tribes make everything from food and clothing to herbal medicines and jewelry. Among the goals is a shared desire to re- store tribal lifeways and cultural pathways that were being pushed aside by modern day social and economic pressures. Given tribal preferences for amore holistic approach to resource manage- ment, it is not surprising that the BIA’s long-used timber-based rule book is less relevant to tribes or that many living in Indian Country do not see the agency’s preference for reporting annual timber harvest volumes as a measure of success. Board feet cannot account for the value of non-timber products that are the essence of cultures that connect Indians to Mother Earth. David Wilson, Tim Vredenburg and Michael Dockry are among the twelve technical specialists that worked with the four-member IFMAT IV Core Team to complete eleven congressionally mandat- ed assignments. Among them: funding, staffing, salary with federal resource man- agement agencies, trust responsibility, tribal forest health and climate risk. The reports cover 148 pages in IFMAT IV. Technical specialists
forest management vision that benefits all the partners. The map on Page 12–13 illustrates the importance of this idea by pinpoint- ing the location of every tribal forest ownership in the nation. All of them are within two hours of every state, private or federal ownership. There are reciprocal environmental benefits and cost cutting efficiencies to be gained in developing management plans that complement one another. Many landowners now use software programs that compute har- vesting and log hauling costs based on tree species, market prices and miles to mills that transform logs into a stunning variety of products. Everything ranging from wood pulp to dimension lumber, veneer, plywood, oriented strand board, laminated veneer lumber, cross-laminat- ed timbers, and mass panel plywood. Still, many tribes are choosing to emphasize more traditional non-timber forest products made from various parts of trees: bark, sap, leaves, needles, seeds, moss, nuts, and roots; also berries, fruits and fungi, products gathered by commu- nity members in much the same way as they were eons ago. From these traditional products,
Because their career tracks differ, Wil- son, Vredenburg and Dockry each bring a distinct perspective to their assessments of the report. David Wilson held several positions in the Forest Service’s Washington Office before retiring in 2022. He also worked in Indian forestry for 29 years, 12 years with the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and 17 years as a senior inventory special- ist with the BIA. He also worked on the IFMAT III report. “There has been some progress over the years, and I know the passion felt in Indian Country is understood by many in the BIA, but I wonder if we aren’t doing the same things over and over again, hoping for a different outcome that hasn’t materialized. The trend data from IFMAT I through IV suggests this is true.” Wilson is correct. Not much has changed in 30 years. Tribes have made great strides on their own, but they continue to do more with less, which is the main reason so many tribal mem- bers voiced frustration with the federal government in IFMAT IV’s 35 focus group sessions. “I think IFMAT IV did a deeper dive into Indian Country than earlier assess-
Annual Federal Funding to Tribes for Forestry and Fire
Evergreen
7
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator