Indian Forest; Land in Trust

Philip RigdonYakama Nation

DNR

April 18, 2007

Indian Forest

• Social • Economical• Cultural & Traditional• Traditional Hunting and Fishing• Foods and Medicines• Religious & Cultural

Today’s Forestry

• Economic Development is Balanced with;• Traditional and Culture Values• Fish and Wildlife• Water Quality• Food and Medicine

Indian Forest

• 193 Reservation in 33 States have Forestland

• 17.9 Million Acres of Forestland• 10.2 Million Acres of Woodland • 7.7 Million Acres of Timberland

Diversity of Lands

• Rainforest in Washington• Palms of Florida• Hardwoods of Northeast and Midwest• Juniper Stands of the Southwest• Interior West Mixed Conifers Stands• With the diversity of lands, tribes have

different goals for their lands

Timberlands• 44 Billion Board Feet• Nationally - Annual Allowable Harvest

779.3 Million Board Feet Forest lands• Generates over $456 million for Indian

communities and $180 million for neighbor non-Indian communities

• 706 Million Board Feet - Annually Harvested from 1992-1996

Indian Forest

• A deep history that is shaped by a shifting federal policy from the beginning of treaty relationships between tribes and the U.S. Government.

History of Indian Forestry

Trust Responsibility

John Marshall’s 1830’s Supreme CourtCherokee Nation v. Georgia

“Domestic Dependent Nations”This created a ward-guardian relationship

between tribes and the United States.

Indian Forestry History

• 1873 U.S. v. Cook– The ruling stated that Indians on the Tulalip

Reservation in Washington State had no legal right to sell timber unless the clearing was for agriculture purposes; otherwise the logs belonged to the United States.

– The court viewed Indian rights to the reservation and the timber upon them as rights of occupancy only.

Indian Forestry History• 1887 General Allotment Act

– Assimilate tribes and Indian people

– Move land out of communally held tribal land into land that is owned by individual people.

Indian Forestry History

• 1889 Dead and Down Act– Grant tribes the right to salvage dead timber for

commercial purposes. – Green timber could not be harvested unless it

was being cleared for agriculture. – This was the first time Congress or the federal

government recognized the Indians’ right to use their forest for commercial purposes

Indian Forestry History• 1909 Act - Appropriated Money for

Indian Forestry• 1910 Established the Division of Forestry

in the Bureau of Indian Affairs– The second, in 1910 authorized the Secretary of

Interior to approve timber harvesting on a sustain yield basis

– Even with the new approach, Congress refused to address the failing allotment policy

Indian Forestry History

• 1934 Indian Reorganization Act– The act also signified that tribes generally are

the real owners of the land and resources. – The act also gave tribal governments the power

to stop unwanted activities

Indian Forestry History• 1950 Termination Era

– The ultimate goal of the new deal was to develop tribes into independent self-governments.

– Within the extreme of this self-governance, various western congressmen moved toward a federal policy of termination during the 1950s.

– President Eisenhower wanted “out of the Indian Business” and the approach at that time was to terminate tribes if they could economically and socially sustain themselves.

– This policy lasted until the mid 1950s,when nearly everyone involved recognized this path was not working

Indian Forestry History

• 1960 to 1970 Tribes began to move toward self-determination– Within this new approach, tribes began

developing tribal goals and addressing severe problems with federal trust responsibility and inadequate funding and services on Indian forest.

Indian Forestry History

• 1975 Self-Determination Act– Enabled tribes to take over management of

Bureau of Indian Affairs programs.– First significant move where tribes make the

management decisions and carry out the goals and objectives of the tribe.

Indian Forests• During the 100 year history - forestry management

was a forestry program inside a social service agency• Developing commercial forest during dramatically

dynamic policy period• During this history of BIA Forestry – inadequate

funding• Tribes were developing mistrust of the BIA due to

poor management, little tribal involvement, and in some cases outright corruption

Intertribal Timber Council

• Tribes Questioning Direction and Past Management of Their Forest

• Two options– Litigation– Gather All the Players

• In 1976 the Intertribal Timber Council was Established

Intertribal Timber Council

• Annual Symposium• New Collective Voice in Washington D.C.• Since establishment, ITC has been vital in

addressing issues concerning funding, policy, and other issues involving trust responsibility

National Indian Forest Resource Management Act - 1990

• Attention and approach by ITC culminated by Congress paying more attention to Indian Forest

• Address Several Issues to Indian Forest

NIFRMA 1990• Recognition by Congress of Trust

Responsibility• Development of 10 year management plans,

integrating tribal values• Education & Technical Training Developed• Last Mandate was the development of an

Independent Assessment of Indian Forestlands every Ten-years

IFMAT Report• Secretary of Interior contracted with ITC• Panel of Scientist Selected • The first assessment had 8 question• Mainly aimed at finding out the state of Indian

forest• Took 2 years to finish - finished in 1993• Panel visited 33 reservations • The report came back with ten findings and

developed some recommendations for Indian Forest

IFMAT Report

• The Four Most Significant Findings Number 1Vision - gap between how Indian people

envision their forest and how these forest have been managed

IFMAT ReportNumber 2Gap in funding between Indian forest and comparable federal and private lands

Indian forestry is funded 63% of that for timber production on National Forest•50% compared to private forestry in PNW•35% compared to coordinated resource management on national forest

IFMAT Report

Number 3Lack of Coordinated Resource Planning

Number 4The need for better method of setting and

overseeing trust standards for Indian forestry

IFMAT II

• 2003 As mandated, re-assessment every 10 years

• Going back over the issues from previous

IFMAT II Report

Number 1• 1993 - Vision - gap between how Indian

people envision their forest and how these forest have been managed

• 2003 Significant Progress – Cooperation between tribe / BIA – Management and responsibility of taken over

by tribe

IFMAT II Report

Number 2• 1993 - Gap in funding between Indian forest

and comparable federal and private lands• 2003 Some Progress

– 68% of other federal agencies– Mainly due to large reduction of funding for forest on

the National Forests– Significant increase in funding for fuels management,

fire preparedness and emergency stabilization on Indian forest

IFMAT II Report

Number 3• 1993 - Lack of Coordinated Resource

Planning• 2003 Some Progress

– Funding has been more of an issue – Tribes and BIA are actively progressing

IFMAT II Report

Number 4• 1993 - The need for better method of

setting and overseeing trust standards for Indian forestry

• 2003 Little if any Progress – Many issues are and will continue to go to court– Cobel Lawsuit

Final Analysis by IFMAT Team• Recognized Potential for Indian forest to

serve as models of sustainability for society as a whole. Due to the unique communal ownership, native lands must be used in a way that protects and enhances the resources for generations of children yet unborn because they bear the environmental and economic consequences of today…...

Thank You