An Interesting Point of View on our National Parks

buckland

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
3,096
Location
New England
Return the National Parks to the Tribes
Here is an article from the Atlantic. I found the idea a win/win. But with everything there are two sides.
Certainly I see the moral argument "who could possibly be more invested" . And there is the financial aspect as well. Perhaps a cooperative 50/50 with Federal having no more say than Indigenous people. Certainly financially supported by the US treasury/Interior.

It just feels like a good evolution.
 

Attachments

  • *National Parks Should Belong to Native Americans - The Atlantic.pdf
    354.4 KB · Views: 46
I imagine anything to do with the shepherding of such heritage will bring out strong opinion... but in the end if folks see it as "we have to something" to preserve and protect such incredibly valuable land yes...but also wildlife within... it means people have to play second fiddle... people hate that and come to a compromise where no-one wins but all are included. At least that would make my day.
 
I worked with many NW tribes for almost 30 years and observed hundreds of on-the-ground examples of how land and resources are managed and restored by tribal leaders, scientists and general membership. Often in collaboration with local, state and federal goverment entities, not-for-profits, citizen groups and environmental organizations. As many of the tribal folks will tell you, things wax and wane within the tribal societies as well as in the general non-tribal societies. But if the question is who would fare best with managing the National Parks over the long term, I come down firmly on the side of the tribes.

Details would need to negotiated, such as use of roads through the parks and what to do with parks whose original indigenous inhabitants were extirpated. Perhaps a 10 year dual management system, while usage and funding is worked out. The federal government has a long history of not living up to the financial promises and responsibilities to tribes and public lands. A permanent and fully adequate funding stream would need to be put in place.

So yes, this both could and would work.
 
I agree. I was thinking why not keep funding the same (or increased by need). It is all our land now... I would like to see the stewardship given back to the original owners with the deal that they now have a say with their values in how it will be preserved.
 
Interesting indeed. My sister-in-law belongs to the Miwok tribe mentioned in the beginning of the article, yes the tribe hunted down and chased from their Yosemite ancestral home. When we mention a trip to Yosemite, she smiles and says, "Have fun in our Park."

The removal from Yosemite was the third ordeal suffered by the tribe from the European expansion. The first was enslavement by the California missions. The second was enslavement by John Sutter.

She is currently a member of the tribal leadership working toward getting their casino. I'll pass the article on to her.
 
Great comments on this topic,but I figured you guys would come through.

We'll see where this idea goes.Hopefully it might get some traction if the right people get involved.

Frank
 
I have met Chuck Sams. He is a stand up good guy. Has a good vision for the land, water, fish, etc. Of course he is human like all of us and he is going to have to get the massive federal bureaucracy to move in a slightly new direction, which is no small task.
 
AWG_Pics said:
I worked with many NW tribes for almost 30 years and observed hundreds of on-the-ground examples of how land and resources are managed and restored by tribal leaders, scientists and general membership. Often in collaboration with local, state and federal goverment entities, not-for-profits, citizen groups and environmental organizations. As many of the tribal folks will tell you, things wax and wane within the tribal societies as well as in the general non-tribal societies. But if the question is who would fare best with managing the National Parks over the long term, I come down firmly on the side of the tribes.

Details would need to negotiated, such as use of roads through the parks and what to do with parks whose original indigenous inhabitants were extirpated. Perhaps a 10 year dual management system, while usage and funding is worked out. The federal government has a long history of not living up to the financial promises and responsibilities to tribes and public lands. A permanent and fully adequate funding stream would need to be put in place.

So yes, this both could and would work.
Howdy

In my little part of Oregon the tribes have done some good things.....

My only cause for hesitation in supporting things tribal is that the tribes have done lots of things because they have the Enormous Funding of their gambling casinos......

Gambling is an addiction and I feel that making BIG bucks from it is an unfortunate way for any governmental entity to function.

David Graves
 
buckland said:
I agree. I was thinking why not keep funding the same (or increased by need). It is all our land now... I would like to see the stewardship given back to the original owners with the deal that they now have a say with their values in how it will be preserved.
Howdy Buckland

One of the basic tenants of many indigenous belief systems is that no humans " own the land."
 
I guess we will see if the plan works at least as good as we have now or hopefully be an improvement.
 

Attachments

  • Native American tribes to co-manage Bears Ears national monument - The Washington Post.pdf
    67.7 KB · Views: 12
Back
Top Bottom