Table V2. Average response by demographic to question “What do tribal members most want from their forests?”
Protection of forest resources
Spiritual values
Cultural values
Beauty/ Scenery
Recreation Income Subsistence
Tribal Member Tribal Council
4.07 4.36 4.00 3.69 3.55
3.33 3.62 3.58 3.92 3.19
4.57 4.64 4.64 3.83 4.67
4.83 5.00 4.63 4.71 4.77
4.67 4.71 4.63 4.23 4.77
4.81 4.93 4.79 4.29 4.82
4.73 4.79 4.21 4.08 4.41
Tribal Forestry (Native)
Tribal Forestry (Non-native) Natural Resources (Native)
Natural Resources (Non-native)
3.07
3.20
4.81
4.94
4.57
4.60
4.13
non-tribal managers place higher value on forest protection. As in previous assessments, IFMAT IV found that income, while averaging 3.0 on the Likert scale, was by far the least important value, with recreation the second lowest. The importance of non- commodity values was also repeatedly emphasized in focus group interviews, especially the importance of the forest as a whole and the interconnection of all forest values with tribal culture and well-being. In fact, focus group participants and survey respondents frequently criticized the reductionist approach taken by the IFMAT team that broke the value of forests into subcategories to quantify each piece. Another frequent comment from focus group participants was that tribal forests were less important as sources of income than they were in the past. This decline in the importance of income, according to focus group participants, was largely due to fewer markets for timber and the increase of other income sources generated by new and diversified tribal enterprises and endeavors. The decrease in economic value of tribal forests was seen by interview participants as an opportunity to realign forest management goals to support cultural values
A timber stand managed by the Kalispel Tribe of Indians in northeast Washington state. PHOTO CREDIT: VINCENT CORRAO
Vision: Tribal Member Values, Perceptions, and Priorities 29
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator