. "10 Resource-Owner Rights and Responsibilities to Invest." Forested Landscapes in Perspective: Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's Nonfederal Forests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1998.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Seventh Generation: Among humanity, past generations left a legacy, and humans have a duty not only to their children but to seven generations. This assumption of duty to the seventh generation leads to a belief that the land should be sustained.
Humility: In taking action, humans should be humble. The natural world is powerful and complicated. Connections are not obvious, but they are important when considered over the time scale of seven generations. Some tribes object to the concept of "management" and prefer the term "care-giving" to describe their philosophy of interaction with the land.
On reservations, tribes generally have rights of self-government that exclude land regulation by states. (The legal doctrines are complicated, however; see Getches et al. 1993.) Not only do tribes control timber harvest, they control other land uses as well. Federal statutes, however, usually apply either to Native American lands (if Congress was explicit) or to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as a federal agency. Tribes must comply with the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and many others. Tribes are able to qualify for enforcement of matters under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Application of some statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, are controversial. These acts require action by the BIA, but if it is recognized that tribal land is private land, then application of these acts should be limited to tribes.
In the Pacific Northwest, tribes reserved the right to fish in common with others at accustomed fishing areas. Those rights have been upheld in recent court decisions (Cohen 1986). Treaties in the Great Lakes area, Wisconsin in particular, protect tribal hunting and gathering rights.
Alaska is governed by two major federal laws, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971) and its amendments (43 U.S.C.A. § 1601-1628) and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.A. § 3101-3133), which became law in 1980. Along with state law, these federal statutes define subsistence hunting and fishing rights. The federal law protects Alaskan native rights on federal lands, whether or not the state laws protect native rights (Getches et al. 1993).
Native Americans do not regard their lands as belonging to the federal government. However, federal policy has not adequately distinguished between tribal and federal lands. A representative of the Quinault tribe summarized the resulting conflict as follows:
"Indian forests are often managed with the objective of preserving natural and cultural values so harvest activity has not been as intensive as on nearby federal, state, and private lands. This situation has resulted in a growing tendency to rely upon Indian lands as wildlife sanctuaries or habitat or to restrict the exercise