but also fuelwood, fish, game, first foods, medicines, and protection of sacred sites and cultural resources, all of which are of paramount importance to many tribal members and cannot be separated from the cultural, spiritual, and recreational values that are associated with such goals. “There is nothing I don’t value in the forest. I can’t go down a list” is how one IFMAT IV participant explained this. Methods Starting with IFMAT I, focus group meetings were conducted with members of host tribes and tribal member surveys were given out during visits and otherwise made publicly available in order to better understand those values and how tribal members feel about how their forests are managed. In order to ensure that results between the IFMAT assessments were comparable, the same focus group protocol and questions were used for each assessment. The survey (see Appendix vii) has remained unchanged except for the addition during IFMAT IV of two questions asking respondents about the management of adjacent federal land and two questions regarding climate change impacts on tribal forest land. The team collected 241 surveys from a variety of tribal members
and staff (Table V.1) and conducted focus groups at 35 site visits. Each focus group included 5-15 tribal members and, at times, non-tribal natural resources staff. All attendees were identified by the tribal forester and invited to attend. The same three questions were asked as in previous IFMATs: 1) “What do you most value/want from your forest and why?” 2) “What do you think about current management practices on your tribal forest?” And 3) “Have you seen changes in the last 10 years, and if so, what?” Analysis was similarly consistent with past IFMATs. Focus group responses, including direct quotes where appropriate, were noted by at least one member of the visiting team. These responses were then compared across visits so that consistent themes and concerns became clear. Survey questions, which explored the respondent’s degree of satisfaction with twenty aspects of forest management and the relative importance of seven different forest-related values, were ranked on the Likert Scale, with 1 being relatively unimportant and 5 being extremely important. Average scores by demographic
“neutral” (Likert score of 3), or “poor” (Likert score of 1-2). Tribal Members’ Values and Vision From the very first IFMAT, understanding the goals, values, and priorities of tribal members and how these affect the management of tribal forests has been a central task of the team. While it is important to emphasize that the diversity of tribal cultures, values, and experiences make generalization difficult, the consistency of these findings over 30 years is quite remarkable. It was quite clear from the initial assessment that tribal members put a higher importance on non- commodity values over timber and the associated income. In particular, “forest protection” was most important to tribal members, reflecting a holistic and interconnected view of the forest and that which the forest provided. The 1992 IFMAT I also asked forest managers (native and non-native) what values they thought were most important to tribal members. Additionally, during the IFMAT I assessment, tribal members were asked how satisfied they were with various aspects of forest management. The results at that time showed a divergence between what tribal members wanted (forest protection) and what the forest managers, who were often non- tribal members, thought was most important (income). At the same time, overall satisfaction with forest management was very low. The following two IFMAT teams followed the same procedure and have shown this trend to be decreasing, where both tribal members have more satisfaction with forest management and
group were derived and satisfaction with elements of forest management were
broken out by the percentage of respondents who felt that things were “good” (Likert scores of 4-5),
Table V.1. IFMAT IV Tribal Public Survey Respondents
Demographic Tribal Public
Number of Respondents
120
Tribal Council/Government
16 39 17 30 19
Tribal Forestry
Non-Native Tribal Forestry Tribal Natural Resources
Non-Native Tribal Natural Resources
Total
241
28 Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator