lake and White Earth Bands have Tribal Historical Preservation
Ofﬁcers (THPOs). They are responsible for knoWing and protecting various cultural
areas, sacred sites, and burial grounds. One of their responsibilities is to mark out sacred

areas, and keep forestry operations off of them. Tribal Historic Preservation Ofﬁcers are

68

consulted to protect cultural aspects: burial sites and sites with spiritual/cultural
signiﬁcance when management operations need to be done that are invasive. Often times,
the THPOs who have records of the locations of these sites, are not consulted by the
county or state when they break ground. A participant from White Earth added:

One thing that people have to realize within a reservation is that
tribal [and is not public land... We do issue permits for use. It doesn't
cost anything. All they have to do is come in here and ask... We have
no problem with it, as long as they let us know where they'll go.

It was mentioned by several participants that despite their THPOs best efforts, trespassing

and harvests do occur on off limits areas. It is difﬁcult for one THPO to be aware of all

 

that goes on in the tribal and adjacent lands within reservations that are the sizes of Leech
Lake and White Earth.

Each tribal nation mentioned that they do indeed consult with other tribes about
forest management. White Earth and Leech Lake meet with other tribes in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Michigan once a year to discuss and share current natural resource
management information and issues. Furthermore, the White Earth Land Recovery
Project (WELRP) meets with the Menominee Nation to discuss community forestry. Both
tribal forestry departments hold quarterly meetings and regional meetings. White Earth
and Leech Lake not only consult with other tribal nations regarding forest management,
participants also cited consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of
Natural Resources, and the Society of American Foresters.

Decisions made on nearby public lands do indeed affect tribal forests. Because of
the complex patchwork ownership within the reservation boundaries, there is often a lack
of communication between land owners doing management. One participant provided an

example:

69

Tribal forestry develops a management plan to do a selective
harvest. When tribal forestry departments request is approved by the
tribal council members, they proceed with their equipment out to the
site. Vern they arrive at the stand, they ﬁnd out that the county has
already commenced logging activity in the land adjacent to the stand
they were planning on harvesting. Now, they must postpone the
harvest of that stand indeﬁnitely because the bands do not want to
do contiguous harvests. They are often limited in their options of
where to harvest.

Participants also related that there is a lot of development with ownership of
lakeﬁont property. This puts pressure on areas which are also adjacent to tribal lands, as
wealthier people ﬁ'om Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Fargo demand pristine land. This makes
the price of lakefront land high, and access to tribal members becomes limited. This is
especially problematic because trust leases are not being renewed after 25 years, meaning
that after when a tribal landowner’s lease is up, if they want to renew it, they must pay
the current market price for that property. Many tribal members lack the ﬁnancial
resources to renew their leases at current property values and have no choice but to sell

and lose access to that land.

4.5 Barriers and Opportunities for Participation in Forest Management Discussions

Resoundingly, participants agreed that White Earth and Leech Lake should be
included and would indeed like to be a part of SFM discussions. As noted by one tribal
member:

We could be partners in as far as enforcement capabilities, helping
with planning, small projects, anything for environmental
protection. Strategies of harvest practices out there, teaching some
of the kids in schools about natural resources and stuﬂ like that,
because they’re going to be the ones that will have this role in the
future. We could easily help out.

70

However, the in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted for this study reveal
several barriers to tribal participation that must be addressed in order for tribal
participation in regional discussions of forest management to successfully occur,
including issues of: sovereignty, trust, and respect.

Several participants emphasized the importance of other agencies treating Leech
Lake and White Earth with mutual respect as autonomous sovereign nations. A tribal

member from Leech Lake articulated that they are in support of “working together, if

that really means working together.” Another tribal member added their perception of

previous interactions with federal agencies in that they tend to overlook tribal authority
when it comes to land management and decisionmaking.

A cultural barrier in communication between tribal and non-tribal entities was
perceived by tribal members from Leech Lake and White Earth in that ‘mutual respect’ is

a ﬁmdarnental element missing from meetings. A Leech Lake participant explained, “at
meetings, tribal members listen to everyone ﬁrst, then add. Agencies try to run
meetings at Leech Lake. They don ’t understand that there is a protocol that Leech
Lake follows.” It was explained for example, that at oftentimes at planning meetings run

by the counties, by the time non-tribal community members have verbalized their
opinions, the meeting is adjourned, and tribal members’ thoughts and opinions were not
heard. Additionally, participants who are tribal members noted that non-tribal agencies
are perceived as trying to take control of meetings that are hosted by tribal governments.
Non-tribal agencies do not seem to understand that White Earth and Leech Lake,
as sovereign nations, have tribal agendas and meetings conducted in a way that meets the

standards set by the governing Tribal Council. When non-tribal agencies are perceived as

71

trying to ‘take over’ the meetings, tribal members interpret this as an insult to their
government. It is imperative that non-tribal agencies recognize that tribal nations have
protocols that they adhere to, just as they do. It is imperative that tribal governments are
treated as sovereign nations. Additionally, as sovereign governments, tribal communities
should be included in the planning process, not only input and participation processes.

Another barrier to tribal participation is the ongoing history of distrust earned
between non-tribal agencies and tribal nations. During the focus groups and personal
interviews, it was often mentioned that there have been times when agencies have said
they had consulted with the tribes, when in fact they hadn’t. Both tribes mentioned that
they have had a long history of being ignored. They feel this is due to a fundamental lack
of respect. One participant referenced a meeting between the band and a federal agency
regarding forest management. In this meeting, the federal agency was required to take the
comments of the band. But as a result of the meeting, no actions commenced based on the
band’s recommendations. In another example, a non-tribal recreation group proposed to
the county to establish a 70 mile all-terrain vehicle trail that would run throughout the
White Earth Indian Reservation. The county did not consult White Earth. When White
Earth did ﬁnd out about the trail, they initiated an effort to shut down the planning
operations. Another tribal member from Leech Lake provided this example:

The county, state, doesn’t consult with Leech Lake regarding harvest
activities and burial issues. Leech Lake has records of where burial
sites are located, and we aren ’t contacted. The Leech Lake Band has
jurisdiction, yet non-tribal people remove markers. This is illegal.

Yet another tribal member emphasized that, “it is important for all things that
are decided with the tribe and with the Forest Service or anyone else to be

in writing or it doesn ’t exist.”

72

With regards to participation, it’s important to acknowledge that tribal
communities, as sovereign nations have their own pressing needs and priorities. Some of
the top priorities being those of housing, healthcare, education, and unemployment. One
tribal member from Leech Lake contributed:

All the people here need jobs, they need an education. They’ve got
so much on their plate; they don ’t have time to think about forest
ecology or composition. It isn’t one of the big issues, with housing,
education, jobs, food. Tribal government is trying to maintain the
culture, and protect the language, set it up in the school. Teach kids
about traditional use plants, and traditional gathering and arts and
crafts of the Ojibwe. But traditional education and environmental
issues fall along the wayside when the Indian kids have to survive in
America. Things are changing. The tribe’s got a big responsibility.
This is the last forested area around. We have all those lakes, and
cultural and social, but the economy is what drives things.

The theme of tribal priorities as a barrier to participation in local forest management
discussions was echoed by several. It was reported that in the times they are invited to
participate, they have not had the resources to send a tribal employee, as they are very
busy due to limited funding resources. They said, “One tribal employee does many
people ’s jobs.” Another tribal member contributed the following statement:

Well, I guess one of the big barriers is going to be the funding
portion of it. Who ’s going to pay for what? Most of our natural
resources departmental ﬁmding is for environmental protection and
it comes ﬁom the Environmental Protection Agency...Some of the
barriers I see is in the enforcement aspects of it. There needs to be
coordination. On the reservation, people, when the state or county,
or whoever is doing enforcements, will say “well, I don ’t have to
listen because I’m non-Indian, you have no jurisdiction on me. ” The
enforcement has to be worked out. So a major barrier on the
reservation is the jurisdiction and enforcement issue. Once they get
over that, and then see if all the ordinances are compatible to each
other. This will be the biggest problem.

73

Barriers to tribal participation in regional and national discussions of SFM are
complicated. As one participant ﬁom the Chippewa National Forest commented:

I don ’t think there ’s a real easy answer to it...the real thing lies
underneath in ecosystems and what you value in those ecosystems,
how you sustain those or manage those is what makes the diﬂerence.
What makes it challenging and what makes it imperative, in my
opinion that the Forest Service and the Leech Lake continue to have
discussions and talk about those things. It will change over time.
Our forest plan talks about sustainable ecosystems on a landscape
basis and that’s not just watersheds, it’s even bigger than that. It
includes soils, and vegetation types and how you manage those.
Forest management is an intermixing of things that with different
land ownerships is a real challenge.

However, in working toward sustainable forest management it is important for both tribes
and non-tribal agencies to take leadership roles and work together toward solutions.

From the discussions which took place in this study, the general solution
suggested to the dilemma of the lack of tribal participation is overwhelmingly to increase
' communications between tribal and non-tribal entities. Participants insisted that there
need to be more meetings held, they should be clearly advertised in advance, and should
be aimed at reaching people that care about the issues. All participants cited the need for
tribal communities to be directly asked to attend, invited with advance notice, and
encouraged to be present at meetings. Additionally, participants expressed a need for

funding to facilitate tribal participation.

4.6 Summary

Maintaining natural resources and managing them properly is seen as central to
the survival of Native American communities, their spiritual beliefs, and their cultural

practices. White Earth and Leech Lake tribal governments own roughly 10% each of their

74

 

reservation lands. It is central to the survival of these communities that they acquire the
land they have lost. Due to complex regional land ownership patterns, there are complex
social and cultural barriers that must be bridged between tribal and non-tribal agencies if
there is to be collaboration in working toward SFM. Implicit in progress toward SFM on
reservation land is transparency between governmental agencies tribal governments, and
private landowners. Providing funding resources for some to attend meetings, and
creating inclusive public and community education initiatives will play a big role in
furthering community understandings of land rights and management issues in working

together toward sustainable forest management.

75

 

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study contributes to the SFM dialogue on tribal perspectives by examining
the absent perspectives of Native American voices in the dialogue on sustainable forest
management. Bringing Native American viewpoints into sustainable forest management
will add diversity and key missing perspectives to the national and perhaps global
discussion. By increasing communication and collaboration between tribal and non-tribal
resources, it becomes possible to further advance the United States’ progress toward

achieving SFM.

5.1 Research Conclusions

The overarching challenge to Native American forest management is the issue of
economically sustaining a community while preserving tradition and cultural values
(LaDuke, 1994). The results of this study and current literature support that the human
element in ecosystem function is an essential factor in sustainable forest management
ﬁ'om a Native American perspective (Gadgil et al., 1993, Kimmerer, 2000). Additionally,
participants emphasized that the importance of culture and community in forests should
not be overlooked. As authorities in their own local knowledge, culture, and values,
individual communities in the United States have the ability develop sustainable forest
management practices in their own communities based on their perspectives and values.
In-depth interviews conducted for this study indicate that tribal and non-tribal forest
management practices alike appear to be moving toward ecosystem management

methods. Furthermore, the results of this study demonstrate that from a Native American

76

 

perspective, incorporating traditional knowledge and acknowledging the culture and
values of communities should be a factor in SF M practices.

From the standpoint of tribal members who were interviewed, tribal forest
management is a recent phenomenon. According to them, the governments of Leech Lake
and White Earth had no input on natural resources until the mid-1990s. This is when the
respective tribal nations took over management of their natural resource departments.
This point in time marks their deﬁnition of the beginning of historical tribal forest
management. Both tribal nations are actively involved in sustainable forest management
and have Integrated Resource Management Plans written that mandate selective timber
harvests and harvest rotations.

In the past, the local forests played a large role in the lives of many participants.
For some, forest use consisted of primarily recreational uses. For many tribal member
participants, the forests were a source of primary or supplementary income, as well as a
central component to the culture in which they were brought up. Several participants
report that they continue to use the forests to gather medicinal, ceremonial, and edible
plants and trees, as well as forest materials for producing art and craft items. As children,
they were taught by tribal elders about the useﬁrlness of plants and trees in the forest.
More so, the forest was also a place where ceremonies were held and a place for peaceful
meditation. As adults, several tribal members expressed that they still use the forest for
hunting and gathering, as well as spiritual purposes. However, they show concern that
younger generations are not being exposed to the culture and traditions that they so

heavily value. Participants explained, for instance, that the forest was where they learned

77

 

of their culture and heritage. Their children do not spend as much time in the forests as
they did as children, and are therefore somewhat deprived of these important lessons.

There are many species which remain culturally signiﬁcant to White Earth and
Leech Lake. Important species recalled in interview conversations included, but were not
limited to: white pine cedar, sweet grass, sage, tobacco, ash, sugar maple, birch, Norway
pine, aspen, elm, tamarack, choke cherries, hazel nuts, plumbs, and mushrooms. One
participant reported that a resource inventory project conducted by Leech Lake had
discovered that roughly half of all species found in the area to have documented
historical and present day uses.

There are volumes of knowledge to be learned from generations of Native
American forest management. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) focuses on the
interrelationships of human, non-human, and the physical environment through the
knowledge of direct observation, interaction, and experimentation while incorporating
local values and culture into management decisions that have been learned through
generations of indigenous people (Berkes, 1993; DeWalt, 1994; Kloppenburg, 1991;
Murdoch and Clark, 1994; Emery, 2001). TEK is a valuable source of knowledge for
sustainable forest management efforts, when it is applied to the speciﬁc area it is learned
from. Combining TEK with scientiﬁc knowledge in forest management applications
would further sustainable forest management by applying centuries of local knowledge in
addition to scientiﬁc knowledge (Gadgil et al., 1993; DeWalt, 1994; Kimmerer, 2000).

Several participants expressed that all of the plants and trees in their local forests
are interconnected in ecosystem functioning, and together they compose the boreal and

temperate forests that are native to their region. They stressed that without those

78

elements, the species composition of ﬂora would change, and consequently, the species
composition of the local fauna would change as well. Both tribal forestry departments
expressed that they are charged with the responsibility of managing their forests with
multiple uses in mind. They must manage the forest for sustainable timber harvests as
well as for traditional and recreational uses. Leech Lake and White Earth natural resource
departments communicate regularly with other tribal agencies to discuss difﬁculties they
are having as well as sharing success stories they have in managing forests for multiple
uses.

Each participant deﬁned sustainable forest management in a different way.
However, the importance of maintaining populations of forest ﬂora and fauna while
conducting responsible timber harvests was expressed by all participants. Additionally,
the general deﬁnition given by tribal members provided supplemented a cultural and
social component to the deﬁnition in that they consider future generations. They
emphasized the importance of managing the forest with the community’s cultures and
values in mind. As one participant who was a tribal member noted, “I think if you
manage the forest in a sustainable way, you’re taking care of the land for the people.”
Moreover, non-tribal members stressed the importance of striking a balance between
social, economic, and ecological components of sustainable forest management. All
participants emphasized a goal of forest restoration, and stable forest stand populations.
Non-tribal members mentioned that they would like to see the forests returned to pre-
settlernent conditions. Indicators of sustainable forests mentioned by participants
included: old growth forests, white pine forests, and healthy native ﬂora and fauna

populations.

79

 

While tribal and non-tribal forest management agencies appear to be moving
toward SF M, there are differences between their management styles. The results of this
study demonstrate that traditional knowledge greatly inﬂuences tribal forest management
practices. Participants additionally pointed out that White Earth and Leech Lake tribal
foresters take local culture and use into consideration in their forest management unlike
non-tribal forest managers in the area. The tribal forestry departments seek input from the
Tribal Councils of White Earth and Leech Lake to ensure that forest management plans
frame forest management based on the needs of the community and the land. The central
difference between tribal and non-tribal forest management styles lies within the paper
trails and red tape which remain in agency bureaucracy. Participants report that the
process of bureaucratic forest management removes forest managers from the local
community, and in doing so, their understanding of local community dynamics is greatly
inhibited. Participants also remarked that non-tribal forest management agencies are
under economic pressure to harvest the maximum allowable cut of timber from their
lands within the reservation boundaries, whereas tribal forestry harvests far less timber.

In this study, Native American participants all expressed an interest and
willingness to participate in regional and national discussions of SFM. Participants
suggested possible partnerships in regulation enforcement, management planning, and
environmental protection. Unanimously, participants admitted that there are barriers
which have prevented tribal participation in the past, and such barriers must be removed
if successful participation and partnerships are to occur. The barriers most frequently
mentioned were issues of sovereignty, trust, and respect (Kimmerer, 2000; Bengston,

2004). In the interest of collaboration between tribal and non-tribal natural resource

80

 

managers, communities, and governments, it is imperative that tribal nations be treated as
sovereign nations. For example, as sovereign governments, tribal nations should be
included in the planning process, not only the input process. There are cultural
differences in how the White Earth and Leech Lake nations hold meetings and
conferences, and non-tribal guests need to be aware of and respect their protocols, just as
tribal nations respect non-tribal protocols. Building a relationship of trust and respect
based on non-tribal deference to the sovereignty of tribal nations would be a promising

beginning to potential collaborative partnerships.

5.2 Research Limitations

Native American perceptions on sustainable forest practices cannot be generalized
from this study to other populations. Communities will always differ in their values,
concerns, and priorities regarding natural resource management issues (J ostad et al.,
1996; McAvoy et al., 2000; Bengston, 2004). The tribal nations who participated in this
study are historically and geographically unique in their circumstances. While the results
of this study are not generalizable, valuable information was obtained that may be of
interest to other communities in the United States that may also be working toward
increasing the diversity of voices in local discussions sustainable forest management.
Stakeholders from those communities will be the best decisionmakers as to whether this

study holds relevance and application for their own communities.

5.3 Management Implications

Although patchwork land ownership makes the goal of ecosystem-based

management an arduous task, it creates a compelling case that advocates the necessity of

81

 

consistent and clear communication between natural resource managers. In light of this,
forest managers should strongly consider the value of collaboration and communication
which tribal member participants have endorsed between tribal nations and some non-
tribal agencies in sharing success stories as well as challenges they face.

As demonstrated by the focus groups and personal interviews conducted in this
study, the importance of local forests in their communities and sustainable forest
management as a goal is valued because it includes the human and social element in
sustainable forest management. The participants in this study have stressed the
importance of understanding the social and cultural values each community holds relating
to their forests when decisions need to be made regarding forests in which many
stakeholders hold a vested interest in forest management applications. More frequent and
more inclusive management discussions are needed where Native American voices can
be heard and taken into account. Resource managers can use the results of this study to
gain a deeper understanding of the importance of considering the dynamics of individual

commrurities and culture in forest management applications.

5.4 Future Directions

The results of this study indicate the need for further study and communications
with diverse community members as well as ﬁnding ways to get younger generations
involved. It would be interesting to learn whether other tribal nations would ﬁnd similar
deﬁnitions of SFM, attitudes and values regarding sustainable forest management.
Furthermore, studies could be conducted in partnerships with Native American
communities to ﬁnd out more speciﬁc information. Future research in participation with

tribal nations regarding regional and national discussions about SFM would beneﬁt the

82

 

goal of furthering SFM by working toward closing the communication gap that exists
between tribal and non-tribal agencies. Efforts in sustainable forest management would

be furthered by bringing in a greater diversity of viewpoints into the conversation.

5.5 Synopsis

In the Native American tradition, the spoken word is powerful because it is
understood to be the breath of life (Cajete, 1994). Words have the ability to reveal
worldviews to their root. In Native American languages, the word for “forest” is
equivalent to the word “home” (Kimmerer, 2000). The way we participate in working
toward SFM directly relates to the way individuals perceive the “forest”, either as a
natural resource, to be manipulated for human beneﬁt, or as a valued place in one’s
community.

This study brings to light the lack of input Native American- nations have had in
discussions of sustainable forest management and what their deﬁnition of “sustainable”
is. Native American communities have a continued history of being ignored and
marginalized by government agencies and local communities.

The aim of this research is not only to provide more of a voice for tribal
perspectives, but to also underscore the importance of removing communication barriers
between tribal and non-tribal entities. The goal of increasing communication and cultural
understanding between tribal and non-tribal forest managers must be met under

conditions of earned trust on all fronts.

83

 

APPENDIX A: REVISED MONTREAL PROCESS CRITERIA AND

INDICATORS

 

84

APPENDIX A: REVISED MONTREAL PROCESS CRITERIA AND INDICATORS

Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity
1. 1 Ecosystem diversity

1 (1 .1.a) Area and percent of forest by forest ecosystem type, successional stage, age class, and
forest ownership or tenure

2 (Mb) Area and percent of forest in protected areas by forest ecosystem type, and by age
class or successional stage

3 (1.1.c) Fragmentation of forests
1.2 Species diversity
4 (1 .2.a) Number of native forest associated species

5 (1 .2.b) Number and status of native forest associated species at risk, as determined by F
legislation or scientiﬁc assessment

 

6 (1 .2.c) Status of in situ and ex situ efforts focused on conservation of species diversity
1.3 Genetic diversity

7 (1 .3.a) Number and geographic distribution of forest associated species at risk of losing genetic
variation and locally adapted genotypes

8 (1 .3.b) Population levels of selected representative forest associated species to describe
genetic diversity

9 (1 .3.c) Status of in situ and ex situ efforts focused on conservation of genetic diversity

Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
10 (2.a) Area and percent of forest land and net area of forest land available for wood production

11 (2b) Total growing stock and annual increment of both merchantable and non-merchantable
tree species in forests available for wood production

12 (2.c) Area, percent, and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species

13 (2.d) Annual harvest of wood products by volume and as a percentage of net growth or
sustained yield

14 (2.e) Annual harvest of non-wood forest products

Criterion 3: Maintenance of ecosystem health and vitality

15 (3.a) Area and percent of forest affected by biotic processes and agents (e.g. insects, disease,
invasive alien species) beyond reference conditions

16 (3b) Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents (e.g. ﬁre, storm, land clearance)
beyond reference conditions

85

Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources

4.1 Protective function

17 (4.1.a) Area and percent of forest whose designation or land management focus is the
protection of soil or water resources

4.2 Soil

18 (4.2.a) Proportion of forest management activities (e.g. site preparation, harvesting) that meet
best management practices or other relevant legislation to protect soil resources

19 (4.2.b) Area and percent of forest land with signiﬁcant soil degradation

4.3 Water

20 (4.3.a) Proportion of forest management activities that meet best management practices, or
other relevant legislation, to protect water related resources such as riparian zones, water quality,

quantity and ﬂow regulation

21 (4.3.b) Area and percent of water bodies, or stream length, in forest areas with signiﬁcant
change in physical, chemical or biological properties from reference conditions

Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles
22 (5.a) Total forest ecosystem carbon pools and ﬂuxes
23 (5b) Total forest product carbon pools and ﬂuxes

24 (5.c) Avoided fossil fuel carbon emissions by using forest biomass for energy

Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long term multiple socio-
economic beneﬁts to meet the needs of societies

6.1 Production and consumption

25 (6.1 .a) Value and volume of wood and wood products production, including primary and
secondary processing

26 (6.1.b) Value of non-wood forest products produced or collected

27 (6.1.c) Revenue from forest based environmental services

28 (6.1.d) Total and per capita consumption of wood and wood products in round wood
equivalents

29 (6.1.e) Total and per capita consumption of non-wood products
30 (6.1.f) Value and volume in round wood equivalents of exports and imports of wood products
31 (6.1.9) Value of exports and imports of non-wood products

32 (6.1.h) Exports as a share of wood and wood products production and imports as a share of
wood and wood products consumption

86

 

33 (6.1.i) Recovery or recycling of forest products as a percent of total forest products
consumption

6.2 Investment in the forest sector

34 (6.2.a) Value of capital investment and annual expenditure in forest management, wood and
non-wood product industries, forest-based environmental services, recreation and tourism

35 (6.2.b) Annual investment and expenditure in forest-related research, extension and
development, and education

6.3 Employment and community needs
36 (6.3.a) Employment in the forest sector

37 (6.3.6) Average wage rates, annual average income and annual injury rates in major forest
employment categories

38 (6.3.c) Resilience of forest-dependent communities

 

 

39 (6.3.d) Area and percent of forests used for subsistence purposes

40 (6.3.e) Distribution of revenues derived from forest management

6.4 Recreation and tourism

41 (6.4.a) Area and percent of forests available and/or managed for public recreation and tourism

42 (6.4.b) Number, type, and geographic distribution of visits attributed to recreation and tourism
and related to facilities available

6.5 Cultural, social and spiritual needs and values

43 (6.5.a) Area and percent of forests managed primarily to protect the range of cultural, social
and spiritual needs and values

44 (6.5.b) The importance of forests to people
Criterion 7: Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework

48 Clariﬁes property rights, provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements, recognizes
customary and traditional rights of indigenous peoples, and provides a means for resolving
property disputes by due process.

49 Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review that recognizes
the range of forest values, including coordination with relevant sectors

50 Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decision making related to
forests and public access to information

51 Encourages best practice codes for forests

52 Provides for the management of forests to conserve special environmental, cultural, social,
and/or scientiﬁc values

87

53 Provide for public involvement activities and public education, awareness, and extension
programs, and make available forest-related information

54 Undertake and implement periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review,
including cross-sectoral planning and coordination

55 Design and maintain human resource skills across relevant disciplines

Source:
http://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/Summary°/0200f%20Indicators%20and%20Refmements.pdf

88

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

89

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Michigan State University Approved Consent Form

Description

The objectives of this study are to achieve a greater understanding among regional stakeholders of
opportunities and challenges associated with the goal of sustainable forests on tribal lands in the context of
each region’s unique environmental, social and economic situation. We feel the best way to accomplish this
objective is to have open discussions with you on the topic of forest sustainability.

Risks and Beneﬁts

There are no serious risks to you ﬁ'om participating in this discussion.

A major beneﬁt to you is that what we learn ﬁ'om you will help guide on-going regional dialogues about
the goal of sustainable forestry in relation to tribal nations, where achieving sustainable forestry is a major
goal. A second beneﬁt is that your ideas and suggestions will help improve the means by which
government agencies communicate with citizens regarding natural resource policies and plans. An
additional beneﬁt is that this participation will be of a more personal nature. By listening to how other
individuals deﬁne sustainable forests, you may develop a fuller appreciation of the similarities and
differences between your views and those of others. This awareness may prove valuable as you continue
your involvement in community development and well-being.

Time Commitment, Cost and Payments

Our discussion time will be approximately 45 minutes to an hour. There are no other costs to you for
helping us with this study. The grant for this study does not permit us to offer you any payment for your
participation.

Conﬁdentiality

Although we will record our discussion, we will not put your name on the tape or transcript. The only
information that will be on the tape will be a code number which will be stored in a separate location ﬁ'om
the interview material. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Right to Withdraw
Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all. Furthermore, you may
refuse to answer certain questions. If you begin, you may discontinue your participation at any time.

Contact Information

If you have questions about the study, contact Maureen McDonough at 119 Natural Resources Building,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: (517)442-2293, e-mail: mcdon010@msu.edu.
If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact—
anonyrnously, if you wish—Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Michigan State University’s Chair of University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects by phone: (517)355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Statement of Consent:

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

Signature Date

I also consent to be recorded for this study.

 

Signature Date

 

Signature of Investigator Date

90

 

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM FOR THE LEECH LAKE BAND
OF OJIBWE

91

 

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM FOR THE LEECH LAKE BAND OF
OJ IBWE

You are invited to be involved in the “Sustainable Forests and Tribal Nations in the
Upper Mississippi Watershed”, interviewing to be conducted by Michigan State
University. .

This study is a cooperative effort of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Division of
Resource Management’s (DRM) Tribal Historic Preservation Ofﬁce.

We estimate the interview will take about 30-45 minutes to complete. The records of this
interview will be kept conﬁdential. Any future materials developed regarding projects
will not list any individual’s identity.

Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future
relationship with the Leech Lake Band or Michigan State University. If you decide to
participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships.
If you have any questions about this study please contact Gina Papasodora, Tribal
Historic Preservation Ofﬁcer at the Leech Lake Band at (218)335-2940 or 1-800-422-
3942.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I

consent to participate in this interview of information.

Signature of Interviewee Date

 

 

 

Signature of Interviewer Date

 

 

92

APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

93

 

APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Table 1. White Earth (WE) Interviews

 

Interview Type

Participant Afﬁliation

Tribal Member

 

Personal interview:
One participant

Personal interview:
One participant

Personal interview:
One participant

Personal interview:
One participant

Focus Group:
Four participants

Focus Group:
Five Participants

WE Land Recovery Project
WE Natural Resources
Department

WE Economic Development
Department

WE Historic Preservation
Department

Community resident of WE
Indian Reservation

Community resident of WE
Indian Reservation

Community resident of WE
Indian Reservation

Community resident of WE
Indian Reservation

WE Forestry Department
WE Forestry Department
WE Forestry Department
WE Forestry Department

WE Forestry Department

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

 

 

13 Total Participants

 

 

94

 

5 Total Tribal Member
Participants

 

 

i.

 

Table 2. Leech Lake (LL) Interviews

 

 

Interview Type Participant Affiliation Tribal Member
Personal interview: LL Tribal Historic Yes
One participant Preservation Department
Focus Group: LL Tribal Historic Yes
Nine Participants Preservation Department
LL Division of Resource Yes
Management
LL Division of Resource Yes
Management
LL Division of Resource Yes
Management
LL Division of Resource Yes
Management
LL Division of Resource No
Management
LL Division of Resource No
Management
LL Division of Resource No
Management
US Forest Service- No

Chippewa National Forest

 

 

10 Total Participants

 

 

95

 

6 Total Tribal Member
Participants

 

 

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

96

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

. Think about when you were a child. How did you use the forest?

How do you use the forest now?

In the past, how did this Tribal Nation manage (take care of) the forest? Has this
changed?

How does this community manage the forest currently?

Does your community’s traditional knowledge of the forest inﬂuence forest l
management?

What plants and trees found in the forests nearby are considered spiritually or
culturally signiﬁcant to your community?

Are you aware of any conservation initiatives associated with these species?
Are you familiar with the term “sustainable forestry”? In your mind, what is it?

What are the indicators you would look for to determine if sustainable forestry was
accomplished?

In your opinion, what are the major differences between tribal and non-tribal
management of forests? Similarities?

How do decisions made on nearby public lands affect your forests? How are these
decisions made? Is the Tribe consulted?

Do you consult with other tribes about forest management? Explain.

Do you consult with non-tribal resources about forest management? Explain.

Many agencies and groups have come together in the Upper Mississippi Watershed to
form a partnership on sustainable forestry in the region. What should be the tribe’s

role in these discussions? Do you see barriers to tribal participation in these
discussions? If yes, how might these be overcome?

97

LITERATURE CITED

98

LITERATURE CITED

Adarnowicz, W., Beckley, T., MacDonald, Luckert, M., Murray, E., and W. Phillips.
(1998). In search of forest research values of indigenous peoples: Are nonmarket
valuation techniques applicable? Society and Natural Resources, 1 I, 51-66.

Anderson, M.K. (1996). Tending the wilderness. Restoration and Management Notes, I 4,
2, 1 54-166.

Arabas, K., and J. Bowersox (Eds.). (2004). Forest Futures: science, politics, and policy
for the next century. Lanham: Rowman & Littleﬁeld Publishers.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Beckley, T.M., & Korber, D. (1994). “Sociology’s Potential to Improve Forest
Management and Inform Forest Policy.” Presented at the F ifth International
Symposium on Society and Resource Management, June 10th, 1994, Fort Collins,
CO. (27 pp.)

Bengston, D.N. (2004). Listening to Neglected Voices: American Indian Perspectives on
Natural Resource Management. Journal of Forestry, 102, 1, 48-52.

Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In J .T. Inglis (Ed.),
Traditional ecological knowledge concepts and cases (pp. 1-11). Ottawa:
Canadian Museum of Nature and International Development Research Centre.

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource
Management. Philadelphia and London: Taylor & Francis.

Berkes, F. (2003) Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In J .T. Inglis (Ed.),
Traditional ecological knowledge concepts and cases (pp. 1-10). Ottawa:
Canadian Museum of Nature and International Development Research Centre.

Cajete, G.A. (1994). Look into the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education.
Skyland, NC: Kivaki Press.

Clarkston, L., Morisette, V., and G. Régallet. (1992). Our Responsibility to the Seventh
Generation: Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Development. International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.

Collins, P. (1991,) Black feminist thought. New York: Rutledge.

Cronon, William. (1983). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New
England. New York: Hill and Wang.

99

 

Day, GM. (1953). The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern Forest.
Ecology, 34, 2, 329-346.

Denevan, W.M. (1999). The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82, 3, 369-3 85.

DeWalt, BR. (1994). Using indigenous knowledge to improve agricultural and natural
resource management. Human Organization, 53, 2, 123-131.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists.
London: Routledge.

Emery, MR. (1998). Invisible livelihoods: Non-timber forest products in Michigan ’3
upper Peninsula. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Geography, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Emery, MR. (2001). Who Knows? Local Non-Timber Forest Product Knowledge and
Stewardship Practices in Northern Michigan. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 13,
3/4, 123-139.

Emery, M.R., and O’Halek, S.L. (2001). Brief Overview of Historical Non-Timber Forest
Product Use in the US. Paciﬁc Northwest and Upper Midwest. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry, 13, 3/4, 25-30.

F iedel, SJ. (1987). Prehistory of the Americas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., and C. Folke. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity
conservation. Ambio, 22, No. 2/3, 151-156.

Haraway, DJ. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern
sciences. London: Routledge.

Haraway, DJ. (2000). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective. In M. Lederrnan & I. Bartsch (Eds.), The Gender
and Science Reader (pp. 169-188). London and New York: Routledge.

Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

Henderson, K.A. (1991). Dimensions of Choice: a qualitative approach to recreation,
parks, and leisure research. College Park, PA: Venture Publishing.

hooks, b. (2000, 2"d Ed.). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Cambridge: South
End Press.

100

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). (1993). An Assessment of
Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States. Portland, OR:
Intertribal Timber Council.

International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IU FRO). (2005). IUFRO Task
Force on Traditional Forest Knowledge. Referenced January 13, 2006, ﬁ'om:
http://www.iufro.org/science/task-forces/traditional-forest-knowledge.

Jackson, Cecile. (1993). Doing What Comes Naturally? Women and Environment in
Development. World Development, 21, 12:19-47.

Jostad, P.M., McAvoy, L.H., & D. McDonald. (1996). Native American land ethics:
Implications for natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources,
13, 5, 479-488.

Kimmerer, R.W. (1998). Intellectual diversity: Bringing the native perspective into
natural resources education. Winds of Change 13(3): 14-20.

Kimmerer, R.W. (2000). Native knowledge for native ecosystems. Journal of Forestry
98, 8, 4-9.

Krueger, R.A. and MA. Casey. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lackey, R. T. (1998). Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 40, 1/3, 21-30.

LaDuke, W. (1994). The Dilemma of Indian Forestry. Earth Island Journal, Summer,
6pp.

Landis, S. (n.d.). Seventh-Generation Forestry: Wisconsin Menominee Indians set the
standard for sustainable forest management. The College of the Menominee
Nation ’s Sustainable Development Institute. Referenced January 24, 2005, ﬁ'om
http://www.menominee.edu/sdi/SeventhGenerationForestry.htm.

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. (2000). Draft Leech Lake Integrated Resource
Management Plan: Section E. Forestry. Cass Lake, MN: Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe.

Love, T., and Jones, ET. (2001 ). Why is Non-Timber Forest Product Harvesting an
“Issue”? Excluding Local Knowledge and the Paradigm Crisis of Temperate
Forestry. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 13, 3/4, 105-121.

MacCleery, D. (1984). Indian A groforestry: Some Ecological Aspects of Northeastern
American Indian A groforestry Practices. Referenced April 11, 2005, from

101

http://www.daviesand.com/Papers/Tree_Crops/Indian_Agroforestry.

MacCleery, D. (1994). Understanding the Role the Human Dimension Has Played in
Shaping America’s Forest and Grassland Landscapes: Is There a Landscape
Archaeologist in the House? Retrieved July 08, 2008, from
www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew9402 10.htm.

MacCleery, D. (2007). The Role of American Indians in Shaping the North American
Landscape. Referenced July 08, 2008, from
http://www.foresthistory.org/Research/usfscoll/people/Native%20Americans/A
mlndianhtml.

Maguire, P. (1987). Adjusting the Lens: Participatory Research. Doing Participatory
Research: A Feminist Approach. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, GB. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.

Martinez, D. (2000). Defending the Forest: A Native American Perspective. [Electronic
version]. Terrain, Winter, lp.

Mater, CM. (2005). The Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators and Tribal Views on
Forest Health and Sustainability: Is There a Match? Evergreen, Winter 2005 -
2006, 11-16.

McAvoy, L., Winter, P.L., Outley, C.W., McDonald, D., and DJ. Chavez. (2000).
Conducting research with communities of color. Society and Natural Resources,

13, 5, 479-488.

Miles, M., and Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of
New Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (MCT). (2007). The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Fast Facts.
Referenced November 2008 from: www.mnchippewatribe.org/fast_facts.htrn.

Morishima, GS. (1997). Indian Forestry: From Patemalism to Self-Determination.
_ Journal of Forestry, 95,11, 4-9.

Native Harvest, (2004). White Earth Land Recovery Project and Native Harvest.
Referenced September 05, 2005, from: http://nativeharvest.com.

Native Struggles for Land and Life: An Interview with Winona LaDuke. (December,
1999). [Electronic version]. The Multinational Monitor, 20, 21.

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. London and New York:
Oxford University Press.

102

Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B., and E. Wangari. (1996). Gender and Environment:
A Feminist Political Perspective. In D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E.
Wangari (Eds), Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local
Experiences (3-23). New York: Routledge.

Rogers Huff, P., and Pecore, M. (1995). Case Study: Menominee Tribal Enterprises.
Institute for Environmental Studies and the Land Tenure Center. Retrieved
January, 24, 2005, from http://www.menominee.edu/sdi/csstdy.htm.

Sample, V.A., Kavanaugh, S.L., and M.M. Snieckus (Eds). (2006). Advancing
Sustainable Forest Management in the United States. Washington DC: Pinchot
Institute for Conservation.

Selener, D. (1997). Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University, The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network.

Smith, DE. (1979). A Sociology for Women. In Julia Sherman and Evelyn Torton Beck
(eds.), The Prism of Sex: Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, p. 135.

Smith, DE. (1987). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In S.
Harding (ed.), Feminism and Methodology, pp. 84-96. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER). (1995). Proceedings from the Meeting of the
Indigenous Peoples’ Restoration Network Seattle: Society for Ecological
Restoration.

Stein, R. (Ed.). (2004). New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality,
and Activism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Sullivan, W. M. (1983). Beyond Policy Science: The Social Sciences as Moral Sciences.
In N. Haan, R.N. Bella, P. Rabinow, and W.M. Sullivan (Eds), Social Science as
Moral Inquiry (pp. 297-319). New York: Columbia University Press.

Summary Table of the Revised Indicators Approved by the Working Group at its 17th
Meeting. (2006). Referenced October 23, 2008, from:
http://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/Summary°/0200f“/0201ndicators%20and%
20Reﬁnements.pdf.

The Montreal Process Working Group (MPWG). (1998). Criteria and Indicators for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests.
Explanatory Brochure of the Montreal Process. Referenced April 7, 2005, from:
http://www.mpci.org/rep-pub/ 1995/santiago_e.html.

The Montreal Process. (2005). Retrieved, January 15, 2005, ﬁom http://www.mpci.org.

103

The Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber
Council (IFMAT II). (2003). An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest
Management in the United States. Intertribal Timber Council.

Trochim, W. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Ed. Referenced
November 5“, 2006, from http://trochim.human.comell.edu/kb/index.htm

USDA Forest Service. (2004a). National Report on Sustainable F orests--2003. F S-766.

USDA Forest Service (2004b). Data Report: A Supplement to the National Report on
Sustainable Forest--2003. F S-l 66A.

US Forest Service. (2008). Emphasis Areas. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from
http://fs.fed.us/emphasis

van der Hoogte, L. and Kingrna, K. (2004). Promoting Cultural Diversity and the Rights
of Women: The Dilemmas of Intersectionality for Development Organisations.
Gender and Development, 12, I, 47-55.

van Staveren, I. (1997). Focus Groups: Contributing to a Gender-Aware Methodology.
Feminist Economics, 3, 2, 131-135.

Walker, R. (1985). Applied Qualitative Research. England: Gower Publishing Company
Limited.

Weiss, RS. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press.

White Earth Band of Ojibwe. (2002). White Earth Integrated Resource Management
Plan. White Earth, MN: White Earth Band of Ojibwe.

Williams, DR. and Stewart, 8.1. (1998). Sense of Place: An Elusive Concept That Is
Finding a Home in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry, 96, 5, 18-23.

Williams, G.W. (2001). References on the American Indian Use of F ire in Ecosystems.
Referenced August 27, 2006, ﬁom
http://www.wildlandﬁre.com/docs/biblio_indianﬁre.htm.

Yin, R.K. (1998). The Abridged Version of Case Study Research: Design and Method.
In L. Bickman and Rog, D.J. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Social Research
Methods (pp. 229-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yow, V.R. (1994). Recording oral history: A practical guide for social scientists. Sage
Publications.

104

   

“11111111111111lljljllljiljllljllllll“