and in some cases both positive and negative impressions both declined. In no case did the total positive and negative scores from IFMAT IV recipients exceed that of IFMAT III, showing a general shift toward a more neutral opinion. One possible explanation for this is that as markets for conventional forest products have declined, so have opportunities to pay for multi-value management. Another explanation could be that there is a broad decrease in environmental quality due to climate change, invasive species, drought, wildfire, and other changes that have decreased the effectiveness of forest management. There are several values that have never received good marks from tribal members throughout the IFMAT process, most notably creation of new enterprises, grazing, and protection from poaching and trespass. These have remained poor in IFMAT IV, with two of them seeing the “good” rating dropping to single digits for the first time and trespass with a resounding 61% dissatisfaction. Since NIFRMA, and therefore IFMAT, were created over thirty years ago, it is not surprising that issues have emerged in the intervening decades. One of these relates to new opportunities and authorities for tribes to participate in the management of federal lands. Two new questions were created in the survey to get a sense of how well respondents felt federal land was managed, and whether they supported tribal involvement in that management. When asked how well they thought that adjacent federal land was managed, tribal members on the whole expressed only a 32% satisfaction rate and
Table V.3. Response of tribal public to the question “How well do you think your forests are being managed for each of the following?”. Good includes responses of 5 or 4, while poor correlates to 1 or 2. Relative satisfaction of tribal membership surveyed during IFMAT III is also included.
IFMAT III Good
IFMAT III Poor
Value
Good Poor
Wildlife
46% 21% 60 52% 18% 62 25% 41% 25 48% 20% 48 28% 36% 40 27% 30% 38 33% 26% 52 38% 24% 51 35% 32% 51 20% 28% 27 24% 36% 40
15 18 48 22 33 25 21 23 20 37 32 28 55 27 28 30 30 46 51 22
Fisheries Grazing
Timber- tribal use
Timber sale/enterprise
Recreation
Water quality/quantity
Cultural values Forest protection
NTFPs
Fair price timber
Employment of tribal members 35% 30% 42
Creation of new enterprises
6% 51% 18 33% 23% 38 44% 15% 38 32% 21% 44
Food gathering
Spiritual
Visual
Protection from pollution/waste 20% 33% 38
Poaching Trespass
17% 47% 29 9% 61% 23 31% 23% 42 32% 29% N/A
Overall Mgmt.
Mgmt. of Federal lands
N/A
a 29% negative opinion (see Table V.3). While this is not very different from the perception of the management of tribal land, there was overwhelming support (82%) for tribal involvement in the management of federal lands. This message was echoed in many of the focus groups, with one participant describing tribal engagement in federal land management, “No matter what we do, we should be the managers” and another stating “We don’t consult, we comanage.” Another issue that has gained increased attention in the last decade is the impact of climate change related events on tribal forests and lifeways. Climate
change came up in every focus group as a major source of change in the last 10 years, and there were many concerns about impacts to forest health and the well-being of culturally important plants and animals. A question was added to the survey to understand perceived changes and threats to the access and use of tribal forests. When asked to rank the amount of impact climate change and related factors such as drought, fire, insect, and disease has had on their use of the forest, 80% of respondents felt that there was significant impact, while only 5% felt that there was no particular impact to their access.
Vision: Tribal Member Values, Perceptions, and Priorities 31
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator