ࡱ> []Z%` @bjbj"x"x .N@@h6x%(((>RRRf8 $f."$$$-------$y/h1.R.RR$$/."R$R$--+RR-$ PMYq`,-Q.<.x,\2#d20-2R- hTM..^.fffD ffffffRRRRRR  Sovereign Still From the Forest to the Plains By Linda Moon Stumpff, AV Abstract: This case chronicles the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes success in implementing a policy to maintain administrative authority over their lands and natural resources. Set in the early period of the self-determination era, the Tribes confront federal policy to establish their own forestry and wildlife management plan. Their actions honor their culture while developing sustainable plans for their natural resources. The decision of the Tribal government in this case opens the way for broader land and natural resource management strategies for the future. Introduction: The Forest for the Trees The Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes of Montana (CSKT) is made up of the descendents of the Salish (Flathead), Pend dOreille, and Kootenai Indians. Their current land base of 1.2 million acres, established by the Hellgate Treaty of 1855, is designated as the Flathead Indian Reservation. The treaty-making process itself recognized tribal sovereignty though an exercise of the federal governments power to make treaties with other nations. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution describes the power to make treaties with Indian tribes. While they ceded vast lands, the Salish and Kootenai retained lands of extraordinary beauty, with abundant natural resources, wildlife and water to provide a rich and sustainable homeland for the future. The Salish and Kootenai Tribes would be able to maintain their culture and make future choices from several sustainable economic alternatives. Soon, federal intervention began to limit that future. Though the legal sovereignty of Indian tribes was recognized, federal policies sometimes conflicted with the tribes ability to exercise their rights and sovereign authority. Conflict over control of the West continued and the precepts of Manifest Destiny kept alive the philosophy and practice of conquest of Indian peoples and their lands. The implementation of this strategy in the Plains nearly eliminated the bison in order to weaken the bison-based economy and culture of the region and replace it with productive farmland. Treaties bound the U.S. Government as a trustee of Indian resources, often with the assumption that American Indians would either vanish or became fully acculturated. Tribes had an inherent right to their own sovereign governments, but de facto governance was often in the hands of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Treaties, executive orders, and legislative actions settled land claims and disputes with Tribes over the last 300 or more years in North America. The European idea of trust, imported from the crown lands, was translated into a fiduciary trust by the Department of the Interiors (DOI) BIA that held land title in trust for Indian tribes. Much discussion followed on what the meaning of that trust responsibility was to become. In the end, the paramount definition of trust is that the land and resources belong to the beneficiaryin this case the Indian tribes. But only in recent years did the beneficiaries, the tribal governments, regain sufficient power and capacity to define the substance of that trust in natural resource planning and policy. Historically, land management decisions did not benefit the tribal beneficiaries in the highly politicized world of federal Indian policy because Indian tribes were not interpreting or implementing the laws---the BIA was. One instance of this was forest management on Indian reservations. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 specified that the intensive forest management policy of sustained yield would be used on reservation forests (IRA, Article VI). Management of reservations forests swung from the earlier hands off tribal resources to maximum development to meet perceived immediate needs. Translated into practice, federal policy could lead to liquidation and transfer of tribal natural wealth to non-Indian and corporate interests identified as likely developers. There were exceptions and in some areas the BIA worked hard to develop natural resources as a base for tribal employment and sustainable use. At the end of the day though, the result was often overuse, fragmentation, and damage to Indian trust land, and resources, at least as viewed from the perspective of their attendant cultural values. This led many tribes to place deeper emphasis on restoration planning as a process to heal damaged ecosystems. Since Indian tribes neither vanished nor did they choose to become fully acculturated into mainstream society, the federal government needed a new policy. But instead of a new strategy, the policy of conquest was replaced by an extended period of ambivalence in managing trust resources for the tribes. As a result of the Allotment Act (Dawes Act) of 1890 portions of the Flathead Reservation were alienated from tribal ownership and came into the hands non-Indian farmers. These alienated lands were the rich valley lands along rivers and streams, thus fragmenting the land base and initiating new uses that affected the ecosystem. Now laws and regulations on the parcels could be different depending on the ownership. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 recognized the authority of tribal governments, set up a number of template tribal governments, and ended the fragmentation of reservation lands initiated by the Dawes Act. For a number of tribes like CSKT, conflicting interests within the boundaries of the Reservation created earlier continued, however, and inter-marriage between tribal and non-tribal members further complicated issues. In fact, two governments were managing the land basethe BIA and the CSKT tribal government. The BIA maintained control over forestry, fire fighting, and many other operational activities. The federal government held title to the land for the Tribes in trust, and through the BIA it also made the decisions. The BIA administrated the resources, often under the rubric of the Progressive Era for the greatest good for the greatest number. Problems in defining the Indian trust in practice soon arose. Nowhere did this problem seem more evident than in forestry. Opposing forces were at work---some wanted to preserve large areas of reserved land as wilderness and others wanted to step up logging. The underlying question was really about who would decide. Who Shall Rule the Forests? By the 1970s Indian tribes like Salish & Kootenai, which were already on the self-determination path, resisted attempts to limit their sovereignty. Earlier, in the 1930s, Bob Marshall, a wilderness advocate and forester for the BIA, attempted to designate a large section of forested lands as a roadless area to be managed by the BIA. Although this would have stopped logging, it would also have put the land under federal control, rather than under the authority of CSKT. For the CSKT this would have also been a loss of economic benefits from timber harvesting. Those employed in logging, both tribal members and non-members, had interests in continuing at least a limited timber harvest. Having the roadless area managed by the BIA would make it almost impossible to restrict access to the area so that it could be used for cultural and religious purposes. It would also probably make prescribed burning practices difficult if not impossible. CSKT resisted and was able to avoid this externally-imposed designation. However, this left the lands vulnerable in the next era of federal forest policy as the BIA stepped up logging as an economic benefit to the community and to the nation. The government suppression of the natural fire regime had had bad effects on the health of the forests, supporting the call for more logging. Although the CSKT and the BIA discussed the development of a park to protect significant natural resources in the 1930s, the proposal did not move ahead. In Whom Shall We Trust to Restore a Homeland? In the 1970s the BIA was preparing to log the highly visible western front of the Mission Mountains that had been part of the earlier designated roadless area. This plan was called the Ashley Sale and it got the pot boiling. The Tribal Council would soon need to discuss this issue. Several parties would present proposals to the Council about different courses of action. The three Yayas, respected grandmothers, would be coming to make their ideas known on the Ashley Timber Sale proposal for the western front country. They would oppose the sale based on an ethic of intergenerational responsibility for natural resources. The Tribal Chairman watched the light fade behind the mountains at dusk, the rich forest texture highlighted in front of the rugged skyline, as he drove home the night before the Council meeting. He wondered what the other Council members were thinking. Though the Tribes always held their sovereign powers dear, the BIA still held the authority to administer natural resources, particularly forest practices. The Self-Determination Act, the Self-Governance Act and related amendments and administrative changes were not implemented until later in the 1970s and through the 1980s & 1990s. Tomorrow, groups of tribal members would be coming to the Council meeting with their different perspectives, many opposing the Ashley Sale. He pondered various courses of action that might keep a dark curtain from falling either on the forest or on tribal sovereignty. Many questions ran through his mind. How would the decision they were about to make on this issue affect their future attempts to restore their homeland? It was the eve of self-determination and they were passing legislation in Washington, D.C. that would return power to Indian tribes. How would the Tribal Councils decision affect future relations with the BIA? Tribal Council Meeting, June 1974 The Council meeting begins. The BIA Forestry Department starts the meeting with a professional presentation about the proposed logging operations, the Ashley Sale, including maps and a discussion of the forestry program and its importance for a timber-producing economy and forest management. They are seemingly unaware that the Tribes might oppose their version of professional forest management. They believe their work on the Ashley Sale truly supports the best interests of the CSKT. The Chairman considers the options. The BIA is ready to move ahead with the sale. They still hold authority to administer tribal forest resources. At the same time, those resources are the responsibility of the CSKT and part and parcel of their sovereign future. He looks around the room and sees Thurman Trosper, a tribal member, retired USDA Forester, and President of the national Wilderness Society, who is sitting with a group that is here to stop the Ashley Sale. Trosper is known to understand limited logging, as well as advocating the establishment of the area as wilderness, and the need for a wilderness study previous to establishing such an area. Looking in the other direction, the Chairman sees members of the Save the Mission Mountains Committee, led by Doug Allard, a tribal businessman. They are asking for a stop to all logging. He hears Allard say, These mountains belong to our children. The Council room is also peppered with tribal members who work in the timber industry. They are talking among themselves about the importance of timber harvesting to the Reservation economy, impacts to their families if the sale does not happen, along with their own concerns for the mountains. The three Yayas arrive at the meeting. The Tribal Chair greets them, and they explain their concerns and ask that the Ashley Sale be stopped because the forest belongs to future generations. They show no signs of yielding the floor. Then they speak out: The Mission Mountains are a treasure and it is important we not destroy them in the short time we are here. They continue to stand after speaking. When asked what they want, they say to the Council: Well just wait here until you vote. The Chairman knows the jig is up, politically and tribally. They are facing the moment of truth. As he considers the potential consequences and the political implications of their actions today, he wonders how to proceed. If he calls for a vote, will the Ashley Timber Sale proceed anyway? Will it be the last timber sale within the boundaries of the proposed wilderness area? What if the Council moves to stop the sale? Can the Indians do thisstop the federal government from holding a timber sale when they still claim administrative authority to manage the Reservation forests? Can the CSKT establish their own wilderness area under the control of the tribal government and not managed by the BIA? He turns to the Council to ask their opinions knowing that the actions they take today will affect their sovereign ability to make decisions in the future and their potential range of action to restore the Tribes cultural and natural landscape. References Krahe, D. L. (2001) A Sovereign Prescription for Preservation: The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness. In Clow R. & I Sutton (Eds).), Trusteeship In Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Natural Resource Management. (pp. 217-237) Boulder: University of Colorado Press. McDonald, T, Tanner, T., Bigcrane, L., & Rockwell, R. (2005) Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness Case Study. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Wildland Recreation Program  Copyright held by AV. Please give appropriate attribution when citing or using.  Federal designation of lands as roadless areas was a precursor to the formal definition of lands as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.  Information presented in this case is from personal interviews by the author and from Krahe and McDonald et al.     PAGE  PAGE 1 ./0o %!A!"";)<)&<2<<<<=====f>h>i>>>m?n??????????????????@@@@@hh80JmHnHu h&0Jjh&0JUjh&Uh&5CJ aJ jh&0JU h&5\ h&6 h&5jh&0J5Uh&CJaJh&603cd STQR$!%!A!B!$$'((($a$$a$h>?(()(((**////1144556688.;/;ƀڱ/;%<&<1<2<G=H=e>f>h>>m??????????????@@h]h&`#$$a$@@@@$a$,1h/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH :@: Heading 1$@&5\DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 4B@4 Body Text5\8P8 Body Text 2$a$6U6  Hyperlink >*B*phH"H  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ>@2>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@A@ Footnote ReferenceH*B'QB Comment ReferenceCJaJ<b<  Comment TextCJaJ@jab@ Comment Subject5\FVF FollowedHyperlink >*B* phB^B Normal (Web)dd[$\$ a4 @4 Footer  !.)@. Page Number.;!8lwz8N03cdST QR$%AB' ( ) W X ""''''))N,O,M-N-u.w.i0k0.3/3%4&41424G5H5e6f6h66m7777777777788880X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X00000000000000000000000000000000000000Z00 @0@0 00w@0Z00@0@0@0Z00X00X00@0@0X00Z00h6777778X0X0X00<0X00X00X00l $$$'@!((/;@@"$%&@#  '!!8@0(  B S  ?  ls |s! ,|s" ls# s$ ,}s% ~s& ,s' ,s( sUe ''''8  br %'+'+'8 8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState 2  >E%%-%/%5%6%8%..g6h6777777777777777888GJ(-1-N-g67777777777777883333g6h677777777777788h677777777777788 @\]DwjFl0a!"T*PV,~gQ'BfjLrBFjQxQT3?@ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQSTUVWXY\Root Entry F@bq^Data (1Table02WordDocument.NSummaryInformation(JDocumentSummaryInformation8RCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q