are making sacrifices. This approach and that of Protección have much potential for
mediating the conflicts that arise when logging is introduced in resin cooperatives.
Not all members from Villa Santa thought logging was positive, though. An
informant expressed his doubts over the difficulties encountered in logging versus the
simplicity of resin tapping. “Logging is very problematic. Something always goes
wrong. COHDEFOR makes it difficult. We should just stay with resin tapping. Resin
tapping is permanent. It’s our patrimonio (heritage).” This idealistic view of resin
tapping as permanent and part of heritage was common among older informants.
At the other end of the spectrum is the experience of Cooperativa Guadalupe.
The management plan and logging were viewed unfavorably by most resineros.
Resineros felt excluded from participation in and contribution to the new activities that so
drastically altered the cooperative. In general, cooperative members who became
involved in logging were younger and more educated, while the resineros most isolated
from logging were older members, some of whom were part of the original founding
group of the cooperative. “It’s a shame that these jovenes (young men) don’t think about
other people. They only want to be important. When they were children, they all wore
shoes bought with resin money.” Another resinero was openly hostile about the logging.
“It’s an outrage that they are allowed to cut in our plots. They never even ask
permission. This is my plot. I take care of it, and it takes care of me. After they cut my
trees, what will they give me? Scraps from the sawmill? Can you eat wood scraps?”
This reaction deserves to be addressed, because it represents a deep division in the
cooperative. One gets the impression that much of the resentment stems from the break
in the cultural norms of politeness and respect. It should be remembered that plots are