The Land is Their Home
Cody Desautel is President of the Intertribal Timber Council Executive Board. He is a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
through treaty, executive order, or other legislation, Tribes are still dependent on the present-day landowners to ensure resources are accessible and protected on the landscape. So how does the approach of Tribal resource managers differ from what you commonly see on federal, state, and pri- vate forest land? To answer that question we will look at several aspects and exam- ples that demonstrate the differences, and in some cases, the similarities. As noted as a major finding in the IF- MAT report “there is a unique Tribal vision of forest management including a focus on stewardship and non-timber forest products.” The Tribal view of stewardship and non-timber forest products is differ- ent than most non-tribal communities. For Tribes stewardship is an obligation and responsibility to do our part in main- taining a healthy, resilient landscape for all things. Almost all, if not all, Tribal cultures understand and prioritize the protection of sacred resources, such as water, air, foods, medicines, and other resources that Tribes use for subsistence. Because of this, Tribes and tribal members working for their tribe exhibit a commitment that goes far beyond their job duties. That duty is expected of them from their family, their ancestors, and the generations yet to come after them. Tribal people understand that responsibility more so than any land management agency, and because of that, tribal programs across the country accomplish amazing things with very limited funding and staffing. In addition to the commitment tribal members and tribal employees have, they also regularly hear from tribal leaders and elders what is important and why. This gives them a sense of direction and priority guided by traditional knowledge and tribal perspec- tives not seen outside Indian country. However, this is a model that likely is not sustainable into the future. Due to the extra demands, tribal staff are forced to choose between a healthy work life balance, and the unwavering commit- ment to tribal resources. This is particu- larly difficult in rural tribal communities, where expectations for resource pro- tection are high and many of the critics are the same family tribal employees are sacrificing time with. These expectations make it challenging to retain and recruit the next cohort of resource managers for Indian country.
T
o understand the Tribal approach to resource management it is im-
portant to have some context about trib- al cultures and values. It is also important to understand that each of the 574 federally recognized tribal governments are sovereign and set their own man- agement goals and objectives based on their unique culture, history, and beliefs. For this reason you will find a variety of management approaches across Indian country. This variety of management approaches and ingenuity are partly what make tribal approaches to management unique. The other unique aspect is the con- nection tribal people have to the land. Their management approach is driven by a cultural obligation and dedication not typically seen outside tribal manage- ment. The land is their home. It provides all the places and resources that define their tribal identity and culture as Indian people. For that reason tribal employees approach natural resource management with the dedication and passion some- one outside Indian country would apply to their home, church, or places they hold dearest to their hearts. In addition to the unique approach Tribes take to resource management, they also have a number of challenges that are unique to Indian country. First, the 19.3 million acres of forests and woodlands noted in the IFMAT report are technically owned by the United States government and held in trust for the benefit of the tribal landowners. Those owners include Tribal governments, and individual Tribal landowners commonly referred to as “allotees.” Because of this federal ownership, the Tribes are subject to handbooks, manuals, and processes imposed by the federal government, which they deem necessary to meet their “trust” respon- sibility to the Tribes. Those handbooks, manuals, and processes are largely based on a western approach to resource management, and do not account for the diversity of priorities and ecosystems that Tribes exist in across the country. While progress has been made to reduce the federal influence on management of
More work is needed as we evolve the definition of Tribal souveignty amd self-determi- nation. Cody Desautel
Tribal lands, more work is needed as we evolve the definitions of trust responsibil- ity, Tribal sovereignty, and Indian self-de- termination. Second, as the trustee the federal government has a trust responsibility to fund the management of Tribal forests. However, as noted in the current and previous IFMAT reports, Congress and subsequently the federal agencies deter- mine what appropriations are available to accomplish this. A relationship that was characterized as the federal government “being both the pitcher and the umpire” in previous reports. To address shortfalls Tribes look to alternative funding sources and Tribal appropriations to accomplish their management goals. Third, for all Tribes their present-day reservations are a fraction of their historic territories. In some cases they were completely removed from their traditional homelands. As such, many of the culturally important places and subsistence resources that are important to Tribal people now exist on land owned and managed by someone other than the Tribe. While the right to access and utilize those resources may be protected
Evergreen
14
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator