two-page summary in the form of Major Findings, Major Recommendations and Action Steps that should leave no doubt as to what Congress and the BIA need to do to reach funding parity with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Underfunding and untapped poten- tial are major themes in all four IFMAT reports. The reports are formal in style, scope, and content because they are funded by Congress and include spe- cific tasks [A through H] that must be addressed and quantified. But Corrao summed up the 300-plus page report in a single sentence that is not included in IFMAT IV. “The Forest Service spends more on its wild horse control program than the entire BIA budget,” he said with some frustration in his voice. Corrao went on to explain that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is a small fish the halls of Congress, even though it operates under the aegis of the Department of the Interior. For comparison, know this: The annual BIA budget for tribal forestry and wildfire stands at $176 million, about 6.29 percent of the total BIA budget, which is about 3.1 percent of the entire Interior Department budget. Through various standing commit- tees, ITC member tribes work cooper- atively with the BIA, universities, and members of Congress; the goal being to identify practical strategies for advancing social, economic, and ecological values that benefit all forest landowners, not just tribes. The forest management vision is unique among the nation’s forest landowners. There is a stronger emphasis on holistic forestry and an increasing interest in the care and use of non-timber resources found in forests. Small wonder that Tribes function on vastly different wave lengths rooted in profoundly different land and community ethics than anything most Americans embrace. Here is a sampling from IFMAT IV’s focus groups: “We are genetically Native American, but to be a tribe, we have to regain harmo- ny with the land.” “The most important thing about the forest is the forest.” “You can’t put a price tag on the forest.” “There is nothing I don’t value in the “I have worked for several tribal forestry programs. None of them have been adequately funded or staffed.” “I only got a $2 raise from 1996 to 2022, but I am here to serve my tribe.” “We may not get the assistance we need from the federal government, but we Forest. I can’t go down a list.”
“The forest is on a different timescale
than us.”
“Elk are a cultural keystone species and we are poorer for not having them.” “Restoration brings us back to our connectedness and our responsibility to the Earth.” “We know what we need to do. Now we need partnerships with the federal gov- ernment.” “How did our ancestors create the eco- systems that they lived in? The big yellow pine is a testament to our ancestors.” Tribal visions are driving an ardent desire for tribal self-governance and a less paternalistic relationship with the federal government. But limited federal funding for staffing, technology, and training needs cloud this vision. Tribal forest-related salaries are nowhere near par with the salaries paid to their counterparts in federal forest management agencies. The problem is most keenly felt in recruiting young professionals needed to advance tribal forestry visions. Because tribes are unable to offer competitive salaries, there are fewer people on staff to share an expanding workload. Underfunding is forcing tribes to make Hobson’s choices they should not have to make. The same 500,000-acre backlog in precommercial thinning cited in IFMAT III still exists. Forest density is increasing, and, with it, tribes are seeing an increase in insect and disease infestations and inevitable wildfire. Forest road conditions, grazing policies, limited law enforcement, leaky office roofs, computers that cannot run state-of-art software programs, trespass and poaching and destructive wild horses and burros remain major problems. Congress has most of the enabling legislation in place, but there is no startup funding and recurring funding allocations do not match inflation, adding to the frequently mentioned need to protect tribal forests and woodlands from insects and diseases that invade from adjacent federal forests. Given underfunding and increasing tribal interest in self-governance, the IFMAT IV report recommends that Interior Secretary, Deb Haaland, extend ITARA – the 2016 Indian Trust and Reform Act – indefinitely. It permits tribes to write their own forest management plans, further distancing themselves from BIA control.
Not much has changed since IFMAT I was completed 30 years ago. Vincent Corrao IFMAT IV Program Manger
will find a way to stay here because this is our home.” “Our forest is a working forest even with obstacles in the way it’s still working. It provides the community with traditional and cultural benefits.” “Management of timber is based off benefitting other resources.” “The plan took longer for it to get approved than when it actually lasted. Four- teen years to write, ten years operational.” “The BIA manual is always thrown in our face, but we are underfunded and cannot do everything that is listed in the BIA manuals.” “Our forest is well managed given what we have available for funding.” “I’m encouraged for us being able to manage our forests in our own way, by talking to our own people.” “The forest is part of who we are, and it is sacred. It is an extension of our body. It gives us prayers.” “No matter what we do we should be the managers.” “The land and people have experi- enced great change over the last 150 years versus the last 10,000 years.” “I don’t want to be the witness to see the last fish.” “When working in the forest an offer- ing needs to be given and we need to talk to it as a relative. Drought is nature’s way of reminding us to honor these things.”
A Shared Forest Vision
Tribes have a fervent desire to collab- orate with other landowners on a shared
Evergreen
6
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator