A Special Issue of the Journal of Forestry—Tribal Forest Management: Innovations for Sustainable Forest ManagementDockry, Michael J.; Hoagland, Serra J.
doi: 10.5849/jof-2017-040pmid: N/A
View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide Native American forests and tribal forest management practices have sustained indigenous communities, economies, and resources for millennia. These systems provide a wealth of knowledge and successful applications of long-term environmental stewardship and integrated, sustainable forest management. Tribal forestry has received an increasing amount of attention from forest managers, academics, and tribal communities in recent years. Tribal forestry is seen as a way to provide approaches for solving our most complex social, economic, and environmental issues facing natural resource managers today. It is also considered as an important approach to build landscape-level partnerships and leverage funding for landscape-scale management. Tribal forest management provides numerous examples of balancing complex, multiple objectives in an era of shrinking budgets, novel ecologic interactions, and increasing human demands on our natural resources. This special issue of the Journal of Forestry seeks to capture a broad range of forest management practices occurring in Indian Country and beyond; to increase general recognition of the role that tribal forest plays in the greater landscape; and to engage broad audiences regarding the value of tribal forests and how they can serve as models for sustainability, integrated management, resilience, and restoration. Tribal forest and natural resource management is multifaceted. Forests are managed for timber production that supplies tribal and nontribal sawmills. Forests are managed for spiritual and cultural values, but they are also managed using cutting-edge and novel management techniques. Tribal forests are managed to maintain diversity of species, respect culturally important landscapes, mitigate the negative effects of wildland fire, and protect water resources. Every tribe is unique, has a different history, holds multiple levels of cultural perspectives, and is internally diverse. Tribes also vary in how their forests are managed; in some cases, tribes manage their forests with minimal involvement from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Division of Forestry and Wildland Fire Management (BIA Forestry). In other cases, BIA Forestry provides the majority of staff and funding for forestry operations. Other tribes are somewhere in the middle with a mix of BIA Forestry and tribal employees and resources. BIA Forestry is the US government agency responsible for the federal trust responsibility to sustainably and productively manage tribal forests (US Congress 1994) whereas other federal land management agencies have trust responsibilities and treaty obligations on lands they manage. These relationships have sometimes led to differences in perspectives among tribes, BIA Forestry, and other federal agencies as to what is sustainable and what is the best productive use. The papers in this special issue are written with this as a backdrop. Readers of the Journal of Forestry will appreciate this special issue for several reasons. First, there is an increasing desire to manage forests at a landscape scale. This necessitates working with multiple land management entities including American Indian tribes. There are 567 federally recognized tribes in the United States (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2017) and more than 300 tribes manage more than 18 million acres of forestland (Gordon et al. 2013). There are also nearly 4,000 miles of shared boarders with US Forest Service lands alone (US Forest Service 2014). In addition, federal land managers have legal requirements to consult with tribes in their management. We received an incredible response from foresters and academics across the country to our call for papers and received several dozen submissions, of which 24 were accepted and compiled into this special issue. Although it is not possible to have articles on every project, innovation, and aspect of tribal forest management, we believe that this special issue provides a range of papers that will be useful for foresters, land managers, and individuals interested in tribal natural resource management. We grouped papers into subsections, but given the holistic perspective of tribal forestry programs, we recognize that there is great overlap among each article's themes, ideas, and research. Subsections include tribal forests and management, silviculture and forest management techniques, collaboration and partnership, cultural keystone species management, and education. Tribal forest management is developing innovative solutions to shared land management problems such as fire risks, invasive species, and models for sustainable forest management. Articles by Corrao and Andringa, Lake and colleagues, Morishima and Mason, Motanic, and Sessions and colleagues each highlight that tribal forests, tribal forest management, and tribal perspectives can serve as examples of the sustainable forest management needed to solve our myriad problems. Mausel and colleagues describe the legacy and future of our nation's first sustained yield forest on the Menominee Nation's reservation, and Sasatani and colleagues outline the perceived value of voluntary certification programs for Native American forest products. Specific examples of silviculture techniques, timber stand improvement, and other management tools form the second section of this special issue to give foresters practical examples and ideas. Hoyt and colleagues look at southwestern dwarf mistletoe impacts on Ponderosa pine, Singleton and Oblinger discuss western white pine and blister rust pruning, Bardon and colleagues test ways to improve red elm germination, Dey and colleagues describe the yield potential and value of high-quality sugar maple, Vales and colleagues describe a nutrition-based approach for managing elk habitat, and Kern and colleagues describe research into gap sizes and outcomes for managing northern hardwood forests. The third subsection includes papers focused on the management of cultural keystone species. This is exemplified in Long and Goode's “Picture the Past” discussion that illustrates the cultural continuity of black oak acorn collection and management. Long and colleagues' article on black oak restoration shows the cultural importance of ecological restoration for tribal communities in California. Costanza and colleagues review black ash ecology, silvics, and management and its heightened importance to tribal communities because of threats from invasive species. Several articles describe how collaborative partnerships are critical to achieving both tribal and federal land management as exemplified in Hatcher and colleagues' article on the Klamath Tribes and US Forest Service partnership, Hays' article discusses a unique collaboration between the Mescalero Apache Nation and the US Forest Service, Jurney and colleagues' article describes partnerships between tribes and the National Forests of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Lucero and Tamez discuss collaboration and the implementation of the 2004 Tribal Forest Protection Act, and finally, Alexander and colleagues' article discusses how working across cultures in California has supported invasive species management for natural and cultural resources. These articles illustrate that partnerships for natural resource management are important for the future and give us models to emulate while highlighting pitfalls to avoid. The final subsection is on education, and here several articles explicitly describe education as a way to engage tribal youth, enhance natural resource management, and develop a cadre of future natural resource managers. A tribal youth mentorship program in Maine that has successfully increased university enrollment is described by carr and collagues. Hoagland and colleagues show how tribal lands can be used to enhance university education for all students. Finally, Gervais and colleagues describe Native American student perspectives of natural resources in higher education and provide recommendations for improving Native American student retention and university practices for Indian students. To further aid readers, it is helpful to discuss terms used in this special issue. First, individual authors used their own terms throughout this special issue; however, in general, Native American, Indian, tribe, tribal, and indigenous are the most inclusive terms and typically refer broadly to the original inhabitants of these lands. This can include people from federally recognized tribes, state-recognized tribes, or tribal descendants. American Indian is often more specific and is typically used to indicate federally recognized tribes or individuals of federally recognized tribes. Alaska Native and Pacific Islander also have specific federal and legal meanings, but they are emphasized to lesser extent in this issue. We hope that this special issue raises awareness of the range of forest management happening in tribal forestry today. By broadening perspectives, understanding, and knowledge of tribal forest management, we hope that this special issue lays the groundwork for future collaboration, partnerships, and improved forest management on tribal and nontribal lands alike. The authors are thankful for the stewardship that tribes have engaged in over millennia. They are also thankful to their tribal partners and the Journal of Forestry editors and staff who helped compile this important collection of papers. Funding for this special issue was provided through a partnership between the US Forest Service and the Society of American Foresters. Supplemental Podcast This article includes a podcast interview. Visit the online version of this article to listen to the podcast. Literature Cited Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2017. Notice: Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. In Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 10 . January 17, 2017. Available online at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-17/html/2017-00915.htm. Gordon J., Sessions J., Bailey J., Cleaves D., Corrao V., Leighton A., Mason L., Rasmussen M., Salwasser H., Sterner M. . 2013. Assessment of indian forests and forest management in the United States final report—The Third Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council , White R. (ed). Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/assessment.html. US Congress. 1994. National Indian Forest Management Act, Title 25, Chapter 33, Section 3101–3120. Available online at http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title25/chapter33&edition=prelim. US Forest Service. 2014. Tribal connections interactive map: Shared borders layer . Available online at https://apps.fs.usda.gov/arcx/rest/services/wo_nfs_gstc/GSTC_FSIndianLandsSharedBorders_01/MapServer. Copyright © 2017 Society of American Foresters
Anchor Forests and Tribal Lifeways to Improve Ecosystem Resilience and Maintain Working ForestsCorrao, Mark V.; Andringa, Steve
doi: 10.5849/jof.16-022pmid: N/A
Nationwide, we are losing our ability to maintain working forests as a result of defoliating and boring insects, disease, catastrophic wildfire, forestry infrastructure reductions, and economic uncertainties—all exacerbated by an increasing urban population culturally removed from the natural environment. Nearly 10% of the 740 million acres of forestlands within the conterminous United States currently exhibit degraded health conditions (Krist et al. 2014). In part, this is the result of historic wholesale fire suppression and management decisions, most notably on national forestlands, throughout the 20th century (O'Toole 2007). The consequences of this are devastated forest ecosystems, burned homes, and impacted communities. Research predicts that within the next 15 years, many of these forestlands, overstocked and faced with a changing climate, are destined for catastrophic wildfire that will further threaten adjacent lands (Krist et al. 2014). Forests throughout the western United States in particular are experiencing severe health declines. Without strategic management action, these forests will continue to degrade and the forest-dependent communities they support will be lost (Thomas 2011). Within the last two decades a highly complex and often litigious atmosphere surrounding working forestlands has emerged as a result of differing societal demands, policies, economics, and forest conditions (Indian Forest Management Assessment Team 2013). Therefore, current solutions for deteriorated forest conditions face an array of legislation, laws, regulations, and rules that are often unreasonably time-consuming and too cumbersome to achieve the management actions needed in a timely manner. Anchor Forests offer an innovative framework to leverage collaborative efforts and address challenges facing landscape-scale forest management by bridging the efforts of multijurisdictional landowners. In this arena, Native American tribes can offer their history of long-term forest stewardship, political status as sovereign governments, and unique rights as managers and leaders. One challenge, if not the greatest challenge, to forest restoration efforts is operating within a paradigm of sustainable forestry. This will require expertise in such a broad array of topics that it transcends the capabilities of a single discipline, agency, organization, or business sector (Zenner 2014), thereby requiring collaboration and leadership at a level not commonly achieved. The Anchor Forest framework is structured to achieve this and overcome these challenges. Anchor Forests An Anchor Forest is a large multiownership area that supports sustainable biomass production backed by infrastructure and technical expertise and is endorsed publicly and politically to improve forest resilience through balanced social/cultural, economic, and ecologic management objectives (Corrao et al. 2016). Development of the Anchor Forest concept began with the Intertribal Timber Council, an organization of 56 forest-owning American Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations who collectively hold more than 90% of the 18.6 million acres of tribal trust lands within the United States. This concept arose to meet the need for a framework that could increase ecosystem resilience and offset the impacts of climate change while maintaining working forests, sustainable harvest levels, processing infrastructure, jobs, and local economies. Furthermore, as land conversion occurs to support a growing population culturally removed from natural resource management, amenities on private lands are being lost and public lands are being expected to replace them (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011). Maintaining healthy forest ecosystems is critical to the preservation of human well-being and the ecosystem services forests provide (Donovan et al. 2015). For example, the western US forests store, filter, and provide nearly 65% of the clean public drinking water for nearly 64 million people (American Forest Foundation 2015). The triple-bottom-line of social/cultural, economic, and ecologic management at the heart of the Anchor Forest concept is centered on improving the health of “working forests” essential to enable society to maintain clean air and water and to protect our soils, fish, and wildlife. This center represents a key difference that distinguishes the Anchor Forest framework from previous collaborative efforts. Forestland maintenance and ecosystem restoration are not new concepts, but rather parts of a social-political reality requiring proactive disturbance-based management, balanced leadership, and the curtailment of public skepticism surrounding the effectiveness of forestry and silviculture (Weber 2003). For example, tribal leadership of an Anchor Forest may currently be the most innovative opportunity available to landscape-scale collaborative efforts. Existing examples of balanced holistic stewardship with economics are rare. Therefore, the Anchor Forest approach to expanding the “social license” (Kittler 2014) and capacity needed to address forest health at a landscape scale may provide new incentives to landowners. Furthermore, Anchor Forests led by a legacy of tribal land stewardship can help leverage efforts and resources that address rising wildfire costs (Ingalsbee 2010) and provide additional understanding for prioritization of restoration areas within multiownership landscapes. Tribal Lifeways Tribal lifeways, defined generally as community accepted customary practices that sustain economies and provide fuel, foods, medicines, clean water, etc. depend on the capacity to ensure functional ecologic and economic systems across the landscape. Successful forest stewardship requires the coordination of management efforts and leadership founded by tenure in sustainable forest practices and a dogmatic permanence focused on the future. This approach, supported by centuries of experience managing working forests, means tribes offer a perspective to collaborative restoration efforts not yet fully realized. Tribal permanence on the landscape is exemplified through their foundation of traditional ecologic knowledge (Mason et al. 2012) and leadership focused on the triple-bottom-line described in the Anchor Forest framework. Anchor Forests founded on the cultural commitments of tribes would further benefit from the fiduciary trust obligations of the federal government and tribal reserved rights on federal lands (Wood 2003, Recker 2013). The sovereignty of tribes, coupled with their permanence on the landscape and modern science, offer Anchor Forests, with tribal leadership, an opportunity to foster forest stewardship (e.g., capability, commitment, and vision) and increase working forests. Since 2005 more than 1,009 sawmills have closed nationwide, with the effects in the western United States equating to a 32% (71,000) loss in direct full-time jobs (Smith and Richard 2012). In some areas of the west tribes such as the Yakama Nation maintain the last processing infrastructure on their respective reservations and the only opportunity to maintain working forests and address forest health. In areas like these, tribes, through consultation with the federal government, have an opportunity to be substantive participants and collaborative leaders in Anchor Forests and forest health restoration efforts (Indian Forest Management Assessment Team 2013). The Future of Forestry and Management of Ecosystems Historically, forest planning and management have been subject to single-interest goals (e.g., species-specific management, lumber, housing, and rural development). This has resulted in the degradation of water and wildlife amenities, recreation, community well-being, and, in some cases, the stability of entire forest ecosystems (Winkel 2014). Management decisions that minimize unnatural conditions and restore function, local communities, public safety, and ecosystem resilience are becoming more urgent in the face of a changing climate and increasing forestland fragmentation. The Anchor Forest framework is not without challenges. Many areas lack sufficient infrastructure (Corrao et al. 2016) and are experiencing continuous reductions in funding for forest restoration due to increasing wildfire budgets (Ingalsbee 2010, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2015). In addition, much of the current forestry workforce is aging and college enrollment indicates that the future workforce educated in forestry and silviculture is decreasing (Sample et al. 2015). The restoration environment is further complicated by a lack of public trust (Olsen et al. 2012), and in many conversations a misplaced ideological belief that forest management is synonymous with clearcutting. The greatest value an Anchor Forest offers is the holistic foundation, both by design and by prominent leadership (tribes). These aspects centered in the triple-bottom-line set this framework apart from previous landscape-scale initiatives. The Anchor Forest concept recognizes and respects the prerogatives and obligations of individual landowners and provides a foundation to develop actionable strategies. These will accrue shared benefits for all willing to work together in a respectful, trust-based atmosphere. The Anchor Forest framework is a progressive idea that has value nationally and internationally and is not confined to forested landscapes. An established framework guided by Tribal leadership, inclusive of multiple ownerships, and founded on balanced management decisions, offers the tools needed to address many of the legacy challenges facing landscape-scale forestry. Acknowledgments: Funding support for the Anchor Forest study was provided by the Northwest Regional Office of the USDA Forest Service through a Domestic Grant (2011 DG-11062765 026) with the Intertribal Timber Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We thank Dr. Morishima of the Intertribal Timber Council and Dr. Heinse of the University of Idaho for their review and thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Literature Cited American Forest Foundation. 2015. Western water threatened by wildfire: It's not just a public lands issue . Washington, DC. 28 p. Corrao M., Corrao V., King T. . 2016. Anchor Forests: Sustainable forest ecosystems through cross-boundary, landscape-scale collaborative management . Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 48 p. Donovan S., Goldfuss C., Holdren J. . 2015. Memorandum for executive departments and agencies: Incorporating ecosystem services into federal decision making . Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington, DC. 5 p. Indian Forest Management Assessment Team. 2013. Intertribal Timber Council: Assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States , vol. III. Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 62 p. Ingalsbee T. 2010. Getting burned: A taxpayer's guide to wildfire suppression costs . Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, Eugene, OR. 43 p. Kittler B. 2014. A landmark policy for restoring federal forests: Permanent authorization of stewardship contracting in the Farm Bill . Pinchot Institute, Washington, DC. 4 p. Krist F.J.J., Ellenwood J.R., Woods M.W., McMahan A.J., Cowardin J.P., Ryerson D.E., Sapio F.J., Zweifler M.O., Romero S.A. . 2014. 2013–2027 National insect and disease forest risk assessment . Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Fort Collins, CO. 209 p. Mason L., White G., Morishima G., Alvarado E., Andrew L., Clark F., Durglo M.Sr. et al. . 2012. Listening and learning from traditional knowledge and western science: A dialogue on contemporary challenges of forest health and wildfire. J. For . 110( 3): 187– 193. O'Toole R. 2007. The perfect firestorm bringing forest service wildfire costs under control. Policy Anal . 591: 16. Olsen C.S., Mallon A.L., Shindler B.A. . 2012. Public acceptance of disturbance-based forest management: Factors influencing support. ISRN For . 2012: 594067. doi: 10.5402/2012/594067. Recker R. 2013. US Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs response letter to the proposed directives for Forest Service land management planning . US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC. 6 p. Sample V.A., Bixler R.P., McDonough M.H., Bullard S.H., Snieckus M.M. . 2015. The promise and performance of forestry education in the United States: Results of a survey of forestry employers, graduates, and educators. J. For . 113( 6): 528– 537. Smith B.W.B., Richard W. . 2012. Forest sector reeling during economic downturn. For. Source 17: 1– 16. Thomas J.W. 2011. The future of the national forest—Who will answer an uncertain trumpet ? University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 30 p. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2011. National report on sustainable forests—2010 . USDA For. Serv., FS-979, Washington, DC. 214 p. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of fire operations: Effects on the Forest Service's non-fire work . Washington, DC. 16 p. Weber E.P. 2003. Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities . Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA. 334 p. Winkel G. 2014. When the pendulum doesn't find its center: Environmental narratives, strategies, and forest policy change in the US Pacific Northwest. Global Environ. Change 27: 84– 95. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wood M.C. 2003. Indian trust responsibility: Protecting tribal lands and resources through claims of injunctive relief against federal agencies. Tulsa Law Rev . 39: 355– 368. Zenner E.K. 2014. The ongoing story of silviculture on our natural public forestlands. J For . 112: 611– 616. Copyright © 2017 Society of American Foresters
Returning Fire to the Land: Celebrating Traditional Knowledge and FireLake, Frank K.; Wright, Vita; Morgan, Penelope; McFadzen, Mary; McWethy, Dave; Stevens-Rumann, Camille
doi: 10.5849/jof.2016-043r2pmid: N/A
Indigenous peoples' detailed traditional knowledge about fire, although superficially referenced in various writings, has not for the most part been analyzed in detail or simulated by resource managers, wildlife biologists, and ecologists…. Instead, scientists have developed the principles and theories of fire ecology, fire behavior and effects models, and concepts of conservation, wildlife management and ecosystem management largely independent of native examples. (Lewis and Anderson 2002, p. 4)North American tribes have traditional knowledge about fire effects on ecosystems, habitats, and resources. For millennia, tribes have used fire to promote valued resources. Sharing our collective understanding of fire, derived from traditional and western knowledge systems, can benefit landscapes and people. We organized two workshops to investigate how traditional and western knowledge can be used to enhance wildland fire and fuels management and research. We engaged tribal members, managers, and researchers to formulate solutions regarding the main topics identified as important to tribal and other land managers: cross-jurisdictional work, fuels reduction strategies, and wildland fire management and research involving traditional knowledge. A key conclusion from the workshops is that successful management of wildland fire and fuels requires collaborative partnerships that share traditional and western fire knowledge through culturally sensitive consultation, coordination, and communication for building trust. We present a framework for developing these partnerships based on workshop discussions.
Returning Fire to the Land: Celebrating Traditional Knowledge and FireLake, Frank K.; Wright, Vita; Morgan, Penelope; McFadzen, Mary; McWethy, Dave; Stevens-Rumann, Camille
doi: 10.5849/jof.2016-043r2pmid: N/A
Indigenous peoples' detailed traditional knowledge about fire, although superficially referenced in various writings, has not for the most part been analyzed in detail or simulated by resource managers, wildlife biologists, and ecologists…. Instead, scientists have developed the principles and theories of fire ecology, fire behavior and effects models, and concepts of conservation, wildlife management and ecosystem management largely independent of native examples.(Lewis and Anderson 2002, p. 4)North American tribes have traditional knowledge about fire effects on ecosystems, habitats, and resources. For millennia, tribes have used fire to promote valued resources. Sharing our collective understanding of fire, derived from traditional and western knowledge systems, can benefit landscapes and people. We organized two workshops to investigate how traditional and western knowledge can be used to enhance wildland fire and fuels management and research. We engaged tribal members, managers, and researchers to formulate solutions regarding the main topics identified as important to tribal and other land managers: cross-jurisdictional work, fuels reduction strategies, and wildland fire management and research involving traditional knowledge. A key conclusion from the workshops is that successful management of wildland fire and fuels requires collaborative partnerships that share traditional and western fire knowledge through culturally sensitive consultation, coordination, and communication for building trust. We present a framework for developing these partnerships based on workshop discussions.Management and Policy Implications Many tribes across North America used fire as a tool to perpetuate habitats and resources that sustained their cultures, economies, traditions, and livelihoods. Tribal uses and knowledge of wildland fire have decreased as a result of fire suppression policy and management decisions that have limited the use of fire to manage landscapes. The federal government has a trust responsibility to American Indian tribes. This trust responsibility extends to federal agency and tribal governance for management of natural and cultural resources. Many tribes seek to use traditional burning in a modern context to achieve multiple resource objectives including reducing hazardous fuels and reintroducing fire into fire-adapted ecosystems to protect life, property, and valued resources. Scientists and managers can learn about fire ecology and effects from tribal Traditional Knowledge. We provide a framework for improving fire management and research based on traditional and Western Knowledge systems. This includes strategies for hazardous fuel reduction and the reintroduction of fire in the context of tribal community values, cultural revitalization, and collaborative landscape restoration efforts. The objectives of this framework are to strengthen communication, developing trust and partnerships among managers, scientists, and tribal members.
Our Nation's Forests Need America's First StewardsMorishima, Gary S.; Mason, Larry
doi: 10.5849/jof.16-073pmid: N/A
View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide When Europeans encountered the Americas in the 15th century, they found abundant forested landscapes sustained by indigenous peoples. As time progressed, however, the cultural practices of native peoples were displaced by Euro-centric concepts of property and commoditization. Tribes were restricted to small remnants of their former homelands set aside as “reservations” for their use and occupancy. Traditional philosophies and values were discouraged. In fact, practices such as forest under burning were made illegal. Forest conditions changed quickly and dramatically. Our forests touch us in personal ways. They support livelihoods, produce products, and protect soils, air, water, and the biodiversity of flora and fauna. Today, the sustainability of our nation's forests is uncertain as a result of fragmentation, wildfire, insects, disease, invasive species, climate change, and other factors. As our Nation struggles with contemporary environmental challenges, prior misconceptions are revealed. For example, although historically discounted by Euro-Americans as primitive and of limited significance, the place-based ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples, gained through enduring environmental adaptations, is now being recognized for its insights into the interconnectedness of human communities and their environments. The effective integration by tribal resource management programs of tradition with technical capabilities is garnering praise. As political sovereigns with special relationships to the United States, tribal governments can bring a wide array of laws, policies, and reserved rights to the forefront of multiownership natural resource collaborations. Native peoples, America's first stewards, may be positioned to facilitate a new discussion about the future of American forests and other natural resources currently at risk. Early Contact In the 15th century, Europeans arrived on North American shores to find many abundant terrestrial and aquatic species. They also found clean waters, vast grasslands, seemingly endless forests, and diverse tribes of indigenous peoples. European explorers believed that they had found a wilderness free for the taking save for the presence of non-Christian “savages and heathens.” Acting under the papal Doctrine of Discovery authorized by the Inter caetera of 1493, European colonial powers embarked on systematic expropriation of lands inhabited by native peoples and resources (Newcomb 2008). The Doctrine, established as “international law,” granted to Europeans exclusive government, political, and commercial authorities over indigenous inhabitants regardless of their knowledge or consent (Miller 2006). Further justifications for European dispossession of indigenous populations were provided through concepts of terra nullius (empty lands) and vacuum domicilium (wasteland). In England, where a wooded expanse of more than 100 acres was a major forest and husbandry-oriented attitudes regarding land and resources dominated, limitless expanses of unmanaged forests had been unknown. Survival and “order” required the conversion of forests to agriculture (Cox et al. 1985). If lands were occupied but not subdued and cultivated in European fashion, then they could legitimately be considered unclaimed and open for the taking (Prucha 1986). From a European perspective, the wealth of the New World was divinely provided for their beneficial use. That conquest and disease significantly devastated native populations was considered God's will (Jennings 1975). With 19th century establishment of the US claim to Oregon, the Doctrine of Discovery expanded to become “Manifest Destiny” and remains a key premise in Indian law today from which most historical iterations of Indian policy have evolved (Miller 2006). Misperceptions about Native Americans and the Land The misunderstanding and confusion that surround the degree to which the history of native peoples has been interwoven with the development of American forests warrants discussion (Conzin 1990, Kinney 1937). Since colonial days, the ubiquitous Anglo-American story has been one of frontier conquest (Turner 1920). Pre-Columbian Indians were assumed to be “savages,” few in number, and nomadic, leaving little lasting impact on forested environments (Prucha 1986). The famous 19th-century historian George Bancroft, reflecting the common view of his day, contended in 1834 that, at time of discovery, the United States was “an unproductive waste … its only inhabitants a few scattered tribes of feeble barbarians” (Taylor 2001, p. 40). Writing in 1934, Alfred Kroeber, a founder of American anthropology, insisted that Indians were of so little consequence that 99% of American lands were virgin at time of contact (Mann 2005, p. 14). In 1974, Samuel Eliot Morison, twice Pulitzer Prize winner, claimed that American Indians had created no lasting monuments or institutions (Morison 1974). As recently as 1987, a standard high school history text, written by well-known historians, summed Indian history with these comments, “For thousands of centuries, centuries in which human races were evolving, forming communities, and building the beginnings of national civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe—the continents we know as the Americas stood empty of mankind and its works …. The story of this new world … is a story of the creation of a civilization where none existed” (Current et al. 1987, p. 1). Revelations By the middle of the 20th century, however, a different interpretation of history gathered support among archeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. Continued marginalization of American Indian cultural and environmental influences could not be supported in the face of growing evidence to the contrary and simply did not make sense (Taylor 2001). Many open forests, savannahs, grasslands, and prairies discovered by Europeans were indeed of anthropogenic origin (Sauer 1950, 1971, Day 1953 Norton 1979, Croker 1987, White 1992, Blackburn and Anderson 1993, MacCleery 1993, Anderson 2005, Abrams and Nowicki 2008). Ethnogeographic studies revealed that signs of pre-Columbian agricultural practices extended throughout what is now the continental United States (Mann 2005). We know now that contact between the Old World and the New World introduced a host of previously unknown diseases such as measles, typhoid, small pox, hepatitis, tuberculosis, influenza, diphtheria, and others to which natives were vulnerable. The isolation of the Americas from the rest of the world created what epidemiologists refer to as a “virgin soil” condition (Crosby 1976). Based on new calculus of the pandemic depopulation wrought by European diseases (Crosby 1976, Dobyns and Swagerty 1983), modern scholars estimate pre-Columbian native populations at between 50 and 100 million people or 5 to 10 people for every square mile in North America; considerably greater than the minimal estimates once assumed (Taylor 2001). As native populations crashed, however, villages and agricultural fields were abandoned and wildlife populations, especially of game species, exploded; the abundance of wildlife encountered by the first colonists was an inadvertent result of abrupt native population collapses that reduced harvest pressure (Mann 2005). Jennings (1975) argued that Europeans did not find a wilderness in the America's; they made one. By 1800, disease and warfare had reduced the native population in many areas of North America to small fractions of their former levels (Edmunds et al. 2007); in aggregate, native peoples numbered less than 1 million, whereas the settler population had increased to 15 million (Thornton 1987). Changes in the Land With colonial settlement, patterns of land and resource use changed, along with systems of governance. Through conflicts, treaties, and relocations, many native peoples were removed from the territories they had traditionally occupied to isolated “reservations” set aside as islands of Indianness for their use and occupancy (US Department of State, Office of the Historian 2016). The land and resources on these reservations were/are held in trust and managed by the United States as fiduciary for the benefit of Indians (Gover 2006). On the East Coast, by the early 1800s, Euro-Americans had settled a 100-mile-wide swath of the land from Maine to Georgia; one-half to three-quarters of the land had been cleared. The land was delineated by the meets and bounds of legal boundaries according to European customs of property ownership. Systems of governance and the imposition of property boundaries disaggregated the landscape into discrete parcels (Crosby 1986, Mann 2011). To the settlers, land and resources were regarded as chattel that could be replaced when depleted by moving to another location. Continuous tilling began to take a toll on soil fertility. As field productivity declined, lands were abandoned, leading to establishment of pastures, brush fields, and new but different forests (Fedkiw 1989). The environment rapidly changed as European settlements and accompanying societal precepts displaced tribal communities, knowledge, principles, and practices (Bonnicksen 2000). Euro-American systems established for governance of property and forests have matured into institutional deterrents to sustainability. For instance, provisions of the tax code can discourage long tenure of industrial and nonindustrial private forestlands, reducing investment in forestry infrastructure and destabilizing rural communities (Bliss et al. 2008, Kimbell et al. 2010). Management on the publicly owned lands, which comprise 42% of the nation's forests (Oswalt et al. 2014), must occur within a complex system of laws, rules, and regulations, often inconsistent and contradictory. As a consequence, the latitude and timeliness of active forest management on public lands is constrained in a way that undermines effectiveness (US Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2002). Historical Accuracy That North America was well populated by indigenous peoples before contact belies long promulgated romantic myths of “virgin lands” and “wilderness” divinely endowed and awaiting the civilizing arrival of European settlements (Denevan 1992, Cronin 2003). Indeed, Francis Jennings (1975) described colonial America not as virgin but rather as a “widowed land,” rendered so by the deadly diseases that accompanied European invasion. Pyne (1982, p. 46) observed that “… virgin forest was not encountered in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; it was invented in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Deloria (1992, p. 281), offered a more culturally explicit explanation “inherent in the very definition of ‘wilderness’ is contained the gulf between the understandings of the two worlds (Indian and Euro-American). Indians do not see the natural world as wilderness.” Prejudices, misperceptions, and institutional arrangements formed in the past now manifest as formidable obstacles to successful strategies for a sustainable future. The National Report on Sustainable Forests has identified a host of threats to American forests, ranging from fragmentation and development to forest fires, insect-induced mortality, and invasive species (USDA 2011). The magnitudes, intensities, and costs of wildfires have been increasing dramatically over the last decades, especially on federal forests (Climate Central 2012). Declining markets and losses of processing infrastructure undermine sustainable forest management further (Woodall et al. 2012). Trends in private forestland conversions to nonforest uses fragment the landscape and compromise ecosystem functions (Stein et al. 2005, Smail and Lewis 2009). Climate change, with the forecasted potential to exacerbate wildfire hazard and alter the distribution of ecotypes and disturbance patterns throughout the world, may present the greatest challenge of all (Vose et al. 2012). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Guy R. McMinds (1937–2012). A visionary leader of the Quinault Indian Nation and advocate for tribal self determination in forestry, fisheries, and environmental management. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Guy R. McMinds (1937–2012). A visionary leader of the Quinault Indian Nation and advocate for tribal self determination in forestry, fisheries, and environmental management. Photo by Larry Workman. Our forests touch us in personal ways. They support livelihoods, produce products, store carbon, and protect soils, air, water, and the biodiversity of flora and fauna. It has been suggested that, perhaps, nowhere in the world have forests and their bountiful yields of products and amenities played such a pivotal role in the development of a nation as in the United States (Cox et al. 1985), but American forests are in trouble. In just a few hundred years, societal interactions with the environment, both to exploit and protect, have led to degraded ecosystem functions, including water, air, soils, and biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Today, more than 80% of Americans live in urban areas (US Census Bureau 2012) removed physically and philosophically from the stewardship of forests. The threats our forests face and the inadequacy of our response has called into question the sustainability of America's forests (Western Governors Association 2016). Botkin (1990, 2012) has long argued that the environmental challenges faced today were predestined by a progression of misunderstandings and misguided choices based on incorrect assumptions regarding the separation between man and nature. Tenets of western science ingrained in Euro-American culture and educational systems perpetuate a worldview that man is apart from nature. Since “virgin” forests were assumed to be free from human manipulations, then it followed that people must be regarded as intruders. Therefore, if people could be kept out of “intact” ecosystems, then nature, undisturbed, would achieve “balance” and remain in a steady state. Such notions fit readily with guilt-ridden Christian concepts of the Garden of Eden and a fall from Grace. Paradigms from Different Worldviews Fritz (1984) contends that to create effective change, an accurate description of current reality is needed in addition to a shared vision. The discrepancy between the two provides a tension that seeks resolution. An accurate description of current forest realities should logically benefit from the advice and wisdom of Native Americans, the people whose ancestors created the presettlement conditions perceived today by some as targets for restoration. The meadows, prairies, savannas, and forest conditions free of undergrowth (Stewart 2002) that were mistaken as “pristine” (Denevan 1992) were in fact the result of native use of fire and other means to create an environment that successfully supported the cultures and economies of millions of Indian peoples over millennia. Tribal elders still retain traditional knowledge of ethnobotany, wildlife, geography, and fire use needed to survive. Traditional knowledge is based on a holistic world view that man is a part of nature with responsibilities for its use and care (Mason et al. 2012). Anglo worldviews emerged from a conceptual separation between man and nature, civilization and wilderness (Oelschlaeger 1991). The needs of people are thought to be in competition to those of the natural world. On the other hand, the worldview of native people is inclusive, based on an understanding that all things are interconnected, not separated. Man is a part of nature, not apart from nature. Native Americans understand that to remain functional for the future, resource strategies must be holistic to provide for the needs of the people and the resources. A tribal elder expressed the view “if we are not maintaining our forests, then it is a reflection of how we are living our lives” (Indian Forest Management Assessment Team [IFMAT] 2013). Failure to sustain the environment is failure to sustain the people (Kimmerer 2000, Uprety et al. 2012). Chapin et al. (2010) agree, concluding that efforts that fail to address the synergies and tradeoffs between ecological and societal well-being are unlikely to be successful. The need is to identify viable strategies of ecosystem stewardship that increase the likelihood of socially desirable outcomes and reduce the risk of bad outcomes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) notes that for stresses that persist, trajectories of expected change are more appropriate management targets than are theorized historical states or ranges of variability. Forward-looking decisions are necessary to convert a system trapped in an undesirable state to a fundamentally different, potentially more beneficial system, whose properties reflect different socioecological understandings. The question is how? To date, federally supported multiownership conservation collaborations have proven to be expensive exercises of limited effectiveness, plagued by high personnel turnover rates and cumbersome planning processes (Schultz et al. 2012, Antuma et al. 2014, Butler et al. 2015). Federal policies and regulations, many of which are relics of old misconceptions and failed policies, tend to generate political and litigious conflicts that impede active management of our Nation's forests. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Quinault member Daniel Papp blesses the western red cedar tree that will be carved into the totem pole that will become the centerpiece for the 2013 Canoe Paddle to Quinault. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Quinault member Daniel Papp blesses the western red cedar tree that will be carved into the totem pole that will become the centerpiece for the 2013 Canoe Paddle to Quinault. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide Quinault artisans carved and painted the totem pole over a four-month period. Front left, James DeLaCruz, Jr.; back left, Marco Black; and front right, Brian “Bougs” Comenout. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide Quinault artisans carved and painted the totem pole over a four-month period. Front left, James DeLaCruz, Jr.; back left, Marco Black; and front right, Brian “Bougs” Comenout. Photo by Larry Workman. Our Nation's Forests and America's First Stewards There are a number of compelling reasons why native peoples can play a pivotal role in addressing the challenges confronting our nation's forests. Tribal forests serve as the economic and cultural backbone for many Indian reservations, providing revenues for many tribal governments, sometimes the principal source of revenue, and sorely needed employment for Indian people and rural communities. They sustain habitats for the fish and wildlife that provide sustenance for the people. They produce foods, medicines, fuel, and materials for shelter, transportation, and artistic expression. Forests store and filter the water and purify the air. Forests provide a sense of place that sustains tribal lifeways, cultures, religions, and spiritual practices (IFMAT 2013). Permanence of place. Many tribes remain located in their ancestral territories. They possess accrued understandings and perspectives that come only from being an integral part of and witness to a landscape in history. Through generations of observations and experimentations, native communities have had to learn the limits of resource use and adaptation to ever-changing circumstances. Vision and moral responsibility. Tribes understand that prompt management actions can be imperative to avoid the costly near- and long-term repercussions of delay. Yet important decisions must be reached in the thoughtful context of an enduring moral covenant of deliberative stewardship for the benefit of future generations. Expertise and adaptability. Because of their cultural and economic dependence on natural resources, many tribes maintain sophisticated and technically capable programs to assure sustainability both within and beyond the boundaries of their reservations. In some areas, especially the west, tribes may be the last remaining functional interdisciplinary natural resource programs. Tribal forests survive today as laboratories of adaptation founded on a survival imperative. Indian forests are places where the integration of traditional knowledge, western science, and contemporary technical capabilities can find timely on-the-ground programmatic application. Because tribal peoples are directly accountable for the consequences of their resource choices, stalled action is not an acceptable option (IFMAT 2013). Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Totem pole at ceremonial site located at Point Grenville on the Quinault Indian Reservation. The main figures on the totem pole include bear, wolf, man, eagle, frog, moon and sun. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Totem pole at ceremonial site located at Point Grenville on the Quinault Indian Reservation. The main figures on the totem pole include bear, wolf, man, eagle, frog, moon and sun. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Ocean canoe made of western red cedar with Keyhole Rock in background. 2013 Paddle to Quinault. Photo by Larry Workman. Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Ocean canoe made of western red cedar with Keyhole Rock in background. 2013 Paddle to Quinault. Photo by Larry Workman. Creativity and innovation. Tribes have been forced to contend with chronic underfunding of Indian programs for decades (US Civil Rights Commission 2003), yet they have learned to make do. For example, Indian forestry programs receive one-third of the funding (dollars per acre basis) as is the case for the National Forest System, yet, overall, Indian forests are considered to be better cared for and in better condition (IFMAT 2013). An aspect of creativity and innovation that should not be overlooked is synergy. Different worldviews can foster new ways of thinking about difficult problems and open the way to finding creative solutions. Tribal traditional knowledge and western science reflect very different worldviews and values but may no longer be considered mutually exclusive. Indian and non-Indian scholars are exploring encouraging cross-cultural opportunities to integrate traditional knowledge and Western science in forest management settings (Kimmerer 2002, Tsuli and Ho 2002, Menzies 2006, Emery et al. 2014, Hummel and Lake 2015). For traditional knowledge and western science to be broadly complementary, however, institutional biases that have been embodied in educational, administrative, and government systems must be overcome (Donahue 2006). Unique political relationships and legal rights. The United States has unique federal trust responsibilities to tribal governments and their members. These responsibilities are shared by all federal agencies. The duty to protect the health and productivity of the resources held in trust for Indians does not fall solely on the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the USDA Forest Service, but rather on the United States and all its entities (Wood 1995, 2004). As a matter of policy, all agencies of the United States have a duty to consult with tribal governments on matters that might affect tribal rights and interests (Executive Order No. 13175 2000). Several tribes have reserved rights to access and use federal lands for hunting, fishing, gathering, and trapping, and the United States has the obligation to ensure that the resources necessary to exercise those rights are available (Wood 2004, Warner 2015). Tribes have senior reserved water rights that can affect the quantity and quality of water that is captured, stored, and filtered on forests (DesRosier 2015). As government sovereigns, tribes have rights and responsibilities as comanagers of resources that extend beyond reservation boundaries (Goodman 2000, Donoghue et al. 2010). Cross-Boundary/Cross-Cultural Collaboration Contemporary forest issues are now broadly acknowledged as too large to be successfully addressed at a local level or on a single ownership (Vilsack 2009). The need for multiownership collaborations across boundaries is gaining recognition (National Association of State Foresters 2009, USDA 2011, Brose 2016). Indian tribes and the Forest Service share nearly 3,000 miles of contiguous boundaries and 60 tribes have treaty rights to culturally important resources on federal forests (USDA Office of Tribal Relations and Forest Service 2012). With the increasing magnitudes and intensities of wildfires, there is a growing sense of emergency within many forest-dependent Indian communities, especially in the west. Tribal leaders recognize that survival of Indians as distinct peoples depends on their ability to help sustain ecological functions across landscapes on and off reservations. Consequently, tribes, under the authority provided by the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004, are seeking a more proactive role in reducing hazardous fuel loads on federal forests adjacent to reservations (US Congress 2004). All National Forests and National Parks were once Indian lands from which Indians were evicted (White 1992, Spence 1999). The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), a 40-year-old association of 70 forest-owning Indian tribes and Alaska Native organizations, recognizing that losses of timber harvesting and processing infrastructure lower market values for forest products and challenge forest management, has proposed that tribal forest managers collaborate with neighboring ownerships to ensure ecologically sustainable and economically viable timber harvests of sufficient quality and quantity to support rural wood processing facilities. Competitive markets benefit all forest ownerships by generating revenues that underwrite the costs of stewardship investments. The ITC initiative is being called Anchor Forests (ITC 2016) and has attracted state, federal, and nongovernment organization support. Conclusion For 500 years American Indians have suffered abuses of subordination and forced assimilation. They have been dispossessed of the lands and resources that sustained their ancestors for countless generations. Yet they survive as culturally distinct peoples who maintain close connections to the local environments in which they live. Theirs is a remarkable story of adaptation, tenacity, and endurance based on undefeatable resolve. They are still here and will be here tomorrow as the longest tenured forest managers in American history. As our Nation struggles with contemporary management challenges, it is important to be aware of and correct misconceptions. For example, although historically discounted by Euro-Americans as primitive and of limited significance, the place-based ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples, gained over thousands of years of keen observation and management experience, is now being recognized for its insights into the interconnectedness of human communities and their environments. The effective integration by contemporary tribal resource management programs of tradition, western science, and technical capabilities is beginning to garner praise. Old myths and prejudices must finally be shed. As political sovereigns with special relationships to the United States, tribal governments, in addition to traditional knowledge and values, can bring a wide array of laws, policies, and reserved rights to the forefront of multiownership natural resource collaborations. The time has come to honestly, humbly, and respectfully seek the counsel and assistance of America's First Stewards to facilitate a new and historically accurate discussion about the future of our Nation's forests. “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie … but the myth.” President John F. Kennedy Commencement address to Yale University, 1962 Literature Cited Abrams M.D., Nowicki G.J. . 2008. Native Americans as active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the eastern USA. Holocene 18( 7): 1123– 1137. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683608095581. Anderson M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and management of California's natural resources . Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 526 p. Antuma J., Esch B., Hall B., Munn E., Sturges F. . 2014. Restoring forests and communities: Lessons from the collaborative forest landscape restoration program . National Forest Foundation, Missoula, MT. 180 p. Blackburn T.C., Anderson K. (eds.). 1993. Before the wilderness. Environmental management by native Californians . Balena Press, Menlo Park, CA. 476 p. Bliss J.C., Kelly E.C., Abrams J. . 2008. Disintegration of the industrial forest estate and the future of small scale forestry in the United States . Rural Stud. Program WPN RSP 08-03. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 11 p. Bonnicksen T.M. 2000. America's ancient forests: From the Ice Age to the age of discovery . John Wiley & Sons, New York. 612 p. Botkin D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century . Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, OR. 313 p. Botkin D.B. 2012. The moon in a nautilus shell: Discordant harmonies revisited . Oxford Univ. Press, New York. 424 p. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brose D.A. (Rapporteur). 2016. Integrating landscape approaches and multi-resource analysis into natural resource management: Summary of a workshop . Committee on the Practice of Sustainability Science; Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 84 p. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Butler W.H., Monroe A., McCaffrey S. . 2015. Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: Implications for legal context, accountability, and adaptive management. Environ. Manage . 55( 3): 564– 577. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0430-8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Chapin F.S.III, Carpenter S.R., Kofinas G.P., Folke C., Abel N., Clark W.C., Olsson P. et al. . 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol . 25( 4): 241– 249. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Climate Central. 2012. The age of western wildfires . Climate Central, Princeton, NJ, and Palo Alto, CA. 18 p. Conzin M.P. (ed.). 1990. The making of the American landscape . Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA. 433 p. Cox T.R., Maxwell R.S., Thomas P.D., Marlone J.J. . 1985. This well-wooded land: Americans and their forests from Colonial times to the present . Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 325 p. Croker T.C. 1987. Long leaf pine: A history of man and a forest . USDA Forest Service For. Rep. R8-FR7, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. 37 p. Cronin W. 2003. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists and the ecology of New England . Hill and Wang. New York. 287 p. Crosby A.W. 1976. Virgin soil epidemics as a factor in the aboriginal depopulation in America. William Mary Q . 33( 2): 289– 299. doi:10.2307/1922166. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Crosby A.W. 1986. Ecological imperialism: The biological expansion of Europe, 900–1900 . Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge UK. 368 p. Current R.N., Williams H.T., Brinkley A. . 1987. American history: A survey , 7th ed. Knopf, New York. 952 p. Day G.M. 1953. The Indian as an ecological factor in the northeastern forest. Ecology 34( 2): 329– 346. doi:10.2307/1930900. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Deloria V. 1992. Trouble in high places: Erosion of American Indian rights to religious freedom in the United States. P. 267– 290 in The state of Native America: Genocide, colonization and resistance , Jaimes M.A. (ed.). South End Press, Boston, MA. Denevan W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscape of the Americas in 1492. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 82( 3): 369– 385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1992.tb01965.x. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS DesRosier D.M. 2015. Tribal water rights settlements and instream flow protection . MS Thesis, Pap. 4433. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT. Available online at scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4433; last accessed Dec. 19, 2016. Dobyns H.F., Swagerty W.R. . 1983. Their numbers become thinned: Native American population dynamics Eastern North America . Univ. of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. 378 p. Donahue D.L. 2006. Education and cooperative management of tribal natural resources. Tulsa Law Rev . 42: 5. Donoghue E.M., Thompson S.A., Bliss J.C. . 2010. Tribal-federal collaboration in resource management. J. Ecol. Anthropol . 14( 1): 22– 38. doi:10.5038/2162-4593.14.1.2. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Edmunds R.D., Hoxie F.E., Salsbury N. . 2007. The people: A history of Native America . Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. 528 p. Emery M.R., Wrobel A., Hansen M.H., Dockery M., Moser W.K., Stark K.J., Gilbert J.H. . 2014. Using traditional ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventories. J. For . 112( 2): 207– 214. doi:10.5849/jof.13-023. Executive Order No. 13175. 2000. Consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments. Fed. Regist . 65( 218). Available online at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-11-09/pdf/00-29003.pdf; last accessed Dec. 19, 2016. Fedkiw J. 1989. The evolving use and management of the Nation's forests, grasslands, croplands, and related rangelands . USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-175, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 67 p. Fritz R. 1984. The path of least resistance: Learning to become the creative force in your own life . Ballantine Books, New York. 320 p. Goodman E. 2000. Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: Tribal co-management as a reserved right. Environ. Law . 30: 278– 362. Gover K. 2006. An Indian trust for the twenty first century. Natl. Res. J . 46: 317– 374. http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol46/iss2/3. Hummel S., Lake F.K. . 2015. Forest site classification for cultural plant harvest by tribal weavers can inform management. J. For . 113( 1): 30– 39. doi:10.5849/jof.13-082. Indian Forest Management Assessment Team. 2013. The third assessment of Indian forests and forest management programs in the United States . Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 267 p. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. 996 p. Intertribal Timber Council. 2016. Anchor forests: Sustainable forest ecosystems through cross boundary, landscape scale collaborative management . Available online at anchorforest.org/; last accessed Jan. 17, 2017. Jennings F. 1975. The invasion of America: Indians, colonialism, and the cant of conquest . Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 369 p. Kimbell A.R., Hickman C., Brown H. . 2010. How do taxes affect America's private forestland owners? J. For . 108( 2): 93– 97. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/saf/jof/2010/00000108/00000002/art00011. Kimmerer R.W. 2000. Native knowledge for native ecosystems. J. For . 98( 8): 4– 9. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/saf/jof/2000/00000098/00000008/art00005. Kimmerer R.W. 2002. Weaving traditional knowledge and Western science: A call to action. BioScience 52( 5): 432– 438. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kinney J.P. 1937. A continent lost—A civilization won; Indian land tenure in America . Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. 366 p. MacCleery D. 1993. Understanding the role the human dimension has played in shaping America's forest and grassland landscapes. Amer. For. Paper 23( 1): 1– 9. Mann C.C. 2005. 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus . Vintage, New York. 541 p. Mann C.C. 2011. 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus created . Knopf, New York. 509 p. Mason L., White G., Morishima G., Alvarado E., Andrew L., Clark F., Durglo M.Sr. et al. . 2012. Listening and learning from traditional knowledge and Western science: A dialogue on contemporary challenges of forest health and wildfire. J. For . 110( 4): 187– 193. doi:10.5849/jof.11-006. Menzies C.R. (ed.). 2006. Traditional knowledge and natural resource management . Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 274 p. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis . Island Press, Washington, DC. 127 p. PubMed PubMed Miller R.J. 2006. Native America, discovered and conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny . Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB. 216 p. Morison S.E. 1974. The European discovery of America. Vol. 2: The Southern Voyages, A.D. 1492–1616 . Oxford Univ. Press, New York. 820 p. National Association of State Foresters. 2009. All-lands platform: A seven-point plan for America's forests . Available online at www.stateforesters.org/all-lands-policy-platform-seven-point-plan-americas-forests-november-2009; last accessed Dec. 19, 2016. Newcomb S.T. 2008. Pagans in the promised land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery . Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO. 224 p. Norton H.H. 1979. The association between anthropogenic prairies and important food plants in western Washington. Northw. Anthropol. Res. Notes 13( 2): 175– 200. Oelschlaeger M. 1991. The idea of wilderness: From prehistory to the age of ecology . Oxford Univ. Press, New York. 477 p. Oswalt S.N., Smith W.B., Miles P.D., Pugh S.A. . 2014. Forest resources of the United States, 2012 . USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-91, Washington, DC. 218 p. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47322. Prucha F.P. 1986. The Great White Father: The United States Government and the American Indians . Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 426 p. Pyne S.J. 1982. Fire in America; A cultural history of wildland and rural fire . Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 654 p. Sauer C.D. 1950. Grassland climax, fire, and man. J. Range Manage . 3: 16– 21. doi:10.2307/3894702. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sauer C.O. 1971. Sixteenth century America; The land and the people as seen by the Europeans . Univ. of California Press, Los Angeles, CA. 319 p. Schultz C.A., Jedd T., Beam R.D. . 2012. The collaborative forest landscape restoration program: A history and overview of the first projects. J. For . 110( 7): 381– 391. doi:10.5849/jof.11-082. Smail R.A., Lewis D.J. . 2009. Forest-land conversion, ecosystem services, and economic issues for policy: A review . USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-797, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 40 p. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/33789. Spence M.D. 1999. Dispossessing the wilderness: Indian removal and the making of the National Parks . Oxford Univ. Press, New York. 190 p. Stein S.M., McRoberts R.E., Alig R.J., Nelson M.D., Theobald D.M., Eley M., Dechter M., Cary M. . 2005. Forests on the edge, housing development on America's private forests . USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 16 p. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9841. Stewart O.C. 2002. Forgotten fires: Native Americans and the transient wilderness . Univ. of OK Press, Norman, OK. 364 p. Taylor A. 2001. American colonies: The settling of North America . Penguin Books, New York. 544 p. Thornton R. 1987. American Indian holocaust and survival: A population history since 1492 . Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 292 p. Tsuli L.J.S., Ho E. . 2002. Traditional environmental knowledge and Western science: In search of common ground. Can. J. Native Stud . 22( 2): 327– 360. Turner F.T. 1920. The frontier in American history . Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. 375 p. Uprety Y., Asselin H., Bergeron Y., Doyon F., Boucher J.-F. . 2012. Contribution of traditional knowledge to ecological restoration: Practices and applications. Ecoscience 19( 3): 225– 237. doi:10.2980/19-3-3530. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS US Census Bureau. 2012. 2010 census of population and housing, population and housing unit counts, CPH-2–1, US Summary. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 467 p. plus appendices. US Civil Rights Commission. 2003. A quiet crisis: Federal finding and unmet needs in Indian country . Washington, DC. 124 p. US Congress. 2004. Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 . P.L. 108-2378. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/stewardship/tfpa/TribalForestProtectionAct2004.pdf; last accessed Dec. 19, 2016. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2002. The process predicament: How statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national Forest management . Washington, DC. 40 p. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2011. National report on sustainable forests—2010 . FS-979. Washington, DC. 214 p. US Department of Agriculture Office of Tribal Relations and Forest Service. 2012. USDA policy and procedures review and recommendations: Indian scared sites . Washington, DC. 44 p. plus appendices. US Department of State, Office of the Historian. 2016. Milestones: 1830–1860. Indian treaties and the Removal Act of 1830 . Available online at history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties; last accessed Dec. 16, 2016. Vilsack T. 2009. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack presents national vision for America's forests . US Department of Agriculture Office of Communication Release No. 0382.09. Seattle, WA. Vose J.M., Peterson D.L., Patel-Weynand T. (eds.). 2012. Effects of climatic variability and change on forest ecosystems: A comprehensive science synthesis for the US forest sector . USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 265 p. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42610. Warner E.A.K. 2015. Everything old is new again: Enforcing tribal treaty provisions to protect climate change-threatened resources , 94 Neb. L. Rev. 916. Western Governors Association. 2016. National Forest and Rangeland Management. Policy Resolution 2016-01. Denver CO. Available online at: http://www.westgov.org/images/images/WGA_Forest_Management_Reso_2016-01.pdf; last accessed Jan. 17, 2017. White R. 1992. Indian land use and the National Forests. In The Origins of the National Forests; A Centennial Symposium . Forest History Society, Durham, NC. Available online at www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec12.htm; last accessed Dec. 19, 2016. Wood M.C. 1995. Protecting the attributes of native sovereignty: A new trust paradigm for federal actions affecting tribal lands and resources. Utah Law Rev . 1995( 1): 109– 237. Wood M. C. 2004. The Indian Trust responsibility: Protecting tribal lands and resources through claims of injunctive relief against federal agencies. Tulsa Law Rev . 39: 355. http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol39/iss2/5. Woodall C.W., Ince P.J., Skog K.E., Aguilar F.S., Keegan C.E., Sorenson C.B., Hodges D.G., Smith W.B. . 2012. An overview of the forest products sector downturn in the United States. For. Prod. J . 61( 8): 595– 603. doi:10.13073/0015-7473-61.8.595. Copyright © 2017 Society of American Foresters
Our Trust Walk Continues: Steps Removing the GridlockMotanic, Donald
doi: 10.5849/jof-2016-094r1pmid: N/A
View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide In the November 1997 issue of Journal of Forestry, I cowrote a perspective article called “To Do Each Other No Harm” (Motanic and Cathcart, 1997), which described the tribal government's legal status when working with the federal government and its policy “Secretarial Order 3202: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act.” Now, nearly 20 years later we're continuing our “trust walk” together toward forest restoration and taking steps to help remove the federal forest management state of gridlock. In a trust walk, two people alternate being leader and blindfolded follower. As part of firefighters' crew boss training, for example, individuals take turns as the blind follower or the visionary leader and guide each other through an obstacle course. Both learn communication skills and develop a sense of trust with each step (Motanic and Cathcart 1997, p. 48). During the past 20 years, society seems to be in gridlock as our federal forest management activities are being nearly completely stopped by court appeals. It's time to take a new trust walk that is not just science-based but connected with traditional knowledges from tribes that hold a key to that knowledge and find a trail out of the current gridlock. Removing the gridlock is a daunting task, but tribal forest management steps were taken over 100 years ago when the federal forests were established. Tribes that have managed their forests during these years have been documented by three periodic reports published between 1993 and 2013 by the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). The one thing that I have witnessed over the past 20 years has been a sign of hope provided by that report, its authors, and the many tribes that they visited. The US congressional reaction to the tribes and IFMAT-III testimony over the last several decades has changed from disinterest to respect and inquiry. It was amazing to watch the congressional representatives' response to a report that the tribes managed their forests with one-third of the federal forest cost during this time period. The one reoccurring question from Congress was “how can you do that?” The answer to that question has been the tribes' ability to connect science with their traditional knowledges to create a model of forest management where they don't spend their resources trying to find the social, economic, and environmental values that guide their communities toward sustainability. Federal forests spend more of their budget trying to determine society's values for protecting the environment while still trying to fulfill a social and economic need. I have observed that tribes spend less time and funds because they can connect their traditional knowledges with scientific knowledge. Further research could support my observations and assist Congress with answering their question. In addition, tribal managers are not rotated in and out of the tribal communities but will work with tribes for decades to build the trust that is needed to complete their local trust walk. The long-term trust probably reduces the cost that federal agencies spend due to “… personal turnover and inconsistencies in federal action that influence management decisions” (Corrao et al. 2016, p. 38). The values that guide the tribal communities can be shared stories and shared steps along our trust walk and that will include how to connect western science with traditional knowledge. The stories will also build respect along the way and provide answers to the “how can you do that?” But for this to work, we need to understand each other. For example, do science and the tribal community define traditional knowledge in the same way? In one case, traditional knowledge has been defined by the International Council for Science (2002, p. 3) as a cumulative body of knowledge, know-how, practices and representations maintained and developed by peoples with extended histories of interaction with the natural environment. These sophisticated sets of understandings, interpretations, and meanings are part and parcel of a cultural complex that encompasses language, naming and classification systems, resource use practices, ritual, spirituality, and worldview. In the case of the tribal community, the Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW) has developed guidelines. CTKW is a group of indigenous persons, staff of indigenous governments and organizations, and experts with experience working with issues concerning traditional knowledges. In CTKW (2014, p. 7) guidelines the phrase traditional knowledges (TKs) is a generic term that represents certain dimensions or faces (Houde 2007) of dynamic knowledge systems and lifeways that are as diverse as the 566 federally recognized tribes and other, nonfederally recognized indigenous peoples in the United States. TKs broadly refer to indigenous communities' ways of knowing that both guide and result from their community members' close relationships with and responsibilities toward the landscapes, waterscapes, plants, and animals that are vital to the flourishing of indigenous cultures. These ways of knowing and living have been accrued over thousands of years of experience, relationships, and upheld responsibilities toward other living beings and places (Wildcat 2009). English language phrases like “traditional ecological knowledge” are coined in nonindigenous academic and policy circles and often do not fully reflect the ways in which indigenous communities refer to, or think of, their knowledge and lifeways (McGregor 2005, Whyte 2013, Williams and Hardison 2013). Traditional knowledge concerning fire and its use can be one of the tribes' great contributions toward steps along the trust walk because fire is one of largest budget items with forestry. Tribes have many stories and evidence of using fire as being part of nature instead of being part of a management system that is western. For instance, “management” is not a traditional concept of Indian people because it reflects an anthropocentric attitude that man is separate and apart from the environment, able to control all to meet his needs (Mason et al. 2012). Each of the 567 federally recognized tribes in the United States has their unique stories to share, and they carry traditional knowledge that could help our forests survive the current tragic story of fires and poor health. As the tribes continue to collaborate, the nontribal world must understand why it is difficult to tell our story and it will take time. American Indians are 1% of the population, but 50% of the diversity with 200 indigenous languages out of the 400 languages in the United States (Hodgkinson et al. 1990). Along with those many diverse languages are the stories and traditional knowledge that could be connected with western science to help create a path along our trust walk outside the court rooms for forests and communities to move out of the gridlock. As we build that respect between our societies, I hope that our trust walk will move outside the courtrooms' gridlock and back into the forest so the restoration can survive and provide resilience toward our sustainability. Literature Cited Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup. Guidelines for considering traditional knowledges in climate change initiatives . Available online at climatetkw.wordpress.com/guidelines/; last accessed Apr. 28, 2017. Corrao M., Corrao V., King T. . 2016. Anchor forests: Sustainable forest ecosystems through cross-boundary, landscape-scale collaborative management . Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 38 p. Hodgkinson H., Outtz J.H., Obarakpor A.M. . 1990. The demographics of American Indians: One percent of the people, fifty percent of the diversity . Center for Demographic Policy (Institute for Educational Leadership) Washington, DC. 30 p Houde N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecol. Soc . 12( 2) i: 34. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/. International Council for Science. 2002. ICSU series on science for sustainable development no. 4: Science, traditional knowledge and sustainable development . International Council for Science, Paris, France. 24 p. Mason L., White G., Morishima G., Alvarado E., Andrew L., Clark F., Durglo M. et al. . 2012. Listening and learning from traditional knowledge and western science: A dialogue on contemporary challenges of forest health and wildfire. J. For . 110( 4): 187– 193. doi:10.5849/jof.11-006. McGregor D. 2005. Traditional ecological knowledge: An Anishnabe woman's perspective. Atlantis 29( 2): 103– 109. http://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/1057. Motanic D.A., Cathcart J. . 1997. Perspective: To do each other no harm. J. For . 95( 11): 48. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Perspective%3a+To+do+each+other+no+harm&pageSize=10&index=1. Whyte K.P. 2013. On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecol. Proc . 2( 1): 7. doi:10.1186/2192-1709-2-7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wildcat D. 2009. Red alert: Saving the planet with indigenous knowledge . Fulcrum Press, Golden: CO. 128 pp. Williams T., Hardison P. . 2013. Culture, law, risk and governance: Contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation. Climatic Change 120( 3): 531– 544. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0850-0. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Copyright © 2017 Society of American Foresters
Indian Forests and Forestry: Can They Play a Larger Role in Sustainable Forest Management?Sessions, John; Gordon, John; Rigdon, Philip; Motanic, Donald; Corrao, Vincent
doi: 10.5849/jof.2016-083r1pmid: N/A
View largeDownload slide View largeDownload slide Indian forests and forestry are increasingly well positioned to exert a larger role regionally and nationally in sustainable forest management, as evidenced by a series of studies (Indian Forest Management Assessment Team 1993, 2003, 2013). A SWOT approach is a useful and concise method to appraise the potential of tribal forestry for this larger role. Strengths of Indian forestry are a long-term vision, the knowledge that Indians must directly live with all their decisions and actions, progressive federal forest legislation (the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act) that specifies sustainable forest management, a trust land base that cannot be sold, an increasing land base assisted by gaming revenues as well as forestry receipts, more predictable and balanced forest policy, and consistent production of ecosystem services and harvests that are significant but substantially below their allowable harvest levels. Weaknesses include unrealized potential gains through exploitation of economics of scale, the lingering effects of past federal allotment policy, unfunded environmental and consultative mandates, federal funding that lags behind federal support for other lands, challenges of workforce development including an aging and undercompensated workforce, and the inability to use trust land for collateral. Opportunities include continued recovery of ancestral homelands, integrated landscape planning with their neighbors, shared management of adjacent federal lands, and marketing of ecosystem services. We think there is a good opportunity for tribes to assert a leadership role in the development of natural resources policy permanence, balance, and triple bottom line—social, economic, environmental—concepts embodied in the tribally led Anchor Forests initiative. Under these policies, tribes can build partnerships that can help bridge the gaps impeding the ability to activate the landscape-scale management needed to sustain the economic and ecological functions that tribes value. The Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) provides authority for tribes to propose and be funded for treatment of conditions on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands that pose threats to trust resources and tribal values. There are also opportunities stemming from legislation like the TFPA and new market tax credits. Threats to Indian forests are declining forest industry infrastructure, resulting in part from federal policies on nearby federal lands, wildfire and disease from adjacent federal neighbors, and the effects of climate change. Although these trends have been evident for several decades, other contributing factors are the major economic downturn over the last decade as well as larger-scale economic conditions in recent years, including foreign competition and the stronger US dollar. We believe weaknesses can be overcome and threats blunted through concerted efforts of tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Congress, thereby affording excellent opportunities for the tribes to provide greater value to their citizens, their regions, and the United States as a whole. Indian forestry is evolving rapidly as self-governance spreads. However, it is still hampered by inadequate investment and outmoded bureaucratic practices. In particular, the weaknesses listed below urgently need to be remedied. Restructuring of the trust oversight process and participants is both an urgent task and an issue that goes far beyond forests. Currently the same federal agency is responsible for both administering the trust and providing oversight that the trust is being administered properly. Many schemes for accomplishing this have been suggested over the years. We believe the separation of trust administration from trust oversight suggested in IFMAT I and echoed in IFMAT II and IFMAT III would work. In any event, the current situation constricts tribal leadership and is a legacy of a paternalistic past, long outdated. Recognition of the broader potential of the tribal integrated, locally focused, traditional knowledge plus science model driven by a true “triple bottom line” approach should be the subject of a coordinated publicity campaign launched by the Intertribal Timber Council and the BIA. Enhanced legal, trust-based mechanisms for Indian management and comanagement of public lands, including but not limited to the Anchor Forests Initiative and an expansion of the Tribal Forest Protection Act initiative, should be designed and tested with state and federal partners. Scaling up of tribal resource management capability should continue, fueled by a 5-year process to accomplish the funding and staffing goals put forward in IFMAT III. Indian forestry operations are understaffed compared with those of other public and private forest management organizations. Relatively low salaries, remote locations, and small organizations lead to poor career ladders. The majority of current employees are older than 50 years. Exacerbating the problem is the large number of long-term employees eligible for retirement, which threatens the loss of institutional knowledge and leadership. Better mechanisms for intertribal cooperation and entrepreneurship should arise from pairs or groups of tribes ready to contemplate formal mechanisms for joint management of existing and newly acquired lands. These should be informed by, but not be copies of, existing timber investment management organizations (TIMOs). Economies of scale are particularly important in forestry. Smaller forest units cannot afford the larger staffs commonly necessary for integrated forest management and even large forest units may not have the continuous workflow to support current staff. Analysis of BIA management cost allocations as a function of tribal forest size indicated much larger per acre management costs for smaller management units. Venture capital sources for scaling up new and better cooperation mechanisms should be vigorously sought with the assistance of investment managers and development professionals. Because trust lands cannot be used for capital, tribes must carefully consider maintaining newly acquired tribal lands in a fee status or to apply for trust status. What might a “fully enabled” future look like for Indian forestry if the proposed steps for addressing the weaknesses outlined above are implemented? Tribes are directly managing a major fraction of the federal forests within their ancestral homelands. Through partnerships, tribes have created a new wave of wood processing infrastructure based on an assured, high-quality wood supply. Tribal TIMOs, with tribal and other investors, are acquiring and managing private forestlands within their ancestral homelands, and in other places where sound investment opportunities exist. Partnering with universities and other research locations, tribes are leading a renaissance in forest productivity and management research. Sustainable forest income is contributing effectively to tribal economic self-sufficiency as other forms of revenue are stable or declining. The general public image of tribes is of them as highly skilled and effective land managers. Indian forestry presents not one model for sustainable forests, but a mosaic of models applicable to many goals and landscapes inclusive of strong common threads throughout all. Can tribes work together with each other and their neighbors to make real landscape-level management work to the benefit of all? We think so. Literature Cited Indian Forest Management Assessment Team. 1993. First Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council, November 1993. Assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States . Final report. Available online at www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/assessment.html; last accessed Jan. 21, 2017. Indian Forest Management Assessment Team. 2003. Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council, December 2003. Assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States . Final report. Available online at www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/assessment.html; last accessed Jan. 21, 2017. Indian Forest Management Assessment Team. 2013. Third Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for the Intertribal Timber Council, June 2013. Assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States . Final report, vol. 1. Available online at www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/assessment.html; last accessed Jan. 21, 2017. Copyright © 2017 Society of American Foresters