ATTITUDES, BELIEFS, AND VALUES TOWARD NATURAL RESOURCES

AND PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT

A Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Kla- math and Great Basins (Haynes and others 1996) states that a main feature of an ecosystem ap- proach to managing natural resources is to include people, their values, and activities. The Framework acknowledges that people may make demands on ecosystems that exceed physical and biological capabilities in the long term. Developing and implementing an ecosystem management plan requires knowledge of the type and quantity of human demands for ecosystem products and the human values associated with these expectations.

The Forest Service's National Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Task Force concluded: "The human dimension of ecosystem manage- ment must include information about people's traditional and changing perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, needs, and values and the past, present, and possible future influences of humans on ecosystems." The ICBEMP Charter reflects this thought by referring to consideration of sustained long-term economic, social, and ecological values of the region and issues identified in scoping. In addition, one of the ICBEMP's key policy questions (November 8, 1994) addressed the impact of ecosystem management on major social issues by requiring an understanding of local, regional, and national attitudes, beliefs, and values associated with natural resources and public land management.

Because ecosystem management is a human con- struct, like multiple-use management or other public land management systems or philosophies, the decisions on whether and how to implement it are made in a political arena. The desirability of different alternatives is a decision normally deter- mined with public input to reflect the values of the groups involved in the debate over a preferred alternative. Knowledge of prevailing social atti- tudes relevant to ecosystem management provides a basis for evaluating social acceptability and developing appropriate mitigation. Existing laws, regulations, and policies reflect prevailing social views, but may not adequately describe public sentiments regarding current issues. Finally, sur- veys that sample populations of interest, such as the Nation's population-at-large or Basin residents, provide a context for interpreting frequently ex- pressed demands of special interest groups.

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values The historical overview presented early in this chapter described social mind-sets regarding the role of humans in ecosystems and changing per- ceptions over time. The following text provides more detail on the current wide range of attitudes people hold toward natural resources and public land management. The objective is to create a more complete understanding of these attitudes, as well as people's expectations for implementing ecosystem management. Several research efforts

Social

have helped identify people's various values, be-liefs, and attitudes toward natural resources, theenvironment, and the agencies that manage landfor the public.7

Because the terms "attitudes, beliefs, and values"have been used differently by social scientists,definitions are provided before presenting theresearch. The purpose is not to suggest what defi-nitions are best nor to redefine the terms, but toprovide descriptions and examples that lead tocommon expectations in the presented text.

Attitudes

Attitudes reflect people's evaluations of somethingas favorable or unfavorable. Although definitionsand methods of measuring attitudes vary widely, adefinition with many common elements wasproposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975): "Alearned predisposition to respond in a consistentlyfavorable or unfavorable manner with respect to agiven object." The evaluative or affective compo-nent (like/dislike or favorable/unfavorable) distin-guishes attitudes from other concepts. Attitudescan be strong and well-formed or weak and broad,and are generally developed through various learn-ing processes. Social scientists have developed andrefined diverse methods for accurately measuringattitudes over the past 60 years. Many surveyresearch efforts to explore interactions betweenpeople and the environment have focused onattitudes. For example, asking people how muchthey like or dislike the Bureau of Land Managementis one way of measuring attitudes toward die agency.

Because attitudes are learned, they are subject tochange. Substantial literature is devoted to under-standing the nature of attitude change, whether byexperience, new information, persuasion, cognitivedissonance, propaganda, behavior change, adver-

7 Trent (1995) summarized the results of numerous surveysthat described peoples attitudes, beliefs, and values relevant tounderstanding perceptions of natural resources and publicland management in the Basin. Much of the material pre-sented here is derived from that report.

tising, or other methods. An undeniable conclu-sion of this research is that attitudes, althoughdefined as consistent evaluations of an object, aresubject to manipulation.

Beliefs

Beliefs reflect what people think is true aboutsomething. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) definedbeliefs as statements indicating a person's subjec-tive probability that an object has one or moreattributes. Beliefs can be one reason for having acertain attitude. An example of a belief might bethat the Forest Service accomplishes plannedharvest levels, or protects habitat for endangeredspecies.

Beliefs also are subject to change based on newinformation, life experiences, or other learningprocesses. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) believed thatattitudes and beliefs are part of a system that alsoincludes behavioral intent, defined as "a person'sintentions to perform various behaviors." Bothbeliefs and behavioral intentions have a strengthcomponent, which is based on peoples percep-tions regarding the likelihood that an object reallydoes have some characteristic, or the subjectiveprobability that a person will actually perform thebehavior in question. Another component ofbeliefs is behavior, which is defined as observableactions.

Values

Values reflect things that people consider beingprecious. They are generally regarded as importantlife goals or standards of behavior toward whichthe person has a strong, positive attitude. "Valuesare the most important and central elements in aperson's system of attitudes and beliefs" (Oskamp1977). People's value systems could be viewed asbuilding blocks of many attitudes and beliefs.Although dynamic like attitudes, values are moredeep-rooted and resistant to change (Burch andDeluca 1984).

1902 Social

For some people, a core set of values can be sostrong as to essentially dictate an individual'sbehavior in a wide range of settings and situations.Many of the toughest social issues facing ourNation today seem difficult or impossible toresolve because they are based on fundamentallyconflicting and strongly held values. Value con-flicts also form the basis of many disputes aboutnatural resources, suggesting that such disputes aredifficult to resolve in a manner acceptable to awide range of stakeholders in public land manage-ment. Part of a land manager's job is to under-stand these various values and their influence onpeople's perceptions of land management actions.

Values, like attitudes and beliefs, change over time,creating new expectations and demands for publicland management. Gale (1991), for example,argued that one reason for conflict over publiclands in the West has been the increase in thevariety of expectations about what goods andservices such resources should produce. Ecosystemmanagement is the BLM and FS's response tothese changing social and cultural values and newscientific understanding of landscape ecology.

Guidelines for Using AttitudeSurveysAlthough basing public land management onprevailing public attitudes at any given point intime is dubious, the attitudes and the underlyingbeliefs and values of stakeholders should be con-sidered. Measuring attitudes, however, is also atrying exercise because people's responses can beinfluenced by many factors, such as wording ofquestions; order, context, amount, and type ofinformation provided to respondents; and socialdesirability. A major event can affect societalattitudes almost overnight. Sampling methods,survey administration, and analysis techniques allhave specific effects on the validity and reliabilityof survey results and their general application tothe population being surveyed.

A main information source for public attitudestoward natural resource issues was the Survey ofNatural Resource Issues on Public Lands in theWest (referred to as the CRB survey throughoutthis chapter), conducted in July and August of1994 by scientists at Utah State University,Oregon State University, and Washington StateUniversity (Brunson and others 1994). Thesurvey's intent was to provide the ICBEMP staffwith specific information about attitudes of thelocal, regional, and national population towardimportant issues confronting the agencies manag-ing Federal lands in the Basin. It was hoped thatthe survey would provide additional clarity inidentifying the public's feelings about ecosystemmanagement.

Four populations were sampled: eastsidepublic (people living in Basin counties east ofthe Cascades); westside public (people in Basincounties west of the Cascades); national public(people from the 48 contiguous states); andproject participants (people on the EastsideEcosystem Management Project mailing list orwho had participated in the scoping process).Response rates for the four sample groups wereuniformly low, ranging from 18 percent of thenational sample to 38 percent of the project par-ticipants. Because of the low response, the resultswere treated as responses of respondents only, notas representative of broader populations. However,the data were valuable in describing the rangeand types of attitudes, beliefs, and values thatpeople hold.

Surveys were just one source of information onattitudes, beliefs, and values used in this assess-ment. Other sources, though not scientificallycollected, provided insight into people's attitudesrelative to issues important to the ICBEMP.Among the other information sources were issuesidentified during project scoping conducted by theEIS team, position statements submitted to theproject by various groups and organizations, news-paper editorials and accounts of current events,journal articles, legal proceedings, and politicalcartoons.

Social 1903

Environmental Concern

A 1989 Gallup survey that explored public atti-tudes toward environmental protection and theenvironmental movement found that 76 percentof a national sample considered themselves to beeither "strong" environmentalists or environmen-talists. Nearly half reported validating this self-perception with behavior: 49 percent said they hadcontributed money to an environmental, conserva-tion, or wildlife preservation group. In a morerecent survey (Roper Starch 1994), 23 percent of anational sample described themselves as "activeenvironmentalists," 56 percent said they were"sympathetic but not active," 16 percent claimedneutrality, and 2 percent were unsympathetic.

Dunlap and Scarce (1991) examined trends inattitudes toward environmental issues over the past20 years, including issues such as threats posed byenvironmental problems, support for governmentactions, willingness to pay for environmentalprotection, perceived seriousness of environmentalproblems, and tradeoffs between environmentalprotection and economic development. Whenasked to name the two most important problemsfacing the United States, about 20 percent volun-teered "the environment," a rate that has remainedfairly constant. They concluded that, as of 1991:

Public concern for environmental quality hasreached an all-time high. While questionsabout the strength of environmental concernremain unclear, growing majorities see environ-mental problems as serious, worsening, andincreasingly threatening to human well-being.

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) called this set ofattitudes the "new environmental paradigm" thatsupports maintaining the balance of nature andrejects the notion that nature exists solely forhuman use. In many polls, younger respondentswho are part of the baby boom generationexpressed values more sympathetic with this per-spective than did older respondents. YafFee (1994)believed this stronger set of environmental valueswould likely be maintained as baby boomers age.

The causes for increased environmental concernhave been reviewed by several researchers (Dunlap1992, Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, Hendee 1989,Kanagay and others 1994, and Steel and others1994). Among the contributing causes identifiedwere generational differences, technologicaladvances, urbanized lifestyles that detach peoplefrom settings producing demanded goods, manywell-publicized events worldwide that demon-strated the risks of substantial human impacts tothe environment, and beliefs that the world maynot be able to support ever-increasing numbers ofpeople competing for finite natural resources.

The Times-Mirror Magazine's National Environ-mental Forum Survey (Roper Starch 1994)conducted in 1992, 1993, and 1994 was used todescribe recent environmental trends. In 1994,a majority of respondents (53%) believed thatenvironmental laws and regulations had not gonefar enough, compared to 16 percent who felt theyhad gone too far and 23 percent who believed theright balance had been met. Younger Americans(age 18 to 34) were more likely to feel stronglythat regulations do not go far enough (64%),compared to just 36 percent of those age 65and older.

In 1992, 63 percent of the respondents believed thatenvironmental laws and regulations had not gonefar enough, compared to 10 percent who felt theyhad gone too far and 17 percent who said the rightbalance had been met. Although the relative rankingof these three response categories did not changefrom 1992 to 1994, a slight shift in attitudes wasapparent; in 1994, more people believed that therewas a balance or that regulations had gone too far.

Values Regarding Natural ResourcesNatural resource values can be categorized inmany ways. The following list is one effort tocategorize the types of social values relating tonatural resources that were provided by the socialassessment chapter of Forest Ecosystem Manage-ment: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assess-ment (FEMAT 1993). In that document, socialvalues were categorized as:

1904 Social

* Commodity values: timber, range, minerals.

» Amenity values: lifestyle, scenery, wildlife.

» Environmental quality values: air and waterquality.

» Ecological values: habitat conservation,biodiversity, threatened and endangered spe-cies.

» Public use values: gathering, subsistence, recre-ation, tourism.

» Spiritual values: sacred places.

» Health values: medicines.

» Security values: sense of social continuity andheritage.

The CRB survey contained a query about valuessimilar to those in FEMAT. From a list of 17factors concerning the future of public lands in theBasin, respondents were asked to rank the 3 mostimportant factors to them and their families. Thewide range of factors included ecological health,resources for future generations, several types ofcommodity production, outdoor recreation andamenities, salmon, and wildlife habitat.

The most important factor of all four populationsegments was resources for future generations. Thenational sample's next most important factors werewildlife habitat and ecological health; the westsideresidents' next priorities were outdoor recreation,wildlife habitat, and ecological health. Nextimportant factors for eastside residents were qualityplace to live (just 2% behind the top concern),followed by outdoor recreation, and wildlife habi-tat; wilderness and wild and scenic rivers wererated as less important than hydropower andagriculture. Project participants rated ecologicalhealth second, followed closely by quality placeto live; more of this group included timber pro-duction (25%), livestock grazing (12%), andeconomic opportunity (15%) as one of their topthree. Eastside residents, who potentially wouldexperience the greatest immediate impacts ofecosystem management, expressed prioritiessimilar to the national population.

Steel and others (1994) explored a value dichotomydiat they believed was central to explaining conflictsabout Federal forest management: an andiropocen-tric or resource conservation focus that advocateswise use of forests for the betterment of humankind;and a more biocentric orientation that assumes thenatural environment has inherent worth apart fromany human use. Sociodemographic characteristics,self or group interests, sociopolitical orientations, andgeographical location (residence) are some of thevariables influencing whether people hold die "moretraditional andiropocentric view of forests" or die"emerging biocentric view."

To test the role of residence in value orientationand to better understand related attitudes andbeliefs, Steel and others (1994) conducted asurvey of two populations: the national public andOregon residents. To assess value orientations, theyused an eight-item scale of statements about therelationship of people to natural resources. Peopleindicated their levels of agreement or disagreementwith each item; scores were then combined toyield a total score for classifying respondents asanthropocentric, biocentric, or intermediate.

The authors concluded that Oregonians, andespecially the Nation's public, strongly supported aless commodity-based, more ecologically sensitiveapproach to Federal forest management. Both theOregon and national samples tended to be morebiocentric than anthropocentric, but the nationalsample was significantly more likely to have stron-ger biocentric views toward forests than was theOregon sample. Younger respondents, women,members of environmental groups, and liberalswere more likely to have biocentric orientationstoward forests than were older respondents, men,people dependent on the timber industry, andself-described political conservatives.

The authors reported that Oregonians and na-tional residents both responded in an anthropo-centric manner to only one of the eight items:"Forest resources can be improved through humanmanagement." This apparent agreement, however,

Social 1905

could have resulted from different interpretationsof the question; agreement with this statementdoes not necessarily indicate an anthropocentricviewpoint. One could assume that humans havealtered some forest environments to the point theycannot recover if left unmanaged. If the goal is torestore forest health, for example, human interven-tion would be necessary to eliminate exotic speciesand allow the return of native species.

Steel and others also asked about attitudes towardnine Federal forest policy statements regardingwilderness, clearcutting, old-growth forests,tradeoffs between timber workers and old-growthpreservation, and the role of economic vitality ofrural communities in decisions. The results werenot surprising. People with biocentric orientationswere more likely to support bans on clearcutting,creation of wilderness, and protection of old-growth areas. Anthropocentric thinkers were morelikely to support setting aside endangered specieslaws to preserve jobs, or making economic con-cerns a higher priority in forest decision-making.However, differences emerged between the Oregonand national samples. Anthropocentric thinkerswho were Oregon residents were more likely thantheir national counterparts to support human usesof forests. For instance, 80 percent of the Oregonanthropocentric respondents agreed that endan-gered species laws should be set aside to preservetimber jobs, compared to just 31 percent of thenational anthropocentric diinkers.

The CRB survey (Brunson and others, n.d.)included five items taken from the eight-itemscale discussed above in the Oregon andnational survey. In general, the responses ofall four population segments (national public,westside residents, eastside residents, andproject participants) indicated a preference forbiocentric over anthropocentric viewpoints.Eastside residents tended to be slightly lesslikely to reflect biocentric value orientations.

The Economic Assessment (chapter 6) suggestedthat estimating economic benefits is easier formarket resources than for nonmarket resources,meaning that utilitarian values are more easily

measured than biocentric ones. However, literatureon natural resource and recreation economics isreplete with technique examples to estimate dollarvalues of nonmarket resources, such as non-usevalues associated with knowing a resource is there(Duffield and others 1994). Dollar estimatesassociated with non-use or passive use values ofnatural resource settings are 3 to 20 times greaterthan those associated with direct recreational use, anotion supported in the policy arena as well (Allen1985). Duffield and others (1994) suggest thatmotives for holding non-use values, often referredto as preservation and existence values, includegeneral environmental concern, altruism, and pastrecreational use of natural resources.

A national values poll commissioned by the ForestService (Hammond 1994) was designed to dis-cover major trends and themes based on people'sresponses to broad statements about public forestand grassland uses. The results were used by theForest Service's Reinvention Team in consideringagency changes. Several major themes emergedfrom the values poll. First, respondents wanted tomaintain healthy public forests and grasslands.This was called die overriding theme, becausepeople were more concerned about reaching thisgoal than about who did it or how it would beaccomplished. The authors stated: "Apparently, mostpeople in America are convinced that maintaininghealthy public forests and grasslands is somehow tiedto the quality of life in this country."

Second, respondents wanted to create recreationalopportunities on public lands. Although the polldid not ask for specific activity or setting of prefer-ences, people rated recreation highly. Curiously,Hammond supported this point in part based onrespondents' agreement with the following state-ment which seems to make a different point alto-gether: "The Federal Government should balancethe wilderness and recreational use of public landswith logging, mining, and grazing uses."

People believed that maintaining healthy publicforests should be a primary Federal managementobjective and that human intervention was neces-sary to meet this goal. They believed that Federal

i906 Social

agencies, such as the Forest Service, best representtheir interests in forest management (47%), com-pared to 21 percent who said they are best repre-sented by special interest groups, 13 percent bystate agencies, and 5 percent by the Congress.

Respondents also valued not compromising thelong-term health of public forestland for short-term gains. Explaining this theme, the authorstated: "The people in this country also seem torealize that the public forests must be preserved forfuture generations and that what is done todaywill impact tomorrow...Any short-sighted excessesof the past will not be permitted in the presentand the public expects the Federal Government tobe responsible for conserving forests for those yetto be born." A related theme, that the consumerneeds of the American public should not be satis-fied at the expense of the health of public forests,indicated to the author that the general publicwanted to place consumer interests within thecontext of long-term health of public lands.

Finally, people believed that the Federal Govern-ment should assist state and local governmentagencies and private landowners in managingforestlands. This theme indicated two types ofresponses: (1) people want the Federal Govern-ment to discover and disseminate informationneeded to solve resource problems; and (2) peoplefeel that "those who live in closest proximityshould play the primary role in the way publicforests are utilized and managed." These responsessuggest a preference for Federal agencies to work inpartnerships with local governments and communi-ties to reach decisions, a finding consistent withother surveys of both local and national publics.

Sense of PlaceOne value not considered uniformly in past forestand rangeland plans is sense of place, which in-cludes the meanings and images that regions,areas, or specific locations on the landscape havefor people. Ecosystems are the intersection ofnatural forces, social and economic relations, andsociocultural meanings (Williams 1995). Ecosys-tem management recognizes the social construc-

tion of nature; space becomes place when peoplecreate and attach meaning to it (Williams 1995).

Place is how people relate to and express an experi-ential understanding of geographic areas. People'sperceptions of "place" or the physical area withwhich they interact, whether for a few minutes ora lifetime, give that area special meaning to them,their community, and their culture. Humansassociate and interact with geographic areas,whether physically, spiritually, or through variousmedia, and form long-term bonds of attachmentwith these places. Research shows that place at-tachment is customarily passed down throughgenerations, becoming part of people's heritage.Place is an integral component of community lifebecause collective definitions of socially importantplaces help to form and maintain communitybonds and priorities.

Galliano and Loeffler (1995) stated: "Perhaps oneof the most significant characteristics of ecosystemmanagement is its ability to substantiate the emo-tional and symbolic meanings of natural resourceson our country's public lands." The values andmeanings of the Basin's places serve as significantfactors reflecting the human dimensions of ecosys-tems and serve as links between social experiencesand geographic areas. Recognizing this importantelement, the Framework far Ecosystem Managementin the Interior Columbia Basin (Haynes and others1996) provides a strong alliance between ecosys-tem management and the social realities of placeby having one of its five primary objectives be to"manage for the human sense of place."

The notion that people define landscapes based ontheir meaning, utility, and image is not new.Through their traditional subsistence economy,Indian peoples gained a very detailed knowledgeof the land, including locations of each resourceneeded to sustain their lives and culture. Attach-ment to ancestral lands is reflected by the return tofavored areas and campsites during annual subsis-tence rounds. Place importance is also reflected bylanguage such as place names, which relay knowledgeof the land by referring to a specific place's plants andanimals, the actions of its people, its spiritual role, orother important site characteristics.

Social

Understanding the concept of place in ecosystemmanagement allows managers to more activelyinventory and understand the meanings thatpeople attach to the lands and resources within themanager's administrative jurisdiction. The notionof measuring and incorporating human sense ofplace into public land management is relativelynew and has yet to be adopted uniformly by anyland management agency. However, there is ampleliterature pointing to the importance of place thatsuggests ways to measure and manage for it(Andrews 1979, Brunson 1993).

Williams (1995) defined four different types ofmeaning attached to landscapes:

» Scenic/Aesthetic—Use of formal models fromlandscape architecture and environmentalpsychology to map physical characteristics,landscape themes, visual character, and scenicintegrity of various landscapes. The currentscenery management systems of the BLM andFS incorporate methods to measure and mapthese types of place meanings.

» Activity/Goals—Traditional utilitarian philoso-phy of natural resource management, whichassigns meanings to geographic units by assess-ing their capacity to promote behavioral andeconomic goals. One example is the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum, which identifies recre-ational activity-oriented meanings. Such mean-ings, however, include other factors such asmeanings associated with production of com-modities. Typically, resource managementagencies have developed extensive methods ofidentifying, mapping, and managing thesetypes of place meanings.

» Cultural/Symbolic—Human emotional, spiri-tual, and symbolic identification with place,often referred to as the sense of place wherenatural resources are valued not only for func-tional purposes, but also places to whichpeople, as a community, are attracted andbecome attached.

» Individual/Expressive—Potential for people toassign highly individualized meanings to placesas a mechanism by which they construct andaffirm a "sense of self."

Just as ecosystems must be viewed as hierarchies,so must places. The four approaches listed abovecan be viewed as different methods for assessingplace meanings, ranging from the very broad andtangible (scenic/aesthetic) to the more familiar,often personal and intangible (individual/expres-sive). A BLM or FS unit manager may consider allfour meanings when preparing a watershed or siteanalysis where the geographic area is relativelysmall and the desired level of specificity is high. Atlarger scales, such as the Basin ecoregion, whereplace inventories are comparably extensive, itwould be unreasonable to attempt identification ofindividual/expressive place meanings. Becauseneither cultural/symbolic nor individual/expressivemeanings can be easily mapped using geographicrule-based systems, these two meanings can onlybe identified through interactive processes such asthose used by Galliano and Loeffler (1995).

Place assessment is a way to inventory the loca-tions, names, and broad attachments that manypeoples share for geographic areas within theBasin. Surveys of resource users and communitieshave demonstrated that the strength of placeattachment can be quantified for multiple placesand at multiple geographic scales (Williams 1995).Scenic/aesthetic and cultural/symbolic meaningsof place were successfully mapped and defined atboth a mid-scale (in the Yakima and Silvies basins)and at a Basin-wide scale (Galliano and Loeffler1995). The issue of scale in defining places havingspecial meaning is important (Tuan 1974). Al-though Galliano and Loeffler (1995) were success-ful at using ecological subsections as proxies intheir effort to map place meanings in terms ofscenic/aesthetic elements across the entire Basin,they recommended mapping places at a finer,more meaningful scale such as the communityscale. The finer scale, which provides a positivebasis for people and managers to understand themultiple meanings and values that can be attachedto landscapes, is a sound basis and methodologyfor mutual learning and collaboration. Sense ofplace is particularly meaningful at the communityscale; residents' common definitions of local placesare the characteristics contributing to communitycohesiveness and definition.

1908 Social

Attitudes and Beliefs Relevant toEcosystem ManagementBecause understanding people's perceptions ofecosystem conditions helps to explain their atti-tudes toward ecosystem management, the follow-ing text describes both beliefs and attitudes. Manypeople believe there are problems with ecosystemhealth in the Basin. The CRB survey contained aquestion that first informed respondents: "Re-cently there has been a lot of talk about whetherpublic lands in the western U.S. are deterioratingdue to current management practices." Respon-dents were asked to indicate on a seven-point scalewhether they believed that no serious environmen-tal problems existed, or that serious environmentalproblems already existed in the western UnitedStates. The clear majority of respondents (between70 and 78%) in all four samples fell on the "seriousproblems exist" side of the scale, with project partici-pants expressing the strongest attitudes. Although therather severely worded introduction may have influ-enced respondents, the results nonetheless suggestthat the public supports reexamination of Federalland management practices.

Regarding beliefs about forest health, Frederickand Schneiders (1994) found that 58 percent of anational sample rated the Nation's forests ashealthy, although just 13 percent of these ratedforests as "very healthy" and 45 percent believedforests were "somewhat healthy." Of the 27 per-cent who believed U.S. forests were unhealthy,only 5 percent said they were "very unhealthy."Across every region, people tended to rate foresthealth conditions in their own part of the countryas better than the Nation as a whole. For example,in the Pacific Northwest, 72 percent rated forestsas healthy or very healthy, and 25 percent believedforests to be somewhat healthy or very unhealthy.

Comparable results were found in a poll of Idahovoters conducted for the Idaho Forest ProductsCommission (Moore Information, Inc. 1994); 58percent rated forests in the state as healthy, and 32percent believed they were unhealthy. SouthwestIdaho residents, however, were either evenly di-

vided in their beliefs or thought that the state'sforests were not healthy. Men age 45 and olderwere less likely to believe forests were healthy(47%) than were younger men (60%) or womenof all ages (62%).

Brunson and Steel (1994) found that "little re-search has examined public knowledge or beliefsabout rangelands." Their study, one of the excep-tions, found that "the public believes rangelandsare overgrazed, seriously eroding, losing riparianvegetation, and that conditions are getting worseinstead of better." Not surprisingly, this samplefavored managing rangelands for broad ecosystemfunctioning rather than livestock production.They favored increasing fees to "fair market value"for grazing on public land, but wanted fees phasedin to allow ranchers time to adjust. This desirereflects the broader trend of public concern tofocus on restoring ecosystems, but in ways thatconsider and mitigate related socioeconomicimpacts.

Although Brunson and Steel believed that theresults "reflect a broad national trend towardincreasing environmentalism." Respondents feltthat a high priority should be given to the needs ofaffected local communities when making decisionsabout Federal rangeland management. Therespondents distinguished communities fromaffected local industries, whose needs were per-ceived to have much lower priority. The authorsnoted that the results, in general, paralleled thoseof an earlier study on forest management, exceptfor the increased proportion of respondents whowere unsure about their feelings. This is consistentwith other surveys, likely because range manage-ment issues and the BLM are less known to thegeneral public than are forest management issuesand the Forest Service.

Active and Passive Management Approaches

Brunson (1993) stated that ecosystem manage-ment would be most acceptable to people whobelieved it to be a more natural managementapproach. The challenge, he believed, would be toconvince people that active human manipulationis more acceptable than letting nature take its

Social 1909

course. This issue was reflected in one Basin EISissue statement about whether ecosystem andforest health restoration is possible and, if so, is itbetter to actively manipulate ecosystems andmimic natural disturbance regimes, or is it prefer-able to "let nature heal itself."

A national survey on forest management(Frederick and Schneiders 1994) found that 52percent favored human management of forestareas, while 40 percent said nature should beallowed to take its course. This preference forhuman management was even stronger amongPacific Northwest residents (59% and 28%,respectively).

Ecosystem Disturbances

A major emphasis in ecosystem management hasbeen to mimic natural processes, or at least todesign activities based on knowledge of naturaldisturbance patterns. It is important to understandhow attitudes toward such natural processes relateto attitudes toward management. Brunson (1993)hypothesized such attitudes may be one possiblereason for people not to accept ecosystem manage-ment: "...natural processes being simulated (distur-bance regimes) carry a negative label." Thishypothesis has been supported in studies ofpeople's attitudes toward many disturbances,including fire, diseases, and insects, as well asby public reactions to isolated Federal or stateagency actions.

Much of the available research on people's atti-tudes toward specific ecosystem processes andmanagement actions is summarized below toprovide decision-makers with a better understand-ing of the public's attitudes, as well as factorsinfluencing their attitudes, specific to fire, timberharvest, insect and disease infestation, and roads.

Fire—One national survey (Frederick andSchneiders 1994) found that 55 percent of respon-dents thought the Forest Service should attempt toextinguish all fires to preserve as much of theforests as possible, while 36 percent said more firesshould be allowed to burn their course because

fires are a part of the forest's life cycle. PacificNorthwest residents had similar opinions, but by acloser margin (46% and 39%, respectively).

The same survey found support for using con-trolled fire; 49 percent favored use of controlledfire by Federal agencies to thin forests so wildfiresare less damaging, compared to 42 percent whoopposed controlled fire use due to concern aboutpotential for fire spread and air pollution from theresulting smoke. Support was stronger in thePacific Northwest, with 54 percent favoring use ofcontrolled fire compared to 38 percent opposed.Women were more likely to favor extinguishing allfires and were less supportive of controlled burnsthan were men.

The CRB survey informed respondents that "somepeople favor the introduction of fire in Federalforest lands to control disease, insects, and exces-sive fuel levels. Others suggest this use of fire isunnecessary and dangerous." This question wasone of the few that the four samples agreed withcompletely. The top choice of all four samples, bya wide margin, was: "We should suppress wildfiresin Federal forests managed for timber; however,controlled fire may be used to protect foresthealth." The second choice of all four groups was:"We should suppress wildfires in Federal forestsonly if they threaten human lives or property;otherwise, we should allow fire to resume itsnatural role in forests."

The third-ranked statement was: "We should sup-press fire in all Federal forests managed for timber,and use pesticides or salvage logging if forest health isendangered." Aldiough this statement was rated assignificantly less attractive than die second choicefor most samples, eastside residents ranked it onlyslightly lower. It may have been less attractivedue to its reference to pesticides, based on otherresponses showing that chemical pesticides wereopposed strongly by all groups. This statement'sappeal to eastside residents may be related to itsreference to salvage logging. Far behind the otheroptions was: "We should suppress fire in allFederal forests." This was favored by less than 10percent in each sample. Between 10 and 18 percenthad no opinion.

1910 Social

Interpretation of these responses is hindered bythe noncomparability of the various statements.For example, one statement included threeseparate elements, including one element thatwas not mentioned in any other statement. This .noncomparability creates difficulty in determin-ing to which aspect of the question people werekeying their response. Nonetheless, the groups'rare agreement suggests that support for use ofcontrolled fire to protect forest health may beacceptable to diverse publics.

Beliefs about the causes of wildfires can influencepeople's attitudes toward fire management. MooreInformation, Inc. (1994) asked Idaho voters whichof five factors they believed contributed most to theseverity of forest fires in Idaho the previous summer.Fifty percent attributed fires to the drought, 19percent to acts of nature, 12 percent to lack of forestmanagement, 11 percent to over-dense timberstands, and 1 percent to insects and disease.

In a review of public perceptions of air qualityin the Basin, Miller and Deller (1994) found thatthe public believed that wood stoves, traffic, dustfrom unpaved streets, and agricultural burning allcontributed to air pollution. The specific locationand purpose of the various surveys determined thenature and range of responses. The authors did notidentify studies about perceptions of smoke fromnatural or prescribed fires, but did mention thatproviding the public with specific information aboutthe reasons, location, timing, and effects of a pre-scribed burn results in a higher level of acceptance.

Timber harvest—Perhaps the most controversial ofall forest management actions is timber harvesting onpublic lands. Moore Information, Inc. (1994) foundthat 76 percent of the Idaho voters who were sur-veyed were supportive of "thinning and other forestmanagement techniques as a way to improve foresthealth and reduce the potential for catastrophicwildfires." Although the authors concluded thatsurvey results indicate "widespread support forthinning among all voter subgroups," the questionassumes that thinning always improves forest healthand reduces fire risk. More important, use of theterm "catastrophic" is likely to provoke support

regardless of how people actually feel about the issue;nearly everyone is opposed to a catastrophe. We canstill assume, however, diat many Idaho voters sup-port thinning practices. Thinning was also foundacceptable in a survey of Blue Mountain arearesidents (Shindler and Reed 1996).

A related question asked people which of thefollowing two positions did they agree with most:

• Thin forests to improve conditions for remain-ing trees and also for wildlife, provide jobs,reduce wildfires, and make forest conditionsmore similar to presettlement conditions.

* Allow nature to take its course in the forestsby not harvesting timber under the assumptionthat logging can harm the scenic and recre-ational value of the forest area, the fisheries,and wildlife.

The first statement was the choice of 71 percent,and the second was chosen by 17 percent. Basedon this ratio, the authors concluded that Idahovoters support thinning forests to improve forestconditions over allowing nature to take its course.They pointed out, however, that a nationwidesurvey posing the identical question found consid-erably less support for thinning (51%), comparedto allowing nature to take its course (43%).Follow-up discussion with respondents would bevaluable to determine which of the many attitudesand beliefs inherent in these complex statementsled respondents to select one over the other.

In their nationwide survey, Frederick andSchneiders (1994) found divided views regardingsalvage logging: 48 percent agreed that logging inburned-over areas should proceed rapidly to re-duce the risk of further fire and that legal chal-lenges should be limited so the trees do not decayand lose their value; 43 percent agreed with thestatement that logging in burned-over areas shouldproceed only after comprehensive environmentalreview, public input, and resolution of legal chal-lenges, even if the value of the timber is at risk.

Social 1911

A related question informed people that afterforest fires, a considerable number of dead treesremain in the burned-over areas, and asked peopleto choose between two statements:

» Log some dead trees and use the timber salerevenue to help pay the cost of fighting wild-fires and to restore the forest and wildlife habi-tats.

» Leave all trees in the forest to decay to providenutrients and support for forest wildlife and thenew plants that reestablish the forest followingthe fire, and lose revenue that logging wouldhave brought.

The first statement was favored by 51 percent,and the second by 43 percent; support for salvagelogging was stronger in the Pacific Northwest. Therelatively narrow margin of support nationallysuggests that people are persuaded by both argu-ments. One key term may be "some dead trees,"which connotes very limited entry and impacts,compared to logging "most or all dead trees" towhich people may have responded differently.

The CRB survey contained several questionsrelated to logging practices that could be used tomeet ecosystem goals, including selective logging,clearcutting in burned or insect-infested areas,selective cutting in burned or insect-infested areas,and selective harvesting to prevent forest diseasesand infestations. Of the people who had an opin-ion, the greatest support among all four sampleswas for selective harvest methods to prevent forestdiseases and infestations; the only opposition,which was slight (14%), was from project partici-pants. All four samples also supported selectivelogging practices in general and were just slighdyless supportive of selective cutting in burned orinsect-infested areas, which was opposed by about15 percent of the respondents in each sample. Thegreatest diversity of opinion was about clearcuttingin burned or insect-infested areas; respondents inall samples were nearly equally divided, althougheastside residents showed the strongest support.

Insects and disease—The CRB survey askedwhether people agreed or disagreed that "insectoutbreaks on public lands should be allowed torun their natural course." All four samples dis-agreed, at rates ranging from a high of 64 percent(eastside residents), to a low of 51 percent(westside residents). Except for the project partici-pant group, more people were neutral than inagreement with the statement. This was especiallytrue for the national group, 31 percent of whomwere neutral, possibly due to their not understand-ing or having strong beliefs regarding the issue andits implications. The project participant groupheld the most extreme viewpoints, with just 12percent being neutral. The widespread disagree-ment with the statement seems reasonable whetheror not respondents understood the role of insectsin forest ecosystems. When questions include thephrase "insect outbreaks," which has a negativeconnotation, disapproval is fairly assured in theabsence of compelling information to the contrary.

Roads—Frederick and Schneiders (1994) askednational respondents to choose between twostatements regarding managing forest areas whereroads have not been built. Fifty-five percent didnot favor building roads, stating roads create soilerosion and destroy the forests wild nature; 40percent favored building more roads to increaseaccess for fighting fires, allow the forest to bethinned, and support recreational uses. PacificNorthwest residents slightly favored building moreroads (48% to 46%). Women were more stronglyopposed to constructing new roads than weremen; Democrats and Independents were muchmore opposed to new road construction thanwere Republicans, who were evenly divided onthe issue.

Another CRB survey question about roads askedpeople whether they supported road closures inecologically sensitive areas where recreation occurs.Although all four samples supported this positionas a strategy to improve conditions on publiclands, about 26 percent from each of the eastsideand participant samples opposed it.

Social

Attitudes Toward Endangered SpeciesThe Endangered Species Act has a history of broadpublic support. In a recent nationwide poll (RoperStarch 1994), 51 percent of the American publicfelt that regulations protecting endangered speciesof plants, animals, and insects have not beensufficient; 16 percent believed the regulations havegone too far; and 26 percent said the balance wasright. The question was one of five elements ofenvironmental concern; the others addressed airpollution, protection of wild or natural areas,protection of wetland areas, and water pollution.More people said that endangered species lawshave gone too far compared to laws in the otherfour areas. Similarly, protecting endangered specieswas the least likely of the five areas to be viewed asnot going far enough. In 1992, a higher propor-tion (31%) said there was a. balance, fewer (11%)said laws and regulations had gone too far, and thesame proportion (51 %) said laws had not gone farenough.

A related question described the EndangeredSpecies Act as requiring "the Federal Governmentto take whatever steps are necessary to preventany type of plant, animal, or insect species frombecoming extinct, even at a cost to landowners,businesses, or the local economies where specieslive." The question posed was: "Do you agree allendangered species of plants, animals, and insectsshould be saved regardless of the costs, or do youthink the policy should take cost into consider-ation?" Nearly two-thirds (63%) said costs shouldbe considered (compared to 50% in 1992); 29percent agreed all species should be saved (com-pared to 38% in 1992), and 5 percent said itdepends on the species.

In 1992, respondents were asked what theybelieved to be good arguments for saving species;79 percent said the loss of life-saving medicineswas a strong argument, 76 percent said that ex-tinctions can upset the delicate balance of nature,and 63 percent said species have rights to exist andit is people's moral duty to help them. This reason-ing describes some underlying values that leadpeople to support endangered species legislation.

A 1991 survey of Oregon residents (MarketDecisions 1991 In: Duda and Young 1994) foundthat 66 percent of residents believed the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife "should operate aprogram to prevent fish or wildlife from decliningto the point of becoming extinct, and protect andpromote recovery of species that are alreadythreatened or in danger of extinction."

The CRB survey also contained questions onendangered species management. One questionasked respondents about their level of agreementwith the statement "Greater efforts should bemade to protect rare plant communities on publiclands." In all four samples, more people agreedthan disagreed. Agreement was strongest (65%)within the national sample and weakest (42%) foreastside residents. As with many other questions,the project participant group was the mostpolarized about providing more protection forrare plants on public lands; this group had thelowest level of respondents (13%) saying theywere neutral, 49 percent agreeing, and 38 per-cent disagreeing.

Another CRB survey question was more explicitabout potential tradeoffs: "Endangered specieslaws should be altered to maintain timber andranching jobs on public lands." A majority (52%)of national respondents disagreed; just 29 percentagreed. Westside residents followed the sametrend, but were more divided in their attitudes;45 percent agreed and 39 percent disagreed. Amajority of eastside residents (53%) agreed withthe statement, while 30 percent disagreed. Again,ICBEMP participants were the most polarized;just 5 percent were neutral, 48 percent disagreed,and 47 percent agreed with the statement.

Overall, the results suggest that although remain-ing strong, support for endangered species lawsand regulations may have decreased slightly overthe past three years. This decrease may reflect thatthe public is increasingly concerned with seeking abalance between species protection and costs tosociety. This concern is especially strong amongeastside residents.

Social 1913

One set of questions in the CRB survey wasdirected specifically toward salmon, many speciesof which are either listed or under considerationfor listing. The four groups considered themselvesto have very different levels of knowledge; 73percent of the project participants, 43 percentof westside residents, 40 percent of the eastsideresidents, and just 13 percent of national residentssaid they were well informed about the status ofsalmon runs in the Pacific Northwest.

When presented with the general statement thatgreater protection should be given to fish, suchas salmon, on public lands, all four samplesagreed; the strongest level of agreement camefrom westside residents (72%) and nationalrespondents (68%), compared to 55 percent ofthe project participants and 54 percent of theeastside residents. The project participantsample contained the largest proportion ofpeople who disagreed (32%).

Respondents were presented with a list of 11factors potentially contributing to the decline ofsalmon runs, and asked how much of a threat theybelieved each factor to be. National respondentswere the most likely group to say they did notknow. Three factors were perceived as the greatestthreats by people both inside and outside theBasin: commercial ocean fishing by foreigners;water pollution; and dams. Habitat destruction onpublic and private lands was rated as a threat, butof less severity, and as a slighdy higher threat onforestlands than on rangelands. Although patternsof response were fairly consistent across the foursamples, project participants were far more likelyto cite dams as a definite threat.

Moore Information, Inc. (1994) found thatOregon residents listed hydroelectric dams asthe factor most responsible for declining salmonpopulations (39%), compared to too much fishing(19%), industrial and commercial development(18%), timber harvest activities (7%), and marinepredators (7%). Idaho residents listed dams as thebiggest factor in declines in Idaho's salmon popu-lations (69%), followed by mining (40%), sportand Indian river fishing (39%), logging (35%),

irrigation (31%), ocean fishing (29%), and grazing(19%). Just over half of the respondents (53%)agreed and 31 percent disagreed that there isadequate spawning habitat in Idaho rivers andstreams to support increased populations ofsalmon and steelhead.

A follow-up question on the CRB survey askedabout tradeoffs between recovery of salmon andissues such as employment, recreation, irrigation,and hydropower. The response format was a seven-point scale, with one end labeled: "Highest prior-ity should be given to salmon, even if there arenegative socioeconomic consequences," the otherend labeled: "Highest priority should be given tosocioeconomic considerations, even if there arenegative consequences for salmon," and the mid-point labeled: "Salmon recovery and socioeco-nomic factors should be given equal priority."

About 40 percent of the eastside, westside, andnational samples chose the midpoint response.Of the remainder, national and westside residentspreferred giving priority to salmon by nearly a3:1 margin, while eastside residents were equallydivided on both sides. Project participants wereagain more polarized, with only 18 percent choos-ing the balanced viewpoint; 48 percent thoughtsalmon should be given priority and 36 percentthought priority should be socioeconomics.

Attitudes Toward Tradeoffs inPublic Land ManagementAs demonstrated above, one method of determin-ing people's attitudes about natural resource issueshas been to pose situations that represent tradeoffsbetween important values. However, one problemwith many survey questions about tradeoffs is thatthey tend to set up dichotomies by asking peoplewhich is better, instead of exploring avenues ofcompromise or consensus. This approach casts theresearch and the policy issues being studied in awin or lose context, which may not representactual true choices and can reinforce myths andstereotypes. In fact, most such debates do notreally pit socioeconomic considerations againstbiological ones; they focus on conflicts abouthuman values and priorities.

Social

Despite this, one of the more common findingsis that, when given the option, people will beoptimistic that balanced solutions can be found.For example, a recent national poll (Roper Starch1994) found that 90 percent of respondentsagreed that: "We can find a balance that will alloweconomic progress and protection of the environ-ment." However, more people agreed stronglywith this statement in 1992 (58%) than in 1994(49%). A related question asked people whetherenvironmental protection and economic develop-ment could coexist or whether choices must bemade; 66 percent believed the two could fit together,and 25 percent believed a choice was imperative. Theresponse differences to these two questions aredifficult to reconcile, pointing to the importance ofsubtle wording, such as asking people to choosebetween two options instead of asking for level ofagreement with a single statement.

A follow-up question made the tradeoff moreexplicit, asking whether people believed economicdevelopment or environmental protection wasmore important when finding a reasonable com-promise was impossible. Sixty percent thoughtenvironmental protection was more important,compared to 22 percent who gave more impor-tance to economic development. When summariz-ing such results, it is important to distinguish verygeneral questions such as this one from morespecific questions that provide information on thetype, location, purpose, costs, and methods ofprotection and development.

The Roper Starch survey also asked peoplewhether they believed the only way to preservewildlife, natural areas, and natural resources wasto prevent development and restrict most otherhuman activity in these areas, or whether thesegoals could be accomplished while being usedto benefit the economy and the public. The firststatement was chosen by 22 percent, and thesecond by 72 percent. This ratio may reflectanother indicator that many people believe abalance can be found, or the ambiguous phrase"restrict most other human activity" could havebeen rejected as over-protection by manyrespondents.

The CRB survey contained several questions abouttradeoffs, especially relative to salmon and endan-gered species. When asked about their agreementwith the statement: "Survival of timber workersand their families is more important than preserva-tion of old growth forests," national respondentsexpressed the highest levels of disagreement (54%)and eastside residents the lowest (36%). Eastsideresidents were the only sample that had a higherproportion of respondents agree with the state-ment than disagree. Somewhat surprisingly, theeastside residents had the highest proportion ofpeople professing neutrality (25%). The sampleof project participants again demonstrated theirpolarization; this group had the most people whostrongly disagreed (30%), as well as the most whostrongly agreed (22%).

Attitudes Toward theFederal GovernmentThe continuing debate about the appropriate roleof the Federal Government in shaping our societyis a prominent political issue. For example, peoplewho favor minimal government intervention inmany arenas may oppose the active nature ofecosystem management, as well as the FederalGovernment's involvement.

Concern about the role of the Federal Govern-ment is reflected by county rights movements,which claim that Federal administration of publicland is illegal. Starting with Catron County, NewMexico, in 1991, about 70 counties have enactedor are considering similar measures to changeadministration of public lands. In recent years,there has also been increasing social discussionabout returning Federal lands to the states, or toAmerican Indian tribes. However, an alternativereflection of county concerns and attitudes towardthe Federal Government was the establishmentand direction of the Eastside Ecosystem Coalitionof Counties, a group created to provide input tothe ICBEMP. The Coalition seeks to representcommunity interests, rather than individual view-points, and to provide a forum for discussing thepublic's opinion on community values. It is

Social 1915

specifically stated that the Coalition is not anadvocate for special interests, nor a forum thattrades one use for another, nor a forum for advo-cating elimination of the role of the Forest Service,Bureau of Land Management, or other federalagencies.

People's trust in the Federal Government is amajor issue, because trust is an important type ofbelief influencing people's attitudes and behaviorsabout ecosystem management. It is thereforeimportant to measure people's trust in the agenciesand other institutions having roles in ecosystemmanagement, such as other federal agencies,scientists, local governments and communities,national and regional publics, and the Congress.Attitude toward these institutions is another reflec-tion of the ease or difficulty expected in obtainingpublic acceptance of ecosystem management.

Brunson (1993) pointed out that some peoplemay be skeptical of ecosystem management,believing it to be a guise for finding "a level oftimber harvest that reduces dissent to tolerablelevels while adhering as closely as possible to thestatus quo." He concluded that public acceptanceor preference for ecosystem management will bebased partly on people's beliefs about its probabil-ity to actually produce desired conditions. Becauseecosystem management is a new concept, peoplemay not yet have formed beliefs about its effective-ness. Their beliefs may therefore depend more onpast experiences with public agency attempts tomimic or work with natural events, which havehad mixed success.

To many people already skeptical about themotives of the Federal Government, ecosystemmanagement connotes attempts by the FederalGovernment to regulate private land uses. Onereason for this concern is that, because ecosystemsdo not begin or end at public land boundaries, theassessment addresses resources on all lands withinthe Basin, not just Federal lands. Although theICBEMP charter and other descriptive materialsemphasize that the intent is only to apply ecosys-

tem management to public lands managed by theFS and BLM, the act of inventorying resources onnon-Federal lands makes many people suspiciousthat the next step may be increased regulation ofthose resources.

Level of Trust in Various InstitutionsA fundamental issue affecting how the publicperceives ecosystem management is the public'slevel of trust that agencies have the knowledge,willingness, and ability to implement requiredprograms and activities. Many public participantsin the ICBEMP have expressed skepticism aboutagencies' abilities. However, in one national survey(Frederick and Schneiders 1994), 74 percent ofrespondents gave the Forest Service favorableratings compared to 8 percent unfavorable; favor-able ratings were strong in every region across theNation. The BLM was perceived less positively,with favorable ratings from 33 percent and unfa-vorable from 25 percent. The two agencies wererated by different numbers of people, because 43percent of the national public either had not heardof the BLM or didn't know enough about theagency to state an attitude, compared to just 19percent for the Forest Service. In the PacificNorthwest, where more people are familiar withthe BLM, ratings remained about the same (42%favorable and 36% unfavorable).

Although the national sample had positive attitudestoward environmental organizations (64% favorablecompared to 21% unfavorable), ratings by PacificNorthwest residents were lower (49% favorable and46% unfavorable). Timber companies were viewedpositively (36% favorable and 21% unfavorable),especially in die Pacific Northwest (57% favorableand 24% unfavorable). The same survey alsoasked about state forest agencies; althoughmany respondents did not express an attitude,nationwide 47 percent (and 60% in the PacificNorthwest) gave favorable ratings compared tojust 6 percent unfavorable.

1918 Social

Another national survey (Roper Starch 1994)found that 15 percent said they had a highlyfavorable opinion of most environmental groups,an additional 59 percent had moderately favorableopinions, and 23 percent had unfavorable opin-ions. Fifty-five percent had never contributed moneyto any environmental group, and 41 percent saidthey were unlikely to do so in the near future.

Moore Information, Inc. (1994) asked Idahovoters which of the following two groups did theyagree with more about logging and the environ-ment: forest products companies "who say thatmodern logging practices are an ecologically soundcomponent of forest management plans," orenvironmental groups who say "logging is gener-ally destructive to Idaho's forest environment."Fifty-six percent said forest products companies,20 percent said environmental groups, 12 percentsaid both, and 7 percent said neither. However, theintroduction to the question and characterizationof each group's position really questions whetherIdaho voters are supporting the statements or therespective groups.

When asked about the relative roles of theCongress and the Forest Service, 74 percentbelieved that the Congress should give agenciessuch as die Forest Service more flexibility to manageFederal forests in response to changing conditions;only 17 percent said the Congress should closelyregulate such agencies because they cannot betrusted to manage forests wisely.

Finally, die survey asked about trust in scientists.Nationwide, university scientists were die mostrespected (by 43% of respondents), compared toenvironmental group scientists (21%), Federal forestagency scientists (16%), and timber company scien-tists (7%). However, in the Pacific Northwest,timber company scientists were twice as likely tobe judged as credible dian were scientists workingfor environmental groups. The authors concludedthat trust in Federal agencies was strong and thatthe public takes a balanced approach to forest

management issues: "The survey's findings provideencouragement for those who would attempt toeducate the public and raise awareness of theseissues, in order to promote better-informed publicparticipation in the decisions which must be madein guiding forest management policy" (Frederickand Schneiders 1994).

The CRB survey obtained different results inquerying about people's level of trust in institu-tions. Trust levels in government agencies weregenerally low in the Basin. For example, 42 per-cent of the eastside residents, 37 percent of thewestside residents, and 31 percent of the projectparticipants had moderate-to-great levels of trustin the Forest Service. Comparable figures for theBLM were lower: 31 percent, 26 percent, and 27percent, respectively. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService received high ratings of trust from theeastside (47%) and westside (46%) residents,but was rated low by project participants (29%).Another survey (Roper Starch 1994) of Idaho,Oregon, and Washington residents showed verylow levels of trust in government as well, but didnot query about specific agencies. In the RoperStarch survey, the Federal Government as a sourceof information about the environment was ratedfifth, after environmental groups, industry, themedia, and university scientists.

In the CRB survey, other entities such as the ArmyCorps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administra-tion, and Native American governments uniformlyreceived even lower ratings, moderately or greatlytrusted by just 11 to 28 percent of respondents.Urban communities in the Basin, national publicopinion, and federal courts also were less trusted,with most ratings in the 20 percent range. How-ever, the distinction of least-trusted of all institu-tions was the Congress, in which just 8 percent ofthe eastside residents, 7 percent of the westsideresidents, and 6 percent of the project participantshad moderate-to-great levels of trust.

Social 1917

The authors concluded that the general publicplaces its greatest trust in local residents, the west-ern United States public, the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, Forest Service, and universityscientists. Rural community residents and univer-sity scientists were the only entities trusted morethan distrusted by project participants. The projectparticipants generally had higher levels of distrustthan did other samples, which could be viewed asdiscouraging by the agencies, who would hopethat increased familiarity would increase trust.However, project participants tended to have themost polarized views of any of the samples, sug-gesting that they began the process with strongviewpoints and, perhaps, were motivated by theirlower levels of trust in the agencies.

A study of Idaho residents provided additionalevidence for a relative lack of trust in theFederal Government, with 33 percent ofrespondents claiming the greatest confidencein local governments, 33 percent in state gov-ernments, and 20 percent saying they had noconfidence in any level of government (BoiseState University 1992). About 50 percent ofrespondents said that local government was thelevel most responsive to their needs.

Brick and others (1995) conducted a surveyof residents in five counties surrounding HellsCanyon National Recreation Area (three north-eastern Oregon counties: Wallowa, Baker, andUnion; and two Idaho counties: Nez Perce andIdaho). They found that respondents reportedhaving "some" to "a lot" of trust in communityresidents, local landowners, and locally owned busi-nesses to manage the regions natural resources. Thiscompared to "a little" to "some" trust in countycommissioners, die FS, BLM, scientists, and statefish and wildlife departments, and to "no" or "little"trust in trade unions, non-profit environmentalorganizations, and out-of-state corporations.

People's beliefs about the trustworthiness of vari-ous institutions should correlate with their beliefsabout assumed roles for institutions in influencingdecisions about public land management, whichwould mean the greater the trust, the greater the

influence. This hypothesis is only partially sup-ported by available data. For example, the CRBsurvey found that eastside and westside residents,as well as project participants, believed that ruralcommunities in the Basin, the western UnitedStates, public opinion, and university researchscientists—all of whom they trusted—should havea moderate-to-great deal of influence in publicland management.

The FS and BLM received much higher ratings onthe measure about influence than on trust, with46 to 56 percent of respondents from each popula-tion segment saying the two agencies should havea moderate-to-great deal of influence. The biggestdifference, however, was the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service (USFWS): 56 percent of eastsideresidents, 62 percent of westside residents, and 82percent of project participants said USFWSshould have a moderate-to-great deal of influence.These ratings may reflect people's acknowledg-ments of the agencies' legal responsibilities andauthorities.

Respondents generally agreed that the Congressand Federal courts should have much less influ-ence than Federal agencies or more-trusted institu-tions. This stance should be viewed as a positivefinding and also as people's preference that thepublic and managing agencies work together toresolve issues, rather dian relying on Congress tolegislate solutions or die courts to make die ultimatedecision. In odier words, this could reflect awillingness to work in a collaborative fashion.

Steel and Brunson (1993) asked a national andan Oregon sample to whom government officialsshould be most responsive when makingdecisions about Federal rangelands. Both samplesbelieved that government should be most respon-sive to affected local communities. Nationalrespondents believed that governments shouldthen give the most attention to the following,and in the priority listed: national public opinion,government natural resource agencies, environ-mental groups, local affected industries, states'public opinions, and global and internationalopinion.

Social

Oregon respondents believed governments shouldthen give the most attention to the following:states' public opinion, local affected industries,national public opinion, government naturalresource agencies, and environmental groups.Comparable results were reported in a nationaland Oregon survey regarding Federal forests(Shindler and others 1993). Respondents in thesurvey of five Hells Canyon area counties (Brickand others 1995) strongly agreed that "nationalforests belong to all Americans, but local peopleliving near the forests should have the most say inmanagement of the forests."

These findings appear to indicate that people favordownplaying the role of special interest groups.Perhaps this reflects agreement with a viewpointexpressed by Yaffee (1994) that while interestgroups are important elements of our collectivechoice processes, their dominance is problematicin several ways: "Since they are primarily single-interest oriented, they promote the fragmenta-tion of values and public purposes...that helpagencies and decision makers craft effectivepolicy direction."

These results show some of the similarities anddifferences between regional and national publics.Most interesting is the agreement that local com-munities should have a strong voice in decisionsabout Federal forests and rangelands. These resultsdemonstrate the public's clear interest in having agreater role in natural resource decision-making.This involvement role is consistent with the publicparticipation philosophy of ecosystem manage-ment, which requires close and frequent collabora-tion with the public and stakeholders in publicland management (sec following discussion on roleof the public for more detail).

Attitudes Within the Forest ServiceSeveral recent surveys of Forest Service employeesprovide a portrait of agency culture and the atti-tudes, beliefs, and values of agency employees(comparable studies of BLM employees were notfound). A 1991 study examined value orientationsof 1,900 Forest Service employees (Cramer andothers 1994). A central finding was that "employ-

ees of the USFS tend to believe that the traditionalpriorities on timber and grazing are greater thantheir own values and the values of the Americanpublic. Furthermore, they believe that a greaterpriority ought to be given to recreation, wildlife,and water management rather than the traditionalpriority of timber." Employees believed that agencypriorities were slowly aligning with die ecosystemvalues held by themselves and die public.

A 1992 survey of Forest Service line officers andstaff (Mohai and others 1994) asked respondentsto list the most important positive changes theagency had made over the last 10 years. Lineofficers and staff alike gave high ratings to in-creased responsiveness to the public; increasedemphasis on noncommodity uses; workforcediversification; better working conditions, com-munications, and openness; and increased envi-ronmental sensitivity and awareness. However, thesingle most important change needed was one ofthe same ones: increased emphasis on noncom-modity uses and decreased emphasis on commodi-ties. The authors stated that the "vast majority ofFS employees, both line and staff, feel the agency'spolicies have changed over the past 10 years. Thevast majority see the agency headed in the rightdirection. However, they also feel the FS still hasfurther to go."

Implications forEcosystem ManagementDiscussions about ecosystem managementclearly take place in a broad context; the role ofthe Federal Government, society's values aboutendangered species, and rights associated withprivate lands are all being actively debated.Although often stated as jobs versus the environ-ment, commodities versus amenities, or speciesversus trees, the issues actually represent differingvalues regarding what benefits society shouldreceive from public lands. Values are really thesubject of debate, not just ecosystem management.Understanding and addressing people's valuesadequately is key to public and agency acceptanceof ecosystem management.

Social 1919

Although people express concern about publicland management, they look to science to providemany answers and seem willing to trust credibleanalyses of existing conditions and potential curesand results of scientific study of ecosystems. Thereare, however, varying levels of trust in scientistsemployed by different institutions. Although it isrecognized that science can provide many types ofdata and analyses, the people and the institutionswith management responsibility decide the use ofthose results. Science provides the information, notthe decision. In other words, science is appropriatefor describing problems, proposing techniques forresolving them, and measuring the associatedimpacts and risks. However, the conditions to beachieved are not decided by science, but are politicaldecisions based on values. Ecosystem management'sexplicit attempt to blend science and values is bothits strength and greatest challenge.

Survey research can help identify barriers topublic acceptance of ecosystem management. Forexample, support for salmon recovery and a will-ingness to accept resulting socioeconomic impactsseem to be stronger than for endangered species ingeneral. However, most people perceive that themajor barriers to salmon recovery are dams andoverfishing, rather than lack of suitable habitat.Given this perception, measures that just improvehabitat on public lands may be viewed as ineffec-tive and opposed by many if the impacts areperceived as too great.

Defining public lands in public terms such assense of place, as well as scientific terms, has manyadvantages. First, incorporating human definitionsand meanings about public lands into day-to-daymanagement activities reflects that people are partof the ecosystem. Second, the process of definingand mapping places serves as a new and valuableway of seeking knowledge from the public in asystematic manner. Defining places and theirmeanings at a community scale extends wellbeyond traditional forms of public involvement

(Williams 1995). Third, considering place inmanagement activities could result in implementa-tion of activities that are more acceptable andmore easily communicated in terms that peopleunderstand.

Implementing ecosystem management involvescontinuous learning about people, their attitudes,beliefs, and values. Learning more about people'sperceptions of public land and natural resourcemanagement and the reasons for those perceptionsis a cornerstone of ecosystem management thatexplicitly includes people, as noted in the Frame-work for Ecosystem Management in the InteriorColumbia Basin (Haynes and others 1996). Onlya few relevant values are discussed here, which forsome affected populations is just a start. People'stastes and preferences change, their perspectiveson natural resources are influenced by knowledge,and their acceptance of differing managementpractices may shift as experience is gained withecosystem management. One important way thatecosystem management integrates attitudes, be-liefs, and values is in describing desired conditions.Development of ecosystem management alterna-tives requires developing alternative visions ofsocial, physical, biological, and economic condi-tions that are desirable, and/or alternative waysof achieving those conditions.

Scientific research will improve managers' under-standing of the values and interests that may beeither adversely affected or positively enhanced byspecific actions. Science enhances this understand-ing by providing a test for the acceptance of prac-tices and the effectiveness related to varioustechniques, including public participation. Justas science plays an important role in helping tounderstand biophysical processes, science also hasan important function in explaining the social andcultural aspects of decisions.

Social

AMERICAN INDIAN PEOPLES: THEIR PLACE IN

ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR ROLE IN ECOSYSTEM

STRATEGIES

The discussion of American Indians in the Basin focuses on their relationships with the natural environment and the trends regarding agency relations with the Basin's affected American Indian tribes. These topics have particular significance for Federal land managers for two reasons: (1) FS and BLM management actions affect resources and areas of concern to American Indians; and (2) the Federal Government holds certain trust responsi- bilities and obligations to tribes based on various legal agreements, including treaties, which have implications for ecosystem management. Although many ecosystem management issues are common to American Indians and the general public, the legal status of American Indians, the sovereignty of tribal governments, the nature of reserved tribal rights, and the unique concerns of tribes merit separate attention.

As members of both our collective society and frequently also of an Indian society, Native Ameri- can peoples are well known to their neighbors. As described earlier in this chapter, American Indians comprise a higher proportion of the total popula- tion within the Basin (2.5 percent) than of the national population (just less than 1 percent). These populations are not evenly distributed across the Basin, but tend to be located either in association with Indian reservations or with large urban centers such as Boise, Idaho and Spokane, Washington (map 7.2).

There are 22 federally recognized tribes and numerous off-reservation traditional Indian commu- nities whose aboriginal territories or reserved treaty rights are within the assessment area. Traditional Indian communities are communities either under the jurisdiction of a tribe or with cultural affilia- tions to one or more tribes and therefore lack federal recognition. An Indian person may be an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe from the Basin or elsewhere, a member of a non- federally recognized traditional community, or someone with Indian lineage cultural ties to the Basin. For many Indian people, self-identity is based on familial ties and other associations that often include a large number of extended family relations. Such family connections provide socially acknowledged individual roles and the social cohesion that typically characterize tribal and traditional community life in the Basin.

C u l t u r a l History Prior to non-Indian arrivals in the region, Basin peoples had successfully resided here for at least 12,000 years. Their cultures permitted adaptation to changing climates, environments, species distri- butions, and socio-political circumstances. Settle- ments were distributed across the region, each a member of a diverse array of indigenous cultures.

Social

Map 7.2 - Indian reservations in the Basin.

The political autonomy of these communities andtheir relatively loose organizational structuresmeant that primary collective identity was basedon village associations, shared lands, kinship ties,linguistic affiliations, and integrative political andeconomic systems.

Larger groupings of native peoples were laterestablished by researchers based on shared culturaltraits and language groups (families). Basin cultureareas include the Plateau, which encompasses theBasin's northern half; and the Great Basin, whichcovers much of the Basin's southern half and asmall area of California located just south of theassessment area's southwest corner. Languagefamilies included Sahaptin, Shoshonean, Paiute,Kootenai, Interior Salish, Chinookan, Lutumian,Pit River, and Shasta. Although these culturalgroupings reflect and hold static the conditionsthat existed just before non-Indian contact, theirinfluence extends into modern times and serves tobind certain tribes together.

Major population losses, due to introducedEuropean diseases and then relocation of Indiannations onto reservations in the 19th and early20th centuries, resulted in geographically isolatedand distinct rural communities. These newlycreated communities were formed under federallyimposed political structures called "tribes" andconsisted of one or more Indian nations. Somefederally recognized tribes, such as the Nez Perceand the Spokane, had to settle on a small area oftheir homelands. Other tribes had to share areservation in a portion of their homeland withother Indian peoples, including some who mayhave been traditionally hostile, such as the Con-federated Tribes of the Warm Springs and theWind River Reservation. In other cases, Indiannations (such as the Kootenai, Paiute, Bannockand Shoshoni) were formally separated ontomore than one reservation, usually in a smallarea of their homeland.

History of Legal StandingMost American Indian tribes and bands wereindependent and self-governing societies longbefore their contact with non-Indian peoples orrelations with the Federal Government. However,the degree and kind of socio-political organizationvaried. Consistently, first by European nations andlater by the Federal Government, Indian nationshave been formally recognized as distinct andindependent political communities qualified toexercise powers of self-government by reason oftheir original sovereignty (Cohen 1971).

The relationship of the Federal Governmentwith American Indian tribes is based on legalagreements between sovereign nations, federalrecognition of their dependent sovereign status,principles of jurisprudence, international law,prevailing views of society, and governmentpolicies toward American Indians. The body ofthis formal relationship involves the whole spanof United States history, ties with Europeanculture, and conventions in law.

The United States inherited from England twoimportant, albeit conflicting, policies that recog-nized Indian sovereignty within the context of the"right of discovery" concept, giving title to thediscoverer, and made that title subject to Indianpeoples' "right of occupancy." These policies arereflected in early documents. The NorthwestOrdinance of 1787 (1 Stat. 50) reaffirmed federalrecognition of Indian nations' sovereignty, as didthe U.S. Constitution. Both policies also stipu-lated that only the Federal Government couldnegotiate treaties for cession of lands.

A series of Indian trade and intercourse acts,initiated in 1790 (1 Stat. 137) and permanentlyadopted in 1834, became the cornerstone ofFederal Indian policy. Another significant earlycontribution to Indian law, known as theMarshall Trilogy, involved three Supreme Courtdecisions [Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), CherokeeNation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v.

Social 1923

Georgia (1832)]. These decisions establishedthat: (1) only the Federal Government has thepreemptive right to procure Indian land; (2) theFederal Government has trust responsibilitiestoward American Indian tribes; and (3) treatiestake precedence over state law.

Treaty-Making PeriodWhen the Oregon Territory was created in 1848,provisions of the Northwest Ordinance wereextended to the new territory, confirming Indian tideto land and recognizing lands not expressly ceded tothe United States by ratified treaty or agreement asIndian Country. Soon after, an aggressive policyof securing land for non-Indian settlers moti-vated treaty-making efforts west of the CascadeMountains. However, the Oregon DonationAct in 1850 provided patents (7,437 claims inOregon and 1,018 in Washington) to landtotaling 2.8 million acres to new settlers of theTerritory prior to ratification of any PacificNorthwest treaties for tribal land cessions. Thisaction, taken contrary to established UnitedStates policy, created considerable tension inthe region.

The period between 1840 and 1870 was oneof increasing tension between Indians and non-Indians in the region for a variety of reasons: largeand dramatic declines in Indian populationsdue to recurring epidemics; non-ratification ofIndian treaties negotiated with western Oregontribes in 1851; encroachment upon and seizureof Indian lands authorized by territorial leadersand Congressional acts despite legal agreementswith tribes; rapid loss of access to and destruc-tion of Indian food resources; and persistentantipathy toward, and mutual fear between,both societies (Beckham 1984).

Treaties with Indian nations of the region some-times addressed the United States' interest tomaintain peaceful relations and to secure rights totravel through Indian lands (Treaty with the East-ern Shoshoni 1863; Treaty between the UnitedStates and the Blackfoot Nation of Indians 1865).The purpose of other treaties was more compre-hensive and addressed land title status, creation ofreservations, and Federal obligations to tribes.

In 1855, some Indian nations within the Basinentered into treaties with Isaac Stevens, thenGovernor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs forWashington. These ratified treaties provided forapportionment of land and natural resources andstill serve that purpose today. Tribes affected bythese treaties include the Confederated Tribes ofthe Colville and the Umatilla reservations; Con-federated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation,Nez Perce Tribe; Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; and theSalish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reser-vation. The Blackfeet Tribe, located adjacent to theassessment area boundary, also made treaties withGovernor Stevens in 1855. These various treatiescontain similar language reserving tribes' existingrights, such as this example from the Flathead:

The exclusive right of taking fish in all thestreams running through or bordering saidreservation is further secu red to said Indians; asalso the right of taking fish at all usual andaccustomed places, in common with citizens ofthe Territory, and of erecting temporary build-ings for curing; together with the privilege ofhunting, gathering roots and berries, andpasturing their horses and cattle upon openand unclaimed land.

In other Basin treaties and agreements, similar pre-existing tribal rights were recognized, such as theright to access and use water sources, trap animals,cut and gather noncommercial wood, or engage inwater power uses. While the scope and intent ofthe Stevens' treaties concerning rights to fish at allusual and accustomed stations and grounds incommon with citizens of the Territory has beenaddressed through numerous court decisions, thegeographical limits on other treaty-reserved rightshave remained largely unexplored. Such terms inlegal documents as "open," "unclaimed," "publiclands," and "unoccupied" lands carry the impliedcondition that rights reserved on such lands couldbe exercised until the lands were closed, claimed,or occupied by United States citizens under thepublic land disposal statutes.

Lands ceded by treaty to the United States weretypically delineated by non-Indians and were notaccurate representations of tribal homeland areas;

1924 Social

customary land-uses routinely extended beyondthe homelands of any particular Indian group.These reserved rights and treaty obligations are asignificant factor in public land management.Tribes and traditional Indian communities haveareas of interest that are based on prehistoricand historic land-use patterns; these extendbeyond reservations boundaries and also oftenextend beyond lands that tribes ceded to theUnited States.

The explicit reservation of rights through treatyconstitutes an assurance by the Federal Govern-ment that traditional lifeway-based land uses canbe sustained. What is reserved are the activities thatsupport an Indian community's way of life, notsimply a resource use (Hunn 1990). Through his-toric legal agreements, tribes received promises ofFederal protection for their lands, resources, andpeople. These promises constitute fiduciary responsi-bilities, also called trust responsibilities and obliga-tions. Considerable benefits were gained by theFederal Government by establishing legal rights toIndian lands and providing a basis for economic,political, and social development in the Northwest.

Development ofFederal Indian PolicyFor more than two centuries, Federal policy to-ward Indian peoples has vacillated between twoconflicting themes: (1) self-determination and anacceptance of cultural plurality; and (2) assimila-tion of Indian peoples into American culture andweakening of tribal governments. For example,those reservations set aside by treaty, executiveorder, or agreement, though sizable in the begin-ning, were systematically and significantly reducedin area as a policy of reservation consolidation andreduction prevailed between 1871 and 1928.

Passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 (24 Stat. 389)led to dramatic reductions in tribally owned lands,if not elimination of reservations in some cases."Surplus" lands were identified on reservations andallotment plans were developed and implementedover the next few decades, leaving tribes dispos-sessed of much of their lands (Cohen 1971).

Nationally, tribes lost 90 million acres, from 138million acres down to 48 million acres, and theremaining Indian Country was severely frag-mented. Effects of this Act and the allotmentpolicy can be seen in the land ownership patternsof many reservations.

The allotment process was terminated in 1934with a basic shift in policy away from forcedassimilation to one of cultural and ethnic plural-ism. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (48Stat. 984) provided an opportunity for tribes toadopt provisions for self-determination. The Actfacilitated major revisions to federal policy byending the allotting of Indian lands, extending thetrust status to lands allotted, restoring unsold"surplus" lands from the allotment period to tribalownership, ceasing the sale of Indian lands to non-Indians, promoting acquisition of lands for Indianuse, establishing tribal enterprises, encouragingtribes to incorporate, providing revolving loans,and enhancing management practices for Indianforests and range (Cohen 1971).

This policy sought to promote reservationautonomy and self-determination and to preserveIndian cultures and values. For example, under theIndian Reorganization Act, the Quartz ValleyIndian Community was established; also, the FortMcDermitt Paiute Tribe received economic assis-tance, allowing a grazing cooperative for tribalmembers to be developed through the Bureauof Indian Affairs. Although many Basin tribesaccepted the Act and its provisions, some werenot receptive due to concern about possibleadverse effects to their legal rights and interests.

The Act fostered changes in many Basin tribalgovernmental structures. Constitutions and bylawswere adopted by tribal members and approved bythe Secretary of the Department of Interior. Thesewritten laws were then implemented by electedofficials who replaced the traditional tribal head-men or recognized chiefs. Elected councils wereresponsible for establishing economic developmentand resource management policies for reservationtimber, rangeland, and farm lands.

Social 1925

The period between 1943 and 1961 markedanother era of major changes and setbacks fortribes. With the Termination Act of 1953, a forcedassimilation policy was again introduced. Reserva-tions of selected tribes were terminated and landssold, often to third parties. Federal recognitionand services to these tribes ceased, and tribalsovereignty was terminated.

Often, however, much more was forfeited throughthe termination process. The Klamath Tribes, one ofthe Basin tribes affected, lost its federal recognitionand its land base; their land base subsequentlybecame die eastern portion of die Winema NationalForest. The Quartz Valley Indian Community andthe Northwest Band of Shoshoni Tribes were odierBasin tribes terminated under this Act. Subsequendy,all three tribes have been reinstated as federallyrecognized tribes. However, as for most tribestargeted for termination, effects on community andsocial well-being are ongoing. Little of their lost landbase has been recovered, and the tribes are strugglingto re-establish their governmental organizations andeconomic self-sufficiency to provide needed servicesfor their members.

By the early 1970s, the termination policy hadbeen rejected and was being replaced by one thatpromoted a renewal of tribal self-determination.Tribal communities across the Nation greatlybenefited from actions of the Nixon administra-tion that resulted in the Self-Determination andEducation Assistance Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 2203).The Act provided substantial funding avenues forthe tribes and granted authority for tribes to ac-quire lands adjacent to reservations. The Act alsoenabled tribes to pursue economic growth and toeffectively assert a political role in the region.

Indian Case Law andFederal Administrative PolicyAs tribes developed sophistication in dealing withstates and Federal agencies, moving away fromBureau of Indian Affairs' domination in tribalgovernment operations, they began to addressissues relating to their legal interest and culturalrelationship with natural resources; this sometimes

involved lengthy and controversial court cases. Theinterpretation of tribal rights and property interestsand the nature of the tribes' legal relations with stateand federal agencies have developed into a large bodyof Indian law. Cases involving Basin tribes, datingfrom the late 1800s, often revolve around interpreta-tions of treaty-reserved fishing rights.

One early Supreme Court case, United States v.Winans, 198 U.S. 381 (1905), addressed the rightof Yakama tribal fishermen to fish at a well-knownusual and accustomed fishing station when theiraccess had been effectively denied by constructionof a commercial fishing operation. In this case, thecourt's opinion stated in part:

...the treaty was not a grant of rights to theIndians, but a grant of rights from them -a reservation of those [rights] not granted [awayto the United States government]...The contingency of future ownership of thelands, therefore, was foreseen and providedfor—in other words, the Indians were given aright in the land—the right of crossing it to theriver—the right to occupy it to the extent andfor the purpose mentioned [such as fishing].

The implied right of access to usual and accus-tomed fishing places extends to both private andpublic lands. In 1974, a U.S. Washington DistrictCourt (upheld by the Supreme Court in 1979)reaffirmed off-reservation fishing rights and theirpriority over other uses. Tribes were allowed up toa 50 percent share of harvestable fish passing byaccustomed traditional fishing places. That casealso recognized the sovereign right of tribes, ratherthan States, to regulate their off-reservation treatyrights. States regulate tribal use for conservationpurposes only. An important aspect of this deci-sion is the surmised right of tribes to take part inthe protection of fish habitats and to help ensurethat the resource persists and in quantities avail-able for fishing. The case has been allowed tostand open, as does the similar United States v.Oregon case that began in the late 1960s, toresolve other disputes concerning exercise oftreaty-reserved rights.

1926 Social

Numerous Federal regulatory acts passed in recentdecades have increased the roles of tribes in publicland management decision-making processes.These acts include:

» National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (83 Stat. 852).

» American Indian Religious Freedom Act of1978(AIRFA)(92Stat. 469).

» Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979(ARPA) (93 Stat. 721).

» Native American Graves Protection and Repa-triation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (104 Stat.3048).

» National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA) (80 Stat. 915) as amended in 1992.

» Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993(107 Stat. 1488).

« 1994 amendments to the Self-Determinationand Education Assistance Act of 1975 (108Stat. 4272).

The portion of case law pertaining to off-reservationtribal interests and federal agency land managementis reflected in recent federal administrative policyand guidance. Interior Secretarial Order No. 3175,issued in November 1993, requires all bureaus andagencies to conduct trust responsibilities of theFederal Government, assess the impacts of theiractions on Indian trust resources, and consult withtribes when impacts are identified. A White Housememorandum issued in April 1994 emphasizedthe importance of government-to-governmentrelations with tribal governments and the need toconsult tribes prior to taking actions that mayaffect tribal interests.

The close of the 20th century bears witness to anextended period of increasing tribal political andeconomic involvement in mainstream regionalsociety. Recent Congressional acts, executiveorders, and federal court decisions have provided abasis for tribal renewal. The region's tribes havebecome active in seeking cooperative opportunitieswith states, federal agencies, and private landown-

ers to address shared concerns about ecosystemissues and specific resource strategies. In keepingwith each tribe's unique legal and cultural history,Indian people are forging individual paths towardsocioeconomic development. The Federal Govern-ment is responsible for assisting tribes while stillrecognizing their sovereign standing.

The trust relationship between the U.S. Govern-ment and Indian Tribes is a part of the very fabricof federal Indian law. There are stringent fiduciarystandards of conduct imposed on federal agenciesin their relationships with Indian Tribes andIndian-owned assets. Meeting the FederalGovernment's trust responsibility is consistentwith, although not the same as, meeting Federalobligations to all users, which are to protect andrestore habitat necessary to maintain resources athealthy, sustainable, usable levels for present andfuture generations.

Place in Basin EcosystemsThe intense interest of Indian peoples and theirtribal governments in the region's ecosystems andnatural resources is founded in their long-termrelationship and spiritual attachment to theland. Although many differences exist among theregion's Indian communities, the various tribeshold a common belief about their relationshipwith the land and water (Dick 1990). All tribesunderstand that placement of their peoples inthis landscape was by the Creator. Therefore, theIndian ancestry in the Basin extends from "timeimmemorial," a long-term attachment reflectedin modern Indian culture.

Indian peoples are part of a large, loose socialweb strengthened by their shared experience ofthe Basin and associated ecosystems (Hunn1990). Traditional subsistence economies werebroadbased and included fishing, fowling, hunt-ing, trapping, livestock grazing, and gathering ofterrestrial and aquatic resources over very largegeographic areas and a. diverse range of importantplaces (Walker 1993). The full range of resourcesneeded to sustain families and Indian cultures wasfound in the socially and culturally important

Social 1927

ethno-environments and ethno-habitats of theirhomelands and traditional use areas. Living cul-tural traditions are embedded in these older un-derstandings of the land, resources, landforms,ethno-habitats, and landscapes. Consequently,Indian peoples have accrued a "detailed, encyclo-pedic knowledge of their environment" throughthe millennia (Hunn 1990).

The intimacy and length of attachment to theland and the totality of landscape importance havecontributed to a strong sense of place for Indianpeoples. Lands sacred to Indian peoples and all thenatural components of such lands participatetogether in a system of complex interrelationships.As such, places of significance are created by anintersection of natural systems, cultural uses, socialsystems, and cultural meanings. Knowledge ofplaces is passed to each succeeding generationthrough oral storytelling, various performed ritu-als, and personal experiences. The importanceof cultural places is embedded in the regional,although now somewhat melded, Indian culturesof the Basin. This "symbolic link" to the land isthe context for maintaining community andcultural identity.

The world view of tribal communities is complexand includes both traditional native values andbelief systems along with common Christian-American values. In general, traditional commu-nity values assert an interconnected natural worldthat includes people and the important interac-tions between Indian people and the land. Indianpeoples may consider themselves caretakers of thelands, especially within their homelands, seekingprotection of all resources (natural and cultural)and recognizing their collective significance.

Traditional peoples typically feel privileged to be ableto eat native foods, be respectful of die Creator, enjoythe bounty of a diverse natural world, and listen totheir elders and their teachings. In traditional beliefsystems, all life in die ecosystem shares the world'spast existence and, widi people, has intelligence andpossesses moral rights and obligations. The benefitsof a balanced and moral human society are extendedto the entire local ecosystem.

Today, as in the distant past, tribal membersand their governments hold considerable naturalresource information in the form of both academic(many tribes employ resource professionals) and"indigenous" knowledge (DeWalt 1994). Eldershave kept traditions alive through the practice oftraditional culture and their counsel to youngergenerations. Besides providing cultural continuityand a form of sustenance and comfort for thosewho follow the traditional ways, these traditionshelp to sustain social cohesion and well-being.This extensive knowledge base is beginning to gainconsideration in public land management, in partas a means to consider American Indian interestsand public land-use needs.

American Indian cultural values toward publiclands have tended to be subsumed under generalcategories, such as nonconsumptive or recreationalland uses as understood for the general public. Theprimary cultural activities commonly include harvestof natural resources and associated activities: fishing,hunting, noncommercial wood cutting, gathering,resource processing, scouting for ethno-habitatsand camping. Other public land-uses includereligious practices or observances such as spiritquests, visiting unmarked graves, rites of passage,livestock grazing, and cultural tours.

Many American Indian cultural uses (such ascamping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing,and berry picking) follow use patterns similar torecreational uses for die general public. However,differences in the purposes and social context (howsuch uses contribute to community social well-beingand cultural integrity) often distinguish them.Resource acquisition activities such as fishing,hunting, and plant and mineral gathering areusually done within the context of traditionalsocio-cultural and economic systems. For manyBasin tribes, a series of spring and summer root,salmon, and berry feasts mark high points onIndian religious calendars (Hunn 1990). In addi-tion to these substantial feasts, numerous otheroccasions and events occur throughout die year

1928 Social

(often held in community longhouses, shorthouses,Indian Shaker churches, or private homes) that aresupplied with traditional foods. These native foodsare usually collected from a tribe's or traditionalcommunity's ethno-environment (area of interestor homeland) and its socially and/or traditionallysignificant ecological places (ethno-habitats),typically on reservations or public lands.

In 1805, Lewis and Clark observed that thankswere ritually offered to the first spring Chinookby the whole community (Spier and Sapir 1930).The mixture of religious, social, subsistence, andeconomic values for a variety of aquatic and terres-trial resources found then continues today. Thedegree that individuals and families participate inthis lifeway often brings them esteem from thecommunity and generally acts to provide culturalcontinuity, social cohesion, and individual well-being. Cultural relationships with aquatic speciesare reflected in the folk taxonomy and nomencla-ture of Sahaptin speakers, who classify fish on thebasis of both their physical attributes and theirIndian cultural uses (Hunn 1990). Fish, such asthe Pacific lamprey and sculpin, while of littleinterest in American society, are still desired andrespected by Indian peoples. Living cultural tradi-tions in the Basin are exemplified by the fishingdone from wooden platforms with dip nets justbelow The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River oron southern Washington's Klickitat River, and thetraditional gaff-hooking at fishing stations on theJohn Day River and Catherine Creek in Oregon.

People's diets have become largely supplementedwith other foodstuffs from American culture, butnative game animals are still very much desiredand consumed. Hunting as an activity also serves agreater socio-cultural role. For example, the takingof a youth's first game animal becomes the focus ofa rite of passage in many tribes. Leadership rolesmay be aligned in traditional religious arenas basedon the knowledge, skill, and proficiency of menwho hunt for their communities.

In the past, principal meat sources were derivedfrom wildlife, including deer, pronghorn, bighornsheep, moose, elk, bison, bear, rabbit, and ground-hog. These and other animals may still be consid-ered powerful and able to help or hinder a person'sability to progress through life. The power to curediseases often comes from animal spirits (Fowler1986). Their importance in diet, economy, orreligion varied by culture and was influenced inpart by the natural range and population densityof a species and people's cultural values for them.

Non-Indian fish and game laws may sometimesbe viewed as meshing well with traditional Indianlaws that prescribe the respectful taking of gamelife. At other times, when considering a man'scommunity or family obligations and his right toexercise aboriginal and/or treaty-reserved rights,they mesh poorly. At times throughout this cen-tury, there have been public misunderstandingsconcerning tribal takings of fish and wildlife,which have resulted in complex and extensiveFederal court adjudications in recent decades.

The importance of native plants has receivedrelatively little recognition compared to othernative resources. Yet, use of plant resources as foodduring the ethno-historic period was at least equalto, if not greater than, use of fisheries (Hunn1990, Fowler 1986). In fact, food-plant resourcelocations, not fishery ethno-habitats, have beenconsidered the critical variable for determining theplacement of historic settlements in the Nez Perceregion (Ames and Marshal 1980).

Plants and their communities and habitats con-tinue to be valued. Plant parts are used for purifi-cation, ceremonial, subsistence, commercial, andmedicinal purposes and for creating objects ofpersonal use, trade, gift-giving, or sale (Fowler1990, Schlick 1994, Wilke 1988). Plants playspecial roles in the physical and spiritual cleansingor purifying of a person, and may be found atvarious life-event ceremonies including dailysweats, funerals, and disciplinary actions. Like fish,plants are used commercially and for subsistence,ceremony, and trade.

Social 1929

Traditional use of plants reflects the resilience andpersistence of common cultural themes in theBasin (Hanes 1982, Hunn 1990). In recent years,there has been renewed interest in traditional plantuse by Indian people in parts of the Basin. Such aninterest is seen as socially rewarding and importantfor maintenance of traditional activities, whichprovide cultural continuity and reaffirm Indianidentity (Coulture and others 1986). For someIndian families and tribes, the practices and rela-tionships associated with plants and plant ethno-habitats have continued unabated throughout thiscentury.

Some plants identified by the ICBEMP as of tribalinterest are characterized as habitat generalists andare associated with terrestrial community typesfound widely distributed in the Basin. However,plants are considered significant in a given culture onthe basis of people's recognition of the plants and dievalues and/or uses assigned to die plants. As a result,many plant species are more significant than may berecognized by either the native folk biologist orAmerican naturalist. For example, a plant such ascamas may be known to live in several habitat types,but the plant normally occurs in the quality andquantity appropriate for harvest in only a few ofthose types. Also, a plant may occur in abundance inone tribe's area of interest. Though considered highlyvalued by a second tribe, die plant may not be valuedin the same way, or to the same degree in the twodifferent cultures.

Cultural activities occur frequendy outside thepurview of both the public and die land managers.The public's understanding of cultural plants or anycompetition for them has been restricted to a fewplants, such as huckleberries, morel mushrooms, orbeargrass. As a. consequence, some plant ethno-habitats have not been recognized or valued in ashared way by the general society or the tribes.

Scablands are one example, with their characteris-tic areas of shallow rocky soils, sometimes inter-spersed with large mounds of deep soils. Agencieshave often dismissed scablands as non-productivetimber lands with limited range values, and evenconsidered them unattractive or desert-like. Scab-lands have been used as convenient road locations

or borrow pit sources. Most Basin tribes have avery different perception; to them, scablands areplaces high in biomass, which produce highlyvalued foods that are part of the traditional spring-time focus in Indian life.

The cultural significance of the environment ismuch more complex than simply a source for foodor medicine. It involves social values and meaningsthat interlace traditional societal, political, religious,and economic areas of modern native cultures(Hunn 1981). The culturally familiar naturalworld and its life forms support individual, family,community, tribal, and regional Indian identity,socioeconomic well-being, and quality of life.

Like most traditional societies, Indian communi-ties have preserved a well-established tradition ofclose-knit groups. Individuals are recognizedthrough kinship ties and roles, usually in thecontext of extended family structures. In general,communally controlled uses of lands and resourceshave evolved over the past century. For sometribes, such uses were greatly altered during theallotment policy period, when families and landswere separated into discrete areas across IndianCountry. For those lands remaining in tribalownership (not privately held), tribal laws andtraditional laws prevail. On public lands stillvisited by traditionalists, communal values andtraditional laws commonly dictate appropriateresource uses in addition to tribal, state, andfederal laws.

Community health is affected by numerous factors,including economic opportunity; pursuit of tradi-tional uses of the land; effective trust relationshipswith the Federal Government; and freedom topractice cultural, religious, and social customs.Shortfalls in any of these factors can potentiallylead to various effects on the well-being of Indiancommunities. Accumulative, and at times substan-tial, adverse effects have been observed in thesocial history of Basin tribes. These effects havebeen reflected generally in social measures suchas family cohesion, drug and alcohol abuse,depression, low self-esteem, suicide rates, crime,and physical health.

> Social

Implications forEcosystem ManagementIn casual conversation and in substantial tribalgovernment expenditures, the natural biophysicalworld still pervades Indian life. The continuanceof American Indian/tribal land-based lifeways andIndian people's dependence on natural resourcesare expected to draw multiple Federal land man-agement agencies into dialogue with affected tribeswell into the future.

Tribal governments have an increasing influence onthe formulation of public land policy because of theirlegally reserved and established rights, as well as theirunique trust relationship with the United StatesGovernment. In recent years, there has been anincreased understanding of the sovereign status oftribes and an increase in government-to-governmentrelations between tribes and agencies. This hasresulted in increased participation by tribes in allagency planning levels (policy, program, and project)as a consultation strategy. Also important are earlyinvolvement in project planning and opportunitiesto contribute to implementation and monitoringstages of projects.

Agency decision-makers should be familiar withpotential effects on tribal interests and rights earlyin the planning process. Federal agencies are obli-gated to use their authority in safeguarding tribes'reserved rights and trust properties that are undertheir jurisdiction. Federal agencies cannot renego-tiate or narrowly interpret the historic agreementsbetween the Federal Government and tribes eitherin the consultation process, or through manage-ment decisions and actions.

Recognition of the uniqueness of each tribe hasplaced the burden on agencies to become knowl-edgeable of, and sensitive to, Indian interests on anindividual tribal basis. There is great variation indemographic characteristics, and the nature ofrights, interests, and dependence on public landresources between tribes. One implication is thatan ongoing dialogue would benefit agency-tribalrelations if established locally, over and beyond thenotification and consultation requirements associ-

ated with NFMA, NEPA, NHPA, ARPA,NAGPRA, and other regulatory acts. Frequently,agencies have communicated with tribes largely inthe context of stringent timeframes derived fromstatutes that apply to agency undertakings, ratherthan in desirable tribal consultation processes.

In addition, with passage of the Self-GovernanceAct late in 1994, increased emphasis is beingplaced on involving tribes in Federal managementprocesses, including development and implemen-tation of land-use plans, preparation of budgetproposals, and conducting of other activities onpublic lands on behalf of the agencies. Tribes alsonow have the option of considering the incorpora-tion of programs or functions (otherwise underfederal agencies) into their tribal responsibilities ifthey are interested and can provide justification.

Use of the "ecosystems" concept essentially servesas a social "tool for holistic and empathetic think-ing about nature," which takes into account theculturally based perceptions of science and societytoward landscapes (Ingerson 1994). Whereas"science" is based on observable elements andprocesses of nature visible to anyone, the nature,significance, and importance of Basin landscapesfor Indian peoples are prescribed by the full ben-efit of cultural systems and values. The naturalworld is "sacred" and seen in a manner that is bothphysical and spiritual, not subordinate to, nordependent on, scientific analysis. Federal agenciesconsider the natural world in a linear way, withdecision-making that relies on traditional hierar-chial and compartmentalized thinking.

One implication of differing world views betweenagencies and tribes is that agency data collections arecommonly performed in the language of natural orsocial scientists, which may not sufficiently accommo-date the general complexity of human behavior ordiffering cultural world views and sensibilities. Animportant element in efforts to address these differencesis maintenance of meaningful and ongoing dialogue.Ecosystem management provides a sound framework forincorporating traditional environmental knowledge intodecision making, but the mechanism for accomplishingthis needs to be developed.

Social 1931

Meaningful dialogue through an effective consul-tation process is an important issue among tribes.Consultation among federal agencies, tribes, andAmerican Indian communities has its basis inFederal law, court interpretations, and executiveorders. Consultation is not a single event, but aprocess that leads to a decision; consultation servesat least four purposes:

» Identify and clarify the issues.

* Provide for an exchange of existing informationand identify where information is needed.

» Identify and serve as a process for conflictresolution.

» Provide an opportunity to discuss and explainthe decision.

Consultation means different things to differenttribes; it can be a formal process of negotiation,cooperation, and policy-level decision-making be-tween tribal governments and the Federal Govern-ment, or a more informal process. Consultation canbe viewed as an ongoing relationship between one ormore agencies and one or more tribes characterizedby consensus-seeking approaches to reach mutualunderstanding and resolve issues. It may concernissues and actions that could affect the government'strust responsibilities or other tribal interests. Devel-oping a consistent approach to consultation thatmeets tribal needs is one of the challenges of ecosys-tem management.

The ongoing nature of consultation suggests thatit is not appropriate to solve the issues of treatyrights by providing American Indians with suffi-cient land, resources, and access to sacred sites,with the assumption that the problem will then goaway. Many tribal issues are based upon tribalneeds, interests, and rights, which are taken fromtheir histories, living cultural traditions, andmodern lifeways. As agencies seek to consider andaccommodate human needs in land managementdecisions, an understanding of the shared andunique relationships that both tribes and thegeneral public have with landscapes will emerge.Ecosystem-appropriate decisions in land manage-ment would tend to follow from including thesehuman values and cultural rules.

As agencies recognize that American Indians useplaces and resources largely because they areamong those limited number of places and ethno-habitats shown and interpreted to them by elderrelatives, land management may be able to betterprioritize and meaningfully consider AmericanIndian needs. Similarly, as agencies incorporatethis understanding with tribal interests in healthyecosystems, and the restoration or conservation ofethno-environments and habitats, apparent con-flicts and lingering frustrations may be resolved.

Fundamentally, tribal governments and tradition-alists have a well-established history of compro-mise and acceptance of changes to theirhomelands, even when changes have affected thoseplaces and aspects of their lifeways of most signifi-cance. American Indians struggle with many of thesame issues in today's society that others face. Asdescribed by Bordewich (1996):

The Indian story does not end, of course, withan intellectual accommodation with the past oreven a moral coming of terms. Indeed, the storydoes not end at all. Until now each age hasimagined its own Indian: untamable savage,child of Nature, steward of the earth, the whiteman's ultimate victim. Imagining that we seethe Indian, we have often seen little more thana warped reflection of ourselves; when theIndians have stepped from the roles to which wehave assigned them, we have often seen nothingat all There will be not an end to history, but anend may be put to the invention of distortingmyth. With that may come the recognition thatIndians are not, at last, poignant vestiges of alost age, but men and women of our own time,struggling to solve twentieth-century problemswith tools of our shared civilization. To seeIndians as they are is to see not only afar richertapestry of life than our fantasies ever allowedbut also the limitations of futile attempts toremake one another by force. Stripped of myth,the relationship between Indians and otherAmericans may yet remain an uncertain one,an embrace that permits neither consummationnor release, but that is, nonetheless, full-of hope.

1932 Social