TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE - DON'T LEAVE THE FUTURE WITHOUT IT
John C. Capp
USDA Forest Service
Juneau, Alaska
Carol Jorgensen
USDA Forest Service
St. Ignace, Michigan
Introduction
Traditional Knowledge is an essential grasp, an understanding and reverence that
indigenous
people have with ecosystems. This is an astute and strategic orientation based
on observations
and interactions with the natural world. This knowledge is empirical - closely
based on
observations, interactions, and systematic feedback while incorporating
spiritual systems. It is
often expressed in spiritual and cultural terms and rules, providing not only
description and
reverence for natural resources but an ethical system for human behavior for
sustaining
ecosystems, including humans, for generations that will follow. It is
community-based and
culturally-centered wisdom held by individuals who represent the understanding
of long term
ecosystem fluctuations and functions across the cultural landscape. It stresses
that humans
depend on ecosystems and human actions must reflect this dependency.
Paper presented at the 62nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, March
14-18, 1997, Washington, DC.
Traditional Knowledge - Western Science
Traditional Knowledge is oriented much differently than Western Science.
Traditional
Knowledge is generally transmitted orally and experientially, and not written.
It is learned
through hands on experience and not taught in abstracted context. It is
holistic, non-linear and
not reductionist in approach. It is qualitative and in the intuitive thinking
mode and not
quantitative or in the analytical thinking mode. Instead of relying on explicit
hypotheses,
theories and laws, it relies on spiritual, cumulative, and collective knowledge
that is annually
interpreted. Traditional Knowledge tries to understand systems as whole and not
isolate the
interacting parts. Observed ecosystems changes and human actions are evaluated
in the
perspective of the whole ecosystem and it’s importance. (Clark 1997, Jorgensen
1995,
Merculieff 1997: personal communication).
Like Western Science, Traditional Knowledge provides an additional body of
knowledge and
another way to instill conservation ethics into others. It teaches conservation
and ecosystem
management. As Traditional Knowledge keepers continue to point out, you pay
particular
attention to things, when those things are what keep you alive.
Some key tenants of Traditional Knowledge
All living and non-living things on earth are interconnected in a vast symbiotic
relationship
(Sherman ND). All elements of earth and all life forms have a spirit similar to
that of humans;
humans and all life forms depend on mother earth for survival (Fed. Saskatchewan
Indian
Nations 1992).
Native Elders, with their multi-generational insight and cultural wisdom handed
down from the
ancients, will tell you that if you watch and listen closely, you will hear the
heartbeat of Mother
Earth; that she will share her knowledge, her history and her bounty.
However,
she will also
share her heartache and her wrath with equal measure. Survival is a spirit of
mutual good.
Disrespect of any natural resource will afflict all natural resources. The web
of life and
ownership of what land provides are completely opposite. From the Tlingit
culture point of
view, Mother Earth depicts us all as equal in her garden which is the foundation
by which
Natives contemplate brotherhood with plant, rock, and wildlife in common
endorsement to live
on earth. In complete and wholesome measure, the Native American possess the
science of
respect for and commitment to live in harmony with Mother Earth and the web of
life and to
pass it on to future generations. Native Americans have enjoyed this
relationship for eons and
built a society with successful cohabitation with plant, rock, and wildlife.
We Need Traditional Knowledge
Threats to our Environment
During 1950-1990, the human global population more than doubled, from 2.5
billion to 5.3
billion. More than 1 billion will be added in the 1990's (Raven, 1990). There
is no overall
accepted strategy to sustain the global ecosystem. Almost every square inch of
the globe is
affected by human activities. Natural habitats and countless species are being
lost. Solutions
will require far more than reactionary technological fixes or more
environmentally-friendly
development or relying solely on Western Science. Social/economic systems and
controls will
be required that firmly institutionalize respect for the land and protect the
biological diversity
which supports all of us. "The fate of humanity is bound to that of the diverse
ecosystems that
are the bedrock of human economies." (O'Neal, et al. 1995). Tainter (1996)
states: ". . . in the
long term, sustainable land use and management must be based on social and
political
institutions that are themselves sustainable."
Human Dependency on Biological Diversity
World plant and animal species, biological communities, and genetic resources,
form the
foundation for human societies. (Balick, Elisabetsky, Laird 1996; Montgomery
and Pollack
1996; Tainter 1996; WRI-IUCN-UNEP 1992; Raven 1990; Wilson 1988). They play
critical
direct roles in human spiritual, cultural, religious and family systems for
human survival. Raven
(1990) states: "(human) Sustainability and preservation of biological diversity
are two sides of
the same coin." According to World Health Organization estimates, some 80
percent of people
living in developing countries rely on harvested plants for some part of their
primary health care
(Balick, Elisabetsky, Laird 1996). In Alaska, about one-third of the State’s
residents depend on
wild meat to keep them alive.
Provides Specific Information
Traditional Knowledge of an area, ecosystem, or species can be very valuable.
The indigenous
people's intricate webs of knowledge form a ". . . vast intellectual legacy,
born of intimacy with
the natural world" (Nelson 1993). Berkes, Folke, and Gadgil (1994) and
Merculieff (ND) give
many good examples. In many critical natural resource management situations we
don’t have
time to wait for research. We recognize that science does not provide direction
for decisions.
Traditional Knowledge can help provide understanding now. There are many
situations where
results of "western" scientific studies were already well known by indigenous
people and where
community-based Traditional Knowledge can make a great difference. Local
knowledge of
Hudson Bay eider abundance, distribution, behavior, and sustainability held by
the Inuit provided
managers with baseline information and strategies for conserving and developing
a commercial
harvest of eiderdown (McDonald and Fleming 1993; Nakashima 1993). The Alaska
Eskimo
Whaling Commission (AEWC) was created after the International Whaling Commission
imposed a total ban on bowhead whaling. The AEWC first mounted a court
challenge to prevent
the ban from taking effect, then concentrated on filling the information gap
between the Western
Science understanding of bowhead whale population levels and the knowledge
already held by
Native whalers. The AEWC did this through fostering scientific research which
independently
corroborated the whalers’ observations and understandings (Brelsford and
McFarland 1996). In
1991, scientific documentation showed an 83% decline in four key seabird species
in the Pribilof
Islands of Alaska. The Pribilof Aleuts had made those determinations more than
a decade
earlier, but managers chose not to lend credence to Aleut Traditional Knowledge
(Merculieff
ND). A major University spent $300,000 to determine if halibut forage off the
sea bottom in the
Alaskan Aluetians. Resident Aluets already knew halibut do this and
specifically when and
under what conditions - something not addressed by the university study
(Merculieff ND).
It is well written how Traditional Knowledge provides information on
ethnomedicine and
medicinal resources of forests, particularly tropical forests as well as
agricultural knowledge and
biological diversity. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council recognized the
importance of
Traditional Knowledge (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (1996): "As
astute observers
of the natural world and its repositories of knowledge on the long term changes
in their
biophysical environment, practitioners of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)
can provide
western biologists and ecologists with systematic and analytical observations
that cover many
years."
Protects Human Rights
We cannot have human rights without protection and support for cultures. We
cannot have
indigenous people's cultures without Traditional Knowledge. Traditional
Knowledge provides
strong kin-based social safety nets for families, family cultural values, and
teaches
environmental and conservation values and ethics. Rejecting or marginalizing
Traditional
Knowledge and excluding indigenous people from their heritage or from helping to
determine
their future denigrates human rights. Indigenous people are often excluded from
discussions that
profoundly affect their lives. Gadgil, Berkes, and Folke (1993) discuss ways to
include
indigenous people and protect their rights.
Merculieff (ND) describes ways native cultures are diminished in countless and
subtle ways by
not acknowledging the Traditional Knowledge and experiences that define cultures
and how
persons in those cultures understand themselves. If the teachings of indigenous
elders are
rejected or ignored in the society where young indigenous people must make their
future,
traditional wisdom is lost through punitive enforcement. Thus, cultural and
human rights are not
honored. Indigenous youth are often caught between teachings and values of
their elders and
laws from “outside”. Spring waterfowl hunting in the North American Arctic and
fur seal pup
harvest on the Pribiloffs are examples. Should indigenous youth be treated as
“criminals” or
should harvest be “legalized” and youth be required to be accountable for their
actions and
active players in conservation?
Human rights are eroded in other ways. Destructive biodiversity prospecting
occurs (Reid, et.al,
1993). Alcorn (1993) stated: "In the real world, conservation of forests and
justice for
biodiversity cannot be achieved until conservationists incorporate other people
into their own
moral universe and share indigenous people's goals of justice and recognition of
human rights."
These are important ethical and human rights questions.
Strengthens Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity strengthens human society. Most Alaska Native cultures
express strong
family, environmental, ethical and moral values, based on cultural traditions
passed on by
Traditional Knowledge. These are virtues that the human society would be wise
to conserve,
strengthen, and encourage. Ben Stevens an Athabascan from Arctic Village Alaska
(personal
communication:1996) said: "You don't dis-respect that which keeps you alive."
Salina Everson,
a Tlingit elder, (personal communication: 1996) said: "The Traditional
Knowledge of our elders
kept our natural resources from being depleted."
Strengthens Biological Diversity
Human cultural diversity should be considered part of our global biodiversity.
Since humans are
part of ecosystems then human diversity should be considered part of
biodiversity. Gadgil,
Berkes, and Folke (1993) state that ecosystem resiliency is probably the most
critical ecosystem
property to sustain and that long term human experiences in ecosystems are most
likely of vital
importance. Berkes, Folke, and Gadgil (1994) state that Traditional Knowledge
will help design
more effective conservation of biological diversity. We agree. Like genetic or
species diversity,
diverse human cultures represent potential solutions for human survival, in
diverse environments
and preparedness for changing conditions. Merculieff (personal communication:
1997) stated
that nature teaches us that diversity is an essential component of survival and
that the world drift
to a monoculture is a threat to human survival. He referred to singular
languages, economies
and learning. Will our highly technological and convenience-based lifestyle
with little
connection with nature get us in the end? If we spread this lifestyle to all
the world, how
prepared are future generations to face major environmental change? In that
scramble, will
biological diversity be sacrificed?
Apanguluk Charlie Kairaiuak (Kairaiuak ND), a Yupik Inuit Eskimo from Alaska
states:
For thousands of years, they (indigenous people) have maintained a
spiritual relationship
with all living things and have always shown respect and honor to them. It is
because of
this communal relationship that Native people have developed a management and
regulatory system specifically designed to ensure that all of the resources they
use are
harvested in a way such that the strength of those resources is always enhanced.
We began comparing the messages between Traditional Knowledge and teachings of
recognized
great American conservationists. How familiar Traditional Knowledge sounds to
the great
writings of Leopold (1949), Carson (1962), Humphrey (1976), Udall (1972),
Thomas (1986),
Thomas and others (1993). Yet, only indigenous cultures have proven they can
live this ethic
over thousands of years.
Call for Leadership
The United States must provide more leadership in protecting the environment and
cultural
diversity. Like it or not, we perform poorly at home and we are viewed as an
example to the
world (Chafee 1996). The United States finances development projects through
the Agency for
International Development, the Export-Import Bank of The United States, and the
Overseas
Profit and Investment Corporation. We believe these activities are important.
However,
protection for the environment must be assured. We now know that it is more
important than
once thought (Carnegie Endowment National Commission 1992; Christopher 1996a,
1996b;
WRI-WCU-VNEP 1992; World Bank 1995). Developing nations are struggling and
creating
environmental damage (Christopher 1996a, 1996b). Former Secretary of State
Warren
Christopher's policy on the environment (Christopher 1996a) is a critical
leadership initiative in
world environmental protection. Recognizing that America’s national economic
and security
interests are inextricably linked to the quality of the earth’s environment, the
policy calls for US
leadership to support sustainable development in developing nations to help
establish political
stability, stronger trading partners, reduced reliance on foreign assistance,
prevent humanitarian
catastrophes, and help conserve biological diversity. Traditional Knowledge and
collaboration
with indigenous people can and must be part of America’s foreign policy.
Senator Sam Nunn
said: “There is a new and different threat to our national security emerging the destruction of
our environments” (Bidlack 1996). We are particularly struck by what has
happened in Siberia
and the Russian Far East (Romoli 1995; Garelik 1996; Newell and Wilson 1996).
Urgency
There is great urgency to accept and respect Traditional Knowledge. Elders are
dying and with
them Traditional Knowledge. Weatherford (1988) tells of the sad death of the
last member of a
tribe in the South American tropical rainforest: "When she died a treasure of
information went
with her. . . .” Nelson (1993) discusses how Western education and cultural
changes have
steadily eroded this knowledge. When we lose indigenous cultures in their
natural
environments, we will lose a rich legacy and powerful potential force to
strengthen society's will
to protect what it must. Meffee (1992) concludes: "Humankind has adopted an
arrogant and
ultimately a self-defeating attitude toward nature that places technological
mastery over nature at
the forefront of our approach to many environmental problems." He describes the
". . . flawed
attempt to recover Pacific salmonid fisheries. . . " through dependence on
hatcheries. With the
urgency of the issues and threats to cultures and our environment, we need the
wisdom of
indigenous people in decision making and problem solving.
Accept Each Other
We are all Brothers and Sisters under the Sun. We must join together and not
let Traditional
Knowledge slip away. Weatherford (1988) concludes his book: "Columbus arrived
in the New
World in 1492, but America (Traditional Knowledge) has yet to be discovered."
We agree!
Indigenous and non-indigenous people must work together and focus on our shared
environment.
We need to apply Traditional Knowledge to broader societal environmental issues
and
strengthen human understanding of the web of life, social systems that respect
the environment,
and live as mother earth mattered. Is Traditional Knowledge and associated
human rights part of
our safety net for securing the future of humans? Social forces threaten
Traditional Knowledge;
helping break the string of learning from elders and teaching environmental
values to the young.
All human societies, including ours, are dependent on the quality of our
environment and
societal will to protect it (Carnegie Endowment National Commission 1992;
Christopher 1996a;
1996b). We must have democracies to protect the environment. Open governments
are a must.
To have democracies we must involve and share leadership with local and
indigenous people.
For many socio-economic issues involving natural resources, we will need to
combine
Traditional Knowledge with Western Science. We must extend a hand to each
other; join forces.
Our land ethics and hearts are in the same place. When we value Traditional
Knowledge, it
empowers indigenous people resulting in a better environment (Jorgensen 1995).
Accept Traditional Knowledge
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty
of the biotic
community; It is wrong when it tends otherwise" (Leopold 1949). Leopold
stresses that land
ethics reflect our ecological consciences and that the human individual is a
member of a
community of interdependent parts. Sounds like "mother earth" to us! This land
ethic changes
the role of humans from conqueror of the land community to plain members of it.
Respect for
fellow community members is essential, and, therefore the community as a whole.
Yet, the
traditional "Western" perspective has tended to reduce biological diversity
through
simplification, fragmentation and selective destruction, and consideration of
only the short term
perspective (Franklin 1993; Norse 1986; Harris 1984; Cairns and Lackey 1992;
Wilcove 1987).
A strong land ethic also requires respect for Traditional Knowledge. A land
ethic that
demonstrates respect for the experience and knowledge of indigenous people is at
the root of
sustainable development. Maurice IWU from Nigeria, stated (Davis and Ebbe 1993)
that the
only way we can leave sufficient natural resources for our children's children
is to go back and
learn from cultures that used natural resources sustainably. He states that
African indigenous
people had symbolic and ritualistic ways of doing this but: "The symbolism
involved in this
should not prevent Western Science from understanding the actual significance of
the protective
mechanism." Nelson (1993) stated that it is essential we learn from traditional
societies,
especially those whose livelihood depends on the harvest of a wild environment:
"These people
have accumulated bodies of knowledge much like our own sciences and this gives
us vital
insights about responsible membership in the community of life, insights founded
on a wisdom
we have long forgotten and now are beginning to re-discover." Berkes, Folke and
Gadgil (1994)
state: ". . . there is good reason to believe that the ethics of truly
sustainable development will
need to borrow much from the world views of some traditional societies." If
Traditional
Knowledge was not scientific, indigenous people would not have preserved the
ecosystems for
thousands of years (Davis and Ebbe 1993).
We conclude that Western Science and Traditional Knowledge have much to learn
from each
other and gain collectively; and we have so much to lose if we don't join
together. Threats to the
environment, and cultures, don't give us much time. Acceptance of Traditional
Knowledge is
pre-requisite for obtaining critical conservation partnerships. Indigenous
people will share
Traditional Knowledge if they feel the information is respected and sharing it
will benefit them.
The relationships developed from this can lead to critical collaboration. This
is vitally important
to world conservation of biological diversity and security of nations. We agree
with Alcorn
(1993): ". . . the modern (conservation) approach is too narrow and that
conservationists (must)
have two goals: to stabilize the traditional conservation ethic wherever it
still exists, and
improve the modern conservation ethic . . . .” About 80% of the African
Elephants in Kenya
lives outside protective parks. The Kenya Wildlife Service manages elephants in
collaboration
with rural Kenyans, including sharing revenues from elephant management with
them
(J.Waithaka, “personal communication: 1996”).
Personal Responsibility to Take Action
Alcorn (1993) states: "Until we recognize the authority of indigenous peoples
as equals at the
discussion table, we cannot join in partnerships with them." If they don't join
in, we lose their
gift of Traditional Knowledge. We must break down the barriers - and ask others
to do the same.
We ask that Traditional Knowledge not be labeled as anecdotal. We are dismayed
at how
frequently it is. Rejecting or discrediting Traditional Knowledge is wrong and
does not serve
society. Those who reject or discredit Traditional Knowledge because of treaty
rights or other
legal disputes must stop and consider those issues separately. We must not let
these actions take
away from us the dignity and benefits of Traditional Knowledge.
We all must gain the understanding of those who don't accept the fact that
sustainable economies
depend on sustained environments. Nabhan (1995) states: "Unless we can
further engage a
diversity of people in the conservation of biodiversity, the epitaph of our
movement will read:
cause of death: an uncommon strain of reductionism complicated by an attack of
elitism, even
though there were ready cures."
Progress is Being Made
The Canadian Northwest Territories (NWT) government recognizes that Traditional
Knowledge
is a valid and essential source of information about the natural environment,
natural resources
and uses, and the relationship of people to the land and to each other (Davis
1993). Their
Government is using Traditional Knowledge in their decisions and actions.
Many tribes are showing the way. The Menominee Forest Management Program earned
a
Sustainable Development Award from the US Vice President's Council on
Sustainable
Development (Landis 1992). The Minneapolis Area Waterfowl Management Task
Force's Circle
of Flight program (BIA 1996) continues to be a national tribal model for wetland
conservation.
The United Nations Earth Summit - Agenda 21 Program of action (United Nations
1993)
Principle number one is: "Human beings are at the center of concerns for
sustainable
development . . . they are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony
with nature." The
action plan also contains:
1) "Indigenous people have developed over many
generations of
holistic traditional scientific knowledge of their lands, natural resources, and
environment; and
2)
“. . . indigenous people and their communities shall enjoy the full measure of
human rights and
fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination."
The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (Eight National Governments 1991)
was
developed to protect the arctic flora and fauna. It states that both
"scientific" and Traditional
Knowledge have been pointing to the danger signals of environmental damage. It
recognizes
that Traditional Knowledge has value and credibility, and that there are
benefits to sharing this
information. It further recommends creation of forums and other ways to share
and use
Traditional Knowledge and encourages Co-Management partnerships between
indigenous
people and others. Brelsford and McFarland (1996) describe successful CoManagement and
Traditional Knowledge partnerships between indigenous people and governments.
World bank
policy is now to protect indigenous people from harm of development projects
(Davis 1993).
Government leaders in Alaska are committing to use of Traditional Knowledge and
collaborating with indigenous people. The Federal Subsistence Board in Alaska
seeks and uses
Traditional Knowledge in it's decision making. The Forest Service Alaska Region
established a
Core Group for applying Traditional Knowledge to management of National Forests
(Janik
1996). The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (1996) established protocols
for including
indigenous people's knowledge into the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill restoration
process.
Conclusions
Traditional Knowledge is valid and necessary. It contains comprehensive,
detailed, insightful,
proven wisdom about species, ecosystems, and sustaining human respect for the
environment.
We must not reject or marginalize it or it's keepers. Currently they are
threatened. Government
entities should move swiftly to incorporate Traditional Knowledge into their
decision making
and collaborative stewardship. It will strengthen government and society. We
find no
compelling argument otherwise. Traditional Knowledge and its keepers can be two
of the most
influential future conservation forces this world will have. Let’s don’t leave
the future without
them.
REFERENCES
Alcorn, J. 1993. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation. Conservation Biology.
Vol.7(2). pp.
424-426.
Balick, M., E. Elisabetsky, and S. Laird, ed. 1996. Medical Resources of the
Tropical Forest.
Columbia University Press. 464 pp.
Berkes, F., C. Folke, and M. Gadgil. 1994. Traditional Ecological Knowledge,
Biodiversity,
Resilience, and Sustainability. In: Biodiversity Conservation. Kluwer
Academic
Publishing. pp. 269-287.
Bidlack, H. 1996. One Man’s Dissertation: Living the Vision. Windstar Vision.
Fall-Winter
1996. Windstar Foundation, Snowmass, CO. pp. 3,4,7.
Brelsford,T. and F. McFarland. 1996. Review of Co-Management Systems. In:
Proceedings of Circumpolar Aboriginal People and Co-Management
Conference. Rovanei,
Finland. Sept. 1996. pp. 1-8.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 1996. Circle of Flight. Published by BIA
Minneapolis Office,
Minneapolis MN. 23 pp.
Cairns, M. and R. Lackey. 1992. Biodiversity and Management of Natural
Resources: The
Issues. Fisheries Vol.17(3). pp. 6-10.
Carnegie Endowment National Commission. 1992. Changing Our Ways. Brookings
Institution,
Washington DC. 90 pp.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. The Riverside Press. 368 pp.
Chafee, J. 1996. Speech delivered at the 61st North American and Natural
Resources
Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma. March 25, 1996. 11 pp
Christopher, W. 1996a. Integrating Environmental Issues into the Department's
Core Foreign
Policy Goals. Secretary of State Memorandum to all Under and Assistant
Secretaries. US
Department of State. Washington DC. 5 pp.
1996b. American Diplomacy and the Global Environmental Challenges of the
21st Century.
Speech delivered by Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Stanford University,
Palo Alto,
CA. April 9, 1996. On file, USDA Forest Service Regional Office, Juneau, AK.
7 pp.
Clark, F. 1997. An Alaskan cultural Confluence: Traditional Knowledge and
Agency
Management. Presented by 1997 Symposium on Human Dimensions of Natural
Resource
Management in the Americas. February 25-March 1. Belize. On file, USDA
Forest
Service Regional Office, Juneau, AK. 9 pp.
Davis, S. 1993. The World Bank and Indigenous Peoples. Speech presented at
Denver
Initiative Conference on Human Rights. University of Denver Law School.
April, 1993.
On file, USDA Forest Service Regional Office, Juneau, AK. 31 pp.
Davis, S. and K. Ebbe, editors. 1993. Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable
Development.
Proceedings of Conference, September 27-28, 1993. No. 4 in
Environmentally Sustainable
Development Proceedings Series. The World Bank, Washington DC. 57 pp.
Eight National Governments. 1991. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.
Agreement
among Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, USSR, United States.
On
file, USDA Forest Service Regional Office, Juneau, AK. 45 pp.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1996. Protocols for Including
Indigenous Knowledge
in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Process. On file, USDA Forest
Service Regional
Office, Juneau, AK. 7 pp.
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. 1992. Wildlife Curriculum. On
file, USDA Forest
Service Regional Office, Juneau, AK. 9 pp.
Franklin, J. 1993. Preserving Biodiversity: Species, Ecosystems, or
Landscapes. Ecological
Applications Vol.3(2). pp. 202-205.
Gadgil, M., F.Berkes, and C.Folke. 1993. Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity
Conservation.
Ambio Vol. 22(2): 151-156.
Garelik, G. 1996. Russia's Legacy of Death. National Wildlife Vol.34(4). pp.
36-41.
Harris, L. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 211
pp.
Humphrey, H. 1976. Introduction of the National Forest Management Act Bill.
United States
Senate. March 5, 1976.
Janik, P. 1996. Letter of Commitment from the USDA Forest Service Alaska
Region to Alaska
Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood. On file, USDA Forest
Service, Juneau,
AK. 2 pp.
Jorgensen, C. 1995. How Native Americans as an Indigenous Culture Consciously
Maintained a
Balance Between Themselves and their Natural Resources. Proceedings of
Conference:
Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. The Wildlife
Society, Bethesda
Md.
pp.31-33.
Kairaiuak, A. (No Date). Return to Traditional Resource Management.
Unpublished Paper.
On file, USDA Forest Service Regional Office, Juneau, AK.
3 pp.
Landis, S. 1992. Seventh Generation Forestry, Wisconsin's Menominee Indians
Set the Standard for Sustainable Forest Management. Harrowsmith Country
Life.
Nov./Dec. 1992. pp. 27-28, 30-33.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press. NY. 228
pp
McDonald, M. and B. Fleming. 1993. Community - based Economics Development and
Resource Management in the Hudson Bay Area In: Traditional Ecological
Knowledge,
Concepts and Cases. J. Englis editor. International Program on
Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and International Development Research
Centre. Ottawa,
Canada. pp.
63-68.
Meffe, G. 1992. Techno - Arrogance and Halfway Technologies: Salmon
Hatcheries on the
Pacific Coast of North America. Conservation Biology. Vol.6(3). pp. 350-354.
Merculieff, L. (No Date). Establishing Rapport between
Indigenous Coastal
Cultures and the
Western Scientific Community. Fourth International Symposium of the
Conference of
Asian and Pan-Pacific University Presidents. On file, USDA Forest Service,
Juneau, AK.
pp. 3-9.
Montgomery, C. and R. Pollak. 1996. Economics and Biodiversity: Weighing the
Benefits and
Costs of Conservation. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 94(2). pp. 34-38.
Nabham, G. 1995. The Dangers of Reductionism in Biodiversity Conservation.
Conservation
Biology. Vol. 9(3). pp. 479-481.
Nakashima, D. 1993. Astute Observers on the Sea Ice Edge: Inuit Knowledge as
a Basis for
Arctic Co-Management. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Concepts and Cases,
J.
Inglis editor. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
International
Development Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada. pp. 63-68.
Newell, J. and E. Wilson. 1996. The Russian Far East, Forests, Biodiversity
Hot Spots, and
Industrial Developments. Friends of the Earth. Tokyo, Japan. 200 pp.
Nelson, R. 1993. Understanding Eskimo Science. Audubon Magazine, Sept.-Oct.
1993. pp.
102-106
Norse, E., K. Rosenbaum, D. Wilcove, B. Wilcox, W. Romme, D. Johnson, and M.
Stout. 1986.
Conserving Biological Diversity in Our National Forests. The Wilderness
Society.
Washington, DC. 116 pp.
O'Neal, A., A. Pandian, S. Rhodes, and A. Bornbusch. 1995. Human Economics,
the Land
Ethic, and Sustainable Conservation. Conservation Biology. Vol.9(1). pp. 217220.
Raven, P. 1990. The Politics of Preserving Biodiversity.
AIB News. November, 1990. pp. 769-774.
Reid, W., S. Laird, C. Meyer, R. Gamez, A. Sittenfield, D. Janzen, M. Gollin,
and C. Juma.
1993. Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable
Development.
World Resources Institute. Washington DC. 341 pp.
Romoli, G. 1995. Siberian Forests and Timber Trade. Scientific and
Technological Options
Assessment, European Parliament
Directorate General for Research, Luxemborg.
85 pp.
Sherman, R. ND. Lakota Ecology Stewardship Model. On file, USDA Forest
Service, Juneau,
AK. 9 pp.
Tainter, J. 1996. Cultural Conflict and Sustainable Development: Managing
Subsistence
Hunting in Alaska. In proceedings of: Annual Conference on the
International
Boreal Forest Research Association. St. Petersburg, Russia. August,
1996.
Thomas, J. 1986. Effectiveness --- The Hallmark of the Natural Resource
Management
Professional. Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources
Conference, Reno, NV.
Thomas, J. Team leader. 1993. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team.
US Government Printing Office: 1993-793-070. 999 pp.
Udall, S. 1972. First Americans, First Ecologists. In: Look to the Mountain
Top. C. Jones
editor. H. Gousho Co., San Jose CA. pp. 2-12.
United Nations. 1993. Earth Summit and Agenda 21. Declaration of the Rio
Summit. Rio
DeJaneiro. 393 pp.
Weatherford, J.
1988. Indian Givers, How the Indians of the Americas
Transformed the World.
Fawcett Columbine, NY. 272 pp.
Wilcove, D. 1987. From Fragmentation to Extinction. Natural Areas Journal.
Vol.7(1).
pp.
23-29.
Wilson, E. 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 521
pp.
World Bank. 1995. Mainstreaming the Environment. The World Bank Group and the
Environment Since the Rio Earth Summit. Fiscal Year 1995. The World Bank,
Washington DC. 301 pp.
World Resources Institute, the World Conservation Union, United Nations
Environmental
Program (WRI-WCU-UNEP).
Nations Food
1992.
and Agriculture Organization.
Capp and Jorgensen - 20
Global Biodiversity Strategy.
NY.
244 pp.
United