... Skwxgnm . w.
amnpritfi ins. . 2
as" u

.mfi. .. mam“.

afi. .n ,.

.J‘: .- 1....t!

. :23}? by.
Eda... .ayxt.i:v£
Kath-vol 8......ai’tn.

0.... I z. .c

:2 .2:
:13...) 11..
,1. .3131.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t2? .

t... .11

w”
.. :1-
..J. a.
. h

. I...
E V .

.s .nan
.: it... ..

(2.1%”... .

Jfiufifisw
1 .6... LI...“
2... 2:2. ..
. I...
:1
l.t.:.n.h.(.09l.$i
a. ‘4.
-. uh
En! . :u .g
. .nnsfli..i

: ‘2'}.

....I .. ‘!

 

23l0

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF TRIBAL AND
STATE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

presented by

NICHOLAS J. REO

 

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife
Major Professor’s Signature

5-/q-/0

 

 

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Ul lIVBfSIty

 

 

 

 

—4_._.___

 

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:/Proleoc&Pres/ClRC/DateDueJndd

 

 

ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF TRIBAL AND STATE
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

By

NICHOLAS J. REO

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Fisheries and Wildlife

2010

funt“

 

boun
realit
COOpt
Some

OCCUI

dhncns
meLm
(\l'DXl
Program

provide

 

Underst;

natural r

 

about if:

Pfiman

ml
I

 

ABSTRACT

ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF TRIBAL AND STATE
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

By
Nicholas J. Reo

A daunting ecological reality facing natural resource managers is that ecological
functions and biotic populations (both native and exotic) do not fit neatly within political
boundaries, necessitating broad scale, cross-boundary approaches to their work. This
reality is daunting because working beyond one’s own jurisdictional borders requires
cooperation across cultural and political differences, an inherently complex endeavor.
Some of the most challenging cross-boundary natural resource management practices
occur at the interface of neighboring tribal and public lands.

This dissertation is an interdisciplinary exploration of ecological and human
dimensions of neighboring tribal and state natural resource management systems where
the Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Tribe and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) cooperate extensively while taking distinctly different approaches in certain
programs including hunting and forest management. The goal of the dissertation was to
provide insights of value within the local study area that also improve general
understanding of tribal-state relations, contemporary subsistence hunting, cross-boundary
natural resource management and interrelated management of oak forests and deer.

With this goal in mind, I interviewed tribal hunters to help dispel misconceptions
about their hunting practices and perspectives. Interviewees provided explanations of the

primary purposes of hunting, traditional values related to hunting and human-animal

relatit
subsis
\x'ildli

contin

practic

northcr
larger c
on until
and stat
tribal l'dl

several L

forest m;
Wflhngnt
l’ears 0f}
OmClalg .

their p011

 

building t

 

elected 0“
insights r: .

manager.

 

relationships among LDF Ojibwe. Primary findings were that LDF Ojibwe hunt deer for
subsistence purposes and they value safety, reciprocal sharing of harvested meat and
wildlife conservation. They believe deer willingly give up their lives to feed people
contingent upon people showing proper respect to deer at all times.

I also studied forest regeneration following LDF-specific forest management
practices. My results indicated that residual pockets (clusters of trees <3 ha in area) of
northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) produced fewer but faster growing seedlings than
larger oak stands (>15 ha). Tribal timber stand improvement practices showed no effect
on northern red oak regeneration. Comparison of seedling growth and survival on tribal
and state forests indicated that northern red oak was regenerating significantly better on
tribal lands where the white-tailed deer population was maintained at a low density for
several decades.

Although the LDF Tribe and WDNR took distinct approaches to hunting and oak
forest management, they were interested in learning from one another’s approaches. This
willingness to engage and learn openly from one another resulted fi'om more than 20
years of relationship building and regular communication. I interviewed LDF and WDNR
officials to learn how they were able to communicate and cooperate effectively across
their political boundaries and cultural differences. Results point to the importance of
building cross-boundary personal relationships among field staff, administrators and
elected officials through regular, informal interactions. The results fiom this dissertation
help dispel misconceptions about contemporary tribal subsistence hunting, provide
insights regarding interrelationships between oak forest management and deer

management and provide a case study of cooperative tribal-state relations.

Cepyright by
Nicholas J. Rec
201 O

pr0\ldc
anteno
membe
encour;
lrfixers
Foundu
Endout

financia

pmject.
for S 3 st
RMhflc
Kashian
“Rtm
Cmnpfb

Kt‘llner

  
  
  

L‘Illl'er

Wfifin:

High ,.

Iheir f

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I offer my thanks and appreciation to all the people and organizations that
provided their support during my doctoral studies. Jack Liu is an amazing advisor and I
am enormously grateful for all of his insights, support and mentorship. My committee
members, Dan Kramer, Mike Walters and George Cornell provided me with ongoing
encouragement and important input on my research ideas and writing. Michigan State
University Extension, the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Ford
Foundation, the National Aeronautical Space Administration, the Emma Shore-Thomton
Endowment and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians all provided critical
financial support for my doctoral program.

The assistance of a number of individuals contributed to the success of this
project. For their support in particular, I thank faculty, students and staff from the Center
for Systems Integration and Sustainability as well as Tom Coon, Kim Hall, David
Rothstein, Tiffany Muzanenhamo, Michael Nelson, Nick Balster, Burt Barnes, Dan
Kashian, Lissy Goralnik, Kyle Whyte, Mary Calcatera, Rique Campa and Brian Maurer.
The University of Wisconsin’s Kemp Natural Resource Station served as the ideal base
camp for all of my field work. I am very grateful to Thom Steele, Karla Ortrnan, Gary
Kellner and Tina Youngquist for supporting my .work and welcoming my family. The
University of Michigan Biological Station also offered “northwoods solitaire” at a critical
writing juncture.

Citizens and staff from the Lac du Flambeau Tribe and staff from the Northern
Highland-American Legion state forests made this project possible by welcoming me into

their homeplace and helping facilitate this research. In particular, Carl Edwards, Larry

 

\i’ait'mr
finanl3
Iechnici

insightfi

pmenm.
and end
fire yea
tonuibt
theta.
jUgghng

can nov

Wawronowicz and Steve Petersen provided guidance and input throughout the project.
Stuart Burgess, Chuck Burgess and Donald “DJ” Johnson were outstanding field
technicians with whom I thoroughly enjoyed working. Leon Valliere Jr. provided
insightful and timely review of portions of the dissertation.

Last and most importantly, anything I accomplish occurs on the shoulders of my
parents, grandparents and other relatives. My immediate family provided endless support
and endured my absences and reduced contribution to family responsibilities for nearly
five years. To my best friend and soul mate, Angie, I am eternally thankful for your
contributions, sacrifices and patience along the way. To my two sons, Gordon and Oscar,
who to date have not known their father without the stress and time commitment of his
juggling a fulltime job and a fulltime doctoral program, thank you for your patience. You

can now have your dad back.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 2
Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 5
Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2

“I DID TAKE THAT DEER’S LIFE”: LAC DU F LAMBEAU HUNTING

PRACTICES AND TRADITIONAL VALUES ............................................................... 10
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 13
Results ........................................................................................................................... 18
Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 3

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF A TRIBAL FORESTRY SYSTEM: NORTHERN RED
OAK REGENERATION FOLLOWING TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT IN

LAC DU FLAMBEAU ...................................................................................................... 40
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 41
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 41
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 44
Results ........................................................................................................................... 53
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 55
Management Recommendations ................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER 4

A CROSS-BOUNDARY COMPARISON OF FOREST REGENERATION

FOLLOWING TRIBAL AND STATE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ...................... 72
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 73
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 74
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 77
Results ........................................................................................................................... 87
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 89

vii

 

CHAPTE
FRONIC
TRIBAL
A1750".
mnod
iVlL‘Il‘lt
Resul
Cone

CHAPT
SLXDA.

REFER

CHAPTER 5
FROM CONFLICT TO COOPERATION: EVOLUTION OF A SUCCESSFUL

TRIBAL-STATE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATION ............................ 109
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 110
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 10
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 112
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 118
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 124

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 133

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 140

viii

 

Table

Tabh:
lmprr

Table
comp

Tablt
older

Tablt
Tabl
Tab]

Tabl
sepa
total

Tab

Tab
of n
Unit

Tat
for
Tat
T 31

Ta
Q04
We

Ta
CO
\xw

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Interview questions and associated concepts ..................................................... 36

Table 3.1 Correlation matrix for dependant variables in recent Timber Stand
Improvement (TSI) portion of study and older TSI portion .............................................. 60

Table 3.2 Importance of principal components within recent T81 and older TSI
components of the study. ................................................................................................... 62

Table 3.3 Principal component (PC) loadings for response variables in recent T81 and

older TSI components of the study .................................................................................... 63
Table 3.4 ANOVA results for recent TSI component of the study ................................... 64
Table 3.5 ANOVA results for older TSI component of the study ..................................... 65
Table 3.6 Median values (and ranges) for untransformed response variables ................... 66

Table 4.1 Coefficients of the first two linear discriminant axes for examining class
separation of management regimezsize groups by canopy openness, percent deer browse,
total basal area, and red oak basal area .............................................................................. 93

Table 4.2 Error matrix from cross-validation of the discriminant function analysis ......... 94
Table 4.3 Results of Analysis of Variance for growth rate and density of three size classes
of northern red oak seedlings by management regime (state vs. tribal) and management

unit size (stands vs. pockets) .............................................................................................. 95

Table 4.4 Results Tukey’s HSD test of pairwise comparisons between treatment groups
for grth rate and density of 0-SOcm and >137cm sized northern red oak seedlings ..... 96

Table 4.5 Description of variables used in this study ........................................................ 97
Table 5.1 Interview questions and associated underlying concepts ................................ 127
Table 5.2 Number of sources (respondents) who referenced various rationales for
cooperating across their political boundary and the total number of times each rationale
was referenced ................................................................................................................. 129
Table 5.3 Number of respondents (sources) who referenced various obstacles to

cooperating across their political boundary and the total number of times each obstacle
was referenced ................................................................................................................. 130

ix

 

Table 1
enhan.
chant“

 

 

Table 5.4 Number of respondents (sources) who referenced various characteristics that
enhanced cooperation across their political boundary and the total number of times each
characteristic was referenced ........................................................................................... 131

 

Figu
expr
rant
safin
dnne
order

Figur

Figur
lnrprt

Figur
Figur

Figuy.

dBCTl

HZEH
fized

E)b&

Idgun
reElm
03k 5‘
nonh,

Figurt
VEQen

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Map showing location of Lac du Flambeau Reservation in relation to 1837 and
1842 treaty territories where members of Lac du F lambeau Tribe and five other Ojibwe
bands have rights to hunt, fish and gather resources on public lands off their respective
reservations. ....................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 2.2 Diagram showing primary themes of hunting-related traditional values as
expressed in interviews with Lac du Flambeau hunters. The diagram shows A) the
various lessons about hunting imparted to young people by their relatives, starting with
safety and progressing clockwise through their first harvest ceremony and B) ethical
dimensions of hunting that occur throughout an annual hunting cycle, roughly in the
order they might occur each year. ........................................ i ............................................. 38

Figure 3.1 Map of Lac du Flambeau Reservation and surrounding region ....................... 67

Figure 3.2 Diagram showing A) experimental design for younger Timber Stand
Improvement study component and B) vegetation sampling design ................................. 68

Figure 3.3 Mean values for principal components from recent TSI portion of study ....... 69
Figure 3.4 Mean values and standard errors for the older TSI portion of this study ......... 71
Figure 4.1 Map of study area and surrounding region ....................................................... 99

Figure 4.2 Plot of management regime and management unit size by the first two linear
discriminant function axes ............................................................................................... 100

Figure 4.3 Mean values for the covariates by management regime (state vs. tribal) and
size (pockets vs. stands) for: A) canopy openness, B) percent of 51-137 and >137cm
sized oak seedlings browsed by deer, C) total tree basal area, D) red oak basal area, and
E) basal area of northern red oaks with >250m Diameter at Breast Height .................... 101

Figure 4.4 Graphs of mean values for each of the four response variables by management
regime (state vs. tribal) and size (pockets vs. stands) for: A) growth rate of northern red
oak seedlings, B) density of 0-SOcm northern red oak seedlings, C) density of 51-137cm
northern red oak seedlings, and D) density of >1 37cm northern red oak seedlings ........ 104

Figure 4.5 Diagram showing A) experimental design and B) sampling design of
vegetation plots and deer browse transects ...................................................................... 107

Figure 5.1 Map showing location of Lac du Flambeau Reservation and Northern

Highland-American Legion State Forests in context of 1837 and 1842 treaty areas and
surrounding region ........................................................................................................... 132

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

 

Backg‘

mosai.
ecolog
{65011.2
region.
Ricler
politic.
60010 g
insult.
lmpft)‘.
strateg.
ttithttt;
public-
lhat int
ecosyg:
600103
Olecol
Iimiter It

Elam (-

 

 

mama

 

I

 

Background

Regional landscapes around the world are composed of complex land tenure
mosaics that include private, industrial and governmental land ownership. Because
ecological processes and environmental issues do not respect land ownership boundaries,
resource practitioners, scientists and policy makers have called for cross—boundary,
regional approaches to ecosystem management (Yaffee 1999, Liu and Taylor 2002,
Rickenbach and Reed 2002, Schulte et al. 2008). Regional collaborations that transcend
political boundaries may be advantageous, or even required, to address a wide range of
ecological issues that extend beyond local to regional, continental and global scales. For
instance, F agergren ( 1998) found that cross-boundary preserve stewardship led to
improved protection of native flora, exotic plant control and introduction of management
strategies such as prescribed burning that would have been logistically impracticable
without cooperation across ownership boundaries. Propst et al. (1998) documented how
public-private cross-boundary partnerships can lead to alternative development patterns
that improve wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities and scenery and protect riparian
ecosystems. Schulte et a1. (2008) reported that cross-boundary coordination create
ecological benefits (including larger forest and habitat patches and improved restoration
of ecologically valued species of oak [Quercus spp.]) as well as economic benefits (e.g.,
timber harvest economies of scale.) However, despite such documented benefits,
relatively few successful examples of effective cross-boundary natural resource
management exist (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

In the United States (US), the reservations of American Indian Tribes are often

situated nearby or adjacent to public lands such as national and state forests. Tribal and

 

pub
prac
natir
ll tri
relati
ofcrt
tribal
Ricmt
betwe
contur

SIZIICS 1

federal
continc
Alaska
lands. (
Alaska
llOtt'ag
ofOllie
many ti
“lib th.
agreem

making

public land adjacency presents opportunities for enacting cross-boundary management
practices. These opportunities are common in the US. where there are 562 distinct tribal
nations. However, cross-boundary cooperation is challenging in these instances because
1) tribal communities are political entities with complicated and often ambiguous legal
relationships with federal and state governments (Wilkins 2002, Deloria 2006); 2) a lack
of cross-cultural understanding often interferes with relationships between tribal and non-
tribal resource managers as well as tribal and non-tribal citizens (Jones J arding 2004,
Riemer 2004, Silvem 2008); and 3) the history of contentious interactions and relations
between tribes and states has created obstacles to cooperation partly because states have
contumaciously characterized tribal rights to fish and wildlife harvests as an affront to
states rights (Wilkins 2002, Jones J arding 2004).

Yet cross-boundary resource management cooperation between tribal, state and
federal entities is important because tribes manage over 56 million acres of land in the
continental US. (Henson et a1. 2008, BIA 2010). Including Native land holdings in
Alaska, there are approximately 100 million acres of tribal and Native Alaskan-controlled
lands, or about 4% of lands in the US. (Henson et a1. 2008). These tribal and Native
Alaskan land areas are interconnected with the US. public land system via water
flowage, fish and wildlife migrations, transportation routes, pollution drift and a myriad
of other ecological and anthropogenic factors. Coordination is also important because
many tribes have rights to harvests resources in large territories ceded through treaties
with the United States. In some cases, these rights have resulted in co-management
agreements with state and federal land management entities (Ebbin 2002, Nie 2009)

making tribes partners in public lands management.

 

mar
be 2
futt.
Mil
tow
tho:
mar
Abt‘
mar
ecoe
199.
incl
IEVe
Van
blot

Jr. 1

Print
GUn
Yet,
are t]

(199‘

Another rationale for cross-boundary assessments oftribal and public resource
management is that incorporating the knowledge and experience of Native peoples may
be an important step towards creating healthy societies and healthy ecosystems in the
future (Berkes 1998, Klubnikin et al. 2000, Trosper 2002, .Becker and Ghimire 2003,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Xu et a1. 2005). Much progress has been made
toward understanding the ways that American Indian resource management systems (and
those of other Native peoples around the world) can contribute to sustainable resource
management and development. For example, previous research has provided examples of
Aboriginal natural resource management systems that use disturbance and succession as
management tools (Folke et a1. 1998, Turner et a1. 2000); focus on the preservation of key
ecosystem functions (Pinkerton 1998); support resilience and sustainability (Berkes et a1.
1994, Trosper 2002); manage ecosystems at multiple spatial scales (F olke et a1. 1998)
including scales sufficiently large to “plan for whole ecosystems at a genuinely landscape
level” (Pinkerton 1998); and, recognize that neighboring ecosystems, ecosystems at
various spatial scales and individual ecosystem components (including air, water, soil,
biota) are all interconnected and interdependent (Berkes et a1. 1998, Berkes 1999, Deloria
Jr. 1999, Salmon 2000, Fixico 2003).

These characteristic of Aboriginal resource management systems coincide with
principles emerging from research on ecosystem management (e. g.,Yaffee 1999,
Gunderson and Holling 2002, Ostrom 2004, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Yet, if Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ecological knowledge and management systems
are truly distinct, yet complimentary, as suggested by Ford and Martinez (2000), Berkes

(1999), and Agrawal (1997), then it is important to disentangle the complex social and

 

CL

this

TCSt

ecological relationships that exist in areas of tribal and public land adjacency to sort out
the specific ways that these autonomous, neighboring management programs can best
complement one another. Such a process could provide important insights and lead to
beneficial shifts in both tribal and public resource policy and management and increase
cross boundary management.
Objectives
Because of the importance of cross-boundary management involving tribes and
the lack of documented examples of successful tribal-state natural resource cooperation,
this dissertation focuses on a specific example of tribal-state cross-boundary natural
resource management with the following objectives in mind:
1. Document Lac du Flambeau Ojibwe hunting practices and explore how
Ojibwe-specific traditional values influence those practices (Chapter 2);
2. Evaluate whether 25+ years of timber stand improvement work by the LDF
Tribe have lead to significant increases in the density of northern red oak
seedlings and small overstory trees on LDF Reservation forests (Chapter 3);
3. Compare northern red oak regeneration outcomes following tribal and state
resource management practices that have led to widely divergent white-tailed
deer densities (Chapter 4);
4. Identify factors that enabled the LDF Tribe and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources to navigate contentious regional natural resource conflicts
and develop a highly cooperative cross-boundary working relationship

(Chapter 5).

 

 

Stt

Lat

Sur

For

this

\K'D
can 1
and 1
pro ft
the C1

to cor

heclar

Iron),

 

Study Area

I conducted the research for this dissertation in north central Wisconsin on the
Lac du F lambeau Reservation, homelands of the Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians and the Northern Hi ghland-American Legion (NH-AL) State
Forests operated by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). I chose
this location for several reasons. First, this case is unique in that the LDF Tribe and
WDNR have established a highly cooperative working relationship that tribes and states
can benefit from learning about in other regions. Second, I was familiar with the ecology
and flora of the region. Third, as a member of a Michigan Chippewa tribe with
professional experience working with Great Lakes tribes, I was relatively familiar with
the cultural context in LDF. Lastly, tribal and state representatives generously invited me
to conduct the project on their lands.

The NH-AL state forest was established in 1925 and encompasses over 95,000
hectares (ha) of land including portions of three Wisconsin counties (Vilas, Oneida and
Iron). The vision statement of the NH-AL State Forest reads:

The Northern Hi ghland-American Legion State Forest is a dynamic environment
comprised of a variety of biological communities that contribute to the diversity
of ecosystems in the region. The state forest provides a range of cultural, social,
economic and ecological benefits, within its capabilities, for present and future
generations. The unique, aesthetic character of the NH-AL State Forest and the
quality of its waters are perpetuated and enhanced. The forest is managed in
consultation with federal, tribal, local and other governments, and with other
people who care about the forest, including those who live, work and recreate in

and around it (WDNR 2005).

 

50

CC

(I)

The landscape of the NH-AL is predominantly comprised ofupland forests,
inland lakes and wetland ecosystems which are managed for a variety of ecological,
social and economic values including conservation of biological diversity and functional
ecological systems, timber production, recreation, education, subsistence harvests, natural
aesthetics, and protection of cultural resources.

The LDF Reservation is the homeland of the LDF Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians. The reservation is approximately 350 km2 including 16,889 ha of

upland forest, 9,712 ha of wetlands and 7,243 ha of lakes and rivers (LDF internal
management document). Of this area, the tribe owns and manages 13,467 ha, an
additional 5,720 ha are owned by individual tribal citizens or families and 9,313 ha are
so-called “fee lands” (i.e., in fee simple property status) owned by non-Indians. The tribe
has just over 3,100 enrolled citizens, with over 1,700 living on the reservation. The
reservation population is just under 3,000 people, including just under 1,300 Indian and
non-Indian individuals who are not LDF tribal citizens.

The forests of the LDF Reservation are managed for a variety of commercial,
recreational, subsistence, and cultural purposes. A growing number of tribal citizens on
the reservation places significant development pressure on reservation forests to
accommodate housing, infrastructure and human service needs. The vision statement of

the LDF Tribe reads:

The Lac du F lambeau Tribal Council has the responsibility to create a sustainable
community for Tribal members, descendents, and the seventh generation. The
Tribal Government will improve the quality of life by following our Ojibwa

culture and philosophy: A holistic and well-balanced approach will be

incorporated into the following program areas: Health, Education, Welfare,
Economic Development and Natural Resources. Long range planning and goal
setting will be implemented using community input. Our culture and heritage will
be the focal point on our way to our vision of the community. Healthy lifestyles,
wellness, family values and spirituality will guide our long-range planning and
implementation. We will protect our sovereignty and treaties, while moving
forward for present and future generations (LDF Integrated Resource

Management Plan, 2007).

Comparison of these vision statements is revealing. The NH-AL state forest
places ecosystems at the center of its vision statement, which are managed for human and
ecological benefits/values. The LDF tribal vision statement focuses its tribal citizenry, the
importance of their culture and on protecting/sustaining reservation resources for future
generations. The LDF and NH-AL vision statements reflect the different purposes of
these tribal and public land areas. The reservation is the homeland of Lac du Flambeau
citizens and is managed to accommodate the wide range of community needs and land
uses. The NH-AL, as part of the Wisconsin public land system, is managed to protect
ecological attributes including biotic communities while providing places for recreation
and other human-centered values. Because it is managed as a public natural area,
development pressures on the NH-AL are comparatively lower than on the LDF
reservation.

Forest ecosystems on the LDF Reservation and NH-AL have similar bio-physical
conditions. Climate in both areas is characterized by a l2l-day growing season, average
temperatures range from -6.7 to 35° C and average annual precipitation ranges from 76.2

to 86.4 cm (Albert 1995). Elevation ranges from 442-590m. The most common

 

phi
cort'

call

abu

and

physiographic systems in both sections of the study area are pitted outwash and ice
contact-derived landforrn systems. The study area falls within one regional ecosystem
called the “Lac Veaux Desert Outwash Plain” (Albert 1995). The NH-AL and LDF
Reservation have a similar mix of forest cover types with aspen types as the most
abundant followed by red/white pine followed by northern hardwoods, forested wetlands

and northern red oak (WDNR 2005).

CHAPTER 2

“I DID TAKE THAT DEER’S LIFE”: LAC DU F LAMBEAU HUNTING
PRACTICES AND TRADITIONAL VALUES

10

I\\

 

 

Abstract

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, citizens of tribal nations in the United States began
openly re—asserting rights to harvest fish and game off reservations in lands ceded to the
US. through 19‘h Century treaties, resulting in overt and sometimes violent anti-Indian
backlash. Through the 1900’s and 2000’s, non-Indians gradually came to accept that
treaty rights and treaty harvests were here to stay and the overtly hostile responses
subsided. Yet, understanding of the purposes and practices of contemporary American
Indian subsistence harvests is still lacking.

I interviewed 14 of the most active white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
hunters from the Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Reservation in north central Wisconsin to
document their hunting practices and determine how traditional Ojibwe or LDF-specific
values influence those practices. Interviewees provided explanations of the primary
purposes of hunting, traditional values related to hunting and human-animal relationships
among LDF Ojibwe. Primary findings were that the LDF Ojibwe hunt deer for
subsistence purposes and they value safety, reciprocal sharing of harvested meat and
wildlife conservation. They believe deer willingly give up their lives to feed people
contingent upon people showing proper respect to deer at all times. Tribal citizens hunt
off-reservation whenever it is financially feasible, preserving on-reservation hunting
opportunities for tribal citizens who have less money. These results should help dispel
misconceptions about contemporary tribal subsistence hunting, which could in turn help
improve relations between tribal and non-tribal citizens on and near reservations by

improving cross-cultural understanding.

ll

 

Int

trib
Lalt
agre-

han'

unpro'
treaty-L
01m r;
threats
made tl
nonmi
Underst.

851311115:

 

0&6” st:
negalIILI

1997. R

 

Introduction

Since the mid 1970’s, the treaty-guaranteed harvest rights of American Indian
tribes fi‘om areas of the United States (US) including the Pacific Northwest and Great
Lakes regions have been re-affinned through court rulings and inter- governmental
agreements (McCorquodale 1999, Silvem 2008). As tribal citizens began to more openly
harvest fish and game off their reservations where they have retained rights to use treaty-
ceded lands, harvesters were targeted by sportsmen who felt treaties were out-of-date
agreements supporting unfair “race-based” rights. Conflicts erupted and lingered over
shared interest in fish and wildlife harvests on public lands and waters, lasting, for
example, for nearly a decade in north central Wisconsin.

Relationships between Indians and non-Indians on and around reservations have
improved considerably since the historic conflicts that occurred in the l970’s-1990’s over
treaty-based salmon, walleye and Whitefish harvests. Communities have moved past the
overt racism and heated conflicts that included rock throwing, effigy hanging and death
threats against American Indian harvesters (Loew In Review). Improvements have been
made through the work of tribes, non-tribal governments, inter-tribal organizations and
non-tribal community members who have implemented educational programs that foster
understanding of treaty rights and the resource management arrangements that have been
established to facilitate off-reservation harvests. However, the non-Indian general public
often still lacks a basic understanding of the purposes and practices of Indian harvesters,
negatively impacting social relations between Indians and non-Indians (McCorquodale

1997, Riemer 2004).

12

 

 

 

ant
ect

19?.
lacl
of}

31110

F lair.
obj et‘
tradit
Wired:-
and cr
from it
Providt
hunters

tribal C]

 

MEIhOt

Study .1

ChiPPe-x

 

Other authors have investigated conflict over subsistence fish harvests (Nesper
2002, Riemer 2004), connections between the cultural contexts of subsistence hunting
and tribal wildlife management (McCorquodale 1997) and how socio-political and
ecological changes have influenced modern subsistence hunting practices (Brightrnan
1993, Brody 1997, Fienup-Riordan 2000, Guilmet and Whited 2002). However there is a
lack of detailed information about the contemporary hunting activities and perspectives
of North American Indians that could be used to build cross-cultural understanding
among tribal and non-tribal citizens.

To help address this knowledge gap, I interviewed active hunters from the Lac du
Flambeau (LDF) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians with the following specific
objectives in mind: 1) document LDF Ojibwe hunting practices, 2) determine how
traditional Ojibwe or LDF-specific values influence those practices and 3) evaluate
whether their traditional values system is changing amid increasing outside influences
and cross-cultural integration. Based on emergent themes from the interviews, insight
from individual interview participants and relevant background knowledge, I then
provide an evaluation of the differences and commonalities between tribal and non-tribal
hunters as a way to increase mutual understanding and acceptance among tribal and non-

tribal citizens and resource managers.

Methods
Study Area Background

The LDF Reservation is the homeland of the LDF Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians (Figure 2.1). The reservation is approximately 350 km2 including

13

 

163
area.
indix
snnp
daze
undo
not L

docur

\Vmc
Chnn
(prt
Hint
CEdet
nOnh
fight:

Iem‘t

aCHt‘

for \x

16,889 ha of upland forest, 9,712 ha of wetlands and 7,243 ha of lakes and rivers. Of this
area, the tribe owns and manages 13,467 ha, an additional 5,720 ha are owned by
individual tribal citizens or families and 9,313 ha are so-called “fee lands” (i.e., in fee
simple property status) owned by non-Indians. The tribe has just over 3,100 enrolled
citizens, with over 1,700 living on the reservation. The reservation population is just
under 3,000 people, including just under 1,3 00 Indian and non-Indian individuals who are
not LDF tribal citizens (LDF internal integrated resource management planning
document, 2008).

The LDF Reservation and reservations of neighboring tribes in northern
Wisconsin were created through a series of treaties in the mid 1800’s between various
Chippewa (also known as Ojibwe) bands and the US. Through these same treaties, the
Ojibwe bands of this region ceded large land areas to the United States, opening them up
to white settlement, but retaining rights to hunt, fish and gather plant materials in their
ceded territories. These treaties are the basis of modern off-reservation tribal harvests in
northern Wisconsin. Today, the LDF Tribe and five other Ojibwe bands actively use their
rights to harvest fish and game in the Wisconsin portion of the 1837 and 1842 ceded
territories (Figure 2.1).

In the mid 1980’s hunters and fishers from the northern Wisconsin bands began
actively and publicly asserting their treaty rights through off-reservation spring spearing
for walleye (Sander vitreus). The spearing activities spurred serious conflict between
Indian harvesters and non-Indian sportsmen, which centered on boat landings where
Ojibwes launched their spearing boats. Protestors threw rocks and racial slurs at the

spearers, detonated pipe bombs, speared and hung effigies of Indians from trees and

14

 

feder.
about
Light
relatit
ineluc
non-3
Staff. 1

Chapt

betwe
Willie.
pend:
“'hen
the CO
511nm
with 1.

The \r‘

made death threats. The conflicts drew ongoing national, regional and local media
attention, though the media rarely covered substantive political or biological aspects of
the issue, focusing instead primarily on boat launch clashes (Nesper 2002, Loew In
Review). Heated conflicts lasted for nearly ten years through the mid 1990’s. From the
mid 1990’s to the late 2000’s, the conflicts calmed considerably. To help resolve these
regional conflicts, the northern Wisconsin tribes and WDNR worked together with
federal officials, inter-tribal organizations and local community groups to educate people
about the legitimacy of treaty rights (Loew In Review). Two programs called “Casting
Light on the Waters” and “Gathering of the Guides” were established to build
relationships among parties vested in natural resource management and conservation
including tribal, federal and state resource managers, policy makers and local Native and
non-Native fishing guides. Through these programs and regular interactions among field
staff, the WDNR and tribal officials gradually built functional working relationships (see
Chapter 5).

Despite this progress, disagreements and misunderstandings continued to occur
between tribal citizens and non-tribal citizens over fish and wildlife issues including
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunting. Although not as explosive or
pervasive as in the mid 1980’s to mid 1990’s, confrontations and arguments occurred
when hunters encountered one another in the woods and during everyday interactions in
the communities surrounding LDF and other reservations. The “northwoods” region
surrounding the LDF Reservation is a popular vacation destination and the area swells
with tourists and seasonal residents traveling from places like Chicago in the summer.

The vacationers are not exposed as consistently as local fulltime resident non-Indians to

15

 

llll‘Ol'l -
oilici
years

Data

the L1
oftiei.‘
eomn:

qUCSllt

Direct.
PHI‘IIC‘i‘
intent
instrun

Am en q

 

 

information about treaty rights and tribal-state natural resource co-management. Tribal
officials from LDF report that many of the confrontations and disagreements in recent
years have occurred in the summer with seasonal residents and tourists.

Data Collection

In 2007 and 2008, I interacted regularly with active white-tailed deer hunters from
the LDF Reservation. I also interacted with natural resource managers and elected tribal
officials. These interactions along with my personal and professional experiences in tribal
communities and review of relevant literature helped to formulate the focus and research
questions of this chapter.

Key contacts from the tribe, including the Tribal Council President, the Deputy
Director of Natural Resources and the Tribal Wildlife Manager, helped identify interview
participants. 1 designed a question-concept matrix (Table 2.1) outlining a series of
interview questions plus respective research concepts. I pre-tested this interview
instrument with hunters from a politically distinct but culturally related tribe and an
American Indian philosophy scholar, making adjustments based on their feedback.

In the summer of 2009, I conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 14
enrolled LDF citizens who were highly active hunters and had been involved in white-
tailed deer hunting since they were children. All participants were from the LDF
Reservation although one had spent a significant number of years living in a nearby city.
Their ages ranged from 17 to 72 and included 13 men and one woman. Seven participants
were employed by the tribe (including staff from the Natural Resources Department, IT
Department, Ojibwe Language Program, Roads Department and Tribal Casino) and two

of these seven were also tribal elected official. Three others were self employed including

16

 

0116

two
The 1
main
inten
lnten

incent

Data .-1

Wrsioi
Geotz ‘
throng}
rtSpons
It‘ferem

Sofiil‘ar

 

fOHOWQ
dfafis O i

LHC du l

 

one as a fishing guide, one was retired, one was a student and one unemployed. Two
participants were father and son and lived together in the same household, though they
were interviewed separately. The length of these key informant interviews ranged from
25 — 90 minutes and averaged 56 minutes. The wide range in interview length is due to
two interview participants fitting our conversations into their particularly tight schedules.
The interviews followed the questions established in my question-concept matrix,
maintaining the same interview question sequence as best as possible. I recorded all
interviews using a portable digital audio recorder and later transcribed the audio files.
Interviewees were given a $50 gas card as a token of appreciation and participation

incentive.

Data Analysis

I coded interview transcriptions using NVivo qualitative data analysis software
Version 8 (QSR International 2008) using an iterative coding procedure (LeCompte and
Geotz 1983, Miles and Hubermann 1994), refining my hierarchical coding structure
through three rounds of coding. Themes emerged out of similar and interrelated
responses within the interview dataset. 1 confirmed recurrent themes by enumerating the
references to each coded concept or idea within the interview transcripts using the NVivo
software package. I then reviewed the specific interview responses more thoroughly that
followed recurrent themes, providing insights into my research questions. I submitted
drafts of the case study for review to a research participants and cultural leader from the

Lac du Flambeau Tribe as a form of “member checking” (Lincoln and Cuba 1985).

17

 

 

Resr

[lain

first C
age. a
plottl
walkir
hunter
deer.) 1
speeiei
Seiera
muskic

hare. tr

 

that Ve‘
bOUght
Cleanli-
\\'ag a It
and em
huerrjc
because
lannhes

fiflnnl’t

Results
Hunting Practices

The hunters I spoke with all started hunting at a young age. They had shot their
first deer between ages seven and 13. Most had been involved with hunting at an earlier
age, as early as five years old, observing the butchering of deer meat, listening to hunters
plot their day’s hunting strategies, scouting hunting locations and deer movements and
walking with older hunters during deer drives (a common technique where a group of
hunters walks through the woods pushing deer to “standers” waiting to shoot passing
deer.) All of the people I interviewed stated that white-tailed deer was the primary
species they hunted, but most also harvested other animals including fur-bearers and fish.
Several interviewees were active in spring spearing for walleye and winter spearing for
muskie and pike. Other harvests included partridge (ruffed grouse), ducks, snowshoe
hare, muskrat, beaver and porcupine.

The primary motivation for hunting was for food. The hunters appreciated the fact
that venison is a healthier alternative to commercially available meats. Unlike store
bought meats, they knew exactly where their venison came from, that it was processed
cleanly and that the deer ate a natural diet free of hormones and other chemicals. Venison
was a traditional food source dating back thousands of years in their community; hunting
and eating venison therefore helped to maintain an important cultural tradition. Several
interview participants stated that at some point in their lives, venison was a survival food
because they had limited finances for providing basic needs such as food for their
families. Other reasons people hunted included camaraderie and time with family/friends,

family tradition and enjoyment of the outdoors.

18

 

on
00‘
the
1101
indi
hou:
“as.
total

in hit

traditi
emerg
indieat
later. \r
Whenet

have (11‘

”TOTE [r

keep 6p

 

beflirm'.

N

 

The deer meat these hunters harvested was not just for consumption within their
own households. Each of the hunters mentioned that they also hunt to provide meat to
other people in their extended families, typically giving away as much as they kept for
themselves or far more. They shared deer meat with their elders, with households that did
not hunt and with single mothers. The number of deer harvested and consumed within the
individual households of the hunters ranged from 5-12 per year and the average
household size was five people. However, the number of deer harvested by the hunters
was often far greater because they were providing meat for several households. Average
total harvests ranged from 12 to 30 deer with some hunters harvesting more than 50 deer
in high years.

For those individuals interviewed, hunting typically occurred in the fall. Local
traditions dictated that it was permissible/acceptable to begin hunting once fireflies
emerge in mid-summer. Several participants noted that they respect this traditional
indication of the start of hunting season but that they do not actually start hunting until
later, whenever last year’s venison stock runs out. One hunter stated, “[I start hunting]
whenever the deer meat runs out. I don’t look at my deer rifle until my freezer doesn’t
have any more deer meat in it. It’s a good supply of meat for me and my nephews...”

Not all LDF hunters own freezers for storing meat. Some LDF families follow a
more traditional practice of immediately using a deer after it has been harvested. They
keep enough meat for a few meals in their household and give the rest away to relatives
for their immediate consumption or short term storage.

Most of the hunters 1 spoke with finished the bulk of their hunting by the

beginning or end of the state-administered gun hunting season which runs annually from

19

November 20-28. Hunters from LDF who stopped hunting by the start of the state gun
season cited safety concerns and did not like to hunt around hundreds of non-Indian
hunters who occupy the woods during the nine-day state-administered gun hunt. Those
who stopped hunting by the end of the state gun season did so because the weather
becomes too cold and unpredictable starting in December.

Three individuals mentioned that they occasionally bow hunt. The rest
exclusively use high powered rifles. Calibers of choice included 30.06, .308, .300
Winchester Magnum and 30-30.

Interview participants hunted both on and off their reservation with some
concentrating their efforts on-reservation and others off-reservation. Those who hunted
off-reservation varied in their locations. Some had specific areas they hunted every year,
and others spread themselves out more to varying degrees. Two people noted that they
had hunted throughout all areas of their tribe’s ceded territories (Figure 2.1) at one time
or another. Others noted that they tend to stay within about a 30-40 minute drive of their
home to limit their fuel expenditures. Several people stated that they hunt primarily off-
reservation because they want to preserve on-reservation hunting opportunities for people
who have limited firnds for gas money or do not own vehicles.

The hunters used a variety of techniques to harvest deer. The most common
techniques were drives (pushing deer) and hunting from a vehicle (a.k.a. “road hunting”).
Driving deer was a long standing tradition in LDF and was the method most interviewees
first learned as young people. The advantages and benefits of this technique are that
hunters encounter a lot of deer, they use less fuel than with road hunting and it is a social

activity that brings family members from multiple generations together. It also requires

20

b)

 

 

more skill and gets the hunters out in the woods paying attention and learning about their
surroundings. Road hunting is a common practice because it is an efficient use of time
and relatively easy way to harvest deer. Road hunting occurs during the day and at night
via spotlight. Night hunting is only permitted on-reservation. Other techniques used by
the interview participants included still hunting from stands or blinds, stalking deer, using
dogs to circle deer around to standing hunters and hunting stream and river bottoms by
canoe.

Traditional Values

The hunters described a wide range of family-held and community-held
traditional values. They also explained how these values influenced their hunting
practices, their perspectives about hunting and their perspectives about white-tailed deer.
To provide some organizational structure to this list of interrelated traditional values and
value-based practices, I describe them roughly in the order that they are first introduced
or taught to young hunters by their older family members. This order also follows
roughly the sequence of events for hunters in a given hunting season (Figure 2.2). The
values and practices described here are not upheld by every single hunter from LDF;
however, these are the recurrent themes that emerged in my interviews with 14 of the
community’s most active hunters.

One of the first hunting-related values imparted to young people in LDF is
hunting safety. Young people are taught proper safety techniques through repetition and
over the course of several years by spending time going along on hunts and participating
in deer drives prior to earning the rights to carry a weapon or harvest a deer. During this

training phase, young hunters are also taught to respect the woods by being mindful of

21

other beings (animals, plants, spirits) that live there and conducting themselves in the
woods as if they were in someone else’s home. Some hunters are taught to give tobacco
as a gift to the beings that reside in the woods before they enter to hunt (more discussion
on tobacco use below). LDF notions of respect for the woods also involve leaving the
woods the way you found it by not littering. Further, young people are instructed to pay
close attention to their surroundings when they are hunting. This helps them learn their
way around the woods and provides a measure of safety by keeping hunters’ attention on
the task at hand. One respondent stated, “My [grandfather] raised me, so I came into his
generation, (doing) what he used to do. 1 was always in the woods with him. He showed
me everywhere on the reservation what I needed to know or see. He made me go into the
woods. He said ‘you look around when you’re in there; you don't just go rushing through
there.” I also interviewed this respondent’s son, who similarly shared that he was
instructed to “Just be aware of my surroundings; know where you are at all times, what
you're doing, why you are there.” The continuity between these quotes and the father’s
reference to learning from his grandfather showed that this value had been transferred
across at least four generations.

Young hunters are then taught ways of showing respect to the deer that they
intend on harvesting or have just harvested. For some hunters, this begins with
taagoziwin (“talks”) which are a sort of prayerful conversation a hunter has with deer
before or after a hunt. Through miigwetchitaagoziwin, a hunter makes a speech of
thankfulness to the animal/spirit world, showing appreciation in advance or after a
harvest. Gaagiizotaagoziwin are speeches of appeasement to an animal and its spirit.

Traditionally taagoziwin were spoken prayers using Ojibwemorttin (the Ojibwe language).

22

Y‘s.)

 

 

 

People who do not speak Ojibwemowin often go through a similar process using the
English language and many do so mentally rather than aloud.

All the hunters also used Semaa (tobacco) as a way to show respect for deer.
Semaa (pronounced ‘say-mah’) is one of the most important traditional medicines used
by Ojibwe and many other American Indian peoples. It is often used as a traditional gift
given as a sign of respect to people or harvested animals (Johnston 1976, Benton-Benai
1988, Cornell 1992). Semaa is often put on the ground with a prayer before the beginning
of a hunt. It is offered to a deer after it is harvested and before it is gutted. During
disposal, it is placed on the gut pile or with any unused body parts. Ojibwe people believe
strongly in a spiritual realm and that all living things have spirits that exist in this parallel
world. Ojibwe are taught that Semaa is a wonderful gift to offer spirits and that a small
pinch of this medicine is regarded as a large gift in the spirit realm. Hunters who use
Semaa as an offering are making a gift to the deer on a spiritual level. The use of Semaa
was noted as one of the most common and consistent ways traditional values enter into
hunting practices in LDF and is a practice consistently taught to young hunters.

Hunters from LDF also show respect to deer by hunting sober. Drinking alcohol
before, during and after a hunt are accepted and normal practices for many non-Indian
hunters. However, for Ojibwe, to drink during or before a hunt or while butchering would
be disrespectful to the deer. Hunting is considered a sacred activity and Ojibwe people
are taught not to use alcohol or drugs during such times. The other reason people from
LDF maintain sobriety during hunting and while processing meat is for safety, which,

again, is a primary traditional value for hunters.

23

Furthermore, youth are taught to respect deer by processing harvested animals and
handling meat respectfully. Lac du Flambeau hunters believe they should be mindful of
the life that was given by the deer when they are gutting, butchering and disposing of
unused parts. This mindfulness reminds hunters that wasting deer meat or other useful
parts would be disrespectful to the spirit of the harvested animal. Handling the deer
carcass and disposing of unused portions should be done in a way that maintains dignity
for the deer’s spirit. The gut pile and any other unused portions are placed in the woods
out of plain site and covered with leaves or fern fronds plus an offering of Semaa.

Techniques for butchering deer meat are passed down inter-generationally within
LDF families. Hunters from LDF are skilled with a knife, butcher deer very rapidly and
take great care and pride in the cleanliness and efficiency of their butchering (i.e., lack of
waste). One interviewee described the uniqueness and importance of skinning and
butchering deer at LDF, stating:

If there's anything to be passed down here in Flambeau it's a specific way to clean
deer. Cause if you see a carcass laying by the road you know who did it just by
looking... at the deer dump... if you look at it, you know where that cleaning
originated from the way the deer was taken care of. It's pretty amazing. In terms
of things being passed down, I think a big thing is how to cape that deer out... get
the cuts, you know... clean that deer really good. There's three or four different
styles that people do around here. And they all stem from four different elders.
That's a real amazing thing ‘cause they're all wonderfirl ways. I do it the way my
Mother showed me how. Efficiency and quickness, that's what Ojibwes are good
at when it came to cleaning these deer up. And that's one of the main things that
were passed down.

Early in the hunting season, while docs are still weaning their fawns, LDF hunters
harvest deer selectively, leaving does and fawns and focusing on yearlings (i.e., year and
a half old deer) and bucks. People generally do not shine for deer (i.e., road hunting at

night with a spotlight) in the summertime because they do not want to accidentally shoot

24

F.)

 

 

 

 

a doc and risk orphaning any fawns. Once the fawns are weaned, this selectivity goes
away entirely for most of the hunters. In the fall, they harvest whatever deer presents
itself first, irrespective of sex or age. None of the hunters were enamored with the idea of
harvesting a large trophy buck. Most admitted that seeing and harvesting a large buck is
exciting, but they are not focused on finding large bucks with big racks when they hunt;
the focus is on harvesting meat as a nutritious food source.

However, not every household has an active hunter, so most hunters in LDF are
providing deer meat to multiple nuclear families. One of the primary traditional values
held by LDF hunters is the sharing of meat. Every hunter that I spoke with described
responsibilities they had to provide meat to other households within their extended
family. For some hunters, the primary reason they hunted was to provide deer meat, fish
and other harvested foods to those in need within their family and wider community. This
is a generous act considering the amount of time and work involved in locating,
harvesting and processing deer.

This generosity starts at a young age. When a person from LDF harvests their
very first deer, the entire animal is traditionally given away. There is a ceremony that
young hunters go through after their first successful hunt called the First Harvest
Ceremony. During this ceremony, adults from the youth’s family and broader community
talk to them, providing important guidance about safety, respect, and other communally
held hunting values.

For some hunters in LDF, the tradition of giving away the first deer you harvest is
practiced annually. Hunters also have responsibilities for providing meat for ceremonies

that come up throughout the year including funerals. They keep meat on hand for these

25

ceremonies and community events and/or they are prepared to harvest deer as needed for
these purposes throughout the year.

The generosity of LDF hunters is repaid to them when they get older. When a
hunter reaches an age where it becomes difficult to drag, gut and butcher deer, the young
hunters who they have trained in turn begin taking responsibilities for these labor
intensive tasks. When a hunter reaches an age where they can no longer hunt, it becomes
the responsibility of the younger hunters in their family to provide them with deer meat
and other gathered foods. To fail to provide meat to an elder who spent time teaching you
all the skills and knowledge necessary to be a successful hunter would be disrespectful
and unacceptable.

Young hunters are also taught to respect certain communally held taboos, or
things they should never do because it may result in serious consequences. The
consequences of violating these taboos can include lack of success in future hunts as well
as illness, misfortune or death in one’s family, depending on the severity and
intentionality (i.e., if you knew better) of the violation. Taboos among LDF hunters
include that one should never be greedy (i.e., shoot more deer than necessary for food) or
wasteful; should try hard never to wound an animal; and should not shoot deer near one’s
own home. Shooting deer near one’s home is frowned upon because LDF Ojibwes
believe that when white-tailed deer come by their home, they are actually the spirits of
your deceased relatives coming to visit. Within some LDF families, the notion of
stocking up enough deer meat in a freezer to last through the year comes close to

violating the taboo of harvesting more than is needed, leading them to follow the practice

26

of immediately using their harvests. For others, freezing meat was an acceptable way of
ensuring a year’s food supply.

Another important taboo is harvesting and/or eating one’s clan animal. The
Ojibwe, like other North American Indian cultural groups, have a clan system of kinship
that dictates traditional roles and responsibilities in a community and historically was an
important organizing framework for inter-community marriage (Johnston 1976). Each
larger tribal or cultural group has a different set of clans, represented primarily by
different species of animals. For Ojibwe people, these include loon, fish, deer, bear,
crane, martin and bird clans (Benton-Benai 1988). A person’s clan animal is considered
very literally to be their brother or next-of-kin, which is why it is not acceptable to
harvest or eat an animal from the species representing one’s clan. In LDF, most people
are bear clan and very few people are deer clan. This means that most people are free to
consume deer meat but prevented from hunting or eating bear, a fact that came up
repeatedly in my interviews.

Each of the hunters had spent a great deal of time learning about and harvesting
deer in their lifetimes. I asked them to describe the relationship they had developed with
deer through these years of pursuing and eating deer. Their responses summarized well
the traditional values they held related to hunting. All of the hunters described having a
great deal of respect for deer. They appreciated the versatile attributes of the deer (e. g.,
they are fast yet quiet in the woods, resilient, possessing a quite intelligence, have great
senses of smell and hearing, hide well and are patient.) They described that the deer was
put on Earth to feed people and that it is an amazing source of food. The hunters

described their great appreciation for this food source and for the deer that give their lives

27

to feed people. One hunter described this relationship, stating:

“My relationship with deer meat is... no man could ask for a better one. The deer
are a great source of food and they’re a great animal and they’ll feed me for the
rest of my life. Just to eat one is an honor, and for him to give his life to feed me
is one of the greatest gifts you can ever receive... 1 wish I could give my life up to
feed one of them but I can’t, but who knows, one day when you’re pushin’ up
daisies maybe one’ll eat off my grave.”

Another hunter stated that when he puts down Semaa for a harvested deer, it is the
same as when he puts down Semaa after a community member dies. In that way, he
regarded deer similarly to the people in his community, except that the deer have a
different role which is giving their life to feed the people. Another person pointed out that
when Ojibwe people talk about hunting, they do not refer to the culmination as “killing”
which is too harsh of a word to describe what is happening. In Ojibwemowr'n, a phrase
used to describe what happens when a hunter is successful is Nin gii nisaa a 'aw
waawaashkeshii. In English this translates approximately to “I did take that deer’s life.”
Continuity in LDF Hunting Values

The hunters expressed that a core group of youth in the community was
continuing to learn the LDF hunting values system outlined above. Most of the
interviewees actively participated in educating younger generations about hunting and
associated traditional values. They acknowledged that a small percentage of the LDF
youth are hunting in ways that disregard this value system by being wasteful, focusing on
trophy bucks and using drugs or alcohol while hunting. They felt that most of these
young people were not raised on the reservation, but moved to their tribal homelands
after growing up in the city where they had no opportunity to learn LDF hunting values.

Others were being raised in families without adult hunters and had not sought out or

28

connected with people who could teach them LDF ways of hunting. In either case, these
self-taught hunters are in the minority and respondents felt confident that two or three
generations in the future, hunters in LDF will be operating under the same value system.
Educational programs are in place in the tribal and public schools to help teach the
minority of LDF youth who have no other means of learning these values.

Hunters explained that certain hunting practices had changed in recent decades or
were in a transition phase. For example, there were more hunters at the time of our
interviews who exclusively road hunt than at any time in the past. There is a difference
between hunters who first learn how to hunt through drives and later adopt road hunting
as compared to individuals who only know how to road hunt. Hunters who first learn to
hunt on foot learn about the woods and learn about deer so that if they later choose to
road hunt, they do so given an existing foundation of hunting knowledge. The most
recent generation of hunters includes a small but growing number of people who only
know how to road hunt and have comparatively little knowledge about deer or forests.

The introduction of satellite television and intemet service on the reservation also
generated some changes in hunting practices, particularly among the youth. Young
people had recently gained access to hunting shows and were picking up on techniques
and perspectives about hunting from non-Native hunters on these shows. For example, a
few respondents expressed concern over the adoption of remotely triggered trail cameras,
because they allow hunters to stay indoors and reduce the amount of time they spend
scouting outdoors learning about the woods. One hunter disapprovingly called this
technique “window shopping.” Other technological innovations that had been adopted

earlier in LDF, such as high powered rifles and hanging poles used for processing deer,

29

were of less concern to the hunters. One respondent explained, “We’re accepting of
change if it allows us to do our things more efficiently. But along the way we also have to
maintain our traditional ways, the original ways of doing things. . .”

A more serious concern was the influence hunting shows could have on people’s
perceptions of deer. The hunters expressed concern that the hunting shows teach a trophy
hunting mentality that is antithetical to LDF values. The trophy hunting shows emphasize
the thrill of getting the biggest possible deer; the adventure sports side of hunting where
landing a trophy and breaking records is more important than harvesting food. Some of
the LDF hunters shared that they do not watch these shows and advise their children not
to watch them. Interestingly, the youngest two respondents (approximate ages were 18
and 30) said they watched trophy hunting shows, but did not feel it interferes with their
value systems; they just saw it purely as entertainment.

Discussion and Conclusions

My results indicate that a complex traditional value system remains vibrantly
intact among the contemporary subsistence hunters of Lac du Flambeau. Hunters from
the LDF tribe are committed to training young people about safety, respect, generosity
and showing them effective hunting and deer processing techniques. As more LDF
citizens progressively move back to the reservation after spending one to several
generations in cities such as Milwaukee, educational programs in public and tribal
schools and other similar efforts will be crucial to maintaining cultural continuity and
LDF-specific hunting values.

Hunters from LDF harvest a lot of deer. However, it is a small segment of the

tribal citizenry that hunts and hunters are providing deer meat to large extended families.

30

I‘kl

 

Despite occasional reports of wasteful practices and concerns among non-Indians of
over-harvesting by tribal citizens, the LDF Ojibwe people remain very committed to
wildlife conservation and loath waste. Wasting meat is considered taboo in the
community and Ojibwe hunters from LDF believe strongly in the consequences that
could result from being wasteful or greedy. The hunters I spoke with used more parts of
the deer than is typical of non-Indians. They ate the ribs, neck roasts, shanks, neck bones
and back bones (although some temporarily stopped eating neck and back bones when
Chronic Wasting Disease first emerged in Wisconsin deer). Some saved the hides, horns,
hooves and other parts for community members who use them for traditional regalia and
other purposes, but many people discarded these parts. Historically, all parts of the deer
had a use, and harvested deer were more thoroughly utilized. Fewer parts are used today
in LDF than in past generations; however, the unused portions are typically placed in the
woods or in a field, covered with ferns and an offering of Semaa, and left for
consumption by eagles, wolves, coyotes and other wildlife. Hunters from LDF view this
as a form of sharing with these other animals; but the act is construed differently by some
non-Indians who see the piles of guts and unused parts and think deer are being wasted or
treated disrespectfirlly. According to one respondent who regularly addressed questions
from the general public on behalf of the tribe’s environmental department, when the tribe
received complaints about this sort of activity, the complaints were typically issued by
vacationing families who lived in the northwoods seasonally. Permanent resident non-
Natives were apparently more understanding of this practice.

My conversations with LDF hunters helped illuminate some of the important

distinctions and commonalities between Indian and non-Indian hunters in north central

31

[\1

Wisconsin. There are many things that Indian and non-Indian hunters hold in common:
they both enjoy spending time in the outdoors, spending time with fiiends and family,
eating venison, seeing big bucks and they are both generous and charitable with harvested
meat (non-Indians often donate meat to food pantries) among other commonalities.
However, the main driving motivation may be different for the typical Indian and non-
Indian hunter.

The primary motivation for Indian hunters from LDF is clearly to gather food, and
all the other enjoyable attributes of hunting are secondary benefits. Authors working with
American Indian hunters in other regions of the US. have found the same primary
purpose for hunting within other cultural groups (McCorquodale 1997, Guilmet and
Whited 2002). However, tribes and first nations across North America exhibit a great
deal of social and cultural distinctiveness, and the value systems that form the foundation
of hunting practices within different communities can vary considerably from tribe to
tribe. Furthermore, American Indian hunters who are raised off-reservation or who are
separated from their tribal traditional value systems are likely to engage in different
practices, hold different perspectives and stray from the norms and mores of their
respective tribal communities to some extent.

Existing publications and reports from hunter surveys indicate that among non-
lndian hunters, there is a wide variety of perspectives and motivations for hunting. For
example, a 2005-06 survey administered by the Illinois Natural History Survey asked
hunters what motivates them to participate in hunting and the statement receiving the
highest number of responses was to “be in the outdoors and interact with nature”

(n=672); the second highest response was “provide meat for my family” (n=43 l)

32

(Lischka et al. 2006). In the same survey, harvesting a deer was listed as a less important
factor influencing the quality of a hunting experience than being outdoors and interacting
with nature (n=312), seeing deer (n=339) and getting close enough to a deer to shoot,
regardless of whether they shoot the deer (n=936). For these respondents, meat was a
primary motivator, but not a primary driver of hunting satisfaction. Others have indicated
that harvesting deer and provisioning meat are far less important components of the
hunting experience than other factors (Good 1997, Dhuey 2008).

Good (Good 1997) reviewed essays in popular hunting magazines and found that
having an opportunity to shoot an animal but letting it go was a more important factor
than harvesting an animal. He conceded that “For people who do not understand hunting
and think of hunters as blood-thirsty killers, this may be surprising...” but that from his
perspective as a hunter, “This demonstrates the deep respect and appreciation many
hunters have for wildlife.” Hunters from LDF and many other American Indian hunters
have very different perspectives about passing up harvest opportunities than those
expressed by Good. Hunters from LDF believe that when they are hunting and they
encounter an animal, under most circumstances that animal is offering its life to provide
food for your family. To turn down that offer would be insulting to the deer and could
result in consequences including not seeing animals during future hunts. Indian people
often object to catch and release fishing for similar reasons. So an action that is a Sign of
respect and appreciation among some non-Indian hunters has quite the opposite meaning
within the Ojibwe worldview.

More than one interview participant felt that they had much more in common with

non-Indian hunters from rural north central Wisconsin (i.e., their firlltime non-Indian

33

neighbors) than hunters and vacationers who traveled to the northwoods from the cities.
They explained that there is a group of non-Indian hunters in their region who hunt
primarily for food and who are committed to eating venison as a main food source,
similar to LDF hunters. Individuals raised in rural versus urban environments may have
different perspectives and motivations about hunting.

Pe0ple often refer to all Indian hunters as subsistence hunters and all non-Indians
as recreational, sport or trophy hunters. Perhaps it would be more useful to think of a
continuum of primary or driving motivations from food-focused on the one end to
trophy-focused. Indian and non-Indian hunters may fall anywhere along the continuum
depending on their life circumstances, form of hunting education and values system. The
vast majority of Ojibwe hunters from Lac du F lambeau appear to be situated far over on
the subsistence end of the continuum. The fact that LDF hunters put away their rifles for
the year once their freezers are full shows that meat is their main priority. By comparison,
trophy hunters may or may not eat deer meat and typically hunt throughout their state-
regulated season regardless of whether they have sufficient venison for the year.
However, as recent data from Illinois (Lischka et al. 2006) and Wisconsin (Dhuey 2008)
have indicated, the majority of non-Indians may have motivations other than harvesting
trophy animals and could be described as falling somewhere in the middle of a food-
focused to trophy focused continuum.

This exploration of the connections between LDF traditional values and LDF
hunting practices provided a unique and somewhat detailed picture of the contemporary
Ojibwe hunter. There is a lot more depth to the spiritual side of Ojibwe deer hunting that

is beyond the focus of this chapter. However, the chapter provides enough detail to

34

improve understanding among non-Indians about the hunting practices, perspectives
about deer and traditional values of Ojibwe people. The information should be
particularly useful for people who have had little or no substantive contact with Indian
people but vacation or travel seasonally to places such as Lac du Flambeau where tribal
citizens are engaged in treaty harvests.

In this chapter, I also compared the Ojibwe hunting practices and motivations
revealed through my interviews with those of non-Indian hunters as reported in recent
surveys and research publications. This comparison should help improve cross-cultural
understanding needed between Indians and non-Indians who have a shared interest in off-
reservation resources such as white-tailed deer.

More generally, the chapter calls attention to the importance of understanding
natural resource activities within the context of underlying cultural value systems.
Without understanding the cultural contexts of resource users and managers, their actions
and priorities can easily be misinterpreted, as described through examples in this chapter.
Better understanding of the ethical dimensions of natural resource use and management
may improve cross-cultural relations among natural resource users and managers, thereby
reducing conflict and creating opportunities for expanded cross-boundary natural

TCSOUTCC management.

35

Table 2.1: Interview questions and associated concepts.

 

QUESTION

CONC EPT/ PURPOSE

 

1. What animal species do you hunt or trap?
2. How old were you when you started hunting deer?

3. Tell me about your hunting practices (e.g., times of
year, times of day/night, on-reservation v. off-
reservation hunting, who you hunt with.)

4. How many animals of the various species do you
harvest on average throughout a given year?

5. Why do you hunt? What are all the reasons why you
spend time and energy hunting?

6. (Assuming they listed multiple reasons in Q5) Can
you separate out the primary driving forces motivating
you to hunt? What are the one or two main reasons you
invest time, energy and resources hunting?

7. Can you tell me about the ways that Ojibwe
traditional values factor into your perspectives about
deer, perspectives about hunting or your hunting
practices? What are the things you teach young people
about hunting besides technique?

8. Do LDF hunters learn these things from other Ojibwe
people exclusively? How else are they learning about
hunting? Are outside influences changing the value
systems or practices of LDF hunters? Do you feel that in
another 2 generations, hunters in LDF will still be
operating under the same basic values?

9. What similarities do you see between Indian and non-
Indian hunters? What are the general differences?

10. Tell me about the current relations between Indians
and non-Indians in and around LDF.

11. Do non-Indians hold any common misconceptions
about Indian hunters and their practices? What about the
other way around?

12. How would you characterize your relationship to
deer and other large game?

Interview ice breaker
Community norms

Modern hunting practices

Modern hunting practices,
generosity, family networks

Potential common ground w/ non-
Indian hunters

Distinguishing primary from
secondary purposes- primary
purposes could be different for
Indians and non-Indian hunters

Hunting-related values

Formation and resilience of
values

Perceptions of similarities and
differences

Citizen-level relations

Stereotyping; cross-cultural
understanding

Ojibwe worldview and ecological
knowledge

 

36

Figure 2.1: Map showing location of Lac du Flambeau Reservation in relation to 1837
and 1842 treaty territories where members of Lac du F lambeau Tribe and five other
Ojibwe bands have rights to hunt, fish and gather resources on public lands off their

respective reservations.

 

  
     

Mnnesota

 

Wsconsin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mia E3 1837 Treaty
1842 Treaty
5 r L

 

37

Figure 2.2: Diagram showing primary themes of hunting-related traditional values as
expressed in interviews with Lac du Flambeau hunters. The diagram shows A) the
various lessons about hunting imparted to young people by their relatives, starting with
safety and progressing clockwise through their first harvest ceremony and B) ethical
dimensions of hunting that occur throughout an annual hunting cycle, roughly in the

order they might occur each year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“m, - 'l
.ejai LAwareness :r'"—"—"|
First ... ....... d: I NO. :
Harvest °. 2.“???ng
Ceremony ‘ -
* s Respectfor
: """"" l theWoods
. Sober : v
' I Hunting I .
_l____ ....... .
Harvest :
What a
Presents ‘
Itself Respect for
7 Deer
.. v
Q. . . ‘_l . ‘ .0
‘ Taboos -----------
I EatingYour I
I ClanAnimal |
r...... _..._... ........ _,\ 21:21:32;
Harvesting I Greed& I\I Woundtng
I Deer Near . ' Waste I i anAnimal :

—l

i YourHome | "

38

Figure 2.2 Continued:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

L Awareness _ i- --------
B ........ ; NO !
/'; Beaten
Conservation ? Safety
forFuture ‘ '1 Respect for
Generations
0' \ theWoods
....... ,
Sharing - Hunting I A
Meat __ . . . .I-_ T ----- Respect for
: i Harvest Deer
I
' Only .
, . ...........
‘ I Whats I : I EatingYour I
Processing L30030d_. ' I Clan Animal |
”w taboos "T::.'.'.'.'.'.:.
.e I / I Woundtng
’ o ' — """ ”Ii anAnimal :
H .0 l Greedg. : ........ _.
arvest - W t '
What Earlv /l_ . . 15.1:
Presents . . . _ 59350" r ....... __'
Itself SEIBCIIVIIV : Harvesting '
I Deer Near _
i Your Home |

39

CHAPTER 3

ECOLOGICAL RESULTS OF A TRIBAL FORESTRY SYSTEM:

NORTHERN RED OAK REGENERATION FOLLOWING

TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT IN LAC DU FLAMBEAU

In collaboration with

Jason Karl

40

Abstract

Forest managers typically use shelterwood harvest systems to provide adequate
light for oak seedling establishment, growth and survival. However, other limiting factors
such as understory competition and excessive browsing by high density populations of
forest ungulates such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hinder successful oak
regeneration. We investigated the effects of hand release treatments on northern red oak
(Quercus rubra L.) regeneration through an observational study of the timber stand
improvement work conducted by the Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Tribe in North Central

Wisconsin. Our research was conducted on the LDF Reservation where white-tailed deer

densities have been maintained at low levels (2-3 deer/kmz) for at least the last three

decades. Tribal timber stand improvement practices showed no effect on northern red oak
regeneration, possibly because low deer browse pressure has allowed for widespread oak
regeneration throughout the oak forests on the reservation. Residual pockets (clusters of
trees <3 ha in area) of northern red oak produced fewer but faster growing seedlings than
larger oak stands (>15 ha). For forests supporting higher deer densities than those found
in LDF, this result may indicate that pockets provide better oak regeneration
environments than larger management units because rapid height growth could help

seedlings escape herbivory.

Introduction
Throughout the Northeastem United States (US) and in other regions of the
world, forest managers struggle to regenerate species of oak (Quercus spp.) desired for

wood products, wildlife mast and other ecological, aesthetic and cultural purposes.

41

Suppression of forest fire and increased densities of forest herbivores such as white-tailed
deer (Orlocor'leus virgim'amrs) have contributed to reductions in densities of understory
intolerant species such as northern red oak (Quercus rubrum L.) and increases in
densities of understory tolerant species such as sugar maple (Acer saccltarum Marshall)
(Waller and Alverson 1997).

Shelterwood silvicultural systems are the dominant systems in use on managed
oak forests in the US. (lsebrands and Dickson I994). Shelterwood practices significantly
thin forest overstories to provide ample light to the forest floor needed by oak and other
desired understory intolerant species. However, once “released” into rapid growth
following a heavy shelterwood thinning, oak seedlings face other significant challenges
that often prevent their successful recruitment into the forest canopy. First, in the absence
of fire, mesic understory tolerant species such as sugar maple often occupy a significant
portion of the sub-canopy layers, creating additional sources of shade that inhibit oak
seedling development and survival. Second, early successional species such as trembling
aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx) and big-toothed aspen (Populus grandidenta Michx),
when present, quickly overtop and shade oak seedlings. Third, herbivores such as white-
tailed deer, when present in high densities, create browse pressure that reduces survival
of oak seedlings.

To combat these limiting factors, foresters have experimented with prescribed
burning and the mechanical, chemical and hand removal of understory competition. Each
of these treatments has costs associated with them and research results regarding their
effectiveness have been mixed. For example, Rathfon et a1. (2007) found that removing

competing plants from the understory after disking (mechanically mixing acorns into the

42

soil) increased survival of oak seedlings substantially compared with leaving the
understory intact. Similarly, Ponder (2003) and Lorimer et al. (1994) found that
understory trees were a significant obstacle to oak seedling development and competitor
removal was beneficial. However, Dolan and Parker (2004) found that removal of
understory competition had no effect on the density of oak seedlings. Motsinger (2010)
found only marginal increases in oak seedling growth rates and found marginal decreases
in oak seedling survival following chemical treatment of understory vegetation. Buckley
(1998) suggested that the positive effects on seedling development of competitor removal
may be outweighed by the negative effects of increased susceptibility to frost damage and
herbivory. Because of such mixed results, forest managers implement understory
removal techniques cautiously and require additional evidence regarding effective oak
management strategies.

American Indian tribes in the US. have treated understory competition in
hardwood forests on reservation forests more aggressively in part thanks to funding
support from the US. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Limited funding
is available to tribes to support their forestry programs as part of federal responsibilities
to assist tribes with their land management efforts, including funding for timber stand
improvement activities. One such timber stand improvement treatment is hand release, or
the cutting of competing vegetation with Chainsaws. For more than 25 years, the Lac du
Flambeau (LDF) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians’ forestry program has used
hand release in combination with shelterwood harvests to encourage selected tree species

including northern red oak. Their efforts occur within the context of low white-tailed deer

densities (average densities of 2.6 deer/km2 from 1984-2006, internal tribal management

43

document) maintained through active hunting management (see Chapter 4). We
investigated the effects the LDF Tribe’s timber stand improvement (TSI) efforts have had
on northern red oak seedling development. Our objective was to determine whether 25+
years of TSI treatments have lead to significant increases in the density of northern red
oak seedlings and small overstory trees on LDF Reservation forests by comparing areas

where the tribe has and has not conducted TSI treatments.

Methods
Study Site

Our study site was comprised of the >3 5,000 hectare (ha) Lac du F lambeau (LDF)
Reservation (federally-recognized homeland of the Lac du F lambeau Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa Indians) in North Central Wisconsin (Figure 3.1). Climate is
characterized by a 121-day growing season, average temperatures range from -6.7 to 350

C and average annual precipitation ranges from 76.2 to 86.4 cm (Albert 1995; internal
resource management plan, LDF). Elevation ranges from 442-590m. The most common
physiographic systems in the study area are pitted outwash and ice contact-derived
landform systems. The study area falls within the “Lac Veaux Desert Outwash Plain”
regional ecosystem (Albert 1995). The LDF Reservation has a mix of forest cover types
with aspen types as the most abundant followed by red/white pine, northern hardwoods,
forested wetlands and northern red oak (internal resource management plan, LDF).
Through conversations with local resource managers plus field and GIS-based
reconnaissance we determined that northern red oak grows in a diversity of sites within

our study area ranging from dry, nutrient poor outwash plains alongside northern pin oak

44

(erercus ellipsoidal/is E.J. Hill) to mesic sites dominated by sugar maple and eastern
hemlock [Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr]. In our study area, northern red oak is more
typically a dominant or co-dominant canopy component on intermediate quality sites
associated with ice-contact and outwash plain physiographic systems.

Foresters on the LDF reservation manage northern red oak within stands where it
is dominant or co-dominant in the forest canopy. They also maintain smaller clusters of
northern red oak within stands dominated by other species. For example, it is common for
stands of big-tooth aspen to contain small clusters of oak on tops of small hills and ridges
within pitted outwash and ice-contact terrain. Tribal and state forest managers
intentionally leave these “pockets” of oak intact when bi g—tooth aspen stands are clearcut
to provide a seed source for oak expansion and as important acorn mast for wildlife.
Forest managers also protect pockets of oak for similar reasons along margins of lakes,
roads and wetlands. These residual pockets of oak may constitute significantly different
regeneration environments for oak seedlings. First, because the oak stands have more
forest interior and less edge than pockets it is possible that their light environments differ.
Second, residual pockets and oak stands may represent different forms of deer habitat and
the browse intensity could therefore differ.

Study Design

Our study included two components. First, we investigated the effects of TSI
(specifically, manual control of understory competition) on northern red oak regeneration
following a somewhat recent regeneration thinning (5-15 years prior to our field work).
We refer to this part of the project throughout the rest of the paper as the “recent TSI”

component. In the second portion of our study we investigated some of the oldest

45

examples of TSI work on the LDF Reservation to see if controlling oak competition in
the forest understory had led to significant differences (from a management perspective)
in the overstory composition of tribal forests. We refer to this portion of our study as the
“older TSI” component.

In both components of the study, we chose to focus on intermediate quality sites
where northern red oak often has a competitive advantage over more mesic species
(Lorimer 1992, Buckley et al. 1998) because these sites are becoming the focus of
northern red oak management efforts in the region. We determined site quality by using
ecological habitat types developed by Kotar et a1. (Kotar et a1. 2002). All sites were either
Pinus-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium-Aralia (PArVAa) or Pinus-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium
(PArV) habitat types (Kotar et al. 2002) as determined through field assessment.
RECENT T SI

Our criterion for inclusion of forest stands in the recent TSI portion of our study
were that 1) all stands had been harvested in a similar fashion between 1992 and 2002, 2)
northern red oak was dominant or co-dominant in the forest canopy and 3) stands were of
intermediate site quality within the continuum of sites supporting northern red oak in the
region.

In the summers of 2007 and 2008, we identified stands for the recent TSI field
sampling based on the ecological and management criteria above with the assistance from
tribal foresters and through GIS and field reconnaissance. For the recent TSI component,
we used a balanced 2x2 factorial design where half of our plots had been administered
hand release TSI treatments within the past 10 years by the Lac du Flambeau Forestry

Department and half had undergone no prior TSI work. To explore the influence of

46

M

 

 

for
ptit
are.

1161

18$

01

for
art
1m.
TEE

min

management unit size on oak regeneration, half of the plots were located in oak stands
and half in oak pockets. We defined northern red oak stands as any forest management
units 1) that were 15 hectares (ha) or larger in area, 2) where northern red oak was a
dominant or co-dominant canopy constituent and 3) where northern red oak was a
primary future management goal. We defined “pockets” for the purpose of this study as
areas that 1) were less than 3 ha in area, 2) were dominated by oak in the overstory and 3)
were an intentional part of forest management strategies, even though they were not
typically delineated by local foresters as their own independent management units (i.e.,
stands). The oak pockets either existed as small clusters of trees within larger
management units such as aspen stands or as strips of oak maintained along the margins
of lakes, roads, wetlands and clearcuts. We identified five management units (e. g., oak
stands and aspen stands containing pockets of oak) per treatment group that met these
research criteria.
OLDER T SI

For all forest stands investigated in older TSI, regeneration harvests were
implemented between 1972 and 1982, or at least 25 years prior to our field work. We
focused on contiguous stands (i.e. not pockets) as defined above because we were not
able to identify examples of oak pockets where regeneration harvests had been
implemented in the 1972-1982 timeframe. As with the portion of our study investigating
recent TSI, all stands in this part of the study were dominated or co-dominated by

northern red oak and were of intermediate site quality.

47

Data Collection

Within all of the sampled stands for both recent and older TSI study components,
three random plot locations (Figure 3.2A) were determined in the field, as described by
Spies and Barnes (Spies and Barnes 1985). All plots were at least 50 meters from the
outer edge of their stand to limit potential edge effects. General plot characteristics were
sampled using a 20x20 meter fixed-area plot. We noted all plant species within the plot,
classified the ecological habitat type using the system described by Kotar et al. (Kotar et
a1. 2002), recorded the number and DBH (diameter at breast height, or 137cm) of all
overstory (>1 0.1cm) and understory (2.6-10.00m) trees by species, and described
elements of site physiography including the landform type, slope, position on slope and
aspect.

To document northern red oak seedling and sapling densities, we further sub-
sampled our stands of interest using five circular plots (5m diameter) in fixed locations
within each plot (Figure 3.2B). Within these sub-plots, we counted all northern red oak
seedlings in three size classes (0-50cm; 51cm-l37cm; and > 137cm). These size classes
were chosen because they are easy to implement quickly in the field.

For the portion of the study investigating recent TSI examples, we collected 3
seedlings within each plot to determine northern red oak height growth rates (cm/year).
We were careful to select individuals that established in response to the regeneration
harvest. When no seedlings/trees were present within a given plot, we sampled
individuals from outside the plot, but always within approximately 50 meters.

Investigation of how light availability interacts with deer browse and/or

management unit size to influence oak regeneration was beyond the scope of our study.

48

We chose stands that had ample light for promoting rapid growth ofoak seedlings,
theoretically marginalizing the effects of light in this study. However, because light is a
dominant factor influencing oak seedling growth (Crow 1992, Johnson 1994) and the
light environment in our study plots was highly heterogeneous, we documented light
availability and included it in our statistical analyses to account for influences light may
have on variation in our response variables.

To estimate understory light availability, we recorded canopy openness (i.e., % of
full sun) through hemispherical photograph analysis (Canham 1988). We took canopy
photos in low light conditions using a Nikon CoolpixSOOO digital camera and Nikon UR-
E6 1800 fisheye lens. Canopy photos were processed using Gap Light Analyzer 2.0
software (Frazer et a1. 1999).

Statistical Methods

We conducted all statistical analyses in R (software package version 2.10.1, R

Development Core Team, 2009) using the nlme library for nested, mixed-effects

modeling (Pinheiro and Bates 2000).

Because our experiment included both fixed (TSI and stand size) and random
effects (stands and plots within stands) in a hierarchical arrangement, we used a nested
linear analysis of variance (ANOVA) design with mixed modeling procedures (Zuur et
al. 2009). Our treatment groups for the recent TSI component were 1) pockets of oak
with TSI, 2) pockets of oak with no TSI, 3) stands of oak with TSI and 4) stands of oak
with no TSI. For the older TSI component, our treatment groups were 1) older stands

with TSI and 2) older stands with no TSI. In addition to the treatment group effects, we

also considered six possible covariates (total species observed, basal area (mz/ha) of

49

northern red oak in the large overstory (>25cm DBH), total basal area of all northern red
oaks in the overstory, total basal area for all species, relative density of northern red oak

in the overstory, and number of red oaks in the overstory).

Our ANOVA models were constructed to estimate the significance of observed
variation in a series of dependent variables. For recent TSI, these included: height growth
rate of northern red oak seedlings (cm/ year), density of northern red oak seedlings in
three height classes (<50cm, 50-137cm and >137cm), number of northern red oak stems
in the understory, total stems (all spp.) in the understory and relative density (proportion)
of northern red oak in the understory. For the older TSI component, dependent variables
included density of northern red oak seedlings in three height classes, number of northern
red oak stems in the understory, total stems in the understory, relative density of northern
red oak in the understory, as well as relative density and total basal area of northern red

oak in small overstory (10.1- 25cm DBH).

Because our dependent variables were correlated (Table 3.1), we could not test for
TSI effects on each variable separately for either the recent or older TSI components. We
used principal components analysis (Johnson and Wichem 2002) as a data reduction
technique and to produce new sets of uncorrelated variables for each component related
to northern red oak understory characteristics that could be used to evaluate TSI effects
via separate, nested ANOVAs. After transformation, the dependent variables were
rescaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. Principal components
analysis was applied, and the percent of total variation accounted for by each principal
component was used to determine how many principal components would be retained for

further analysis. We kept all principal components that accounted for more than 5% of

50

the total variability in the dependent variables. Interpretation of each of the retained
principal components was made by examining the loadings of the original variables on

the principal components (Johnson and Wichem 2002).

Both the mixed-effects ANOVA and principal components techniques carry
assumptions regarding the distribution of the input variables. Linear mixed-effects
modeling assumes a linear relationship between the independent and dependent variables
and that the regression residuals are normally distributed (Pinheiro and Bates 2000).
Additionally, ANOVA assumes that the dependent variable is normally distributed within
treatment groups. While principal components analysis does not require multivariate
normality of the input variables, if the variables are not normally distributed, the resulting
components may not be truly independent (Johnson and Wichem 2002). To assess
whether the variables could be considered as normally distributed, we constructed
histograms of each of the six continuous variables and performed transformations as
necessary. We used the Shapiro-Wilk normality test (Royston 1982) to assess whether the

distribution of each transformed variable approximated a normal distribution.

Three of the input variables to the principal components analysis (relative density
of northern red oak in the understory, number of northern red oaks in the small overstory,
and basal area of northern red oak in small overstory) and two of the linear model
covariates (number and relative density of northern red oak in large overstory) did not
approximate normal distributions even after transformation. For the input variables
within the principal components analysis, because we were using this technique for data
reduction and to achieve a set of variables that were relatively independent, having

slightly correlated principal components was acceptable. With regard to the covariates

51

used in the ANOVA, the result of not meeting the normality assumptions may be an F
statistic that is too small (Lindman 1974) increasing the possibility of type I error. We
elected, however, to keep these variables because they represent oaks in the large
overstory and are related to both seed production and understory shade which influence

growth of red oaks in the understory.

To test for differences between treatment groups, we used separate, hierarchical
ANOVAs for each principal component (PC). The initial ANOVA model for each PC
included all five covariates. TSI application (yes or no) and stand size (pockets vs.
stands, for the recent TSI component only) were the ANOVA fixed effects. For each
response variable, we constructed multiple models with different combinations of the
fixed effects, covariates and selected the model with the lowest Akaike Information
Criteria (AIC, Bumham and Anderson, 2002). The only two-way interaction considered
was between TSI and stand size. In each case, the best model included the main fixed-
effects of TSI and stand size (for experiment 1). In the ANOVA results, we not only
looked at the TSI and stand size effects, but also interpreted how significant covariates

might be influencing the observed patterns.

For the recent TSI component, to test for differences between treatment groups
(where each management unit sizezTSI combination was considered a treatment group),
we used Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (Tukey 1953). Tukey’s HSD
compares pairs of treatment group means and tests for pair-wise differences while
correcting for the inflation of type I error rate that occurs when multiple comparisons are
made (Gotelli and Ellison 2004). We used graphs of the response variables within each of

our four treatment groups to help interpret the results of the analyses of variance.

52

Results

Recent T S]

Using the principal components analysis, we reduced the seven dependent
variables in our investigation of recent TSI work to three independent PCs which
accounted for 86.70% of the variability observed in the dependent variables (Table 3.2).
Loadings of the original variables on the PCs were used to interpret the meaning of each
component (Table 3.3). PC 1 represents overall density of understory-sized individuals of
all species because it loaded highly for northern red oak stems, total stems and relative
density of northern red oak in the understory. PC2 represents the density of medium (50-
137cm) and tall (137cm+) seedlings in the groundcover layer because it loaded highly for
these two seedling height classes. PC3 represents a contrast between seedling growth rate
and density of small (< 50cm) groundcover stems because it loaded highly/negatively for
density of small seedlings and hi ghly/positively for seedling height grth rate. Results
from our ANOVA analyses of recent TSI efforts are reported in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.3.
Our ANOVA for understory density (PCl) indicated that canopy openness (P<0.0001;
F=22.59) and relative density of northern red oak in the small overstory size class
(P=0.02; F=5.45) were significant covariates where more open stands and stands with
higher densities of small overstory oaks were associated with higher understory stem
density values. Our ANOVA for medium to tall seedlings (PC2) indicated a marginally
significant main effect for stand size where residual pockets of oak had higher densities
of these medium to tall seedlings as compared to larger stands (P=0.06; F=4.0l , Figure
3.33). Significant covariates included canopy openness (P=0.001; F=12.82) and relative

density of large overstory-sized northern red oaks (P=0.07; F=3.49). As with PC2, our

53

ANOVA contrasting growth rate vs. small seedling density (PC3) also indicated a main
effect for stand size (P=0.007; F=9.55, Figure 3.3 C) and significant covariates of canopy
openness (P=0.002; F=IO.35) and relative density of large overstory-sized northern red
oak (P=0.04; F=4.3 8). The main effect for stand size indicates that larger oak stands
produced more small seedlings compared to residual pockets but that seedlings grow

more slowly in the larger stands than in pockets.

Older T SI

Using the principal components analysis, we were able to reduce the eight
dependent variables from our investigation of older TSI work to four independent PCs
that accounted for 93.55% of the variability observed in the dependent variables (Table

3.2).

Loadings of the original variables on the PCs were used to interpret the meaning
of each component and are reported in Table 3.3. Principal Component 1 represents an
axis contrasting density of northern red oak in the groundcover and understory layers
(three seedling variables plus one understory variable, all with moderate/positive
loadings) with basal area of northern red oak in the small overstory (moderate/negative
loading). PC2 loaded positively on all the original variables with highest loadings for
northern red oak variables and represents the abundance of northern red oak in the
groundcover and sub-canopy layers. PC3 loaded positively for understory variables
including total density of stems (all species) in the understory, density of northern red oak
stems in the understory and relative density of northern red oak in the understory. It

loaded negatively for density of northern red oak seedlings in the three groundcover size

54

classes, with the highest loading for medium height seedlings. This component was
interpreted as an axis showing the tradeoffs between sub-canopy density and groundcover
density. PC4 loaded highly and positively for total stems in the understory and
represented overall density of understory-sized individuals of all species (i.e., “understory

density”).

Results from our ANOVA analyses of older TSI efforts are reported in Table 3.4
and Figure 3.4. Our ANOVA for seedling and sapling vs. sub-canopy oaks (PCl)
showed no significant main effect of TSI but indicated three highly significant covariates,
namely total (all species) basal area within the large overstory (P<0.0001; F =l93.12),
number of large overstory-sized northern red oaks (P<0.0001; F=66.47) and total species
(woody and herbaceous) encountered in the sampling plots (P<0.0001; F=598.90). Our
ANOVA for abundance of northern red oak in the groundcover and sub-canopy layers
(PC2) showed significant relationships for the same three covariates as PCl, though less
significant and with far smaller F-values. Our axis contrasting sub-canopy density and
groundcover density (PC3) had non-significant results for all variables. For understory
density (PC4), total basal area (all species) within the large overstory was a significant
covariate (P<0.001; F=68. l 5) as was the number of northern red oak in the large

overstory (P=0.06; F=4.79).

Discusssion

Our goal in this study was to determine whether 25+ years of TSI treatments have
led to significant increases in the density of northern red oak seedlings and small

overstory trees on LDF Reservation forests. We were unable to detect a TSI effect in any

55

of the ANOVAs of our principal components. We also ran ANOVAs on each of the
original response variables as an additional way of exploring and analyzing our data, and
again found no TSI effect.

There are a few possible explanations for why we did not detect a TSI effect in
any of our analyses. First, northern red oak could be regenerating well everywhere on the
LDF Reservation where densities of white-tailed deer are consistently maintained at low
levels, limiting the potential for TSI treatment effects. This explanation is compelling
considering the results from our work comparing oak development on tribal and state
forests reported in Chapter 4. In this related study reported in Chapter 4, we found
northern red oak was regenerating very well on LDF stands where no TSI treatments had
ever been implemented. Seedling survival was nearly threefold greater in tribal stands
than state stands and more than eightfold greater in tribal pockets than state pockets.

A second possible explanation is that TSI treatments in LDF could have limited or
no benefits for northern red oak because bi gtooth and trembling aspen were sprouting
back quickly after each TSI treatment and overtopping oak seedlings. A third possibility
is that TSI work could be making a significant difference for northern red oak
development and growth in the groundcover and sub—canopy of LDF forests, but our
methods and/or sample size precluded us from detecting a TSI effect.

Recent T SI

Our analysis of recent TSI treatments indicated that stand size mattered for
northern red oak seedlings. There were lower densities of small seedlings and higher
densities of medium-tall seedlings growing in residual pockets vs. larger oak stands.

Seedling height growth rates were also higher in pockets than stands. These results are

56

explained by the fact that the oak pockets had more light penetrating into their
understories than stands (F=1 3.45, P=0.0019 based on a separate ANOVA of canopy
openness not reported in results section). The importance of light in this study is also
evident in the fact that canopy openness was an important covariate in ANOVAs for all
three PCs. These results reinforce the importance of light for northern red oak seedling
development and survival reported by several other authors (e. g., McGee 1968, Sander

1990, Pacala et al. 1994, Finzi and Canham 2000).
Older T SI

Total number of species (woody and herbaceous) encountered in our sampling
plots was an important covariate in our analysis of seedling and sapling vs. sub-canopy
oaks (PCI) and abundance of northern red oak in the groundcover and sub-canopy layers
(PC2). This result may be a reflection of site differences (e.g., soil fertility, soil moisture
availability and drainage, microclimate and physiography) across the stands we sampled.
The forest ecosystems in our study area are very heterogeneous, and although we
attempted to limit our investigation to intermediate quality sites, there were still
potentially significant site differences across the various forest units we sampled. These
site differences could influence species richness (Barnes et al. 1998), making the total

number of species encountered an important covariate.

Management Recommendations

Forest managers have struggled to regenerate northern red oak and other

economically and ecologically important hardwood species for decades. More research is

57

needed on the effects of manual understory competition control (i.e., hardwood hand
release) on northern red oak regeneration as well as the regeneration of other hardwoods
before managers invest or de-invest in this technique. Nevertheless, on the LDF
Reservation, where white-tailed deer herbivory does not appear to be a significant
limiting factor for northern red oak seedlings (see Chapter 4), our results did not Show a
significant TSI (hardwood hand release) effect. Although it is possible that our sample
size and study design may have caused us to miss a significant TSI effect, based on
results from our study reported in Chapter 4, there appear to be plenty of large red oak
seedlings in the reservations’ forests (also see raw data averages, Table 3.6). Therefore,
the LDF Tribe might consider directing more of its TSI efforts into recovering other
species that are part of their TSI program. The tribe also uses TSI treatments to recover
Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) and red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) on their
reservation forest. Some positive effects of understory competition control have been
reported for these pine species; however treatments may require careful timing to
promote pine regeneration (Pitt et al. 2009).

Furthermore, the use of prescribed burning could provide a productive alternative
to hand release. Besides favoring oak and controlling competition by species of aspen and
understory-tolerant hardwoods (Abrams 1996, 2005), controlled burns could also
stimulate growth of understory forbs (Cook et al. 2008, Phillips and Waldrop 2008) that
have ecological values as well as cultural values to the LDF Tribe. A combination of
thinning and prescribed burning could also provide significant benefits in central
hardwood forest (Albrecht and McCarthy 2006) and is a recommended management

alternative.

58

In our study, residual pockets of northern red oak produced fewer but faster
growing seedlings than larger oak stands. Differences in growth rates were likely
attributable to greater amounts of understory light found in the residual pockets. For
forests supporting higher deer densities than those found in LDF, this result may indicate
an oak regeneration advantage in oak pockets versus larger oak management units. Rapid
height growth could help seedlings escape herbivory in areas where forest herbivores are
a key limiting factor. Additional research is needed exploring the effects of understory

competitor removal along deer density or herbivory intensity gradients.

59

Table 3.1: Correlation matrix for dependant variables in recent Timber Stand
Improvement (TSI) portion of study and older TSI portion. All seedling densities and
height growth rates are for northern red oak only. Abbreviations: R0 = northern red oak;

US = understory; BA = basal area (mz/ha); GR = height growth rate; small OS is small

overstory (10.1-25cm DBH).

 

seedling
seedling density seedling RO total
Recent TSI seedling density 50- density stems in stems in
matrix GR <50cm 137cm >137cm the US US
seedling GR
(cm/yr) 1.000
seedling
density
<500m -0. 1953 1.000

(stems/ha)

 

seedling

density 50-
137cm 0.0629 0.2220 1.000

(stems/ha)

seedling

density
>137cm 0.1634 -0.l685 0.6211 1.000

(stems/ha)

RO stems in
US(stems/ha)

total stems in

USallspp. -0.1903 -0.0419 0.0268 0.1512 0.4386 1.000
(stems/ha)

0.0102 -0.1850 -0.0632 0.1853 1.000

 

60

Table 3.1 Continued:

 

Older TSI
matrix
seedling
density
<50cm

seedling
density 50-
137cm

seedling
density
>137cm

relative
density of
R0 in US

R0 in small
08
(stems/ha)

relative
density of
R0 in small
OS

RO BA in
small OS

seedling
densuy
<50cm

1.000

0.7734

0.7615

0.4398

-0.0001

-0.0363

-0.4080

seedling

density

50-

137cm

1.000

0.9039

0.3352

-0. l 960

c.0047

-0.4794

seedling
density
>137cm

1.000

0.4189

-0.2232

-0.03 78

-0.4955

relative

density R0 in
of RO small
in US OS

1.000

-0.0782 1.000

-0.3580 0.7511

-0.3728 0.8642

relative
denshy
R0 in R0 BA
small in small
OS OS

1.000

0.6803 1.000

 

61

Table 3.2: Importance of principal components within recent TSI and older TSI
components of the study. Only principal components accounting for more than 5% ofthe

total variance are shown.

 

 

 

 

Recent TSI PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
Perfem Of 32.31% 23.65% 18.76%
Varrance
Cumulative
. 32.21% 55.85% 74.62%
Varrance
Stanfaid 1.4824 1.2702 1.1315
Devratron
Older TSI PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4
Perfem 0f 40.49% 24.46% 20.69% 8.32%
Varrance
cumuIaIwe 40.49% 64.95% 85.64% 93.96%
Proportion
Sta‘fafd 1.8519 1.4396 1.3239 0.8395
Devratron

 

62

Table 3.3: Principal component (PC) loadings for response variables in recent TSI and
older TSI components of the study. Growth rates are height (cm) growth per year.
Seedling variables represent densities (number of stems/ha). Abbreviations: R0 =
northern red oak; US = understory; numROlt25 = number of R0 in small understory

(10.1-25cm DBH); RdensROlt25 = relative density of R0 in small overstory; ROBA1t25

= basal area (mII/ha) of R0 in small overstory.

 

 

 

 

Recent TSI PC 1 PC 2 PC 3

growth rate 0.188 0.656

0-50cm seedlings -0.232 -0.630

50-137cm 0.701 -0.225

seedlings

>137cm 0.199 0.677

seedlings

RO stems in US 0.628 0.252

total US stems 3.740 —0.342

RO relative 0.607 0.388

density in US

Older TSI PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4

O-SOcm seedlings 0.383 0.306 -0.190 0.104
50-137cm 0.403 0.204 -0.385

seedlings

>137cm 0.418 0.228 -0.242 0.321

seedlings

RO stems in US 0.200 0.346 0.525 -0.251
total US stems 0.170 0.477 0.807
RO relative 0.357 0.224 0.402 -0.331
density in US

numROlt25 -0.286 0.536 -0.l73
RdensROlt25 -0.282 0.449 -0.291 0.130
ROBAlt25 -0.426 0.3 53 -0.124

 

63

Table 3.4: ANOVA results for recent TSI component of the study. Numbers are F values

with p-value in parentheses. Variable abbreviations are ROBAgt25 = northern red oak

basal area in large overstory (>25cm DBH), ROBAlt25 = northern red oak basal area in

small overstory (10.1-25cm DBH), RdensROlt25 = relative density (proportion) of

northern red oak in small overstory, RdensROgt25 = relative density of northern red oak

in large overstory, totalBA = total stand basal area (mz/ha).

 

 

PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
Intercept 0.0682 (0.7955) 0.0180 (0.8942) 0.1728 (0.6801)
TSI 1.9043 (0.1866) 0.7311 (0.4044) 0.1617 (0.6926)
Stand size 0.4982 (0.4904) 4.0119 (0.0614) 9.5510 (0.0066)
Stand size * rsr 3.4535 (0.0816)
Canopy Openness 22.5890 (<0.0001) 12.8211 (0.0011) 10.3522 (0.0027)

ROBAgt25 2.6984 (0.1094)
ROBAlt25 0.1952 (0.6614)
RdensROlt25 5.4466 (0.0255)
RdensROgt25

TotalBA

2.7423 (0.1069)
1.7607 (0.1934)
3.4964 (0.0701)
2.3757 (0.1325)

0.0001 (0.9986)

4.3762 (0.0436)

 

64

Table 3.5: ANOVA results for older TSI component of the study. Numbers are F-values

with p-values in parentheses. Principal component 3 was not significant for TSI or any

covariate and is not reported here. Variable abbreviations are: totalBAgt25 = total (all

spp.) basal area (mz/ha) in large overstory (10.1-25cm DBH), numROgt25 = number of

northern red oak stems in large overstory, Total Spp = total number of Species

encountered/plot, RdensROgt25 = relative density (proportion) of northern red oak in

large overstory, ROBAgt25 = basal area of northern red oak in large overstory.

 

 

PC 1 PC 2 PC 4
Intercept 0.0018 (0.9668) 0.0722 (0.7950) 0.1805 (0.6821)
TSI 0.2882 (0.6199) 1.7721 (0.2539) 0.1580 (0.7113)
TotalBAgt25 193.1328 6.3421 (0.0359) 68.1490 (<0.0001)
(<0.0001)
numROgt25 66.4748 (<0.0001) 4.7878 (0.0601)
Total Spp. 598.9001 11.0223 (0.0105)
(<0.0001)
RdensROgt25 14.0817 (0.0056)
ROBAgt25 3.5128 (0.0978)

 

65

Table 3.6: Median values (and ranges) for untransformed response variables.

 

 

 

 

Pockets w/ Stands w/ TSI Pockets No Stands No

Recent TSI TSI TSI
% Campy 22.2 15.45 25.1 13.7
Openness (l4.0-3l.3) (11.22-21.13) (14.6-45.5) (10.3 - 19.1)
Height Growth 30.4 15.74 31.2 14.7
Rate (cm/year) (7.6 - 57.7) (7.21 - 49.11) (6.2 — 82.3) (5.9 - 52.4)
A density 3,158 4,381 3,362 5,298
(stems/ha) (1324 - 10188) (2038-14162) (1223 - 8253) (2955-15486)
B density 1,834 1,426 1,324 1,223
(stems/ha) (917 - 4177) (0 - 2852) (917 - 2343) (0 - 2140)
C density 815 509 713 204
(stems/ha) (102 - 1732) (0 - 1732) (0 - 1732) (0 - 2547)
Older TSI NO TSI
A density 6,215 3,770
(stems/ha) (2038-14162) (0 - 16403)

. 1,426 204
B den—PW (0 - 2853) (O - 7234)

. 306 102
C dens‘ty (0 - 713) (0 - 1936)

 

66

Figure 3.1: Map of Lac du Flambeau Reservation and surrounding region.

 

 

“’ NORTH
Minnesota .- , < . , ' i»
I Michigan 7

LAC DU FLAMBEAU} - . _. Lg ‘

RESERVATION _. ..
Wisconsin
0 60 {180 240 Kttoneters
LL 1 1 1 1L 1 lgl

 

 

 

67

Figure 3.2: Diagram showing A) experimental design for younger Timber Stand

Improvement study component and B) vegetation sampling design.

 

. i ’1

O

 

81 STANDS

 

3 PLOTS SUB-SAMPLED
WITHIN ALL POCKETS

 

 

O

RDAK POCKETS |

 

 

 

[ OAK STANDS ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20m

 

 

...o‘..... ....C.O....
{Sm} s: 1
'9. I .0. ..'1.A.j‘.

 

—- OVERSTORYIUNDERSTORY
VEGETATION PLOTS

---- GROUNDCOVER VEGETATION
SUB-PLOTS & CANOPY
PHOTO POINTS

 

68

 

Figure 3.3: Mean values for the following principal components from recent TSI portion
of study: A) PC] , overall density of understory-sized individuals of all species; B) PC2,

density of medium (50-137cm) and tall (l37cm+) seedlings in the groundcover layer; C)
PC3, representing a contrast between seedling growth rate and density of small (< 50cm)
groundcover stems. For associated factor loadings, see Table 3.3. Error bars represent +/-

one standard error.

A) Principal Component 1

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

-0.2

-O.4
-0.6 -- 16%; —- Pockets

 

Component Score
0

 

-03 + Stands ‘L

TSI No T81

69

Figure 3.3 Continued:

B)

Component Score

C)

Component Score

Principal Component 2

1.5

 

-0.5 T
. - -—l- - Pockets

+ Stands

 

 

TSI No TSI

Principal Component 3

15 E..." - ,..- _ - -_ _.-___..._.,_... ..... _.-._., _ ..._- ”_-_--. -_-_..- -_ - -. .. - -_...-..--..-.._ ....__-._--.. ..,
- ~l- - Pockets
+ Stands 3;}

0.5 !

 

70

Figure 3.4: Mean values and standard errors for the older TSI portion of this study. Error
bars represent +/- one standard error.

 

 

 

 

 

g 0.5 . i '
E E73 .1 ITSI
g 0 ( 1 a ONoTSI
8 f t t
8 -0.5 I t

1 2 3 4

Principal Components

71

CHAPTER 4

A CROSS-BOUNDARY COMPARISON OF FOREST REGENERATION

FOLLOWING TRIBAL AND STATE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

In collaboration with

Jason Karl

72

Abstract

Wild ungulates such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are highly
valued wildlife assets that provide subsistence, economic and cultural benefits to hunters
and rural communities. Yet, high density populations of these herbivores can contribute
significantly to regeneration failures in a wide range of forest types. Pre-European

settlement white-tailed deer densities were estimated to have been approximately 2-4

2 . . . .
deer/km , and s1m11ar dens1t1es have been recommended to balance contemporary forest

regeneration and wildlife objectives.

We studied northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) regeneration on neighboring
tribal and state forests where socio-cultural differences have led to distinct hunting
management practices and subsequent differences in wildlife-plant interactions. Tribes
such as the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa have kept deer populations relatively low on

reservation lands through active hunting practices. We used an observational study

approach to compare in situ ungulate herbivory under low (2-3 deer/kmz) and high (>10

2 . . . . . .
deer/km ) populat1on dens1t1es. We measured northern red oak regeneratron on tribal and

state forests in two management unit types: contiguous stands of oak >15 ha in area and
small residual “pockets” of oak < 3 ha left by foresters as a source of seed and wildlife
mast. Herbivory levels were significantly higher on state forests than tribal forests and
were closely correlated with the density of taller seedlings, particularly in oak pockets. 1f
herbivory levels are too high, even with adequate light, our results suggest that seedlings

may not survive in densities sufficient to maintain northern red oak as a co-dominant

. . . . . 2
specres in mixed forests. However, when deer dens1t1es are kept at 2-4 deer/km , our

73

results suggest that northern red oak seedlings can survive beyond browseable heights in
sufficient numbers for maintaining oak. Tribal lands can provide contemporary examples
of longstanding low to intermediate deer densities and sustainable deer-forest

relationships.

Introduction

Protecting the world’s forests is becoming progressively challenging. Forests not
immediately in danger of deforestation face a long list of threats to their functional
integrity including elevated levels of herbivory by high density populations of ungulates
and other herbivores. Forest impacts attributable to excessive herbivory include biotic
impoverishment and homogenization (Rooney et a1. 2004) and regeneration failures in
ecologically and economically important tree species.

Oak species (Quercus spp.) are highly valued for timber products and as a major
food source for wildlife (McShea and Healy 2003). They also have aesthetic, cultural and
ecological significance throughout the Eastern United States (US) and other temperate
regions of the world (lsebrands and Dickson 1994). Although oaks remain a common
canopy component within a variety of mixed forest types, understory oak seedlings for
the last several decades have been failing to survive and transition to the overstory
canopy at sufficient rates to maintain their dominant and co-dominant status (Lorimer
1992, Palmer et a1. 2004). A long list of potentially interacting factors including fire
suppression, excessive herbivory, damage by forest insects and pathogens, understory
competition and inadequate light resources have been linked to the decline of oak forests

(Abrams 2003, Lorimer 2003), but clear understanding of these underlying issues and

74

proven strategies for oak forest management remain elusive (Crow 1988, 1992, Lorimer
2003)

White-tailed deer (Odocoz'leus virginianus) and other large ungulates have been
implicated for regeneration failures in oaks and other tree species (Gill 1992, Cote et al.
2004, Wisdom et al. 2006). When deer populations reach high densities, their herbivory
has been shown to severely affect forest regeneration (Frelich and Lorimer 1985, Gill
1992, Rooney and Waller 2003) and alter the structure and composition of forests
(Augustine and McNaughton 1998, Rooney and Waller 2003, Tremblay et a1. 2007). Yet,
white-tailed deer are highly regarded for their subsistence, recreational, and cultural
values, and spending associated with recreational hunting contributes significantly to
rural economies. For example, in 2006, approximately $4.6 billion was spent on trip-
related expenditures (e. g., lodging, food, guide fees, etc.) by big game hunters in the US.
(US. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Forest and wildlife managers must therefore
balance the trade-offs between a significant wildlife asset and possible ecological and
economic threats posed by high deer densities.

Wildlife managers choose their management strategies based in part on the
hunting culture and other cultural contexts of their constituent societies. As
McCorquodale (1997) stated, “cultural contexts are extremely important aspects of
hunting management; they mandate objectives and constraints within which wildlife
managers must operate.” On American Indian reservations where hunting is primarily a
subsistence activity and per capita consumption of wild game by tribal citizens is very
high, hunting is used as a primary tool for controlling game populations. By contrast, on

public forestlands in the US, where the majority of hunters are pursuing recreation more

75

than harvesting meat, the use ofhunting to control wildlife populations such as white-
tailed deer is declining (Brown et al. 2000).

Because American Indian hunters are meat-focused and readily harvest both
antlered and antlerless deer, hunting pressure tends to be higher and deer populations
lower on Indian reservations. This trend has been documented, for example, in the State
of Wisconsin (DeBoer 1947, Alverson et al. 1988, Rooney et al. 2000). Considering the
aforementioned linkages between deer herbivory and forest development, deer density
differences across tribal and public lands could lead to important differences for forest
ecosystems. To date, we know of no research that has explicitly compared forest
development in light of differential deer densities following long term tribal and public
resource management systems.

In the present study, we investigated the effects of management-induced
differences in deer densities on northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) seedling growth and
survival. Our study was implemented on adjacent tribal and state forestlands in North
Central Wisconsin where differing approaches to white-tailed deer management have led
to distinctly different deer population densities for the last half century or longer (DeBoer
1947, Alverson et al. 198 8, Rooney et a1. 2000). Deer move back and forth across this
management boundary, but due to greater hunting pressure, average deer densities are
significantly lower on tribal lands. Our specific research objective was to determine the
influence management regime (i.e., tribal vs. state natural resource management -
approaches), management unit size and/or interactions between these two factors have on

the growth and survival of northern red oak seedlings.

76

Methods

Study Site '

Forest Ecosystems

Our study site was comprised of the >3 5,000 hectare (ha) Lac du Flambeau (LDF)
Reservation (federally-recognized homeland of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians) and the >95,000 ha Northern Highland - American Legion
State Forest (NH-AL) in North Central Wisconsin (Figure 4.1). Forest ecosystems on the
LDF Reservation and NH-AL have similar bio-physical conditions. Climate in both
areas is characterized by a 12l-day growing season, average temperatures range from -
6.7 to 35° C and average annual precipitation ranges from 76.2 to 86.4 cm (Albert 1995).
Elevation ranges from 442-590m. The most common physiographic systems in both
sections of the study area are pitted outwash and ice contact-derived landform systems.
The study area falls within one regional ecosystem called the “Lac Veaux Desert
Outwash Plain” (Albert 1995). The NH-AL and LDF Reservation have a similar mix of
forest cover types with aspen types as the most abundant followed by red/white pine
followed by northern hardwoods, forested wetlands and northern red oak (WDNR 2005).

Through conversations with local resource managers plus field and GIS-based
reconnaissance we determined that northern red oak grows in a diversity of sites within
our study area ranging from dry, nutrient poor outwash plains alongside northern pin oak
(Quercus ellipsoidalis E.J. Hill) to mesic sites dominated by sugar maple (Acer
saccharum Marshall) and eastern hemlock [Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr]. In our study

area, northern red oak is more typically a dominant or co-dominant canopy component on

77

intermediate quality sites associated with ice-contact and outwash plain physiographic
systems.
Forest and Wildlife Management

There are noteworthy differences and similarities between natural resource
management priorities on the LDF Reservation and the NH-AL; differences that are
rooted in socio-cultural distinctions between state forest constituents and tribal citizens.
Both land areas are managed to maintain ecosystem health and conserve biological
diversity. However, on the NH-AL, managers also prioritize providing recreation
opportunities for Wisconsin citizens, whereas on the LDF Reservation, subsistence
hunting and gathering, preservation of culturally important plant and animal species and
protection of culturally-significant sites are important management priorities. The state
forest serves as a public resource for all the people of the State of Wisconsin, whereas
forests on the LDF Reservation are managed to meet the needs of the LDF Tribe and its
approximately 3,100 enrolled citizens. The tribe has to balance forest preservation with
community development needs that accompany their rapidly growing reservation
population, but on the NH-AL, forestland development is strictly limited.

Northern red oak is managed for similar purposes and using similar silvicultural
techniques on tribal and state forests. Oak is managed as a natural component of mixed
deciduous forests in the region and acorn mast is a valued food for bear, deer, wild turkey
and other wildlife. Oak also serves as an important timber species and harvests provide
critical revenue for tribal and state programs. Shelterwood-style harvests, where a large
proportion of the overstory is removed in multiple stages, are the most common

technique used by local foresters to regenerate northern red oak.

78

In our study area, foresters manage northern red oak within forest stands where it
is dominant or co-dominant in the forest canopy. They also maintain smaller clusters of
northern red oak within stands dominated by other species. For example, it is common for
stands of big-tooth aspen (Populus grandidentata Michx) to contain small clusters of oak
on tops of small hills and ridges within pitted outwash and ice-contact terrain. Tribal and
state forest managers intentionally leave these “pockets” of oak intact when big-tooth
aspen stands are clearcut to provide a seed source for oak expansion and as important
acorn mast for wildlife. Forest managers also protect pockets of oak for similar reasons
along margins of lakes, roads and wetlands. These residual pockets of oak may constitute
significantly different regeneration environments for oak seedlings. First, because the oak
stands have more forest interior and less edge than pockets it is possible that their light
environments differ. Second, residual pockets and oak stands may represent different
forms of deer habitat and the browse intensity could therefore differ.

Hunting Management

White-tailed deer hunting is a popular recreational activity on the NH-AL,
drawing hunters from around the state during relatively short hunting seasons in the fall
and winter. For LDF tribal citizens, white-tailed deer is perhaps the most important
subsistence resource (Reo, unpublished data) and they consume deer meat extensively.
Lac du F lambeau tribal citizens can hunt deer year-round on the reservation, creating
extensive hunting pressure on white-tailed deer. As a result, average deer densities on the
reservation are consistently and significantly lower than on the NH-AL. Based on annual

pellet count surveys, tribal wildlife managers have determined that white-tailed deer

densities on the LDF Reservation averaged 2.6 deer/km2 from 1984 through 2006 (LDF

79

I\I

integrated resource management plan, internal document). Over the same time period,

based on data derived from Sex-Age-Kill methodologies, deer densities averaged 10.3

deer/km2 in deer management units encompassing the NH-AL (unpublished data,

WDNR).

Field Methods

In the summers of 2007 and 2008, with the assistance of tribal and state foresters,
we identified stands for field sampling if they met the following criteria: 1) northern red
oak was dominant or co-dominant in the forest canopy; 2) a regeneration harvest (i.e.,
thinned sufficiently to stimulate rapid seedling growth or “release”) had been
implemented in the last 5-15 years; 3) they were of intermediate site quality within the
continuum of sites supporting northern red oak in the region. The first two criteria were
established to limit our inquiry to sites where the potential for regeneration was not
limited by either seed source or light availability. We chose to focus on intermediate
quality sites where northern red oak often has a competitive advantage over more mesic
species (Lorimer 1992, Buckley et a1. 1998) because these sites are becoming the focus of
northern red oak management efforts in the region. We determined site quality by using
ecological habitat types developed by Kotar et al. (Kotar et a1. 2002). All sites were either
Pinus-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium-Aralia (PArVAa) or Pinus-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium
(PArV) habitat types (Kotar et a1. 2002) as determined through field assessment.

We used a balanced 2x2 factorial design with half of our plots on state and half on
tribal forests. Within each management regime (i.e., tribal and state), half of the plots
were located in oak stands and half in oak pockets. We defined northern red oak stands as

any forest stand 1) that was 15 hectares (ha) or larger in area, 2) where northern red oak

80

was a dominant or co-dominant canopy constituent and 3) where northern red oak was a
primary future management goal. We defined “pockets” for the purpose of this study as
areas that 1) were less than 3 ha in area, 2) were dominated by oak in the overstory and 3)
were an intentional part of forest management strategies, even though they were not
typically delineated by local foresters as their own independent management units (i.e.,
stands). The oak pockets either existed as small clusters of trees within larger
management units such as aspen stands or as strips of oak maintained along the margins
of lakes, roads, wetlands and clearcuts. We identified five management units (e.g., oak
stands and aspen stands containing pockets of oak) per treatment group that met these
research criteria.

Within selected forest stands, three random plot locations were determined in the
field, as described by Spies and Barnes (Spies and Barnes 1985). A11 plots were at least
50 meters from the outer edge of their stand to limit potential edge effects. When
sampling oak pockets, for stands that contained multiple pockets of oak, we dispersed our
plots among three different pockets. When sampling small elongated strips of oak along
margins of lakes, roads, wetlands and clearcuts, we distributed our three plots such that
they were never closer than 50 meters from one another. General plot characteristics were
sampled using a 20x20 meter fixed-area plot. We noted all plant species within the plot,
classified the ecological habitat type using the system described by Kotar et al. (Kotar et
al. 2002), recorded the number and DBH (diameter at breast height, or 137cm) of all
overstory (>10.1cm) and understory (2.6-10.0cm) trees by species, and described
elements of site physiography including the landform type, slope, position on slope and

aspect.

81

To document northern red oak seedling and sapling densities, we filrther sub-
sampled our stands of interest using five circular plots (5m diameter) in fixed locations
within each plot (for plot arrangements and other details of sampling design, see Figure
4.5). Within these sub-plots, we counted all northern red oak seedlings in three height
classes: O-SOcm; 51cm-137 cm; and >137 cm. These size classes were chosen because
they are easy to implement quickly in the field. We also harvested 3 seedlings within
each plot to determine northern red oak growth rates (i.e., height grth per year). We
were careful to select individuals that established in response to the most recent
regeneration harvest or heavy thinning. When no seedlings were present within a given
plot, we collected individuals from outside the plot, but always within approximately 50
meters.

To estimate deer browse pressure, we modified the sugar-maple-browse—index
method of Frelich and Lorimer (Frelich and Lorimer 1985) for use with northern red oak.
The sugar maple browse index quantifies browse intensity by establishing a ratio of
seedlings browsed to total number of seedlings counted where only seedlings 30-200cm
in height with current growing season terminal shoot herbivory are tallied as “browsed.”
Seedlings below 30cm in height are ignored to exclude small mammal herbivory from the
analyses. We modified this index by limiting our counts to a slightly different size range
to maintain consistency with our vegetation sampling size classes (i.e., we counted
browse on seedlings in the 51-137cm and >137cm height classes). Also, we counted
seedlings with deer browse on terminal shoots and lateral shots/branches rather than just
terminal shoots because of differences in how maples and oaks respond to herbivory. We

recorded the proportion of northern red oak seedlings that were browsed vs. un-browsed

82

along a 240m x 1.5m transect in a pattern that concentrated our sampling near plot
locations. The deer component of our study was conducted without using fenced
enclosures or exclosures because we were interested in comparing in situ deer herbivory
on tribal and state forests.

Investigation of how light availability interacts with deer browse and/or
management unit size to influence oak regeneration was beyond the scope of our study.
We chose stands that had ample light for promoting rapid growth of oak seedlings,
theoretically marginalizing the effects of light in this study. However, because light is a
dominant factor influencing oak seedling growth (Crow 1992, Johnson 1994) and the
light environment in our study plots was highly heterogeneous, we documented light
availability and included it in our statistical analyses to account for influences light may
have on variation in our response variables.

To estimate understory light availability, we recorded canopy openness (i.e., % of
full sun) through hemispherical photograph analysis (Canham 1988). We took canopy
photos in low light conditions using a Nikon Coolpix5000 digital camera and Nikon UR-
E6 1800 fisheye lens. Canopy photos were processed using Gap Light Analyzer 2.0
software (Frazer et a1. 1999).

Quantitative Analyses

To examine differences in northern red oak seedling development and stand
structure due to management regime and stand size, we used linear discriminant analysis
(Johnson and Wichem 2002) and linear mixed-effects analysis of variance (Zuur et al.
2009). Both of these techniques carry assumptions regarding the distribution of the input

variables. Linear discriminant analysis assumes that the input variables can be described

83

by a multivariate normal distribution (Johnson and Wichem 2002). Linear mixed-effects
modeling assumes a linear relationship between the independent and dependent variables
and that the regression residuals are normally distributed (Pinheiro and Bates 2000).
Additionally, ANOVA assumes that the dependent variable is normally distributed within
treatment groups. To assess whether the variables could be considered as normally
distributed, we constructed histograms of each of the six continuous variables and
performed transformations as necessary (Table 4.5). We used the Shapiro-Wilk normality
test (Royston 1982) to assess whether the distribution of each transformed variable
approximated a normal distribution. Density of >137cm oak seedlings was the only
variable that did not approach a normal distribution even after transformation due to the
abundance of plots with zero seedlings >137cm in height. The effect of violating the
ANOVA normality assumption in this case may be an F statistic that is too small
(Lindman 1974) and increasing the possibility of type I error. We elected, however, to
keep this variable because of its relationship to deer density and forest management in the
study area despite the fact that it might make it more difficult to detect significant
differences between the treatment groups.

We examined differences in stand structure related to management regime (state
vs. tribal) and size of management unit (stands vs. pockets) using a linear discriminant
analysis (LDA). Linear discriminant analysis finds the linear combination of input
variables that best separates categories to which different observations belong (Johnson
and Wichem 2002). The independent variables used for the LDA were canopy openness,
percent deer browse, total basal area, and basal area of northern red oak >250m DBH.

Basal area of northern red oak >25cm DBH was included as a variable because trees of

84

this size class are expected to provide the most abundant seed source in northern red oak
stands (Sander 1990). For the LDA, these variables were rescaled to a mean of zero and a
standard deviation of 1. Each plot was assigned a code for the LDA corresponding to its
management regimesmanagement unit size (hereafter “regime:size”) combination. The
linear discriminant axes were interpreted using their weighting coefficients, and the plots
were graphed on the first two axes to evaluate separability by the four variables. To
assess the reliability of the LDA at discriminating stands, we performed a leave-one-out
cross-validation where each observation, sequentially, was left out, the LDA ran, and the
regimezsize combination of the missing observation predicted. The predicted and actual
regimezsize values for each plot were collected and used to construct an error matrix for
the LDA.

To test for differences between management regime (state vs. tribal) and
management unit size (stands vs. pockets) we used a 2-way ANOVA for northern red oak
growth rate and density in the three size classes. We used linear mixed-effects modeling
to account for the hierarchical nature of this study design (i.e., plots nested within stands)
and to capture within-stand variability. Plots nested within stands were considered
random effects.

Standard ANOVA requires the assumption of independence of treatment groups
and equal variance of the response variable between treatment groups. The nested nature
of our study design violated this first assumption, and the variances between treatment
groups were not equal (as determined by an F test for equal variances) for any of the

response variables. A mixed—effects ANOVA, however, provides for dependence

85

between the random effects (i.e., stands and plots) and also for variance to be different
between treatment groups (Pinheiro and Bates 2000).

To test for differences in our response variables (oak seedling growth rate and oak
seedling densities in three size classes), we used separate, hierarchical two-way
ANOVAs for each response variable including the following as covariates: canopy
openness, percent deer browse, total plot basal area (i.e., area occupied by the cross-
section of tree trunks at a height of 137cm), and basal area of northern red oak >250m.
Regime (tribal vs. state) and size (pockets vs. stands) were the ANOVA fixed effects. For
each response variable, we constructed multiple models with different combinations of
the fixed effects, covariates, and their two-way interactions and selected the model with ~
the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (Bumham and Anderson 2002). In each case, the
best model included the main fixed-effects of regime (state vs. tribal) and size (pockets
vs. stands), a two-way interaction between regime and size, with canopy openness and
basal area of northern red oak >25cm DBH as a covariates. Percent browse, total basal
area and total northern red oak basal area were not significant variables in any of the
models, and so were not included in the final model structure.

To test for differences between treatment groups (where each regimezsize
combination was considered a treatment group), we used Tukey's Honestly Significant
Difference (HSD) test (Tukey 1953). Tukey’s HSD compares pairs of treatment group
means and tests for pair-wise differences while correcting for the inflation of type I error
rate that occurs when multiple comparisons are made (Gotelli and Ellison 2004). We used
graphs of the response variables within each of our four treatment groups to help interpret

the results of the analyses of variance.

86

Results

The LDA for discriminating regimezsize combinations showed separability
between management regimes, but little separation of management unit size within the
management regimes (Figure 4.2). The first two linear discriminant axes accounted for
90.7% of the variability in the data (66.3% and 24.7% for the first and second axes,
respectively). The first linear discriminant axis loaded positively on canopy openness and
red oak basal area and negatively on percent deer browse. We interpreted this axis as:
high values for the axis had high canopy openness and red oak basal area and low percent
deer browse; whereas low values on the axis had high percent browse and low canopy
openness and red oak basal area (Table 4.1, Figure 4.2). The second axis weighted
heavily on all four variables, but only accounted for 24.7% of the variability in the data.
Using the cross-validation procedure to predict management regime and management
unit size fiom the original data, 66.7% of the stands were correctly classified (Table 4.2).
Percent of observations correctly classified (i.e., producer’s accuracy) ranged from
53.33% for state pockets to 73.33% for tribal and state stands (Table 4.2). Percent of
predicted classes correctly assigned (i.e., user’s accuracy) ranged fiom 57.14% for state
pockets to 83.33% for tribal pockets.

Based on the role of canopy openness, percent deer browse and basal area of
northern red oak >25cm DBH in both linear discriminate axes, we conducted separate
ANOVA’s for each of these variables to examine their relationships to management
regime and management unit size. Canopy openness was similar for oak pockets and oak
stands on state lands, but significantly greater (p<0.0001) between oak pockets and oak

stands on tribal lands (Figure 4.3A). Conversely, percent browse showed a significant

87

difference with regard to management regime with a higher proportion of oak seedlings
browsed on state forests than on tribal forests (Figure 4.38). Deer browse was similar
across management unit size (i.e., between oak pockets and oak stands) in both state and
tribal forests. Basal area of northern red oak >25cm DBH was significantly greater in
pockets than stands (p=0.0013) with a marginally significant difference across
management regime (p=0.0883) (Figure 4.3E).

The ANOVA of northern red oak sapling growth rate suggested a significant
interaction between management regime and management unit size (p=0.009, Table 4.3,
Figure 4.4A). Pairwise comparisons between all treatment group combinations in the
growth rate ANOVA indicated that tribal pockets had significantly higher growth rates
than tribal stands (i.e., partial size effect, p=0.021) and state stands had significantly
higher growth rates than tribal stands (i.e., partial management regime effect, p=0.005) at
the a=0.05 level (Table 4.4). For growth rate, the random effects of plots nested within
management units accounted for 47.45% of the observed variability.

The ANOVA for density of 0-50cm northern red oak seedlings indicated a
significant regime:size interaction (p<0.001, Table 4.3, Figure 4.48). Although each of
the pairwise group comparisons showed statistically significant results (Table 4.4) at the
a=0.05 level, the most significant differences were in the greater number of seedlings in
pockets vs. stands on state forests (p<0.001) and significantly fewer seedlings in state
stands vs. tribal stands (p=0.001). The random effects of plots nested within management
units accounted for less than 0.01% of the total variance in the 0-50cm height class

density observations.

88

There were no detectable differences in 51-137cm seedling densities due to
management regime or management unit size (Table 4.3). All pairwise comparisons were
non-significant at the 0t=0.05 level and are not reported. The random effects of plots
nested within management units accounted for less than 0.01% of the observed variability
in 51-137cm seedling density.

The ANOVA for density of >137cm oak seedlings showed significantly greater
seedling densities on tribal vs. state forests (Figure 4.4D, p<0.001). Closer examination
of the significant management regime difference through pairwise comparisons indicated
that the management regime effect was driven by the higher density of >1 37cm oaks in
tribal vs. state pockets (p<0.001, Table 4.4). Our results also suggested a higher number
of >137cm oaks on tribal stands compared with state stands, but this difference was not
significantly different (Table 4.4, Figure 4.4D) at the a=0.05 level. Random effects of
plots nested within stands accounted for 1.94% of the observed variation in >137cm

seedling density.

Discussion

This research project provides a unique contribution because we compared deer-
forest relationships in the context of high deer densities, similar to those found
throughout much of the range of white-tailed deer, and low deer densities that match

population goals suggested by many ecologists and ecosystem managers. On tribal lands,

. . . . 2 .
where average deer densrt1es are malntarned at 2—3/km , northern red oak seedlrngs are

regenerating successfully. Our >137cm seedling density results provide convincing

89

evidence regarding regeneration success or failure because these seedlings are tall enough
that they are no longer browsed by white-tailed deer and therefore provide a measure of
deer herbivory survival. In our study area, oak seedlings survived into this taller height
class in significantly greater densities on tribal than state forests, regardless of
management unit size. Our ANOVA results indicated a negative correlation between

percent browse and >137cm seedling densities (1=-0.3527, figures 4.3B and 4.4D). These

. . . . 2 . .
results 1nd1cate that when deer dens1t1es are kept at 2-3/km , and g1ven suffi01ent

understory light, resource managers can successfully regenerate northern red oak. This
result is noteworthy given the widespread hardwood regeneration failures reported
elsewhere.

Seedlings <50cm in height are buried by snow in the winter when white-tailed
deer do most of their woody plant browsing (Healy 1997). We therefore expected that 0-
50cm seedling densities were driven more by light availability and seed source than deer
herbivory. Our results for 0-50cm seedling densities showed a significant regime:size
interaction with highest densities in tribal stands and state pockets. Our ANOVA results
suggest that 0-500m seedling densities are related to light given the similar trends across
our treatment groups for canopy openness and O-SOCm seedling densities (figures 4.3A
and 4.48). Because we did not make a detailed accounting of acorn production, our best
approximation of seed source is basal area of northern red oak >25cm DBH. In pockets
(but not in stands), these acorn production-sized oaks showed concurrent trends to 0-
50cm seedling densities (i.e., greater basal area and greater density of seedlings in state

vs. tribal pockets) (figures 4.3E and 4.4B).

90

Light availability is likely the most important abiotic factor influencing northern
red oak seedlings growth and survival (McGee 1968, Sander 1990, Pacala et al. 1994,
F inzi and Canham 2000). Given F inzi and Canham’s (2000) and Pacala et al.’s (1994)
findings that northern red oak seedlings not only grow more rapidly with increasing light
levels but cannot tolerate the slow growth that accompanies deep shade, adequate
understory light can be thought of as a “pre-requisite” to oak seedling survival. In our
study, we looked at sites that had ample light to support seedling growth and survival.
Even given sufficient light, few seedlings survived beyond the browseline (i.e., low
densities of seedlings >137cm) on state forests where deer densities are high.
Management Implications

In our study area, tribal natural resource management is resulting in northern red
oak seedlings densities that approach silvicultural recommendations for “full stocking”
(Sander et al. 1984, WDNR 1990). The densities of tall (>137cm) seedlings we observed
on tribal lands would be more than satisfactory to most resource managers, particularly
considering the struggles managers have had regenerating oak in recent decades. Seedling
survival was nearly threefold greater in tribal stands than state stands and more than
eightfold greater in tribal pockets than state pockets. Our results from state lands suggest
that even when the prerequisite of adequate light is met, if herbivory levels are too high,
seedlings may not survive in densities sufficient to maintain northern red oak as an

important component of future forests. However, when deer densities are kept at 2-

4/krn , northern red oak seedhngs may survrve 1n sufficrent numbers for mamtamrng oak.

Because tribal citizens continue to use large game as a primary subsistence

resource, tribal resource managers are able to use hunting as a means of achieving

91

relatively low deer densities. For example, the deer densities maintained on the Lac du
Flambeau Reservation are similar to estimated pre-European settlement densities and
match contemporary recommendations for managers trying to promote hardwood
regeneration and biotic diversity in their forest units. The Lac du Flambeau Reservation
provides a contemporary example of longstanding low to intermediate deer densities and
sustainable deer-forest relationships. Managers of public lands, such as the Wisconsin
DNR, are not able to replicate tribal hunting management programs because their work is
situated in significantly different socio-cultural and political contexts. However, to
sustain wildlife and forest assets, managers of public lands will need to find their own

context-appropriate mechanisms for reducing deer densities.

92

Table 4.1: Coefficients of the first two linear discriminant axes for examining class
separation of management regime:size groups by canopy openness, percent deer browse,
total basal area, and red oak basal area. The first linear discriminate axis was heavily
influenced by canopy openness and percent deer browse. The second axis weighted more

evenly across all the variables.

 

 

Variable Linear Discriminant Linear Discriminant
Axis 1 Axis 2

Canopy Openness 0.7397 0.7562

Percent Deer Browse -1.1294 0.9152

Total Basal Area 0.1265 0.6315

Red Oak Basal Area 0.6762 -1.5103

 

93

Table 4.2: Error matrix from cross-validation of the discriminant function analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observed Group _0
73
B b B
e ‘6 E
(H 4) U)
Pockets Stands 0 E 5
..\° 0 0
State Tribal State Tribal
m State 8 2 3 l 57.14%
a. ‘4'3
:3 34
e 8 Tribal 1 10 0 1 83.33%
0 a.
1:
9;: State 3 2 11 2 61.11%
._. m
E E
a. a Tribal 3 1 1 11 68.75%
%ofObserved 53.33% 66.67% 73.33% 73.33% Total%
Correctly Correct
Classified 66.67%

 

94

 

h).

., J

 

Table 4.3: Results of Analysis of Variance for growth rate and density of three size
classes of northern red oak seedlings by management regime (state vs. tribal) and
management unit size (stands vs. pockets). Canopy openness and basal area of northern

red oaks >250m DBH were used as covariates. Degrees of freedom were 1 and 40 for

 

 

 

 

 

 

each F-test.
F-Value P-value
Growth Rate
Mgmt Unit Size 2.659 0.111
Mgmt Regime 4.100 0.050
Canopy Openness 0.254 0.617
Red Oak >250m Basal Area 0.001 0.975
Regime*Size 7.671 0.009
0-50cm Oak Seedling Density
Mgmt Unit Size 0.037 0.845
Mgmt Regime 0.837 0.366
Canopy Openness 0.079 0.379
Red Oak >25cm Basal Area 3.082 0.087
Regime*Size 26.242 <0.001
51-137cm Oak Seedling Density
Mgmt Unit Size 0.003 0.961
Mgmt Regime 1.366 0.245
Canopy Openness 7.984 0.007
Red Oak >250m Basal Area 0.539 0.467
Regime*Size 0.091 0.764
>137cm Oak Seedling Density
Mgmt Unit Size 0.050 0.825
Mgmt Regime 35.917 <0.001
Canopy Openness 1.751 0.193
Red Oak >250m Basal Area 4.658 0.037
Regime*Size 2.234 0.143

 

95

Table 4.4: Results Tukey’s HSD test of pairwise comparisons between treatment groups
for growth rate and density of 0-50cm and >137cm sized northern red oak seedlings. Est.

Diff. is the estimated difference between the treatment group means.

 

 

 

 

 

Comparison Est. Diff. Std. Error z-value p-value
Growth Rate

State:Pockets to Tribal:Pockets 0.277 0.224 1.236 0.583
State:Pockets to State:Stands 0.029 0.099 0.289 0.991
Tribal:Pockets to Tribal:Stands -0.728 0.257 -2.831 0.021
State:Stands to Tribal:Stands -0.480 0.146 -3.269 0.005
0-50cm Oak Seedling Density

State:Pockets to Tribal:Pockets -0.686 0.240 -2.854 0.022
State:Pockets to State:Stands -l .141 0.295 -3.872 <0.001
Tribal:Pockets to Tribal:Stands 0.755 0.233 3.242 0.006
State:Stands to Tribal:Stands 1.210 0.265 4.565 0.001
>137cm Oak SeedlinLDensity

State:Pockets to Tribal:Pockets 32.701 6.247 5.235 <0.001
State:Pockets to State:Stands 6.715 7.479 0.898 0.799
Tribal:Pockets to Tribal:Stands -l3.094 1 1.156 -1 .174 0.634
State:Stands to Tribal:Stands 12.892 11.191 1.152 0.647

 

96

Table 4.5: Description of variables used in this study. The transformations that were

applied to each variable so that its distribution approximated a normal distribution and

the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality (null hypothesis was that the data were normally

distributed).

 

Variable

Description

Transformation

Shapiro p-value
-Wilk
Score

 

CanOpen

% Browse

Total Basal

RO_Basal

erRate

<50Dens

50-
137Dens

>137Dens

Covariate measuring

the percent openness of
forest canopy (inverse

of canopy closure)
Covariate measuring
percentage of oak

seedlings browsed by

white-tailed deer

Total basal area of all

trees

Proportion of the total
basal area made up by

red oaks
Response variable
measuring average

height accrued per year

(cm yr") in oak
seedlings
Response variable

measuring number of

seedlings 0-500m in
height per hectare

(extrapolated from plot

data)
Response variable

measuring number of
seedlings 500m-137 cm

in height per hectare

(extrapolated from plot

data)
Response variable

measuring number of
seedlings >137cm per

hectare (extrapolated
from JlOt data)

Inverse

None

None

(Ro_13asa1)0'69

Log

Log

(50-137Dens)0'66

Box-
Cox(>137Dens,)t=0.5)

97

0.9765 0.2989

0.9696 0.1388

0.9771

0.3170

0.9753 0.2623

0.9879 0.8188

0.9795 0.4078

0.9715

0.1727

0.8868 <0.0001

Table 4.5 Continued:

 

 

Variable Description Transformation Shapiro-Wilk p-value
Score

Mgmt Fixed-effect variable N/A N/A N/A
Regime with levels: state and

tribal
Mgmt Fixed-effect variable N/A N/A N/A
Unit Size with levels: oak stand

and oak pockets
Mgmt Random-effect N/A N/A N/A
Unit variable. Management

units within each

treatment group

numbered

consecutively from

one to five.
Plot Random-effect N/A N/A N/A

variable. Plots within
each management unit
(i.e., oak stands and
oak pockets)
numbered from one to
three

 

98

Figure 4.1: Map of study area and surrounding region.

 

 

  

Project Area

Wisconsin

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

Lac du Flambeau

--_--

Reservation .
Mn]

 

o-«

10 20

Kilometers

Northern Highland American
Legion State Forest

_._—_.1
l

 

NORTH

 

99

 

Figure 4.2: Plot of management regime and management unit size by the first two linear
discriminant function axes. State pockets (gray circles) and stands (black diamonds) were

very similar to each other, but were distinct from tribal pockets (gray squares) and stands

(gray triangles).

 

 

 

 

mJ °
N— T A
g 9 A A
to o A
s . A
'8 "‘ ’ o o A
C 0 ‘A A
.2 o
E o ‘ ° AA
2 o— . o“. 06 A
g o .0 0. ‘00 A
8 O 0 o A A
'o ‘T- A
E
o
o
a)
a) 0,1—
Cr)—
I
I I I I I I
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Second discriminant function axis

100

Figure 4.3: Mean values for the covariates by management regime (state vs. tribal) and
size (pockets vs. stands) for: A) canopy Openness, B) percent of 51-137 and >137cm
sized oak seedlings browsed by deer, C) total tree basal area, D) red oak basal area, and
E) basal area of northern red oaks with >250m Diameter at Breast Height. Variables were

transformed as per Table 4.5. Error bars represent standard error.

 

-0— Pockets - l- - Stands

Canopy Openness
O
O
01
U!

 

0.035 -

 

 

 

0.025 1
State Tribal

101

Figure 4.3 Continued:

Total Basal Area

Ben

80-

% Browse

 

70

60*

50*

40

I

l

 

-0— Pockets

- I- - Stands

 

 

30

35

30

25

20

15-

10

State

Tribal

 

l

I

I

I

 

 

—O— Pockets

- I- - Stands

 

State

I

102

Tribal

 

 

Figure 4.3 Continued:

D 9.025

ITI

Red Oak >25cm DBH Basal Area

Red Oak Total Basal Area

8.025 -

7.025 -

6.025 ~

5.025 ~

4.025

3.025 ~

2.025 ‘

1.025

0.025

 

 

-0— Pockets - l- - Stands

.................. I

 

5.025

4.525 -
4.025 -

3.525

3.025 -
2.525 .

2.025
1.525

1.025 ~
0.525 -

0.025

State Tribal

 

 

-0- Pockets -I-- Stands

 

State Tribal

103

 

 

Figure 4.4: Graphs of mean values for each of the four response variables (transformed as
per Table 4.5) by management regime (state vs. tribal) and size (pockets vs. stands) for:
A) growth rate of northern red oak seedlings, B) density (# seedlings per ha) of 0-500m
northern red oak seedlings, C) density (# seedlings per ha) of 51-137cm northern red oak
seedlings, and D) density (# seedlings per ha) of >1 37cm northern red oak seedlings.

Error bars represent standard error.

 

A 3.7

3.5 .

—O— Pockets --I--Stands

3.3 .

 

3.1 ~

Growth Rate

2.9 -

 

2.7 -

 

 

 

2.5 .
State Tribal

104

Figure 4.4 Continued:

 

on

-0- Pockets - I- - Stands

‘0
1

p
0|
1

 

0-50cm Oak Seedling Density
co

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.5 ~
7 T
State Tribal

E 235
g -0—Pockets -I--Stands
0
g 195 ~
5
o
no
0)
fi 155 -
O
E
o
I;
u,- 115 ~
5

75 T

 

State Tribal

105

 

Figure 4.4 Continued:

> 137-cm Oak Seedling Density U

60

50

40

30

20

1O

 

l

l

l

 

-*- Pockets

- i- - Stands

 

 

State

106

Tribal

 

Figure 4.5: Diagram showing A) experimental design and B) sampling design of

vegetation plots and deer browse transects.

 

 

 

A TRIBAL FORESTS STATE FORESTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
¢ 4

t l
.\-’4.

I j

K 1:1 4
\>\_//'/ ‘V'

j

3 plots sub-sampled
within all pockets

8 stands

SJ <7)

1 oak pockets/l

oak stands

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

-——a=———_—-———————————
/
. 4
\q .
‘ ,.
.l‘
,9.
.
'Iv
‘_ .

 

 

 

107

Figure 4.5 Continued:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B :-------------i N
I I
1 I T
1 1
I I
1 1
l l
n l 1" l
e. ‘. .0. ‘. |
If. .2 I =. 2 .
O. O . O. 0 I
20m ..0‘... |
, ...... ..___;J; ____________ I
1 "MI”.
1 . 1
1 3'" I °-.
1 t..5m.: I '. .:
30m : _“_ _oie it a--n
1 1
: : overstory/understory vegetation
1 1 - - - herbivory transects
: : -------- groundcover vegetation &
j_ . _____________ . canopy photo points

 

 

 

 

108

CHAPTER 5

FROM CONFLICT TO COOPERATION:

EVOLUTION OF A SUCCESSFUL TRIBAL-STATE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATION

 

109

Abstract

Solving complex natural resource and conservation problems within mixed-
ownership landscapes requires resource management cooperation across jurisdictional
boundaries; yet such cooperation is challenging and few successfirl cases exist. In
portions of the United States, state and tribal officials are forging co-management and
cooperative agreements to protect off-reservation treaty rights of tribes, monitor harvest
allocations and facilitate regional ecosystem management. These arrangements have the
potential to provide models of cross-boundary cooperative management; however, few
success stories have been documented to date. This study explores the more than 25 year
history of natural resource management cooperation between the Lac du Flambeau Tribe
and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, focusing on tribal and state
officials’ navigation of contentious natural resource conflict and arrival at a highly
cooperative status. Results emphasize the importance of personal relationships and open
communication among local field staff. Bridging organizations were important catalysts
for communication and relationship building. Key communication strategies included
maintaining regular, informal interactions. Lessons from this case study will help
resource managers overcome conflict and improve cross-boundary management of

regional natural resources and ecosystems.

Introduction
Regional landscapes around the world are composed of land tenure mosaics that
include private, industrial and public land ownership. Because ecological processes and

environmental issues do not respect land ownership boundaries (Forman 1995, Knight

110

 

and Landres 1998), resource practitioners, scientists and policy makers have called for
cross-boundary, regional approaches to ecosystem management (Yaffee 1999, Liu and
Taylor 2002, Rickenbach and Reed 2002, Bergrnann and Bliss 2004, Schulte et al. 2008,
Levin 2009). However, effective cross-boundary resource management cooperation is
difficult to achieve and relatively few successful natural resource examples exist
(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

Examples of successful resource cooperation between states and North American
Indian tribes are particularly rare. In the United States, state and tribal officials are
forging co-management and cooperative agreements that provide venues for cross-
boundary natural resource management. These agreements are designed to protect off-
reservation treaty rights of tribes, monitor harvest allocations and facilitate regional
ecosystem management. However, the relationships between tribes and states are often
contentious because they involve high-stakes natural resource and jurisdictional issues
(Bays and Fouberg 2002, Jones J arding 2004). Although a few co-management and
cross-boundary cases involving tribes (and first nations) have been studied (N adasdy
2003, Ebbin 2004, Natcher et a1. 2005, Ebbin 2009) examples of cooperative
relationships are lacking.

To help address this knowledge gap, the present case study explores natural
resource management cooperation between the Lac du F lambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians (“LDF Tribe”) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) in North Central Wisconsin. The LDF tribal landbase, known as the LDF
Reservation, is directly adjacent to the Northern Highland and American Legion state

forests (Figure 5.1) managed by the WDNR. These state and tribal lands are primarily

111

 

undeveloped and dominated by forest, water (i.e., inland lake) and wetland cover types.
The area is rich in natural resources and a popular tourist destination. Tribal citizens have
rights to fish, hunt and gather on public lands across a large portion of Northern
Wisconsin, including in the neighboring state forests. A strong relationship between the
LDF Tribe and the WDNR is necessary because the state forests are important for tribal
subsistence harvests and because the tribe and the state recognize the ecological benefits
of cross-boundary natural resource management cooperation.

The case provides an example of a highly cooperative state-tribal relationship that
includes open communication, information sharing and shared natural resource
management decision-making. According to tribal and state officials, the cooperation has
fostered ecosystem-based management strategies and improved natural resource
protection. The objective of this project was to understand how tribal and state officials
navigated contentious natural resource conflicts of the 1980’s and built a high
functioning, cooperative relationship. Three research questions are central to this study.

1. What were the main motivations for resource management cooperation?
2. What were the main obstacles to cooperation?
3. What actions and/or behaviors helped tribal and state officials rise above natural

resource conflicts enabling cross-boundary resource management cooperation?

Methods
Study Area Background

Throughout the first half of the 19th Century, the United States negotiated land
cession treaties with various Indian nations that ceded lands and enabled the creation of

Wisconsin Territory in 1836 and the establishment of the State of Wisconsin in 1848. The

112

1837 Treaty of St. Peters and 1842 Treaty of La Pointe negotiated between the US. and
various Lake Superior Chippewa bands (including the Lac du Flambeau band) provided
access to copper and timber resources for non-Indian businessmen and ceded large land
areas to the United States in what is now northern Wisconsin. From the 1830’s through
the first half of the 1850’s, the US. worked to access additional land and resources in the
region and proposed removing Indians to areas west of the Mississippi River.
Simultaneously, Chippewa leaders worked diligently to maintain permanent residence in
their Great Lakes homelands. A compromise was negotiated through the 1854 Treaty of
La Pointe which ceded additional resource-rich lands to the US. and established several
permanent Indian reservations, including the 70,000 acre Lac du Flambeau Reservation

(Figure 5.1) (Satz 1991, Silvem 2008).

In 1887, thirty-three years after the establishment of the LDF Reservation, an
influential piece of federal legislation called the General Allotment Act was enacted as a
way to separate individual Indians from their communal landbase so that they might
become “productive” agriculturalists. The Act divided reservations into individual
allotments and opened so called “surplus” lands to white settlement. Through this Act,
the Lac du F lambeau Reservation transitioned from 70,000 communally-held acres to
30,542 tribal acres, 14,382 acres allotted to individual Indians and the remainder in non-
Indian ownership (as of 1989) (Satz 1991). Besides this measurable loss of land, the
General Allotment Act also significantly affected jurisdiction over reservation resources
and tribal autonomy by bringing a large number of non-Indian landowners onto tribal
land. The General Allotment Act had similar effects across the United States. Tribal lands

in the US. went from 138 million acres in 1887 to 47 million acres by 1934 (Debo 1970)

113

and opened a jurisdictional “Pandora’s box” regarding land use, environmental, civil,
criminal and other issues (Sutton 2001).

Pre-existing rights to hunt, fish and gather resources in these ceded territories
were never relinquished by the Chippewa through their treaties with the US. However,
from the time of the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe through most of the 1900’s, Wisconsin
officials and Wisconsin citizens progressively encroached on Chippewa hunting, fishing
and gathering rights. Throughout the 20th Century, state officials contested tribal rights by
enforcing state laws upon Chippewa harvesters within ceded territories and on
reservation lands (Satz 1991, Silvem 2008). These game and fish violations were
unsuccessfully challenged in the courts by Chippewa harvesters on several occasions
from the late 1800’s through mid-1900’s. In 1974, two Chippewa from Lac Courte
Oreilles were arrested for spearing fish off their reservation. The convictions were upheld
in federal district court; however, when the cases were taken to the US. Court of
Appeals, the rulings were overturned. In 1983, the Voigt Decision legally affirrned
Chippewa treaty rights in Wisconsin for the first time in over a century.

The Voigt Decision directed the district court to work with the tribes and the state
to define the extent of tribal harvesting rights and state regulatory authority over such
activities (Silvem 2008). For nearly a decade following this decision, the State of
Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Chippewa tribes negotiated over 40 interim harvest
agreements (GLIF WC 2007). In 1991, a final agreement was signed by the state and the
tribes that outlined the current system of co-management and tribal self-enforcement.

Between the issuance of the Voigt Decision and the final co-management

agreement, anti-Indian groups such as Protect Americans ’ Rights and Resources and Stop

114

 

Treaty Abuse emerged and initiated a violent response to the Voigt Decision and
subsequent negotiations. Boat landings used by tribal harvesters during spring spearing
seasons became central locations of violent “protest” activities that included death
threats, assault and battery against tribal harvesters and their families, use of Indian
effigies, verbal abuse, rock throwing, use of sling shots and pipe bombs. Shouting and
signage at boat landings included such abusive phrases as “timber nigger,” “wagon
burners,” “save a walleye, spear a squaw” (derogatory term for Indian woman), “spear a
pregnant squaw, save two walleye” and “you’re a conquered nation- go home to your
reservation” (GLIF WC 2007). Large numbers of law enforcement officials, including
WDNR conservation officers, were deployed to the boat landings to protect tribal
harvesters.

In 1991, along with the final co-management agreement, a federal court ruling
fined and placed an injunction on Stop Treaty Abuse and its members, significantly
reducing the severity and frequency of conflicts over tribal harvests. The co-management
agreement dictated that the tribes and the state must work together to manage regional
natural resources. However, it was left up to the WDNR and the tribes to develop the
skills and relationships necessary to work cooperatively across political and cultural
boundaries. This study describes how, given this history of regional natural resource
conflict, resource managers and leaders from the LDF Tribe and WDNR transitioned into
the current cooperative regime.

Data Collection
From 2007 through 2010, l interacted with natural resource professionals and

decision makers from the LDF Tribe and WDNR. All but one of these individuals had

115

 

lived and worked in the region during the natural resource conflicts of the 1980’s and
1990’s. Ongoing interactions with these key informants, along with a review of existing
literature, helped to frame my general understanding of the recent history of regional
natural resource conflict and cooperation between tribes and states, particularly in
Wisconsin.

I designed a question—concept matrix (Table 5.1) outlining a series of interview
questions plus respective research concepts and empirical foundations underlying each
question. I pre-tested this interview instrument with tribal natural resource managers from
Michigan as well as ecosystem management and sociology scholars, making adjustments
based on their feedback. Wisconsin DNR and LDF tribal officials provided me with an
initial list of interview contacts. Interview participants suggested additional interviewees,
subsequently expanding the list of participants through snowball sampling (Patton 1990).

In the summer of 2008, I conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 11
natural resource managers and decision makers who were closely involved in cooperation
between the LDF Tribe and WDNR. I interviewed five current or former WDNR
employees, five LDF staff and one representative from an inter-tribal organization (who
was also an LDF citizen). Of the LDF staff, four out of the five participants were LDF
citizens and two out of the five were elected tribal officials. All interviews except for one
were conducted with individual participants; two LDF representatives had to be
interviewed together due to scheduling difficulties. The length of these key informant
interviews ranged from approximately 1-2 hours and averaged 90 minutes. The wide
range in length of interviews reflects the semi-structured, conversational design of the

interviews and the fact that respondents varied in the amount of time they could invest in

116

their respective interview. The interviews followed the questions established in my
question-concept matrix. Within each interview, we discussed the written questions and
maintained the same interview question sequence as best as possible.

I took hand written notes during the interviews and documented my post-
interview reflections within 24 hours. I chose not to use a digital audio recorder because I
was concerned the presence of a recorder would stifle responses due to the highly
politicized nature of our discussion topics and cultural norms of LDF tribal citizens.
Data Analysis

I coded interview transcriptions using NVivo qualitative data analysis software
Version 8 (QSR International 2008). I used an iterative coding procedure (LeCompte and
Geotz 1983, Miles and Hubermann 1994), refining my hierarchical coding structure
through four rounds of coding. For the one interview that included two LDF participants,
I tallied their responses as one source because I was unable to attribute their responses
separately in my interview notes. Therefore, the source interviews for my analysis were
four from LDF tribal representatives, five from WDNR and one from an intertribal
organization. Themes emerged out of similar and interrelated responses within the
interview dataset. I confirmed recurrent themes by enumerating the references to each
coded concept or idea within the interview transcripts using the NVivo software package.
I then reviewed the specific interview responses more thoroughly that followed recurrent
themes, providing insights into my three research questions. I submitted drafts of the
case study for review to selected research participants as a form of “member checking”

(Lincoln and Guba 1985).

117

Results & Discussion
Motivations for Cooperation

The motivations for cooperation cited by the greatest number of interview
respondents were common interests, policy mandates and the tribe/state being an
important neighbor (Table 5.2). Common interests cited by interviewees related primarily
to conservation of natural resources (e. g., protecting aquatic resources, combating
invasive species and promoting wild rice beds.) Respondents also discussed their
common interest in conservation enforcement, communication with public resource users
and promoting recreation tourism. Others have noted that building fi'om common ground
can foster cooperative behaviors (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Axelrod 2006). Ebbin
(2009) refers to issues that create common ground as “cross-cutting cleavages” in her
exploration of co-management involving tribes. For the LDF Tribe and the WDNR,
building fi'om common interests played an important role in their cooperative successes.

Policy mandates were also mentioned as a primary motivation for cooperating
across political boundaries. The main policies referenced were the Voigt Decision and
subsequent co-management agreement. Previous research by Adelzadeh (2006) indicates
that co-management agreements negotiated out of court between tribes and public land
managers may be more successful than those emerging from court battles. In this case,
however, the court battle was not perceived as an obstacle to success. Both LDF and
WDNR representatives referenced the Voi gt Decision with a matter-of-fact tone. One
WDNR leader stated plainly, “The tribe is our partner. They are entitled to 50% of the
harvest. It is a no brainer.” The LDF-WDNR partnership emerged from a court battle;

however, the Voi gt Decision did not dictate the nature of the co-management agreement,

118

but rather insisted that an agreement be negotiated by both parties. The final agreement
took years of negotiation, and over that time, the notion of co-managing resources may
have grown palatable to both tribal and state representatives.

A third commonly cited rationale for cooperation was the fact that the tribe and
state are one another’s biggest neighbors and it is important to work together to improve
long term resource stewardship. The notion of cooperating because the tribe/state is an
important neighbor was mentioned more by tribal representatives (3 out of 4 source
interviews) than WDNR representatives (2 out of 5). This rationale may have been more
poignant for LDF because their reservation is surrounded on two sides by state lands
(Figure 5.1) and the state forests are critical harvest areas for tribal citizens. Both WDNR
and tribal representatives referenced the need to work together using similar language.
One WDNR manager noted “LDF is one of our biggest neighbors. We need to be good
neighbors and it works both ways.” Tribal representatives similarly stated, “The state is a
big neighbor” and “We are neighbors and we are here for the next seven generation
ahead. We need to leave it better than today.”

Obstacles

The main obstacles to cooperation cited by interview participants were
personalities/attitudes and jurisdictional issues (Table 5.3). Personality traits or attitudes
that interfered with cooperation included being overly confrontational, embattled and
disrespectful. All five state representatives and two tribal representatives felt that
personalities and attitudes were key obstacles to cooperation. These observations are
consistent with Fisher and Ury’s analysis (1991) that people problems can often be

greater obstacles to finding agreement than substantive problems.

119

 

Wisconsin DNR officials indicated that the attitudes of tribal elected and
appointed officials in the past were highly confrontational, making cooperation difficult
and unpleasant. Changes in tribal leadership eventually brought in representatives with
which the WDNR found it far easier to work. This idea was clarified further by more than
one state official, who expressed that confrontational tribal leadership was needed for a
time to move treaty rights forward. When cooperative leadership styles were needed for
co-management, appropriate leaders were elected or appointed by the tribe who could
facilitate cooperation.

Jurisdictional issues that interfered with cooperation included those related to
aquatic resources on the LDF Reservation. Wisconsin DNR representatives expressed
that they were motivated to participate in aquatic resource management (e.g., conducting
lake assessments) on the reservation and wanted to work more regularly with tribal
officials. The WDNR was motivated in this regard because it had jurisdiction over waters
on the reservation. Also, the reservation holds many high quality lakes and important
fisheries. But WDNR officials have had difficulties cooperating with LDF on water-
related issues.

The WDNR managers struggled to find tribal cooperators for on-reservation lake
management because on-reservation water jurisdiction is a particularly contentious issue.
Tribal representatives felt they should have full jurisdiction over the waters on their
reservation and that gaining tribal jurisdiction would help them protect and manage
natural resources. Furthermore, in 1997/98 the State of Wisconsin sued the US.
Environmental Protection Agency over its granting LDF so called “Treatment-as-State”

status. Treatment-as-State status would give the LDF Tribe partial jurisdiction over

120

reservation waters by allowing them to establish their own water quality standards under
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and issue water quality certifications under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Although local and regional-level WDNR managers
did not initiate the litigation, their ability to partner on lake management was negatively
impacted.

The Treatment-as-State issue is also an example of state-level politics interfering
with local cooperation. Local personnel who are professionally and personally invested in
cross-boundary cooperation found their efforts hampered due to state-level activities.
One LDF representative noted the influence state politics can have on communication,
stating “politics beyond local and regional levels often interfere with local relationships
and locals can't even talk about what's happening.” A WDNR representative noted that
cooperation is also negatively influenced by the fact that there are no tribal members on
the state natural resource policy-making board, implying that the state lacks the political
will to appoint a tribal representative into one of these influential positions.

Interview participants also highlighted that communication was a barrier to
improved cooperation. Despite the fact that communication was highlighted as one of the
key factors enabling cooperation in this case (see below), it was repeatedly expressed that
communication could improve further. Tribal representatives stated that they should be
kept apprised better of the permitting and development activities that the state manages
on non-Indian owned lakeshore properties on the reservation. Both WDNR and tribal
representatives suggested that better information sharing between their organizations

would enhance resource management and benefit natural resources.

121

C ooperation-Enhancing Characteristics

Besides communication, the characteristics that interview participants said helped
them overcome obstacles and enhanced cooperation included key individuals, personal
relationships, trust, effective leadership, informality of relationships and bridging
organizations (Table 5.4). Within the context of co-management, bridging organizations
help build social capital and relationships among parties by fostering networking, trust-
building and resolving conflicts (Hahn et al. 2006, Berkes 2009). In this case, the primary
bridging organization was an event called Gathering of the Guides. Gathering of the
Guides is an annual fishing tournament involving WDNR and LDF officials plus Indian
and non-Indian fishing guides. Invited participants are placed strategically onto teams and
boats so that they have the opportunity to get to know one another. They spend the day
fishing for walleye, eating dinner and socializing. The social atmosphere lends itself to
personal conversations, puts participants on a first name basis and opens the door to
future interactions. In seven out of ten interviews, Gathering of the Guides was
referenced as important to initiating communication and building personal relationships
across political and cultural boundaries. Other bridging organizations cited by the
interview participants were the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(organizations established to monitor off-reservation harvests and resources), the
Biological Working Group (cooperative management group comprised of tribal and state
biologists) and the Voi gt Intertribal Taskforce (intertribal working group established to
coordinate harvest and management activities associated with Voi gt Decision).

Open communication was viewed as a critical method of overcoming obstacles

and enhancing cooperation. Key informants noted that communication began with getting

122

 

 

I\

on a first name basis (e. g., during a Gathering of the Guides event), then gradually
expanded through low risk-low stakes issues followed by higher stakes issues. As one
interview participant stated, “We’re not afraid to call each other up on the phone and
raise issues. You practice with smaller issues which opens the door for cooperative
response to bigger issues.” Eventually the parties reached the point where they felt, "If
the problem is big, we know we can talk." The fact that open communication was cited as
one of the most important strengths and one of the biggest obstacles/areas for
improvement indicates just how important it is to successful cooperation in this case.

Specific communication strategies included maintaining regular and informal
interactions. One WDNR representative stated, “Keep it as low-key as you can. This is a
key element. Meet regularly with the basic purpose of keeping each other tuned in on the
neighboring forest. No agendas. No sitting around with attorneys." This sentiment was
expressed variously by several interview participants. Tribal and WDNR staff made a
point to meet regularly for coffee and give each other informal updates on activities and
issues within their respective forests.

These regular, informal interactions helped build trust, a crucial element of
building and sustaining cooperative relationships (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000) and co-
management (Berkes 2009). Noting the importance of trust and personal relationships,
one LDF manager commented, “You can learn to trust each other when you get to know
each other. When it comes to the tough issues or disagreements you can agree to disagree
easier. You are both just representatives of your office or government.” Stability in
leadership and field staff also helped build trust by allowing time for people to get to

know one another and gain cross-boundary work experiences. Trust was also built by

123

 

following through on commitments. Resource managers made sure that when key
counterparts made requests or asked for assistance, that they followed through providing
information or help, regardless of how busy they were or whether the activity was part of
their job description.

Certain key individuals played sizable roles in fostering cooperation by serving as
“ambassadors” for cooperation. They kept cooperation at the forefront in their work and
spoke openly about the importance of co-management. Some redefined their professional
roles to contribute more thoroughly to co-management efforts. Effective leaders
displayed many of the aforementioned characteristics, modeling cooperation within their
organization and insisting that other team members work cooperatively with their
counterparts. They communicated effectively across organizational, political and cultural
boundaries. Effective leaders attended regular meetings and built personal and trusting
cross—boundary relationships. A WDNR conservation officer described a particularly
effective tribal leader stating that, “He looks at things as “us” rather than “we vs. them.”
Having individuals that hold a broader, more unified view appeared to play an important
role in cultivating a lasting cooperative relationship between LDF and WDNR resource

managers.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study focused on three questions: what motivated the parties to cooperate?
What obstacles interfered with their cooperation? What characteristics helped them
overcome obstacles and enhanced cooperation? Although initially this partnership was

court-mandated, both LDF and WDNR representatives believed over time that regional

124

natural resources and ecosystems could be managed more effectively and would benefit
fi'om cross-boundary cooperation. Despite the litigious beginnings, the co-management
system came to be viewed as an important way to protect the natural resources, protect
treaty rights and ensure long term access to natural resources for both tribal and non-
tribal citizens.

Personalities were a significant obstacle. The “time heals” adage applies in this
case considering that some personality issues resolved themselves over time through
attrition. More intentional means were also employed such as LDF citizens electing the
right personalities at the right times and tribal representatives working with
administrators from the state to keep stubborn and less cooperative WDNR personalities
on the periphery.

Communication was an important aspect of the successful cooperation in this case
and was also noted as an area for improvement. Those working on similar collaborations
should focus on open and regular communication. Regular, informal interactions also are
important. Such interactions build personal-level relationships and trust. Board room-
style interactions with legal representation may be important in formal negotiations, but
they do not necessarily lead to the trusting relationships that are important to effective co-
management and cooperation. Regular, agenda-free conversations over coffee are better
suited for relationship building. Such interactions may not emerge organically, and
bridging organizations or institutions such as the Gathering of the Guides model can
serve as a catalyst for relationship building.

The importance of building interpersonal relationships should apply to any cross-

boundary natural resource management scenario, not just those involving tribes. This

125

lesson may be most pointedly relevant in situations where parties are required to work
across their political, organizational and cultural boundaries by court mandates or legally

binding agreements, such as in the example studied in this chapter.

126

Table 5.1: Interview questions and underlying concepts associated with each question.
Responses/results were interpreted within the context of the results reported in the

references listed next to each question/concept.

 

 

QUESTION CONCEPT/ REFERENCES
PURPOSE
1. How would you rate the level of Ice Breaker, (Silvem 1999, Wilkins
cooperation between LDF and WDNR Contextualization, 2002, Silvem 2008)
on a scale of 1-5 (1 being the least and Perception of
5 being the highest level of cooperation

cooperation)?

2. Compared to the relationships other
tribes in the Upper Great Lakes have
with state natural resource programs,
how would you rate LDF-WDNR
cooperation on a scale from 1-5?

3. How long have LDF & WDNR been
working cooperatively together?

4. Why do you and your DNR
cooperate with the neighboring DNR?

5. What are some of the more long

standing examples of cooperation
between LDF and WDNR?

6. Can you tell me about broad, big
picture factors that have enhanced
cooperation between LDF and WDNR

7. Can you identify specific conditions,
behaviors or factors that have
enhanced cooperation between LDF
and WDNR

8. Are personal relationships important
to the cooperative nature of your
management initiatives? If so how?

Ice Breaker,
Contextualization,
Perception of
cooperation

Ice Breaker,
Contextualization

Motivations behind
cooperation

Contextualization,
Perception of value
of cooperation

Enhancing
characteristics

Enhancing
characteristics

Importance of
personal
relationships among

field staff, leaders,
administrators

127

(Silvem 1999, Wilkins
2002, Silvem 2008)

(Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000)

(Ostrom 1990,
Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000, Ebbin 2002, 2004,
Adelzadeh 2006, Axelrod
2006, Ostrom et al. 2007,
Berkes 2009)

(Ostrom 1990,
Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000, Ebbin 2002, 2004,
Adelzadeh 2006, Axelrod
2006, Ostrom et al. 2007,
Berkes 2009)

(Yaffee 1996, Wondolleck
and Yaffee 2000, Axelrod
2006)

Table 5.1 Continued:

 

 

QUESTION CONCEPT/ REFERENCES
PURPOSE

9. Do you have any suggestions on Obstacles to (Ostrom 1990,
how to improve cooperation between success/opportunitie Wondolleck and Yaffee
LDF and WDNR? Can you envision a s for future 2000, Ebbin 2002, 2004,
set of conditions that might lead to Adelzadeh 2006, Axelrod
improved cooperation between LDF 2006, Ostrom et al. 2007,
and WDNR? Berkes 2009)

‘6 9‘)

10. In what ways would increased
cooperation enhance or hinder your -
forest/wildlife management efforts?
11. Are there any consequences to not “ ” ' "
cooperating with your neighboring
managers?

128

Table 5.2: Number of sources (respondents) who referenced various rationales for
cooperating across their political boundary and the total number of times each rationale
was referenced; differences in total sources and total references reflects the fact that some
respondents referenced a rationale more than once. One representative of an intertribal

organization was interviewed and their responses are not included to help protect

 

 

confidentiality.
. # LDF WDNR Total #
Ratronale
Sources Sources Sources References

common interests 6 2 3 l4
policy mandate 5 2 3 9
Neighbor 5 3 2 6
protecting treaty rights 4 2 l 9
stewardship 4 2 l 7
co-management 4 l 2 6

long term perspective 4 2 1 5
avoidance of conflict 2 1 l 2
efficient use of financial 1 1 - 1

resources

129

Table 5.3: Number of respondents (sources) who referenced various obstacles to
cooperating across their political boundary and the total number of times each obstacle
was referenced; differences in total sources and total references reflects the fact that some
respondents referenced an obstacle more than once. One representative of an intertribal

organization was interviewed and their responses are not included to help protect

 

 

confidentiality.
# LDF WDNR Total #
Obstacles
Sources Sources Sources References

personalities and attitudes 7 2 5 12
jurisdiction 5 3 2 7
lack of communication 5 2 3 6
state-level politics 3 2 1 3
misconceptions 3 2 l 3
lack of fairness 2 2 - 3
lack of transparency and 2 - 1 2

information sharing
lack of integration 2 - 2 2
lack of trust 1 - - 2
turf battles l 1 - 1
required top-down 1 - l 1

progression
individuals needing to l - 1 1

conform to group image or

norm
time limitations 1 - 1 1
lack of understanding 1 l - I
pride 1 - l 1

 

130

Table 5.4: Number of respondents (sources) who referenced various characteristics that
enhanced cooperation across their political boundary and the total numberof times each
characteristic was referenced; differences in total sources and total references reflects the
fact that some respondents referenced a characteristic more than once. One representative
of an intertribal organization was interviewed and their responses are not included to help

protect confidentiality.

 

# LDF WDNR Total #
Sources Sources Sources References
bridging institutions: (10) (3) (6) (l3)
Gathering of the Guides 3 10
GLIF WC 2
Biological Issues Group 1
communication 1 9
personal-level relationships 12
trust 10
effective leadership 15
key individuals
informality
regular interactions
change in leadership
LDF as proactive tribe
transparency
acceptance
changes in staff
time heals
integration
open-mindedness
understanding your neighbor
compromise
follow-through
checks and balances
size & capacity of tribal
programs

Characteristic

 

'NUJN' flNNNWUJ-b'

u—Ili—‘u—An—Awwr—tu—tu—AMAAAAUJAM—ur—Ah

WHH-‘NNNWWWk-hmmaaoflflc—‘Nfl
u—Au—II—‘NNMWAAM-bmocflo

p—Ip—I'j—Ip—A—e'

 

131

Figure 5.1: Map showing location of Lac du Flambeau Reservation and Northern
Highland-American Legion State Forests in context of 1837 and 1842 treaty areas and

surrounding region.

 

Canada

/

Lake Superior

  
    
 
   
     

Minnesota

Lac du Flambeau

 

Legend
I 1837 Treaty Wisconsm
1842 Treaty

Lake
Michigan {

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

 

 

133

 

Summary

This dissertation was an interdisciplinary exploration of ecological and human
dimensions of neighboring tribal and state natural resource management systems. The
goal of the dissertation was to provide insights of value within the local study area that

also improved general understanding of tribal-state relations, contemporary subsistence

 

hunting, cross-boundary natural resource management and interrelated management of
oak forests and deer.

The results regarding contemporary hunting by Lac du F larnbeau (LDF ) citizens
(Chapter 2) have potential for positively impacting local citizen relations by documenting
tribal hunting practices and explaining the thoughtful purposes and perspectives behind

tribal member harvests. It provides similar value to a wider audience, including on a

 

global scale, by providing an in-depth description and explanation of ethical dimensions
of subsistence hunting by indigenous practitioners. Through interviews with active LDF
Ojibwe hunters, I determined that hunters from this community have a vibrant and
extensive set of hunting-related values. I summarized their values system through a
cyclical framework that approximates the order in which youth are taught lessons about
hunting, and also coincides with the seasonal pattern of hunting activities and practices
(Chapter 2, Figure 2.2).

Amid increasing multi-cultural interactions and recent access to the intemet and
satellite television, LDF youth continue to learn LDF and Ojibwe-specific hunting values
and value-based practices. My evaluation of the continuity of traditional hunting values
within the LDF Tribe can be replicated to ascertain the relative resilience and

vulnerability of subsistence value systems in other communities. Alter comparing the

134

perspectives of Indian and non-Indian hunters, 1 determined a list of commonalities and
explained important differences in new ways. These results can help build cross—cultural
understanding and respect among neighboring Indian and non-Indian people in and
beyond the study area.

My investigation of forest regeneration following tribal and state resource
management efforts (chapters 3 and 4) provides new insights about influences on

northern red oak regeneration. On the LDF Reservation, deer hunting management has

. . . . 2 . .
lrmrted deer densrtres to 2-3 deer/km compared to deer management units encompassrng

the adjacent Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)-managed state forests

where deer densities have averaged >10/km2. I found that tribal stands >15 ha in area

produced 3 times as many tall (>137cm) oak seedlings as was produced on comparable
state stands. In smaller forest management units <3 ha in area, oak pockets within tribal
forests produced eight times as many tall seedlings as comparable state pockets of oak.
Stand size had other effects on regeneration as well. Within tribal forests, residual oak
pockets <3 ha in area produced more medium height and tall oak seedlings and had
greater height grth rates than larger oak stands.

I did not find evidence suggesting that hand release timber stand improvement
(TSI) efforts had improved red oak regeneration on tribal forests. My primary
explanation for not finding a TSI effect is that with limited deer herbivory on the
reservation, northern red oak seedlings are establishing and surviving at high rates,
mitigating the need and potential for a TSI effect. More research is needed on the effects
of TSI treatments on northern red oak and other species before responding with either a

de-investment (i.e., by the LDF Tribe or another manager currently using these

135

 

techniques) or investment (i.e., by the WDNR or other managers contemplating hand
release) in this type practice. Importantly, both the WDNR and the LDF Tribe invested
time and energy into supporting this project and are interested in learning from the results
of both tribal and state practices.

One reason why they are willing to learn from each other is that they have spent
more than 20 years working together and learning to cooperate across their political
boundary. The WDNR and LDF Tribe moved beyond regional conflicts over natural
resource use and treaty rights to the point where they collaborate on a wide range of
regional issues including those related to wildlife and habitat, wild rice resources,
transportation, recreation and public education/outreach. I studied the evolution of their
cross-boundary cooperation (Chapter 5) and found that building cross-boundary personal
relationships among field staff, administrators and elected officials facilitated their
successful cooperation. These relationships were built best through regular, informal
interactions without agendas or attorneys present in the majority of their meetings. The
annual Gathering of the Guides event convened tribal, federal and state resource
managers, elected officials and Indian and non-Indian fishing guides in an informal,
social environment. These events help tremendously in initiating personal relationships
between key individuals throughout the 1837 and 1854 ceded territories.

Lac du Flambeau and WDNR officials’ engagement in my dissertation research
exemplified their tribal-state working relations and interest in cross-boundary
cooperation. I met with representatives from the WDNR and LDF regularly and they

helped devise research topics that would have relevance to both the tribe and the state.

136

WDNR representatives introduced me to tribal representatives and vice versa, often

complementing one another, providing evidence of their close working relationships.

Conclusions

This dissertation provides a rare example of successful cross-boundary resource
management cooperation between a tribe and a state. In the US, such examples are
needed to foster regional approaches to natural resource management at the interface of
public and tribal lands. With 562 distinct tribal nations and over 100 million acres of land
controlled by tribes and Alaskan Native communities, the potential for cross-boundary
management involving tribes is vast. The cross-boundary lessons from this dissertation
are also applicable within regions that are home to indigenous communities outside of the
US. The lessons about cooperation and cross-boundary/cross-cultural relationship
building are also relevant in scenarios that do not involve Native peoples. For example,
the importance of using regular, informal interactions to build personal relationships at
multiple levels from field staff to elected officials applies to other scenarios such as
transboundary (i.e., across international borders) and state-local government relations.

Results Item the dissertation provides insights into the values system of the
Ojibwe people, who comprise a large North American Indian cultural group spanning
from the eastern Great Lakes west to the Dakotas and north into northern Manitoba. More
generally, the study helped dispel misconceptions about contemporary American Indian
hunters. Refi'aming the term “traditional” within the context of value systems rather than
technology opens the door for deeper cross-cultural understanding and appreciation

between Indian and non-Indian people. This dissertation also provides an example of how

137

 

as ‘
pre
Ind
DhL
into
n0n.
and
for s

and .

 

the traditional and cultural values ofa community inform its natural resource use and
management. Exploration of the ethical dimensions of natural resource use and
management, such as the dimensions studied here, can help reduce citizen-level conflict
and improve institutional-level cooperation by improving cross-cultural understanding
among resource practitioners and resource management staff.

The sections of this dissertation focused on hunting management, forest
management and forest ecology contribute to general understanding about oak
regeneration and management which have frustrated scientists and managers for decades.
The primary contribution is a quantified example of the potential for oak regeneration
given low densities of large forest ungulates. The LDF Tribe’s combined white-tailed
deer hunting management and forest management provides an example of sustainable
deer-human-forest relationships that include widespread regeneration and recruitment of
northern red oak.

This dissertation leads to some interesting questions left for future research, such
as “How can wildlife managers reduce deer densities on public lands given political
pressures from sport hunting groups and the fact that hunting satisfaction among non-
Indians is often tied closely with seeing deer during every hunt (Lischka et al. 2006,
Dhuey 2008)?”, “How do top predators such as the grey wolf and mountain lion factor
into the sustainability of deer and forests?”, “How have the perspectives of Indian and
non-Indian hunters (and non-hunters) about top predators evolved in the last 100+ years
and how could improved knowledge of these perspectives help us identify mechanisms
for sustained co-existence of predators, deer, forests and people?” and “How do tribes

and states or tribes and federal partners who work well together expand their

138

 

collaborative network to include other governments, citizen groups, non-profit
organizations and private/commercial landowners who also have a stake in regional

socio-ecological issues and whose lands are an important part of regional landscapes?”

139

 

REFERENCES

140

Abrams, M. D. 1996. Distribution, historical development and ecophysiological attributes
of oak species in the eastern United States. Pages 487-512.

Abrams, M. D. 2003. Where has all the white oak gone? Bioscience 53:927-939.

Abrams, M. D. 2005. Prescribing fire in eastern oak forests: Is time running out?
Northern J oumal of Applied Forestry 22: 190-1 96.

Adelzadeh, M. 2006. Empowerment in an era of self-determination: the case of the
Washoe Tribe and US. Forest Service co-management agreement. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Agrawal, D. P. 1997. Traditional knowledge systems and western science. Current
Science 73:731-733.

Albert, D. A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. US.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. North Central Forest Experiment Station,
St. Paul, MN.

Albrecht, M. A. and B. C. McCarthy. 2006. Effects of prescribed fire and thinning on tree
recruitment patterns in central hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management
226:88-103.

Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer - edge effects in
northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348-358.

Augustine, D. J. and S. J. McNaughton. 1998. Ungulate effects on the functional species
composition of plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. Journal

of Wildlife Management 62:1165-1183.

Axelrod, R. 2006. The Evolution of Cooperation. 2nd edition. Basic Books, New York.

Barnes, B. V., D. R. Zak, S. R. Denton, and S. H. Spurr. 1998. Forest Ecology. 4th
edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

141

 

 

Bl

Be

 

 

 

Bays, B. A. and E. H. Fouberg, editors. 2002. The Tribes and the States: geographies of
intergovernmental interaction. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.

Becker, C. D. and K. Ghimire. 2003. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge
and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation
Ecology 8.

Benton-Benai, E. 1988. The Mishomis Book: the voice of the Ojibway Indian Country
Communications, Hayward.

Bergmann, S. A. and J. C. Bliss. 2004. Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation:
Resource management at the public-private interface. Society & Natural Resources
17:377-393.

Berkes, F. 1998. Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the
Canadian subarctic. Pages 98-128 in F. Berkes and C. Folke, editors. Linking Social
and Ecological Systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building
resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource
management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia.

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1692-
1702.

Berkes, F., C. Folke, and M. Gadgil. 1994. Traditional ecological knowledge,
biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. Pages 269-287 in C. A. Perrings, K.-G.
Maler, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, and B.-O. Jansson, editors. Biodiversity Conservation:
problems and policies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Berkes, F., M. Kislalioglu, C. Folke, and M. Gadgil. 1998. Exploring the basic ecological
unit: Ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems 1:409-415.

BIA. 2010. Bureau of Indian Affairs Frequently Asked Questions Site.
www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm. Last Accessed March 22, 2010.

Brightrnan, R. A. 1993. Grateful PreyzRock Cree Animal-Human Relationships.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

142

 

Brody, H. 1997. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier. Waveland
Press.

Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, J. W. Enck, T. B. Lauber, P. D. Curtis, and G. F.
Mattfeld. 2000. The future of hunting as a mechanism to control white-tailed deer
populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:797-807.

Buckley, D. S., T. L. Sharik, and J. G. Isebrands. 1998. Regeneration of northern red oak:
Positive and negative effects of competitor removal. Ecology 79:65-78.

Bumham, K. P. and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a
practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Springer Science, New York.

Canham, C. D. 1988. An index for understory light levels in and around canopy gaps.
Ecology 69:1634-1638.

Cook, J. E., N. Jensen, and B. Galbraith. 2008. Compositional, cover, and diversity
changes after prescribed fire in a mature eastern white pine forest. Botany-Botanique
86:1427-1439.

Cornell, G. L. 1992. Environmental philosophy and perceptions of the environmentin
Human Values and the Environment. Wisconsin Acadamy of Sciences, Arts and
Letters, Madison, WI.

Cote, S. D., T. P. Rooney, J. P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D. M. Waller. 2004.
Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and
Systematics 35:113-147.

Crow, T. R. 1988. Reproductive mode and mechanisms for self-replacement of northern
red oak (Quercus-rubra) - a review. Forest Science 34:19-40.

Crow, T. R. 1992. Population-dynamics and growth-pattems for a cohort of northern red
oak (Quercus rubra) seedlings. Oecologia 91:192-200.

Debo, A. 1970. A History of the Indians of the United States. University of Oklahoma,
Norman.

DeBoer, S. G. 1947. The deer damage to forest reproduction survey

143

 

Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 12:1-21.

Deloria J r., V. 1999. Reflection and revelation: knowing land, places and ourselves.
Pages 250-260 For This Land: writings on religion in America. Routledge, New York,
NY.

Deloria, S. 2006. New paradigm: Indian tribes in the land of unintended consequences.
Natural Resources J oumal 46:301-315.

Dhuey, B. 2008. Gun deer hunting questionnaire 2008. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.

Dolan, B. J. and G. R. Parker. 2004. Understory response to disturbance: an investigation
of prescribed burning and understory thinning treatments. In Spetich, Martin A., ed.
Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SRS-73. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Ebbin, S. A. 2002. Enhanced fit through institutional interplay in the Pacific Northwest
Salmon co-management regime. Marine Policy 26:253-259.

Ebbin, S. A. 2004. The anatomy of conflict and the politics of identity in two cooperative
salmon management regimes. Policy Sciences 37:71-87.

Ebbin, S. A. 2009. Institutional and ethical dimensions of resilience in fishing systems:
Perspectives from co-managed fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. Marine Policy
33:264-270.

F agergren, F. J. 1998. Big Cypress National Preserve: The Great Compromise. Pages
199-215 in R. L. Knight and P. B. Landres, editors. Stewardship Across Boundaries.
Island Press, Washington DC.

Fienup-Riordan, A. 2000. Hunting Tradition in a Changing World: Yup'ik Lives in
Alaska Today. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

F inzi, A. C. and C. D. Canham. 2000. Sapling growth in response to light and nitrogen
availability in a southern New England forest. Forest Ecology and Management
131:153-165.

144

Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1991. Getting to Yes: negotiated agreement without giving in. 2nd
edition. Penguin Books, New York.

Fixico, D. L. 2003. The American Indian mind in a linear world: American Indian studies
and traditional knowledge. Routledge, New York, NY.

Folke, C., F. Berkes, and J. Colding. 1998. Ecological practices and social mechanisms
for building resilience and sustainability. Pages 414-436 in F. Berkes and C. Folke,
editors. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: management practices and social
mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Ford, J. and D. Martinez. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge, ecosystem science,
and environmental management. Ecological Applications 10:1249-1250.

Forrnan, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Frazer, G. W., C. D. Canham, and K. P. Lertzman. 1999. Gap Light Analyzer (GLA),
Version 2.0: Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission
indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users manual and program
documentation. Copyright © 1999: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British
Columbia, and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York.

Frelich, L. E. and C. G. Lorimer. 1985. Current and predicted long-term effects of deer
browsing in hemlock forests in Michigan, USA. Biological Conservation 34:99-120.

Gill, R. M. A. 1992. A review of damage by mammals in north temperate forests. 3:
Impact on trees and forests. Forestry 65:363-388.

GLIF WC. 2007. A guide to understanding Ojibwe treaty rights. Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI.

Good, S. P. 1997. Wilderness and the hunting experience: what it means to be a hunter.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:563-567.

Gotelli, N. J. and A. M. Ellison. 2004. A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer
Associates, Inc, Sunderland, MA.

145

Guilmet, G. M. and D. L. Whited. 2002. American Indian and Non-Indian Philosophies
of Technology and Their Differential Impact on the Environment of the Southern
Puget Sound. American Indian Culture and Research J oumal 26:33-66.

Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling, editors. 2002. Panarchy: understanding
transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington DC.

Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge
generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for
adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human
Ecology 34:573-592.

Healy, W. M. 1997. Influence of deer on the structure and composition of oak forests in
central Massachusetts. In W.J. McShea, H.B. Underwood and J .H. Rappole (eds.) The
science of overabundance: deer ecology and population management. Smithsonian
Institute Press, washington.

Henson, E. C., J. P. Kalt, S. Cornell, K. W. Grant, J. B. Taylor, M. R. Jorgensen, C. E. A.
Curtis, A. J. Lee, and H. Nelson. 2008. The state of the native nations: conditions
under US. policies of self-determination. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Isebrands, J. G. and R. E. Dickson. 1994. Biology and silviculture of northern red oak in
the north central region: a synopsis. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-l 73. US. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.

Johnson, P. S. 1994. The silviculture of northern red oak. In Isebrands, J.G. and Dickson
(eds.) Biology and silviculture of northern red oak in the north central region: a
synopsis. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-173. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.

Johnson, R. A. and D. W. Wichem. 2002. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. 5th
edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Johnston, B. 1976. Ojibway Heritage. Columbia University Press, New York.

Jones J arding, L. 2004. Tribal-state relations involving land and resources in the self-
deterrnination era. Political Research Quarterly 57:295-303.

146

Klubnikin, K., C. Annett, M. Cherkasova, M. Shishin, and I. Fotieva. 2000. The sacred
and the scientific: Traditional ecological knowledge in Siberian river conservation.
Ecological Applications 10: 1296-1306.

Knight, R. L. and P. Landres. 1998. Stewardship Across Boundaries. Island Press,
Wsahington, DC.

Kotar, J ., J. A. Kovach, and T. L. Burger. 2002. Field guide to forest habitat types of
northern Wisconsin. Dept of Forest Ecology and Management, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.

LeCompte, M. D. and J. P. Geotz. 1983. with ideas: analysis of qualitative data. Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association.

Levin, S. A. 2009. Sustainability, Discounting and Cooperation: The Need for New
Institutions. Rachel Carson Distinguished Lecture, Michigan State University, East
Lansing. December 10, 2009.

Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. I985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.

Lindman, H. R. 1974. Analysis of variance in complex experimental designs. W.I-I.
Freeman & Co, San Francisco, CA.

Lischka, S. A., W. L. Anderson, and L. K. Campbell. 2006. Results of the 2005-2006
Illinois Deer Hunter Survey. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.

Liu, J. and W. W. Taylor, editors. 2002. Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural
Resource Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Loew, P. In Review. Ojibwe treaty rights: alter the storm. American Indian Quarterly.

Lorimer, C. G. 1992. Causes of the oak regeneration problem. In D. L. Loftis & C. E.
McGee (Eds), Oak regeneration: Serious problems, practical recommendations. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SE-84. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.

Lorimer, C. G. 2003. The decline of oak forests. Bioscience 53:915-915.

147

Lorimer, C. G., J. W. Chapman, and W. D. Lambert. 1994. Tall understory vegetation as
a factor in the poor development of oak seedlings beneath mature stands. Journal of
Ecology 82:227-237.

McCorquodale, S. M. 1997. Cultural contexts of recreational hunting and native
subsistence and ceremonial hunting: their significance for wildlife management. Pages
568-573.

McCorquodale, S. M. 1999. Historical and contemporary policies regarding off-
reservation hunting by Native Americans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:446-455.

McGee, C. E. 1968. Northern red oak seedlings growth varies by light intensity and seed
source. Research Note SE-90. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.

McShea, W. J. and W. M. Healy. 2003. Oak Forest Ecosystems: Ecology and
Management for Wildlife. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Miles, M. B. and A. M. Hubermann. 1994. Qualitative data analysis : an expanded
sourcebook 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.

Motsinger, J. R., J. M. Kabrick, D. C. Dey, D. E. Henderson, and E. K. Zenner. 2010.
Effect of midstory and understory removal on the establishment and development of
natural and artificial pin oak advance reproduction in bottomland forests. New Forests
39: 195-21 3.

Nadasdy, P. 2003. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic 56:367-3 80.

Natcher, D. C., S. Davis, and C. G. Hickey. 2005. Co-management: Managing
relationships, not resources. Human Organization 64:240-250.

Nesper, L. 2002. The Walleye War: the struggle for Ojibwe Spearfishing and treaty
rights. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

148

Nie, M. 2009. The Use of Co-Management and Protected Land-Use Designations to
Protect Tribal Cultural Resources and Reserved Treaty Rights on Federal Lands.
Natural Resources Journal 48:585-647.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: the evolution of institutions for collective
action. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Ostrom, E. 2004. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems.
Ecological Economics 49:48 8-491.

Ostrom, E., M. A. J anssen, and J. M. Anderies. 2007. Going beyond panaceas.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
104:15176-15178.

Pacala, S. W., C. D. Canham, J. A. Silander, and R. K. Kobe. 1994. Sapling growth as a
function of resources in a north temperate forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-
Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 24:2172-2183.

Palmer, S. C. F., R. J. Mitchell, A. M. Truscott, and D. Welch. 2004. Regeneration failure
in Atlantic oakwoods: the roles of ungulate grazing and invertebrates. Forest Ecology
and Management 1922251-265.

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd edition. Sage,
Newbury Park, California.

Phillips, R. J. and T. A. Waldrop. 2008. Changes in vegetation structure and composition
in response to fuel reduction treatments in the South Carolina Piedmont. Forest
Ecology and Management 255:3107-3116.

Pinheiro, J. C. and D. M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus
Springer Verlag, New York.

Pinkerton, E. 1998. Integrating management of a temperate montane forest ecosystem
through wholistic forestry: a British Columbia example. Pages 369-389 in F. Berkes
and C. Folke, editors. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: management practices
and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.

149

Pitt, D. G., A. Momeault, W. C. Parker, A. Stinson, and L. Lanteigne. 2009. The effects
of herbaceous and woody competition on planted white pine in a clearcut site. Forest
Ecology and Management 257:1281-1291.

Ponder, F. 2003. Effect of site treatments on soil temperature and moisture and oak and
pine grth and nutrient concentration. In Van Sambeek, J .W.; Dawson, J.O.; Ponder,
F ., Jr.; Loewenstein, E.F.; Fralish, J .S., eds. 2003. Proceedings, 13th Central
Hardwood Forest conference; 2002 April 1-3; Urbana, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234.
US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. North Central Research Station, St.
Paul, MN.

Propst, L., W. F. Paleck, and L. Rosan. 1998. Partnerships Across Park Boundaries: The

Rincon Institute and Saguaro National Park. Pages 257-278 in R. L. Knight and P. B.
Landres, editors. Stewardship Across Boundaries. Island Press, Washington DC.

QSR International. 2008. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty
Ltd.

Rathfon, R. A., N. I. Lichti, and R. K. Swihart. 2007. Disking and mid- and understory
removal following an above average acorn crop in three mature oak forests in southern
Indiana. In Jacobs, D.F., Michler, C.H., eds. April 8-9, 2008. Proceedings, 16th central
hardwood forest conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-24. US. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Rickenbach, M. G. and A. S. Reed. 2002. Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed
context: The sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management
30:584-594.

Riemer, J. W. 2004. Chippewa spearfishing, lake property owner/anglers, and tourism - A
case study of environmental social conflict. Sociological Spectrum 24:43-70.

Rooney, T. P., R. J. McCormick, S. L. Solheim, and D. M. Waller. 2000. Regional
variation in recruitment of hemlock seedlings and saplings in the upper Great Lakes,
USA. Ecological Applications 10:1119-1 132.

Rooney, T. P. and D. M. Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in
forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 181:165-176.

150

Rooney, T. P., S. M. Wiegrnann, D. A. Rogers, and D. M. Waller. 2004. Biotic
impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities.

Conservation Biology 18:787-798.

Royston, J. P. 1982. An extension of Shapiro and Wilk-w test for normality to large
samples. Applied Statistics-Joumal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C 31:115-
124.

Salmon, E. 2000. Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature
relationship. Ecological Applications 10:1327-1332.

Sander, I. L. 1990. Northern red oak. In: Silvics of North America, Volume 2:
Hardwoods. Burns, R.M., Honkala, B.H. (Tech. Coords.). Agriculture Handbook 654,
US. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC. Available online at
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/1ambertiana.htm. Last
accessed on October 12, 2009.

Sander, I. L., P. S. Johnson, and R. Rogers. 1984. Evaluating oak advanced reproduction
in the Missouri Ozarks. Research Paper NC-251. US. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN

Satz, R. N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: the reserved rights of Wisconsin's Chippewa
Indians in historical perspective. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters,
Madison, WI.

Schulte, L. A., M. Rickenbach, and L. C. Merrick. 2008. Ecological and economic
benefits of cross-boundary coordination among private forest landowners. Landscape
Ecology 23:481-496.

Silvem, S. E. 1999. Scales of justice: law, American Indian treaty rights and the political
construction of scale. Political Geography 18:639-668.

Silvem, S. E. 2008. Negotiating Ojibwe Treaty Rights: Toward a Critical Geopolitics of
State-Tribal Relations. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 32: 1 53-176.

Spies, T. A. and B. Barnes. 1985. Ecological species groups of upland northern hardwood
hemlock forest ecosystems of the Sylvania recreation area, Upper Peninsula,
Michigan. Canadian J oumal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche
Forestiere 15:961-972.

151

 

Sutton, 1. 2001. Tribes and States: a political geography of Indian environmental
jurisdiction. Pages 239-263 in R. L. Clow and I. Sutton, editors. Trusteeship in
Change: toward tribal autonomy in resource management. University Press of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Tremblay, J. P., J. Huot, and F. Potvin. 2007. Density-related effects of deer browsing on
the regeneration dynamics of boreal forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:552-562.

Trosper, R. L. 2002. Northwest coast indigenous institutions that supported resilience and
sustainability. Ecological Economics 41:329-344.

Tukey, J. W. 1953. The problem of multiple comparisons. Unpublished manuscript.
Princeton University.

Turner, N. J ., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
Wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 1021275-
1287.

U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and US. Department of Commerce
Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation.

Waller, D. M. and W. S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:217-226.

WDNR. 1990. Wisconsin DNR Silviculture and Forest Aesthetics Handbook 2431.5.
Available online at: http://dnr.wi.gov/fbrestry/Publications/Handbooks/243 l 5/. Last
accessed on October 12, 2009.

WDNR. 2005. Northern Highland - American Legion State Forest master plan. Available
online at: http://dnr.wi.gov/master_planning/nhal/. Last accessed on October 27, 2009.

Wilkins, D. E. 2002. Tribal-State Affairs: American States as "Disclaiming"
Sovereignsin B. A. Bays and E. H. Fouberg, editors. The Tribes and the States:
geographies of intergovernmental interaction. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.

Wisdom, M. J ., M. Vavra, J. M. Boyd, M. A. Hemstrom, A. A. Ager, and B. K. Johnson.
2006. Understanding ungulate herbivory-episodic disturbance effects on vegetation

152

dynamics: Knowledge gaps and management needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:283-
292.

Wondolleck, J. M. and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DC.

Xu, J. C., E. T. Ma, D. Tashi, Y. S. Fu, Z. Lu, and D. Melick. 2005. Integrating sacred
knowledge for conservation: Cultures and landscapes in southwest China. Ecology and

Society 10.

Yaffee, S. L. 1996. Ecosystem management in practice: The importance of human
institutions. Ecological Applications 6:724-727.

Yaffee, S. L. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conservation Biology
13:713-725.

Zuur, A. F ., E. N. Ieno, S. Walker, A.A., and G. M. Smith. 2009. Mixed effects models
and extensions in ecology with R. Springer New York.

153