In: Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2005. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2005 September 30–October 6; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-000. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Strong institutional and systemic barriers prevent traditional political and economic institutions from effectively managing national forests in the US. Despite consistent support for ecological values by the public, Congress does not protect them, and existing political institutions are not designed to respond effectively to citizens with these concerns. The major difficulty is that modern institutions do not effectively represent publics that are not geographically isolated.
On the other hand, tribes such as Wisconsin’s Menimonee in governing their commons have managed forests for very long periods. This is so even when they also engage in the market economy. This is because their institutions are responsive to deeper and more complex values than are contemporary impersonal modern ones. Even so, traditional forms of organization can teach us but cannot be copied. However, the National trust of England, Wales and Northern Ireland suggests a way similar values can be applied in a modern context. These insights are then applied to building a case for democratic national forest trusts to govern American National Forests, including how they require independent organizing, financial independence, and can successfully attend to both local communities and the environmentally aware larger public.
Creating Institutions of Care: The Case for Democratic Forest Trusts
In a 1999 survey for the EPA and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development between 60 and 70 percent of Americans indicated agreement with strongly pro-environmental values and beliefs (Ray and Anderson, pp. 139-67). Most Americans also consider other political issues more important than environmental concerns, enabling politicians unsympathetic to environmental issues to wage and win campaigns on other grounds. Instead, environmentally concerned citizens exist as fragmented and dispersed publics submerged within larger groups of usually friendly but uninvolved citizens.
On environmental issues many concerned citizens are intermingled geographically with those for whom these issues are not important. Often a public concerned about a geographical area is dispersed beyond that area’s boundaries. No democratic institutions exist that focus on environmental concerns alone. National Forests are one of the major casualties of this lack of institutional fit.
They and most other environmental values based on particular areas of land and water are ill suited to being adequately served by traditional democratic institutions. We need to devise institutions of care for the natural world. Such institutions can help harmonize ethical as with instrumental relationships with the world.
Civil Society and Public Values
This paper argues such institutions are best rooted in civil society rather than government or the economy. Richard Cornuelle termed this social realm the “independent sector,” described as “the third sector in our national life, the one which is neither governmental nor commercial” (Cornuelle, 26). His term is a good one.
One general principle underlying civil institutions is that economic and political feedback enriches but does not dominate decisions made by people who genuinely care about the values at stake. The key criterion for inclusion is that decisions made within civil society can consider on a reasonably level playing field the full ethical range of acceptable human motivation. It is here that ethically deeper dimension to human life can expand beyond the sphere of personal relationships to encompass the wider world.
National Forests and Public Values
Our 147 National Forests represent public values for many, probably most, citizens. Within this context of support, the forests are sites of serious contention among citizens concerned with their well being, but motivated by often conflicting priorities. These concerned citizens are immersed within a larger sea of citizens for whom these values are of relatively little moment.
Usually those elected to serve the more inclusive community owe little in their victory to their views on national forests. Most elected representatives find forest well-being of little importance unless they have a personal commitment. The dispersed publics that do care for them have often been unable to protect these forests against assault by private interests or malfeasance by public agencies charged with protecting them, except through the courts. But policy by lawsuit is a poor way to administer anything.
The Mountain Maidu are a small Indian tribe presently involved in implementing a tribal approach to forest management on 2,100 acres of Plumas National Forest. The tribe is working at restoring the oak and pine woodlands that predominate in the lower elevations of that region of the Sierra Nevada. Loreena Gorbet, a tribal member, is coordinating the tribe’s activities with the US Forest Service.
In a recent account of their activities, Gorbet was quoted as saying her tribe views itself as deeply enmeshed within their natural landscape. “The plants and animals – they’re our relatives. We talk to them to find out what they need.” This is the language of relationship and ethical involvement. It is not the language of the US Forest Service. In Gorbet’s words, to do her job she has had to learn to speak “Forest Service” (Little, 7).
There is also a larger problem here. The Maidu are native to the place, the Forest Service to Washington, DC. Each is adapted to its own very different niche. This is why, as Jane Little writes “the stewardship partners also approach forest management with diametrically different concepts of time. The Maidu’s initial proposal involved a 99 year demonstration – an eternity to an agency that gets its funding on a year-by-year basis. The Forest Service eventually agreed to a ten year project” (Little, p. 7).
When dealing with a forest ecosystem, ninety-nine years is a far wiser framework for action than ten years. The Maidu can think in those terms because they have been in this area for much longer than that, and they hope to stay well beyond that. The USFS is attuned instead to political and economic standards of relevant time.
The Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin have managed their forest for 146 years now, and it is more healthy and diverse than any other forest in the state, including national forests (Davis, 2000). Their customs and values developed in the midst of long association with their land. The Maidu share such a perspective.
The Forest Service itself is about 100 years old, having been created largely through legislation passed between 1905 and 1911. It possesses a great deal of knowledge about the political ecosystem on which it depends. However, the Forest Service rotates its rangers on a regular basis, mostly to keep them loyal to the service rather than “going Native.” As a consequence, while Rangers have a considerable local knowledge about the Service and its traditions, they do not have nearly so much about the particular locality where they happen for the moment to be stationed (Kauffman, 155-6, 175-97).
Like any large organization, the United States Forest Service’s primary loyalty is to itself. Randal O’Toole emphasizes budgetary incentives as primary motivations behind USFS decisions, Nancy Langston, emphasizes agency autonomy (O’Toole, 1988; Langston, 1995). For our purposes, both observations apply.
The point is not that people with different loyalties cannot rise to leadership in the Forest Service. Some have. But they will do so while playing with a political deck loaded against them. The career and budgetary incentives facing the Service and its employees are dependent on political and economic processes long before they are dependent on scientific and ecological ones. Government agencies are focused on the budgetary year, and subordinate other values to it. There is a deep disconnect between the political feedback most important to the Service and ecological feedback helping it attend better to the health of our forests.
In addition, Congress is institutionally incapable of providing long-term oversight for our national forests. Occasionally it can adopt reforms and make wise decisions, but once made, the public pressure encouraging these reforms dissipates. Those who would undermine the reforms’ intentions for financial gain patiently remain, to subvert the legislation as the opportunity arises and the public’s attention wanes.
A frequent problem with serving public values through traditional political institutions is that their power to tax and pass laws encourages efforts to capture legislative and administrative processes in order to serve private interests, or to subordinate public values to the interests of organizations established in the name of serving these same values. Sometimes such approaches cannot be avoided, and these problems are simply the inevitable costs of getting things done that need doing. But if public values can be adequately served by institutions lacking both the power to tax and the capacity to pass laws, they will be freed from major sources of corruption and distortion.
The Progressive Era ideal of dispassionate scientific administration of our national resources never really existed in practice. The Bush administration should prove to even the most idealistic advocate of traditional political solutions that government is a poor protector of such values. Government agencies can successfully serve well-defined values with clear standards for success, such as landing a man on the moon or delivering social security checks to pick what are otherwise very different examples. Performance plummets as the values they are to serve multiply and standards of attainment become vague (Wilson, 1989, pp. 113-136, 154-75). Multiple values and vague standards are characteristic of the complexities of our relationships with the natural world.
However, people have repeatedly devised institutions taking truly long run perspectives on our interactions with the natural world. Wisconsin’s Menimonee tribe has successfully managed their forest as a working woodland since around 1860. The Menimonee forest contains a varied forest community, with many trees of old growth size and age. While only about twice the size of neighboring Nicolet National Forest, the tribe cuts twice the timber, with a saw timber cut thirty times greater. Yet their land still resembles the great forests that once characterized this region, and its outline of great old trees is visible from Landstadt satellite photos (Davis, 2000, pp. 14-15). Central to the Menominee’s success is integrating market values with other values held by the tribe.
We can learn from them but cannot simply copy them. Still, what we can learn is very important. First, it is possible for people to develop institutions able to sustain long term human interactions with their environment. Second, their institutions were self-governing, their decisions not normally subordinated to any other body whose members were less concerned with the health of their lands. Third, these people did not manage their land to maximize their financial income. While their lands served economic needs, and most people in any society would prefer more wealth to less, they also honored non-financial values in their decision-making. Fourth, they knew their lands personally and intimately, and acted accordingly. For us, the critical question is whether these enabling elements are robust enough to provide long-term protection and management even when people are mobile, individualistic, and despite good intentions, usually ignorant of the needs of any particular forest, let alone forest ecosystems in all their variety and complexity.
A Way Forward
Gary Snyder has written that the public domain in North America constitutes a kind of national commons we ”are all enfranchised to work on” (Hardin, 1968; Snyder, 1990, 29). Unlike Garret Hardin’s misleading use of the term, the village commons of the Middle Ages and of many other places and times were managed by the community in order to preserve the land from exploiters (Snyder, 1990, 35-6; Ostrom, 1990). But there is more to a commons than this. Snyder emphasized “the commons is both specific land and the traditional community institution that determines the carrying capacity for its subunits and defines the rights and obligations of those who use it, with penalties for lapses. . . it is traditional and local” (Snyder, 1990, 30).
Public lands are not governed by communities that care about them. Most politicians are uninterested in their fate, at least compared to other values, and their votes are up for grabs. So the basic requirement for a successful commons does not exist at the level of national administration. The mediocre to poor results we have experienced should surprise no one. Consequently, Snyder advocates returning these public lands to regional control (Snyder, 1990, p. 31). But what defines the region? The small Sierra Nevada watershed where he lived for many years was well suited to his vision. But many areas are larger and less well defined.
Some political conservatives and advocates of western autonomy want to turn the public lands, including the national forests, over to the states. But these are genuinely public lands, of great concern to millions of Americans who do not necessarily live in the states where they are located, and whose taxes have long helped support these states and near by communities. Simply living in a western state does not mean a person cares about these lands. More than one Westerner sees the land primarily through an accountant’s eyes. No necessary connection exists between existing political boundaries and concerned publics.
State governments can be as open to other interests and little focused on their public lands as are the national governments. An early study comparing state to federal salmon protection observed “the greater vulnerability of the state conservation policies to pressure from groups whose interests may be injured by regulatory action and whose influence counts more in state capitals than it does in the larger arena of national politics.” (Gregory and Barnes , 1939, 39; quoted in Montgomery, 2003, 143). This is as Founding Father James Madison would have expected: smaller polities are more vulnerable to influence by well organized factions pursuing private interests at the expense of the community as a whole.
Another strategy increasingly mentioned for forest reform is increasing local control over national forest policy via “collaborative conservation” that focuses on local solutions by local stakeholders to local environmental problems. It has been identified by many Americans as a promising solution to establishing viable environmental policies (Kemmis, pp. 127-49., Brick et. al., 2001). Daniel Kemmis, for example, emphasizes that due to the enormous amount of publicly owned land in most Western states, local citizens feel essentially colonized by a far away power over which they have no influence, and towards which they have considerable resentment. He writes when Westerners “balance their experience of joining with old enemies to solve hard problems together against the hidebound procedures of a national government and a national democracy that no longer seem to work, they feel they are the real democrat” (Kemmis, 2001, p. 226). Ideas such as Kemmis’s are not simply theoretical. The Quincy Library group, consisting of people in extractive industries and environmentalists, devised by consensus a governing plan to cover three National Forests which won endorsement by 434 members of the House of Representatives.
There is much to recommend in collaborative models. However, with respect to National Forests there is a basic weakness to purely local approaches to environmental management. Many, perhaps all, National Forests have a genuinely national constituency. Local control would freeze out from policy discussions many citizens with a strong interest in their well being, in favor of some who may care a great deal less.
The political power that ended the Forest Service’s rapid liquidation of all old growth forests came from aroused citizens at the national level, particularly in cities. Local communities were often deeply tied to business as usual, even when that business threatened their long term viability. Once issues become more complex than what can be addressed by local knowledge, many small communities are all but powerless in confrontations with ruthless large corporations, as the citizens of Libby, Montana, have learned to their sorrow (Matthews, 2000; Nijhuis, 2003). Even with Quincy, the political strength possessed by local citizens proposing alternatives to logging came from being part of a national movement.
Yet local interests are disproportionately impacted by forest policies over which they exercise little to no control. Further, in many cases local knowledge and support will be vital components in developing effective policies able to be implemented successfully in a democratic system. Collaborative arguments focus on a key part of an effective solution to forest preservation, but define themselves too narrowly because they ignore the larger context of public values. They inappropriately apply a geographical conception of citizenship to an instance where it often does not fit. These interests deserve an important seat at the table, but they do not deserve all the seats.
The Democratic Forest Trust
Institutions are needed that are responsive to Americans who care about the environment while circumventing interference by politicians who don’t. In the case of our national forests these institutions also need to be open to all Americans, for they are public lands. Gary Snyder’s focus on local inhabitants is politically impossible to implement in this case, and probably not altogether wise if it were, but his model of a commons remains perhaps the only viable alternative to the failures of corporate forestry or political management.
A democratic land trust suggests a practical solution to this challenge. The land trust concept offers an alternative institutional framework for managing forests that is also harmonious with the political realities of American democracy. Trusts are a time honored means by which a person or institution is charged with protecting and managing the property of another, “in trust.” They are widely used in many areas of private life, and are becoming increasingly important in private conservation efforts. Trusts have also been used by many Western states to manage their forests, primarily for the benefit of schools. However, these state trusts serve financial rather than broader public values. Their financial orientation makes them inadequate models for preserving our National Forests (Souder and Fairfax, 1995, pp. 44-53).
Land stewardship trusts remove land from the real estate market, enabling it to be managed – “stewarded” – on behalf of future generations (Banighan, 1990; 1997). Land trusts are traditionally non-governmental, non-profit organizations created to preserve the ecological, historical, agricultural, or wilderness value of the land. Land stewardship trusts focus on preserving and fostering sustainable forestry and agricultural practices, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Because key property rights to the land are removed from the market “in perpetuity” or for an extended period, their economic value cannot be used as collateral for obtaining loans. Operating funds must come from other sources, such as fees, membership dues, and donations. A firewall is erected between the land and domination by market forces. The price system guides but cannot command. Similarly, the law enables but does not control.
In the US, land trusts are increasingly relied upon to serve environmental values (Forbes, 2001; Brewer, 2003). However, the history of American land trusts is brief, usually under 25 years, and most American trusts are small. Most are also not internally democratic. These limitations give reasonable pause to anyone trying to adapt land trusts to the care and protection of our national forests.
The National Trust of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is another matter, celebrating its centenary in 1995. The National Trust’s properties now extend to 612,000 acres (about 1000 square miles) in the UK, including almost 600 miles of coastline, about 18% of the total coastline of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. After the Crown, the National Trust is the largest landowner in the UK. It has over 3 million members, and unlike the US Forest Service, is very popular. A similar trust also exists in Scotland. The National Trust’s ability to incorporate ecological as well as historical values and its consistent acquisition of new land even in densely settled lands is impressive evidence of the concept’s promise.
The National Trust has a substantial democratic component. Anyone can join and thereby obtains voting rights. As of 2005, The National Trust has a Council consisting of 52 members, 26 elected by its membership, another 26 appointed by outside bodies. Direct management of the National Trust is through a Executive Committee, under which are a number of decentralized Regional Committees. Far from being lacking political debate, the National Trust is frequently the site of vigorous campaigns by members seeking changes in policies regarding hunting, recreational use, and similar issues (Dwyer and Hodge, 1996, 84).
Enabling legislation could be passed so that National Forest Trusts could be established with primary responsibility for governing our national forests; one trust for each forest. Membership in each Forest Trust would require only that members pay a fee covering their membership expenses in order to join. Judging from the dues of modern mass membership organizations, such expenses would not be high. However, the hurdle of having to pay to join a Trust would ensure that only people genuinely interested in the forest and its fate would usually take the time to join. Perhaps, as Karl Hess, jr. suggested, work-trade arrangements could be made for people lacking the means to pay even these modest fees. Work would also likely commit the laborer far more strongly to the forest’s well-being than simply writing a check.
Enabling legislation should make it possible for Forest Trusts to be formed only if there is substantial popular interest. Open procedures and membership, and a means for ensuring a diversity of member perspectives would be required, but little more. Like a natural ecology, human communities are too complex for one size fits all approaches. Organizational details would be up to the membership and its Governing Board. Apparently the very act of organizing a self-governing body helps to create the trust, skills, and infusion of local knowledge that enables an organization to survive (Blomquist, 1992; Ostrom, 1990; and Tang, 1992, pp. 32-3).
A Trust would be established once enough would-be members have created an organization meeting legal requirements. To prevent one group from grabbing control of a board from the beginning, once created and certified, membership opportunities should be widely publicized for a year, after which election of the first Forest Trust Governing Board would occur. The Board would take over policy management after sufficient time has passed for consultation with the Forest Service during the transition.
The number of citizens needed to create a Forest Trust should vary because National Forests themselves vary in size, proximity to citizens, and public interest. Probably some formula reflecting both the number of annual visitors and the immediate population in the region would be best. Clearly different numbers should apply to Umatilla National Forest in eastern Washington and Oregon compared to Wenatchee National Forest near Seattle. In all cases numbers should be high enough to require sustained organizing and trust building to succeed, but low enough that such efforts have a reasonable chance of success.
The potential for a large American membership is high. The National Trust has 3 million members for a much smaller national population. Even when distributed among approximately 150 national forests, each Forest Trust would probably have many tens of thousands of members, some far more than that. Some members would be near by residents, often involved in extractive or recreational industries using forest resources. Many more, locals and non-locals alike would be people making personal recreational use of the forest, and some would likely simply be people simply concerned with its well-being.
I suggest limiting membership to one. While any small number would work, “one person – one trust” emphasizes the centrality of the democratic principle of one person one vote and guarantees that each person would join the trust about which he or she most cared. Allowing only one forest trust membership per person, combined with care, encourages members to acquire significant knowledge about the issues facing the forest. Members will probably be disproportionately local, or live near by.
This institutional arrangement could go far to harmonize the interests of local communities and ecologically sensitive oversight of forest lands. For example, today the USFS opens logging opportunities to bid, a seemingly fair process. But the contracts are usually for large areas requiring many employees, used briefly in any area. In addition, bidding procedures are complicated, and the contracts offer irregular rather than sustained work in any given area. These circumstances penalize small local firms (Danks, 2003, 247-52).
A pilot project developed in California’s Trinity County suggests the kind of alternative arrangements Democratic Forest Trusts could institute. In 1997 a group of loggers, environmentalists, local contractors, Forest Service employees, and concerned citizens met after the county’s largest remaining employer, a sawmill in Hayfork, closed down. They sought to find a way to recover from the loss in jobs and the crisis the county was undergoing. Cecilia Danks writes “The group determined that a properly scaled, multiyear, multitask contract that addressed all the stewardship needs of a given tract could provide steady, long-season work that would improve both the biological health of the forest and the economic health of the community” (Danks, 2003, 253).
As a result of these discussions, the Forest Service developed a contract oriented to the needs of the local communities and the needs of the forest. Local businesses won the bid, only to have it withdrawn later for lack of funding. Two more contracts along similar lines are currently being put together (Phone conversation with Lynn Jungwirth, Executive Director, Watershed Research and Training center, Hayfork, CA). A democratic trust with considerable local membership would prove more compatible to following through with such opportunities, to the benefit of both the forest and neighboring communities. The Menominee example of creating their own sawmill to handle cuts from their forest is an instructive example (Davis, 2000).
Several possibilities for Board structure exist, and the one selected should be the choice of those joining the Trust. A board might be entirely democratically elected. Another might have a mix of elected and appointed members, such as from local university Departments of Forestry and Biology (Hess, 1993). However, any less than fully elected Boards should be subject to periodic membership approval to guarantee their democratic character.
The Board would decide basic policy and select subcontracting agencies for their implementation. The USFS would probably subcontract its services to the Board. However, to ensure the Service’s responsiveness, the Board must be able to contract with other agencies such as state departments of forestry. The option to choose another agency would keep the Forest Service responsive to the Board’s priorities. It would have to adapt to them as well as it currently adapts to Washington, DC’s political environment. Existing environmental laws such as the ESA, NEPA, and other statutes would remain in force.
The trust would be responsible for raising enough money to meet its normal costs. User fees of many kinds would probably be major income sources but, unlike the USFS, policy decisions would be determined by citizen members, most with no personally significant financial stake in the trust’s income. There are other potentially important resource sources. In many contemporary land trusts and even national forests, volunteers provide considerable assistance. Additionally, private and foundation donations and grants could fund specific projects or, most importantly, help create a forest endowment that would grow over time. Given people’s love for forests, it seems probable that in time endowments could become an important source of long term financial viability.
Unlike market-oriented models of reform or state forest trusts as they presently exist, National Forests would be under no institutional incentive to maximize profits. My emphasis differs here from Randal O’Toole’s pioneering work. O’Toole wants to fund trusts from net revenues, creating a powerful incentive to respond to market values (O’Toole, 1995b). However, to serve public values, the trusts should be institutions of civil society, and therefore partially independent from both government and market, and able to use any mix of revenue, donations, and volunteer labor they can acquire.
Lack of access to tax monies eliminates any incentives to subsidize extractive industries or other private interests. It also prevents Congress from using financial threats to interfere with forest policies. The forests would become much freer from political intervention by parties unconcerned with their long-term well-being.
One major problem would be the cost of fire suppression. While Congress will probably be willing to supply funding for such measures because they constitute considerable pork for local districts throughout the west, in the long run such an arrangement is undesirable. One alternative is for forests to take out insurance policies (Williamson, forthcoming). One advantage is that as the forest becomes less vulnerable to catastrophic wild fire, premiums will go down, providing an additional incentive for wise management, the opposite of current circumstances.
In addition, forest trusts will be able to learn, adapt, and resist institutional sclerosis. The trusts’ internal and external polycentricity encourages openness and adaptability. Because there would be many trusts, each with responsibility for only one forest, membership would focused on the needs of particular forests. With local members local knowledge would be as accessible as more general and abstract principles of forestry and ecosystem stewardship when determining policy options and value choices. The internet easily allows every trust to have a website where a wide variety of information can easily be made accessible to members at a minimal cost, encouraging the exposure and correction of errors and dissemination of successes as they are discovered (Polanyi, 1951, pp. 71-84; Ostrom, 1991, pp. 223- 44).
Finally, compared to the needs of the electoral cycle, rate of interest, politics of the budget, and even individual financial concerns, democratic forest trusts will have long time horizons. In the United States these more short term factors constitute legitimate elements of our social and political environment. But if thy are the dominant institutional influences on environmental decision making, we can be sure that many shortsighted decisions will be made, with bad consequences for the forests themselves.
Most Americans already support environmental values. The trusts’ independent status would be buttressed by millions of motivated citizen members opposing legislative overruling of trust self-governance in favor of private interests. They will already be organized and have close ties with the rest of society, protecting forests from Congressional and corporate intervention in their affairs. Further, they will have many non-member connections, as with sympathetic friends and family members.
People who use the forest will observe for themselves the impact of managerial decisions. Renewal of directors through public debate and elections, where contrasting visions compete for the allegiance of voters deeply concerned with the forest’s fate, would inhibit the rise of self-serving elites and in-grown administrations. Karyn Moskowitz and Randal O’Toole have written a suggestive discussion of how small communities and ranches can cope with today’s changing rural environment (Moskowitz and O’Toole, 1993; see also Best, 2003, and Brighton, 2003). However, unlike Moskowitz and O’Toole, I think their proposal for a development trust should remain in the hands of the people with a personal more-than-financial interest in the region (diZerega, 1998).
Attempts to extend a common detailed formula describing what worked in one situation often fail when applied to different physical and social circumstances in another. Apparently the act of organizing a self-governing body helps to create the social capital and infusion of local knowledge that enables such an organization to survive (Blomquist, 1992; Ostrom, 1992; Tang, 1992). William Blomquist’s careful study of community based groundwater management in California is instructive. Blomquist emphasizes, “One of the most important conclusions of this study is that there is no formula for governing or managing groundwater basins in southern California or elsewhere.” Different governing structures arose dealing with the problems facing different basins. When attempts were made by the state to import a framework that worked in one area to another, the results were unsuccessful (Blomquist, 1992, 330-31).
Environmental thinkers as different as bioregionalist Gary Snyder and free market economist Randal O’Toole have independently arrived at the insight that the commons model, where land is governed by a small number of people personally concerned with the land itself, is superior to both traditional private and traditional government management. The model creates an institution of care that does not fit into the sterile ideological boxes currently afflicting our society. It offers a practical framework buttressed by one hundred years of experience in England, suggesting that given appropriate institutional contexts, modern westerners can practice a wise and sustainable approach to the land. We, too, can plan in 99 year scale, like the Mountain Maidu.
Banighan, Jeffrey Thyson. 1990. Intentional Communities and Land Stewardship Trusts, The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy. Winter, 1990.
__________. 1997. An Ecoforestry Land Stewardship Trust Model, Alan Drengson and Duncan Taylor, eds. Ecoforestry: The Art and Science of Sustainable Forest Use, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
Best, Constance, 2003. Values, Markets, and Rights: Rebuilding Forest Ecosystem Assets,. James K.Boyce and Barry G. Sheely, eds., Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership, Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Blomquist, William. 1992. Dividing the Waters: Governing the Groundwater in Southern California, San Francisco: Institute of Contemporary Studies Press.
Brewer, Richard. 2003. Conservancy: The Land Trust Movement in America, Hanover: University Press of New England.
Brick, Phil, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van de Wetering, eds., 2001. Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Brighton, Deborah, 2003. Land and Livelihoods in the Northern Forest, James K.Boyce and Barry G. Sheely, eds., Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership, Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Cornuelle, Richard C., 1993. Reclaiming the American Dream: The Role of Private Individuals and Voluntary Associations, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Danks, Cecilia. 2003. Community-Based Stewardship: Reinvesting in Public Forests and Forest Communities, James K. Boyce and Barry G. Shelly, eds., Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Davis, Thomas. 2000. Sustaining the Forest, the People, and the Spirit, Albany: SUNY Press.
diZerega, Gus. 1998. Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal, Writers on the Range, Karl Hess, ed., Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
Dwyer, Janet and Ian Hodge. 1996. Countryside in Trust: Land Management by Conservation, Recreation and Amenity Organizations, Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Forbes, Peter. 2001. The Great Remembering: Further Thoughts on Land, Soul, and Society, San Francisco: Trust for Public Land.
Gregory, H. E. and K. Barnes, 1939. North pacific Fisheries, with Special Reference to Alaska Salmon, Studies of the Pacific no. 3., San Francisco: American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations.
Hardin, Garrett . 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248
Hess, Karl, jr., 1993. Rocky Times in Rocky Mountain National Park, Niwot: University Press of Colorado.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1967. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Kemmis, Danoel, 2001. This Sovereign Land: A New Vision for Governing the West, Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Langston, Nancy. 1995. Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares: The Paradox of Old Growth in the Inland West, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Little, Jane Braxton. 2005. Saving Maidu Culture, one seedling at a time, High Country News, 37:6, April 4, 2005
Matthews, Mark, 2000. Libby’s Dark Secret, High Country News, March 13, 2000;
Montgomery, David. 2003. King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon, Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
Moskowitz, Karyn and Randal O’Toole, 1993. Transitions: New Incentives for Rural Communities, (Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants: Oak Grove, OR, November, 1993). This text may also be found at http://www.teleport.com/~rot/transits.html
Nijhuis, Michelle , 2003. Digging Through the Dust of Libby, High Country News, Sept. 1, 2003.
Ostrom, Elinor, 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom. Vincent , 1991. The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-Governing Society. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.
O’Toole, Randal. 1995a. Reinventing the Forest Service, Different Drummer, Spring, 1995.
_____. 1995b. Testimony of Randal O’Toole on Forest Management and Ownership Before the Forests and Public Land Management Committee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, November, 1995, http://www.ti.org/Testimony.html
_____. 1988. Reforming the Forest Service, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Polanyi, Michael, 1951. The Logic of Liberty, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ray, Paul H. and Sherry Ruth Anderson. 2000. The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World, New York: Harmony Books.
Ring. Ray. 2002. Move Over! High Country News, April 1, 2002
Snyder, Gary. 1990. The Practice of the Wild, (San Francisco: North Point Press.
Souder, Jon and Sally Fairfax. 1995. “Forestry on State Trust Lands,” Different Drummer, summer
Tang, Shui Yan. 1992. Institutions and Collective Action: Self-Governance in Irrigation, (San Francisco: Institute of Contemporary Studies Press.
Williamson, Alex, forthcoming. Seeing the Forest and the Trees: The Natural Capital Approach to Forest service Reform, Tulane Law Review.
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. ((New York: Basic Books.