rafibu.‘fitv.¥t:~3_f

2.3.;

S

.1...

m”;

:3 o... .

 

, 7... 95.. fix“
$9.3 m% A 3

Adam}.
.23.

.
7 A: 0 .I ..

In. ”A: . w
«5.4».

,v

. a 1th.“. :
wwamwkw...
4 umvhwpwnmldt.
. .h..rl:.v (We
{.54
#9?

‘9...
if}:
’ ‘31:,
I:

: ‘ n. . ,
2.. In.
I 1- 11‘ 51‘
0’5‘1\ . :1 >v ,
...t1..nrfl.xa
Lat in .1
63.11.02]:
1:5".1V).
. I .v

.5“?

 

t sfl ”:3:

.5.%..;.A.

 

THESIS

2304'

(M) A '
Ju’yr— ,

 

Michigan State

 

LIBRARY

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

 

University

 

SOCIAL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE
FOREST MANAGEMENT IN GOGEBIC COUNTY, MICHIGAN

presented by

LEIGH ANN SPENCE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Forestry

 

 

WW WV

f Major Professor’s Siénature
”fie/03

Date

 

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:ICIRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15

 

SOCIAL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
IN GOGEBIC COUNTY, MICHIGAN

By

Leigh Ann Spence

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

2003

ABSTRACT

SOCIAL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
IN GOGEBIC COUNTY, MICHIGAN

By

Leigh Ann Spence

Sustainable forest management (SFM) concerns the interactions between humans and
forests and their effects. Based on ecosystem management, it is a holistic approach that
includes people as part of ecosystems, and thus incorporates social concerns along with the
more traditional ecological and economic components of forest management.

This research reports on the social component of a community initiative to define SFM
for the community using a criteria and indicators (C&I) framework, in order to set
management goals and to monitor progress towards them.

Interviews were conducted with community members to learn how residents use and
access the forest, as well as their values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences regarding the
forest and their community. Findings reveal residents’ multiple uses of the forest, respect
for the timber industry, and distress over declining logging, high unemployment, and
increasing poverty. Yet, they are unwilling to sacrifice the high quality of rural life for
jobs.

This knowledge will help community leaders complete the development of criteria and
indicators of SFM, and guide planners towards management actions more in line with

residents’ values and needs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this graduate program would not have been possible without the
help and support of many people. At the center, of course, was my advisor Maureen
McDonough, who provided helpful guidance on the thesis and the opportunities to gain
some great practical experience in a number of cool settings, including Gogebic County
and Thailand. These travel experiences, plus those in Brazil, working with Michael Gold
and Tony Araujo, helped make me who I am by expanding my professional, cultural and
social horizons and introduced me to some truly amazing people who taught me great
things and assisted my work. Some of these from Gogebic County include Clyde Elio,
Jerry Murphy, Marla Mosconi, Dick Bolen, Bill Cook, Al Steege, Wendy Hinrichs
Sanders, the FACT steering committee and working group, and the residents who gave
their time to contribute to their community by submitting to lengthy interviews and
meetings to promote sustainable forestry there. Weena Namcharoensombut (J u) provided
great companionship and collaboration on the Thai project, and in Brazil, I never could
have done anything at all without the loving support of the Graeml family who housed, fed,
transported and entertained me for five months, as well as ensuring I never spoke any
English for the entire time.

I want to thank Larry Leefers and John Kerr for their membership and work on my
thesis committee, and John again for his unwavering support during the most trying of
times during writing.

Appreciation goes to Don Dickmann for perennially cheering me up and having faith in

me, and to department staff Connie Brinson, Barb Anderson, Juli Kerr, and Carol

iii

Graysmith for always being there to assist with logistical conundrums.

The help and support of fellow grad students Shawna Meyer, Marcelo Wiecheteck, Lee
Nancarrow, Patrick Smith or Sarah Funkhouser, who offered a mix of advice, laughs,
logistical acrobatics, food, drink, housing and fiiendship were invaluable to staying sane
and finishing.

I never could have made it without the steadfast love and support of my parents and
other family members, most of whom finally learned to stop asking ‘when are you going to
graduate?’

I especially appreciate the never-ending cooking, photocopying, technical support and
love from Kostas, who was always there for me, willing to do anything to help out, no
matter what my mood or his own workload. I never could have done this without him.

And, thanks to Wave and Isadora for purring when I wasn’t.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. l
The Northwoods .......................................................................................................... 1
Background .................................................................................................................. 4
Rationale for the Study ................................................................................................ 6
Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 8

The Study ................................................................................................................... lO
Gogebic County’s Sustainable Forestry Strategy ............................................. 10

Study Purpose ..................................................................................................... 13

Defining the Study .............................................................................................. I 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 16
Ecosystem Management ............................................................................................ 17
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) .................................................................... 19
Sustainable Communities ................................................................................... I 9
Sustainable Forest Management ....................................................................... 20
Participatory Community Development ................................................................... 23
Community Well-being ............................................................................................. 24
Community Well-being and Social Indicators ................................................... 26

Well-being in Resource-dependent Communities ............................................. 27

Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management ..................................... 30
Purpose of Criteria and Indicators .................................................................... 30

What Exactly are Criteria and Indicators (C &I)? ............................................ 32
Development and Implementation of C &I ......................................................... 34

History of SF M Criteria and Indicators ............................................................ 35

Multiscale Relationships .................................................................................... 36
Multiscaled Social C &I ...................................................................................... 40

Types of Data ...................................................................................................... 43

Summary .................................................................................................................... 45

Study Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 48
Chapter 3: METHODS ...................................................................................................... 50
Gogebic County, Michigan ....................................................................................... 50

Local History ............................................................................................................. 51
Gogebic County Today .............................................................................................. 54

The Forests ................................................................................................................. 55

The Gogebic County Forest ............................................................................... 56

WUPFID ............................................................................................................. 56

Industrial F orestland ......................................................................................... 58

State Lands ......................................................................................................... 59

The Ottawa National Forest .............................................................................. 59
Research Protocol ...................................................................................................... 60
Qualitative Data: What and Why ...................................................................... 60
Sampling ............................................................................................................. 62
Content Analysis ................................................................................................. 64
Demographic Data ............................................................................................. 65
Triangulation ...................................................................................................... 66
Exploratory Interviews ....................................................................................... 66
Preliminary Analysis .......................................................................................... 67
Final Analysis ..................................................................................................... 68
Steps Taken in Analysis ...................................................................................... 69
Chapter 4: RESULTS: DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................... 72
Unemployment ........................................................................................................... 72
Age ............................................................................................................................. 73
Population .................................................................................................................. 74
Income ........................................................................................................................ 75
Poverty ....................................................................................................................... 77
Education ................................................................................................................... 79
Crime .......................................................................................................................... 80
Summary .................................................................................................................... 82
Chapter 5: RESULTS: INTERVIEWS ............................................................................ 85
Lifestyle ...................................................................................................................... 85
Best and Worst Traits of the County .................................................................. 86
Significant Historical and Cultural Sites ........................................................... 90
Vision of the Future ............................................................................................ 96
Civic Responsiveness .............................................................................................. 103
Availability of Services ..................................................................................... 103
How Residents Work Together ........................................................................ 108
Education and Skill-building ........................................................................... I I 1
Forest Accessibility .................................................................................................. 116
Amount and Type of A ccess ............................................................................. 116
Forest Use ................................................................................................................ 123
Current Use ...................................................................................................... 123
Economic Approaches ............................................................................................. 127
Summary of Results ................................................................................................. 134
Lifestyle ............................................................................................................. 134
Civic Responsiveness ....................................................................................... I 35
Forest Accessibility .......................................................................................... I 3 6
Forest Use ........................................................................................................ 137
Economic Approaches ...................................................................................... I 3 8

The Development of Social Indicators of SF M ...................................................... 139
Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 143
Lifestyle ............................................................................................................. 143
Civic Responsiveness ....................................................................................... I4 4

vi

Forest Accessibility .......................................................................................... 147

Forest Use ........................................................................................................ I 48

Economic Approaches ...................................................................................... I 4 9
Alternatives to Existing Indicators .......................................................................... 151
Proposed Alternate Economic and Social C&I ....................................................... 153
Proposed Measures to Support Proposed C&l ....................................................... 154

Final Proposed Criteria, Indicators and Measures .................................................. 163
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 165
Researcher Bias ................................................................................................ I 65

Unit of Analysis ................................................................................................ 165
Respondent Makeup ......................................................................................... 1 66
Generalizability ................................................................................................ I 6 7
Recommendations for Further Study ...................................................................... 167

Values and Beliefs ............................................................................................ l 6 7

Community Sustainability Indicators .............................................................. I 68

Lessons Learned by FACT Members ..................................................................... 169

So, What’s the Point? .............................................................................................. 170
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 174
Appendix A: Interview Questions .......................................................................... 175
Appendix B: Classified Interview Responses ........................................................ 179
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 203

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Real median household income from 1979 to 1999 in Gogebic County and

Michigan in 1999 dollars ..................................................................................... 76
Table 2. Gogebic County crime from 1997 to 2001 ............................................................ 81
Table 3. List of best and worst traits of the Gogebic County .............................................. 87
Table 4. List of types of significant historical and cultural features .................................... 91
Table 5. List of hopes and beliefs about the future of Gogebic County .............................. 98
Table 6. List of service availability, notable and missing services .................................... 105
Table 7. Community collaboration to meet goals .............................................................. 110
Table 8. List of responses on education and skill-building ................................................ 114
Table 9. List of forest accessibility for all ownership types .............................................. 118
Table 10. List of forest uses and values .............................................................................. 125
Table 11. List of economic approaches favored and disfavored by respondents .............. 130
Table 12. List of best and worst traits of Gogebic County ................................................ 180
Table 13. List of types of significant historical and cultural features ................................ 182
Table 14. List of hopes and beliefs about the future of Gogebic County .......................... 184
Table 15. List of service availability, notable and missing services .................................. 188
Table 16. Community collaboration for community goals ................................................ 191
Table 17. List of responses on education and skill-building .............................................. 193
Table 18. List of forest accessibility for all ownership types ............................................ 196

viii

Table 19. List of forest uses and values .............................................................................. 199

Table 20. List of economic approaches favored and disfavored by respondents .............. 201

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Lacing model .................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2. Location of Gogebic County on Michigan map ................................................... 51
Figure 3. Counties included in WUPF ID ............................................................................. 58

Figure 4. Annual average unemployment of Gogebic County and Michigan for
1990 and 2000 ..................................................................................................... 72

Figure 5. Median age of residents of Gogebic County and Michigan from 1980 to

2000 ...................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 6. Gogebic County population from 1970 to 2000 ................................................... 74
Figure 7. Michigan population from 1970 to 2000 .............................................................. 75

Figure 8. Median household income for Gogebic County and Michigan from 1979
to 1999 ................................................................................................................. 75

Figure 9. Gogebic County household income distribution for 1989 and 1999 ................... 77

Figure 10. Percent of individuals and families below poverty line in Gogebic
County in 1990 and 2000 .................................................................................... 78

Figure 11. Percent of individuals and families in Gogebic County and Michigan

below poverty line in 2000 .................................................................................. 78
Figure 12. Gogebic County school enrollment in 1990 and 2000 ....................................... 80
Figure 13. Crime in Gogebic County from 1997 to 2001 .................................................... 82
Figure 14. Comparison of best traits of Gogebic County ..................................................... 89
Figure 15. Comparison of worst traits of Gogebic County ................................................... 90
Figure 16. Comparison of types of significant historical and cultural features .................... 92

Figure 17. Significant types of historical and cultural features by percentage ..................... 93

Figure 18. Response types on beliefs about the future ........................................................ 102
Figure 19. Response types on availability of services ........................................................ 104
Figure 20. Response types on community collaboration .................................................... 109
Figure 21. Response types on local skills and educational opportunities .......................... 112
Figure 22. General accessibility of all forest types combined ............................................ 117
Figure 23. Forest accessibility by ownership type .............................................................. 120
Figure 24. Forest uses by percentage ................................................................................... 125

Figure 25. Percentage of responses on economic approaches in favor (+) or
disfavor (-) by respondents ................................................................................ 129

xi

 

Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION

Tree Singing

some have said they could go
into the earth
and sit there singing
some have said they would go
up into trees
standing stone people
were the ones who sent them there
sitting high up in the trees
trees grown fiom the sacred roots
where they were one day
sitting inside the earth and singing
with those stones

Chippewa poem (Indians. org)

The Northwoods

“It took five giant storks, working overtime, to deliver him to his parents. Three
hours afier his birth he was reported to weigh a full eighty pounds and they used a
lumber wagon drawn by a team of oxen as a baby carriage. His baby voice was
described as 'sort of a cross between a buzz saw and a bass drum. ’ He cut his teeth
on a peavy pole and grew so fast that after one week he had to wear his father’s
clothes. He would eat forty bowls of porridge just to whet his appetite. His lungs
were so strong that he could empty a whole pond of frogs with one "holler. "

“The year of the two winters the snow was so deep he had to dig down to the trees to
continue logging operations. It got so cold that the boiling cofleefioze in the
shanties and the jacks were scalded by the hot ice. When the men spoke, their
words froze in mid-air and when it thawed in the spring there was a terrible chatter

for weeks ” (Anon. ).

Such was the birth and life of Paul Bunyan, the giant lumberjack and folk hero of the

Northwoods. “A product of rugged humor, wit and spontaneous exaggeration,” his
renowned legend was formed in the bunkhouses of logging camps by the working men of
the forest, as they gathered round the glowing woodstoves on frozen winter nights. From
there, tales about Paul and his blue ox, Babe, “spread throughout the pine shanties of
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.” The loggers heard and respun the yarns, “often
weaving in local or personal embellishments as they passed the stories on” (Morren 1997).
Good-natured and often self-deprecating humor permeates the culture of the
Northwoods of the Great Lakes region. With survivalist pride over the many hardships of
the area—from the fiigid, blizzardy winters to the decaying infrastructures and loss of
timber and mining jobs——the inhabitants of the northern woods poke fun at themselves and
their region with such lines as, “Summer is defined as three months of poor snowmobiling”
(Morten 1997), and, “Dollar Bay was named after the annual salary in the area ” (Ring

2002a). Morten (1997) expounds on the winters:

“Rather than being a drawback, we see our long, bitterly cold winters up here as a
positive thing. They help to keep the rijflrafl out, relieve us of deerflies and
mosquitoes for seven months and allow us all (men and women) to forgo the tedium
of shaving anything until early June. ”

Residents of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP), many of Scandinavian descent and
fondly known as Yoopers, narrate the creation of the UP and the Mackinac Bridge, the only

gateway from Michigan’s Lower Peninsula to the UP (Ring 2002a):

“In the beginning dere was nuttin'.
Den...

0n da FIRST day, God created da UP.

0n da SECOND day, He created da partridge, da deer, da bear,
dafish, and da ducks.

On da THIRD day, He said "Let dere be Yoopers to roam da
Upper Peninsula.

On da FOURTH day, God created da udder world down below.

On da FIFTH day, He said "Let dere be trolls to live in da udder
world down below.

On da SIXTH day, He created da bridge, so da trolls would have
a way to get to heaven.

God saw it was good and on da SE VENT H day, He went huntin’. ”

Indeed, hunting is a central Northwoods pastime. Michigan is the number one hunting
state in the nation (USDA F S ER MNF 2002). November 15 is declared a regional
‘holiday’ as deer season opens and neighborhood businesses close and display ‘Gone
Hunting’ signs in the windows. Hunters escape to rustic cabins in the woods, called camps,
and carry on the long-standing tradition of passing the time with fiiends and family in the
heart of the forest they know so well. In the winter months, they become ice fishermen and
set up shanties on the frozen Great Lakes shores, some kidding that their ice shanties are
better furnished than their homes (Ring 2002b). The ice fishing tradition runs so deep that
even during the unusually warm winter of 2002, when the ice was of very questionable
strength and depth, a village of dozens of shanty lantern lights nevertheless dotted the
evening lake shore of Escanaba, Michigan, almost as far out as the edge of the ice.

Yoopers and other residents of forest communities are a special breed of folks, firmed
by adversity, tempered by their courage and wit, and inspired by the natural surroundings
they like to call ‘God’s country,’ as well as ‘home.’ They are distinctively rural in an
increasingly urban society, and so are the tribulations that face them in an ever-changing
world—sometimes nudging, sometimes shoving them to adapt to shitting public values

regarding the use of forestlands. Tribal nations have their own unique set of challenges, in

addition to the ones they share with other forest dwellers—but what is universal to all is the
forest and all it offers, with the longing to sustain those things for their children and
grandchildren—things like the beauty and serenity of the sun-speckled forest floor; teeming
wildlife; native ceremonial sites; commodities such as timber and pulp, and other products
like birch bark for arts and crafts, maple syrup, mushrooms and berries; recreational
opportunities for hiking, hunting, biking, skiing and snowmobiling; as well as fishing,
swimming, rafting, kayaking and canoeing in the woodland waters. In addition, there are
less tangible qualities such as a rural lifestyle, sense of community and place, and the desire
to provide a comfortable standard of living for one’s family that have traditionally been the

cornerstones of life in the forest.

Background

The nineteenth century was an era of exhaustive timber harvesting, creating a plethora
of boomtowns, communities created for the purpose of extracting natural resources in the
short-term. Entrepreneurs invested, constructed mills and shipped lumber, and some built
manufacturing plants to upgrade the raw materials (Maybee 1960). The communities
provided labor and services. The entrepreneurs were not interested in the land, only the
resource to be exploited, and when the resource ran out, so did the entrepreneurs. The
towns rose and fell with the fortunes of the companies on which they hinged (Hays 1990).
The result was rapid fluctuations in employment, population and well-being (Bowles 1992;
Freudenburg 1992), as well as temporary institutions and little cumulative development of
capital and skills. A few enterprises remained and became permanent, but the dwindling

wood supply became less and less stable, and hence the private forest industry declined

(Hays 1990).

A by-product of intensive forest harvesting had been that vast areas of land were
cleared and converted to farming. As fortune would have it, however, the mediocre soils
were of only limited use in agriculture, and in Michigan, the result was the reversion of tax-
delinquent farmlands to the state for protection and regeneration, because they contributed
little to the private agricultural economy (Hays 1990). By the early twentieth century,
many had learned the lessons over-exploitation had taught, and public forest management
systems——federal, state and county—emerged to regenerate and protect the discarded lands
of the previous era. Private entrepreneurs also began returning with greater long-term
resolve (Hays 1990).

In 1944, the Federal Sustained Yield Forest Management Act was passed, inspired by
the views of David T. Mason, who believed that sustained yield would create economic and
political stability in fragile forest communities, thereby ensuring the happiness and well-
being of local residents (Mason and Bruce 1931; Schallau and Alston 1987; Schallau
1989). A steady flow of timber was thought to ensure employment, which would in turn
produce stable communities (Schallau 1989; Kusel and F ortrnann 1991). However, many
studies have discussed the limitations of this assumption (N adeau et al. 1999), primarily
due to the cyclic demand for forest products and changes in transportation and technology
(Kromm 1972; Waggener 1977).

Following World War 11 came a time of intensive forest management, as the push for
greater wood production skyrocketed with the building boom, and changing public values
regarding the meaning and use of forests generated a new demand for multiple uses, such

as recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. This change in public demands took forest

managers off guard. They were trained in and used to the traditional goals and objectives
of forest management for wood production, and they “opposed an expanded national park
system, wilderness designations, and wild and scenic rivers. Often, their opposition was

ideological, based more on a perceived threat to their values than on an actual decrease in

wood production” (Hays 1990:45).

Rationale for the Study

The differing worldviews of forest managers and preservationists have been
persistently in conflict since World War II, and this has required much greater variation in
the skills required in forest management (Hays 1990). The term preservationist is defined
as one who advocates keeping forests in current or unaltered condition. Preservationists are
typically opposed to any timber harvesting, primarily in public forest lands, for the sake of
preserving the resource for ecological, spiritual, recreational and aesthetic reasons, for
current as well as for future generations. Forest communities are caught in the middle of
this struggle, as residents’ surroundings and livelihoods are often determined by the
outcomes of national debates over forest values and goals, historically with little input from
local community members. Drielsma et al. (1990: 63) describe present-day forest
communities:

“They are among the least prosperous of all rural communities, with high seasonal
unemployment, low wages, and high rates of population turnover. Standards of
health and happiness appear to be lower than average. While the status of the
family remains high, divorce rates are also high. Housing, public services, and
amenities are poor. Outside forces seem to predominate over community
institutions that might provide an integrated and cohesive community life. Perhaps

the only characteristics of forest communities in accord with ideology are the
somewhat lower crime rates and the smaller scale of industrial activity, which

 

provides opportunities for independent, entrepreneurial activity. ”

Community well-being is impacted by changes in a community’s natural resource base
(Machlis and Force 1988). Over time, the social institutions of a resource-dependent
community develop around the resource and become interlaced with it. Although new
regulations or policies can be applied swiftly, it may require much longer intervals of time
for social structures to adapt to change. Therefore, any large transformation in the forest
base or related industries has the potential to impact the social structure of forest
communities (Kakoyannis 1998).

Decision—making regarding forest resources, as well as implementation of those
decisions on the ground are conducted by people, for people, within a social system.
Understanding the shared values, beliefs, attitudes, activities and desires of communities is
key to providing forest management that will sustain social systems and institutions and
discover creative ways to overcome the myriad of problems that have plagued many forest
communities.

Every commrmity is unique. That is why data collected from other locations cannot
completely suffice for identifying the values and forest activities of local area citizens, even
though forest managers and community leaders may have read many good studies on the
activities and values of forest residents around the region, country and world. For
sustainable forest management to transpire, first-hand views need to be collected from
community members themselves, so that the full implications of management decisions can
be examined and assessed in light of the vision of the people most affected by the

decisions.

Sustainability

What does it mean for a community or a forest to be sustainable? Sustainability is
about walking lightly on the earth. In the most general terms, it is an attribute of any
system that balances the energy it needs to operate with that of its output. It is a system
that gives as much as it takes, by resupplying for future use what it consumes, and leaving
alone what it doesn’t really need. Sustainability is about balancing present needs and
desires with future ones.

There are innumerable definitions of sustainability, but all of them concern living
within limits, the interconnectedness among economy, society and environment, and the
equitable distribution of opportunities and resources (Hart 1998-99). Webster’s New

International Dictionary states (1986) simply:

Sustain: to cause to continue...to keep up, especially without interruption
diminution... to prolong

According to Friends of the Earth Scotland, sustainability encompasses the simple principle
of taking from the earth only what it can provide indefinitely, thus leaving future
generations no less than we have access to ourselves (FoES mid 19905).

Employing a more community-based definition, Hart (1998-2000) contends that:

“Sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community—whether the
economic, social and environmental systems that make up the community are
providing a healthy, productive, meaningul life for all community residents, present

and future. ”

Sustainable forest management (SF M), also called sustainable forestry, concerns the
interactions between humans and forests “and the effects of these interactions at local,

regional, national and global scales. . . [It] incorporates the knowledge that forests play a

major role in sustaining human health and welfare by contributing to the long—term viability
of watersheds, communities and economies. . .The social, cultural and economic realities of
urban, suburban, and rural communities have a far reaching influence on the continued
existence, use, and condition of forests” (USDA S&PF 1999: 2). For forestry to be
sustainable, it must support the ecological, economic and social pillars of life, in each of
which forests are an interwoven part. If any one of these components of sustainable
forestry is not ftmctioning in a healthy manner and in synchronicity with the other two,
sustainability has not yet been achieved. For instance, if logging is terminated in a
particular forest area, it can impact the social and economic fabric of local residents, whose
bread and butter may come from the jobs that timber harvesting once provided. For
forestry to be sustainable, managers must consider the holistic, system-wide implications of
decisions that can produce both positive and negative chain reactions in the ecosystem,
economy and various sectors of society.

Out of the need for credible, transparent and consistent reporting on SF M, on which to
base informed decision-making, has risen an interest, by forest planners and managers
accountable to their agencies or companies, in criteria and indicators (C&I). The C&I
approach to sustainable forest management provides a structure to monitor management
policies and actions and to assess their impacts on the three pillars of sustainable forestry
(NRC CF S 2000).

Both the Canadian and US. Forest Service, as well as the numerous other entities
developing criteria and indicators, base their actions on a systems fiamework. Systems
theory presupposes that “ecological, economic and social systems are a group of

interrelated, interacting, or interdependent constituents forming a complex whole” (USDA

 

F S 1M12002: 24). These three systems, the main facets of sustainability, and thus forest
sustainability, are the components around which criteria and indicators are organized and
developed. When woven together into a single larger system, the synergies and
interactions of the ecological, economic and social pillars result in emergent properties
commonly referred to as “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” A systems
approach can be used to enrich our understanding of how the three pillars work together to

establish and uphold sustainability (USDA F S IMI 2002).

The Study

Gogebic County ’s Sustainable Forestry Strategy

Since at least the 19805, the Gogebic County Economic Development Commission
(EDC) has sought out and collaborated with local leaders for the purpose of identifying
possible strategies for economic growth and development (Elio 2002a). In 1991 , the
importance of the county’s natural resources was laid out in the plan called Gogebic
County Jobs 2000, a proposal for meeting the millennium. A leading priority was the
development of a broad public awareness of natural resources and appropriate management
practices, but the strategy was too broad to act on. A more specific approach was needed
that could produce concrete, measurable results (Elio 2002a).

In 1998, community members with an interest in the Ottawa National Forest Plan
provided valuable insight that facilitated the formation of a clearly stated and meaningful
plan to define sustainable forestry for Gogebic County. The intent was to provide

strategies for bringing economic development and benefits to current and future county

10

residents in a number of different sectors. Strategy projects were designed to be pragmatic
with measurable accomplishments (EDC 1998).

The philosophy of the plan was founded on self-determination. The community
believed it had the capacity to influence its own future but needed an organizing framework
to bring it about. The alternative was that entities outside the county would create that
future, imposing forest policies driven by a national agenda that would “simply overwheh'n
local input.” The impending Ottawa National Forest plan revision served as a tangible
focal point for the process, through its existing avenues for public input and comment
(Murphy 2002). By defining sustainable forestry for the county in one unified voice,
community members felt they could take on the challenge of outside control using a
cohesive and holistic approach. The county did not seek to usurp national objectives but
rather to provide a local context within which to meet them that would avoid undermining
the community’s own goals and circumstances. In fact, a forester with the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service) was
one of the founding leaders of the initiative.

In 1999, under the leadership of the Gogebic County Economic Development
Commission, Michigan State University Extension and the Gogebic County Forestry
Commission, a task force comprised of local citizens was put together by the newly formed
steering committee and charged with defining sustainable forestry for Gogebic County.
This Forest Advocacy Coordinating Team (FACT) was, and is still, a coalition of residents
from all over the county, representing a wide range of professional backgrounds and
interests.

At a March 1999 meeting, the steering committee decided to use a criteria and

11

indicators (C&I) approach, so that results from management decisions and actions could be
measured periodically, and trends monitored, so as to evaluate Gogebic County’s progress
towards sustainable forest management over time. The C&I framework offered a concrete,
practical approach to describe, apply and measure the broad, abstract concept of
sustainability.

At the first FACT meeting, presentations were made by experts, introducing the basics
of each of the three pillars of sustainable forestry—ecological, economic and social—as
well as what type of data to collect on which to base decisions, and how to collect it. The
presenter for the social pillar explained the difference between primary data, collected from
community members, and existing secondary archival data and stated that both needed to
be collected.

There are two driving questions in the social pillar. The first is: What do we want to
sustain? From a social perspective, culture and community are the foundations of society.
What does it mean to be a resident of Gogebic County? What are the shared values of its
citizens? How do residents use and identify themselves with the forest? What makes a
community a satisfying and enjoyable place to live? How does the forest contribute to
that?

The second question is: What do we need to be able to sustain those things? Societal
structure exists to support activities for meeting a community’s goals. Institutional
fiameworks, both formal and informal, provide that structure. Formal institutions include
the law, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, churches, schools and
universities. Informal customs and practices determine how we define and approach forest

management, such as who is an expert, and who should make decisions about natural

12

resources.

It was decided at that FACT meeting that each presenter would undertake the task of
collecting the data for his/her pillar of sustainable forestry. The expert for the social pillar
was charged with the task of collecting pre-baseline, qualitative data fi'om Gogebic County
residents in order to explore what variables might be considered for use as social criteria
and indicators, as well as what relevant questions might be included in a fixture baseline
survey to monitor planning policies and management activities. Interviews would be used
in an attempt to answer the two driving questions— What do we want to sustain? And,
what do we need to be able to sustain those things?—so that sustainability can be broken
down into specific, concrete, measurable traits to be used in the development of criteria and

indicators.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore how residents of Gogebic County value and use
the forest, how they envision their forest community, and how they want to move forward
to make it a better place to live. This will serve as the basis for the selection of community
based social criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, specifically for
Gogebic County—in order to guide local and national leaders in making informed
decisions regarding the local forest and the community itself.

The study focuses on the social pillar of SFM and explores the ways that residents of
Gogebic County use the forest. It attempts to understand and describe what is important to
community members about the forest and their community, as well as their personal truths

and feelings that lead them to prefer certain things and then act on them.

13

The information gathered can shed light on which aspects of community life residents
want to maintain and which ones could use improvement. This knowledge can also help
the community to understand how decisions about forest resources may affect the quality of
life of community members, leading to better decision-making and a more sustainable
forest community.

This type of study will provide the data needed for the development of criteria,
indicators and measures (which it has already partially done in Gogebic County), so that
social trends can be monitored and evaluated to determine the community’s success on the

road to the sustainability.

Defining the Study

Gogebic County residents developed their own broad definition of sustainable forestry
for the community in 2000, but a more specific definition is still needed, in order to clarify
what sustainable forestry actually signifies in practical terms. One of the leading criticisms
of the concept of sustainability has been that no one knows what it really means or how a
system becomes sustainable, and thus the term has grown to be a vacuous buzzword for
many scholars and planners. To give meaning to sustainability, hierarchies of broad goals
(criteria), each with its accompanying list of specific objectives that express the criterion
(indicators), and targeted, measurable attributes of each indicator (measures) need to be
developed. When these are measured, analyzed and reported back to the community every
few years, local conditions can be observed, trends identified and corrective action taken, if
necessary, to keep the community on track towards its self-identified goals and objectives.

Thus, sustainability becomes meaningful and manageable. In 2002, Gogebic County

14

citizens did develop a list of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, based
in part on the original analysis in 2000 of these resident interviews.

In order to define SFM measures, certain types of information must be collected and
analyzed. The Gogebic County FACT steering committee selected four topics, out of all
the interview data, to examine more closely: lifestyle, civic responsiveness, forest
accessibility and forest use. The interview questions that were analyzed, relating to these
four topics, formed the basis of the quest to better understand how residents use and access
the forest, and what their values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences are regarding the forest
and their community. These data were used by Gogebic County citizens to develop social
criteria and indicators, but FACT rearranged the format so that C&I would be grouped into
ecological, economic, social and forest management categories. This better reflects the
three components of sustainability, with the addition of forest management, the practical

application of the synthesis of knowledge from the three pillars.

15

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Sustainable forest management is based on the concepts of sustainability in general and
sustainable community development, each of which are outlined and defined in this chapter.

SF M is also deeply rooted in ecosystem management, which includes the human
ecosystem, an organizing framework that views natural resource management as a holistic
system, integrating its many interconnected parts, long- and short-terrn trends, and societal
needs, values and activities. Recognizing that no system is truly closed, ecosystem
management and sustainable forest management incorporate the ecological, economic and
social aspects of life into the goal-setting and planning processes. Sustainable forestry rests
on the sustainability of each of these three pillars.

Because sustainability means different things to different people in various places, it is
often difficult to pinpoint which planning policies and management actions are sustainable.
Measuring and evaluating the progress made towards achieving the goals of SFM is vital.

It facilitates decision—making by telling us whether we can keep doing what we’re doing or
whether we need to change course a bit. A criteria and indicators approach provides a
structure with which to define sustainable forestry, thereby developing a vision at which to
aim. Measurable attributes that can be gauged periodically provide a handy tool for
evaluating and adapting policies and management actions to keep in line with sustainability
goals.

Public participation in natural resource decision-making is a key component of

16

ecosystem management, and hence, sustainability, because it sets the direction of future
forest management towards that which community members have themselves chosen and
so will be more likely to support. Participation reduces conflict by introducing cooperation
and collaboration within the community planning process. Residents learn to listen to each
other and to respect the diverse perspectives of their neighbors. Social criteria and
indicators of SFM should reflect the values of the entire cross-section of the local
population, which is very difficult without the input of all the representative sectors and
groups of the community in the development of C&I.

Although the use of criteria and indicators has largely existed at the international,
national and state levels, there is increased interest in carrying the approach to the
community level, where most management actions are carried out and stakeholders are
most affected. Community sustainability is based on the quality of life of its residents and
can be monitored and evaluated to better understand the relationships between human
activities and ecosystem and human system health and well-being. Social indicators,
developed through a citizen participation process, can be used to track progress towards
community and forest sustainability goals, helping to ensure a high quality of life for forest

residents.

Ecosystem Management

Ecosystem management (EM) has emerged in recent years as a new, more holistic
approach to managing natural resources that has won the appeal of both scholars and
practitioners of natural resource policy (Freemuth 1996). With its concern for

sustainability, EM is focused more broadly than traditional approaches to resource

l7

management. It calls for systems drinking and consideration of cultural factors (Wilkinson

1992). Grumbine’s (1994: 31) working definition follows:

“Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships
within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal of
protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term. ”

According to Machlis et al. (1995), while the manner in which it should be practiced is
being debated, ecosystem management’s basic principles are straightforward. These

include:

> Natural resources should be managed as a system of interconnected parts, using
the ecosystem as an organizing framework;

> People are part of ecosystems, and their needs, values and activities must be
considered in management plans;

> Managers should be concerned with short- and long-term trends, as well as the
local, regional and national consequences of actions; and

> Decisions about resources should be made collaboratively, including federal
agencies, local governments and citizens, in the process.

Ecosystem management consists of a continuing cycle of action based on studying,
planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting (Maser 1994b). A fifth
principle of EM declares that “all management concepts and practices. . ..must be
viewed. . ..as experimental” and provisional (Maser 1994a: 306), because there is still a
great deal of research to be done before we deeply understand the dynamics of ecosystems.
It is, therefore, critical that we observe closely the effects of our management decisions,
and if necessary, make appropriate modifications in either our concepts or practices for
improved, future decision-making. Because of this adaptive aspect of EM, it is sometimes

also called adaptive ecosystem management.

18

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)

Sustainable Communities

Communities are social systems comprised of interwoven institutions such as
governments, schools, churches, shared interests and/or other formal and informal
institutions. A community can be a city, town, neighborhood, a single block, or a hunting
association or other organization (McDonough et al. 1994).

There are two main types: communities of place and communities of interest.
Communities of place are defined by their geographic boundaries, that is, by their
locations. They also possess a distinct social network and lifestyle and are made up of
people living near each other in the same locality, such as in the Kalamazoo, Ironwood or
Ottawa National Forest community (McDonough et al. 1994). It should be noted, however,
that communities occur at several different levels and can be nested within others. A small
neighborhood, for example, is a community, but it is nested within a municipality, which is
also a community, which is then nested within a county, which can also be considered a
community (V oth et al. 1999).

Communities of interest are groups of people sharing a common set of values, interests,
beliefs, heritage or circumstances. They may or may not live near each other. Examples
include the Buddhist community, the Chippewa community or the forest land owner
community.

Most people are members of several communities, including both communities of place
and communities of interest (McDonough et al. 1994). While communities of place and

communities of interest can and do overlap, the term community as used in this thesis

l9

generally refers to a community of place, in the sense that it refers to a specific geographic
area. However, multiple (and in some cases, overlapping) groups exist within and across
localities that possess varying viewpoints and interests from one another, such as Native
Americans, forestry professionals, backpackers and seasonal residents. In this sense,
communities of interest are included as well.

Sustainable community development is, then, according to the Mountain Association

for Community Economic Development (Hart 1998-2000):

"...the ability to make development choices which respect the relationship between
the three "E's"-economy, ecology, and equity:

Economy - Economic activity should serve the common good, be self-renewing, and
build local assets and self-reliance.

Ecology - Humans are part of nature, nature has limits, and communities are
responsible for protecting and building natural assets.

Equity - The opportunity for full participation in all activities, benefits, and
decision-making of a society. "

The Northwest Policy Institute builds on this idea, maintaining that "sustainable
communities foster commitment to place, promote vitality, build resilience to stress, act as

stewards, and forge connections beyond the community" (Hart 1998-2000).

Sustainable Forest Management

Ecosystem sustainability, of which sustainable forest management is a part, is thought
of as the “degree of overlap between what is ecologically possible and what is socially
desired by the current generation, as well as the ability of both the ecosystem and

management system to adapt to changing environmental conditions over centuries” (Maser

20

1994b: 309). This implies that the current generation must protect the ecological and social
options for the future, because both will change over time.

“The terms forest sustainability, sustainable forestry, and sustainable forest
management are frequently used interchangeably and are closely linked to sustainable
development” (USDA S&PF 1999: 2). The US. Forest Service defines sustainable forest

management with three central premises:

> The continued existence and use of forests to meet human physical, economic,
and social needs;

> The desire to preserve the health of forest ecosystems in perpetuity; and

> The ethical choice of preserving options for future generations while meeting the
needs of the present (USDA FS [MI 2000: 2).

Prabhu and his colleagues at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

(1998) incorporate criteria and indicators, as well as quality of life, by defining SFM as:

“ ...a set of objectives, activities, and outcomes consistent with maintaining or
improving the forest ’s ecological integrity and contributing to people’s well-being
now and in the fitture. ”

Maser (1994b) illustrates sustainable forestry and adaptive ecosystem management
together with the lacing model, a conceptual framework for building overlap between what
people want, now and for the future, and what is ecologically possible (Figure 1). Ideally,
societal knowledge and wishes would be passed from citizens to scientists and managers,
who assess what is ecologically, economically and operationally possible. The assessment
would then be passed back to the public which may influence citizens to re-evaluate their
necessities, which may then stimulate creative solutions to problems and conflicts.

Information, in this way, is passed back and forth in a repetitive manner, like lacing a shoe,

21

until it is thoroughly integrated and ready for the planning stage.

 

      
      
    
   
 
  
  

Societal Ecological
Values Capacity

  

Societal
Values

      
  

Ecological
Capacity

  

Analyze
context

      
 

Social values . . .
analysis . ' , Ecological
capacity

management of practices

     
   

Societal Science >
approval . cross-check .1

Plan and
implement

  
 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure l. The Lacing model
Source: Maser(l994b: 338). From Bormann et a]. 1994.

Why is SFM important? It is because people all over the earth are recognizing the
essential role forests perform in so many aspects of their lives, not only for traditional
forest products like timber and paper, but for a host of non-tirnber products, as well as
intrinsic and spiritual values (Williams et al. 1998). Forest management emerges from the
relationship between society’s needs and desires and the capability of the resource to
provide them. Understanding the social factors underlying forest management is critical,
because all decisions are made by people operating in a complex social environment

(McDonough 1998).

22

Participatory Community Development

“Management decisions are as much about defining the character of local
communities as they are about defining land use practices ” (F reemuth I 996).

Sustainable community development, which includes sustainable forestry, rests “on the
assumption that the best ideas usually come from the people, not the policy-makers .......
therefore, active participation in a local community is necessary to direct the process. .
for example, by taking part in citizen administrative boards, in town meetings, and in local
grass roots activities” (Maser 1997:115). This is how human capacity is built, thus
empowering citizens to take control of their own community development process, leading
to the realization of locally generated goals and objectives (Renard and Hudson 1995).
Capacity building is a principal component in developing sustainable communities and
community-based dialogues (Nelson and Weschler 1996). Participatory processes, and
what is learned through them, promote development by “empowering local people and
institutions to take positive measures on their own behalf, thus rising to the level of co-
management” (Renard and Hudson 1995: 78). “Empowering citizens means designing
processes where people know that their participation has the potential to have an impact,
where a representative range of citizens are included, and where there are visible
outcomes” (King et al. 1998).

Local level development (LLD) is a community development model which assumes
that decision-making and project implementation is best carried out by local people, for
local people, because they are the ones most directly affected by the development actions.
It is a grassroots framework, functioning (ideally) from the bottom—up and composed of

community members working in tandem with agencies, scientists, land managers and

23

policymakers. LLD assumes that citizens have the right to determine their own firture, or at
least to meaningfully participate in decision-making about it. It also holds that community
members have legitimate and valuable knowledge and are legitimate partners in any
development process. In addition, a community is not a homogeneous entity. There are
numerous social groups with differing status, power, needs and wishes, and there is ample
evidence to suggest that integrating local residents into the decision-making process eases
conflict between groups (Furze et al. 1997).

An important dimension of community culture is its civic culture, which “consists of
the values, concepts and modes of action that relate to the community’s capacity to engage
itself, governmental authorities and other organizations in collective acts of governance”
(Nelson and Weschler 1996: 7). The ability of a community to work together to meet
community goals and to effectively participate in acts of self—govemance and within the
larger governmental system is founded on the attributes of its civic culture, which influence
the community’s capability to participate effectively in forest management decision-

making (Ibid 1996).

Community Well-being

The term community well-being corresponds to the quality of life for the residents of the
community (and the two terms are often used interchangeably), meaning “how well [the
residents] live” (Kaufman and Kaufinan 1946: 23). There is a long tradition of studying
well-being in forest-dependent communities, typically in the context of community stability
(Kusel 1996) which has been historically linked to a steady supply of timber. Policy

makers assumed that this would lead to stable employment, and thus, community stability

24

(LeMaster 1989; Richardson 1996). However, economists critical of sustained-yield
policies contended that market cycles and other external forces far outweigh wood supply
as a cause for variation in employment and income (Waggener 1977).

Amartya Sen’s conceptualization of individual well-being is based on “the real
opportunities people have and their achievements in light of their opportunities” (Kusel
1996: 361). For someone to have a high level of well-being, he or she must not only feel
happy and content but also have opportunities available and be able to take advantage of
them (Kuse12001: 12).

Kusel broadened Sen’s approach from the individual to the community level, “which
acknowledges the importance of a sense of place” (Kusel 1996: 361). This requires the
collection of “diverse slices of data,” both sociodemographic [secondary] measures and an
assessment of human capacity [primary]——how community residents draw its components
of physical, financial, human, cultural and social capital together “to meet local needs and
create opportunities” (Ibid 1996: 361). Human capacity data typically must be collected
first-hand from the residents themselves, in the form of public meetings, interviews, focus
groups, surveys, etc.

Community sustainability is largely based on meeting the goals of its citizens. Well-
being is the ultimate marker of sustainability, because current and future quality of life is
the umbrella under which all other sustainability goals fall. Maintaining a high quality of
life, socially, ecologically and economically is the ultimate goal of sustainable forest
management. Exploring citizens’ values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences is a way to
identify residents’ own personal and collective visions of well-being, and hence,

sustainability. Criteria and indicators provide a framework for clarifying sustainability

25

goals, as well as monitoring and assessing progress in meeting them.

Community Well-being and Social Indicators

Efforts to monitor and measure sustainability arose out of the healthy communities
movement, a framework that incorporates both the well-being of citizens as well as the
health of the surrounding physical environment. Patterson (1995) tells us that it is “an
attempt to integrate indicator research on quality of life with policy concerns related to
sustainable development” (Beckley and Burkosky 1999: 8). The significance of the
movement has been the community level, local efforts to understand the relationships
between human activities and ecosystem and human? system health and well-being (Burch
1994).

Sustainability monitoring also grew out of quality of life studies, which, beginning in
the 19605, were a result of dissatisfaction with the economic way well-being was being
evaluated and the realization that “economic progress” was associated with degradation of
the environment, elevated poverty levels and other societal problems (Schatan 1990).
Communities are beginning to define sustainability for themselves and develop meaningful
criteria and indicators to reflect and support those definitions. This calls for an assessment
of the well-being of community life and residents’ vision for the future, as well as insight
into the values, beliefs and attitudes underlying and influencing community culture. It also
means understanding how people forge relationships, organize themselves into
communities, and build institutions, so that these systems and qualities can be sustained
throughout the development (or management) process and beyond (McDonough 1998).

Crabbe et a1. (1995), tells us that there are three phases in shaping community

26

sustainability. The first is to define community conceptions of sustainability—through
interviews with stakeholders, analysis of local council meetings, news reports, and public
debate—and to establish community goals. The second is to evaluate where the
community stands relative to where it desires to be. And the third is to assess the resiliency
and adaptive capability of a community to change. Ideally, community-level sustainability

indicators should provide information in these categories (Beckley and Burkosky 1999).

Well-being in Resource-dependent Communities

According to Kusel (2001), forest-dependent communities are those immediately
beside or encircled by forest land or those with a strong economic reliance on forest-based
industries, including tourism and non-timber forest goods. Hester (1985), Hiss (1990), and
Walter (1988) maintain that forest dependence may also be based entirely on an aesthetic,
symbolic, and locality-based value, rather than an economic one.

In a classic study, Kaufman and Kaufman investigated the correlation between forest
use and community well-being (1946). They defined a stable community as “one in which
there was orderly change toward given goals; those goals embracing “the good life” in
whatever way that may be defined.” In addition to more conventional analyses that
community stability involves a stable timber industry, diversified economy, and the
practice of sustained-yield forestry, the Kaufrnans added a number of social variables.
These included: “organizing the greater community, strengthening the rural home, making
religion a part of life and the church more community centered, promoting public
participation in the determination of forest policy, and creating a forest-centered tradition”

(Kusel 2001: 3). These proposals reflect the sense that well-being entails process as well as

27

products. In one of the first appeals for public involvement, the Kaufmans’ study was rare
in its attention to issues of equality, suggesting that the Forest Service include widespread
citizen participation in the formulation of forest policy, to prevent economic power from
settling into the hands of a few at the expense of public interest (Kusel 1996).

“Even in this early work, [the Kaufmans] discussed dimensions of stability that were
amenable to an indicator/monitoring approach” to sustainability, although they didn’t call it
that (Beckley and Burkosky 1999: 4). They developed a list of ten factors of physical,
economic and social life that support stability in forest communities, and many indicators
in use today are reminiscent of this visionary early set (Beckley and Burkosky 1999).

Forest-dependent communities typically share a number of characteristics, as noted by
various scholars. Kelly (1974) and Williamson (1976) reveal the importance loggers and
their families place on “rugged individualism” and “their contempt for and resistance to the
Forest Service” (Kusel 1996). Kelly’s study also highlights the importance of strong
community ties and a spirit of cooperative community self-reliance (Kusel 1996). Carroll
(1984) and Carroll and Lee (1990) further examined the sense of community held by
loggers as an occupational group and found their shared meanings surrounding a spirit of
individualism to be empowering but also binding them to a vanishing occupation. Even in
the face of mounting job losses and employment uncertainty, loggers tend to be reluctant to
let go of their profession and the culture surrounding it.

In 1990, Marchak reported on the adverse effects of employment insecurity, due to
control of the resource base by outside corporations that make decisions “without reference
to the needs of workers in these communities” (p. 99). Kusel (1991) found that widespread

job loss in forest communities was devastating in both the short and long term. “Economic

28

and social turmoil led to short-term difficulties for families and communities and resulted
in a long-term reduction in community capacity,” which plays a key role in the well-being
of forest-dependent communities (Kusel 2001: 5). Kusel and F ortrnann (1991) concluded
that communities are “deeply affected by forces outside of their control, including outside
employers, natural-resource decision makers, and outside money” (Kusel 1996).

A more optimistic approach by Gomoll and Richardson (1996) focuses on social and
economic resiliency in the context of ecosystem management, which “reflects the interests
of people to maintain well-being through personal and community transitions” (p. 2). They
acknowledge that decreased logging can severely impact forest communities, but they see
communities as more complex than single resource-dependent. The authors look at the
community as a whole, which involves various other sectors, such as health care, finance,
trade, insurance, real estate, and other services, and they have seen communities bounce
back again, even flourish.

Beckley (1995) concurs, maintaining that change, even though painful at times, can be
a “positive, empowering phenomenon” (p. 265). His single most important
recommendation to any single sector-dependent community is to diversify (Beckley 1995).
As communities evolve, there may be tradeoffs needed—social cohesion giving way in
some measure to more local empowerment and better quality of work, for example. “The
hope is that through defining and assessing less quantifiable contributors to social well-
being that we might arrive at a combination that improves social welfare as a whole. . ...In
order to do that we need to broaden our conception of social well-being and continue to
create better tools to assess that well-being ...... The best analyses combine both the rigor of

quantitative variables and the breadth and context provided by qualitative techniques” (p.

29

265). Concrete measures are needed for social criteria and indicators to monitor and assess

forestry community sustainability and well-being (Beckley and Burkosky 1999).

Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management

Purpose of Criteria and Indicators

The last decade or more has seen massive growth in interest in the concept of
sustainability, leading to social and political pressures to provide clear evidence that forest
managers are achieving sound goals and objectives and that progress towards sustainability
is actually being achieved (Williams et al. 1998). This trend is compelling public and
private groups, from the international to community levels, to first define and then monitor
measures of sustainability. “To assess the sustainability of communities, one must
establish benchmarks, determine thresholds, review past states or conditions, and monitor
future trends of socio-economic indicators” (Beckley 1999: 1). Failure to do this “will
relegate the concept of sustainability to buzz word status. Some already feel that the term
is vacuous,~and will never contribute to meaningful analyses” (Beckley and Burkosky
1999: 1).

Gray and Kusel (1998) tell us that since we still don’t know that much about how
ecosystems function, “all ecosystem management is a kind of experiment” (p. 29).
Therefore, to learn from our achievements and disappointments, we need monitoring of
ecological, economic and social aspects of conditions. Monitoring is critical not only for
evaluating past actions but to help realize desired goals for the fiiture. Criteria and

indicators are being increasingly employed for ecosystem monitoring at all scales.

30

“Managing forests sustainably involves recognizing interconnections among
ecological, social, and economic systems,. . .and the competing views of acceptable
tradeoffs among them,. .. to preserve options for future generations while meeting the needs
of the present” (USDA F S S&PF 2002: 1,3). Defining sustainability in specificities is an
extraordinary challenge, so many public and private organizations are turning to a criteria
and indicators approach to help describe SFM. The C&I framework “can help [us] identify
key aspects of sustainable forestry, progress towards community goals, and examine the
possible results of various actions and choices at many levels, from international down to
the community level” (McDonough et al. 2002). It can be used to foster discussions on the
meaning of forest sustainability for a particular place and time, help us articulate goals, and
describe the measurable outcomes of forest policies and actions (USDA FS S&PF 2002).

The Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry division lists several ways that criteria
and indicators are important for use in sustainable forest management (USDA FS S&PF
2002: 25). First, they are useful for defining sustainability, helping us to articulate goals
and describing potential impacts of various decisions, by providing a logical framework for
monitoring and assessing trends in forest activities and values. Second, they can “convey
critical and complex information simply,” indicating to citizens the effectiveness of efforts
to ensure sound forest management and community development, leading to increased
public confidence in management decisions and support for SFM. Third, the use of “a
hierarchical structure of C&I” “meets the demand of a holistic approach” to forest
management. “Because of the interconnections among ecological, economic and social
systems, there may be some overlap in the measurements employed to address various

indicators,” ensuring several interpretations of the same data. Fourth, criteria and

31

indicators “can and should be used at a variety of scales,” thus providing a tool for linking
local, state, regional, national, and global conditions, actions and policy. “It is important to
match the scale of indicators to the scale of the ecological, social, and economic processes
at which they are most useful” (p. 26). And fifth, C&I facilitate communication and
cooperation. A common framework could streamline the sharing of data across
administrative and jurisdictional boundaries, build a common vocabulary, and maximize

the return on investments in data collection.

What Exactly are Criteria and Indicators (C&I) ?

Criteria and indicators comprise a hierarchical framework designed to afford a common
understanding of what is meant by sustainable forestry. C&I articulates this goal as a set of
parameters that can be monitored and assessed. Numerous national governments,
international declarations, forest certifying bodies, and forest management units (FMU) use
the C&I approach to construct monitoring efforts (USDA F S IMI 2002).

Because C&I is a relatively new approach to sustainable forest management, the
nomenclature has not yet been standardized. The complete hierarchy includes principles,
criteria, indicators, measures (metrics), data elements and benchmarks (targets or goals).
The LUCID project of the Forest Service uses all six, but most C&I suites do not. The
Montreal Process (MP), employed by the United States and other national governments,
uses criteria, indicator categories, indicators themselves, and measures, which respectively
correspond somewhat with LUCID’s principles, criteria, indicators and measures. The
Great Lakes Forest Alliance uses only criteria, indicators and measures in its regional set.

It can be quite confusing! In order to simplify, and because the use of only these latter

32

three levels is fairly common, only criteria, indicators and measures will be defined here.
“Sustainability criteria are goals or categories that reflect broad public values and
recognized scientific principles”—and in the case of forestry, provide conditions or
processes by which forest sustainability can be evaluated (USDA FS S&PF 2002: 3).
Criteria describe and clarify core tenets of sustainable forestry and identify specific
conditions to be achieved for meeting the community’s broader vision of sustainability.
The process of defining these tenets helps a community consider ways to align forestry

actions to more closely match their goals (McDonough et al. 2002).

Example
Criterion: Maintenance of community and cultural values

A criterion is accompanied by a set of related indicators that are measured or monitored
periodically to describe the conditions specified in the criterion (NRC CPS 1995, MPWG
1999). Indicators are quantitative, qualitative or descriptive variables that can be measured
or described in various ways to gauge the degree of success in meeting criteria over time
(Higrnan et al. 1999, McDonough et al. 2002). They can be used to depict the current state,
as well as emerging developments in the “intertwined systems of sustainable forestry and
sustainable community” (McDonough et al. 2002: 20). Indicators help us make value
judgments about whether a trend is positive, negative or neutral and whether to continue

following the same course of action and policy or adapt it to better meet specified goals.

Example

Criterion: Maintenance of community and cultural values
Indicator 1: Community capacity and civic responsiveness
Indicator 2: Importance of forests in people ’s daily lives
Indicator 3: Access to both public and private forest lands

33

“Measures are pieces of particular information that describe the indicator in specific
ways. They bring the abstract down to the nitty-gritty concrete level and show us, much
like an oil gauge on a car, what is really happening. The oil gauge lets us know if the oil
level in our car is within acceptable levels. When it falls below a certain level, we know
we have a problem to solve. The gauge helps us to plan our actions before an emergency
sends us to the mechanic. Measures are gauges that let us know if indicators are within

acceptable levels (McDonough et al. 2002: 20-21).

Example
Criterion: Maintenance of community and cultural values

Indicator 1: Community capacity and civic responsiveness
Measures: 1. Existence of community institutions and organizations
2. Involvement of citizens in local aflairs
3. Skills and education of residents

Indicator 2: Importance of forests in people ’5 daily lives
Measures: 1. The importance of forest resources
2. Perceptions of resource change over time
3. Residents ’ satisfaction with the changes

Indicator 3: Access to both public and private forest lands
Measures: 1. Amount of public forestland
2. Miles of forest road open to public
3. Acres of private land open to public
4. Amount of posted land
5. Awareness of open lands

Development and Implementation of C&I

What are the qualifications of a good indicator? According to Williams et a1. (1998)
they are: relevance to the criterion, understandability, measurability, practicality (cost-
eflbetiveness), sensitivity to (management) change, and response oriented (rather than
action or policy oriented). USDA F S S&PF (2002) adds a few more: policy relevance,

scale appropriateness, and scale compatibility.

34

The development of criteria and indicators is not an end in itself. Their real worth is in
communicating vital information about forests and their management. They are an
important tool for use in assessment, planning, issue management, inventory, monitoring,
and communicating with others. “They provide a format that supports scientifically based

forest management and effective policy formulation” (USDA F S S&PF 2002: 26).

History of SFM Criteria and Indicators

The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) was the actual pioneer in
defining the use of criteria and indicators for the first time, in March 1992, for the
management of tropical forests. However, three months later, the Earth Summit in Rio de
J aneiro, or United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), got

the publicity. The summit provided a forum for dialogue on how to monitor and track
progress towards the goal of forest sustainability. This dialogue formed the basis for
ensuing regional and international initiatives to develop criteria, which provide a large-
scale reflection of public values, and indicators, which provide a means of measuring forest
Conditions and tracing changes in ecological, social and economic conditions.

The summit appealed to all nations to ensure sustainable development, including the
management of all types of forests, and it generated a Statement of Forest Principles,
conventions on biodiversity, climate change and desertification, and Agenda 21, a plan of
anion for the 215t century—each concerning forest management in some measure (MPWG
1998). Agenda 21 underscored the “importance of involving people affected by activities
0f the decision-making process, of developing a consensus between local and national

Stakeholders, and of the need to mobilize resources at all levels from the local to the

35

global” (Furze et al. 1996: 3).

The next year, Canada convened an International Seminar of Experts on Sustainable
Development of Boreal and Temperate Forests, held in Montreal, and focused closely on
the development of criteria and indicators and how they may assist in defining and
measuring headway towards the goal of sustainable forestry management. Thus, the
Montreal Process was launched, composed of ten, then later twelve, non-European nations
comprising 90% of the temperate and boreal forests worldwide. The Working Group on
Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate

and Boreal Forests first met in Geneva in 1994, charged with the task of development and
promotion of internationally agreed criteria and indicators, and attainment of a consensus
on what constitutes sustainable forest management (Nordin 1996). At the 1995 meeting in
Chile, the group produced a comprehensive set of seven criteria and 67 indicators for use
by the member countries and called it the Santiago Declaration. The United States
endorsed a testimony of political commitment to make use of criteria and indicators to trace
progress in sustainable forestry (USDA S&PF 1999: 3). It was anticipated that individual

Countries would generate their own measurement schemes to collect data in the most

appropriate way for their national conditions.

Multiscale Relationships

If criteria and indicator sets for sustainable forestry have already been developed at
international, national, regional and state levels, as many have, why should communities go
to the trouble of generating their own? According to Beckley and Burkosky (1999),

consideration of the audience is central, especially for social indicators. Communities

36

wishing to develop their local institutional resources may come up with very different lists
from government agencies reporting to broader constituencies. Bureaucratically generated
indicator sets may focus more on characteristics that are simpler to generalize, quantify and
compare across jurisdictions, and are likely concerned with provincial/state, national and
international image. “Communities may only be interested in answering questions for
themselves and developing appropriate community development programs based on results
of such introspections” (p. 4).

Much of the initial Canadian interest in C&I rose from a need to report both nationally
and internationally on its progress towards sustainable forestry, yet it quickly became
evident that the ability to do this rests on actions carried out on the local level. If these
actions are to be evaluated, it will necessitate the development of indicators especially
suited to local issues. “Bottom-up reporting is absolutely essential to the whole effort of
demonstrating progress at any scale” (NRC CFS 2000: 8).

To test the CIFOR C&I and to improve its own monitoring program, the Forest
Service’s LUCID project chose to develop local level indicators at the forest management
unit (F MU) scale, i.e. separate C&I for each national forest. “Sustainability issues,”
LUCII) team members say, “are multiscaled, and. . .the national goals of sustainability rest,
in large part, on the actions that are carried out at the F MU scale (USDA F S IMI 2002: ii).”
This is based on the assumption that it is at the individual F MU level that most
management decisions and impacts actually occur. Local level indicators are able to

include specific issues of concern to communities throughout each national forest area,
Which can be quite different from communities around other national forests.

Multiscaled monitoring efforts should complement one another. National and

37

international assessments may identify broad trends and bring awareness to particular
issues. A national C&I framework, informed by state and regional assessments, provides
the overall policy framework, institutions, processes, and budget contexts to promote
international dialogues. (Although the Montreal Process was planned for use at the
national level, it is also being applied at subnational levels, such as states) (USDA FS IMI
2002). Examples of national scale criteria include Conservation of biological diversity;
Productive capacity of forests; Ecosystem health; Maintenance of global carbon cycles;
Landscape (or ecosystem) structure, composition, function, health, and productivity; Socio-
economic benefits; Institutional frameworks; and Soil and water resources.

Some of these criteria, such as global carbon cycles and landscape patterns, only make
sense at larger scales. Many, however, can also be used at regional and even local levels,
provided that the indicators and measures are at the proper scale to answer the questions at
hand. For instance, national or statewide employment levels in the wood products industry
could be holding steady, but the mill in a town beside a given forest may have just closed,
leading to heavy job losses in that community. In this instance, varying scales of
measurement would provide wildly different employment statistics, illustrating how critical
it is to choose the right scale when developing indicators and measures. At the local level,
indicators could focus more on income values like distributional equity in employment,
ability of the community to adapt to changes in employment, and the character of available
jobs (Are they well-paid jobs? Are they safe? etc.). “Thus, even though many attributes

( e. g. employment) are common across monitoring initiatives, their meaning and value are
scale-dependent and reflect the values of the communities of interest and communities of

Place” (USDA FS IMI 2002: 237).

38

 

Regional monitoring and evaluation programs are often defined by ecological zones,
such as the Great Lakes or Sierra Nevada regions. Correspondingly, local sustainability
planning and monitoring informs dialogue and changes on the ground that bring
improvements to regional, state and national progress towards sustainability (USDA FS
IMI 2002). Regional appraisals have a range of varying objectives, with some focusing on
sustainability as a whole and others targeting only on a subset of sustainability concerns,
such as ecology. Some regional projects may incorporate larger planning and management
processes (e.g. the Northwest Forest Plan), and others focus specifically on the monitoring
and evaluation stage (like the Great Lakes Assessment). In the LUCID Project, some of the
national forests were able to use information gleaned from regional evaluations as sources
of monitoring information and as context for the FMU-scale program .

Doug MacCleery of the Forest Service (2001: 1) illustrates below the differences in
purpose between scales:

1. National or Country Level

> Montreal or other national-level C&I
> National economic, social and environmental information, inventories, and
assessments, e.g. Resources Planning Act Assessment

2. Regional or State Level

> Forestry Inventory Analysis/Forest Health Monitoring data and information
> Regional or state economic and/or forestry assessments,
> Large-scale watershed assessments, etc.

3. Local or Forest Unit Level

> C&I at the forest management unit level (LUCID)

> Local resource inventories and trends, e.g. wildlife surveys, forest inventories
and stand exams, etc.

> Local resource and environmental monitoring results

> Small-scale watershed assessments

39

M ultiscaled Social C&I

National social criteria and indicators tend to combine social and economic attributes
and call them socio-economic, with the economic heavily dominating. Also included are
legal and institutional frameworks for sustainable forest conservation and sustainable
management. The Montreal Process was the pioneer in the sustainable forestry C&I
movement, and many other C&I lists have been and will continue to be based on the MP
set. Some of the large-scale socio-economic parameters on which the Montreal Process
focuses include Wood and non-wood production as a percentage of GDP; Supply and
consumption of wood products per capita; Expenditure on research, development,
education and improved technologies; Percentage of forest sector employment; Policy
review; C ross-sectoral planning and cooperation; Investment and taxation policies; Non-
discriminatory trade practices; Reliability of forest inventories; Development of scientific
understanding of forest ecosystems; and Prediction of impacts of human intervention and
climate change on forests. There are only a few MP indicators (out of 67) related to social
and cultural values, and one of them is, again, in reference to economics. These are Area
and percentage of forest land managed to protect cultural, social and spiritual needs and
values; Adaptability to changing economic conditions by forest dependent communities;
Opportunities for participation; Conservation of special environmental, cultural, social
and/or scientific values; and C larification of property rights (MPWG 1999).

The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers developed a set of criteria and indicators to

measure progress along national lines and to foster international dialogues. It follows
closely the Montreal Process suite, although organized a bit differently, and is used in

Canada’s Model Forest Program. This program involves eleven forests around the country

40

and is “dedicated to building partnerships locally, nationally and internationally to generate
new ideas and on-the-ground tools for sustainable forest management (NRC CF S 2000:
inside cover). At the model forests, SF M practices are developed, tested and shared around
the country (Ibid 2000).

The above indicators and the criteria they support are growing in use, as new C&I
projects spring up that stem from the Montreal Process. Many indicators are changed as
regions and communities adapt them to their location and scale, but a large proportion of
monitoring teams begin the development of C&I with the Montreal Process list and go
from there.

In contrast to the previous broad-based indicators, the regional Great Lakes Assessment
(GLA) based its C&I list on the three systems of sustainable forest management, the social,
economic and ecological, within the Great Lakes region. The economic and social facets
are separated. Social indicators are smaller in scale and are divided into two criteria:
Community and cultural values and Society ’s framework for SF M. This regional suite,
designed for the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and the province of Ontario,
Canada, are more regionally oriented under the ecological and economic pillars, but the
social pillar easily lends itself to both regional and local monitoring and could be measured
at any of the regional, FMU or community levels. This makes the GLA social indicators
relatively easy to work with by local monitoring teams in adapting them to specific local
conditions. These indicators include the Importance of forests in people ’s daily lives;
Important features and places; Forest uses and their meanings; Forest land access;
Community capacity; Civic responsiveness; Social trends; Availability of incentives; Laws,

Policies and regulations; Awareness of supportfor SF M; Representativeness of public

41

participation processes; and Perceptions of fairness and justice.

The Montreal international process and GLA regional effort found some overlap in
their indicators. These concern Forest and wood products productivity and value-added
manufacturing; Number of visitor days for recreation and tourism; Public participation;
Law enforcement, Regulations and guidelines; and Value of investments and expenditures
in forest management and tourism.

Local level criteria and indicators can be applied to the forest management unit or
community scale. LUCID began its list with the F MU-level CIFOR-NA criteria and
indicators, which were international in flavor and with a bent towards less developed
nations. LUCID then adapted them to a core list that each national forest in the US. could
use and top off with its own additions. Under the principle Social well-being are listed four
criteria: Collaborative stewardship; Institutional and community capacity; Social equity;
and Social and cultural values. Indicators include Local and traditional and ecological
knowledge; Collaborative decision—making; Stewardship activities; Local area
empowerment and development; Community resiliency; Institutional adequacy; Ownership
patterns; Government to government relationships; Environmental justice and civil rights;
Disabled access; Worker health and safety; C ommunity/environmental health; Gathering;
Aesthetics and solitude; Education and research; Cultural values and historic features;
Spiritual values and special places; Access and use rights; Recreation and tourism; and
Customs and culture.

Canada’s Model Forest Program adopted the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ six
criteria as a starting point, but each model forest developed its own suite of local level

indicators at the F MU level. Both in Ontario, the Lake Abitibi (LAMF) and Eastern

42

Ontario (EOMF) Model Forests have developed somewhat different sets, with LAMF’s
being fairly lengthy in comparison with the other. In their Multiple benefits to society
criterion, both forests focus on economic issues, although Lake Abitibi added a number of
sociodemographic components, like population, labour force, household income,
composition of income, and education. EOMF ’s indicators for its criterion, Accepting
society’s responsibility for sustainable development, focus on Community involvement in
SF M, Participation in forest education and outdoor recreation; Conservation practices and
Mutual learning mechanisms. LAMF’s list is more comprehensive and highlights
Aboriginal traditions, their involvement in forest decision-making, and their satisfaction
with economic opportunities—with nearly half of the social indicators. The other half are
similar to those of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, with additions of Quality of existing
forest resource inventory and Investments in forest-based research and development and
information (NRC CF S 2000).

The beauty of local level indicators is that each community develops its own suite of
C&I, based on its own local conditions and values, and no two lists will probably be
exactly alike. Certainly, the data collected will not be. They are custom-fit to each

community and therefore respond directly to its individual concerns.

Types of Data

There are two types of social data: primary and secondary. Primary data usually entail
some form of individual and community self-assessment through interviews, focus groups,
or surveys. They describe values, beliefs, attitudes, desires, activities and institutions of

community members. Examples of primary data include the importance of forests in

43

people’s lives, significant features and places, civic responsiveness, and perceptions of
fairness and justice.

Secondary data are taken from published sources, such as the United States Census, and
report on sociodemographic and other variables, which are quantitative in nature.
Examples include poverty, unemployment, education attainment, divorce, as well as per
capita expenditures on health or other social services (Beckley and Burkosky 1999).

Social indicator researchers have struggled with the problem of whether to use primary
or secondary data (Allardt 1993; Campbell 1981). There are limitations to both approaches
(Kusel 2001). Sociodemographic data, such as crime, income and poverty levels only
show the tip of the iceberg, says Beckley (1995). When assessing social well-being, it is
the hidden, or submerged, factors that are more challenging to access, but they are vital to
understand, in spite of their difficulty.

Secondary data are much easier to collect and analyze, but they do not necessarily
reflect true well-being. For example, some people have jobs that do not pay well but that
afford a large amount of fulfillment. Others may have financially rewarding careers that
they detest (Beckley 1995). Likewise, a community with highly negative
sociodemographic indicators may have learned to accept such circumstances as normal
(Duncan and Lamborghini 1994; Gaventa 1980), while communities with low levels of
negative indicators may feel they need change for the better (Beckley and Burkosky 1999).
Sociodemographic data on income or employment would not reflect these attitudes, which
are crucial to understand in a study of community well-being and sustainability (Beckley
1995)

According to Sen (1985), both primary and secondary measures are incomplete in

44

themselves, because to have well-being, one must feel fulfilled and have opportunities and
achievements. Sociodemographic data illustrate limited types and amounts of
‘achievements’ or physical conditions, such as income or employment, but they do not tell
us how citizens feel about those conditions. Primary, self-report methods must also be
included to understand how much well-being individual citizens believe they have and
what they need or desire in order to improve it.

Hence, there is often a poor correlation between primary and secondary measures when
assessing community well—being (Beckley and Burkosky 1999). This has lead to general
agreement that the most effective indicator approach to community sustainability is usually
to employ a combination of both approaches (Kusel 1996; Beckley and Murray 1997; and

Crabbe’ et al. 1996).

Summary

Ecosystem management (EM) has emerged in recent years as a more holistic approach
than traditional models to managing natural resources, and it has won the support of both
scholars and practitioners of natural resource policy. Basic principles of EM include:
people are part of ecosystems, decisions about resources should be made collaboratively,
and because of the lack of complete knowledge about ecosystems, we must closely observe
the effects of our decisions, and where necessary, make appropriate modifications in
management concepts and practices.

Sustainable forest management, a subset of ecosystem sustainability and based on EM,
can be thought of as the degree of overlap between what is ecologically possible and what

is socially desired, as well as the ability to adapt to changing conditions over time. With

45

the emergence of EM and SF M has come the philosophy that people count—that society’s
values, desires and quality of life are just as essential for sustainable forests and forest
communities as are the ecological components. Sustainability hinges on a three-pillar
framework: ecology, economy and society. Sometimes called the three-legged stool, all
three components are required for support, or the stool falls over. Likewise, the ecological,
economic and social components of sustainability all must be integrated and functioning
harmoniously for sustainability to occur. If the health of any one of them declines,
sustainability will not be maintained.

There has been an elemental shift in environmental values in recent decades. Although
the forestry profession has long been dominated by a commodity view of forests, a new
paradigm is challenging this world view, with a strong emphasis on a diverse and broadly
representative public involvement in decision-making. The focus is no longer simply on
forest outputs but also on the incorporation of social values, attitudes, beliefs and processes.

Public participation has become a key instrument to identify values people attach to the
resource. Citizens can inform forest managers of their values, beliefs and desires, and
managers can in turn explain scientific principles, administrative structures and budget
limitations. Ideally, as they learn from one another, they each influence the process until
the most balanced decision possible is reached.

The massive grth in concern for the concept of sustainability has led to social and
political pressures to provide clear evidence that forest managers are achieving sound goals
and objectives and that progress towards sustainability is being realized. This trend is
compelling public and private groups to first define and then monitor measures of

sustainability, through the framework of criteria and indicators, and as a result, adapt

46

policies and actions to better reflect goals.

Defining sustainability in specificities is an extraordinary challenge, so organizations
are turning to criteria and indicators to help describe sustainable forest management. The
fi'arnework can also convey complex information in a simple way, indicating to citizens the
effectiveness of management, leading to increased public confidence in decisions and
support for SFM.

C&I sets have been developed at all levels from international on down to the
community level, so why should communities generate their own C&I? Bureaucratically
generated indicator sets may focus more on characteristics that are simpler to generalize,
quantify and compare across jurisdictions, and are likely concerned with provincial/state,
national and international image. Communities may only want to answer questions for
themselves and build appropriate community development programs based on results of
such introspections.

There are three stages in shaping community sustainability: define community
conceptions of sustainability to establish community goals; evaluate where the community
stands relative to where it wants to be; and, assess the resiliency and adaptive capacity of a
community to change. The community-level criteria and indicators chosen should provide
information in these categories.

There is a long history of studying well-being (or quality of life) in forest communities,
typically in the context of community stability, which had been in the past erroneously
linked only to a steady stream of wood products. Mostly, these studies have utilized only
secondary measures, but Sen and Kusel pointed out that sociodemographic data only show

the tip of the iceberg of well-being. but they do not reveal how community members feel

47

 

about these conditions. Therefore, most scholars and practitioners recommend that primary
data be collected directly from residents themselves, through interviews of some sort, along
with the sociodemographic data.

A spin-off from the quality of life studies is emerging as communities begin to define
sustainability for themselves and develop meaningful criteria and indicators to reflect and
support those definitions. This calls for an assessment of the well-being of past and current
community life and residents’ vision for the future, as well as insight into the values, beliefs

and attitudes underlying and influencing community culture.

Study Goals and Objectives

The permanent closings of the iron and copper mines in Gogebic County and
reductions in timber harvesting in the Ottawa National Forest have created an
unemployment crisis unlike any other in the history of the area. Consequently, most young
people have to leave the area in search of jobs, resulting in declining populations and
school enrollments. In an effort to stem the mass emigration and falling incomes of
residents, county leaders are seeking to define sustainable forestry for the county, so that
forest management and policy support the ecological, social and economic components of
sustainable forest management and forest communities. Without a deep understanding of
each of the three pillars, planning and management cannot address and solve the problems
associated with each one, and sustainability will not likely be achieved. The three-legged

stool of sustainability needs each leg for support.
This study is centered on the social pillar and aims to reveal what residents want to

sustain in their forest community and what they believe is needed to sustain it. If citizens’

48

needs and preferences are incorporated into forest planning, the resulting policies and
management actions will more likely be empowered by the support of residents, and
increased community well-being and sustainability will ideally follow. By learning about
the use and importance of the forest and its social institutions in Gogebic County, this study
has and will continue to help illustrate how community members may be affected by
changes in the forest of the Western Upper Peninsula. This qualitative, pre-baseline data
pointed the FACT steering committee and working group towards potential criteria and
indicators important to residents. They developed a set of C&I that were finalized in 2002,
which will help decision-makers construct more informed and accurate assessments of
local conditions so as to follow with better long-term policies and actions. Now, with a
more comprehensive analysis and report, the same data will be used to examine and
evaluate the adequacy of the Gogebic County indicator list and determine if revisions are

needed or not.

Overall Goal—To identify what Gogebic County residents want to sustain in their
county, and what may be needed to do that, so that meaningful local level criteria
and indicators of sustainable forest management are developed with local citizens’
needs in mind

Objective—To examine the use of Gogebic County community social data to
determine the adequacy of the current Gogebic County sustainable forest
management social indicators in terms of their reflection of county residents’
perspectives and conditions

49

Chapter 3: METHODS

Gogebic County, Michigan

Gogebic County is located at the far western end of the Upper Peninsula (Figure 2),
bordering Wisconsin and Lake Superior, with about thirty miles of shoreline providing
recreational facilities and vacation homes. The county covers 1,107 square miles and is
geographically isolated from the urban centers of the state—563 miles from the capital in
Lansing. Eighty percent of the county is comprised of state, federal and commercial
forestland (EDC 1998).

‘Gogebic’ is derived from the Chippewa word agogebic, meaning ‘a body of water
hanging on high.’ The Chippewa knew that the elevation of glacially-formed Lake
Gogebic was a good deal higher than that of Lake Superior (1,290.81 ft above sea level
compared to 602). Another translation of the name, popularly used for tourism is ‘where
trout rising make small rings upon the surface’ (Reardon and Rubatt 1966).

There are around 100 spectacular waterfalls, changing with the seasons. The Black
River National Scenic Byway provides access to five of them, as well as to the only harbor
operated by the USDA Forest Service in the lower 48 states. There are nearly as many
lakes as there are waterfalls. Lake Gogebic is the largest inland lake in the UP, known for
its walleye, bass and jumbo perch. The Cisco Chain is one of the longest lake chains in the
world, with 271 miles of shoreline (MUPTRA 1999).

Other important recreational sites are the Ottawa National Forest, covering much of the

eastern part of the county, including the Sylvania Wilderness in the southeast, and the

50

Porcupine Mountains in the northwest (MUPTRA 1999).

. 53'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r
i4
11‘]

l l

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Location of Gogebic County on Michigan map

Data Source: The State of Michigan, Center for Geographic Information (MiGDL) -
ht_tp://www.michigan.gov/cgi

Local History

The western half of the Upper Peninsula is home to the Gogebic Iron Range, a line of
vast iron and copper deposits, formed fifty million years ago by the world’s highest
volcanic lava outcroppings (Carlson 1997). The range stretches from Marquette, Michigan
westward as far as Bayfield, Wisconsin. It is said that when Benjamin Franklin was sent to
France in 1783 to negotiate the Canadian - American border in the Treaty of Paris, he knew
about reports of copper deposits on Isle Royale in Lake Superior. He successfully parleyed
for the bending of the boundary around the island, in order to include it in the United States
(Reardon and Rubatt 1966). In 1842, the Chippewa band signed a treaty giving up their
claim to the western part of the Upper Peninsula, which meant that the federal government

could then issue mining leases and sell the land (Carlson 1997).

51

In Gogebic County, one part of the total range, iron ore was accidentally discovered in
1871, which kicked off a booming mining industry in Gogebic County during the next few
decades, peaking in 1920, and ending in 1966 (Reardon and Rubatt 1966).

Mining tent camps, settlements and towns sprang up and became thriving communities.
By 1924, Ironwood had grown to nearly 30,000 people (ICC 2002b). They came from
Finland, Sweden, England, Poland, Italy, the Slavic countries and the rest of Europe
(Carlson 1997). Along with the miners came the lumberjacks. Logging was the second
industry of the rangeland, which supported the mining industry. White pines provided the
structural timbers bracing the tunnels, thus preventing the deep, subterranean mine shafts
from caving in (Annear 1998). The forest also supplied most of the material for
constructing community buildings, although repeated town fires persuaded the booming
populace that brick was safer and more lasting, and so they began to build some public
buildings out of brick, some of which are now historical landmarks.

With the mining settlements sprang up logging camps and sawmills. The lumbennen
had discovered a virgin forest of hemlock, pine and hardwoods. The UP was a place
where, it was said, “it would take 10,000 men 10,000 years to clear it, and logging had
nearly wiped out every tree by 1907-1908. Ironwood landscape looked lunar at the time”
(ICC 2002a). The timber industry began a long, steady decline (Annear 1998),
accompanied by successive mine closures, as they each one by one depleted their ore
supplies. The timber barons had wiped out virtually all the white pine and hemlock and
would finish off the hardwoods by World War II and move on to other parts of the country
(Bolen 2001). Fortunately, a conservation movement had arisen, and many of the cutover

areas reverted to the state for protection after farming had failed on the poor soils. A new

52

paradigm of long-term commitment to forest management replaced the old one of
exploitation, and extensive replanting on public and corporate land led to a gradual
regeneration of new forestland (Bolen 2001).

The last remaining mine in Gogebic County shut down in 1964 (EDC 1998), finally
closing a long-fading era of abundant resources and opportunities. The rest of the Gogebic
Range mines closed during the 19705. The last remaining mine in the region, in
neighboring Ontonagon County, closed in 1995, thus eliminating approximately 1,000 jobs.
There was no economic sector available to replace that of mining, “leaving the UP with the
highest unemployment rate in the state, often higher than the national average” (Mitsos
2001: 2). “Mass unemployment was followed by mass out-migration.” Gogebic County
has lost over 25% of its population since 1960 and 46% since 1920” (EDC 1998: 11).

The mining and timber companies had built and developed the towns from scratch,
providing housing, public buildings, roads, utilities, schools, health care, etc—whatever
was needed to create a network of flourishing communities. The companies played a
dominant and parental role, providing the material and formal institutional needs of the
populace, while simultaneously nurturing a powerful dependency on the companies by the
county residents. As mine closings continued throughout the early and mid twentieth
century, economic decline began displacing the heady aura of abundance from the early
days of settlement and growth. Residents struggled to replace ‘the company town’ system
with one of independence and democratic self-govemance. The loss of mining and
supporting forestry jobs, as well as the withered corporate firnding for community services,
created economic hardships that have continued to persist. Most county residents today are

too young to have experienced the early mining era, but senior citizens still remember free

53

public services and many are consequently disinclined to support tax increases today.

Gogebic County Today

The Gogebic County Seat is the town of Bessemer. Ironwood is the largest town and
shares the state border with Hurley, Wisconsin. The racial makeup of Gogebic County is
94.2% white, followed by 2.2% Native American, and 1.8% African American (U .8.
Census 2000). There is a large F innish-American population scattered around the county,
as well as the Lac Vieux Desert band of the Chippewa tribe located in the Watersmeet and
Ottawa National Forest area, on the eastern end of the county (MLink 1992).

Leading industries in Gogebic County include recreation, tourism, health care, and
manufacturing, particularly in lumber and wood products, but also in precision tools,
plastic molding and other goods (MUPTRA 1999; EDC 2002). Snowmobiling, hunting
and skiing dominate the tourism industry (USDA F S IMI 2000), and the Lac Vieux Desert
Casino has brought significant revenues to the tribal population and town of Watersmeet.
Ironwood is home to Gogebic Community College. A source of pride for county residents,
the college works with local industries to keep up-to-date on training needs and strives to
tailor its programs and curriculums to meet them.

The county is in the heart of the snow belt of the Midwest, receiving over 150 inches of
lake effect snowfall per year. There are hundreds of miles of groomed snowmobile trails,
and skiing is provided by three major ski resorts. The area around Gogebic County is
called the Ski Capital of the Midwest and boasts 280-foot Copper Peak, near Bessemer, one
of only a handful of ski-flying hills in the world. Gogebic County has almost 300 miles of

hiking/skiing/mountain biking trails, the most of any county in Michigan (EDC 1998).

54

There are numerous festivals and county fairs throughout the year, and lodging around
the area is available for up to 12,000 people. History of the county is presented in the
museums of Ironwood and Wakefield, and the restored historic Ironwood Theatre hosts

regular live performances (MU PTRA 1999).

The Forests

Gogebic County woodlands have come a long way since those early rugged days. The
trees have grown back, and the county is 90% covered in forest again, the fifth largest
forest in Michigan. Principally northern hardwood with some remnant white pine and
other softwoods (USDA FS IMI 2000), 54% is public forestland. Sugar maple, quaking
aspen, red maple, hemlock and northern white cedar comprise 63% of the total volume of
forests in Gogebic County. There are at least fifty trucking and logging companies, nine
larger wood products industries, and 300-450 direct forest-based jobs in the county (Bolen
2002).

Forest-based industries on private, county, state and federal forestland are a major part
of the struggling local economy, including a variety of wood products and tourism. In
1990, nearly 50% of all income sources in the county came from wildland resource-based
industries, and in 1997, 65% of the county’s 775 manufacturing jobs were classified as
“lumber and wood products.” “Economic dependence on natural resources is both a
blessing and a burden,” being an asset when markets are good and a liability when they are
not. Lumber products experience commodity price fluctuations based on market behavior
that is well outside the control of local industry (EDC 1998: 11).

Fortunately, because of sound forest management practices, the forest products

55

industries of the region are strong. Multiple approaches to establishing public access to
forestlands, both public and private, have advanced a wide range of commercial and
recreational uses of the county’s forested lands. Much more needs to be achieved, but
cooperation and the formation of local partnerships are leading Gogebic County towards
diversification of forest uses and users (EDC 1998).

The next few sections consist of a brief introduction to the five principal forest

ownership categories in Gogebic County.

The Gogebic County Forest

Actively managed for timber and open for public recreational use, the Gogebic County
Forest has miles of roads and trails for biking, hiking, skiing and ORV use (GCF PC 2000).
One of the few county forests in the United States and the largest in Michigan, it is a source
of pride for local residents. They point out to visitors how well it is managed—with
sustained yield cutting rotations that do not detract from recreational use or the natural
woodland beauty. The county forester is highly regarded in the community because
residents believe his leadership is accomplishing what many say can’t be done:
successfully combining timber harvesting, recreation, spiritual and aesthetic values, forest

conservation, local jobs and county revenue.

WUPFID

Michigan’s cutover forestlands spent the last half or more of the twentieth century

reviving and healing themselves after a long and intense period of exploitation. The public

56

and corporate lands were coming along nicely, but over half of Michigan’s forestlands
belonged to non-industrial small private landowners, who in most cases had neither the
funds nor the technical skills to manage their lands. In order to move economic
development along, the Michigan legislature, in 1980, passed the Forest Improvement Act,
which gave authority for the establishment of forest improvement districts. In 1984,
amending legislation was passed to test the Act’s feasibility with a pilot project in the
Western Upper Peninsula, to include Gogebic, Iron, Ontonagon, Baraga, Houghton and
Keweenaw Counties (Figure 3). In 1985, the Western Upper Peninsula Forest
Improvement District (WUPFID)was formed and its office opened in L’Anse, Michigan
(Bolen 2001).

WUPFID has three major objectives: providing forest management services to
members, marketing their forest products, and developing industrial sites to add value to
their forest products. The District provides a wide cross-section of services to its members.
It is dedicated to ensuring that members get the highest possible return from their harvests,
while leaving the land in an improved condition (Bolen 2001).

Unemployment has dropped since the formation of the District, but no one can tell to
what extent its activities were a factor. Although the District is doing “an admirable job”
of managing members’ forestlands, some people feel that it is too focused on timber
production and are concerned that a large amount of the resource is shipped out of state for

processing.

57

 

Figure 3. Counties included in WUPFID

Data Source: The State of Michigan, Center for Geographic lnfonnation (MiGDL) -
http://wwwmichigan.gov/cgi

Industrial F orestland

In 1998, industrial forestland comprised 850,600 acres or 30.4% of the total forests in
Gogebic County (EDC 1998). The two largest holdings are owned by International Paper,
based in Quinnesec, Michigan, in the central UP, and Keweenaw Land Association, with
its headquarters in Ironwood. With over 155,000 acres in the UP and origins tracing back
as early as 1865, Keweenaw was the first timber management company in the nation to
gain certification by the Rainforest Alliance's Smart Wood Program (Keweenaw 2002). In

addition, Gogebic County forests provide the glossy pages for two leading magazines.

“I get to show National Geographic and Time magazine people around our land
and tell them what we do that ’s one neat thing about my job. They use our paper
for the magazines...I feel good that National Geographic buys our paper, because
they feel sure it comes from trees that are properly managed, and that ’s nice. They
have strong convictions. Economics doesn ’t run that magazine, and they don’t buy
the cheapest paper. ”

58

The Commercial Forest Program of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
provides property tax reductions to owners of private lands as an incentive for actively
managing their land for long-term timber production. Member lands are open to the public
for hunting and fishing (by foot), although they retain their private ownership status
(MDNR 2002a). Both industrial and non-industrial lands are eligible for enrollment, thus a

number of WUPFID lands are included, along with timber companies of all sizes.

State Lands

The only state land in Gogebic County is Lake Gogebic State Park, on the western
shore of Lake Gogebic. Thirty miles east of Ironwood, the 360-acre park is nestled in the
heart of the Ottawa National Forest, with a sandy beach for swimming, a boat launch, and

picnicking and camping facilities (MDNR 2002b).

The Ottawa National Forest

The million-acre Ottawa National Forest, which covers most of the east side of Gogebic
County, is managed for multiple objectives. The Forest Service today is in the process of
revising its policies and opening up the forest planning process to reflect changing public
values about forest use and management (USDA FS ER MNF 2002). This means more
local community involvement in decision-making, which represents a positive change for
Gogebic County because residents share a concern about the reduction of timber harvesting
on federal lands that have led to sawmill closures and less work for independent loggers.

The County is given Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) from the federal government for

59

each acre of federal land within the county, to help offset the loss of property tax revenue

(USDA F S ER MNF 2002).

Research Protocol

Qualitative Data: What and Why

Some social data, particularly regarding demographics, formal institutions and trends,
are available from the census and local datasets. However, the bulk of the type of
information needed for this initiative is not available in public records and had to be
collected first-hand, directly from local residents themselves.

Interviews, focus groups, newspaper articles, meeting minutes, etc. typically generate
qualitative data (non-numeric and textual/conversational), while surveys generate
quantitative data (numeric and countable). Quantitative data is the easiest and most
straightforward to analyze, but qualitative information is helpful in the early stages of a
project to guide the researcher in deciding what quantitative data to collect.

The four purposes of research are exploration, explanation, description and prediction
(Marshall and Rossman (1989). The primary strength of qualitative research is in its ability
to explore the complexity that underlies human social systems, and discover and describe
important questions, processes and relationships. Because qualitative inquiry is usually
inductive, pre-existing variables are not imposed. “Understanding should come from the
data, which typically document experiences” (Cordell et al. 1999: 76). This understanding,
arising from the rich descriptions and stories of the respondents, allows the researcher to

identify the most important variables to be used in subsequent quantitative research, as

60

described above (Kakoyannis 1998). In addition to precursory exploration, qualitative
research is also frequently used alongside quantitative approaches to enhance them by
revealing perspectives and explaining meanings behind statistical results that may be
confusing, incomplete or misleading, if taken alone.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) list four constructs that more accurately reflect the
assumptions of the qualitative paradigm than those which are familiarly used by the
positivist tradition (internal and external validity, reliability and objectivity).

The first is credibility (internal validity), which aims to demonstrate that the subject of
the inquiry was accurately identified and described. The authors argue that “an in-depth
account, showing the complexities of variables and interactions, will be so embedded with
data derived from the locale that it cannot help but be valid”——within the parameters of that
particular setting and population—and these parameters must be stated by the researcher
(Marshall and Rossman 1989: 145).

The second is transferability (external validity), which refers to the decision or ability
to generalize the findings from the sample, first to the study population, and then to other
populations, settings or treatments. The transferability of a qualitative study to other
settings may be problematic, and this is seen by “traditional canons” as a weakness of
qualitative research. However, Cordell et al. (1999) argue that qualitative findings aren’t
meant to be generalizable beyond the study population, but, that “as stories, these studies
contain lessons which may be applied to other settings. . ..the generalization of
understanding across similar cases, situations, or experiences is the responsibility of the
reader” (74).

There is, however, a strategy to enhance generalizability. Triangulation is the process

61

of bringing more than one source of data to examine the same questions and serves to
“corroborate, elaborate or illuminate the research in question.” A study that employs
multiple data sources, cases, informants or data collection techniques can greatly strengthen
the study’s usefulness for other settings (Marshall and Rossman 1989: 146).

The third construct is dependability (reliability), in which the researcher endeavors to
account for shifting conditions in the phenomena studied, as well as changes in the design
produced by refined understanding of the setting. This represents a set of assumptions in
direct contrast to traditional positivists who assume an unchanging world, where a study
could logically be replicated. The qualitative paradigm does not pretend to be replicable.
The researcher avoids controlling the research conditions. The framework views the world
as ever-changing and finds the concept of an unchanging world problematic (Marshall and
Rossman 1989).

In the final construct of confirmability (objectivity), a qualitative study should answer
to concerns that the natural subjectivity, or bias, of the researcher will influence the
research. It must be made clear that the researcher must gain some understanding, even
sympathy for the research participants to gain entry into their world. The insights resulting
from this experience increase the probability of being able to describe the complex social
system being studied. However, there must be controls for bias in interpretation, such as

critical reviews by colleagues of the data analysis.

Sampling

Social science often examines research situations where one cannot select the kind of

restricted-use (and typically random) probability samples used in large-scale quantitative

62

studies (Berg 2001). Compared with survey research studies, qualitative interviews
produce more data with fewer respondents, so a smaller sample is needed (Weiss 1994). In
fact, the sheer volume of interview text can be so unwieldy that in some situations, the data
must be reduced to a manageable sample of the total data set. Additionally, the process of
recruiting interview subjects and conducting the interviews, one at a time, is time-
consuming and sometimes inconvenient. Respondents must give permission for the
interview to take place, and that does not always happen. There can be as much as a 50%
or more decline rate or an inability to make contact with some of the potential subjects.
Therefore, neither random sampling nor the use of large sample sizes are feasible or
appropriate in qualitative studies.

Snowball sampling was used in the selection of interview respondents. This is a
process of choosing study subjects by contacting people that were suggested by those who
were already interviewed (Walker 1985). It is a type of convenience sampling useful when
the researcher is looking for particular traits in subjects or when the population studied is
difficult to reach or penetrate (Weiss 1994: 24). The basic strategy is to first identify and
interview several people with the relevant traits. These subjects are then asked for the
names of other people with similar characteristics (Berg 2001)—and, on and on. Thus, the
sample swells like a rolling snowball.

The FACT steering committee made a list of people invited to be in the working group,
active citizens who had shown leadership traits and an interest in sustainable forestry or
community service. In the two-week period allotted for data collection, all of these people
were invited to be interviewed, but only a few were available. Of the ones who were

interviewed, each was asked to suggest others they knew who might be good candidates to

63

interview as well.

The respondents that were interviewed were very similar in character to the types of
residents that steering committee members were looking for. All of the categories (except
one—GCC people) that Murphy named above were covered, with some additions, such as
high school and university students, retired citizens, journalists, extensionists, former
miners, health care professionals and mechanics’. The ages stretched fiom 14 to 70+.
Socio-economic categories were estimated to range from lower-middle to upper-middle
income brackets, but there were no respondents in either extreme poverty or wealth.
Education levels extended from some high school to a (very) few with possible advanced
degrees. Ethnicity was less diverse, with the only non-Caucasian respondents being from
Lac Vieux Desert. However, that is what comprises the ethnic makeup of Gogebic
County—a primarily western European-descended population. Gender was heavily
skewed, as less than one-quarter of the total number of respondents were female. Although
it would have been ideal to have had a more balanced gender ratio, it was not possible in
the two weeks allotted for the interviews. A strong attempt was made to include more
women, but, of the suggested names given, most were not available on short notice to

participate.

Content Analysis

Content analysis was the procedure used for categorizing and evaluating the interview

data. It is a flexible technique used to arrange components of qualitative data into

 

' All categories are listed in the plural, even if they contained only one respondent, to protect confidentiality.

64

organized patterns for interpretation. It is a way of producing countable results fiom text,
by devising a coding or classifying system to analyze the content and identify salient
themes, recurring ideas and patterns of values and beliefs that link people together. The
most common means of summarizing content-analytic data is via the use of absolute
frequencies (Marshall and Rossman 1989). A software program, Atlas.ti, was utilized to

sort the data, making it easier to understand and discuss.

Demographic Data

Simple longitudinal graphs, presenting sociodemographic data from the US. Census,
supplement the qualitative data, by showing trends over time in several variables tied to
quality of life. The variables chosen are completely based on the interviews. They are
reflective of issues with meaning for county residents, brought up repeatedly either directly
or indirectly, in response to more than one question. The aim of using demographic data is
to show specific conditions in the community, which form the basis for many of residents’
perceptions and opinions.

For fiuther insight into what has helped shape the community culture and shared values
of Gogebic County, both longitudinal and comparative cross-sectional socioeconomic data
have been collected and plotted with the graphing functions of Microsoft Excel 2002.
Cross-sectional plots compare attributes of Gogebic County to those of Michigan at a
single point in time. Longitudinal plots compare different points in time, of Gogebic
County data alone. In some cases, both types of plots are combined into one, to afford a

more comprehensive understanding of community conditions.

65

Triangulation

A triangulation approach of using both qualitative and quantitative methods was

employed to study Gogebic County at the individual and county levels of analysis.

Qualitative. At the individual level, exploratory, in—depth interviews were
conducted one-on-one with local residents, using snowball sampling methods and
content analysis.

Quantitative. At the county level, sociodemographic data were gathered from the
US. Census and plotted to show cross-sectional and longitudinal trends.

Exploratory Interviews

“Qualitative interviewing is a great adventure; every step of an interview brings
new information and opens windows into the experiences of the people you meet.
Qualitative interviewing is a way of finding out what others feel and think about
their worlds. Through qualitative interviews you can understand experiences and
reconstruct events in which you did not participate ” (Rubin and Rubin I 995 ).

An outline of potential variables for use in Gogebic County was drawn up. These
included indicators of (1) culture (such as history, place attachment, forest use and
accessibility); (2) community (such as ideals, civic involvement, skills and education); and
(3) social structure (such as formal institutions, beliefs, decision-making participation and
authority).

From that outline, an extensive set of interview questions was developed (see Appendix
A). During the two-week period between July 26 and August 5, 1999, thirty-one in-depth,
semi-structured interviews were conducted and tape-recorded, one-on-one with local
residents of Gogebic County from Ironwood, Bessemer, Wakefield, and Watersmeet—with
the exception of one interview, in which three brothers were interviewed together. This

interview was transcribed and analyzed as though it were one person, since it was

66

impossible to tell who was speaking on the tape, due largely to loud background noise
caused by the tape recorder and also because of unfamiliarity with their voices.

From four pages of questions, the interviews averaged approximately one to one and a
half hours, although one interview was about twenty minutes due to time constraints, and
another was over three hours. An effort was made to include as much diversity as possible
by factors of location, gender, age, profession and ethnicity. The steering committee aimed
to target, at a minimum, representatives from “the Lac Vieux Desert Band of the Lake
Superior Chippewa, private and public forest land owners, tourism/recreation
spokespersons, forest products industry, senior citizens (long term residents), municipal
government folks, national forest folks, school system folks, GCC folks, county forest
lands managers, and others that I'll group as 'the average resident without regard to a direct

economic forest-connection'” (Murphy 2002).

Preliminary Analysis

The tapes were transcribed, and the resulting text was studied for common responses to
the interview questions. In order to replicate this type of study in the future, it would be
necessary to create a baseline data report that could be compared with future responses to
similar questions. Four of the most important topics were chosen by the FACT steering
committee to analyze in more detail, to use in the development of local criteria and

indicators. Following is a brief outline of each topic and its subcategories.

Lifestyle
> Best and worst traits of the county
> Historical and cultural sites
> Vision of the future

67

Civic responsiveness
> Availability of services
> How residents work together
> Education and skill-building

Forest accessibility
> Amount and type of access

Forest use
> Current use

The interview questions and responses relating to these topics were then analyzed at an
intermediate level, due to time and budget constraints. Frequencies of responses were

illustrated the Final Report submitted to FACT (Spence and McDonough 2000).

Final Analysis

An in-depth content analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted, using Atlas.ti,
version WIN 4.2 (Build 061) to code responses. The process of coding involves the
construction of a hierarchy of categories, as a way to organize large volumes of textual data
into meaningful arrangements. The step of interviewing county residents was the first in a
series of future data collections to monitor trends in the values and perceptions of the local
population. As such, it was important not only to ask many questions on a broad range of
subjects, it was equally vital to capture as broad a range of responses as possible, in order to
find out what were the central issues, relating to the forests and communities. This
information would be used to design a data collection instrument, such as a written survey,
that could be easily analyzed quantitatively and repeated at specific intervals for
comparison. Surveys, by their nature, employ a multiple-choice format for easy counting

and statistical analysis. Therefore, enough information about the subject matter must exist

68

when designing the survey, to enable informed decision-making about what choices to
offer as potential answers to questions. For this reason, very detailed coding was
constructed for this analysis, which would allow as many viewpoints and nuances of
thought to be captured as possible. As a result, there are nine code families and 663 codes

for this analysis.

Steps Taken in Analysis

A list of open codes was created, based on the responses listed in the Final Report,
written soon after interviewing. For the more in-depth analysis for this thesis, the pertinent
section of the data was searched repeatedly using an auto coding feature of Atlas.ti, with
keywords related to each code, one by one. A code hierarchy was arranged, called a code
family. One code family was created for each subcategory, within the four main topics the
FACT steering committee chose to be analyzed.

One of the limitations of the interviews was the fact that there were no questions
directly addressing issues of high unemployment or other economic issues. In hindsight, a
few questions on this should have been added after the problems were exposed during the
first interview. Since they were not, this omission had to be addressed during the analysis
phase of research. To do that, an additional code family was added called Economic
Approaches. This time, the text of the entire interviews was searched, looking for
quotations in which people gave opinions on economic problems and/or solutions,
regardless of the context of the questions asked.

After the coding was completed, absolute frequency tables were created in Microsoft

Excel for each code family. Tables using three different formats were constructed: ranked

69

listings of all responses, grouped responses, and classified responses. In some cases,
relative fi'equency (%) tables, bar graphs and/or pie charts were also constructed. These
tables and graphs summarize the results. The interview question on which each is based is
written out at the top of each section. Note that there are oftentimes more than 31
responses to each question, even though only 31 people were interviewed. That is because
the respondents were encouraged to answer each question as fully or as briefly as they
wished, and therefore many people had several answers to one question. The responses are
sorted in order from the most to the least frequent and have also been grouped together for
the sake of brevity and clarity of thought. For more individualized responses, please
consult the expanded versions of each table in Appendix B.

Note that some of the tables have a column (where appropriate) entitled Response Type.
In this column, positive, neutral or negative responses are shown with the respective
symbols “+”, “0”, and “-“, respectively. This is so the reader can make a quick, visual
assessment of the frequencies of the three response types to particular questions. In the
case of a mixed, positive and negative response, such as “recreation is good, but it’s too
dependent on outside forces and weather,” the “0” (neutral) response symbol is used.

It should be pointed out that positive and negative are not necessarily synonymous with
good and bad. For example, in the case of questions regarding accessibility to the forest,
the prohibition of motorized vehicles in certain areas is regarded as a good thing to many
people. However, that response would be given a negative rating, because it expresses a
lack of accessibility, however desirable or not.

The number of quotations matching each code was counted for the purpose of

constructing frequency tables of responses, not the number of people making the statement.

70

If a single person was passionate enough about a matter to repeat the same opinion over
and over throughout the interview, this author believes it deserved to be counted each time,

as a means to add weight to the issue and illustrate its significance.

7]

Chapter 4: RESULTS: DEMOGRAPHICS

This chapter presents a small number of sociodemographic measures to supplement
primary (interview or survey) data, in order to reveal local socioeconomic conditions
underlying residents’ perceptions and values. The variables are: unemployment, age,

population, income, poverty, school enrollment and crime.

Unemployment

Since the closing of the Gogebic Range mines, the ensuing shortage of job
opportunities is probably the most significant dilemma faced by Gogebic County (Figure

4). Joblessness drives many of the other problems in the county as well, such as poverty,

 

Annual Average Unemployment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15.0%
10.0% r # -A
5.00% ‘ till-:rlzrpg
Erin-ti
I---IIIIIIIE
0.0% - I'- '-
2000
E Gag—Etgfiiciouityfik Vi 11.5% , ,2 W 94%;; #
UMELIQELv AVA A 8.2% 5.8%

 

 

Figure 4. Annual average unemployment of Gogebic County and Michigan for 1990 and
2000

Source: US. Census Bureau |http://www.census.gov|

72

decaying infi'astructure, aging school buildings, and alcohol abuse, to name a few. Even
though Gogebic’s unemployment rate dropped during the 19905 from 1 1.5% to 9.4%
in 2000, it has outpaced the state and national averages by wide margins and remains a

source of prime concern for county residents.

Age

Gogebic County’s median age has been on the rise, as young people leave the area in
search of jobs and return when they are ready to retire (Figure 5). Between 1980 and 2000,
the county’s median age rose 9.4%, from 39.2 to 42.9. Since this is an issue of some
concern to county residents, perhaps they can take some solace from the fact that while
Michigan’s median age is quite a bit lower, Gogebic County’s rate of increase during this

period was two and a half times less than that of the state.

 

Median Age

50
40
30
20

    
  

1980
39.2
28.8

  
   

 

 

 

Figure 5. Median age of residents of Gogebic County and Michigan from 1980 to 2000.
Source: McPherson (1997b); US. Census Bureau [http://www.censusgov]

73

Population

Perhaps the most striking statistic in Gogebic County is the declining population owing
to a dearth of job opportunities (Figure 6). In 1970, the population was 20,676. By 1990, it
was down to 18,052 and then fell to 17,370 in 2000. Recall that during the 19205, the
population of Ironwood alone reached 30,000! The largest drop came during the recession
of the 19805 but slowed to a trickle during the more prosperous ‘905. Throughout the same

thirty-year period, Michigan’s population continued to rise (Figure 7).

 

Gogebic County Population

25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000

5,000

      

-5.000
1 990

18,052
-8.3%

1980
19,686
-4.8%

1970
20,676

     
  
   

     
   

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Gogebic County population from 1970 to 2000

Source: McPherson(l997b); US. Census Bureau [http://wwwcensusgov]

A notable point is that in-migration to the county exceeded out-migration during the
19905, while the population was falling. The corresponding increase in the median age
reflects the influx of seniors at retirement age and outflow of young adults at childbearing
age. The result is a higher rate of mortality than births, causing the population to fall.

Better employment opportunities would be likely to reduce out-migration, increase birth

rates and population, and lower the median age.

74

 

 

Michigan Population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000 - vv
0 -
1970 1980 1990 2000
[Population 8,881,826 9,262,044 9,295,297 9,938,444
Percent Change _ 4.3% 0.4% 3.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gogebic’s median household income has remained just barely over half that of

Figure 7. Michigan population from 1970 to 2000
Source: McPherson (1997b); US. Census Bureau Ihflprllwwwcensusgovl

Income

Michigan’s, until the 19905 when it began to catch up (Figure 8).

 

 

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$0

  
 

 
  

Median Household Income

 
  
  
 
 
  

    
   

1979
$10,973
51.9224

1989
$17,343
$31,020

1999
$27,405
$44,667

      
 

  
 

  
 

 

Figure 8. Median household income for Gogebic County and Michigan from 1979 to 1999
Source: McPherson (1997a); US. Census Bureau [hgpz//www.census.gov|

75

 

 

When adjusted for inflation, the up and down nature of real changes over time becomes
apparent, especially for Gogebic County (Table 1). Real median household income from
1979 to 1989 went down 7.46% and back up 17.6% again in the next decade. In contrast,
Michigan’s rate of change has been somewhat more stable, although following similar
patterns. Gogebic County’s increase in real income in the twenty-year period was 8.8%
overall, compared to Michigan’s 1.3% increase, which is encouraging, but it also suggests
that small fluctuations in the larger economy may have greater impacts on resource
dependent communities like Gogebic County, both positive and negative. The years 1979-
81 saw double-digit inflation rates, which could help to explain some of the losses during

the 19805.

Table 1. Real median household income from 1979 to 1999 in Gogebic County and
Michigan in 1999 dollars

Gogebic County Michigan

Actual $ Real‘ $ Actual 3 Real" $

47 1
.16 -7
17

8.8%

 

" Adjusted for inflation to change 1979 and 1989 into 1999 dollars

The household income distribution for 1989 is highly skewed towards the lowest
incomes, under $15,000 (Figure 9). In 1999, it shifts a bit more towards a normal
distribution, but still remains rather skewed. Although the data range with the largest
number of citizens is still under $15,000, the greatest gains in 1999 are in the $35 — 75,000

range. In 1989, 81.9% of households in the county made less than $35,000. In 1999, that

76

percentage dropped to 61.7%.

 

 

Gogebic County Household Income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

     

 

   

0% _ .......... .. ...... .. . m _m
Less $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000
$150,000
than to to to to to to
or more

$15,000 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999
[-1989 43.5% 22.3% 16.1% 11.0% 4.8% 1.5% 0.5% 0.3%
{.1999 25.6% 20.1% 16.0% 16.8% 13.0% 4.5% 2.5% 1.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Gogebic County household income distribution for 1989 and 1999
Source: McPherson (1997b); US. Census Bureau [hgp://www.census.gov]

Poverty

The percentage of population below the poverty line fell only slightly during the 19905
for Gogebic County, from 14.9% to 14.4% (Figure 10), while Michigan as a whole made
significant strides towards reducing poverty levels, from 14.4% down to 10.5% (US.

Census Bureau 1990 and 2000).

77

 

Gogebic County Percent below Poverty Line

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

0%

 

Individuals Families Families with Families with
female female
householder, no householder, no
husband present husband
present, with
children under 5

years

 

 

 

Figure 10. Percent of individuals and families below poverty line in Gogebic County in
1990 and 2000

Source: US. Census Bureau lhgpz/lwwwcensusgovl

 

Percent below Poverty Line: 2000

 

Individuals Families Families with Families with
female female
householder, householder,
no husband no husband
present present, with
children
under 5 years

 

 

 

Figure 11. Percent of individuals and families in Gogebic County and Michigan below
poverty line in 2000

Source: US. Census Bureau [http://www.census.gov|

78

By far, the majority of impoverished families in the county consists of single or
divorced women with children under five years of age—a pattern closely aligned with

Michigan, but with a much larger percentage of families at risk (Figure 11).

Education

School enrollment can be an indirect barometer of population trends and birth rates but
is an important issue in and of itself in Gogebic County, where enrollment numbers are
dropping, thus limiting state and federal funding for education in the county (Figure 12).
School buildings are deteriorating and in serious need of restorations. The county has also
been unable to pass millages to raise fimds for school renovations, because many seniors’
prior dependencies on free public services provided by the mines have led them to
repeatedly vote them down. They never had to pay for them before and do not want to start
now. With the rising median age, seniors have a strong voting block. A5 a result,
education in the county has suffered from lack of funding, which worsens as enrollment
numbers drop. This crisis has led to frequent calls for school consolidation in order to
conserve resources, but high school sports rivalries have instilled fierce resistance from

some quarters.

79

 

Gogebic County School Enrollment

5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

   

Preprimary
school
425
438

Elementary to
high school

2,849
2,739

   

   

  
   

College

          

896
725

      
       

 

 

 

Figure 12. Gogebic County school enrollment in 1990 and 2000
Source: US. Census Bureau [ht_tp://www.census.gov|

Pre-primary school enrollment numbers have increased by only thirteen students in ten

years. Public school enrollments fell 4% and college enrollments 19%. It is unknown why

the large drop in college numbers (which mean any college attended by Gogebic County

residents, not only GCC), but there are several possibilities. Either more young people

leaving to attend four—year colleges are filling out their census forms in their college towns

rather than Gogebic County, or fewer are choosing to go to college at all, including perhaps

leaving the area forjobs elsewhere.

Cfime

Obviously, no location is truly crime-free. Therefore, it is worth examining the trends

in various types of crime that do exist in the county (Table 2).

80

Table 2. Gogebic County crime from 1997 to 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Offense 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
INDEX TOTAL 297 464 339 402 369
Murder 8 Non-negligent Manslaughter 2 0 0 1 0
Rape (includes attempts) 7 16 7 6 1 3
Robbery 1 1 0 0 0
Assault - Aggravated 5 15 8 12 24
Burglary 71 1 1 3 88 95 80
Larceny 195 287 212 260 229
Motor Vehicle Theft 12 21 22 25 21
Arson 4 1 1 2 3 2
NON-INDEX TOTAL 1,201 1,927 1,753 1,708 1,622
Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0
Assault (non-aggravated) 84 135 114 129 152
Forgery 8 Counterfeiting 2 3 7 7 9
Fraud 62 90 60 76 60
Embezzlement 7 8 3 5 2
Stolen Property 4 3 4 2 3
Vandalism 151 248 191 207 168
Weapons (carry, possession, etc) 3 16 8 1 5 1 3
Prostitution 8 Common Law Vice 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses (except rape 8 prostitution) 9 4 6 16 12
Narcotic Laws 34 35 40 37 80
Gambling 1 0 0 0 0
Family 8 Children 4 17 5 17 3
Driving Under Influence AlcohoVNarcotics 84 123 1 56 154 158
Liquor Laws 38 76 65 98 74
Disorderly Conduct 297 31 9 206 144 95
All Other (includes drunkenness 8 vagrancy) 421 850 888 801 793
GRAND TOTAL 1,498 2,391 2,092 2,110 1,991

 

Source: Michigan State Police
[http://www.sta_rte.mi.us/msp/ciic/ucrstatsfcrime reportshtm#StIatJ:%20Totals]

Index crimes are the eight offenses listed at the top of the table, chosen because of their
seriousness and frequency of occurrence and often used as indicators of crime. Non-index
crimes are all other crimes and are included here because they are, by far, the most
common crimes committed in the county. Some of them are indicators in themselves of

social conditions and were mentioned specifically in the interviews, such as gambling- and

81

alcohol-related offenses and fraud (particularly insurance fraud).

 

2500
2000
1 500
1 000

Occurrences

0|
0
OD

 

Crime in Gogebic County

 

 

 

 

/ + Index Total

+ Non-Index Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

I I I I

1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

 

Figure 13. Crime in Gogebic County from 1997 to 2001

Source: Michigan State Police
[http://wwwstgtemi.us/msp/ciic/ucrstats/crime reports.htm#State%20TotaIsj

The peak year between 1997 and 2001 for both index and non-index crime was 1998
(Figure 13). Since then, non-index crime has been slowly dropping, although at a lower

rate than it increased before reaching its peak. Non-index crime in 2001 was still higher

than it was in 1997, but it is encouraging to see it dropping, nonetheless.

Index crime has had more ups and downs. After its peak in 1998, it dropped in 1999

before rising again in 2000 and dropping once again in 2001.

The scarcity of high quality job opportunities may be the most significant difficulty
faced by Gogebic County, outpacing state and national averages and propelling many of

the other problems of the county as well, such as poverty, aging infrastructure and school

Summary

82

 

buildings, and alcohol abuse. Unemployment has a massive impact on every issue
discussed in the chapter.

The median age has been climbing, as young people leave the area in search of jobs
and higher education, and only return when they are ready to retire. This leads to lower
birth rates and school enrollments, as well as solidification of the senior voting block,
which consistently votes down public school and infrastructure improvements. Increasing
numbers of retired citizens on Social Security, in relation to working residents who provide
revenues to all levels of government and commerce, lessen the services and improvements
available for county residents.

The declining p0pulation, with the corresponding increase in the median age reflects
the incursion of seniors at retirement age and outflow of young adults at childbearing age
seeking jobs and four-year colleges. The result is a higher rate of mortality than births,
leading to a falling population.

The county’s median household income, just over half that of Michigan’s, began to
rise a bit in recent years, widening the middle class in small increments. However, the
fluctuating nature of real changes over time has rocked Gogebic County a good deal more
than Michigan. The county’s increase in real income, higher than Michigan’s increase, is
encouraging, but it also suggests that small fluctuations in the larger economy may have
greater impacts on resource-dependent communities like Gogebic County.

The percentage of population below the poverty line fell only slightly in recent years
for Gogebic County. Single women with young children comprise the greater part of
impoverished families in the county. Child care for single parents could lighten a massive

burden of the most vulnerable members of the community.

83

School enrollments in Gogebic County are dropping, limiting state and federal
funding for education in the county. Pre-primary school enrollments rose slightly, while all
other public school enrollments fell slightly. College enrollments plummeted significantly.
Either more young people are leaving the area to attend four-year colleges and claiming
residency in their college town, or fewer are choosing to go to college at all.

Nonviolent crimes are the most common offenses committed in the county, some of
which are indicators of social problems. In recent years, index and non-index crimes have
been steadily dropping.

Every community has its problems, and even though high unemployment conditions in
Gogebic County most likely did not induce them in the first place, it is probable that
joblessness has considerably escalated many social ills.

Only two of these variables are currently included in Gogebic County’s list of social
and cultural indicators: population and population under the poverty line. Not included
are unemployment, age, income, school enrollment or crime. All of these are issues of

importance to residents, as will be seen in the next chapter on interview results.

84

Chapter 5: RESULTS: INTERVIEWS

This chapter presents the results of the interviews and is divided into the same
categories and subcategories chosen by the FACT steering committee: lifestyle, civic
responsiveness, forest accessibility and forest use. A fifth one, economic approaches, was
added during final analysis, because it is an important topic to Gogebic County residents
and central to defining sustainable forest management for the community.

The criteria and indicators FACT later developed were rearranged and grouped
differently, along with some additions. This was taken into consideration as the interview

data were analyzed and proposed measures selected.

Lifestyle

“1 think that I’m glad we’re looking at the social aspect of this thing. We need to
examine the total picture of our natural resources. It ’s not just about board feet
harvested. Social aspects of what the forest means to us is very important to be
included. Also, economic and ecological. It’s not so simple as counting board

feet. ”

Lifestyle is a broad term that has many facets, and so it has been broken down into three
categories here. There are others that could have been included, but these three were
chosen for the purposes of defining sustainable forestry in Gogebic County because they
best illuminate the essence of the local culture and can be easily compared with future
responses, for the sake of monitoring lifestyle changes over time. In the interviews,

residents spoke repeatedly about “the way of life” in Gogebic County and their desire to

85

preserve many characteristics of it. So, what is this way of life, and what does it mean to
local citizens? This is a vital notion to understand, as it provides the foundation for all the

other questions.

“Yoopers. We get along with less. Less culture and museums than big cities. We
like to see what the cities have that we don ’t have here. We have a slower pace. It
takes I ’/2 hours to watch 60 Minutes here [laughs]. No road rage. Snow every day
of the winter—we just deal with it. You can leave your keys in your car, and leave
your house wide open. We lock it now, but we don’t have to. We ’ve got lots of
cultural heritage here. Our Y ooper accents. Pasties. A lot of little things like that.
A broad mix of churches. Wakefield had seven churches at one time. Now it ’s at
four. ”

“I guess, being what we are, Native Americans, I ’m really proud to be a member of
this tribe. You ’d have to know the history of the tribe, they went through a very
difficult time. Originally, it was one of the largest and proudest tribes around.
Things passed down to me through listening to the knowledge, [inaudible word], so
you have to rely on that method of traditions. That’s why people don’t understand
what it means to be a member of this tribe, because it’s not written down. So, if you
obtain that through the traditional way, only I and a few others really know what it
means to be a member of the tribe. Just being able to associate with what we call

the Old Indian, the ones who really practiced the traditions. I know them. I lived
and ate with them. They showed me things. ”

Lifestyle is evaluated in three categories: best and worst traits of the county,

significant historical and cultural sites, and residents’ vision of the future.

Best and Worst Traits of the County

What characteristics of Gogebic County do you like the most? The least?

These questions were asked to get a sense for what residents value the most about
living in Gogebic County. What characteristics would they want most preserved through
time, and which ones need improving?

The number of occurrences of responses listing positive traits is nearly double that of

86

negative characteristics (Table 3). The natural environment tops the list of best traits of the
county, which is not surprising, considering the beautiful setting and variety of landscape
features that draw tourists and returning residents alike (Figure 15). The specific features

most often brought up were the forest and proximity to Lake Superior.

Table 3. List of best and worst traits of the Gogebic County

 

 

 

 

 

No. of
0°C“ Responses
9 I T 'I
25 Natural environment

 

24 Small town lifesnge

20 Good character of the people

9 Outdoor recreation
8 Finnish and other ethnic heritages
5 Rural character
4

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

Sense of solitude, peace and quiet

Becominwore progressive—increase of small businesses
Good quality of life in general

Historical features

 

 

 

 

 

ng TEE

 

 

 

N
.3

Negative characteristics of people
Winter climate

Infrastructure problems

Unemployment

Lack of quality in public school education
Lack of diversity and amenities

Low income

Population sparsity

Lack of investment in kids

Lack of services in eastern end of county

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..saNch-Otoooo

 

 

 

 

 

Almost as important are the small town lifestyle and good character of the people.

Woven together, these three strands of rural life form the fabric within which all the other

87

aspects are wrapped. The quiet, laid back pace of life, the safe, uncrowded environment,
where anyone can call on a friendly neighbor for just about anything, the pride of a
distinctive ethnic heritage—hung on a backdrop of forests, lakes and waterfalls to admire
and work and play in—add up to a lifestyle that residents cling to, even in the face of high
unemployment that threatens to take it, and their kids, away. A potent desire to defend and
protect what is left of it, to refinbish parts of what it once was, and to expand beyond
known boundaries were the some of the seeds that sowed Jobs 2000 and the FACT

initiative.

“...not heavily populated, lot of forestland, great people that have a good conviction
for a good life, being honest, no fear of crime, no rush hour, friendly people. Don ’t
have to lock doors. Slower pace. ”

Negative characteristics of people top the list of worst traits (Figure 15). Some
respondents complained about the resistance to change exhibited by many senior citizens,
who consistently vote down millages for financing infrastructure and school improvements,
because they were accustomed to having the mining companies provide everything in the
past. Others noted the general negativity of the population at large, citing negative
perceptions about economic conditions, community rivalry, a tendency to complain even

when situations improve, and bitterness towards residents with more financial resources.

“Our negative attitude. We haven ’t accentuated the positive. And we don ’t get
along with diflerent communities. We have three different schools, and it ’s
ridiculous, but, everybody ’s worried about their own definition of community, rather
than getting a broader perspective of what community is. ”

88

 

Best Traits

 

Good quality of life in general

 

Sense of solitude, peace and quiet

 

Finnish and other ethnic heritages

 

Good character of the people

 

Natural environment

 

 

 

Occurrences of Responses

 

 

 

Figure 14. Comparison of best traits of Gogebic County

Other recurrent complaints include harsh winters and decaying infrastructure and
school buildings. Although lack of employment opportunities was only a moderately
frequent response to this particular question, it was a very common grievance throughout
the interviews. Brought up repeatedly in response to many different questions, it is clear
that the loss of jobs resulting from the mine closings is a grave concern to residents and

formed the primary impetus for the establishment of the FACT initiative.

89

 

Worst Traits

 

Lack of services in eastern end of county h

1
Lack of investment in kids I

Population sparsity

 

Low income 1‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Occurrences of Responses

 

 

 

Figure 15. Comparison of worst traits of Gogebic County

Significant Historical and Cultural Sites

What do you think are the most significant historical and cultural sites in Gogebic
County?

This question demonstrates what first comes to residents’ minds when asked what

kinds of features express a sense of place in Gogebic County. What are the cultural

90

symbols of the area that represent Gogebic County to the rest of the world? They tend to
be the kinds of places one would want to show or tell visitors about, but they are also links
that bond residents with each other through shared experience of these places and events

(Table 4).

Table 4. List of types of significant historical and cultural features

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0030430... Type of Sites
35 Natural landscape features
33 Historic architecture
25 Historic industry and project sites
15 Outdoor recreation sites
9 Ethnic heritage sites
3 Forest industry symbols

 

 

 

 

 

The natural landscape once again comes in first, illustrating how outdoor-oriented
residents are and how closely tied they are to the land they inhabit (Figures 16 and 17).
The most frequently mentioned specific features were lakes (especially Lakes Superior and

Gogebic), the forest and waterfalls.

“The Big Indian. There’s a lot of pine trees...trees everywhere. The natural
beauty...lakes, forests...are very important. I’m proud of where I live. It ’s more
beautiful than other places I ’ve been. ”

Outdoor recreation plays a central role in the enjoyment of the landscape and
immersion into it. Copper Peak, one of the few ski flying hills in the western hemisphere,
is a source of pride and attracts top athletes from around the world. Black River Harbor, on

the shore of Lake Superior where the Black River empties into it, is the only harbor in the

91

 

Types of Significant Historical and Cultural
Features

 

Forest industry

Ethnic heritage sites 1

   

Outdoor recreation sites 111111 1111

 

Historic industry 8 project sites
Historic architecture

Natural landscape features

0 510

 

   
    
 
  

   

I III II .

    

 

II 11111 III

 
   

 

 

‘I III IIIIIIIIIII

 

II
I
I
I
I

15 20 25 30 35 40

Occurrences of Responses

 

 

Figure 16. Comparison of types of significant historical and cultural features

nation managed by the Forest Service. The scenic drive to it through the forest, following

the route of the river, has numerous stopping points to allow easy access to the many

magnificent waterfalls along the way.

A very close second, after natural landscape features, is historic architecture, with
special regard for the Ironwood Theatre, Old Depot Museum and the Ironwood Memorial
Building, and to a lesser extent, the Bessemer Courthouse. By far, the most repeated single
(ungrouped) response was historic mining sites, even though it was said that they are not
much to look at anymore, since any buildings associated with them have long been torn

down. Historic logging camps were also given as a response, although at a much lower

frequency.

92

 

 

 

     
  

 

Types of Significant Historical and Cultural Sites
Forest industry
Ethnic heritage symbols
sites 3%
8%
Natural
landscape
Outdoor features
recreation sites \2 28%
12%
Historic
industry and _____
project sites ' ------ Historic
21% architecture
28%

 

Figure 17. Significant types of historical and cultural features by percentage

“It ’s fascinating to see the old mine sites, what is lefi of them. I can go and show
people from out of town small points of what life was like. There were good times,
and sorrowfirl times then. Life was what you made it. At the end of the day, leaving
the mine, everybody was laughing and joking. You knew you had to go back down
the next day, but you made the best of it. It was the best thing in the area, so you
hung onto it. It got to where the older didn’t know anything else. Us younger guys
had our eyes open to other trades that paid more. ”

These handsome classic buildings and historic industry sites remind residents of the
booming past of the Gogebic Range, of which they are proud and many want to recapture.
An oft-repeated complaint was that progress has been sacrificed to backward-looking
residents waiting for the mines to return. As that may be partly true, most are ready to
move on without the mines, primarily to wood products, while some of the more forward-

looking residents want to reconstruct that historic vibrancy in new ways, reflective of the

93

modern, high-tech age in which we are living. Even the modemists, however, are well-
versed in local history and find the stories of early settlement fascinating, including as it
relates to ethnic and cultural heritage. Gogebic County Community College (GCCC)
offers a course in local history, with field trips to some of these sites. Growing in
popularity at the time of the interviews, the course attracts non-traditional students, who
otherwise are not in school at all. In addition, logging trucks on the roads and even in the
Fourth of July parades symbolize the strong cultural ties of the community with the forest
products industry, both past and present.

There is a deep-seated ethnic pride in Gogebic County, particularly of the Scandinavian
ancestry so many have inherited. Interestingly, the only monument built as a symbol of the
region is what residents call the Big Indian, a fifty-foot tall fiberglass statue of Hiawatha,

located in downtown Ironwood.

“Some people said it should be a logger or miner but chose Hiawatha because he
was a peacemaker, and the American Indians had a rich history living of the land
and survived, and represented what our community is, rich in resources, and we
should share it with others. ”

The most important historic native-American site in the county is the location of the old
village on Lac (Lake) Vieux Desert, the lake beside which the band of the Lake Superior
Chippewa tribe originally lived and from which it derived its name. The tribe would like to
eventually relocate there but continue to do business in Watersmeet, where the reservation
is located. Other cultural and historic tribal sites include sweat lodges, burial grounds and
other traditional gathering areas, but as the younger generations become increasingly
westerrrized, interest in sacred traditions is falling away, leaving elders worrying about the

future of the traditional customs.

94

“The older people go out and harvest roots and things themselves—on a real small
scale. The ones who know the traditional medicines now, it ’s kind of losing like
everything else—the interest. We’re getting too modern. Who do you pass it down
to, if people aren ’t interested? Unfortunately, when people have this knowledge, we
haven ’t progressed enough to document that stufiL-that ’s why a lot of stuff was lost.
The history of our tribe is that you passed it on to your kids. We lost so much
because of smallpox epidemics of the ‘3 0s—nobody wrote it down. Their
responsibility was to keep on doing that forever. If I want to teach you and you

don ’t want to listen, what am I gonna do? That ’5 what happening. It should be
written down—we ’re missing out, and if we can ’t get somebody to do that, it ’s
gonna be lost forever. I ’m not the oldest one around here. The older ones think that
you should come to me and ask me about the knowledge. I ’m here to know the old
and young generation. Man, there ’5 a big dijference. How they’re ever gonna
remember what happened years ago? We’ve alreaay got our tribal history, but they
won ’t even take time to read that. What do you do? ..... We have [traditional
ceremonies], not as often as I think we should have. We have a traditional powwow
every year. We have a traditional [inaudible word], funerals, feasts at certain times
of the year. But, attendance is deteriorating. Those kinds of services you don ’t
write down. You have to know to do those things. You don’ t tape those things.
Taping is prohibited”

The preceding quote was inserted in much of its entirety to bring attention to the urgent
nature of this problem. There are only a very few tribal elders remaining that have the Old
Knowledge, always passed down in an oral tradition. The interviews present a
discrepancy, however, about who initiates the transfer of knowledge. The quote above lays
the responsibility on the younger generation to ask for it, yet another respondent said that

the elders choose who to pass it to.

“A lot of stufir has been lost already. Things are supposed to pass on orally, and if
it ’s written down, it breaks a long held tradition. I have a young tribal lady whose

job is to interview others to find out about these plants. She was supposed to go out
and find out these things, and write down the Latin name and what they ’re used for.
They won’t tell her. Elders are always saying, “Those are secrets. We won ’t tell
you ”It 5 because she’s “not ready. ” Only the person who wants to pass it on
picks the person to receive it. It still occurs, but you don ’t know, because no one
speaks of it. ”

This is an important distinction, because if there is confusion within the tribe about the

95

process of knowledge transfer, it reduces the likelihood of its occurrence. Much of this
knowledge is concerning native woodland plant use, including trees, for varying purposes,
such as arts and crafts, medicine, and ancient spiritual rituals. When these elders are gone,
most of the knowledge will go with them like an extinct species, unless the current
generation finds a way before it is too late to preserve and continue to pass it down. When
traditional forest practices decline to the point of disuse, memory of and interest in the
sacred sites used for the rituals will likely be lost as well—and with them the loss of

historical tribal knowledge, and thus the sustainability of the culture of tradition.

Vision of the Future

Think about the future. What are your hopes for this county for your grandchildren and
great grandchildren?

Can you describe your ideal image of this county in 50 or 100 years?

What characteristics do you think the future will have?

This is similar to the first question that asked about the most and least preferred traits of
the county, but it goes a step further and opens up the imagination about what the
possibilities could be. From there it proceeds into the reality check phase, to get a sense for
what people believe probably will happen, and in some cases, what is needed to bring about
the desired characteristics. This question highlights the similarities and differences
between what people hope will happen and what they think really will.

The most frequent response to hopes about the firture is for more and better quality
employment opportunities, followed fairly closely by the preservation of the rural way of
life and a moderate increase in population (Table 5). Even though economic development

is farther down the list, when grouped with other related and more specific responses, such

96

as a desire for more industry, more tourism, and more forest-based industry, all of which
are tied together, one can see that residents feel that the economy in general is of great
concern. An increase in the number and/or size of local industries and businesses will
provide more employment in the area, leading to population grth and a higher tax base

which can supply revenue for infrastructure, education and other urban improvements.

“1 sure hope it won ’t be just old people like me. You gotta have an incoming
population that will keep the county going. I don ’t know how they could generate
enough work in the area to get an interest to maintain the young people. They all
have to leave town to find work to get an income

like they want. ”

County residents, however, do not want to sacrifice the rural way of life for economic
growth. It is for that lifestyle that native residents stay and newcomers move to the area.
Moderation, balance and caution are the overriding principles guiding the responses
discussed above. If the quality of life is surrendered for growth, there would be little
reason for many residents to stay in the area, thus negating the entire purpose of the
economic development. In the same vein, some residents shared a preference for recreation
to remain at a less developed level, avoiding upscale resorts. A few expressed the desire
for increased positive thinking, expanded vision and risk-taking among the county

population.

“One neat thing about this area is that people genuinely care about the land

They ’re kind of quiet and keep to themselves and genuinely appreciate what they
have, and they don ’t want a lot of outside influence or outside people telling them
what to do. I think they have a greater love for this area and will not let [pollution
and overdevelopment] happen. They ’ve always stopped progress here, and so I
guess that trend will continue [laughs]. ”

97

Table 5. List of hopes and beliefs about the future of Gogebic County

No. of
Occurrences

Type of
Response

Responses

 

98

A number of respondents affirmed the importance of maintaining the county’s natural
resources in their current states: pristine, unpolluted, and used for a mixture of activities.
Others stated a distinct preference for the protection, but not the preservation of the forest.
Protection and maintenance, to county residents, imply the management of the resource in
such a way as to provide a continued, long-term supply of wood products at a sustainable
rate, such that the quantity and quality of the forest is not compromised and is
simultaneously available and aesthetically attractive for recreational use. Preservation, on
the other hand, implies a prohibition of timber harvesting of any kind, in order to keep the
forest in a completely natural state, untouched by human hands.

County residents, for the most part, believe strongly that they are doing a good job
managing and protecting the forest, and some feel offended by urban preservationists,
represented mainly by the Sierra Club, who say the only way to protect the forest is to
prohibit cutting it, ever. There were a couple of preferences by residents for continued
preservation of wildemess areas and wildlife, but forestlands designated as “wilderness” by
the federal government already prohibit logging (except for disease, insect or fire control)

and so are not included in the areas in controversy anyway (Gorte 1998).

“Right now the Forest Service is more tuned to the public than local industry. I
don ’t think there would be fewer trees if there were county ownership. I think the
management would be very much the same, just more attuned to the local needs. I
don ’t think aesthetics would be compromised Ask to see a tour of the county forest.
You won ’t be able to tell the difference between the county forest and the national
forest. ”

After all, beautiful forests, lakes, rivers, and waterfalls all exist in their own back yards.
They feel that managing the forest for timber is part of taking care of it, if it is done well.

Therefore, some residents have an intense resentment of people who identify themselves as

99

environmentalists, but who are really preservationists, because of their negative attitudes
about logging. Residents prefer to call them preservationists (focusing on the Sierra Club)
because they tend to lobby for legislation to prohibit timber harvesting in public forests,
one of the mainstays of Gogebic County’s economy. Hence, some residents believe that
they are under attack from urban people whom they perceive as knowing little about forest
science, yet are spreading misinformation about it, and who do not care at all about the
people that depend on the forest products industry to earn their living and feed their
families. Some go as far as believing that preservationists are cold-hearted individuals who
care more about trees than people, as well as hypocrites who buy wooden fumiture for their

wooden houses, just like everybody else.

“Our grandparents can tell us how forests were managed in the olden days. People
fiom Detroit don ’t have that. We know that Joe ’s forest has been harvested 8 times
in the last 100 years. Preservationists are generally urban people. They create a
panic via marketing, and urban people believe them. They think if you ’re going to
err, err on the side of saving trees. ”

In recent years, environmental organizations have made great gains in power and have

succeeded in reducing timber sales in public forestland nation-wide.

“I don’t think the loggers ’ lobbyists are as good as the tree hugger lobbyists. I We
need more education by foresters. ”

It was a comeback in defense against this trend that motivated and shaped the conception of

the sustainable forestry (FACT) initiative in Gogebic County.

“It ’s an incredibly diflicult communication. I don ’t know how you get those two
groups together. I think it’s almost ironic, because in many instances they say
exactly the same thing. They ’re using the same science, but they distrust one
another. I think their meetings typically are from controversial events, so it ’s not
the best environment to be introduced to one another. You start off in a defensive
way, you don’t have a lot of time to get comfortable. If my introduction to you is as

100

an adversary, our conversation is gonna be way different. If you can stop a million
dollar sale with a 33 cent letter because the aspen sing to you, I have to go to court
and duke it out with you. The culture of the community is driven by stories, it ’s how
people come to believe things. There’s something imbalanced there, just in process.
It ’s a wonderful democratic thing, but it ’s ludicrous. After a belabored process of
public comment, a guy can still mess with your life, even after you followed all the
rules. ”

As discussed in the literature review, American values about forests have been shifting
towards greater protection, and in some cases, even preservation, of forests, particularly in
national forests. So, even if “you followed all the rules,” it is the rules themselves that are
frequently under attack. Gogebic County residents are struggling to come to terms with a
sweeping cultural transformation that directly impacts them and is shaping their future in
ways that are both hard to accept and understand.

Beliefs about the firture are slightly more positive than negative (Figure 18). Despite
existing problems, many residents feel somewhat optimistic about finding solutions.
Respondents focused on the drawbacks of recreation/tourism and the problems of attracting
industry, but a few were optimistic about the establishment of new businesses in the county
and offered some suggestions for overcoming barriers, such as investments in education, a
better recruitment program, and positive thinking.

Some of the reasons cited for skepticism about attracting industry include severe
winters, distance from markets, Renaissance zones located too far from town, and increased
logging restrictions. Without new industry, say some, the population will continue to drop.

A common perception is that tourists from the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Chicago
and other urban centers view the area as their playground. “They come up and play, mess
it up and leave, not caring about the people who live here.” That this kind of activity might

get out of hand is a driving force behind many negative views of tourism as an industry. It

101

 

Neutral

Negative
41% Positive
57%

 

 

 

 

Figure 18. Response types on beliefs about the future

is also perceived that those are some of the very people who are lobbying against timber

sales in the national forest.

“ What we are right now is a playground for urban people who have no stake in the
forest other than to come up here for a couple of weeks in the summer and recreate
a little bit. Those are the people who have the big say in it right now. They don ’t
have much of a stake in it, but they have a big say. Local people are here full time.
They derive a lot of their income and earnings fiom those national forests and I
think what those local people want should be heavily weighted ”

The second main argument against tourism is economic. Tourism is perceived as an
industry that primarily provides seasonal, low-wage jobs without benefits. There is also
fear fi'om past experience that resorts tend to drive up property values and taxes, thus
driving out local residents who can no longer afford to live there. Some pessimism exists
in the ability to even attract many tourists because the beaches and lake water are too cold,
and much of tourism is based on weather and outside forces, out of the control of local

planners and managers.

102

Amidst all these doubts, there are glirnmers of optimism. Some of the more positive
viewpoints include beliefs that the area will be considered a special place, because it will
maintain both the pristine environment and rural way of life, which will attract high-tech
industries; the economy will diversify and bring new employment opportunities and
population growth; roads and schools will improve; towns will c00perate with each other

more; and natural resources will be conserved and managed more effectively.

Civic Responsiveness

The quantity and quality of civic involvement and responsiveness measure the spirit of
teamwork in the county. How do people go about the business of helping each other out,
both institutionally and culturally—a5 organized groups, agencies, corporations and towns,
as well as individually?

Civic responsiveness in Gogebic County is evaluated in three categories: availability of

services; how residents work together; and education and skill building.

Availability of Services

Do you feel that there are a significant number of services offered to your community by
local institutions and organizations?
Are there any that stand out in your mind, or are unique to the area?
Are there any services you think are missing or that could be expanded or improved in
your community?

This question is about all kinds of services, whether governmental, civic, religious or
commercial. In a rural area with small towns, many services may be limited. People

expect that and so tempered their answers to that reality, finding that, for its nrral character,

103

Gogebic County does quite well in its provision of services, especially in health, and to a

lesser extent, education (Figure 19).

“Because mining was founded in late I 8005 and gained strength in early 20th
century, we have a community college, a good hospital, schools. All better than
expected because of the investments of the ‘205. ”

 

Availability of Services

Neutral
13%

   
  
 

Negative-

16°/ \\\ Positive
0

71%

 

 

Figure 19. Response types on availability of services

Since the development of its casino and the increased revenue and employment
stemming from it, Lac Vieux Desert has established an impressive array of services for the
reservation, which the tribe also makes available to the public (Table 6). These include
health care, law enforcement, social services, energy assistance, and softball leagues.

Services are in more abundance for the elderly than for other groups, which is not
surprising, as the median age for the county continues to rise. These include senior centers,
Meals on Wheels, Blue Bus program, and elderly care facilities in Wakefield and Lac

Vieux Desert. Residents were positive about health care in the county, citing a good

hospital, health department in Bessemer, and mental health facilities. Notable services a
little farther down the list include development services, particularly by the Economic
Development Commission, as well as the state-wide Human Services Coordinating Body,
which coordinates services to eliminate duplication. Others are law enforcement, road

cleanup after storms, social services, tourism/recreation services, volunteer fire department

and the community newspaper.

“With the college, there ’5 lots of opportunities for education. For example, with the
cabinet manufacturer, they ’re gonna create some programs for people who want to
learn about that. Health services, we ’re doing better onu-cooperation with other
hospitals to provide better health opportunities for people. In rural America, you
can ’t get all the services you can in Lansing, but we get a lot. But, someboay has to

pay for them. ”

There were positive and negative remarks on educational services, with the positive
primarily emphasizing the community college. The problems with public schools fall
mainly on the physical facilities, due to low enrollment leading to low fitnding, while

residents said positive things about the teachers and programs.

“People should join the 215t century, and if they ’re gonna keep kids, and families
here, they ’re gonna have to invest in infrastructure and schools. They don ’t want to
spend money to build a new school. They can ’t even pass a bond issue to do
renovations. They don ’t want to pay for it. This community has never had to pay
for a school—ever. The mines always paid for it. So the mentality is, “well, we
don ’t want one now. ”

All throughout the interviews, people expressed the need to consolidate the schools to
concentrate scarce resources and eliminate duplication of services. One respondent
lamented the absence of a string music program, and another complained of a lack of

higher educational facilities in the eastern end of the county. In fact, there were complaints

105

Table 6. List of service availability, notable and missing services

 

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

 

 

_L
0)

Yes, enough

 

No, not for certain groups

 

Yes, especially certain groups and pjaces

 

Yes, a growigq amount

 

A fair amount, but not compared with other areas

 

Not enough

 

Services are allpood but going downhill

 

44—810th

Well covered, but too much duplication

 

 

Nlrvi

 

 

No, none that stand out

 

Health services

 

Services provided mLac Vieux Desert

 

Educational services

 

Seniorflograms

 

Development services

 

Law enforcement

 

Road cleanup

 

Social services

 

Tourism and recreation services

 

Volunteer fire department

 

dNNNNNNOD-bmmto

Community newsgaper

 

 

 

 

 

Youth activities and prggrams

 

Education

 

No services missing

 

Infrastructure

 

Don't know if services are missing

 

Health

 

Social services limited and abused

 

Commercial

 

Cooperation and consolidation of services

 

Child care for single parents

 

Civic pride

 

Lack of technology talent and support services

 

PlanninL

 

The little extras, the niceties are missinL

 

..L-LAAA-AOONQOOWbUIUIN

 

 

 

Tourism and FS offices closed weekends when tourist numbers are highest

 

106

about lack of health and social services and shopping facilities in the eastern end, as well.
Most services are concentrated in the western end of the county, and residents of
Watersmeet feel somewhat left out. There were complaints that the payments in lieu of
taxes (PILT) from the Forest Service primarily benefit citizens in the Ironwood, Bessemer
and Wakefield area, while the national forest that generates that income is in the eastern
end of the county. Some Watersmeet residents feel this is unfair. One resident was also
rather unhappy with community divisiveness in Watersmeet that ended up terminating
several proposed service projects that were close to fruition and would like to see better
cooperation.

The most glaring omission in services is the lack of recreational facilities and programs,

especially for young people.

“I ’m prejudiced. I think our area takes its young people for granted And the
financial planning of our governmental units, the money put in for youth recreation
is like an afterthought or a very small part of the budget. We don ’t have a
developed bike trail, or skate boarding. We don ’1 look at alternatives. We don ’t
have an outdoor swimming pool in Gogebic County in any town. Some of the lakes
are too cold for swimming, or don ’t have a good bottom for swimming. It would be
nice to have an outdoor pool, where you could have Red Cross certified lifeguards. ”

The resident quoted below made an appeal for an arcade with video games, batting cages

and pool tables.

“It ’3 getting better, but for kids, there ’s just not that much to do. We can’t drive out
to the lake. When you can ’t drive, there’s not much in town to do. ”

A few people thought there were no services missing, but they were in the minority.
Most had at least one they could name, even though the overwhelming majority also

thought services were adequate for a rural area. Some of the services missing include

107

infrastructure deficiencies, especially 911 emergency service, child care for single parents,
and technology support services. There was a request for another laundromat in Ironwood,
medical care expansion and an observation that many residents do not have health
insurance.

A few residents reported high levels of alcohol abuse in the county, with a
corresponding abuse of social services, such as workers with “bad backs” collecting
disability payments, who are seen snowmobiling. One resident expressed a desire for the
Tourism and Forest Service offices to be open on weekends, to be accessible when the

highest numbers of tourists are in the area.

How Residents Work Together

What is your perception of the ability and willingness of residents in your community to
work together to reach community goals?

This question sparked some emotions. It is clear that citizens think this should be a
reality and seem to want it, but there are obstacles. As low as many respondents said
community collaboration is in the county, just as many people said it is also improving. In
general, nearly half the responses to the question were somewhat negative, and the other
half was divided between positive and neutral (Figure 20).

Residents generally feel that people within the same township sometimes work together
fairly well, but that among townships, there exists a competitive spirit preventing much
cooperation (Table 7). Some blame this on high school sports rivalries, comparable to the
continued resistance to school consolidation. Collaboration is especially difficult between

the eastern and western ends of the county, mainly because of distance, but in addition,

108

Type Responses on Community Collaboration

Neutral
22%
Negative
43%
Positive
34% ’

 

 

 

Figure 20. Response types on community collaboration

some residents of Watersmeet believe that the eastern side doesn’t have the population
numbers to influence county decisions.

Negative attitudes, mostly from older community members, are widely viewed as the
source of discord, but many feel that collaborative efforts are on the rise, as the younger
generation inherits more management responsibilities, and as urban people, who are more

used to working together, move in. One resident shared an urban perspective:

“When I came here, the level of provincial [sic] was so incredible, I couldn ’t believe
it. It’s still there, and that ’s what people are talking about, but what people can’t
see is the difierence in that ten-year time span. And they have too much history and
baggage. There was some really dysfunctional provincialism where the community
would do dastardly deeds to disadvantage another one, and I don 't think that
happens anymore. I also think that people don ’t see where they do cooperate...I
think I have a unique perspective of the ten-year span. I almost left! I said there ’3
no way...But, they have come a long, long, long way.

Particularly notable is the progress made in tribal and non-tribal relations in Watersmeet

and the community building that leaders are planning there.

109

Table 7. Community collaboration to meet goals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00c?“ °f Responses Helm“.
12 It’s getting better +
11 Low, due to negative attitudes and a culture of independence -
6 Leadership is Iackigg -
5 Cooperation is better within communities than among them 0
5 Some people are more open to it than others 0
4 Not working tggether on long-term investments -
Can be improved through community organizations like Rotary &

3 EDC +
3 Works pretty well for the most part +
Collaboration between tribal and non-tribal communities has greatly
2 improved +
2 Hard for eastern and western ends of county to collaborate -
2 It's toquth-mMOOd enough -
2 People talk about it, but not much gets done 0
1 Annual festival doesn't attract enough volunteers to help out -
1 Could happen if information is brought prgaerly (not rumorsL 0
1 it needs a lot of patience and time 0
1 It's gotten worse -
1 Lack of new issues driving it -
1 People cooperate more than they think they do +
1 Sometimes good, sometimes awful O
1 Terrible -
1 Wants to start a community service group called Positive People +
1 Watersmeet looking at doing some community building +

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership, perhaps through existing civic organizations like the EDC, Rotary Club,
and the Community Services Coordinating Board, is thought by some to be the missing
variable needed to bring everyone together. One resident wants to start a community group

called Positive People.

“I think there could be a great organization—I always thought about starting my
own [laughs], if I could quit my job, which probably will

happen very shortly. I want to start a group called Positive People, that we could——
if someone said, you know what we need is a videotape to promote the Forest
Service, we ’d go over there and get things rolling. And if someone said we needed a

110

handicapped cross-country ski trail or something, chances are, we’d do that—with a
corps of volunteers with diyferent backgrounds and resources. ”

Other needed elements, according to residents, are patience and time, as well as a proper

delivery system for information that is not based on rumor.

Education and Skill-building

Do you think that residents in your community have the skills, education and experience
they need to be successfitl?

What kinds of opportunities exist in your area to expand or improve these skills for
residents, and do you see these opportunities changing, i. e. increasing or decreasing?

Residents were fairly positive about educational opportunities in the county, citing the
community college programs leading the way, but they were less optimistic about the skills
required for local employment (Figure 21). They responded differently to this question
depending on whether their perspective was focused on staying in Gogebic County or
leaving. Are the skills needed to work anywhere in the world the same as the skills needed
to stay in the area? Apparently not, but is this changing? Most likely, yes, especially as
telecommunications advances make it easier to do business online. Several people
expressed a belief that opportunities are increasing, or at least holding steady, in the county.
Some feel that limiting education only to skills that are currently useful in the local area is
insufficient, because the world is shrinking and hi gh-tech opportunities are increasing, even
locally. Added investments in education will help to attract those opportunities.

“We’re going into a high tech world where computers will dictate what and where the
jobs are,” said one global thinker—even in places like Gogebic County that are not

conveniently located near large markets. He continues:

111

 

_-_ 1

Local Skills and Educational Opportunities

Neutral
20%

Positive
55%

  

Negative
25%

 

 

 

Figure 21. Response types on local skills and educational opportunities

”I see little businesses being established around. With computers, people can set
up here, without going to an oflice. One friend has a travel agency this way. He
has modern technological skills that he didn ’t acquire here.

“Entrepreneurs are certainly making it happen. There ’s an export business here,
with computers, fax machines, right out of this little office by my barber. ”

One respondent expressed a need for an increase in skills and education in running
small businesses, to help workers climb out of the rut of forever remaining employees
rather than entrepreneurs. Another complained that the lack of skilled labor results in
fewer businesses, and thus less competition, which in turn, leads to poor quality of services

(Table 8).

“You gotta wait in line to get your oven fixed To get an electrician around here,
you gotta really send ‘em chocolates. There ’s demand, but it ’s at that awkward
point, where you can tell, if there was just a little more, there would be
competition. ”

Telecommunications advances are also affording new opportunities in education.
Gogebic County is expanding programs, with seminars in Ironwood, as well as technology

like fiber optics and distance learning programs throughout the county. Watersmeet

112

residents, because of their distance from the Ironwood area, are especially anticipating
increased opportunities for higher education through these technologies. Gogebic County
Community College, reports one Watersmeet resident, has television equipment that could
be utilized for producing and/or showing seminars and other educational programs on a
local TV station.

Residents are proud of the community college and believe it to have a significant
impact on education, skill-building and meeting the human capital requirements of local
industries. It provides nursing and vocational—technical training programs and coordinates

with local industries to learn what kinds of skills are needed in order to provide them.

“The jewel in the rough here is the junior college. It ’s a phenomenal asset. Those
people raise money, like I wish I could Their foundation is always getting money,
because people here love that place. It's nowhere near its potential...but, it is the
answer. Of that, I’m convinced ”

However, some people said that although GCCC is a good resource, especially for the
modest cost, it does not provide enough training for jobs that will ultimately be needed, and
it could also stand to improve its advertising for courses and other events.

Many people also praised educational opportunities in general, including public
schools, Michigan Technological University in nearby Houghton, and even the availability
of correspondence schools. Public schools do not offer any forestry courses as part of the
curriculum, as that is not part of state science objectives, but there is a high school ecology
course and a sixth-grade outdoor education program with contributions from Keweenaw
Land Association and taught by volunteers. Public schools also work with the Department
of Natural Resources on hunter, water and gun safety. One resident called for the Forest

Service to create an education director position at its Ottawa office.

113

Table 8. List of responses on education and skill-building

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

any

programs, more are

 

Lac Vieux Desert provides educational and business assistance to any tribal member

requesting it. If someone wants to go to college somewhere, the tribe’s Education

114

Department will sponsor it. Entrepreneurs who want to start local businesses are also
backed by the tribe. As in the case of non-tribal county residents, those who leave for
higher education outside the region usually do not return. In contrast, many who lefi the
area for better employment in the cities are now returning for increased job opportunities
with the Lac Vieux Desert Resort Casino, which provides employment to both tribal and
non-tribal residents.

The culture of the area promotes a strong work ethic, and the high school drop-out rate
is low. Even so, once students graduate, the majority are forced to leave the area in search
of employment, as skilled labor is still in low demand in the county. Presently, those
wanting skills needed in urban areas have to leave the county to attend universities, and

most do not return until they retire.

“There ’s probably a larger percentage of low skilled people than 25 years ago
because the higher skilled ones left. There are a lot of jobs available, but they are
lower pay, and employers have trouble filling the positions, because they ’re part
time, lower wage, and it’ll attract someone looking for a second income or college
student. Full time employers pay what the market will bear, which is low here. ”

According to one resident, some of the by-products of a predominantly low-wage, low-
skill job market is an increasing gap between affluent and less well off residents, as well as
a depleted sense of self-esteem in many of those less fiscally secure. Yet, success is a

relative term, as another resident pointed out:

“It depends on what you consider successful. People can go straight out of high
school to trade school for a couple of years and make more money than with a four-
year degree. You can be successful with just about any amount of education. ”

Another resident told how some of his former classmates with only high school diplomas

are working in construction or the woods and are doing well. One can be successful, by

115

his/her own definition, with the amount and type of education of one’s own choosing. One

respondent disagreed:

“For happiness, the more education in anything, the better you ’11 feel. For wealth,
you need education too. ”

Forest Accessibility

The ability of residents to enter and use the forest is based on many factors (physical,
legal, seasonal, etc.), but these were not distinguished in the questions. They were left
general, and people responded in the ways that most engaged them on the issue of amount

and type of access.

Amount and Type of A ccess

How accessible do you think the forest is to you?
Is it more accessible for some uses, or on diflerent types of land than others?
Has the level of accessibility changed over time?

Because these questions apply to different forest types, the responses were quite varied,
based on the way each resident tends to use the forest. Residents found forests in general to
be very accessible in the county (Figure 22), but certain uses are limited, such as urban
development, logging, vehicular use and handicapped access. Natural, non-motorized

recreational and subsistence uses are almost universally available.

“Most of the forest land has no fences, very few gates. Most has always been
accessible to citizens of the county. There are a myriad of uses out there:

mushroom pickers, timber harvesting, hikers, bikers. The public in my mind has
real open access to the forest. Most of the industrial land is under the Commercial
Forest Act, which does open it for public access. And most the companies have been

116

very good about allowing people to use their road systems. ”

Accessibility: all forest types combined

 

Neutral
12%

   

Accessible

Not Accessible
__ 58%

0%

 

 

L,

 

Figure 22. General accessibility of all forest types combined

An equal number thought accessibility was decreasing (Table 9). Although new roads,
signage and trail maps are boosting accessibility, other roads are in disrepair, leading to
closures. One resident pointed out that tourists who don’t know the opportunities might
have difficulty getting around. Trail maps are available at the Forest Service office and the
Old Depot Museum, but a possibly little known fact is that forest roads are numbered and
can be found on a map—if one knows where to look. Old railroad right-of-ways have been
converted to ORV and snowmobile trails, but sufficient mountain bike trails are lacking.

The Gogebic County Forest is viewed as the most accessible of all the forest ownership
classifications (Figure 23). It is locally managed for a mixed-use of recreation and timber.
Residents do not see any obstacles barring access to the county forest and view its

management as responsive to community needs and preferences. It has contributed to local

117

Table 9. List of forest accessibility for all ownership types

 

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

 

W

 

N
01

Very accessible

 

—L
A

Very accessible for non-motorized recreation

 

Accessibility is decreasing

 

Accessibility is increasing

 

Accessible, but you may have to hunt for information if you don‘t know where to gg_

 

People with disabilities have access problems

 

Fairly accessible

 

Some places are easier Met to than others

 

Access for motorized uses are more limited

 

Access for recreation has increased

 

Accessibility level is not changi_ng much

 

 

Almost inaccessible for development

 

Natural uses are universally acceptable

 

Old railroad Light-of—ways have been converted to ORV and snowmobile trails

 

AANNNNNww-bmmth

There's not a lot of well-developed bike trails

 

 

W

 

Public forests are very accessible

 

cub

Public lands are open to hunting everywhere

 

 

W

 

Loggi_ngis dramatically decreasing

 

 

Handicgped access is increasing

 

The Ottawa is very accessible

 

Forest Service is very restrictive

 

Handicapped people have some access problems

 

Road maintenance has declined because of reduced funds from timber sales

 

Roads are beig blocked in the Ottawa to create roadless areas for wildlife

 

Extended campingstay allowed for deer season

 

Forest Service has reduced restrictions on tribal access

 

a-A-KNNNN-bbm

Ottawa verLaccessible for traditional tribal gathering and harvesting

 

 

onF

 

County forest is very accessible

 

0000

 

Countyforest very accessible to nggipg

 

County does mod job with multi-use

 

Local control of county forest helped with economic development though land
trades

 

 

Priva F nd

 

 

11

 

Fragmentation, blockades and 'No Trespassing' signs increasing on non-industrial
lands

 

 

118

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

are very

Fores of nkn ershi

 

*Responses have been placed in this category when the speaker did not make clear which type of forest
s/he was referring to, or when actually speaking generally.

economic development through the use of land trades and active timber management, while

maintaining aesthetics for recreation.

Following second in accessibility are private industrial forestlands, which are perceived
as very accessible, due to the Commercial Forest Act, which offers tax incentives to
companies that open their lands to the public for hiking, hunting and fishing. This
accessibility is somewhat at risk, however, as tax breaks are whittled down over time,
rendering the program less and less appealing to participating companies.

Non~industrial private forest lands (N IPF) have been more open in the past but are
becoming increasingly inaccessible, due to fragmentation and posting. Small forty- and
eighty-acre plots are scattered among public and private industrial lands and block access
to them, as public roads and trails meet private boundaries with No Trespassing signs. As a
result, many of these roads and trails have to be re-routed at considerable expense and
inconvenience. Others simply become blockaded dead-ends, forcing travelers to turn

around and go back the way they came, or as one mountain biker admitted. “I have to run

119

 

Forest Accessibility by Ownership

 

 

 

 

General
Public
National IAccessible
COUMY I Neutral
Private‘ I lnaccessible
Unknown

 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of Responses

 

 

 

Figure 23. Forest accessibility by ownership type

* Industrial and non-industrial ownerships are grouped together under Private. However, the portion of the
bar shown as accessible pertains primarily to industrial lands and the inaccessible portion to non-industrial.

across blockades on bike trails because of private lands. "

Residential development along lake shores is crowding out public access for fishing
and boating. However, some private landowners allow others to use their land for
recreation. One of them in nearby Ontonagon County built Camp Josh, a recreational
outdoor retreat for handicapped users.

Handicapped access is also on the rise in the Ottawa National Forest, although
handicapped visitors still have some problems. The Forest Service built several
handicapped-accessible docks for fishing, and in conjunction with the Ruffed Grouse

Society, provides four-wheelers for hunters who cannot move around the forest on foot.

“They have afour-wheeler that they donated to anyone who has a handicap, and
you can call ahead and use it free, and they ’11 give you a map and show you where
you can hunt ofl of a four-wheeler, because otherwise it’s illegal to do that. That ’s
the Ottawa National Forest with the Rufled Grouse Society. They ’ve made a couple
of docks by some quieter smaller lakes that have been handicapped—accessible,
where they ’ve dropped the railings, so if you ’re sitting in a wheelchair, they ’re low

120

enough that you can throw your rod out and retrieve a fish. ”

The national forest is considered very accessible for recreation, except for vehicular or
commercial use in wildemess areas. Because hunting is so integral to the local culture, the

number of allowable camping days is increased each year during deer season.

“It ’3 nuts come November. Most of hunting is open anywhere on public land It ’s
been said that there were more people in the UP deer hunting than there were
carrying guns in World War II or something like that, and I can believe it. In deer
season, I drive down highway 2, and there ’s vehicles parked all along it, all the way
to Watersmeet. It’s so important here, the Forest Service has a policy, you can only
camp in an area no more than fourteen days, unless the local forest supervisor
extends it, and here it’s sixteen days. It coincides with deer season. ”

In addition to wilderness areas, some other roads have been blocked to create roadless
areas for wildlife habitat. Still others have fallen into disrepair, due to decreased revenues

from declining timber sales.

“ Well, the Forest Service in their last plan, designated part of the forest as roadless
areas, and they have begun to block of part of their roads. So, with the US Forest
Service, the land is more restricted, but there ’3 probably pretty good reasons why
they 're doing it. They ’ve got certain areas for wildlife habitat. ”

One resident that used to work on road crews in the Ottawa remarked at how careful the
Forest Service always was about road placement. If there was any question about a
possible historic site anywhere near the route, the crew would be stopped while the area
was examined to ensure that no historic site would be destroyed in the construction of the
road.

The dramatic decrease in timber harvesting over the last few years is the most critical
issue to county residents regarding the national forest. One resident said it had dropped to
about one-third or one-quarter of what it was fifteen years ago. This change has directly

affected independent loggers, many of whose primary income was previously derived from

121

Ottawa timber cuts. It has also led to sawmill closings for lack of enough logs to process,

and higher prices for retailers and consumers of wood products.

“Right now, we have a serious problem because we ’re restricted on our imports
fiom Canada by a tarifl situation, and so as the demand for lumber, plywood and
paper goes, and it ’s very strong now, we’re restricted on
the supply, on the domestic supply, and we ’re restricted on inputs from Canada. So
what happens is the price runs up substantially. It ’s a serious problem when you
can ’t get a dependable supply from the domestic side. Over time, it’s gotten worse
because of the federal mandates. ”

The end results are fewer jobs and shrunken revenues for the county. Since the national
forest comprises close to half of the county land area, there is probably no one who has not
felt the impact in some way, either economically or psychologically, including those

outside the forest industry.

“There is a sense among industry or commercial folks that they feel threatened
They feel anxiety about what they anticipate to be the future. What ’s interesting is
that they all feel that, but they don ’t have a common strategy or tactic for redressing
that. I think it ’s the nature of foresters. They ’re very passive people, not
controversial, loggers and Forest Service people. Loggers are hardworking people
and don ’t like arguing with people, especially people they feel at a disadvantage
to—especially environmentalists. ”

One resident was concerned that an unthinned forest might create fire hazards, and another
lamented the wastage of rotting and dying trees, chiefly in wilderness areas, that could be
utilized.

The one group that has actually experienced increases in logging rights in recent years
is the Lac Vieux Desert band, but because they had lost three sawmills to fire and their
logging equipment was old, the tribe finally got out of the business by the mid 19908. It
was becoming increasingly difficult for small “jobbers” to compete and make a profit. The

tribe has a good relationship with the Forest Service, and through a Memorandum of

122

Understanding (MOU), has been acquiring increasing rights to national forest accessibility,

including the gathering of non-timber products and other traditional forest uses.

Forest Use

Residents were questioned not only on their current use of the forest, but also their past
use, as well as their parents’ and grandparents’ uses. Only the respondents’ current uses
were analyzed, since the purpose of the study is to establish baseline data, not trends at this
point. Logging was a central theme in the history of many families, in addition to hunting

and fishing. People in Gogebic County are very rooted in the forest as a resource.

“1 was born in a lumber camp and was brought up in the woods. All our family
knew was the timber industry. ”

Current Use

Please describe your relationship with the forest. How do you use forests?

By far, the most widespread uses of the forest are active recreational activities (Figure
24). Almost all respondents that listed other types of uses, such as professional or
observational, said that they also use the forest for active recreation as well. The most

common recreational activity is hunting, followed by hiking and fishing.

“In this area, myself and most of the people use the forest for some form of
recreation. You ’d think it was a national holiday when deer season starts, because
everything stops. ”

Other uses include camping, snowshoeing, skiing, canoeing, biking and running.

123

“My husband and 1 camp, and have a camper, but we also do and have done a lot of
primitive camping. We are very self-suflicient. We don ’t need fancy campgrounds
or resorts. We also like to cross country ski, and we don ’t need fancy trails. ”

A number of respondents work either in the forest itself or in a related profession.
These include foresters, a logger, a banker and job trainer working with the forest products
industry, and a wood products retailer.

Stress release and observation of the forest are also common. These take the forms of
driving through the forest, enjoying its scenery, visiting waterfalls and watching wildlife.

Subsistence uses are less common, but some households still heat their homes with
wood, and chopping firewood is a part of that.

Social uses of the forest include taking kids around to visit forest sites, meeting other
people on hiking trails and swapping stories, and then writing and publishing some of these
stories. Visiting historic Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), mining and logging sites as
part of a local history course at the community college is a growing interest.

Traditional tribal uses are on a small scale these days, but they still occur and are a vital
facet of Native-American heritage. These mainly consist of the collection of raw materials
for handicrafts, medicines, and traditional ceremonies such as pow-wows, funerals, and
feasts. Contemporary uses such as hunting and fishing fall in line with non-tribal forest
uses. Through the MOU with the Forest Service, Lac Vieux Desert is also looking at

acquiring the rights to harvest some timber to build log cabins.

“You ’re in the ceded territories of the Chippewa. They have a right to hunt, fish and
gather in the ceded territories. That ’s where there ’s some conflicts. They ’re
allowed to set up their own hunting seasons and fish quotas. They can harvest
diflerent species from the forest, provided it ’s public land We just went through a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service for Chippewa treaty rights
for gathering purposes on the national forest. ”

124

Forest Use

Stress release
3%

Social use
4%

  
  

Historic interest
. . . 1%
Traditional tribal

uses \\

7% \\

Subsistence use ,. ' ,

7%
Observation /,. \Active recreation
1 1% 55%

Professional use
12%

 

 

 

Figure 24. Forest uses by percentage

Although not solicited, about half of the people interviewed also expressed opinions
concerning certain forest uses, focusing primarily on the forest industry (Table 10). Many
expressed appreciation of the timber industry and concern that it is declining in the area. A
belief was conveyed that the county needs to supply enough timber resources to attract
secondary manufacturing businesses, and the main entity that should provide them, along

with jobs, is the Forest Service.

“Stay with that four-letter word, J-O-B-S. Gogebic County Forest has a darn good
chance, but who’s the 5 00-pound gorilla here? The Forest Service! Is it gonna be

hikers, bikers? God bless ‘em, but they ’re not gonna help do a millage election, or
pave the streets in Ironwood, or take care of the public safety department. "

125

Table 10. List of forest uses and values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...a... ......
Lisa
42* Active recreation
9 Professional use
8 Observation
5 Subsistence use
5“ Traditional tribal uses
3 Social use
2 Stress release
1 Historic interest
yam
10 Appreciation of forest industry and economy
4 Frustration and disappointment that tribal traditions are dying out
3 Valuingsustainability of the forest
1 Appreciation of nature for its own. sake
1 Appreciation of tourism industry
1 Disappointment that some areas attract illicit activities in evening_s_‘
1 Schools need to be more involved with forestry
1 Tourism won't solve the economic problems

 

 

 

 

 

* Two occurrences in this category refer to the LacVieux Desert band as a whole, not one individual.
** All five occurrences in this category refer to the LacVieux Desert band as a whole, not one individual.

It would also be desirable to permit more summer harvesting in the Ottawa, so as to spread
out the income for loggers throughout the year. Careful loggers, according to one of them,

leave beautiful stands.

“We used to do almost all Forest Service logging. It just seems to me that there
could be more summer sales. They should be more concerned about trying to make
more of those summer sales—that would help a lot of people, because we have
plenty of work in the winter but not much in the summer. They could put limits on it
as far as the rutting—they ’d have to police the timber sale enough so there wasn ’t
damage. They should put that opportunity out. A little more flexibility would be
nice. ”

The decline of white birch (Betula papyrifera) trees in the Ottawa National Forest have

126

created a significant barrier to certain types of forest use by the tribe. They traditionally
used birch bark for making handicrafis and building canoes but have been forced to stop

these practices due to the scarcity of birch trees.

“ Well, I don ’t know how to bring back the birch trees, with that disease they had a
few years ago. Last time we had to buy it fiom Minnesota—white birch. Back then,
we wasted it, killing the birch trees. There was so much waste, the bark laying down
on the ground Now we wish we could take all that. ”

American basswood (T ilia americana), used for making string, and northern white cedar
(Thuja occidentalis) are two other trees also traditionally used by the tribe.

It is not only trees that are becoming scarce for tribal traditions, but other forest species
as well, such as herbs used as medicines. For instance, there is one location near Crooked
Creek in the Sylvania Wilderness Area where elders go to gather one particular herb that

grows nowhere else.

“I ’m waiting for the day when some medicine man comes to the Forest Service and
says “I want this chunk of forest preserved for these herbs. ” I ’ve never seen it
happen, but I hope it does. "

Other values conveyed by respondents about forests include an appreciation of the
sustainability of forests and of nature for its own sake. There is a desire for schools to be
more involved in forestry, and a disappointment that some areas of the forest attract illicit
activities in the evenings. There is both an appreciation of the tourism industry and a

skepticism that it can solve the county’s problems.

Economic Approaches

As previously discussed, this is the only section of this chapter that was analyzed, not

127

as a series of responses to an interview question, but through a full-text search for all
opinions pertaining to economic approaches, regardless of what questions were asked.

This is because many residents interviewed had strong opinions on the subject and took the
initiative to bring them up in response to many different questions, sometimes even when
the question was on a completely different topic. Some of these responses have already
been included in previous sections of the chapter, and some of them are shown here for the
first time, depending on what part of the interview transcripts they fall. A reminder: it was
the number of occurrences of responses that were counted, not the number of people giving
the response. That is why there could be 49 statements supporting the forest industry,
when only 31 people were interviewed.

Overwhelmingly, appreciation and support for the forest products industry tower above
all other economic approaches favored (Figure 25). That does not mean, however, that
residents believe that no other approaches have merit. That is not the casehbut because of
the extensive history of forestry in the county, second only to mining which is no longer in
existence, residents feel at home with the forest industry. It is an industry that feels
familiar and comfortable, not to mention common-sensical in light of the vast stretches of

trees for miles around.

“We have as much timber as we had at the turn of the century, but we have so many
plots of land that are untouchable. I think a tree is a renewable resource. And I
understand that there are certain areas that you want to leave as wilderness, like
Sylvania and the Porkies. You don’t log in them, but we don’t have to have the
whole county like that. ”

Residents think they have been doing a good job managing the forest and do not see why
they should not be allowed to continue, especially when there is such a shortfall of

employment in the area.

128

A AA - ---A,--__T

Economic Approaches in Favor (+) or Disfavor (-)

More diversified
economy (+)

 

 

10%
Tourism (+)
1 1%
Forest products
Mixed-use forest Industry (+)
(+) // 52%
12%
Tourism (-) .
15%

 

 

 

Figure 25. Percentage of responses on economic approaches in favor (+) or disfavor (-) by

respondents

“The Forest Service people’s salaries are being paid whether timber is being cut or
not. The logger—his salary ain ’t being paid The guy working in the sawmill who ’s
only got logs coming in for six months-«he ’s on the public till for the next six
months. The logs aren’t coming in. Logging jobs are what we need ”

The two or three respondents that did not say anything specifically supporting the wood
products industry did not criticize it, either. No one said anything negative about the forest
industry in the entirety of the interviews. A couple of respondents pointed out that federal
logging restrictions began with the spotted—owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest, and
consequently, spread around the country, even to places like Gogebic County, where they
were not appropriate or necessary.

There were slightly more opinions expressed against tourism as an option than in favor
of it, but most were not totally against it (Table 1 1). Most thought that tourism alone

would not solve the current economic problems facing the county, pointing to the seasonal,

129

low-wage jobs it typically provides. As was mentioned earlier, a common notion is that

urbanites view the area as their playground, with little regard to local inhabitants.

“I think that many times the lower portion of Michigan views the UP as their
playground or vacation spot, not taking into consideration the people that live here
and have to make a living here. ”

Many respondents also conveyed fears of population influxes and overdevelopment that
could destroy the rural way of life, so central to the motivations for staying in the county,
despite its problems. As a result, there is almost no interest in upscale resorts, most
preferring to maintain the current, more primitive level of recreation tourism.
Unfortunately, this type of tourism provides very little in terms of jobs or revenue. Some
are pessimistic that many tourists would even'want to come in the first place, because
beaches and lake water are too cold; the mines generate little interest because there is not
much to look at; and it is cheaper to fly to Vail than drive up from Chicago.

Some residents gave accounts of past attempts at tourism that had not worked very well
but that do not preclude finding better ways to tackle the issues. The county has a history
of beginning projects, recruiting volunteers, setting goals, and then allowing them to fizzle

out before anything is accomplished, thereby wasting opportunities.

Table 11. List of economic approaches favored and disfavored by respondents

No. of
Occurrences

 

Responses

 

 

49 Forest products industry should be supported

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 Tourism is probably not the ultimate solution to economic woes

12 Current approaches to tourism have some problems

12 Forest should be managed for a balance of timber, tourism and recreation
11 The area can build on its tourism

10 A balanced, more diversified economy should be pursued

10 Tourism has had some successes and is growing

 

 

130

“I was a member of the Jobs 2000 thing here, and it was great. We had about 15
people—4 diflerent groups, and ours was recreation and tourism. We had these
great ideas, and they did this big survey, and we tried to set goals of what was the
most important things we should do. And, then they did it, and then we all
disbanded We were hoping they would call us to be a part of this goal that we
wanted And then it just stopped And Ironwood just had a thing, asking what you
like about living in Ironwood etc. You get out all these ideas, and they say, “ we ’11
send you a report on it. Thanks for coming by ” [laughs]. If they just realized the
potential of the people just sitting in the room—people who are coming in on their
own time, willing to donate and participate—and then they just stop. It drives me

)9

crazy.

Tourism of the mining sites has been attempted and failed, but no details were given as to
how or why. The tourists that do come do not have access to enough information
describing opportunities available to them. Part of the problem is that brochure racks in the
hotels predominantly display attractions in Wisconsin and other areas, rather than local
ones. When local promotional materials are made, however, the eastern end of the county
tends not to be promoted very well, especially Lac Vieux Desert. Perhaps it is related to
one resident’s cement about the casino attracting tourism “baggage,” having to lock
doors, etc. There were a couple of complaints, mentioned earlier, that the Forest Service is
not attuned enough to the public’s preferences and needs and should open their office on
weekends when most visitors are there.

Other residents are more optimistic about tourism and shared some local successes and

ideas for future ventures.

“Tourism is very important for our economy. If we didn ’t have tourists, we ’d really
be in trouble. I wouldn ’t want it to be like Yosemite, but I don ’t mind seeing people
on the trail. It’s neat to interact with them, to compare notes about bear tracks,
seeing a coyote, etc. ”

Most businesses in the area are already related to tourism, and some said that it is

131

increasing in importance, as more recreational facilities are built and are replacing the
wood products economy. One firn tourist magnet in downtown Ironwood is the Big Indian,
a fifty-foot statue of Hiawatha. More important, the beauty and uniqueness of natural lands
have been well-preserved and draw visitors wanting to see them, waterfalls possibly being
the greatest attraction. The Ottawa National Forest and Sylvania Wilderness Area have
already brought in many visitors and economic success to the area. Passport in Time, a
popular Forest Service program, brings visitors to the forest to participate in archaeological
digs. Lac Vieux Desert developed a successful resort with a casino, hotel and golf course,
which has been a dramatic boon to the tribe and town of Watersmeet.

A couple of suggestions for the future of tourism were to develop ecotourism programs,
and also heritage tourism, such as the renovation and promotion of old mining and logging

sites for historic sightseeing.

“Ecotourism... we don’t have as much of that. People come and learn about the
forests, wildlife, ecology, experience of backpacking. People pay, and if you have a
package to do that, it’ll work ”

As mine touring has already been tried without success, it would be necessary to first
examine how it was done the first time, what the problems were, and discuss possible

solutions or alternate approaches before embarking on it again.

“Mines aren ’t developed for tourism. But it ’s a darn good idea. Each mine had its
own history and community around it. There ’s a lot of dijferent cultures here fiom
that. ”

Someone also expressed a hope that the county would take advantage of its proximity to
Lake Superior, although no details were specified.

Even though a number of residents see the value of tourism in providing some jobs and

132

revenue, even more of them are quite skittish about the prospect. A widely held view
expressed was that if tourism is going to expand, that it be well-managed and limited, so

that the rural way of life is sustained.

“Attracting tourists and part-time residents should be done with caution. We can
spoil what we have. ”

Residents clearly do not wish to see upscale resorts, strip malls, pollution, crime, traffic
jams, or herds of city folks throwing litter on the ground, no matter how many jobs might
spring from it. Especially, they do not want to see their natural resources trashed. Tourism
in Gogebic County should be approached very carefully, retaining local control and seeking
public participation in all phases of planning.

A common point of view is that the forest should be managed for a balance of
tourism/recreation and timber, with the majority leaning a bit more towards the timber side
than tourism. Others would also like to add a variety of other industries to the mix in order
to diversify the economy and wean the county away from being solely dependent on the

forest for its income.

“I ’d like to see stability (economic), infi'astructure improved solid economic
growth, the resource base used in a good mix, i. e. wood products mixed with
nontimber products and recreation, like ecotourism, and some industry (timber or
nontimber related). You gotta have a balance, you can ’t rely on only one thing.
You ’II have ups and downs in different ones. ”

A few residents, typically those with an urban background or that have frequent
interaction with urbanites, join the others who propose a diversification of the economy,
but these folks further that vision to one of a high-tech, service-oriented world nestled in

the woods.

133

“If you brought that kind of investment into this community, it would be a dramatic
event. It would change people’s view of what real true development is in this
county. Those trees—it ’s gotta involve those trees! And it ’s a dimension of it, but
trees aren’t the only thing. And for a long time, it ’s been myopically viewed as the
only way out of the next recession. The happiest thing that would happen to the
forest is to have some other element arrive in the economy. ”

Equipped with renaissance zones, a community college to provide training, young potential
employees who do not want to leave the area if they don’t have to, and a pristine, scenic
environment, these people believe that selective, forward-leaning firms could be attracted
to locate in the county. This would be the best of all possible worlds, providing good
quality employment opportunities and expanded tax base, without the potential problems of
overdevelopment from tourism or uncertainties following shifting harvest policies in the

national forest.

Summary of Results

This summary of the interview results is outlined to correspond with the four categories
into which the interviews were divided: lifestyle, civic responsiveness, forest use and forest

accessibility.

Lifestyle

Gogebic County citizens are deeply rooted in and involved with the forest at many
levels, professionally, recreationally, subsistently and spiritually. They have a great
appreciation for the natural environment that surrounds them but value just as highly the

context within which it is enjoyed—the community. Even in the face of a depressed

134

economy and insufficient employment, residents do not want to sacrifice the current small-
town way of life for jobs. They are passionate in their objections to potential by-products
of overdevelopment such as strips malls, pollution, overcrowding, crime, and damaged
natural resources. In spite of residents’ high regard for community, or perhaps because of
it, the negativity exhibited by many of them lies among the least favored characteristics of
the county.

Many residents believe strongly that they are doing a good job managing and protecting
the forest, and some feel offended by preservationists, represented mainly by the Sierra
Club, who say the only way to protect the forest is to prohibit cutting it. Hence, some
residents believe that they are under attack from an urban public whom they perceive as
knowing little about forest science. As national values change regarding the use of forests,
Gogebic County residents are struggling to come to terms with a sweeping cultural
transformation that directly impacts them and is shaping their future in ways that are both

hard to accept and understand.

Civic Responsiveness

County citizens are fairly satisfied with community services, especially in health, senior
care and higher education, yet there are some problems as well. The bulk of services are
concentrated in the western end of the county, leaving the eastern end lacking nearby
access to sufficient health care, continuing education or shopping facilities.

The long distance between the towns of the eastern and western ends of the county
(about fifty miles) presents challenges to collaboration. Watersmeet residents, including

Lac Vieux Desert members, feel somewhat left out of the loop that pivots around Ironwood

135

and would like to find ways to bridge the gap. Because their population numbers are low
compared to those in the west, they are limited in their ability to vote in measures
benefiting them.

Many people across the county have been crying out for school consolidation and
renovation, in order to pool resources and upgrade facilities. Unfortunately, this has been a

sticking point among different camps, partially due to high school sports rivalries.

Forest Accessibility

Accessibility to forests in general is very good, especially for non—motorized,
recreational uses. The primary exceptions are posted, non-industrial private lands,
handicapped access, and logging in the Ottawa National Forest.

What makes the private properties’ inaccessibility so irksome to residents is the
increasing fragmentation, as larger properties that were formerly accessible to the public
are divided up, sold and then posted No Trespassing.

Handicapped access in the national forest has been improved with the construction of
some accessible docks and the use of four-wheelers for hunting, but there is still a desire
among some residents that more be done.

The decline in accessibility for timber harvesting in the national forest is a mammoth
concern in Gogebic County. The decrease in logging has a tremendous impact on the local
economy and resulting social conditions. Most of the timber sales in the Ottawa take place
in the winter to prevent soil compaction, which has an impact on loggers who wish sales

could be spread more throughout the year, so that they could have a year-round income.

136

Forest Use

By far, the overwhelming use of the forest by Gogebic County residents is recreation.
Interviews reflected Michigan’s reputation as the number one hunting state in the nation by
revealing that hunting is also the number one forest activity in the county. It is a cultural
phenomena so entrenched, it inspired Hollywood actor and native Michigander, Jeff
Daniels, to make a movie about it—Escanaba in da Moonlight. According to Albert

Soady, the father in the film:

“If ya wanna go to heaven, it ’s north of da bridge... We got some of the best huntin ’
and fishin ’ in the whole world... bear as tall as Norway pines. We got wolf moose,
beaver, wild turkey, rabbit, fox, and of course, we got bucks. Holy wa, do we got
bucks, big as Buicks. ”

Many other outdoor recreational activities, such as hiking, fishing and camping are also
central to the lives of county residents. Those that work in the woods play in them as well.

The chief concerns regarding use of the forest involve Native American traditions,
which are deteriorating as tree species used for arts and crafts succumb to disease, young
Chippewas lose interest in customary knowledge and practices, and ancient rituals are
moved to more convenient locations in town. Some tribal traditions involve the gathering
of non-timber forest products for building canoes, tools and various handicrafts, as well as
for medicinal and ritual uses. Three primary tree species commonly used for these are in
short supply today: the white or paper birch (Betula papyrifera), American basswood

(T ilia Americana), and northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis).

137

Economic Approaches

Gogebic County residents overwhelmingly support protection of the forest through a
sustained forest products industry. Doubtless, on private and county-owned forestland, it is
a pretty sure bet that timber production will continue. The winds of change sweeping over
the national forests around the entire nation, however, present a different story. Hi gh-
powered, well-funded, conservation advocacy organizations are leading the lobbying pack
on the Congressional steps, and they have made great strides over the last decade in
reducing timber sales. Public opinion has been gradually shifting towards a reduction in
harvesting, especially clearcuts, in national forests, although recent wildfires gave pause to
many, as Congress and the White House struggled with the Forest Service to find solutions
palatable to everyone.

Not all residents are insistent on forestry as the preferred direction of the county.
Indeed, it was the vulnerability of the narrow one- or two-industry economy that slid the
county into recession in the first place. There are many that do not want to continue that
trend or expand that risk. That is why some community leaders have been seeking out a
variety of industries, including tourism and high-tech manufacturing companies, among
others. There have been some problems, such as the placement of the Renaissance zones a
little far from town, and a relatively weak recruitment program—but the one thing that cast
visible excitement across the faces of some residents was talk of the Gogebic County
Community College. An asset that is still growing, it is viewed by some as the savior of
the county—the primary job training provider that could be the county’s number one

industry magnet.

138

The Development of Social Indicators of SFM

In November, 2001, two years after the interviews, a consultant specializing in
sustainability indicators held a workshop in Ironwood for FACT members, to help them
generate their own set of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. A
brainstorming session as part of the workshop produced a working list of potential
ecological, economic, social and forest management indicators.

Gogebic County had a creative approach to its C&I initiative. FACT had begun with a

locally-crafted definition of sustainable forestry, specifically:

“Sustainable forestry in Gogebic County is [forest management] that contributes to
the [economic health] of Gogebic County while maintaining the [ecological] and
[social/cultural values] for the benefit of present and future generations in Gogebic
County. ”

The terms in brackets [] were to be further defined by the criteria and indicator list that
would follow. Each of the four terms became a heading under which indicators were
organized. They are not criteria per se, but rather the three systems within which SFM
operates: ecological, economic and social, with an additional one, forest management, to
reflect the process at the center of SFM Forest management could be considered an
amalgam of the ecological and economic attributes but with the active application
component of the identified values.

In January, 2002, the steering committee went through the list of potential indicators
from the November 2001 workshop and selected what they thought were the best ones,
reworded some, discarded others, and reorganized the rest. On April 9, 2002, the FACT
working group convened and voted to adopt the steering committee’s recommendations for

indicators, with no changes. They are listed here:

139

Forest Management

I. Number of acres of forest in Gogebic County in each use category

2. Number of forest acres in Gogebic County with written forest management plan

3. Percent of forested land in Gogebic County that is certified by a third party

4. Percent of volume of forest harvested relative to volume growth in Gogebic County
Economic Health

5. Acres of forest that allow timber harvest (a. k. a., working forest) in Gogebic County
6. State Equalized Value of land in Gogebic County

7.

8.

Changes in labor statistics and employment patterns in Gogebic County
Value and volume of value-added products of forest industries in Gogebic County

Ecological Values

9. Change in water quality in Gogebic County

10. Changes in forest structure and composition in Gogebic County

I 1. Proportion of forests in Gogebic County that are aflected by disturbance and
damaging agents I

12. Number of forest species in Gogebic County that are classified as threatened, rare,
vulnerable, endangered or extinct

13. Average parcel size in Gogebic County

Social and Cultural Values

14. Changes in ownership of land in Gogebic County

15. Changes in quality of life in Gogebic County

I 6. Changes in population in Gogebic County

17. Percent of Gogebic County population under the poverty level

18. Changes of infrastructure of Gogebic County

I 9. Changes in acreage of forest land converted to development in Gogebic County

The interviews brought up numerous issues important to Gogebic County citizens.

Some are addressed by the above list developed by FACT, and others are not. All six
social and cultural indicators in the list are valid and were discussed in the interviews, but
these are not the only concerns of residents regarding SFM. The indicators that were

chosen were based primarily on a brainstorming session from a citizen workshop. While

that was a valid process for developing indicators, much of the information collected during

140

the interviews is lacking in the county’s list of social indicators.

The current indicators, Land ownership changes and Changes in acreage of forest land
converted to development in Gogebic County, are two aspects of the maintanence of forest
resources, which also include use, access, ecology, community development and lifestyle
issues.

Other factors not addressed in these indicators include the various ways citizens use the
forest and either the ease or problems they have in accessing them for those particular uses.
Types of uses include recreational; professional, social, subsistence and traditional tribal
uses; observation and stress release; and historic interest. Access issues include motorized
vehicles, land fragmentation, handicapped accessibility, logging, road maintenance,
residential and commercial development, reduction of logging in the national forest, road
closures and disrepair, amount of bike trails, loss of tree and herb species for tribal
handicrafts and ceremonial traditions, loss of tribal knowledge for using these species, and
relationships with the Forest Service.

Quality of life is very broad and can cover many issues in all the interview categories,
as well as the information covered in the sociodemographic data. Lifestyle issues brought
up by residents include the natural and built environment (some of which is historical),
recreation, solitude, culture, small community atmosphere; slow pace; friendliness, crime,
unemployment, numbers and age of population, income and poverty, and school
enrollment. Because quality of life involves conditions of standards of living plus how
people feel about those conditions, parts of the data collection for this indicator need to be
collected directly from the residents themselves and part from secondary archival data,

such as the US. Census Bureau.

141

Current indicators, Changes in population and Percent under the poverty level, are
aspects of Quality of life and are too narrow in themselves to be listed as separate
indicators.

Changes of infiastructure, a current indicator, is a concern of residents in many ways.
This indicator has many aspects to it such as roads, the airport, rail lines, intemet, 911
service, etc., all of which could be listed as supporting measures.

Civic Responsiveness issues are not addressed at all in the current indicator list—unless
the intention was to lump them with Lifestyle under Quality of Life. These issues include
partnering and volunteering with community organizations; civic participation by local
businesses and individuals; community events; services; infiastructure improvements; high
school dropout rates; collaboration between eastern and western ends of the county; quality
of health and education; public dialogues; skill-building and job opportunities to respond to
it; entrepreneurship; and school facility upgrades.

In the next chapter, recommendations are given that respond to these omissions, by
proposing additional indicators where needed, changing some current indicators to
measures, as well as adding measures to support all indicators. In addition, some of the
problems brought to light in the interviews are discussed, and suggestions for citizen

response are offered.

142

Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

"To put the bounty and the health of our land, our only commonwealth, into the
hands of people who do not live on it and share its fate will always be an error. For
whatever determines the fortune of the land determines also the fortune of the
people. If... history... teaches anything, it teaches that. "

Wendell Berry, Another T urn of the Crank, 1995

The goal of this study was to identify and understand what Gogebic County residents
want to sustain in their county, and what may be needed to do that, so that meaningful local
level criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management can be developed with local
citizens’ needs in mind. This was done by examining the use of community social data to
fully develop the current local sustainable forest management social indicators in terms of

their reflection of county residents’ perspectives and conditions.

Lifestyle

Because respondents were unmistakable in their wish to preserve their current lifestyle
as much as possible, it is vital that planners and managers understand this when making
decisions that affect the county residents, such as for land use changes, new construction to
support industry and local businesses, road expansions, tourism promotion and other
matters. It is crucial that development to enable more people to live and work in the
county, which residents do want, must not undermine the very characteristics that make

them want to be there in the first place.

143

The politics that engendered the decline of timber harvesting in the national forest is
a sticking point with some county residents. Emotions run high regarding the national
“preservationists versus loggers” dispute. A forum where opposing views on forest
management are not only aired, but actively listened to, with a genuine attempt to learn,
understand and seek out commonalities, would be as pioneering as it is necessary. A
national dialogue is needed, but one that takes place in many local settings around the
country, in small groups among neighbors that get to know one another through the course
of continued exchanges that puts human faces on the so-called opposition.

Lifestyle is addressed in broad terms by the indicator Changes in quality of life in
Gogebic County, but without specifics. Primary data measures addressed in a survey
questionnaire or similar medium should include natural landscape beauty and health;
outdoor recreation opportunities; solitude, peace and quiet; historic European and tribal
culture; historic features, sites and knowledge; small community atmosphere; laid back
relaxed pace; character of the people; safety fiom crime; education, urban improvements
and job opportunities. Demographic indicators need to include the ones discussed in
Chapter 4: unemployment, age, population, income, poverty, school enrollment and crime.

Changes in population and Percent of population under the poverty line, two indicators
from the current list, are both aspects of Quality of life and would be better organized as

measures for that indicator, with the sociodemographic measures analyzed in Chapter 4.

Civic Responsiveness

More collaboration within and among communities is desired by residents and may be

helpful towards stemming the tide of pessimism around the county. Leadership, possibly

144

through community service organizations, is needed to help set goals and then organize and
motivate citizens to strive to meet them. Many of the “movers and shakers” have left the
area for better employment opportunities or have retired, and new ones are needed to step
in and resume where they left off. Existing community organizations, such as the EDC, the
Rotary Club, or FACT could expand their current agenda or partner with other
organizations to broaden their community service roles.

Efforts need to be made to meet some of the needs and preferences of eastern residents
who feel left out of county decision-making. Holding county-level meetings, seminars, and
other activities in Watersmeet from time to time would be a welcome gesture that would
enable more eastern citizens to become involved in county planning and events, take
advantage of educational opportunities and feel more a part of the county-wide community.
When determining how to allocate PILT monies from the Ottawa National Forest, a strong
representation of eastern residents would be especially appropriate, since those payments
are based primarily on land in their own neighborhood. This would serve well as a small-
scale example of local control, a guiding principle upon which FACT and its definition of
sustainable forestry are based.

The frustration felt by many residents over the inability to move forward in resolving
infrastructure problems suggests that new ways of approaching these concerns are needed.
Seeking ways to unlock communication channels within and among the various community
groups for active dialogue could help foster an atmosphere of increasing openness, mutual
learning and respect. Residents could try to be creative in finding ways to fund projects, in
which those individuals and corporations that are willing to contribute can, without forcing

the unwilling to participate. Fundraising events serve the dual purpose of raising money

145

and bringing people together to socialize, smoothing the way for easier cooperation and
partnership. Active communication with other counties or communities to find out how
they have tackled similar problems could yield a goldmine of ideas and potential solutions.

Civic responsiveness needs to be added as a new indicator with measures such as
partnerships among local organizations; volunteers at each organization; scholarships and
other services donated by local companies; civic participation by local businesses and
individuals; community fundraising, educational, cultural and charity events; general
services; high school dropout rates; collaboration between eastern and western ends of the
county; quality of health and education; public dialogues among conflicting factions of the
community; skill-building and job opportunities to respond to it; entrepreneurship; and
school facility upgrades. 3

Changes of infrastructure, a current indicator, could technically fall under Civic
responsiveness, as it was agreed by residents to be a basic service that needs improvement.
However, because infrastructure is such a broad topic in itself with many contributing
elements, and as many physical attributes as service aspects, it should stand as an indicator
with its own measures. These measures should include price of a roundtrip air ticket from
Ironwood to nearby cities; number of flights per day; internet service providers and
computer services available; upgrades in public school facilities and number of computers
in classrooms; roads repaired or upgraded; usable rail lines; number of trains per day or
week servicing the county; wireless telephone service available and number of nearby

towers; and emergency response, such as 911.

146

Forest Accessibility

The three main accessibility issues are fragmented and posted non-industrial private
lands, handicapped access, and logging in the national forest. A potential solution for the
NIPF lands could be organized land swaps among groups of small, private owners and
larger landowners, such as Gogebic County, the Forest Service, and various industrial
companies. If some of the scattered forties were clustered together, it would fiee up larger
spaces for public access, eliminating many annoying roadblocks. The Nature Conservancy
office in Marquette, Michigan has coordinated land swaps in other counties of the Upper
Peninsula and may be a good candidate to spearhead the process in Gogebic County.

The handicapped issue needs some public input, particularly among handicapped
residents and their families and friends, to avoid the pitfall of well-meaning but misguided
improvements that would waste money and provide little benefit. FACT is in a good
position to organize a public discussion of handicapped accessibility in all the forests, not
just the Ottawa. To get some ideas, a field trip could be organized to visit Camp Josh in
Ontonagon, a fully handicapped-accessible woodland retreat. Its owner or manager could
be invited to come give a talk. Specific, targeted improvements could enrich the wilderness
experience of handicapped or elderly people exponentially, even equip some with the
ability to get out in the woods at all in possibly their first opportunity in a long time.

If the Forest Service could increase its flexibility and open communication lines with
loggers to seek win-win solutions, such as possible ways to facilitate summer harvesting
that would minimize compaction, like harvesting when the ground is hard and dry, or the
use of techniques such as horse logging, it could help keep independent loggers afloat

during lean times. Another alternative would be to give priority to independent loggers

147

when hiring for other seasonal jobs within the national forest during warmer months when
visitor numbers are higher.

Again, none of these issues are directly addressed in Gogebic County’s C&I. A new
indicator, Forest use and access, needs to be added, which combines both use and access
issues, as they are tightly interwoven with each other. See the end of the next section for

specifics on measures.

Forest Use

Many of the complaints about forest use are really issues of accessibility and have been
addressed in the previous section. Use and accessibility will be combined together in the
list of indicators, as discussed below.

There is one significant use issue, however, concerning Lac Vieux Desert. Young
tribal members are losing interest in ancient customs, many of which relate to woodland
herbs, shrubs, and trees. This is contributing to the decline of the passing of ancient tribal
knowledge on to future generations. Only a few Lac Vieux Desert elders remain who still
have the knowledge, which is only shared through an oral tradition. If no one is taught, the
knowledge will die with the last elder who knows it. That time may not be too far off. An
increased availability of traditional forest products for use by elders could facilitate the
exposure of younger tribe members to customary practices and skills and potentially help
pique their interest in learning more about them.

Purposeful management for the reintroduction of white birch, along with expansion of
basswood and white cedar populations in the Ottawa, would help to maintain tribal cultural

traditions, as well as provide additional sources of income for its members. Certain herbal

148

species are also limited in availability. Some grow in only one or two small, localized
places. Communication between elders and Forest Service staff would provide avenues to
help ensure that these localized ecosystems are protected. This kind of collaboration could
also support efforts to ensure conservation of the historic, sacred sites falling into disuse. A
dialogue among various tribal members and the Forest Service would bring attention to the
risk of losing these sites, on both national forest and tribal lands, if efforts to mark and
preserve them are not made.

The proposed new indicator, Forest use and access, will address these cultural concerns
for Lac Vieux Desert, as well as the accessibility issues discussed in the previous section.
Suggested measures include contiguous trails for various uses; handicapped improvements
in forests; average number of man/days, during each season, spent logging in the county;
new programs or other eflorts by the Forest Service to seek win—win solutions with loggers;
amount of white birch, basswood and white cedar in the national forest; and threatened
herb species in the national forest.

Another new indicator, Forest ownership, will be grouped with with Forest use and
access to address the reflect the goal of maintenance of forest resources. Ownership issues
include ownership of forestland; forestland converted to development; large landholdings

fi'agmented into smaller parcels.

Economic Approach es

Gogebic County Community College is an enormous asset that may be the key to
attracting industry to the area, particularly in its partnerships with various industries to

determine and meet training needs. It still needs further strengthening, though—to attract

149

students as well. Some of the partnering industries might provide scholarships to low-
income students as incentives to stay in the area and pursue higher education.

It is not only large industries that could supply a lift to Gogebic’s sagging economy.
Entrepreneurship by local residents would have an added benefit of providing an increased
number of residents the ability to rise out of hired workerdom to become self-employed
and self-governing—the local control principle at work again. Entrepreneurship could be a

good fit with the independent nature commonly found in woods workers, but it would

Q T‘s-...? “annuals.-. q

require training for some residents to learn how to start and run businesses, especially for

" 5mm;

unemployed residents whose old skill sets may no longer be marketable.

A new movement gaining momentum, especially in the Pacific Northwest, is that of
restoration forestry. In response to declining timber sales in public forests, traditional
woods workers have been converting their industrial logging skills to forest restoration in a
variety of stewardship projects, such as thinnings to reduce forest fuels and mountainside
repairs after clearcuts. Cottage industries are springing up to turn small-diameter timber
into furniture and small structures. The Forest Service wants to support the restoration
workforce with permanent funding and staffing—but, it will take some time (Little 2002).
It might be worthwhile to contact the Forest Service for more information on the program,
including the possibility of funding it in the Ottawa National Forest.

A diverse mix of industries, including wood products, tourism, various manufacturing,
high tech companies and many small local businesses would provide Gogebic County with
a resilient economy that could bounce back if one of the industries busted. Recreation
tourism has potential, but residents do not want upscale resorts that drive up property taxes

and create social problems. Tourism must be approached very carefully, with high citizen

150

involvement in dialogue and collaboration to come to decisions that benefit the whole
community in an equitable and fair manner. Care must be taken to ensure that natural
resources are protected and that jobs pay a living wage. High tech companies would be a
boon to the county and would be worth the extra effort needed to recruit them. Further
developing educational institutions and maintaining the high quality of life are critical
aspects in the campaign to attract the economic growth and diversity that Gogebic County
needs.

None of these concerns are directly represented by current indicators. These issues
could be addressed either under Social and Cultural Values or Economic Values, as
economic results emerge out of citizen values. In this case, they will be added as proposed
measures for the indicator Changes in labor’statistics and employment patterns in Gogebic
County, under the Economic Health category. Potential measures include average annual
employment; local businesses in various categories such as high tech services, retail,
recreation, etc. ; entrepreneurial businesses; and numbers of owners, managers and

workers in local companies of various types.

Alternatives to Existing Indicators

Based on the above discussions regarding Gogebic County’s existing indicators in light
of the interview results, an alternative suite of indicators with accompanying measures is
proposed. All of the current indicators are maintained in some fashion, either as indicators
or as measures for other indicators.

In addition, the four main categories from the Gogebic County definition of sustainable

forestry, defining the terms in brackets, are converted to criteria by restating them as broad

151

goals. For example, the category, Social and Cultural Values, is changed to Maintenance
of Social and Cultural Values, to illustrate the larger goals that the indicators are
describing. In addition, indicator names have been simplified under all criteria to reduce
redundancy and more accurately represent the indicator’s purpose. For example, Changes
in quality of life in Gogebic County is converted to Quality of Life. “Changes in” is not
necessary, because trends will be monitored among data collections, not within one data
collection. Each collection will inquire about quality of life, not changes in quality of life.
The phrase “in Gogebic County” is redundant, because we already know that all the
indicators are for Gogebic County.

It is important to note that the criteria, indicators and measures in the proposed suite are
only suggestions for the citizens of Gogebic County. It is vital that county residents
themselves choose which of them are preferable, appropriate and feasible to define
sustainable forestry for Gogebic County. Some measures are deliberately left somewhat
general in scope, so that FACT can determine which specifics are more meaningfirl for
their needs.

In most but not all cases, proposed indicators fall under the category of Maintenance of

Social and Cultural Values, but not all. Economic and employment measures are

placed under Maintenance of Economic Health and one of its indicators, Labor statistics
and employment patterns. .

FACT chose to highlight the Population and Poverty issues, because they are such
central ones, by listing them as separate indicators rather than measures. A suggested
modification would be to list them as measures under the Quality of Life indicator. The

group of measures would include population, poverty, median age, income, school

152

enrollment, and crime.

Two additional social indicators have been proposed: Civic responsiveness and Forest
use and access. These were added because they were part of the original list of topics and
subcategories selected as the most important by the FACT steering committee in 1999 in
order to guide data analysis of the interviews. These topics uncovered many key forest and

sustainability issues brought to light by county residents.

Proposed Alternate Economic and Social C&I

Following is a proposed alternative list of criteria and indicators, which is flexible and
up to the FACT working group to make the final decisions on which ones to accept, modify
or reject. Indicators under Forest Management that Maintains Ecological, Economic and
Social Values, and Maintenance of Ecological Values were not altered, except in the

simplification of the wording.

Forest Management that Maintains Ecological, Economic and Social Values

Number of acres of forest in each use category

Number of forest acres with written forest management plans
Percent of forested land that is certified by a third party
Percent of volume of forest harvested relative to volume growth

:‘kSNNZN

Maintenance of Ecological Values

Water quality

Forest structure and composition

Proportion of forests ajfected by disturbance and damaging agents
Number of forest species that are classified as threatened, rare, vulnerable,
endangered, or extinct

Average parcel size

:KPJNF‘

PI

153

Maintenance of Economic Health

Acres of forest that allow timber harvest (a. k. a., working forest)
State Equalized Value of land

Labor statistics and employment patterns

Value and volume of value-added products of forest industries

#90535

Maintenance of Social and Cultural Values

1 . Quality of life

2. Civic responsiveness
3. Infrastructure

4. Land ownership

5. Forest use and access

 

Proposed Measures to Support Proposed C&I

This section gives the same list as above, but proposed measures have been added as
well. The list of measures under each indicator represents many possible alternatives,
generating a list that is rather lengthy. Therefore, after each list of measures is a table,
illustrating the ease of collection, usefulness, and relevence to SF M for each measure, and
an index score that combines the first three into one desirability factor. The index number
1 stands for the easiest to collect, most useful and most relevent. Index number 3 stands for
the hardest to collect, least useful and least relevent. Therefore, the lowest index number
would represent the most desirable of measures to use.

Following the table is a recommended set of measures, fewer than in the initial list,
based on the index scores for the indicator. There, the measures are listed in order of

desirability, from most to lease.

154

Maintenance of Economic Health

Initial List of Indicators and Measures

Acres of forest that allow timber harvest (a. k. a., working forest) in Gogebic County.
State Equalized Value of land in Gogebic County
Labor statistics and employment patterns in Gogebic County
> Average annual employment
> Number of employees in various categories, such as wood products, tourism,
various manufacturing, high tech services, retail, recreation, etc.
> Locally owned businesses, existing and new
> Number of owners, managers and workers in local companies of various types
> Programs or other efforts by the Forest Service to seek win-win solutions with
loggers
4. Value and volume of value-added products of forest industries in Gogebic County.

905V?“

Table 12. Indicator 3: Labor statistics and employment patterns in Gogebic County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cam" Usefulness Rag??? Index Score Measure

1 1 1 3 Average annual employment
Programs or other efforts by

l l 1 3 the Forest Service to seek win-
win solutions with loggers
Number of employees in
various categories, such as

2 l 1 4 wood products, tourism,
various manufacturing, high
tech services, retail, recreation,
etc.
Locally owned businesses,

3 2 1 6 existing and new
Number of owners, managers

5 3 2 10 and workers in local
companies of various types

 

 

 

 

Revised Measures

Labor statistics and employment patterns
is Average annual employment
> Number of employees in various categories, such as wood products, tourism,
various manufacturing, high tech services, retail, recreation, etc.

155

>

New programs or other efforts by the Forest Service to seek win-win solutions
with loggers

Maintenance of Social and Cultural Values

Initijal List of Indicators and Measures

I.Qua
>

VVVV

lity of life
Population in various categories, such as total county population, number of
student enrollments at kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school
levels, as well as the junior college
Population under the poverty level in various categories, such as individuals,
families, single parent families, single parent families with children under 5
years of age
Median age
Median household income
Index and non-index crimes (see Table 3 for complete listing)
Perceptions, values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences of residents (best
addressed in a survey questionnaire) regarding:

. Natural environment and landscape features

. Character of the people

. Outdoor recreation

. European and tribal ethnic heritages

. Rural character and small town lifestyle

. Diversity and amenities

. Solitude, peace and quiet

. Progressiveness

. Educational quality

. Historic architecture and industry and job sites

. Ethnic heritage sites

. Employment

. Population

. Economic development

. Use and care of forest resource

. Tourism

. Infrastructure

. Urban improvements

. Wilderness and wildlife preservation

. Traditional and current tribal uses of forest

156

Table 13. Indicator 1: Quality of life

 

Ease of
Collection

Usefulness

Relevence
to SFM

Index Score

 

 

Index and non-index crimes
(see Table 3 for complete
listing).

 

Median age

 

Population in various
categories, such as total county
population, number of student
enrollments at kindergarten,
elementary, middle and high
school levels, as well as the
junior college

 

Population under the poverty
level in various categories,
such as individuals, families,
single parent families, single
parent families with children
under 5 years of age

 

Median household income (in
real dollars, for comparisons)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceptions, values, beliefs,
attitudes and preferences of

residents (best addressed in a
survey questionnaire)

 

 

Revised Measures

Although the following measures are rather numerous, they are all important to

describing the quality of life in the county. The demographic variables are easy and

inexpensive to collect, simply by visiting the US. Census website. Perceptions of residents

are more difficult and expensive to gather, yet they are included because they are important

to understand and may be worth the extra effort and expense.

Quality of life

> Index and non-index crimes (see Table 3 for complete listing)

>
>

Median age

Population in various categories, such as total county population, number of

157

4'

a 93-4mm..on -

...a,

" It. ‘I l

student enrolhnents at kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school
levels, as well as the junior college

Population under the poverty level in various categories, such as individuals,
families, single parent families, single parent families with children under 5
years of age

Median household income (in real dollars)

Perceptions, values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences of residents (best
addressed in a survey questionnaire)

Initialk List of Indicators and Measures

2. Civic responsiveness

>

VVVV

VV

>
>

Partnerships among local agencies, institutions and service organizations
Volunteers at each organization

Scholarships provided for study at the community college by local companies
Civic donations and free services provided by local companies

Community fundraising, educational, cultural and charity events events in the
eastern and western ends of the county

New and expanded services and declining or defunct services

County meetings, educational seminars, and other community events in the
eastern part of the county

Health care facilities and high tech and retail services in the eastern end of the
county

Public dialogues between preservationist and pro-forestry groups

High school dropout rate

Table 14. Indicator 2: Civic responsiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

03:23" Usefulness Rteolegggnce Index Score Measure
Health care facilities and high

2 1 1 4 tech and retail services in the
eastern end of the county
Partnerships among local

2 l 1 4 agencies, institutions and
service organizations
Community fundraising,

2 1 1 4 educational, cultural and
charity events in the eastern
and western ends of the county
Civic donations and free

2 2 l 5 services provided by local

 

 

 

 

companies

 

 

158

«v .T.‘
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

03m" Usefulness Ragga” Index Score Measure
New and expanded services
3 1 1 5 and declining or defunct
services
2 3 2 7 Volunteers at each
orgamzatron
Scholarships provided for
1 2 2 5 study at the community
college by local companies 1"
Public dialogues between a
2 2 2 6 preservationist and pro- I
forestry groups 1
1 3 4 8 High school dropout rate 1
l“
1
Revised Measures l

 

Civic responsiveness

>

VVVV

Partnerships among local agencies, institutions and service organizations
Civic donations and free services provided by local companies

Community fundraising, educational, cultural and charity events

New and expanded services and declining or defirnct services

Health care facilities and high tech and retail services in the eastern end of the
county

Initial List of Indicator and Measures

3. Infiastructure

>

VVVVVVVVV

Average price of a roundtrip airline ticket between Ironwood and various
nearby cities

Number of flights per day/week between Ironwood and various nearby cities
Number and type of internet service providers and services available
Improvements made in public school facilities

Miles of roads repaired/upgraded

Miles of usable rail lines

Number of trains per day/week servicing Gogebic County

Wireless (cellular) telephone service available

Number and locations of wireless telephone towers

Types and quality of emergency response service available (911, for example)

159

Table 15. Indicator 3: Infrastructure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ease of Relevence
Coll I' n Usefulness to SFM Index Score Measure

Internet service providers and

1 1 1 3 . .
servrces available
Improvements made in public

1 1 l 3 . . .
school facrlrtres

1 1 1 3 Emergency response service
available (91 l, for example)
Number of trains per

1 2 1 4 day/week servicing Gogebic
County

2 1 1 4 Miles of roads
repaired/upgraded
Wireless (cellular) telephone

1 2 2 5 . .
servrce available

2 2 1 5 Miles of usable rail lines
Average price of a roundth

1 2 2 5 airline ticket between
Ironwood and various nearby
cities
Number of flights per

1 3 3 7 day/week between Ironwood
and various nearby cities
Number and locations of

2 3 3 8 .
wrreless telephone towers

 

 

Revised Measures

Types and quality of emergency response service available (911, for example)

Infrastructure
> Number and type of internet service providers and services available
> Improvements made in public school facilities
>
> Miles of roads repaired/upgraded
>

Number of trains per day/week servicing Gogebic County

Initial List of Indicator and Measures

4. Forest ownership

> Number of acres of forest and non-forest land in various ownership categories,

such as national, state, county, private industrial, private non-industrial,
private residential, commercial, institutional, etc.

160

_‘ a-..

 

‘-

Number of acres that changed from one type of ownership category to another
Number of acres of forest land in each ownership category cut and converted
to urban land uses

Number of acres of large forestland holdings fragmented into smaller parcels
Number of acres of fiagrnented forestland parcels joined togetherunder one
larger owner

Table 16. Indicator 4: Forest ownership

 

Ease of
Collection

Usefulness Relevence Index Score Measure

 

to SFM

 

Number of acres that changed
1 l 4 from one type of ownership
category to another

 

Number of acres of forest
land in each ownership
category cut and converted to
urban land uses

 

Number of acres of large
forestland holdings
fragmented into smaller
parcels

 

Number of acres of
fragmented forestland parcels
joined together under one
larger owner

 

 

Number of acres of forest and
non-forest land in various
ownership categories, such as
2 1 7 national, state, county, private
industrial, private non-
industrial, private residential,
commercial, institutional, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Measures

Forest ownership

P
>

Number of acres that changed from one type of ownership category to another
Number of acres of forest land in each ownership category cut and converted
to urban land uses

Number of acres of large forestland holdings fragmented into smaller parcels
Number of acres of fragmented forestland parcels joined together under one
larger owner

161

ft‘ul-Qul. “Ah?“ ...-m...“l

Initial List of Indicator and Measures

5. Forest use and access

>
>

Total number of acres of forest land

Miles of contiguous trails, of various types, unblocked by No Trespassing
signs

Number and type of handicapped improvements in various forest ownership
categories

Average number of man/days, during each season, spent logging in Gogebic
County

Average number of man/days by active loggers performing other jobs besides
logging, during each season

Basal area of white birch, basswood, and white cedar in the Ottawa National
Forest

Number of acres of threatened herb species in the Ottawa, used in traditional
tribal rituals. (Need to find out what and where they are from tribal elders, if
they are willing to give the information)

Number and ages of tribal members continuing to study and learn traditional
tribal knowledge, as well as those learning for the first time

Table 17. Indicator 5: Forest use and access

 

Ease of
Collection

Relevence
Usefulness to SFM Index Score Measure

 

 

Total number of acres of forest
land

 

Number and type of
handicapped improvements in
various forest ownership
categories

 

Number and ages of tribal
members continuing to study
and learn traditional tribal
knowledge

 

Miles of contiguous trails, of
1 l 4 various types, unblocked by
No Trespassing signs

 

Basal area of white birch,
l 1 4 basswood, and white cedar in

the Ottawa National Forest

 

Acres of threatened herb
species in the Ottawa

 

Average number of man/days,
l 1 6 during each season, spent
logging in Gogebic County

 

 

 

 

 

 

162

 

 

 

 

Cam" Usefulness R3??? Index Score Measure
Average number of man/days
4 2 2 8 by active loggers performing
other jobs besides logging,
during each season

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Measures

Forest use and access

> Total number of acres of forest land

is Number and type of handicapped improvements in various forest ownership
categories

> Number and ages of tribal members continuing to study and learn traditional
tribal knowledge, as well as those learning for the first time

> Miles of contiguous trails, of various types, unblocked by No T respassing
srgns

> Basal area of white birch, basswood, and white cedar in the Ottawa National
Forest

is Number of acres of threatened herb species in the Ottawa, used in traditional
tribal rituals. (Need to find out what and where they are from tribal elders, if
they are willing to give the information)

Final Proposed Criteria, Indicators and Measures

Maintenance of Economic Health

1. Acres of forest that allow timber harvest (a. k. a., working forest) in Gogebic County
2. State Equalized Value of land in Gogebic County
3. Labor statistics and employment patterns in Gogebic County
> Average annual employment
is Number of employees in various categories, such as wood products, tourism,
various manufacturing, high tech services, retail, recreation, etc.
> New programs or other efforts by the Forest Service to seek win-win solutions
with loggers
4. Value and volume of value-added products of forest industries in Gogebic County.

Maintenance of Social and Cultural Values

I . Quality of life
> Index and non-index crimes (see Table 3 for complete listing)
> Median age

163

 

Population in various categories, such as total county population, number of
student enrollments at kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school
levels, as well as the junior college

Population under the poverty level in various categories, such as individuals,
families, single parent families, single parent families with children under 5
years of age

Median household income (in real dollars)

Perceptions, values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences of residents (best
addressed in a survey questionnaire)

Civic responsiveness

>

VVVV

>

VVVV

Partnerships among local agencies, institutions and service organizations
Civic donations and free services provided by local companies

Community fundraising, educational, cultural and charity events

New and expanded services and declining or defunct services

Health care facilities and high tech and retail services in the eastern end of the
county

. Infiastructure

Number and type of internet service providers and services available
Improvements made in public school facilities

Types and quality of emergency response service available (911, for example)
Miles of roads repaired/upgraded

Number of trains per day/week servicing Gogebic County

Forest ownership

>
>

Number of acres that changed from one type of ownership category to another
Number of acres of forest land in each ownership category cut and converted
to urban land uses

Number of acres of large forestland holdings fragmented into smaller parcels
Number of acres of fragmented forestland parcels joined together under one
larger owner

FOI'CSI use and access

>
>

Total number of acres of forest land

Number and type of handicapped improvements in various forest ownership
categories

Number and ages of tribal members continuing to study and learn traditional
tribal knowledge, as well as those learning for the first time

Miles of contiguous trails, of various types, unblocked by No T respassing
srgns

Basal area of white birch, basswood, and white cedar in the Ottawa National
Forest

Number of acres of threatened herb species in the Ottawa, used in traditional
tribal rituals. (Need to find out what and where they are from tribal elders, if
they are willing to give the information)

164

 

 

Limitations of the Study

No study is perfect, and this one is no exception. In the following three sections,
several limitations of this study are discussed. It is the belief of this author, however, that

although the limitations are necessary to affirm, in this case they do not significantly alter

the findings or the value of the study.

Researcher Bias

, -. ___._f__—-

runx'tflfii lrflu .~ H'r n .l'
01
n

In an ideal world, scientists are objective and value-free, but, of course, human beings

\

are not robots. Although every researcher should do his/her best to be as objective as
possible, there are always preconceived notions that cannot help but influence the analysis,
however subtle. Therefore, it is the researcher’s responsibility to state these biases plainly.
In this case, the investigator that entered a rural area in the UP to interview residents
about their lives had a decidedly urban bent, having always lived in cities, except for a brief
period in the Peace Corps. Ignorance of the many issues facing members of rural
American forest communities may have played a positive role, however, in prying the

researcher’s mind to a more open position.

Unit of Analysis

The most common unit of analysis for forest-dependent community studies has been
the county (Machlis and Force 1988), which is frequently inadequate for several reasons
(Kusel 2001). According to Perry (1986), counties do not have real social meaning.

People normally identify with their community, not their county, and in fact, many forest-

165

dependent communities feel alienated from the rest of their county, such as Watersmeet in
Gogebic County. Data, then, may represent an aggregation of a number of rural
communities, which may vary greatly one from another. This may grossly misrepresent
social reality, yet rural communities often have tight limitations on budgets, time, and
numbers of volunteers willing and able to collect data. Therefore, the choice of unit of
analysis must strike a balance between socially meaningful divisions and the availability

and accessibility of data (Beckley and Burkosky 1999; Kusel 2001; Voth et a1. 1999).

Respondent Makeup

All interview respondents for this study were permanent, long-term residents of
Gogebic County. None were seasonal residents or short-terrn visitors. This implies that
the values of long-term residents are more important than those of part-time residents and
visitors (Kakoyannis 1998), but seasonal residents own homes in the county and are
therefore also permanent residents. Living there part-time does not make them visitors.
Therefore, they are a part of the community of place, as are long-term residents. McClain
and Jones (1997) affirmed the importance of including communities of interest, as well,
along with communities of place, when researching citizen values. To clarify, though,
there is no such thing as a pure community of interest when examining the opinions of the
people in a particular place. The place defines the interest, and so the two classifications
actually overlap.

As mentioned in an earlier section, the gender ratio of respondents was 77% men to
23% women, due to the nature of the scheduling of the interviews. Future research should

include a concerted effort to balance out this ratio to a more representative 50:50 (U .S.

166

W**'w——fl "I,

Census Bureau 2000).

Generalizability

Because the primary data for this study are qualitative, the results are not readily
generalizable to other communities, especially outside the Great Lakes region. It is not
really a drawback, though, because that was not the intent of the study. The aim was to
learn about values and forest activities specifically of Gogebic County residents, so that

county planning could respond to them by defining sustainable forestry and developing

\‘fimhzfinemmu mmdii't. - -' .7

criteria and indicators that reflect those uses and values expressed by county citizens.
Other communities embarking on similar ventures will be better served if they collect data
from their own citizens. It is not a one-size-fits-all process. However, in the case of
similar, rural communities without the funding to carry out primary data collection
themselves, they may be able to glean some worthwhile information fiom this study.
Leaders from those communities will have to make the decision whether this report would

be beneficial to their communities or not.

Recommendations for Further Study

Values and Beliefs

As Gogebic County and FACT begin to open dialogues with increasingly diverse
groups of people with varying sets of beliefs, such as seasonal residents, temporary visitors

and self-identified environmentalists, some level of conflict is almost inevitable. To find

167

common ground and forestall discord, new insights into existing cultural paradigms, as
well as innovative methods to assist groups in sharing and integrating other worldviews
into their own would be beneficial.

Conflicts over forest management are in many ways conflicts between values and

beliefs in community cultures (McDonough 2003). A better understanding of the diversity

of values and beliefs about trees and forests would help alleviate much of the conflict
inherent in the public participation processes that are becoming an essential part of forest

management. This has the potential to uncover common ground as well as diversity of

thought.

‘Wm‘i—r {ii-.1 r‘_l_al'is-in_T-
ԤL

Community Sustainability Indicators

In order for FACT to deeply understand the relationships between values, beliefs,
quality of life and forest management, it will be vital to look at the trends among them
when analyzing indicator and measure data—not only examine each indicator, or even
pillar, independently. The whole point of developing SF M criteria and indicators is to find
out how to best manage the forest so that ecological, economic and social health all are
optimal and sustaining. Therefore, cross-tabulation among criteria, indicators and pillars is
necessary to comprehend how each is related to the others, so that management can better
respond and then adapt to new information as it comes in.

Beckley and Burkosky (1999) echo these concerns, suggesting that “causal
relationships between community well-being and environmental variables need to be
strengthened” (p. 24), because many assumptions are made about this connection, yet many

monitoring efforts still deal with the two separately.

168

Lessons Learned by FACT Members

In February, 2002, two of the original movers and shakers that led the Gogebic
County initiative from its inception left the project. One moved away and the other retired,
creating a leadership vacuum which brought about a long period of inactivity. Through
personal communication, they both shared some of the lessons they learned from the
process. One of them is that a succession plan following the departure of leaders needs to
be generated before they leave, so that the project is not left temporarily dormant (Elio
2002b).

It is very easy for a complex, messy process involving many people volunteering on
their own time to fall to the wayside. The “process needs a champion,” an organizational
leader that maintains the course of action and keeps it moving, pushing it to the next steps
(Murphy 2002).

The initiative was premised on self-determination, primarily in response to a national
agenda on public lands that seemed to overwhelm local input. However, the process also
provided private landowners of all sizes an opportunity to participate and show that they
were “in step with the locals,” even though there was no authority to oblige them to. Large
landowners or land managers need to participate for the process to have validity. Their
realm of influence is large, and their absence would diminish both the process and the
outcome. This had value for public relations and enabled landowners to demonstrate
“corporate citizenship,” which, “in a small forest community, actually counts for
something” (Murphy 2002).

At times the process was tedious, because each time new members joined the FACT

working group, “the volley of introductory questions” would invariably come and have to

169

 

be answered all over again. After the initial organization of the working group, it may be
helpful to close the door to new membership, “particularly redundant representative folks”
until transition points or plateaus are reached (Murphy 2002).

“The United Nations negotiating tool of parenthetical bypass” proved to be extremely
useful when formulating the community definition of sustainable forestry. Vague but
important terminology in the definition was placed in parentheses until a later time when
each term could be defined by criteria and indicators (Murphy 2002).

Finally, a more representative and diverse group of interview respondents would have
provided a larger range of responses, more in tune with the diversity of the community.
Many members of the group were somewhat prominent and well-known—leaders in some
way. More women, senior citizens, Native Americans, young people, single parents, low-
income and unemployed residents, and those less educated and/or not currently engaged in
forestry, community service or decision-making would round out the respondent group to
better reflect the breadth of values and experiences in the county. This could be achieved
by making interview appointments more in advance of the interview time period and
making a special effort to creatively find ways to reach non-engaged residents and

representatives of the various categories of citizens listed above.

So, What’s the Point?

In this study, Gogebic County residents disclosed their ideas about sustainable forest
management and sustainable communities by sharing, in terms of specifics, what those
concepts mean to them. Science and technology supply the instruments to implement

policies and management actions, as well as the know-how to provide guidelines for

170

choosing among various options based on predictions of the consequences of each. The
decisions concerning which available and feasible policies and technologies to use,
however, are driven by values. What results do people want to see? This is what
ultimately steers decision-making.

People on both sides of an issue frequently use science to justify their positions,
because science never provides definitive answers to all questions and problems. Rather, it
provides knowledge about what options may be possible, feasible, even recommended, as
well as what their outcomes might be—but, in the end, decisions regarding which option to
choose reflect the values of the decision-makers or the constituency they represent.

Sustainability is based on win-win conditions, those systems that perpetuate themselves
by the synchronicity of all their parts and actions. When one stage in the system feeds the
next and continues in this fashion throughout all actions, energy is sustained and recycles
itself in perpetuity. In the same way, SF M depends on its ecological, economic and social
cogs to revolve harmoniously, each giving momentum to the others and receiving it in turn.

The social pillar is but one aspect of this system, and although it has been separated out
to study alone in this case, it is vital to integrate all three components of SFM, to examine
how they interact and influence each other. This is no small undertaking but one which is
worthwhile in the long run, because the holistic view that accounts for all parts in the
system renders transparency to the consequences of actions, paving the way for informed
decision-making that is more likely to produce the results that are intended. Knowing what
is intended in the first place is half the battle, and that is how the exploration of social
values, beliefs, attitudes and preferences benefits forests and the communities within them.

This research has helped Gogebic County residents to shape their vision of sustainable

171

forestry and set goals and objectives in the form of criteria and indicators, as well as to
begin developing specific measures with which to gauge the long-term progress towards
their vision. This is a boon to planners wanting to guide the county in the direction of a
higher and long-term quality of life for forest communities. It gives them clear mandates to
shoot for and suggestions for realizing objectives, thus simplifying their job.

Criteria and indicators can monitor progress towards goals, but the residents themselves
have to make that progress happen. The key is to work together.

As stated in an earlier section, the qualitative nature and small sample size of this study
do not readily lend themselves to generalizability. Future data collection, from surveys and
secondary archival records, will be in a much better position to generalize to the larger
population of both the county and the region surrounding it. Efforts should be made to
expand the population surveyed to include seasonal residents, temporary visitors and a
more representative balance of genders.

This is not to say that other communities cannot learn or benefit from this research.
Forest communities around the United States, but primarily in the Great Lakes region and
especially the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, will likely recognize many similarities
between themselves and Gogebic County. If any communities are considering embarking
on a sustainable forestry initiative using criteria and indicators, they can glean a great deal
not only from the interview results themselves, but also from the process used to obtain
them and to develop the criteria and indicators.

A number of international, national, regional, and local sustainable forest management
initiatives have been discussed, and any one of them would be a good place to start to

research more on sustainable forest management or criteria and indicators. Sustainability

172

 

iiir.

must encompass all scales. Naturally, larger scale policies, principles and conditions affect
individual communities, and they should be monitored for sustainability as well. These
higher order initiatives complement and guide local efforts and vice versa. Each
community is nested within a larger one, with each affecting those above and below it.
Higher order levels can offer broad sweeps of information about the larger environment
cradling individual communities, and communities can give detailed feedback to states,
regions and nations regarding the impacts their policies, laws and actions have on-the-
ground.

Local level data are not usually generalizable to other locations (although some could
be), and that is why they work so well to characterize distinctive communities. As “they”
say, the devil is in the details, and that is where the heart of sustainable forest management
lies, where on-the-ground management decisions are made and individuals are impacted.
Identifying exactly what effects policy and management actions have on-the-ground can
expand knowledge on all scales and prompt corrective action at appropriate levels. As it
begins to collect data, Gogebic County will soon be contributing to and benefiting from this
global hierarchical framework.

Gogebic County has acquired some level of renown for its pioneering initiative, which
will continue to impart new lessons learned for some time to come. Other communities
concerned with sustainable forest management might keep an eye on Gogebic County and

observe and learn from its progress on the road to sustainability.

173

APPENDICES

174

 

Appendix A: Interview Questions

Part I ~ Social Features

Culture

Histog and Use of Forest

Can you say your name and what you do?

How long have you been a resident of Gogebic County?

Have you ever considered moving from the area? Why or why not?

We are trying to get an idea of how people in this county have lived, used and interacted
with forests throughout their lives. Please describe your relationship with the forest in your

life. How did you use forests when you were a kid?

How about your parents or grandparents? How have your ties to the forest changed
throughout your life? How do you use forests now?

What historical events have you seen to have a great impact on the county? How did the
county respond to these events?

Sense of Place

Do you consider yourself part of a distinctive cultural/ethnic group? What does this mean
to you?

What do you think are the most significant historical and cultural sites in Gogebic County?
Why?

Do you think that there is anything unique about the forest in Gogebic County? If so,
what? How important is this to you?

Do you own any forest land? If so, for how long? For what reasons?

What characteristics of this county do you like the most? The least? Why?

175

 

Access to Forest Resources
How. accessible do you think the forest is to you?

Is it more accessible for some uses, or on different types of land, than others? Which ones?
Why?

Has the level of accessibility changed over time?

What barriers to using the forest (such as regulations or other things) exist? Are barriers
increasing or decreasing?

Are there conflicts in the county between different forest uses? Describe.

Communig

Communig Vision

Think about the future. What are your hopes for this county for your grandchildren and
great grandchildren? Can you describe your ideal image of this county in 50 or 100 years?

Do you think this scenario of yours will turn out?

If not, what characteristics do you think the firture will have instead?

Trends

What changes do you see occurring in the county?

Social Capital (Civic Responsiveness)

Do you feel that there are a significant number of services offered to your community by
local institutions and organizations? Are there any that stand out in your mind, or are
unique to the area?

Are you a member of any local service organizations? Can you tell me a little bit about

them (such as the number of members, their degree of involvement, types of activities and
member makeup)?

176

 

What is your perception of the ability and willingness of residents in your community to
work together to reach community goals? Can you give some examples?

Are there any services you think are missing or that could be expanded or improved in your
community? Which ones?

Human Capital

What kind of skills, education and experience do you think local residents need to be
successful? Do you think that residents in your community have enough of these?

What kinds of opportunities exist in your area to expand or improve these skills for
residents?

W ’3. TS? Rearmnun—r—pfw

Do you think that there are enough opportunities for this here? Why or why not?

Do you see these opportunities changing, i.e. increasing or decreasing?

Part 11 ~ Social Structures

Institutional Framework

Sustainable Forestfl

What does the term sustainable forestry mean to you? How important is that to you?
How much support for sustainable forestry do you see in the county?

How might support for sustainable forestry be increased in your community?

Public Participation

Local Control and Decision Making

Who do you see as the primary decision makers about forest resources in your area? Are
they primarily local or from outside the area?

177

What do you think is the proper role for public participation in agency decision making?
Who should make the decisions?

How much power do you feel that local residents have to influence decisions that affect the
natural environment in Gogebic County?

Do you think that some groups, agencies, industries or organizations have more influence
than others? If so, which ones?

How important is it to you to have input into the decision-making process regarding local
natural resources?

What kinds of avenues are you aware of for local residents to participate in decision-
making about forest resources in your community?

Have you ever participated in any of these? If so, which ones? What were your reasons?
What kinds of decisions were involved?

Do you continue to participate?

How do you think local control and decision making regarding forest resources can be
strengthened in the county?

Fairness and Justice

Do you think that decisions that are made in the county regarding forest resources are fair
and just? Why or why not?

Can you give any specific examples or experiences that you’ve had with local public
participation in natural resource management that might illustrate your viewpoint?

In your opinion, are there any barriers to public participation in forest management decision
making in the county that lead to unfair decisions? Describe.

If you are a continuing participant, how do you observe the process changing over time?

How could make the public participation process in the county become more fair?

Miscellaneous

Do you have any additional thoughts? Maybe there are some issues that you have
considered that 1 failed to address here. Could you bring those up now?

178

 

Appendix B: Classified Interview Responses

The tables presented here are expanded versions of each of the tables presented in
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion. Instead of the broad overview presented there, these
tables display the responses organized into a class hierarchy of higher and lower order
codes, representing responses. Higher order codes tend to be more general, with more
specific ones grouped under them. The No. of Grouped Responses column shows the total
number of occurrences of the response grouped under that higher order code to the right of
it. The No. of Responses column gives the number of occurrences of each code, including
the higher order ones. Note that some of the higher order codes are shown as having zero
occurrences. This means that the code is a summary of the lower order codes beneath it,
not an actual response itself, and is labeled as such, in parentheses, to the right of the code.

As in Chapter 5, these tables are sorted fiom most to least frequency, first by the No. of
Grouped Responses column, second by the No. of Responses column, and third

alphabetically.

179

 

Lifestyle
Best and Worst Traits of the County

What characteristics of Gogebic County do you like the most? The least?

Table 18. List of best and worst traits of Gogebic County

No. of No of
Grouped ' Responses
0 Occurrences

Mitch
Natural environment
to Lake
Trees
and character of the
Lakes

Rivers

Waterfalls

Hills
Small town

Laid relaxed
Uncrowded
Good to raise children
life

Small
No rush hour

Good character of the
Friendliness

Good work ethic

Kindness
Volunteerism
Outdoor recreation
The
Deer
Lots of different to fish and hike
Winter outdoor activities
lce

Downhill
Year-round outdoor recreation

1
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
3
6
4
4
2
2
2
1
5
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

180

 

 

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

Finnish and other ethnic heritages

 

Distinct ethnic variety

 

Finnish culture (summay)

 

Finnish attention to diet

 

Finnish love of music and arts

 

Finnish personal sobriety

-_———‘

 

Finnish religious devotion

 

Finnish reserved demeanor

 

Large Scandinavian population

 

Rural character

 

Rural but close to urban areas

 

Sense of solitude, peace and quiet

 

Becomigq more progressive-increase of small businesses

 

Good quality of life in general

 

..sd‘b

A—l—hb‘pN—L—L—l‘d—AO—A—A

Historical features

 

 

M

 

21

Negtive characteristics of people (summary)

 

Resistance to change

 

Ngqative perceptions

 

Risk aversion

 

Community rivalry

 

Fatalistic attitudes

 

Good ole boy politics

 

Lack (Lgraciousness and polish

 

Lack of motivation

 

Narrow-mindedness

 

Provinciality

 

Stubborn ness

 

Too conservative

 

Infrastructure problems (summary)

 

Infrastructure in disrepair

 

Expensive airport use

 

Lack of good rail lines and service

 

Resistance to infrastructure investments

 

Winter climate (summary)

 

Cold, long, toggh winters

 

Too much snow

 

Unemployment

 

Lack of M jobs

 

No more mining companies

 

Young people move away for jobs

 

Lack of quality in public school education

 

Resistance to public school investments

 

 

 

uémAANwOAAO—IA—bfiflO—L—L—t—t—L—L—L—l-éwbmo

 

Low school enrollment

 

 

181

 

1

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

Significant Historical and Cultural Sites

What do you think are the most significant historical and cultural sites in Gogebic
County?

Table 19. List of types of significant historical and cultural features

No. of No. of
Primary Secondary No. of
Grouped Grouped Occurrences
Occurrences Occurrences

Responses

 

182

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.' manual-'Ja‘m‘irflfl
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No. of
Prime Seconds No. of
Groupzyd Groupedry Occurrences Responses
Occurrences Occurrences
33 5 5 Historic architecture
8 5 Ironwood Theatre
2 Theatre groups
1 Music programs
7 7 Old Depot Museum in Ironwood
4 1 Historic public buildigqs
2 Bessemer courthouse
1 Ironwood High School
4 4 Ironwood Memorial Building
2 2 Keystone Bridge in Ramsey
Bessemer, Ironwood and Wakefield
1 1 downtown areas
1 1 Mary beautiful churches
1 1 Sioux Line Depot
25 0 0 Historic industry and project sites
17 17 Old mining sites and communities
4 4 Old loggi_ng camps and communities
1 1 Gogebic Range from mining spoils
1 1 Old CCC camps
1 1 Open Pit Lake in Wakefield
Pines used to rebuild Chicago and
1 1 Milwaukee
15 0 0 Outdoor recreation sites
4 4 Black River Harbor
1 1 Campsites on lakes in the Ottawa
1 1 Hiking trails
1 1 Mountain biking trail system
6 1 Ski hills
5 Copp_er Peak
1 1 Snowmobile trails
1 1 Little Girl's Point
9 0 0 Ethnic heritage sites
5 0 Historic tribal sites
2 Sacred tribal burialggrounds
1 Lac Vieux Desert old villaggsite
1 Sacred tribal sweat logges
1 Traditional tribal ggflrering areas
3 3 The Biwdian
Scandinavian, Slavic and Italian ethnic
1 1 aspect to mining and logging sites
3 1 1 Forest industry symbols

 

 

 

 

 

183

\ 'fl'
‘4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No. of
Primary Secondary No. of
Grouped Grouped Occurrences ResPonses
Occurrences Occunences
1 1 lfigigg trucks in the 4th of July parade
1 1 Loggipg trucks on the road everywhere
Vision of the Future

Think about the future. What are your hopes for this county for your grandchildren and
great grandchildren?
Can you describe your ideal image of this county in 50 or 100 years?
What characteristics do you think the future will have?

Table 20. List of hopes and beliefs about the future of Gogebic County

 

No. of
Primary
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Secondary

Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

 

flag

 

 

18

C

More and better quality employment opportunities
(summary)

 

13

(0

Hope for more employment Opportunities

 

Hope for more job opportunities for
Young people

 

Hope for better employment opportunities

 

Hope for jobs in the $30 - 50,000 range ‘

 

Hog for stronger employer base

 

15

N—F-iw-b

Maintenance of the high quality of life

 

Hope area won't be spoiled by
Overdevelopment

 

HOpe the area stays pristine and unpolluted

 

Hope for not too much chagge

 

Hope for continued safety of people

 

—¥—3NOJOD

Hogfor preservation of the rural way of life

 

Hope that existing values and outdoor
activities remain the same

 

Hope that people will stay independent

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope to maintain respect for local culture

 

184

A _‘A‘

 

r. ~ ~ .
i.

 

No. of No. of
Primary Secondary No. of
Grouped Grouped Occurrences Responses

Occurrences Occurrences

 

13

0

Some increase in population (summary)

 

.b

Hope for only moderate population increase

 

Hope for population somewhere between 25-
and 45,000

 

Hope for population increase

 

que for continued low population

 

Hope for minimal population decline

 

12 Economic development (summary)

 

Hope for economic growth

 

Hope for more diversified economy

 

NbU’lO—F-bwb

Hope for economic stability

 

Hope for unified approach to growth by local
Governments

A

 

Balanced, mixed use of forest resource
(summary)

 

11

O

 

A

Hope for balanced, mixed use of resources

 

Hope for sustainable amount of timber sales
in the Ottawa

—l

 

0.)

Hope for use of forest managgment plans

 

09

Hope for wise utilization of timber resources

 

More industry and businesses in general

1 1 (summary)

 

Hope for incoming industry

 

Hope for industry permanence

 

Hope for other industries rather than tourism

 

—8NN50

nge for industry to increase tax base

 

Hope for more small to medium-sized
industries

A

 

Hope for self-sustaining local business
Network

 

10 More recreation/tourism (summary)

 

Hope for more tourism

 

NAG-3

Hope more people visit the forests

 

Hope for Lake Superior and Saxon Harbor full
of boats

A

 

Hope location by Lake Superior is utilized for
1 Tourism

 

1 Hope recreation areas are more utilized

 

Hope the Ottawa puts up maps for better
1 Accessibility

 

8 1 Infrastructure improvements

 

Hope for road imrovements

 

Hope for handicapped accessibility in the
1 Ottawa

 

 

Hope for more apparent and utilized
1 TechnoEgy

 

 

 

 

 

185

 

No. of
Primary

Grouped

Occurrences

No. of

Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

Hope to keep the airport going

 

Better education opportunities

 

Hope for improved schools

 

 

Hope for a little healthier community college
Hope for new schools

 

O-fi-in—h

More forest-based industry

 

Hope for secondary manufacturing forest
industry

 

Hope for new forest-based industg

 

4.11.;

Hope for wood and nontimber products

 

Hope the paper mill in Ontonagon County
keeps running

 

Maintenance of natural resources the way they
are

 

NO

Hogfor maintenance of natural resources

 

Hope hardwood forestgmaliy is maintained

 

Hope the county forest is still managed like it
is

 

Hope the Ottawa stays the same and doesn't
buy more land

 

Protection, not preservation of the forest

 

Hope for forest protection, not preservation

 

Hope for forest protection from motorized
Vehicles

 

Increased positive thinking, expanded vision, and
risk-takingamong residents

 

00)

Urban improvements

 

A

Hope for better housing in cities

 

Hope for focused improvements in existing
Areas

 

Hope for more things for younfleople to do

 

Improvement of forest quality and care

 

No clear-cuttingwithout replanting

 

Hope for better long-term care of the Ottawa

 

A-JNo-L—L

Hope for equal or better quality forest

 

O

Recreation/tourism to remain primitive and
managed

 

Hope for a little more recreation access but
Managed

 

Hope recreation stays primitive, not resorts

 

Wilderness and wildlife preservation

 

More bike trails

 

.A—LN

A—AN—l-fi

Tribe hopes to return to old village

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beliefs

 

 

186

 

 

No. of

Secondary
Grouped

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

 

Skeptical of tourism as a solution @ummary)

 

Area will end up being a playground for
urbanites

 

Tourism jobs tend to be seasonal and low-
wage, with no benefits

 

Lake water is too cold to attract swimmers

 

Recreation is god but inadequate for income

 

Recreation too dependent on outside forces
and weather

 

Tourism won't Q upscale

 

Upscale tourism would drive residents out
due to tax increases

 

Industry will come

 

Investments in education will attract high-tech
industries

 

A better recruitment program would bring
more businesses

 

High quality of life will draw high-tech industry

 

Main industry will be wood products

 

Second main industry will be recreational
Tourism

 

Skeptical of industry increase (summary)

 

Increasing logging restrictions hurt the forest
industry and create fire hazards

 

Computers will dictate what and where the
jobs are

 

Location is too far from markets

 

Renaissance zones too far from town

 

Weather will keep high-tech industries away

 

Area will be considered a special place

 

A—L—l—l—l—b

Rural life and culture will continue

 

Trees will get really big, and it won't be
Polluted

 

There will be better employment opportunities

 

Jobs are slowly coming back

 

_l-AN—L

Economy will be more diversified

 

Information technology enables economic
Diversification

 

More tourists will be coming

 

Community planning needs to prepare for
tourist influx

 

 

 

 

 

Population will drop until there's more pressure on
rural areas

 

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No. of
Prime Seconds No. of
Groupzyd Grouped"y Occurrences Resmnses
Occurrences Occurrences
Without new jobs, population will drop and no
1 new school buildings
2 1 Population will grow
1 People will stay if area remains safe and rural
2 2 Roads will be improved and 4-Iane highways built
2 1 There will be better educational opportunities _g
1 Schools will consolidate l '
2 2 Towns are and will continue to cooperate more
Natural resources will be preserved because a lot
1 1 of it is public land
1 Natural resources will be used more effectively
1 1 Schools are not improving enough

 

Civic Responsiveness

Availability of Services

Do you feel that there are a significant number of services offered to your community by
local institutions and organizations?
Are there any that stand out in your mind, or are unique to the area?
Are there any services you think are missing or that could be expanded or improved in
your community?

Table 21. List of service availability, notable and missing services

No. of No. 0'

Grouped
Occurrences Occurrences

Responses

Yes
Y of services for a small area
Yes the should be
No not for certain
Not recreation
Not much for recreational
Yes certain and

 

188

No. of
Grouped
Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Elderly care facilities in Wakefield and Lac Vieux Desert

   

189

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

Tourism and recreation services

 

Trek and Trail

 

Volunteer fire department

 

dN—b—L

Community newspaper

 

 

Mii rN i rovemn

 

 

 

Youth activities and programs

 

—L

There’s no outdoor swimming pool in the whole county

 

Arcade with video games, pool tables, batting
cages

 

No developed bike trail

 

Skateboard areas

 

Education (summary)

 

Schools/education need improvement

 

Higher education facilities Iackigg in eastern end of county

 

No string music education

 

(II

No services missing

 

Infrastructure

 

No 911 emerggncy service

 

00

Don't know if services are missing

 

Health (summary)

 

Good health care system in eastern end of county

 

Medcare expansion

 

People don't have insurance

 

Oaaaowwdm—rtawOAa...

Social services limited and abused (summary)

 

Family Independence Agency people are scarce in eastern
end of county

 

High alcohol abuse

 

Social Security and disability services abused

 

Commercial (summary)

 

Lack of shopping facilities in Watersmeet

 

Need another laundromat in Ironwood

 

Oat—so—s—s—s

Cooperation and consolidation of services (summary)

 

Community divisiveness in Watersmeet killed numerous
service projects

 

Need better cooperation amongtowns

 

School and law enforcement need consolidation

 

Child care for single parents

 

Civic pride

 

Lack of technology talent and support services

 

Planning

 

‘d—L—I—b—L—l—l

The little extras, the niceties are missing

 

 

 

A

 

Tourism and FS offices closed on weekends when tourist
numbers are hiwest

 

190

 

 

How Residents Work Together

What is your perception of the ability and willingness of residents in your community to

work together to reach community goals?

Table 22. Community collaboration for community goals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No 0'
Grouped o ' Responses
Occurrences
15 0 Low, due to nggative attitudes and a culture of independence
Many seniors got too used to mining companies providing
4 Everything
2 People are more concerned with their own interests
1 At times, tempers flare and people file up
Community divisiveness in Watersmeet killed numerous
1 service projects
1 Low, due to culture of independence
1 Most people are elderly and tend not to like change
1 PeOpIe are not open enough
Public perception is negative, even when things are
1 improving
12 8 It's getting better
2 People are starting to work together
1 People are starting to realize the need for risk-taking
Within the professional community, it has risen since mid-
1 19905
6 4 Leadership is IackinL
1 Many movers and shakers have moved away for jobs
1 No one can identify ggals
5 0 Some people are more open to it than others (summary)
Younger people are more willing to make it happen than
3 older ones
Most people that get things done are not government
1 Oriented
People from urban America are more used to cooperating
1 than in rural areas
4 1 Not workinggrgether on long-term investments
3 Lack of cooperation has prevented school consolidation
Can be improved through community organizations like Rotary
3 1 and EDC
1 County EDC has done the best at creating cooperation
Have a lot of groups through the Community Services
1 CoordinatingBoard
3 3 Works pretty well for the most part

 

 

191

E‘s-...i

 

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

Collaboration between tribal and non-tribal communities has
greatly improved

 

Cooperation is better within communities than amogg them

 

Each town has its own group

 

A lot of people want to get Wakefield back to where it was 20
years ago

 

High school sport rivalry reduces cooperation

 

0

Hard for eastern and western ends of county to collaborate
(summary)

 

cub

Difficult because eastern and western county divided by
distance

 

Eastern end doesn't have population numbers to influence
county decisions

 

It's torLcLhmnot good enough

 

People talk about it, but not much ggts done

 

Annual festival doesn't attract enough volunteers to help out

 

Could hagpen if information is brought properly (not rumors)

 

It needs a lo-t of patience and time

 

It's gotten worse

 

Lack of new issues driving it

 

People cooperate more than they think they do

 

Sometimes good, sometimes awful

 

Terrible

 

Wants to start a community service group called Positive People

 

 

a‘aaaagaaamn

 

4.3.3.3444“; NM—L

 

Watersmeet looking at doing some community buildiry:

 

 

 

192

Fish.
,5 l

 

Education and skill-building

Do you think that residents in your community have the skills, education and experience

they need to be successful?

What kinds of opportunities exist in your area to expand or improve these skills for
residents, and do you see these opportunities changing, i. e. increasing or decreasing?

Table 23. List of responses on education and skill-building

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

 

17

Gogebic County Community College is a significant asset

 

Works well with local industries to develop curriculums

 

Gradually expandinggrgggms

 

GCCC provides a god experience

 

Adew

GCCC students can get a job anywhere

 

 

Has a cool Gogebic Range history class, but no one
knows about it

 

Nowhere near its potential yet

 

Offers vo-tech training

 

Provides nursing and tech training programs

 

Provides quality education at an affordable price

 

A—l—l-l—L—A

There are training programs at GCCC

 

Yes, people can improve their skills at the community
College

 

17

Lack of diversified or growing employer base to utilize higher
Skills

 

People with higher skills leave for better jobs elsewhere

 

There's little demand for skills here

 

N550

Not many skilled jobs available

 

There are many skilled people who would love to move
Back

 

lncreasimap between haves and have nots

 

Lack ofjobs lowers self—esteem

 

_AAaN

Need value-added wood products industries

 

There are plenty of jobs available here, but mostly low pay
and often left unfilled

 

There are plenty of jobs available...but not in this area

 

12

There are quality schools and colleges available

 

Yes, schools are doing a good job training people

 

 

The area has quality schools, including GCCC

 

ANbN—I—b

Correspondence schools available

 

 

 

 

Michigan Tech is the best buy for schools and GCCC is
going well

 

193

 

JL'hJ

W‘Ih

 

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

Training resources and the junior college are excellent to
develop work skills

 

University, trade schools and community college are all
available

 

People have to leave the area for universifi education and jobs

 

College—educated tribal members usually don't return

 

Lac Vieux Desert provides educational and business
assistance to tribal members

 

Tribal members have every opportunity available for
education or entrepreneurshiL

 

Tribe has an education department

 

Tribe will back any member wantirLgtO start a business

 

Tribe will support any member's higher education

 

Telecommunication advances are increasing educational
Opportunities

 

 

Distant Ieaming programs are increasing opportunities

 

Fiber optic computer technology now in every public
school room

 

GCCC has TV station equipment that could offer seminars

 

Internet will bring opportunities

 

GCCC is good, but it could be stronger

 

GCCC could improve its advertising for courses and other
Events

 

GCCC is good but not enough for jobs ultimately needed,
especially outside the area

 

Public schools have various outdoor-oriented prggLams

 

Public schools have various projects with county forest
Department

 

Public schools work with DNR on hunter, water and gun
Safety

 

There's a 6th grade outdoor education program, taught by
volunteers

 

There's an ecology course in public schools but not
Forestry

 

Anyone can be successful, by their own definition, with any
amount of education

 

Some people are content living on welfare

 

With a high school diploma, people have done well in
construction or in the woods

 

Entrepreneurship is increasing because of technology
advances

 

Computer-based small businesses are being established

 

 

 

 

Gogebic County is trying to increase programs, but more are
needed in eastern end

 

 

194

V21.

 

No. oi
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

County has been very active in providing distant learning
Programs

 

County has provided workshops in Ironwood, but they are
needed in eastern end, too

 

People need the same skills anybody else in the countg needs

 

We shouldn’t be isolated and only get the skills we need in
this little community

 

Some residents have a good amount of education, and others
need more

 

For happiness and wealth, the more education the better

 

Lacking a college education, many people stay employees
instead of entrepreneurs

 

Enough opportunities—it's up to the individual to take
advantage of them

 

The newspaper would help, but a lot of people don't read it

 

 

Everyone should help promote the area somehow

 

Need an education director at the Ottawa office

 

More skills and education in running small businesses is
Needed

 

Lack of skilled labor means little business competition,
leading to poor quality service

 

Education must come first, to attract high-tech firms. Demand
for labor follows

 

Low drop-out rate

 

People generally have a good work ethic

 

People have the skills they need here if their aspirations aren't
too high

 

Public schools have good students and teachers and
computers in every classroom

 

 

1m

 

 

Opportunities are increasing

 

—8

It’s getting easier to make more opportunities for yourself

 

Some tribal members that moved to cities for jobs are
returning for increasing employment

 

Opportunities are staying about the same

 

MN

Public school enrollments and facilities are going downhill

 

ANN—l

 

Opportunities are not decreasing

 

 

 

 

 

 

195

 

Forest Accessibility

Amount and Type of A ccess

How accessible do you think the forest is to you?
Is it more accessible for some uses, or on diflerent types of land, than others?
Has the level of accessibility changed over time?

Table 24. List of forest accessibility for all ownership types

 

 

No. of
Grouped

Occunences

No. of

Wm Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

V.- _g

Q! 3" ,'~" 1' '

25 20 Very accessible
There are thousands of acres, lots of roads and trails
Very accessible for non-motorized recreation
Accessible for primitive camping
More accessible to hunters and hikers and some local
People
There are campgrounds on some of the lakes
Visits to waterfalls are probably the biggest use of tourists
and locals
Accessibility is decreasing
More roads are being closed due to lack of revenue
There's anxiety in the forest industy about the future
Accessibility is increasing
Sigflge and trail maps are increasing
Additional roads have increased accessibility
Accessible, but you may have to hunt for information if you don't
know where to go
2 Trail maps are available at the Forest Service office and
Depot
Less accessible to tourists who don‘t know the opportunities
Most people probably don't know forest roads are
numbered and can be found on maps
People with disabilities have access problems
Handicapped access is insufficient
Fairly accessible
Some places are easier to gito than others
Some forest roads are in disrepair and need maintenance
Access for motorized uses are more limited (summary)
Less accessible to ORVs. They need a designated area.
Not very accessible for trailer camping
Access for recreation has increased

 

 

11

 

 

 

_LAAVU-i

 

cub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U'l
ANNA—30)

 

01
_L

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(A)
..i—t—SON—waNd

 

 

 

 

 

196

 

Noof

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' No. of
Grou Res nses
mugs” Occurrences po
2 1 Scenic use, camping, picnicking, and visitor center use has
Increased
2 Accessibility level is not changipgmuch
2 2 Almost inaccessible for development
2 1 Natural uses are universally acceptable
2 1 Accessible for hiking, fishing, hunting, cutting X-mas trees,
collecting boughs for wreaths
1 Old railroad right-of-ways have been converted to ORV and
snowmobile trails
1 1 There's not a lot of well-developed bike trails
W
1 Public forests are very accessible
1 Public lands are open to hunting everywhere
W
6 5 Loggipg is dramatically decreasinL
1 Trees die and rot and are wasted in wilderness areas
4 1 Handicapped access is increasing
1 Forest Service has added some handicapped access but can't
everywhere
1 Forest Service made a couple of handicapped accessible docks
1 FS and Ruffed Grouse Society provide a 4-wheeler for
handicapped access
4 4 The Ottawa is very accessible
2 1 Forest Service is very restrictive
1 Forest Service stops road crews to make sure there are no
historic sites in the area
2 2 Handicapped people have some access problems
2 1 Road maintenance has declined because of reduced funds from
timber sales
1 Lack of harvesting or road maintenance are fire hazards
2 2 Roads are being blocked in the Ottawa to create roadless areas
for wildlife
1 1 Extended camping stay allowed for deer season
1 1 Forest Service has reduced restrictions on tribal access
1 1 Ottawa very accessible for traditional tribal gathering and
Harvesting
Qggnty Forest
3 County forest is very accessible
3 County forest very accessible to lgqgipg
1

County does good job with multi-use

 

 

197

 

‘v

H; m
e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No of
Grouped 0 Responses
Occurrences
1 Local control of county forest helped with economic
development though land trades
PM
11 8 Fragmentation, blockades and 'No Trespassing' signs increasing
on non-industrial lands
2 Roads and trails go through scattered private lands that
may be posted
1 Blockades on bike trails at private property lines
Many industrial forests are very accessible to the public—due to
5 3 .
the Commercral Forest Act
2 CFA lands are accessible to walking, hunting and fishing,
but not necessarily driving
2 2 A lot of commercial land is open to driving but not necessarily
Hunting
2 2 Loggi_ng is pretty accessible on private land
1 1 As lakefronts are increasingly developed, access for fishing
Decreases
1 1 Handicapped trail beinmilt in Ontonagon
1 1 Higher taxes are reducing incentive to join CFA and open land
to public
1 1 Some private landowners allow others to use their land for
recreation
13W
1 Nice trail by the college
1 Woods behind house are very accessible

 

 

 

 

 

* Responses have been placed in this category when the speaker didn’t make clear which type of forest s/he
was referring to, or when actually speaking generally.

198

 

Forest Use

Current Use

Please describe your relationship with the forest. How do you use forests?

Table 25. List of forest uses and values

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No.01

Occurrences Responses

 

 

 

 

42 7" Active recreation

 

10* Hunting

 

Walking/hiking

 

Fishing

 

Camping

 

Snowshoeipg

 

Canoeing

 

Cross country skiing

 

Mountain biking

 

Running

 

Skiing (unspecified type)

 

Professional use

 

Working as a forester

 

Doing banking with the forest industry

 

Job trainingin forest products and related fields

 

Selling retail wood products

 

Workim as a logger

 

 

TIL; ‘ ‘

 

Working with EDC and forest industry development

 

Observation

 

Enjoying scenery

 

Dn'vinmrough

 

Visitingivaterfalls

 

Wildlife observation

 

Subsistence use

 

Heating with wood

 

Cuttingflewood

 

O—IhO—I-NNwo-b-l-A-A-AAO-t-A—I—t—stNm

5“ Traditional tribal uses

 

Collecting raw materials for handicrafts, medicines and
tribal ceremonies

—L

 

Traditional ceremonies: powwows, funerals, feasts

 

u—b—L

Traditional uses are on a small scale these days

 

Tribe has timber rights in the Ottawa but doesn't exercise
1 them much anymore

 

 

 

 

 

199

Responses

resources

The Forest Service is the one who needs to provide more

 

Wanting more summer harvests in Ottawa to provide more

Need for more white birch trees for canoes and

younger

are USES

Disappointment that some areas attract illicit activities in

 

* One occurrence in each of these categories refers to the LacVieux Desert band of the Lake Superior
Chippewa as a whole, not one individual.

” All five occurrences in this category refer to the LacVieux Desert band as a whole, not one individual.

200

 

Economic Approaches

Table 26. List of economic approaches favored and disfavored by respondents

 

No. of
Grouped

Occurrences

No. of
Occurrences

Responses

 

 

49

49

Forest products industry should be supported

 

15

1

Tourism is probably not the ultimate solution to economic woes

 

(fl

Many urban tourists just regard the area as their

 

N

playggund, without caringabout the people that live here
Lake water and beaches are too cold

 

Tourism only provides a few jobs, and they are seasonal
and low-wage

 

Attracting too many tourists and part-time residents can spoil
what we have

 

Hikers and bikers don't bring in much revenue

 

industry that pays a decent wage is more important than
Tourism

 

It's cheaper to fly to Vail than drive up from Chicago

 

Some people may want more upscale resorts, but probably
a lot do not

 

Timber production is more important than tourism as a
means of income

 

Tourists are not really interested in the mining sites-unot
much to look at

 

12

Current approaches to tourism have some problems (summary)

 

Tourists don't ggt enough lnfonnation on opportunities

 

Brochure racks in hotels mostly hold ads for Wisconsin,
not the local area

 

Casinos bringtourism "bagggge"—-having to lock doors, etc.

 

 

 

Forest Service doesn't have enough contact with people to
find out what's needed

 

Forest Service is more attuned to outside public than
community needs

 

Forest Service office should be open on weekends for
tourists

 

Projects start and are abandoned, wastingopportunities

 

Tourism committee of Jobs 2000 disbanded after
settinggoals

 

 

Tourism for mining sites has been attempted and failed

 

Visitors and Conventions Bureau doesn't promote eastern
end of county well

 

Lac Vieux Desert gets left out of promotional material

 

12

 

 

12

 

Forest should be managed for a balance of timber, tourism and

recreation

 

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of No 01
Grouped Occurrences Responses
Occurrences
11 1 The area can build on its tourism
3 Mining heritage sites should be developed for tourism
Beauty and uniqueness of natural lands have been well
2 preserved for tourism
2 Tourism is important for jobs and the economy
County should take advantage of the location by Lake
1 Superior
1 Ecotourism can be expanded for added revenue h
Tourism is becoming more important, but it should be if;
1 Managed -'
10 9 A balanced, more diversified economy should be pursued _,
Would like to see use of wood and non-wood products, -
1 recreation like ecotourism, and various industries '
1O 2 Tourism has had some successes and is grovflg ”j
2 Waterfalls are probably the biggest tourist attractions U
Forest products economy is gradually being replaced by
1 recreational facilities
Lac Vieux Desert developed a successful resort with a
1 casino, hotel and golf course
Many tourists have come to see the Big Indian
Most businesses are related to tourism
Passport in Time program, archaeological digs, is very
1 popular and brings revenue
The Ottawa and Sylvania have brought a lot of tourism and
1 economic success

 

 

 

 

 

 

202

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allardt, Erik. 1993. Having, Loving, Being: An Alternative to the Swedish Model of
Welfare Research. P. 88-94 in The Quality of Life, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and
Amartya Sen. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cited in Kusel 2001.

Annear, Renee M. 1998. A Brief History of Bessemer, MI and its Development.
[http://www.portup.com/~rah/bcchst.htmlj.

Beckley, Thomas M. 1995. Community Stability and the Relationship between Economic
and Social Well-being in Forest-dependent Communities. Society and Natural
Resources. Vol. 8: 261-266. Taylor and Francis.

Beckley, Thomas M. and EC. Murray. 1997. Sustainability For Whom? Social Indicators
for F west-Dependent Communities in Canada. Sustainable Forest Management
Network Centre of Excellence. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Research proposal.

Beckley, Thomas M. and TM. Burkosky. 1999. Social Indicator Approaches to Assessing
and Monitoring Forest Community Sustainability. Information Report Series of the
Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta. NOR-X-360.

Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing Forest Values and Ecosystem Management. Society and
Natural Resources. 7:515-33. Taylor and Francis.

Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Needham
Heights, MA: Pearson Education Co. 304 p.

Bolen, Richard. 2001. The Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District: A Short
History. The Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District. Hancock,
Michigan. 6 p.

Bolen, Richard. 2002. Gogebic County Sustainable Forestry. PowerPoint slide
presentation. Data taken from US. Forest Service Inventory Analysis (F IA) 2002.

Bormann, B.T., Martha H. Brookes, E. David Ford, A. Ross Kiester, Chadwick D. Oliver,
and James Wei gand. 1 994. A Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem Management.
USDA Forest Service Technical Report PNW-GTR-319. Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Portland, Oregon.

Bowles, RT. 1992. Single-industry Resource Communities in Canada’s North Rural
Sociology in Canada. Oxford University Press. p. 63-83. Cited in Nadeau et al. 1999.

203

 

Burch, RD. 1994. Municipal Reporting on Sustainable Development: A Status Review.
Working Paper Number 24. National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy. Ottawa, Canada. Cited in Beckley and Burkosky 1999.

Campbell, Angus. 1981. The Sense of Well-being in America: Recent Patterns and Trends.
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Cited in Kusel 2001.

Carlson, Joe. 1997. A Not-So-Serious Glimpse Back on the History of Ironwood. Ironwood
Area Chamber of Commerce. [http://www.ironwoodmi.org/oldironwoodhtm]

Carroll, MS. 1984. Community and the Northwestern Logger. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Washington. Cited in Kusel 1996.

Carroll, MS. and R.G. Lee. 1990. Occupational Community and Identity among Pacific
Northwestern Loggers: Implications for Adapting to Economic Changes. In
Community and Forestry: C ontinuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Edited
by R.G. Lee, D.R. Field, and W.R. Burch Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 107-
124. Cited in Kusel 1996.

Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Ravi Prabhu, and Eva Wollenberg. 1995. Principles, Criteria and
Indicators: Applying 0ckham ’s Razor to the People-Forestry Link. Center for

International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Working Paper No. 8. October 1995. 16 p.

Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Reed L. Wadley, Emily Harwell, and Ravi Prabhu. 1997. Inter-
generational Access to Resources: Developing Criteria and Indicators. Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Working Paper No. 18. August 1997. 34 p.

Cook, William. 2002. Michigan Forests Forever Teachers Guide. Michigan State
University Extension. Michigan Forests Forever Project.
[http://www.dsisd.k1 2.mi .us/mff/Recreation/Ownershiphtm]

Cordell, H. Ken, Howie Thompson, Barbara McDonald, Clyde Thompson, Christina
Ramos, Gerald Helton, Stephen E. Ragone, and Michelle Dawson. Shifting Values and
Public Expectations: Management Perspectives. In Ecological Stewardship: A Common
Reference for Ecosystem Management. Vol. III. Edited by W.T. Sexton, A.J. Malk,
R.C. Szaro and NC. Johnson. Elsevier Science, Ltd. Oxford, UK. P. 59-84.

Crabbé, P., D. Lagarec and D. Winslow. 1995. Developing indicators of forest community
sustainability in relation to forestry. Sustainable Forest Management Network Centre
of Excellence. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Research proposal. Cited in Beckley and
Burkosky 1999.

Crabbé, P. et al. 1996. Indicators of Forest Community Sustainability. Sustainable
Forestry Partnerships: Forging a Network of Excellence Conference summaries.

Edmonton: Sustainable Forest Management Network Centres of Excellence. p. 32-35.
Cited in Beckley and Burkosky 1999.

204

 

Drielsma, Johannes H. 1984. The Influence of F orest-based Industries on Rural
Communities. Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale University. Cited in Kusel 2001.

Drielsma, Johannes H., Joseph A. Miller, and William R. Burch, Jr. Sustained Yield and
Community Stability in American Forestry. In Community and Forestry: Continuities
in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Edited by Robert G. Lee, Donald R. Field, and
William R. Burch, Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 55—68.

Duncan, GM. and N. Lamborghini. 1994. Poverty and Social Context in Remote Rural
Communities. Rural Sociology. 59(3):437-461. Cited in Beckley and Burkosky 1999.

EDC—See Gogebic County Economic Development Commission

Elio, Clyde. 2002a. Development of a Sustainable Forestry Strategy for Gogebic County.
Forest Advocacy Coordinating Team. Gogebic County Sustainable Forest Strategy. 1 p.

Elio, Clyde. 2002b. E-mail personal communication.

F oES—See Friends of the Earth Scotland

F reemuth, J. 1996. Emergence of Ecosystem Management: Reinterpreting the Gospel?
Society and Natural Resources. 9:41 1-417.

Freudenburg, W.R. 1992. Addictive Economies: Extractive Industries and Vulnerable
Localities in a Changing World Economy. Rural Sociology 57(3): 305-332. Cited in
Nadeau et al. 1999.

F reudenburg, W.R. and R. Gramling. 1994. Natural Resources and Rural Poverty: A Closer
and Look. Society and Natural Resources 7: 5-22. Cited in Kakoyannis 1998.

Friends of the Earth Scotland. Mid 19905. Formerly online report fi'om Towards a
Sustainable Scotland (TASS) project. Cited in Hart 1998-2000.

Furze, B., T. DeLacy & Birckhead. 1997. Frameworks for Understanding Conservation and
Development through Protected Areas. (Ch. 1 ). Culture, Conservation and Biodiversity:

The Social Dimension of Linking Local Development and Conservation through
Protected Areas. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

GCFPC—See Gogebic County Forestry and Parks Commission

Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an
Appalachian Valley. University of Illinois Press. Urbana, IL. Cited in Beckley and
Burkosky 1999.

Gill, Joseph. 2002. How History was Made in Gogebic County and the Surrounding Area.
5 p. [http://www.gogebic.org/herit.htm]

205

 

‘ I

Gogebic County Economic Development Commission. 1998. Gogebic County Jobs 2000:
l 998 Community Action Plan. Ironwood, Michigan. 40 pp plus appendices.

Gogebic County Economic Development Commission. 2002. Lhttp://www.gggebic-

edc.org[ I.

Gogebic County Forestry and Parks Commission. 2000. Gogebic County Forest 2000: A
New Century Begins. Annual Report. [http://www.gogebicorg/forZOOO].

Gogebic County Forestry and Parks Commission. 2002. Gogebic County Parks
lnfonnation. [http://www.gogebic.org[parks.htm |.

Goldschmidt, Walter. 1947. As You Sow. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Cited in Kusel
2001.

Gomoll, Jennifer and S. Richardson. 1996. T imber-dependent communities: fact or fiction?
Forestry Research West. USDA. Forest Service, Collins CO.

Gorte, Ross W. 1998. Wilderness Laws: Prohibited and Permitted Uses. CRS Report for
Congress 98-848 ENR. Redistributed online as a service of the National Library for the
Environment. [http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Public/pub-
3.cfm?&CFID=7029534&CFTOKEN=61464260].

Gray, Gerry and Jonathan Kusel. 1998. Changing the Rules. American Forests 103 (4): 27-
30.

Grumbine, RE. 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology. 8(1): 27-
38.

Hart, Maureen. 1998-2000. Sustainable Measures.
[http://www.subiectrnatters.com/indicators/Indicators/index.html]

Hays, Samuel P. 1990. Human Choice in the Great Lakes Wildlands. In Community and
Forestry: C ontinuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Edited by Robert G. Lee,
Donald R. Field, and William R. Burch, Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 41-51.

Hendee, J .C., R.N. Clark and G.H. Stankey. 1974. A Framework for Agency Use of Public
Input in Resource Decision-making. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 29(2):

60-66.

Hester, Randy. 1985. Subconscious Places of the Heart. Places 2:10-22. Cited in Kusel
2001.

206

 

Higrnan, S, S. Bass, N. Judd, J. Mayers, R Nussbaum. 1999. The Sustainable Forestry

Handbook: a Practical Guide for Tropical Forest Managers on Implementing New
Standards. Earthscan Publications. London. 289 p.

Hiss, Tony. 1990. The Experience of New York. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Cited in
Kusel 2001.

ICC—See Ironwood Chamber of Commerce

Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles. 1994. Guidelines and
Principles for Social Impact Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
F/SPO-16. US. Department of Commerce.

Ironwood Chamber of Commerce. 2002a. Gogebic Range Tidbits.
[htth/www.ironwoodmiorg/historvhtm]

Ironwood Chamber of Commerce. 2002b. The Iron Mines that Put Ironwood on the Map.
| Ligpzflwwwjronwoodmi.ormeines .htm |

Kakoyannis, Christina. 1998. The Use and Importance of Natural Resources for Gathering

and Harvesting in Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula. Masters thesis. Michigan
State University. 110 p.

Kaufinan, Harold F. and Lois C. Kaufman. 1946. Toward the Stabilization and

Enrichment of a Forest Community. The Montana Study. University of Montana. US.

forest Service, Region One, Missoula, Montana.

Kaufman, H. 1960. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore:
John Hopkins Press.

Kelly, J .F. 1974. The Skoglund Loggers. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California,
Riverside. Cited in Kusel 1996.

Keweenaw Land Association, Ltd. 2002. [http://wwwgkeweerlawcom/j

King, C.S., K.M. Feltey, and B. O’Neill Susel. 1998. The Question of Participation:
Toward Authentic Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration
Review. 58(4): 317-330.

Kromm, DE. 1972. Limitations on the Role of Forestry in Regional Economic
Development. Journal of Forestry 70(10): 630-633. Cited in Nadeau et a1. 1999.

Kusel, Jonathan. 1996. Chapter 12: Well-being in Forest-dependent Communities, Part I:
A New Approach. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II,
Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Davis: University of
California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 361-374.

207

 

 

 

Kusel, Jonathan. 2001. Assessing Well-being in F crest-dependent Communities. Journal
of Sustainable Forestry l3( 1 /2):359-3 84.

Kusel, Jonathan, and Louise F ortrnann. 1991. Well-being in Forest-dependent
Communities. Volume I of Well-being in F orest-dependent Communities. Sacramento:
California Department of F orestry’s Forest and Rangeland Assessment Program. Cited
in Kusel 2001 and Nadeau et a1. 1999.

LeMaster, DC. and J .H. Beuter. 1989. Community Stability in Forest-based Economies:
Proceedings of a Conference in Portland, Oregon November 16-18, I 98 7. Timber
Press. Portland, Oregon. Cited in Kusel 2001.

 

Lincoln Y. and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Little, Jane Braxton. 2002. A New World in the Woods. HighCountryNews.org. .
H1ttp://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=1l 1 12] ..

 

MLink. 1992. Source List of Data for Michigan Community Economic Profiles.
[http://mlink.umich.edu/Mltcounties/sourcelist.html]. No longer online.

MDNR—See Michigan Department of Natural Resources
MPWG—See Montreal Process Working Group
MUPTRA—See Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Travel & Recreation Association

Machlis, Gary, and Jo Ellen Force. 1988. Community Stability and Timber Dependent
Communities. Rural Sociology 53:220-234. Cited in Kakoyannis 1998 and Kusel
2001.

Machlis, Gary, Jo Ellen Force, and Jean E. McKendry. 1995. An Atlas of Social Indicators
for the Upper Columbia River Basin. Contribution No. 759. Idaho Forest, Wildlife
and Range Experiment Station. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho 83844. 55 p.

Marchak, Patricia. 1990. Forest Industry Towns in British Columbia. P. 95-106 in
Agriculture and Community Change in the US. In Community and Forestry:
C ontinuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Edited by Robert G. Lee, Donald
R. Field, and William R. Burch, Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cited in Kusel
2001. p. 95-106.

Marshall, C. and GB. Rossman. 1989. Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications. 175 p.

Maser, Chris. 1994a. Sustainable Forestry: Philosophy, Science, and Economics. St.
Lucie Press. Delray Beach, Florida. 373 p. Cited in McDonough 2003.

208

Maser, Chris. 1994b. Sustainable Forestry through Adaptive Ecosystem Management in an
Open-ended Experiment. (Ch. I 6). Sustainable Forestry: Philosophy, Science and
Economics. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press, 303-340.

Maser, Chris. 1997. Sustainable Community Development. St. Lucie Press. Delray Beach,
Florida. 257 p.

Mason, David T. and D. Bruce. 1931. Sustained Yield Forest Management as a Solution to

American Forest Conservation Problems. Mason and Stevens. Portland, Oregon. p. 5-
7. Cited in Nadeau et al. 1999.

Maybee, RH. 1960. Michigan ’s White Pine Era, 1840-1900. Lansing, MI: Michigan
Historical Commission. Cited in Hays 1990.

McDonough, Maureen H. 1998. Assessing progress in sustainable forest management:
Review of proposed social criteria and indicators. Prepared for the Great Lakes Forest
Alliance. 8 p. E

 

McDonough, Maureen H. 2003. Understanding the Meaning and Value of Forests and
Trees. In Kruger, L.E., tech. ed. 2003. Understanding Community-Forest Relations.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-566. P. 146-170. Portland, OR: US. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 171 p.

McDonough, Maureen H., Kasey Russell, Lisa Burban, and Lee Nancarrow. 2002.
Dialogue on Diversity: Broadening the Voices in Urban and Community Forestry.
Sponsored by the USDA Forest Service, National Urban and Community Forestry
Advisory Committee (and the Urban and Community F orestry Program, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources). 68 p.

McDonough, Maureen H., Leigh Ann Spence and Wendy Hinrichs Sanders. 2002. The
Sustainable Forest Management Community Handbook for the Great Lakes Region.
The Great Lakes Forest Alliance. Hayward, Wisconsin. 135 p.

McDonough, Maureen H., Kerry E. Vachta, Sarah L. Funkhouser, and Amy L. Gieche.
1994. Creating C ommunity-F orestry Partnerships: A Participatory Approach.
Department of Forestry. Michigan State University Urban Resources Initiative. East
Lansing, Michigan. 242 p.

McMahon, J .P., J .R. Boyle, J. Winjum, K. Kavanagh, E. Jensen. 1995. International
expectations for sustainable forestry: a view from the US. forest industry. New Forests
17:1-3, 329-338.

McPherson, Mary Lou. 1997a. Michigan: A Rural/Metro Comparison. Rural Data Book.

A joint publication by Michigan State University Extension and the Rural Development
Council of Michigan. 149 p.

209

McPherson, Mary Lou. 1997b. Enhancing Rural Economies: Gogebic County. Michigan
State University Extension and MSU Agricultural Experiment Station. A Fund for
Rural America Project, funded by the US. Dept. of Agriculture.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2002a. Commercial Forest Program.
[hpt_p://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10367-34016--,00.htm1 |

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2002b. Lake Gogebic State Park.
[http://wwwmichigandnrcom/parksandtrai1s/ParksandTrailsInfo.asg?id=42 lj

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Travel & Recreation Association. 1999. Iron Mountain,
Michigan. Various tourism publications.

 

Mitsos, Mary. 2001. Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District: Adding Value
to a Working Landscape Improvement District. Forest Communities, Community
Forests: A Collection of Case Studies of Community Forestry. Compiled and edited by
Jonathan Kusel and Elisa Adler. Forest Community Research for the Seventh American

Forest Congress Communities Committee. Forest Community Research. Taylorsville,
California ~236 p.

Montreal Process Working Group. 1998. [http://wwwmpciorgl

Montreal Process Working Group. 1999. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. 2nd ed.
[hhpzflwwwmpciorglrep-pub/ 1995/santiago_e.html#prefa£e]

Morren, Brian. 1997. Welcome to Hatchet Creek, in the Heart of the Great Northwoods.
Personal home page. [http://www.newnorth.net/~bmorrenl

Murphy, Jerry. 2002. Former director of the Economic Development Commission in
Ironwood. Personal communication.

NRC CF S—See Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada

Nadeau, Solange, Bruce Shindler and Christina Kakoyannis.1999. Forest communities:
New frameworks for assessing sustainability. The Forestry Chronicle 75 (5): 747- 754.

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 1995. Criteria and Indicators for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests: The
Montreal Process. Hull, PQ: Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. 27 p.

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 2000. A User ’s Guide to Local Level
Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from the Canadian Model
Forest Network Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. 270 p.

Nelson, K.S. & L.F. Weschler. 1996. Whose Planning Perspective? Varieties of Local-
federal Interaction in Culturally Diverse Settings. Proceedings, 6th International

210

 

Symposium on Society & Natural Resource Management. Penn St.

Nordin, V.J. 1996. Criteria and Indicators and Forest Certification—Canadian initiatives.
The Forestry Chronicle 72 (5): 513-518.

Patterson, J. 1995. Green City Views: Public Opinion and the Urban Environment in Ten
Canadian Cities. Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, Research and
Working Paper 39. Cited in Beckley and Burkosky 1999.

Perry, Charles. 1986. A Proposal to Recycle Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
Community Sociology. Rural Sociology 51:263-277. Cited in Kuse12001. 1l

Prabhu, R., C.J.P. Colfer, and R.G. Dudley. 1998. Guidelines for Developing, Testing and
Selecting Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. The Criteria and
Indicators Toolbox. CIF OR.

 

Random House. Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 1987. NY, NY. l

Reardon, Kathryn and Kathleen Rubatt. 1966. Gogebic County History. Compiled for the
Little Known Facts of the Gogebic Range Community Resources Workshop. August 8-
31, 1966. Sponsored by Michigan State University, Northern Michigan University,
Gogebic Community College. 32 p. [http://wwwgggebieorg/historv.htm]

Reinke, KB. and B. Reinke. 1973. Public Involvement in Resource Decisions: A National
Forest Seeks Public Input for Recreation Development. Journal of Forestry. 71(10):
656-658.

Renard, Yves, and Leslie Hudson. 1992. Overview and Symposium Paper for the
Workshop on C ommunity-based Management of Protected Areas. Paper presented at
the IVth World Congress on National parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela.
February 10-21, 1992.

Richardson, C. 1996. Stability and Change in F orest-based Communities: A Selected
Bibliography. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. Portland, Oregon. Cited in Kuse12001.

Ring! 2002a. Yooper Humor. Lhttp://www.ring.com/yooper/yoopers.htm]

Ring! 2002b. You Might Be a Yooper! [http://www.ringcom/vooper/mightbehtm]

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: the Art of Hearing
Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 302 p.

Schallau, CH. 1989. Sustained Yield versus Community Stability: An Unfortunate
Wedding. Journal of Forestry 87(9): 16-23. Cited in Nadeau et al. 1999.

211

Schallau, CH. and RM. Alston. 1987. The Commitment to Community Stability: A Policy
or Shibboleth. Environmental Law 17: 429-481. Cited in Nadeau et al. 1999.

Schatan, J. 1990. The Deceitful Nature of Socio-economic indicators. Development. 3/4:
69-75. Cited in Beckley and Burkosky 1999.

Schmaltz, NJ. 1972. Cutover Land Crusade: The Michigan Forest Conservation
Movement, 1899-1931. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Cited in Hays
1990.

Sen, Amartya. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities (Professor Dr. P. Hennipman Lectures
in Economics, Volume 7). New York: North-Holland. Cited in Kusel 1996 and 2001.

Spence, Leigh Ann and Maureen McDonough. 2000. Social Indicators for Sustainable
Forestry in Gogebic County, Michigan: Final Report. Unpublished report. Michigan
State University Extension and Department of Forestry. 34 p.

Swift, J. 1983. Cut and Run: The Assault on Canada’s Forests. Between the Lines. p. 51-
65. Cited in Nadeau et al. 1999.

Syme, G.J. and E. Eaton. 1989. Public Involvement as a Negotiation Process. Journal of
Social Issues. 45(1): 87-107.

United States Census Bureau. 1990 and 2000.
[http://factfinder.census.gw/servlet/BasicFactsServlet].

USDA F S ER MNF—See United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Eastern Region, Michigan National Forests.

USDA FS IMI—See United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory
and Monitoring Institute.

USDA FS S&PF—See United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and
Private Forestry.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Michigan
National Forests. 2002. Your National Forests: Informational Briefing.
[http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ottawa/forest_man_agement/forest plan/revision/Michigan For
ests F IN AL.pdf|

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring
Institute, Natural Resources Research Center. 2000. LUCID Update. Issue 2, August
2000. Newsletter. Fort Collins, CO. [http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/lucid/l

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring
Institute, Natural Resources Research Center. 2002. Monitoring for Forest

212

 

Management Unit Scale Sustainability: The Local Unit Criteria and Indicators
Development (LUCID) Test. Principal author: Pam A. Wright. Contributing authors:
Gregory Alward, Thomas W. Hoekstra, Brent Tegler and Matt Turner. IMI Report No.
4: April 2002. Fort Collins, CO. 286 p. [http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/lucid/]

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry,
Northeastern Area, Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters. 1999.
Sustainable Forest Management: The Role of the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern
Area and State Forestry Agencies. NA-MR-01-99.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, f
Northeastern Area. 2002. Sourcebook on Criteria and Indicators of Forest E
Sustainability in the Northeastern Area. NA-TP-03-02.

Voth, Donald E., Martin Jardon, Cindy McCauley, Zola K. Moon, and Irene Frentz. 1999. g
Linking Community Development with National Forest Planning and Management in
the South. Southern Rural Development Center. Mississippi State University.
Mississippi State, MS. 125 p. [http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/rdissues.htm] i-

 

Waggener, TR. 1977. Community Stability as a Forest Management Objective. Journal of
Forestry 75(11): 710-714. Cited in Nadeau et al. 1999.

Walker, Robert. 1985. Applied Qualitative Research. Chapter 11: Evaluating Applied
Qualitative Research. Edited by Robert Walker. Hants, England: Gower Publishing.
203 p.

Walter, E.V. 1988. Placeways: A Theory of the Human Environment. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press. Cited in Kusel 2001.

Warren, Roland. 1978. The Community in Action. Third Edition. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cited in Kusel 2001.

Webster's New International Dictionary. 1986. (Springfield, Mass: Merriam-Webster
Inc.)

Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from Strangers: the Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies. NY, NY: The Free Press. 246 p.

Wilkinson, C. 1992. Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water and the Future of the West.
Washington, DC. Island Press.

Williams, Jeremy, Peter Duinker, and Chris Wedeles. 1998. Assessing Progress in
Sustainable Forest Management: Proposed Criteria and Indicators for the Upper
Great Lakes Region. Report to The Great Lakes Forest Alliance by ArborVitae
Environmental Services Ltd. 55 p.

213

Williamson, D. 1976. Give ‘er Snooze: A Study of Kin and Work among Gyppo Loggers
of the Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. Dissertation. American University. Cited in Kusel
1 996.

 

214

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1:11leljjjlljullmillljjjl

2504 8