Editor's Column

Guest Columns

Woods Wisdom

Notes From All Over

By: Don Motanic

Omar Bradley stood up to talk about his holiday wishes in December 2003. He was grateful that a wish had been fulfilled. His daughter, Erica Enjady had become a young woman practicing forestry on the Mescalero Indian Reservation, where she is an enrolled member.

Omar said, “When Erica was young, we would ride horses together in the forest and I hoped she would become involved with range management, to help our family livestock business. She didn’t select range, but I’m glad she did become involved with natural resources by graduating from forestry school at Northern Arizona University.”

I sat and listened to a father describe how he kept the connection between his daughter and her environment which included family, culture and natural resources. I’ve often wondered how successful Indian families involved with forestry kept growing their generations and I believe it’s by sustaining their connections.

Forestry in Indian Country not only involves regenerating a sustainable forest, but for centuries the people living in the forests have been doing their own regeneration and returning to the land. In Erica’s case, she grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico, but through Omar’s wish, years ago, she returned to the Mescalero Tribal forest through connections with family mentors, culture and natural resource programs that encourage youth to seek a degree in forestry. She’s one of the few tribal members who has not grown up on the reservation, but returned with a professional forestry degree.

Omar and Erica’s story provides an example for the importance of connecting people with the land and how the tribes have sustained their forests by structuring their assessments, which focus on the tribal people. Their story will help illustrate the difference between forest sustainability for Indian forestry and other parts of the United States.

Sustainable forestry in the United States has been measured through the Montreal Process’s Seven Criteria, but Indian forests have been assessed through its own eight mandated tasks by the 1990 National Indian Forest Resource Management Act (NIFRMA).

Omar Bradley, Erica and baby girl.

The criteria from the Montreal Process includes:
1. Conservation of biological diversity;
2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystem;
3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health;
4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources;
5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles;
6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of society; and
7. Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management.

NIFRMA eight mandates include:

1. An in-depth analysis of management practices on, and the level of funding for, specific Indian forestland compared with similar federal and private forestlands;
2. A survey of the condition of Indian forestlands, including health and productivity levels;
3. An evaluation of staffing patterns of forestry organizations of the BIA and of Indian tribes;
4. An evaluation of procedures employed in timber sale administration, including preparation, field supervision, and accountability for proceeds;
5. An analysis of the potential for reducing or eliminating relevant administrative procedures, rules, and policies of the BIA consistent with the federal trust responsibility;
6. A comprehensive review of the adequacy of Indian forestland management plans, including their compatibility with applicable tribal integrated resource management plans and their ability to meet tribal needs and priorities;
7. An evaluation of the feasibility and desirability of establishing minimum standards against which the adequacy of the forestry programs of the BIA in fulfilling its trust responsibility to Indian tribes can be measured; and
8. A recommendation of any reforms and increased funding levels necessary to bring Indian forestland management programs to a state-of-the-art condition.

If you look at the difference between the two assessment systems, you will notice that the Montreal Process has only two out of seven criteria which focus on people. In contrast, the majority of NIFRMA’s eight mandated tasks focus on the connection of people and community structure.

The Montreal Process has criteria six and seven which focus on society and the institutional structure, whereas NIFRMA has mandated task one, three, four, five, seven and eight which focus on the tribal community and their connection with the forest as a whole integrated forest system, which includes the people as a vital role, not separated from nature.

NIFRMA reflects the input from many tribal people over the years on how they would like to see their forest managed and assessed through a process that does focus on the connection between the forest and the tribal people for past, present and future generations. The generations reflected in the story carried on like Omar and Erica’s families. Erica has started her own family, a new baby girl, and I wondered what she thought her children should see the tribal forest in another 20 years, another generation beyond today. Erica said, “I want my kids to see the benefits of what we’ve been working on for several years.” She wishes for a healthy forest and a structure, which will not “fall apart.” Erica has watched other forests outside of the reservation without being managed and thinks they need to be taken care of and not turn into “shambles.”

I asked Omar why his daughter seemed to use a lot of words like “falls apart” and “shambles.” He said that the family has been involved with construction over the years, Bradley Construction, and that she has been exposed to the construction industry, which makes sense on why she used these words.

The family’s construction connection also made me think about how they used words that relate to connections and the forest. Erica said that the tribal people really don’t value one thing in the forest, but multiple values of the forest. Like a house, the forest is not held or sustainability assessed by one nail, screw, or separate “value” fastener, but its how the tribal people make the connections to integrate those values to mold their sustainable forest over generations.

Like a house, the forest structure will be there and can be rebuilt after it becomes in shambles, but it’s how carefully the people mix the “value” nails and to sustain a forestry house into a forestry home. A forest can be a structure, but it needs several generations of people with functioning cultural values to become a sustainable forest “home.” I think Indian forests have those values and assessment tools like NIFRMA eight mandated tasks to assess their sustainability.

The tribes have developed a law, NIFRMA that more accurately reflects the importance of making the people connection to assess the Indian forests and define their forest home. Its not one group, like one set of nails to hold   a house together, but a close community that shares common values through their language and culture which sustains the forest. The common values are shared through generations which will successfully sustain their forest for the future, as with the example of how Omar’s connections for Erica has made the difference for her to be successful and now Erica will transfer those connections to her children.

Forestry in Indian Country—the generations are growing through connections with their people and the forest is not just a sustainable house but also a sustainable forest home.

by
Don Motanic
Technical Specialist, ITC