The federal agencies including the National Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service have all been directed to find ways to engage tribal people in co-management of federal lands (or in some cases such as California in state parks and other state lands).
These co-management agreements are being implemented at all federal agencies frequently without any public review. I tried to get a co-management agreement from the BLM and FS . In every instance, I was told they were not “available” for public review. I finally got one co-management agreement signed by the Siuslaw NF with some coastal Oregon tribes, but only by getting my Senator to intervene and demand a copy. It still took more than a month for his staff to get a copy;
Clearcut in Oregon’s coast range. Photo George Wuerthner
Maybe the reason no one is allowed to see the Suislaw-tribal co-management agreement is because the tribes called for much greater logging, including of old growth for “economic development” and of course a requirement that some jobs go to tribal members.
Other co-management agreements have been made at Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, and Point Reyes National Seashore in California. Recently the Federal Government signed co-management agreements with three Alaskan native corporations and tribes.
Logging on the Quinault Reservation, Washington. The assumption that tribal people behave any differently when it comes to exploitation of the landscape is questionable.
If you aren’t alarmed by this sort of reverse discrimination, you should be. The track record of tribal people on environmental issues where they “control” the land, resources, or outcome is not very good.
Who controls the outcome is critical. In areas where they do not have a vested interest, particularly a financial one, they may appear “environmentally” allied. But where there is a significant potential for financial gain, you see a different story.
See my article on the Indian Iron Curtain.
I won’t go into all the problems I anticipate with co-management, the least of which is that it is anti-democratic in that certain people based on race are given greater input and control over public lands.
In some cases it changes traditional public practices. For instance, tribal members are permitted to collect gull eggs within Glacier Bay National Park. Removing native wildlife is usually prohibited in national parks, but there are exceptions, such as an elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park. However, the tribal egg removal is based on race, while the elk hunt is open to any hunter who obtains a permit.
Plus, in some cases, myth and superstition may become the guiding principles in park management.
Even encouraging tribal “narratives “about tribal origins and territory , which some co-management agreements highlight to guide management, is problematic insofar as they are often based on tribal mythology, not necessarily factual history.
For instance, the 27 “associated” tribes of Yellowstone are not based on any objective criteria. All a tribe has to do is say they had some connection to Yellowstone, and they are granted this special status. Such designation garners special status in park management decisions.
A further problem is that a “tribal membership” is often based on dubious genetic or other criteria. Some tribes only require 1/64 Indian blood–or about 2%. I.e., in many cases, tribal members are more Caucasian than Native Americans but can use their tribal status for beneficial status as consultants or employees as recommended below. Environmental knowledge or environmental ethics are not passed down through genetics. Many, if not most, tribal members are fully integrated into the dominant global culture, and attributing special knowledge or insights simply because someone is part of a genetic racial group is questionable.
My ancestors on my mother’s side were Scandinavian Vikings who settled in Northern Ireland a thousand years ago. Does that mean I can sail a Viking galley by the stars or know how to use a sword or fish for cod?
Conservation groups are afraid to say anything critical for fear of appearing racist. For instance, when I finally got the tribal co-management agreement for the Siuslaw NF and the call for increased logging, I sent it to several prominent Oregon conservation groups asking if they would alert members or make a public comment. The one response I got was they were not going to touch it.
Recently I got an email from the Wilderness Society proclaiming how wonderful it was that TEK would be incorporated in the Bears Ears NM management. Tribal knowledge would guide livestock grazing, commercial timber harvest, climate warming and other issues. Yet the Wilderness Society does not define exactly what or how TEK would differ from current management policies. It simply assumes if tribal members are involved, management will be “better.”
I suppose the BLM loves the idea of using TEK. If you have visited the Navajo Indian Reservation, it is a wonderful example of how tribal members have trashed the land by livestock grazing. Or maybe they will consult the Ouray and Uinta tribe, which supports an oil railroad, or the Southern Utes, who oppose wolf restoration in Colorado. There is a lot of TEK that the BLM will find useful in justifying the exploitation of the monument.
There is a movement to equate TEK with Western science. In most cases, TEK is nothing more than observational, with no mechanical or scientifically valid explanation. It is more analogous to mythology and superstition than science, which tests and repeatability standards that critical examination can verify. One may observe that some plant grows in a particular location or some animal utilizes a specific habitat, but some myth or story often explains why it does.
For instance, some Plains Indians believed the herds would appear if they danced the Buffalo Dance. Of course, since the dances continued, sometimes for weeks or months, and did not end until bison arrived or the tribe starved, meant it couldn’t fail.
Some tribes assert they should be permitted to collect plants and even hunt in national parks, though other citizens do not permit these activities, with few exceptions. If this were widely implemented across national parks, it would gut the basic premise of parks as refugia for wildlife and plants.
While co-management may be nothing more than “lip service” in some instance and may have no legal status, any public employee who does not at least appear to be compliant may suffer consequences.
Some tribal activists see co-management as the first step towards transferring public lands to tribal entities as part of the “Land Back” movement. Such a transfer would result in the loss of one of America’s most democratic institutions—its public lands heritage.
Leave a Reply