TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE - DON´T LEAVE THE FUTURE …传统的知识不离开以后…

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE - DON´T LEAVE THE FUTURE …传统的知识不离开以后… 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 Co-Management 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. 217-220. 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). 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. NY. 244 pp. Capp and Jorgensen - 20