Somewhere Between - Wiley Online Library

Rural Sociology 68(3), 2003, pp. 319–342 Copyright © 2003 by the Rural Sociological Society

Somewhere Between: Social Embeddedness and the Spectrum of Wild Edible Huckleberry Harvest and Use* Matthew S. Carroll Keith A. Blatner Patricia J. Cohn Department of Natural Resource Sciences Washington State University Pullman, Washington Abstract This case study is centered in northeast Washington State and northern Idaho and focuses on the social ecology of the wild edible huckleberry. The theoretical notion of social embeddedness is the lens through which the harvest and use of this much-prized resource is viewed and analyzed. Using grounded theory as an over-arching method, qualitative data were collected over two harvesting seasons regarding who harvests huckleberries in the study area and why. Four categories of use/users were identified. The results suggest a rich tapestry of social relations surrounding this resource that belies the simplistic notion of “commercial” vs. “recreational” use. These relations include temporal, geographic, economic, and cultural dimensions. Policy implications include the need to move beyond the commercial/recreational dichotomy in regulating the harvest of berries as well as the need to link the notions of community forestry and subsistence to the harvest of non-timber forest products more generally.

Introduction You’re saying “commercial” and “non-commercial” and I know what you mean, but people who pick and sell to make a living aren’t commercial. —Huckleberry picker and processor, Priest Lake, Idaho

After decades of obscurity in the shadow of timber harvest in the 1990s, the harvest and use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) began to garner additional attention in the technical literature and the popular press. Much of the initial attention focused on the economics of such harvest (e.g., Schlosser et al. 1991; Schlosser et al. 1995) as well as the biology/ecology of various NTFPs (e.g., Hosford et al. 1997; Molina et al. 1993; Schlosser et al. 1992). However, recently the social and community dimensions (sometimes referred to generally as the social ecology) of NTFPs have become more of an area of focus (Anderson et al. 2000; Chamberlain et al. 2002; Donoghue 2000; Elmer et al. 2000; Emery 2000; McLain 2000; McLain and Emery 2000; Richards and Creasy 1996). One particular product that is beginning to attract * Direct correspondence to: Matthew S. Carroll, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, P.O. Box 646410, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410; e-mail: [email protected].

320

Rural Sociology, Vol. 68, No. 3, September 2003

more attention in the Pacific Northwest is wild, edible huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) (Richards and Kasworm 2000). This small, red to dark purple berry is closely related to domestic blueberries and is prized for its strong, tart flavor. Huckleberries have grown both in popularity and in commercial significance in the region (Blatner and Alexander 1998; Schlosser et al. 1995), yet have thus far resisted attempts at successful commercial cultivation (Barney 2001). This study focuses on huckleberry harvest in and around the Colville National Forest in northeastern Washington State (CNF) and a small portion of the adjacent Panhandle National Forest in northern Idaho.1 The study area is one characterized by relative geographic isolation and a local economy that has suffered with the decline of the timber and mining industries (Findley et al. 2000). Given these circumstances, and the wellknown relative abundance of the huckleberry resource in the area, the CNF seemed an ideal location to study the significance of the huckleberry resource from a local social and cultural standpoint. Local use of wild, edible huckleberries and associated products derived from the forest has a long history on and around the Colville National Forest and northern Idaho. A recent social assessment suggested that huckleberries are harvested by a broad array of local people for personal use and for use in a limited number of cottage industry products (Findley 2000). To an outsider, huckleberry production may seem like an insignificant activity. However, a closer look suggests that it is part of the social and cultural ecology of the rural (and perhaps not-sorural) communities surrounding the CNF in a manner analogous to the results of Hinrichs’ (1998) research on maple syrup production in New England and eastern Canada. Hinrichs’ work points out that although few, if any, people make their primary living producing maple syrup, syrup production is important both culturally and in terms of supplementing household incomes for some local families. In the case of huckleberry harvest on and around the CNF, it appeared at the outset of this research that the use of this resource was locally significant and cut across a variety of social groups in the com1 There are seven identified species of Huckleberry that occur in and around the CNF: Vaccinium membranaceum/globulare, V. myrtilloides, V. myritillus, V. caespitosum, V. scoparium, V. oxycoccus and V. ovalifolium (Barney 2001; Pattersen et al. 1985; Williams et al. 1995). Of these, V. membranaceum/globulare (which botanists now classify as a single species) is of the most interest to current-day harvesters because of the relatively large size and abundance of the berries it produces (USDAFS 2001; Barney 2001). It should be noted, however, that ethnobotanical research indicates that native people in the region traditionally harvested V. caespitosum, V. myritillus, V. scoparium as well as V. membranaceum (Turner et al. 1980).

Wild Edible Huckleberry Harvest — Caroll et al.

321

munities surrounding the forest. It also appeared that different groups in the area approached huckleberry harvesting differently, with some attempting to make part of their household’s annual living from berries as part of what might be described as a cottage industry, while others seemed to focus only on personal use (Findley et al. 2000). Given this apparent mixture of motivations for harvest, along with indications that huckleberries are quite salient to local culture, Granovetter’s (1985) theoretical concept of embeddedness as applied by Hinrichs (1998) to understand the relationship of “minor products” (in her case maple syrup) works, and local rural society appeared to be a useful construct for approaching this study: An embeddedness perspective emphasizes how other work activities, household relations, the surrounding community, and the resource environment shape the possibilities for and understandings of minor resource production activities (1998:507). Hinrichs goes on to say: Many forms of rural work and enterprise are particularly amenable to this view of the economy. The concept . . . draws attention to the relational aspect of economic action . . . that it depends on and influences relations with, for example, other household members, the surrounding social community and, potentially even relations with the resource environment (1998:510, emphasis added). While the authors expected at the outset of this study that the precise nature of the relationships of the local society to the huckleberry resource would vary from those found in maple syrup production, we anticipated that the concept would be a useful one for helping us to understand the diversity and complexity we expected to find in the field. One difference that we anticipated from the maple syrup study was the expectation of a greater variety of reasons for and strategies of harvesting berries. In theoretical terms we expected huckleberry use to be embedded in local (and perhaps not so local) society in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances of particular individuals and groups in that society. Regulatory Question: Is Berrying a Commercial Activity? One issue with specific managerial/regulatory implications upon which the study set out to shed some light is that concerning the extent to which some portion of huckleberry harvest in and around the CNF might be labeled a commercial activity. The Forest Service and other land management agencies tend to label gathering activities such as

322


huckleberry picking as either recreational or commercial. Those engaging in these activities are often required to obtain permits.2 Forest Service managers interviewed as part of this study stated that they “knew” that some of the picking activities, particularly in the east side of the study area, were “commercial” in nature but admitted, to date, little permit enforcement action had been taken. Our specific interest was to discover how the people carrying out the activity labeled it and how they viewed labels others might apply. This labeling question was addressed empirically and theoretically by McLain (2000) in her study of mushroom harvesting in a national forest in Oregon. She notes that labeling of gathering or other activities (and in particular the labeling of people engaging in such endeavors) is a long-established method of state control. McLain points out that labeling has been posited theoretically by social theorist Foucault (1979) as a means of exerting what he (Foucalt) labels “disciplinary power.” McLain reports the difficulty with this from the pickers’ perspective: The disciplinary apparatus that is being set in place creates resistance among [mushroom] pickers and buyers because it seeks to fix people into uni-dimensional categories (i.e., commercial picker equals industrial worker) when the reality is that many pickers at Sisters shift between picking for money, picking for fun, occasional buying, fishing and hiking. This fixing-inplace is antithetical to the mobility and flexibility that constitutes the very core of picker and buyer lives (2000:400–401). Muth et al. (1996) dealt with a similar labeling question relating to fur trapping in the northeastern United States, in which the labeling ambiguity involved the distinction among commercial, subsistence and recreational labels: It is important to keep in mind that, as ideal-type abstractions, recreational users and subsistence users constitute significantly different groups. However, these categories may be more precise conceptually than they are in the empirical world; some, 2 Individuals may harvest limited quantities of huckleberries from the Colville and Panhandle National Forests for personal use under a “free use permit.” Berries harvested under a free use permit may not be sold. Harvesters of larger quantities of berries are expected to obtain a “commercial huckleberry permit” from each national forest in which they plan to harvest huckleberries. Until recently national forests have not been allowed to retain any portion of the permit fees collected to cover the cost of issuing permits or the cost of management activities. Recent legislative action provided the national forests with the ability to collect and retain fees from the harvest of a wide variety of NTFPs. However, at the time of this study, the forests under study were operating under the old permit system. Conversely, forests were able to restrict the method of harvest. For example, the use of a harvesting “rake” is forbidden in the Colville National Forest, but is legal in the Panhandle National Forest.


323

perhaps most, trappers are characterized by a mix of values and motivations that includes generating income, experiencing recreational satisfactions, and procuring subsistence resources (1996:430). Drawing together these (not unrelated) perspectives from existing non-timber forest products literature, we anticipated that huckleberry harvest and use would be embedded in a variety of ways in local society. Further, it seemed likely that by virtue of this embeddedness, attempts or perceived attempts by the U.S. Forest Service or other agencies to label or definitively categorize this use would be likely to run upon the shoals of ambiguity and shades of gray. Further, it seemed possible that any such labeling or categorization, particularly that which was seen as linked to possible additional regulation, would meet with local resistance similar to that described by McLain (2000). Methods The methods employed in this research were qualitative, inductive, and interpretive. By utilizing an interpretive sociological approach, the study builds an inductively based understanding of the phenomena of interest rather than testing a set of determined hypotheses. Specifically, data were collected following the precepts of grounded theory (Charmaz 2000; Glaser and Strauss 1980). We chose this approach in order to capture a rich and encompassing range of worldviews and personal histories concerning linkages to the huckleberry resource that could not be captured with a quantitative or hypothesis testing approach. The term grounded theory refers to an array of related qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. In this particular case, the specific technique used was analytic induction. In this approach the fieldworkers do not assume in advance that they know the sociologically relevant categories within the study “population.” Rather, they use the interviewing process itself to identify relevant categories and they continue to sample from the emergent categories until novel information (including new categories themselves) is no longer forthcoming. The emerging “model” of the phenomenon under study is compared with each new observation and altered accordingly. In this case, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with huckleberry harvesters and others associated with the huckleberry resource in and around the study area. Initial interviewees were selected on the basis of referrals from U.S. Forest Service managers and knowledgeable “locals.” Interviewing, which took place over the course of two huckleberry seasons, was not discontinued until the saturation point was reached in each of the categories and novel information ceased to be forthcoming. In total, 93 interviews were conducted.

324


Study Area Most of the study area is contained in the northeastern corner of Washington bordering Idaho to the east and Canada to the north. Specifically, this includes Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties in Washington. The CNF comprises about 1.2 million acres of these three counties, thereby accounting for almost one-third of the total land base. Notable north-south divisions occur in each of the three counties. For example, the Colville Indian Reservation comprises the southern half of Ferry County, whereas the northern half includes the county seat of Republic and a mix of private ownership and the CNF. In Idaho, the study area includes Bonner and Boundary counties. Similarly, the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (IPNF) comprises a large part of these two counties; over 40% of Bonner County is national forest land. Results In line with the theoretical approach, we did not enter the field portion of the study with predetermined categories of harvesters to seek out for interview; nor did we frame specific hypotheses. Rather, we allowed the categories of users emerge as we learned more about the world of huckleberries in and around the CNF. The four major categories that emerged were (using labels we created based on key characteristics) native harvesters, (non-native) household harvesters, income supplementers, and full timers. It should be emphasized that these categories are neither entirely mutually exclusive nor absolute. Rather they reflect general tendencies concerning reasons for and strategies of picking and using/disposing of berries. In some cases harvesters reported having drifted from one category to another as household economics and life stage changed. Native People There are a number of tribes and tribal bands whose members historically gathered plant materials on or near land that is currently administered as the Colville National Forest (Dahl 1990). Currently, three tribal governments, the Colville Confederated Tribes,3 the Kalispel, and the Spokane tribes exercise their legal rights of consultation concerning ceded lands that fall within the forest boundaries. Ethno-

3 The Colville Confederated Tribes was originally formed by virtue of the creation of The Colville Reservation in 1872 from the Colville, Lakes, Methow, Nespelem, Okanogan and San Poil tribes. Later, Nez Perce, Palus, Columbian, Entiat/Chelan and Wenatchi people were added (Dahl 1990).


325

botanists Turner et al. (1980) reported that huckleberries were and remain an important food source for indigenous people in the area: Mountain huckleberries were an important food in the old days, and are still picked in significant quantities today. They were formally eaten fresh with meat, partially dried, crushed and formed into cakes, or fully dried although the Southern Okanogan apparently did not dry them until the Nez Perce people came to their reservation and showed them how to dry and use them . . . Nowadays they are eaten fresh or canned although a few people . . . still dry them (1980:103). Reporting about the Kalispels, Smith (1950) wrote: Many varieties of berries were to be found in Kalispel country and many were quite plentiful. Together they comprised a rather respectable portion of both summer and winter food (1950:472). Turner et al. (1980) also report that native people burned vegetation in some areas to promote berries. Ross (1999) reports that in the case of the Spokans: . . .[A]n extended family was responsible for coordinating with other families or independent groups as to how often and when they would burn an area after harvest. Probably as recently as the 1890s berdaches were further responsible for coordinating post-harvest burning . . . Prescribed burning seldom was pursued annually for berry regions, but usually every fourth or fifth year according to long-term conditions and the presence of competing flora. Even today . . . women will severely but carefully prune any dead stock after harvesting the bush (1999:283). Ross (1999) reports that in 1914 the first manager of the Spokane Indian Reservation declared that any Spokan who carried out controlled burning would be jailed and that during the 1920s and 1930s, Bureau of Indian Affairs officials jailed native people (including women) who attempted to maintain berry and root fields by means of burning. The last documented case of this was an older Spokan woman apprehended by a BIA-employed reservation forester in 1931 (Ross 1999). The interviews from the current study suggest that while the majority of (although not all) huckleberry gathering by tribal members presently occurs on tribal (reservation) lands, historic use patterns encompassed much of the current national forest acreage in the study area. The interviews also revealed a rich and varied relationship of na-

326


tive people to the huckleberry resource. The following are excerpts of notes from an interview with one native woman: She states that she has learned from (other) native people about the spiritual meaning of huckleberries. She says that according to native beliefs, the huckleberries are a gift of the coyote. The coyote is known as a trickster, but also as someone who takes care of his people. She says that she and other native people pick the huckleberries with respect, leaving offerings of tobacco, and share their huckleberries with elders and the sick and infirm. She states that for her, elders are older people of either culture. A non-native informant stated the huckleberries were an important food source for native people but that huckleberries were not entirely reliable from year to year for native people. She indicated that service berries, although less desirable, were more reliable as a food source for native people. She also indicated that there has been a recent resurgence of interest in traditional foods by native people. She stated that the “boarding school” generations of natives were discouraged from eating traditional foods, but that more recent generations are attempting to go back to traditional foods, at least for symbolic purposes relating to personal and cultural identity. The following are notes from an interview with a Kalispel elder: . . . grew up on the Kalispel reservation. His mother was a Kalispel, his father a Flathead. His lineage also includes Nez Perce and Coeur D’Alene. He grew up picking huckleberries as one of many resource harvest activities traditionally necessary for survival. He went to huckleberry camp with his grandparents for about 10 days each year. He says his family had a “shuttle system” in which his uncles would carry the berries back from camp to his aunts who would can them. He says they used cedar bark baskets to better preserve the berries during transport. The baskets allowed the berries to “breathe” and thus prevented spoilage. He remembers at least one time in which the berries were transported on horseback. He described an incident in which his aunt was on a horse heavily laden with berries that was spooked by a nest of yellow jackets. The horse bucked and his aunt stayed on but berries were lost in the melee . . . The current distribution pattern for berries is more centered on the immediate family. He and his spouse and two children pick: “that tides us over for our functions” (i.e., pow-wows, fu-


327

nerals, etc.). However, about half the berries the immediate family picks are distributed among other tribal members. Elders are the first priority in this sharing. “Our elders and our children are the most important.” Another native woman reported growing up on the Colville reservation, learning to pick from family members as a small child and picking ever since. She said that most but not all of her picking was on the reservation. She typically harvested berries with her sister and her two daughters (teenagers). She said that her children were at an age where they did not like to pick but she forced the issue so they will “learn what the huckleberry is and will pass it down to their kids.” Neither the scope of this study nor the expertise of its authors allow for a thorough treatment of native use of the huckleberry resource in the study area, particularly as that use is related to perhaps several thousand years of history. (See Turner et al. 1980 for a more detailed treatment of this complex subject.) As we will suggest below, there are some parallels between the relationships of tribal people to the huckleberry resource and those of some non-native household harvesters. However, the differences in culture between native and non-native huckleberry harvesters and the historical time scales of the relationships between these respective peoples and the berry resource (centuries vs. decades) led us to conclude separate categories were appropriate. Household Harvesters This category consists of non-native people who pick huckleberries for use in their own households and/or to be shared with friends and relatives. There is considerable variability in terms of knowledge, experience, volumes typically picked in a season, and distance traveled from home in search of berries. In several cases, we interviewed people who were picking for the very first time or for the first time in many years. In other cases, respondents claimed up to eighty years of picking experience, and in a “good berry year” would expect to harvest ten or more gallons in a season. Many harvesters in this category live relatively close to the Colville National Forest and travel as few as five or ten miles to their picking areas. Others live considerably farther away, often in or around metropolitan Spokane, and travel 100 miles or more each way for a day of berry picking. The following is a description is from field notes of an interview with a typical member of this group: . . . has been picking about 20 years. He learned about huckleberries years ago from old-time residents. He usually picks in the Sandpoint area as well as Coeur d’Alene on the national forest there. This year he heard about berries

328

Rural Sociology, Vol. 68, No. 3, September 2003 at 49 degrees North [ski area] and decided to try it there. He drives up to 100 miles each way to pick. He usually makes three outings per year and typically brings home one gallon of berries per outing.

Some individuals in this category made it clear that, although the berries are picked to be used in a variety of ways, the recreational experience in the picking was a big part of the motivation for the activity. One stated: “It’s a day to get out . . . more recreation than anything else.” They also made it clear that while sometimes sharing extra berries or berry products, particularly in good years, selling berries for a profit is not what picking is about for them: “I wouldn’t sell ’em, I work too hard for ’em.” Others in this category, however, emphasized the significance of the berries themselves rather than the simple enjoyment of picking. For them the emphasis (not unlike that of native people) was on the traditions associated with the use of the berries and the sharing of berries within families and networks of close friends. Many talked about knowledge of where and how to pick berries and prepare them as being passed down in families. The following passage from field notes is indicative of this dimension: . . . says that the “home-growns” have strong traditions concerning huckleberries. She states some newcomers find a “home-grown” to take them under wing and teach them the ways of huckleberries. When I asked if this created resentment, she indicated that it sometimes does. She also stated that in her family and in much of community, women pick huckleberries—not men. She also indicated that some women in the community who do not like to eat huckleberries pick them and give them to neighbors. Others, however, are more secretive about their picking spots: “My brother-in-law is moving to California and he won’t tell me where his secret berry patches are.” End use of berries also varies among this group, but the list of typical uses includes eating fresh or on cereal or ice cream, use in pies, mixing in pancake batter, cobbler, and jam. Nearly all interviewed stated that they freeze berries not immediately used, and are careful not to use up all their frozen berries in a given year as a hedge against a future “bad berry year”—keeping berries for a year or more in the freezer. Even among non-native berry harvesters, huckleberries and huckleberry products, particularly pies, assume a ceremonial or “special occasion” significance. Interviewees from this group often told us


329

they do not use all their berries up in day to day use or serve them to “just anybody.” The following is quoted from field notes: She indicated that huckleberry products such as pies and jam have symbolic, ceremonial, and emotional significance. For example, one does not “waste” berries (particularly in a scarce year) on people one sees on a day-to-day basis or mundane occasions. Berries are used when families or special friends come distances to visit or for reunions. They are also used at times of funerals and when people are ill. The reasons for the special significance of foods prepared with huckleberries are multi-faceted and undoubtedly involve, even for nontribal, long-time residents, historical dimensions of local life that two field seasons of investigation were only partially able to unravel. Part of the significance is simply the amount of work that goes into picking, cleaning and storing berries and then preparing foods from them. Another aspect of the significance has to do with the multi-generational experience of berries as a part and product of nature of which only those with specific place knowledge, appropriate skills (picking and preparing), and a strong work ethic are able to avail themselves in a significant way. Perhaps most fundamentally, however, for many longtime locals, huckleberries are a material expression of a rural, placebased way of life.4 In this sense, berries play a similar role to that played by maple sugar in the rural northeast (Hinrichs 1998). Many respondents mentioned that picking huckleberries was part of the way of life in the area, along with hunting and fishing: We locals think this is our backyard. There won’t be anything for us to enjoy. It’s unique to this area. You won’t find huckleberries anywhere else. It’s our enjoyment. It’s like skiing or fishing. It’s exercise and it’s profitable. We look forward to it every year. It’s exciting. We might see an animal. Income Supplementers This category consists of people who pick berries for household use but who also harvest for sale as a means of supplementing their income. While many of these individuals are local, some travel as far as 200 miles to harvest. For some, harvesting for sale is a sporadic activity 4 It should also be noted that the household harvester category also included people who primarily picked for household use but would, in good years, pick “a few extra gallons” to sell to friends or neighbors who did not or could not pick. For such individuals, the income from such activities was so insignificant as to be barely noticeable in their household income.

330


that depends on their immediate financial needs and the quality of the berry year. For others, it is an annual ritual that supplements retirement or other sources of income. The following is an excerpt from field notes describing one such person: The berries are traditional . . . to the family diet. However, the money is important, “It’s called surviving.” This year is not so bad money-wise, but he still needs to pick to buy food. He said the money is important for many people in the community and mentioned some people who are making their living from berries. He noted sarcastically: “It’s ‘easy’ money if you can call it that. You have the bugs and brush and you beat up your car. There’s bears.” The interviews also uncovered evidence that huckleberry picking provides an important portion of annual income for some members of this group, much of it derived through what Alexander et al. (2002) refer to as the informal economy. For example, one informant reported that there was a group of people in the area who supplement their income with huckleberry picking and that she got to know some of these people in her previous work in social services in the area. She noted that these people tend to be on some form of public assistance and pick huckleberries, in part, to supplement their income in a nonreportable way. She did not think these individuals sell so much to stores in Spokane for example, but rather sell to others in the community or simply along the roadside. Another interviewee indicated that there were 10 or 20 families that she knew of in the community who were out “hustling” berries. Saying that there were few job opportunities in the area, especially after the Forest Service stopped cutting [timber] in 1991 she said: “There’s nothing else for people in this community. You work for someone or have your own business. If you can’t work hard, you can’t work around here (need a strong back). A lot of people get hurt in logging.” She said that with logging way down, people were selling berries to make ends meet. “I had a pawn shop and . . . saw a lot of hard cases, lots of young people. People do this to make money.” In some cases the income is “extra” or even a way to “justify” an activity they would probably do anyway, while in others the money is needed. For example, an older couple reported that they had been picking huckleberries for home use for 20 years and just started selling berries that year. They had some large, unexpected expenses and while their retirement checks are adequate, they were not able to meet these new, one-time expenses. A younger couple stated that they earmark the berry money for specific purchases, such as school clothes. Most


331

years the money is a “nice extra,” but there were several years when they needed the money to survive bad times. Another example of this is an immigrant from Southeast Asia who said that he began picking 10 years ago. He was working for a refugee office as a caseworker and they taught him and other refugees how to pick, clean, process, and store berries. He does not remember the name of the office/agency, but thinks it was in Idaho. He picks three or four times a year and goes with family and friends in three or four cars. Full-Timers This category includes people for whom picking, processing, and/or selling huckleberries is a more or less full-time occupation during the appropriate season. Some in this category are year-round local residents while others are not. Many in the latter group follow a migratory pattern that might best be described as a seasonal round. Some work picking and or selling other non-timber forest products such as mushrooms during other times of the year, while others pick fruit (e.g., apples, oranges) as far away as California and Florida. Members of the latter (migratory) group refer to themselves (proudly) as “fruit tramps.” They typically stay together in tents and truck campers in what they refer to as “fruit camps” and rarely interact with other harvesters. The individual who was reputed to be the largest individual volume berry harvester in the area lives with his two small children in a converted school bus with no running water or indoor plumbing. He sells his berries mostly to local resorts. He stated: “It’s a way of life for me, a religion.” A woman who, with her family, used to live in the study area, moved to another state, but returns each year for the huckleberry season. They always pick as a family (twelve children, six at home). Her husband goes with the five older children and she stays home with the youngest child and cleans the berries and takes care of the home while the rest are picking. If there are a lot of berries, she will hire people to help clean. They pick six days a week and will travel one and a half to two and a half hours one-way. They started selling commercially in 1983 after seeing other people selling and realizing they could make money. They also like it because it is an activity they can do as a family: “We all really enjoy it. It’s just as important to come up and do it for family time as for the money. The money makes it better.” She emphasized the importance of spending time as a family: “We enjoy it. It’s quality family time.” For “fruit tramps” harvesting huckleberries is one activity in a season that often includes picking apples, pears, cherries, and oranges. For this group in particular, harvesting berries and fruit is an intergenera-

332


tional occupation complete with its own set of customs, beliefs, norms, and occupational identities (Sonneman and Steigmeyer 1992). One interviewee stated that he grew up picking berries. He is the selfdescribed son of a “fruit tramp” who taught him to pick. “My dad [was] kind of a fruit tramp . . . [Because of this] I am not very educated—we missed a lot of school.” He claimed that his father invented the first huckleberry picker (a hand held scoop-like device commonly referred to as a “rake”). He stated that he is a retired military veteran and makes a significant part of his living from berries. “I hustle anything I have to . . . if you can’t hold a regular job, you do anything you can.” He reported picking mostly on the national forests in the area: “Anybody who picks huckleberries is not gonna be rich.” Another, a young woman, grew up the child of a self-proclaimed “fruit tramp.” Her father came originally from West Virginia. In her growing up years she reported traveling with her parents all over the West (including Arizona and California) picking fruit. She described having seizures as a young girl, which she attributed to pesticide use in the orchards. She stated that her family won a $5,000 court settlement over the problem. Her father picked fruit up to within 6 months of his death. “It was his life.” She has an 8-year-old son and hasn’t traveled to pick in four years until this year because of her son. She was pregnant at the time of the interview. Another, a retired log truck driver with many years of huckleberry picking experience grew up in a huckleberry family in Libby, Montana. His father, who was born in 1898, began picking huckleberries in his 20s. This man picked since childhood, at first under the tutelage of his father and still clearly very much identifies with the work. He described picking berries for twenty-five cents a gallon when he was eight years old. He talked about how huckleberry camp has changed over the years. He said that he used to leave food available in his camp in the event they would need it. If someone used the food, he could be assured they would leave firewood or something for him. Now he says that there is no reciprocity and he locks his truck. Differences among Groups of Harvesters Given the social complexity of huckleberry harvest that we have described, it is not surprising that there are differences and, in some cases, tensions among various groups of harvesters. There are also geographically based differences in the occurrence of the categories of harvesters noted above. On the west side of the Colville National Forest, we found native and household harvesters and a handful of income supplementers. The only remotely commercial activities con-


333

sisted of individuals selling a few gallons of berries to neighbors, local restaurants, or in makeshift stands set up in grocery store parking lots or along highways. In fact, local businesses that sold processed huckleberry products, such as candy or syrup, reported that they obtained their products from out-of-state. On the east side of the forest, however, in addition to the first three categories, there was a greater preponderance of full timers who sold their products both to local businesses as well as out-of-area companies. We also asked interviewees to describe the vegetative conditions where they looked for berries and to describe their method of picking and handling berries. Natives, household harvesters, and some income supplementers favored conditions with semi-closed forest canopies and tended to pick with their hands only. They reported that they did whatever cleaning of leaves and debris from berries that was needed also by hand. Those more on the commercial end of the spectrum tended to favor large, open meadows and old burns or clearcuts that had grown up to brush. This is undoubtedly related, at least in part, to the need for greater efficiency on the part of those selling berries. The latter group also tended to use “rakes” rather than bare hands for picking, particularly in Idaho, as they are illegal on the CNF. Because such rakes tend to pick up more leaves and twigs, the job of “cleaning” the berries is larger than is the case in hand picking. Thus, these harvesters generally cleaned their berries on portable ramp and screen devices shaped roughly like a child’s playground slide. The berries were rolled down the ramp over a screen into a collection area at the lower end of the assembly leaving most of the twigs, leaves and other debris behind. In this process, the momentum of the heavier berries carried them further than the lighter leaves and other debris. The interviews also uncovered tensions between local and non-local harvesters, harvesters of different racial/ethnic origins (e.g., Hmong, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese) as well as between commercial and non-commercial pickers. For example, one household harvester said that he doesn’t like how commercial pickers operate: “They rape bushes and clear a whole hillside.” Another, a local commercial harvester, described a fairly chaotic situation in some picking areas with as many as 400 pickers at once at a well-known location favored by commercial harvesters. He stated that while he harbors no racial or ethnic prejudice, he is concerned about the behavior of some of the Asian crew pickers. He also expressed concern about the picking methods used by crews, which he feels are damaging to the bushes. He said that he goes through a berry patch taking only the mature berries while the crews tend to take everything in

334


a fell swoop. He also observed that many of the Asian pickers show up in new four-wheel drive vehicles, indicating that huckleberries are hardly their only source of income. Another Anglo commercial harvester had a different view of Asian harvesters: Of the Asians, whom she labeled “Vietnamese”: “I don’t know that they’re Vietnamese, they’re Orientals anyway.” She said that she had heard rumors that they were the ones picking/cutting the branches off the bushes, but it’s not true. The . . . family has never seen that. She says the Asians always pick by hand. “They’re hard working, very careful and pick by hand, they do a beautiful job.” She said they come up in huge families and groups and work in shifts, with people picking for a few days, and then leaving as others come in. “They’re such hard working people. Lots of locals aren’t willing to do it [pick berries], it’s too hard.” She thinks the Asians are hired by a company to pick berries and are undercut on the price they receive for the berries. She doesn’t know where they come from. The . . .’s have not had any negative encounters with this group, but she noted that the Asians do not want to talk when they run across each other in the woods. An Asian man who traveled to the area from Spokane to harvest huckleberries stated he has not had any conflicts with other pickers, though he reported hearing about a couple involving Asians and whites: “Our people were at . . . Lake. They told our people to go pick up in the mountains. The white people told them. I wasn’t there, I heard about it.” He said that in the last couple of years, someone told him that some white people had stolen berries from the vehicle of Asians. These conflicting viewpoints about different groups of harvesters are reminiscent of those uncovered by Fine (1997:78) in his work on mushroom harvesters. He writes: “Typically, mushroom harvesters condemn those who appear to be “greedy” surpassing community expectations. . . . Joyce tells me she is angered by how some people pick all the mushrooms they can and then drop the ones that are inedible by the side of the road (field notes). Fine goes on to say: “Implicit beliefs define what constitutes proper use. Some deviants violate justice norms, which are linked to assumptions about the carrying capacity of the natural environment. These assumptions are tied to claims that nature is being conserved for future


335

use. However, these examples underlie an aesthetic violation as well: the pure woods are being defiled by human remains. To level bushes and discard broken mushrooms offends environmental sensibility, symbolizing, not hiding, human egocentrism” (1997:78). The interviews for the current study also revealed that as was the case with McLain’s (2000) mushroom harvesters, the label “commercial” as it applies to huckleberry harvest is contested. The tension over the label was clearly linked to the idea that commercial activities are subject to regulation (especially permits requiring payments), while non-commercial activities only require a free-use permit. For example one couple who reported picking a few gallons for themselves and a few to sell to neighbors resisted the label “commercial.” They said that they didn’t consider themselves commercial pickers, “We just like to earn a little extra. I pick for people who can’t pick, like the elderly . . . well, we’re commercial as far as selling goes. But we sell to elderly people who can’t get their own.” When asked about commercial pickers, they said that a commercial picker is like the guy in Spokane who wants to buy 500 gallons, as is a person who picks all summer and sells to someone else. “Commercial pickers hire a crew.”5 A local woman said: “[T]hey (commercial pickers) need to be regulated. They should pay a fee or be limited in number.” She went on to say that she does not consider locals who pick and sell to be commercial pickers. Her husband mentioned that he had heard of problems and violence in Libby and Troy, Montana, among commercial pickers. Views concerning application of the term “commercial” and the notion of whose harvest should be regulated and whose should not were also wrapped up in the insider/outsider distinction as well as the size and scope of a particular enterprise. For example, there was fairly universal agreement that local household pickers and even out-of-area household pickers (say from Spokane) should not be subject to regulation. On the other hand, larger operations that send workers to the local area to pick were sometimes cited as examples of who should be regulated. The “gray area” in some interviewees’ minds related to the locally owned businesses that buy berries from local or migrant harvesters. For example, a local small business owner who buys berries resisted the label “commercial” saying, “There are at least one or two dozen huckleberry companies my size and we use hundreds of gallons 5 Commercial huckleberry buyers rarely, if ever, actually hire crews. Instead the crews act as independent contractors selling their berries to the buyer. Buyers strongly prefer this arrangement as it avoids paying the payroll taxes required by labor and industries for company employees. Conversely, relatively few people recognize this subtle distinction unless they work in the industry.

336


of berries. Those other companies must have people picking for them to be able to make all these commercial products.” He said that some of these other companies use ads to hire people and it is seasonal work for many people. “It’s hard to call it commercial. It’s hard to pick between commercial and non-commercial.” Another local income supplementer drew a distinction between the size and nature of a business and the label “commercial.” He stated the opinion that larger businesses should be regulated since, in his view, they are businesses. He does not consider himself a commercial picker and questioned the line between commercial and non-commercial, “For local huckleberry pickers, this is a cash business.” Despite some concerns about the practices of some commercial harvesters, on the east side of the study area there was generally strong sentiment among those interviewed against regulating huckleberry harvest. This sentiment is captured in the following interview excerpt. She doesn’t like the idea of any additional regulation: “I don’t want a huckleberry patrol.” How about commercial pickers? “I don’t care!!!” While she doesn’t like abuse of bushes, on the subject of commercial picking: “I look at some poor schmuck in a ’74 Datsun pickup that’s rusted and barely makes it to the top of the mountain, I say more power to ’em.” Cultural/Social/Economic Significance of Huckleberry Harvest Returning to the theoretical premises of the study, the notion of embeddedness appears to be a useful construct for understanding the strikingly diverse relationships that exist between people who live in or frequent the study area and the huckleberry resource. Members of the four categories of harvesters identified (and in some cases, subgroups within the categories) had an array of different linkages to the huckleberry resource and to each other, ranging from a very casual harvest to huckleberries as an important part of one’s cultural heritage. Linkages to each other included some previously mentioned, such as “home-growns” teaching newcomers, the competition and tension between locals and non-locals, and the labels pickers apply to themselves and others, as well as personal relationships that existed apart from berry picking. We also discovered that asking people about their interest in huckleberries tended to generate discussion linked to much larger questions of human relationships to nature and to the forest. Interestingly, connections to berries cut across many of the differing local value perspectives on forest management identified in the previous social assessment (Findley et al. 2000). Local environmentalists and local wiseuse advocates could be found nearly side-by-side in the berry patches.


337

Despite all the variability in connections to the huckleberry resource, there were also some striking commonalties. Virtually everyone we talked to in the study area about the subject “knew” about huckleberries. We could stop locals at random on the street, whether a harvester or not, and they could give a fair estimate of when the berries “came on” that year and what kind of a “berry year” it was. People also knew the going price for berries and who was buying. Those that did not pick either knew someone who did, had third-hand information, or had noticed the frequency of berry stands along the highway that year. One suspects the same would be true for local knowledge of maple sugar in Hinrichs’ “sugar bush” country. One striking aspect of this “common knowledge” about the cultural connection to huckleberries is that given native peoples’ connection to the resource and the more or less continuous human habitation of at least portions of the area, one can make a case that human knowledge of berries in the local area extends back in time certainly hundreds and possibly as far as several thousand years (Turner et al. 1980). Another implication we would draw both from this case and our reading of other work on NTFPs is that the dichotomy often used in trying to classify gathering activities as either “commercial” or “recreational” greatly oversimplifies the significance of these activities to those who participate. For example, we agree with Anderson et al. (2000) who, in their study of fern gathering by Korean and Japanese people on the San Bernardino National Forest, argue that the label of “commercial harvest” does not fit this culturally significant activity. However, we are not so sure the “recreation” label they apply instead is a very good fit either. The above authors stated, “Subjects were asked if they considered fern picking to be mostly fun, equally fun and work or mostly work (2000:756).” One wonders if such a question would be asked with a straight face of a party of native people freshly back from killing a moose to be served at a tribal member’s funeral. It is not our purpose to criticize Anderson et al.’s study, which we view as interesting and useful. Rather, our point is that there is more to life than leisure and recreation on the one hand and commercial activity on the other. It is our contention that much (although certainly not all) activity related to NTFPs falls into the gray area of “somewhere between” meaning neither strictly commercial nor strictly recreational. Returning to our theoretical premise, the harvest and use of berries is embedded in the local society and (largely informal) economy in a variety of ways not adequately captured by the recreation/commercial dichotomy. A third classification of gathering activities that is often discussed in the literature is that of “subsistence.” Subsistence is generally seen as harvesting or gathering activities conducted by people to provide the

338


basic material needs of a household or extended family. The term is also generally linked to the idea that such activities have been carried on long enough in families and communities to have acquired cultural significance. While huckleberries hardly constitute a significant portion of the annual caloric budget for native or non-native families, the cultural significance of the berries is similar to that described in the subsistence literature. However, in this case a further complication is introduced by attempting to apply the term subsistence to berry use. In the U.S. regulatory context the term is often associated with the particular legal standing of certain rural Alaska residents to hunt, fish, and gather particular resources for household use ( Johnson 2000). However, as Muth et al. (1996) point out, subsistence uses of resources are not restricted to Alaska: Similarly, subsistence trapping is important in some regions, such as Alaska . . . and to “Cajuns” in Louisiana . . . from providing in-kind contributions to the household economy, such as food, bedding and clothing. It also provides economic benefits to subsistence households in the form of cash from the sale of pelts and products . . . and from the production of handicrafts sold in the market economy (1996:430). Were it not for the specific legal implications often associated with the term, subsistence might come closest to describing the reasons that a portion of people pick berries who do not profit financially from them (or at least for whom profit is but one motivation for berry harvest). Clearly, the subsistence label in both its material and cultural dimensions would fit the circumstances of most, if not all, Native American berry harvesters as well as those non-natives who harvest berries in relatively large quantities for household use. As Nord (1994) points out in his discussion of subsistence and rural poverty: There is another class of resources that resemble subsistence resources. Although, by themselves, they would not provide a livable material existence, they enhance the ability of the poor to survive on minimal incomes (p. 209). Certainly huckleberries would fall into this class for some in our study area. For many, the opportunity to be outside enjoying scenery and nature is a primary motivator for berry harvest, thus the recreation label would be apt. However, for others (and not just indigenous people) the berries, their harvest, and their uses are more significant than simple “fun,” nutritional value, or flavor would suggest. Perhaps the label “culturally or historically significant” is the most descriptive for


339

such activities. Our point, however, is not to create a new label, but rather to point to the limitations of the labels frequently used. Our data suggest that in the case of huckleberries, there is a spectrum of reasons for picking and using huckleberries, some of which do not neatly fit the categories often applied by land managers. As interesting a subject as it is, it was not the intent of this research to focus in great depth on the social processes that have led to the differentiation of the categories of huckleberry harvesters we uncovered in our fieldwork. Indeed, we feel this work has addressed the figurative tip of the iceberg of this complex subject. However, a couple of observations seem in order. One is that processes of identity formation and the linkage of identity to the “natural” world (differently cast for different groups) seem clearly to be at work here (see Fine 1997 and Statham 1995). Another observation is that one group in particular, the “fruit tramps,” seems to fit the description of “occupational community,” as one of the current authors has explored in depth elsewhere (Carroll 1995). Both of these subjects merit attention in future research. Regulatory Implications We believe the results of this research also suggest some regulatory implications and conundrums, particularly for the national forest system. Differences in views over the labeling and regulation of huckleberry harvest on the CNF can be viewed as a microcosm of the historic tension over the “real purpose” of the national forests. One view holds that the primary focus of national forest management should be the national interest, broadly conceived, and that local populations should have no particular special status concerning the management or use of such lands or of the products or services derived from them. The other view holds that geographically proximate populations do have a special interest in “their” local national forest and that local concerns and uses should be given special consideration. This debate has taken different forms in different eras. The most recent version often pits many in the national wing of the environmental movement who argue for a focus on the national interest against advocates for “community forestry” and/or a more bioregional locus of control (Kemmis 1990; Wilmsen 2001). Brown (1995), in a case study centered near a national forest in southern Oregon, suggests that local rural working class people long viewed and used the national forest as a community commons for such things as hunting, firewood gathering, and other activities. She argues, however, that more recent trends, including old growth protection, road closures, state level land use planning ordinances, and rural gentrification, have cumulatively tended to

340


push long-time local, rural people out of the forest, effectively restricting the “commons.” The ongoing tension over the competing visions of the national forest plays out in many places, among them the regulation of NTFPs such as huckleberries. We suggest that differences expressed over the labeling of various types of huckleberry use are reflective of this larger tension over the “real purpose” of the national forests and the competing claims that various stakeholders at various levels make vis-à-vis the forests. At a more practical level, strict regulation of huckleberry harvest would pose a daunting challenge for federal land managers. The sarcastic comment of one interviewee about “huckleberry patrols” reflects this dilemma. Determining the intended end use of a particular harvester’s batch of berries and/or determining the total volume of an individual’s seasonal harvest are uncertain and time-consuming processes at best. Conclusions If there is one striking impression emerging from this study, it is the extent of social complexity surrounding harvest and use of huckleberries in the study area. This complexity has a temporal/historical dimension (hundreds, probably thousands of years of years of use by native people), a geographic dimension (“home-growns,” fruit tramps, urban residents), economic dimensions, and certainly a variety of cultural dimensions. Connection to and, indeed, passion for the berries both connects and separates different groups of people in any number of ways. As complex as the (biological) ecology of the huckleberry and its habitat are, the social ecology is at least on a par, if not more complicated. It is our hope that what we have tried to briefly describe here will encourage others in the field to look more deeply into the social complexity associated with this and a variety of other non-timber forest products. In the meantime we hope that the policy/regulatory debates over NTFPs will move beyond the simple recreation-commercial dichotomy and also recognize the linkage of NTFP harvest regulation to larger questions of land tenure and what constitutes the “national interest” in public land management. References Alexander, S.J., J. Weigand, and K.A. Blatner. 2002. “Nontimber Forest Product Comerce.” Pp. 115–50 in Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, edited by E.T. Jones, R.J. McLain, and J. Weigland. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Anderson, J.A., D.J. Blahna, and D.J. Chavez. 2000. “Fern Gathering on the San Bernardino National Forest: Cultural versus Commercial Values Among Korean and Japanese Participants.” Society and Natural Resources 13:747–762. Barney, D. 2001. Personal Correspondence. University of Idaho, Sandpoint Research and Extension Center. June 27.


341

Blatner, K.A. and S. Alexander. 1998. “Recent Price Trends for Non-Timber Forest Products in the Pacific Northwest.” Forest Products Journal 48:28–34. Brown, B.A. 1995. In Timber Country. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Carroll, M.S. 1995. Community and the Northwestern Logger: Continuities and Changes in the Era of the Spotted Owl. Boulder: Westview Press. Rural Studies Series. Chamberlain, J.L., R.J. Bush, A.L. Hammett, and P.A. Araman. 2002. “Eastern National Forests: Managing for Nontimber Products.” Journal of Forestry 100:8–14. Charmaz, K. 2000. “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods.” Pp. 509–535 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N.K Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dahl, K.A. 1990. “Sovereignty, Environmental Use and Ethnic Identity on the Colville Indian Reservation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Donoghue, E.M. 2000. “Non-Commercial Values of NTFPs in the Pacific Northwest.” Paper presented at the 2000 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, July 17–22, Bellingham, WA. Elmer, D.M., H.H. Christensen, E.M. Donoghue, R. Fight, and C. Mater. 2000. “Involving Communities in Non-Timber Forest Products Research: Incorporating Stakeholder Values and Needs into Integrated Collaborative Research.” Presented at The 2000 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, July 17–22, Bellingham, WA. Emery, M.R. 2000. “Invisible Livelihoods: Non-Timber Forest Products in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.” Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University. Findley, A.J., M.S. Carroll, and K.A. Blatner. 2000. Social Assessment for the Colville National Forest CROP Program. General Technical Report GTR-499, USDA Forest Service. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Station. Fine, G.A. 1997. “Naturework and the Taming of the Wild: The Problem of ‘Overpick’ in the Culture of Mushroomers.” Social Problems 44:68–88. Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Glaser, B.G. and A. L. Strauss. 1980. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company. Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91:485–510. Hinrichs, C.C. 1998. “Sideline and Lifeline: The Cultural Economy of Maple Syrup Production.” Rural Sociology 63:507–32. Hosford, D., D. Piltz, R. Molina, and M. Amaranthus. 1997. Ecology and Management of the Commercially Harvested Matsutake Mushroom. General Technical Report PNW-GTR412, USDA Forest Service. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. Johnson, D.R. 2000. “National Parks and Rural Development in Alaska.” Pp. 131–63 in National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United States, edited by G.E. Machlis and D.R. Field. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the Politics of Place. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. McLain, R.J. 2000. “Controlling the Understory: Wild Mushroom Politics in Central Oregon.” Ph.D. dissertation, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. McLain, R.J. and M. Emery. 2000. “Part Work, Part Leisure: The Multiple Roles and Meanings of NTFPs in People’s Lives and Implications for NTFP Policy and Management in the US.” Paper presented at the 2000 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, July 17–22, Bellingham, WA.

342


Molina, R., T. O’Dell, D. Luoma, M. Amaraanthus, M. Castellano, and K. Russell. 1993. Biology, Ecology and Social Aspects of Wild Edible Mushrooms in the Forest of the Pacific Northwest: A Preface to Managing Commercial Harvest. General Technical Report PNWGTR-309, USDA Forest Service. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. Muth, R.M., J.J. Daigle, R.R. Zwick, and R.J. Glass. 1996. “Trappers and Trapping in Advanced Industrial Society: Economic and Sociocultural Values of Furbearer Utilization in the Northeastern United States.” Sociological Spectrum 16:421–36. Nord, M. 1994. “Natural Resources and Persistent Rural Poverty: In Search of a Nexus.” Society and Natural Resources 7:205–20. Patterson, P.A., K.E. Neiman, and J.R. Tonn. 1985. Field Guide to Forest Plants of Northern Idaho. General Technical Report, GTR INT-180, USDA Forest Service. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station. Richards, R.T. and M. Creasy. 1996. “Ethnic Diversity, Resource Values and Ecosystem Management: Matsutake Mushroom Harvesting in the Klamath Bioregion.” Society and Natural Resources 9:359–74. Richards, R.T. and W. Kasworm. 2000. “Transboundary Huckleberry Harvesting and Bear Management in the Northern Rockies.” Paper presented at the 2000 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, July 17–22, Bellingham, WA. Ross, J. 1999. “Proto-Historical and Historical Spokan Prescribed Burning and Stewardship of Resource Areas.” Pp. 277–91 in Indians Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest, edited by R. Boyd. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Schlosser, W.E., K.A. Blatner, and R.C. Chapman. 1991. “Economic and Marketing Implications of the Special Forest Products Harvest in the Coastal Pacific Northwest.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry 6:67–72. Schlosser, W.E., K.A. Blatner, E.G. Schuster, and M.S. Carroll. 1995. “Potential for an Expanded Special Forest Products Industry in the Northern Rockies.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10:138–43. Schlosser, W.E., K.A. Blatner, and B.A. Zamora. 1992. “Pacific Northwest Forest Lands Potential for Floral Greenery Production.” Northwest Science 66:44 –55. Smith, A.H. 1950. [Kalispel Ethnography]. Manuscript. National Archives of the United States, Washington, D.C. RG 279 (Indian Claims Commission), Docket 94, Lower Pend d’Oreille or Kalispel vs. The United States of America. Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 65, Boxes 1078–79. Sonneman, T.F. and R. Steigmeyer. 1992. Fruit Fields in My Blood: Okie Migrants in the West. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press. Statham, A. 1995. Environmental Identity: Symbols in Cultural Change. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 17:207–40. Turner, N.J., R. Bouchard, and D. Kennedy. 1980. Ethnobotany of the Okanogan-Colville Indians of British Columbia and Washington. Occasional Papers of the British Columbia Provincial Museum, No. 21. Victoria, BC, Canada: British Columbia Provincial Museum. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (USDA FS). 2001. Fire Effects Information System. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Retrieved June 20, 2001 (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis). Williams, C.K, B.F. Kelley, B.G. Smith, and T.R. Lillybridge. 1995. Forested Plant Associations of the Colville National Forest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-360, USDA, Forest Service. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. Wilmsen, C. 2001. “Sustained Yield Recast: The Politics of Sustainability in Vallecitos, New Mexico.” Society and Natural Resources 14:193–207.