Editor's Column
Guest Columns
Forest Facts
Some 1.5 billion trees are planted in the U.S. every year, about 5 trees for every American.
Annually, U.S. forestland owners plant about 6 trees for every tree harvested.
About one-third of America's original forest - some 300 million acres - have been converted to other uses, principally agriculture.
There are 26 million more acres of forestland in the Northeast than there were in 1900.
Today, forests blanket about one-third of the U.S. land base and about half the U.S. East.
U.S. annual growth rates have exceeded harvest rates since the 1940's.
Timber harvesting is forbidden on 50% of all National Forest lands in the U.S.
National Forests account for 20% of the nation's forestlands and 19% of its timberlands.
National Forests hold 46% of the nation's softwood timber inventory but only provide 6% of the annual harvest.
Since 1986, the harvest of timber from America's national forests has declined 70%.
In the West, 34% of all forestland and 54% of all timberlands are in national forests.
National forests in the Pacific Coast and Intermountain West regions hold 68% of the nation's softwood timber inventory, but provide less than 28% of annual harvest.
Forest density has increased 40% in the U.S. over the last 50 years.
Flying Finns
Home->Winter 2005/2006
Today, many National Forests in the West are neighbors to reservations and rancherias and other lands held in trust. Forests and Tribes share approximately 2,000 miles of border. Partnerships, forged from common threats and opportunities, are strengthening Forest Service (FS)-Tribal relations. Many in the FS and local communities, however, know little about the antecedents of these associations. The two stories presented here tell us of change and persistence on the part of Tribes and the FS to move from conflict to collaboration.
The arc of FS-Tribal relations is shaped by a grand sweep of political and historical forces that gave rise to National Forests, carved from the aboriginal lands of hundreds of Tribes, the creation of FS itself, and the establishment of reservations across the West. Federal forest reserves, later designated National Forests, were often created from lands ceded or seized from tribal governments under treaty making, Executive Orders and in some cases, termination and dispersal of Tribes and their lands. Many Tribes retained reserved rights on what are currently national forests lands.
The federal government’s approach to “dealing with the Indian problem” represents some of the darkest days for American Indian people. This history has been difficult for the United States government to reconcile and for American Indian people to forgive.
It is from this tumultuous beginning that the FS at first was compelled to accommodate Tribes who never gave up their cultural and legal ties to lands now managed by the FS. Now both the agency and Tribes are seeking partnerships with Tribes to manage the ancestral lands that are now part of national forests in order to restore forest health and sustain communities.
California Forest Service –Tribal Relations:
There are approximately 110 federally recognized Tribes that have aboriginal lands in California. Most of these Tribes in California have a land base of 300 acres or less. Nine Tribes have virtually no land at all (BIA personal communication 2004). This land base contributes to a strong reliance on access to and use of national forests that are the ancestral lands in order to sustain tribal communities, traditions and economies.
The tragic history of tribal land tenure in California influenced early relationships between the FS and Tribes. Native Californians lost lives and lands under Spanish, Mexican and American rule and Russian contact through military campaigns, enforced labor, disease, forced relocation, lack of access to and use of traditional areas, foods and materials, and outright genocide. When California was accepted as a State in 1848, California Tribes were not informed about the settlement of title to properties associated in the Mexican land grants and consequently lost
additional lands.
A segment of the federal government, however, acknowledged for a time that tribal governments in California could enter into government-to-government relations with the US government. Three treaty commissioners were dispatched in 1851 to negotiate treaties and recognition in exchange for lands ceded by Tribes. Between March 19, 1851 and January 7, 1852, the treaty negotiators entered into 18 treaties with over a hundred Indian Tribes (the easier Tribes to locate, but less than 50% of the Tribes that existed at that time). However, on July 8, 1852 the US Senate, in response to pressure from the California legislature and business interests (including the gold rush which began in 1849), refused to ratify the treaties and went so far as to place
then under an injunction of secrecy until January 18, 1905 (see Anderson, Ellison and Heizer 1978).
Establishment of reservations, through Executive Order, legislation, and outright purchases followed to address the “homeless Indian problem,” but they obviously were not enough. In 1905, the unratified treaties were revealed and some efforts slowly started to find land. However, by 1906, over 1000 California Indians were still living on the recently designated Forest Reserves (McLemore n.d.) after being decimated and dispossessed of their lands.
The 1910 Forest Allotment Act (25 U.S.C. 337) gave the Secretary of the Interior the discretionary authority to allot land to Indian people occupying national forests. Prior to the actual allotment, it was the Secretary of Agriculture who actually determined the suitability of land, deciding whether the land was more valuable for agriculture or grazing (and could be allotted to a California Indian) or whether it was more valuable for timber (and could be retained by the FS). Few allotments were granted through this process (McLemore n.d.).
In 1928, Tribes were permitted to sue the federal government, with the California State Attorney General representing them for the compensation promised, but never delivered by the unratified treaties. Congress later took some action but it was decades before any compensation was made. In 1944 some Tribes were given 47 cents per acre for the lands that were appropriated, a sum that many Tribes rejected or noted as partial payment; no land was provided in the settlement.
By 1972, the Lands Claims cases were over. Subsequent periods of termination, land allotments, and policies of assimilation further exacerbated the loss of land. It was noted that: “Today, in 1974, more care is taken about the trees growing on original Indian lands and now in National Forests than was ever considered for the original human occupants in the eighteen-fifties.”
(Anderson and Heizer 1978:29.)
Given this history of loss, early FStribal relations were difficult. California Indian people, though no longer living on the forests tried to maintain some of the traditional land management practices such as cultural burning. However, FS fire policy prohibited many such activities.
Congressional action, such as the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), required more federal consultation with Tribes so that protection and management of culturally important places and activities could be considered. However, clashes over decisions that would affect sacred sites became more frequent as timber harvesting and other utilitarian uses became more dominant.
One such conflict eventually made it to the Supreme Court. In the late 1960s, the FS began constructing segments of the Gasquet-Orleans (GO) road through the “high country” sacred to the Hoopa, Karuk, Tolowa and Yurok Tribes. The GO-Road was planned to facilitate logging and timber transportation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the agency, but subsequent legislation resulted in “no go” for the GO-Road and a turning point for the agency and Tribes in the area.
Years later, the FS and Tribes are collaborating on the protection of the high country and elsewhere. Over 30 agreements are in place in the region to have tribal governments, traditional practitioners and others with cultural expertise working with and advising the FS on the management of this area.
In the Sierra, the Record of Decision on the Sierra Nevada Framework has nine major commitments to over 30 Tribes for management of over 11 million acres. Tribal and Forest Service leaders gather periodically in Summits to discuss implementation.
Cultural burning has been reintroduced by fire specialists under the tutelage of weavers of baskets. A “Passport in Times” Project with the Indigenous Karuk Basketweavers has received national and statewide recognition for collaboration. The project has numerous benefits including cultural, educational, environmental, and economic. Volunteers camp for a week with California Indian basketweavers, helping process, and weave the natural materials that have been used for generations to create the world renowned baskets. The traditional vegetation for weaving grows best in forest areas that have been burned. Volunteers and basketweavers help manage the forests for future basketry materials by thinning heavy fuels and constructing fire breaks in preparation for the controlled burns conducted by the FS.
The Maidu Cultural Development Group (MCDG) is restoring 2,100 acres on the Plumas, plant-by-plant. The MCDG is the first tribal group to have a project under the original Stewardship Pilot legislation of 1999. Since that time they are working to integrate traditional land management for forest restoration on the Plumas National Forest. The MCDG Stewardship focuses on transplanting edible brodiaea and camas, reintroducing basketry materials, pruning oaks to produce acorns and low cast burns.
New authorities such as the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 support Tribes wanting to initiate projects on FS and BLM lands in order to defend their land base from fire, disease, and other threats. California Tribes are proposing programs and projects that would result in reintroducing traditional management of their ancestral homelands and the Pacific Southwest Region is welcoming the prospects for collaboration in order to sustain communities and forests.
Black Hills–Tribal Relations
There is a long and involved history between the United States government and American Indians associated with the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Historic conflict over ownership and use of the Black Hills lies at the center of this dynamic legacy. This heritage which was crafted over 125 years ago is a result of the United States’ policy to protect federal and states’ interests. When the European western expansion began in earnest, American Indian people were not citizens of the United States, yet tribes were acknowledged to hold the primary interest in vast areas of land. American citizens desiring to capitalize on “unlimited resources” ended up competing with aboriginal people and their title for the same lands but for different reasons. These conflicts grew more intense and serious. In search of a solution, the federal government dispatched persons responsible for conducting high level negotiations between sovereigns. Specific to the Black Hills, the 1851 and the later 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie were negotiated and signed by leaders of affiliated Indian Tribes. However, agreements set forth in these treaties were violated, setting in motion decades of legal actions against the United States.
Catapulting to today, the political and social landscape of the Black Hills continues to be influenced by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and subsequent acts of Congress regarding the Black Hills. Intense Indian activism emerged at Yellow Thunder Camp as a result of conflict over Native American applications for a special use permit to establish a camp for religious and cultural immersion. When the application was denied, a subsequent occupation of the area by activists occurred and several severe events took place. Yellow Thunder Camp remains as a significant experience in the collective history of tribal people associated with this landscape. Other defining events include the Supreme Court decision affirming the Indian Claims Commission monetary compensation for illegal taking of the Black Hills, and numerous broken treaty promises. These more noteworthy events contribute modestly to the cultural texture of a larger social experience in South Dakota but are persistent and provide context for many indigenous peoples associated with the Black Hills.
When the Black Hills National Forest was created it inherited a set of complex and antagonistic perspectives about the land. These competing perspectives still exist and profoundly affect management activities on public lands. Today, through progressive laws, statutes, and Executive Orders previously mentioned, federal agencies are encouraged to engage the original stewards of this western landscape in open and respectful dialog and dealings.
Most, if not all, consultation meetings between Tribes and the Black Hills National Forest, Tribal representatives remind FS representatives that the sacred Black Hills, He’sapa, were never for sale, the Tribes never gave up their claim to He’sapa, and the money awarded as compensation will never be accepted. This is the defining element to the government-to-government relationship between the FS and Tribes associated with the Black Hills. All entities acknowledge this position as an axiom and continue to work in favor of establishing mutual respect and building a functional relationship with the goal of providing quality leadership in the management of the land and natural resources on the Black Hills.
It is with an authentic desire to improve the management of the Black Hills National Forest/He’sapa that forest and tribal personnel have collaborated on and are implementing programs exemplifying a productive governmentto-government relationship. They include: a comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement which has been successfully negotiated between the FS and interested tribes. This MOA is in a final review stage with signatories. This MOA establishes a Black Hills Tribal Advisory Committee comprised of multiple tribal representatives and is recognized to be the entity for conducting meaningful consultation on forest planning and project efforts; a tribal fuels reduction contract crew was created based on tribal government and forest support and has been building skills capacity while working in He’sapa assisting with creating a healthy forested ecosystem; an all-tribal Black Hills Youth Conservation Corp is in its fifth consecutive year of employing tribal youth to assist in natural resources management activities and learn about natural resources management from natural resource professionals. These accomplishments and others can be attributed to genuine service leadership, open and respectful communications, and a willingness work on quality and lasting relationships. And until such a time when the question of ownership of the sacred Black Hills has been settled, a strong partnership will enrich forest management with a tribal-cultural connection.
The two examples discussed above, from regional and forest perspectives, illustrate how FS-Tribal relations have shifted from one of conflict to collaboration. Such collaboration is not a substitute for repatriation of land. However, it is an approach that the agency and Tribes are undertaking in order to sustain the lands and communities that depend on us.
References:
Anderson, G.E. and R.F. Heizer. 1978. Treaty-making by the Federal Government in California 1851-1852. In “Treaty-Making and Treaty Rejection” by the Federal Government 1850-1852 by George E. Anderson, W. H. Elilison and R.T. Heizer. 1978. Ballena Press Publicatioins in Archaeology, Enthnology, and History, No. 9. Anderson, G.E., W. H. Elilison and R.T. heizer. 1978 “Treaty-Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government 1850-1852. Ballena Press Publicatins in Archaeology, Enthnology and History, No. 9. McLemore, D. nd. California Tribes’ Land Tenure. Pacific Southwest Region Tribal Relations Resource Book.
Sustaining Communities and Sustaining our Forests
 Margaret Baty points the way for Forest Service District Ranger Kirby Schwenk. Margaret, a skilled basket weaver and member of the Big Sandy Rancheria, generously shared her cultural knowledge with many, including U.S. Forest Service personnel whose responsibility it is to protect tribal cultural and historic sites. |
Today, many National Forests in the West are neighbors to reservations and rancherias and other lands held in trust. Forests and Tribes share approximately 2,000 miles of border. Partnerships, forged from common threats and opportunities, are strengthening Forest Service (FS)-Tribal relations. Many in the FS and local communities, however, know little about the antecedents of these associations. The two stories presented here tell us of change and persistence on the part of Tribes and the FS to move from conflict to collaboration.
The arc of FS-Tribal relations is shaped by a grand sweep of political and historical forces that gave rise to National Forests, carved from the aboriginal lands of hundreds of Tribes, the creation of FS itself, and the establishment of reservations across the West. Federal forest reserves, later designated National Forests, were often created from lands ceded or seized from tribal governments under treaty making, Executive Orders and in some cases, termination and dispersal of Tribes and their lands. Many Tribes retained reserved rights on what are currently national forests lands.
The federal government’s approach to “dealing with the Indian problem” represents some of the darkest days for American Indian people. This history has been difficult for the United States government to reconcile and for American Indian people to forgive.
It is from this tumultuous beginning that the FS at first was compelled to accommodate Tribes who never gave up their cultural and legal ties to lands now managed by the FS. Now both the agency and Tribes are seeking partnerships with Tribes to manage the ancestral lands that are now part of national forests in order to restore forest health and sustain communities.
|
|
There are approximately 110 federally recognized Tribes that have aboriginal lands in California. Most of these Tribes in California have a land base of 300 acres or less. Nine Tribes have virtually no land at all (BIA personal communication 2004). This land base contributes to a strong reliance on access to and use of national forests that are the ancestral lands in order to sustain tribal communities, traditions and economies.
The tragic history of tribal land tenure in California influenced early relationships between the FS and Tribes. Native Californians lost lives and lands under Spanish, Mexican and American rule and Russian contact through military campaigns, enforced labor, disease, forced relocation, lack of access to and use of traditional areas, foods and materials, and outright genocide. When California was accepted as a State in 1848, California Tribes were not informed about the settlement of title to properties associated in the Mexican land grants and consequently lost
additional lands.
A segment of the federal government, however, acknowledged for a time that tribal governments in California could enter into government-to-government relations with the US government. Three treaty commissioners were dispatched in 1851 to negotiate treaties and recognition in exchange for lands ceded by Tribes. Between March 19, 1851 and January 7, 1852, the treaty negotiators entered into 18 treaties with over a hundred Indian Tribes (the easier Tribes to locate, but less than 50% of the Tribes that existed at that time). However, on July 8, 1852 the US Senate, in response to pressure from the California legislature and business interests (including the gold rush which began in 1849), refused to ratify the treaties and went so far as to place
then under an injunction of secrecy until January 18, 1905 (see Anderson, Ellison and Heizer 1978).
Establishment of reservations, through Executive Order, legislation, and outright purchases followed to address the “homeless Indian problem,” but they obviously were not enough. In 1905, the unratified treaties were revealed and some efforts slowly started to find land. However, by 1906, over 1000 California Indians were still living on the recently designated Forest Reserves (McLemore n.d.) after being decimated and dispossessed of their lands.
The 1910 Forest Allotment Act (25 U.S.C. 337) gave the Secretary of the Interior the discretionary authority to allot land to Indian people occupying national forests. Prior to the actual allotment, it was the Secretary of Agriculture who actually determined the suitability of land, deciding whether the land was more valuable for agriculture or grazing (and could be allotted to a California Indian) or whether it was more valuable for timber (and could be retained by the FS). Few allotments were granted through this process (McLemore n.d.).
In 1928, Tribes were permitted to sue the federal government, with the California State Attorney General representing them for the compensation promised, but never delivered by the unratified treaties. Congress later took some action but it was decades before any compensation was made. In 1944 some Tribes were given 47 cents per acre for the lands that were appropriated, a sum that many Tribes rejected or noted as partial payment; no land was provided in the settlement.
By 1972, the Lands Claims cases were over. Subsequent periods of termination, land allotments, and policies of assimilation further exacerbated the loss of land. It was noted that: “Today, in 1974, more care is taken about the trees growing on original Indian lands and now in National Forests than was ever considered for the original human occupants in the eighteen-fifties.”
(Anderson and Heizer 1978:29.)
Given this history of loss, early FStribal relations were difficult. California Indian people, though no longer living on the forests tried to maintain some of the traditional land management practices such as cultural burning. However, FS fire policy prohibited many such activities.
Congressional action, such as the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), required more federal consultation with Tribes so that protection and management of culturally important places and activities could be considered. However, clashes over decisions that would affect sacred sites became more frequent as timber harvesting and other utilitarian uses became more dominant.
One such conflict eventually made it to the Supreme Court. In the late 1960s, the FS began constructing segments of the Gasquet-Orleans (GO) road through the “high country” sacred to the Hoopa, Karuk, Tolowa and Yurok Tribes. The GO-Road was planned to facilitate logging and timber transportation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the agency, but subsequent legislation resulted in “no go” for the GO-Road and a turning point for the agency and Tribes in the area.
Years later, the FS and Tribes are collaborating on the protection of the high country and elsewhere. Over 30 agreements are in place in the region to have tribal governments, traditional practitioners and others with cultural expertise working with and advising the FS on the management of this area.
In the Sierra, the Record of Decision on the Sierra Nevada Framework has nine major commitments to over 30 Tribes for management of over 11 million acres. Tribal and Forest Service leaders gather periodically in Summits to discuss implementation.
 Post harvest burning in Cunningham Creek watershed, Yakama Reservation. Work on the Yakama is broken down into projects of two-to-three years duration and 3 to 5,000 acres in size. Planners aim for a 15-25 year “project life” before the managed area requires another look. |
The Maidu Cultural Development Group (MCDG) is restoring 2,100 acres on the Plumas, plant-by-plant. The MCDG is the first tribal group to have a project under the original Stewardship Pilot legislation of 1999. Since that time they are working to integrate traditional land management for forest restoration on the Plumas National Forest. The MCDG Stewardship focuses on transplanting edible brodiaea and camas, reintroducing basketry materials, pruning oaks to produce acorns and low cast burns.
New authorities such as the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 support Tribes wanting to initiate projects on FS and BLM lands in order to defend their land base from fire, disease, and other threats. California Tribes are proposing programs and projects that would result in reintroducing traditional management of their ancestral homelands and the Pacific Southwest Region is welcoming the prospects for collaboration in order to sustain communities and forests.
Black Hills–Tribal Relations
There is a long and involved history between the United States government and American Indians associated with the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Historic conflict over ownership and use of the Black Hills lies at the center of this dynamic legacy. This heritage which was crafted over 125 years ago is a result of the United States’ policy to protect federal and states’ interests. When the European western expansion began in earnest, American Indian people were not citizens of the United States, yet tribes were acknowledged to hold the primary interest in vast areas of land. American citizens desiring to capitalize on “unlimited resources” ended up competing with aboriginal people and their title for the same lands but for different reasons. These conflicts grew more intense and serious. In search of a solution, the federal government dispatched persons responsible for conducting high level negotiations between sovereigns. Specific to the Black Hills, the 1851 and the later 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie were negotiated and signed by leaders of affiliated Indian Tribes. However, agreements set forth in these treaties were violated, setting in motion decades of legal actions against the United States.
Catapulting to today, the political and social landscape of the Black Hills continues to be influenced by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and subsequent acts of Congress regarding the Black Hills. Intense Indian activism emerged at Yellow Thunder Camp as a result of conflict over Native American applications for a special use permit to establish a camp for religious and cultural immersion. When the application was denied, a subsequent occupation of the area by activists occurred and several severe events took place. Yellow Thunder Camp remains as a significant experience in the collective history of tribal people associated with this landscape. Other defining events include the Supreme Court decision affirming the Indian Claims Commission monetary compensation for illegal taking of the Black Hills, and numerous broken treaty promises. These more noteworthy events contribute modestly to the cultural texture of a larger social experience in South Dakota but are persistent and provide context for many indigenous peoples associated with the Black Hills.
When the Black Hills National Forest was created it inherited a set of complex and antagonistic perspectives about the land. These competing perspectives still exist and profoundly affect management activities on public lands. Today, through progressive laws, statutes, and Executive Orders previously mentioned, federal agencies are encouraged to engage the original stewards of this western landscape in open and respectful dialog and dealings.
Most, if not all, consultation meetings between Tribes and the Black Hills National Forest, Tribal representatives remind FS representatives that the sacred Black Hills, He’sapa, were never for sale, the Tribes never gave up their claim to He’sapa, and the money awarded as compensation will never be accepted. This is the defining element to the government-to-government relationship between the FS and Tribes associated with the Black Hills. All entities acknowledge this position as an axiom and continue to work in favor of establishing mutual respect and building a functional relationship with the goal of providing quality leadership in the management of the land and natural resources on the Black Hills.
It is with an authentic desire to improve the management of the Black Hills National Forest/He’sapa that forest and tribal personnel have collaborated on and are implementing programs exemplifying a productive governmentto-government relationship. They include: a comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement which has been successfully negotiated between the FS and interested tribes. This MOA is in a final review stage with signatories. This MOA establishes a Black Hills Tribal Advisory Committee comprised of multiple tribal representatives and is recognized to be the entity for conducting meaningful consultation on forest planning and project efforts; a tribal fuels reduction contract crew was created based on tribal government and forest support and has been building skills capacity while working in He’sapa assisting with creating a healthy forested ecosystem; an all-tribal Black Hills Youth Conservation Corp is in its fifth consecutive year of employing tribal youth to assist in natural resources management activities and learn about natural resources management from natural resource professionals. These accomplishments and others can be attributed to genuine service leadership, open and respectful communications, and a willingness work on quality and lasting relationships. And until such a time when the question of ownership of the sacred Black Hills has been settled, a strong partnership will enrich forest management with a tribal-cultural connection.
The two examples discussed above, from regional and forest perspectives, illustrate how FS-Tribal relations have shifted from one of conflict to collaboration. Such collaboration is not a substitute for repatriation of land. However, it is an approach that the agency and Tribes are undertaking in order to sustain the lands and communities that depend on us.
 Quinault fishermen tend gill nets on a lower portion of the Quinault River. |
References:
Anderson, G.E. and R.F. Heizer. 1978. Treaty-making by the Federal Government in California 1851-1852. In “Treaty-Making and Treaty Rejection” by the Federal Government 1850-1852 by George E. Anderson, W. H. Elilison and R.T. Heizer. 1978. Ballena Press Publicatioins in Archaeology, Enthnology, and History, No. 9. Anderson, G.E., W. H. Elilison and R.T. heizer. 1978 “Treaty-Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government 1850-1852. Ballena Press Publicatins in Archaeology, Enthnology and History, No. 9. McLemore, D. nd. California Tribes’ Land Tenure. Pacific Southwest Region Tribal Relations Resource Book.
"We must always consider the environment and people together, as though they are one, because the
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."
P.O. Box 1290, Bigfork, MT. 59911 • Tel: (406) 837-0966 • Fax: (406) 258-0815 • Email:
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."