Inquiring minds might wonder why there has been only limited use of TFPA and GNA in this area, compared to other places, and how (or if) this bill would help that (other than providing funding?)
**************************
Jon posted this news story in a comment yesterday, and I think it’s innovative enough to deserve its own post. We’ve talked about what “co-management” means, and how it’s interpreted. I think we have to look very specifically at what is meant. Let’s develop a range of options- these are just some. Talking more? Sharing information? Using traditional ecological knowledge? Prioritizing projects of interest to Tribes? Giving Tribes’ views on management priority over other members of the public? Giving projects supported by Tribes some relief from litigation? Giving Tribes a seat at the table during legal settlements involving projects of concern? Conceivably, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are called co-stewardship, and all Forests (and the BLM) are supposed to be doing those, and they don’t require specific treaty rights or specific legislation.
WASHINGTON (KTVZ) — Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Senator Ron Wyden, along with Senator Jeff Merkley, reintroduced the Wy’east Tribal Resources Restoration Act. The legislation directs the U.S. Forest Service to partner with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to develop a co-management plan for agreed-upon Treaty Resource Emphasis Zones.
The legislation would establish one of the first placed-based co-management strategies in the nation.
It was introduced last Congress, and had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
“Indigenous communities have been responsible stewards of Oregon’s lands and wildlife since time immemorial. We must do more to capitalize on their leadership in our conservation efforts—not just because the federal government has a moral obligation to do so but because we will not be successful without them,” said Blumenauer. “Tribal co-stewardship represents 21st?century public lands management.”
“The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have generations-long knowledge of best ecological practices and treaty rights with the federal government that must be protected,” Wyden said. “This legislation would secure both goals in the Mount Hood National Forest by giving the Tribe an important voice and role in the management of its precious cultural resources.”
“The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs are the largest neighbor to the Mt. Hood National Forest and are essential in maintaining and protecting the region’s cultural and ecological resources,” said Senator Jeff Merkley. “This legislation is a critical step in fulfilling our treaty and trust responsibilities to the Warm Springs community by creating a framework for them to take an active role in co-managing the forest and utilizing their knowledge, traditions, and expertise to improve forest management.”
The Wy’east Tribal Resources Restoration Act:
· Directs the U.S. Forest Service to develop a co-management plan with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to protect and enhance Tribal Treaty resources and protect the Reservation from wildfire within agreed-upon “Treaty Resources Emphasis Zones.” These zones are areas within the Mount Hood National Forest subject to the Warm Springs-Forest Service co-management plan;
* Requires implementation of the Cultural Foods Obligations, which were included in the Public Lands Management Act of 2009 but have never been implemented;
· Integrates traditional ecological knowledge as an important part of the best available scientific information used in forest and resource management areas within the Zone;
· Authorizes $3,500,000 in annual appropriations and the use of existing Forest Service revenue to ensure the Tribe is a full participant in management.
Click here for bill text. Click here for a one-page fact sheet.
“We are grateful to Rep. Blumenauer and Senator Wyden for this legislation. Warm Springs people have cared for the land since the Creator placed us here, and this legislation will help reconnect Wy’east to its original inhabitants and integrate traditional ecological knowledge into federal land management. The bill would allow the Warm Springs Tribe to improve fish and wildlife habitat, reduce forest fuels and wildfire risk in the borderlands of our Reservation — an area designated as a priority fireshed by the U.S. Forest Service.? The result will improve forest and wildlife health for the benefit of all Oregonians,” said Warm Springs Chairman Jonathan Smith.
Note that all the folks quoted, except for Sustainable Northwest, are all recreation outfits of various kinds.
I thought that this was interesting, it seems to relate to the Zones of co-management and echoes the 2001 Roadless Rule (except off the top of my head the RR did not have the language “promote fire resilient stands.”
(C) include requirements that no temporary or permanent road shall be constructed within a Zone, except as necessary
‘‘(i) to meet the requirements for the administration of a Zone;
‘‘(ii) to protect public health and safety;
‘‘(iii) to respond to an emergency;
‘‘(iv) for the control of fire, insects, diseases, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
‘‘(D) to the maximum extent practicable, to meet the purposes of this section, provide for the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the historic forest structure or promotion of fire-resilient stands.
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it sounds like the intention is to have specific areas on the Forest to be co-managed for various reasons including wildfire resilience, without temporary roads. Which doesn’t really seem like co-management, suppose the Tribe wants to move material offsite for whatever reason? It seems like co-management within parameters the politicians have decided with the same analysis and litigation processes as currently exist. So what’s the advantage to the Tribe, or to the taxpayer other than more discussion and integrating TEK (everyone’s supposed to do that), and for which a statute is not needed? Actually it seems more restrictive to wildfire resilience than the current situation, based on the roadless-like requirements, so that’s puzzling.
Finally, I guess another question, perhaps more philosophical, is “suppose Tribes’ ecological knowledge is that temp roads are useful”? Maybe it’s not Traditional, but then who decides? Seems like sovereignty would say that Tribal views and knowledge are important, no matter what over what time frame this knowledge was developed. Here’s a USFWS definition of TEK.
Traditional Ecological Knowledge, also called by other names including Indigenous Knowledge or Native Science, (hereafter, TEK) refers to the evolving knowledge acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the environment. This knowledge is specific to a location and includes the relationships between plants, animals, natural phenomena, landscapes and timing of events that are used for lifeways, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping, agriculture, and forestry.
There might be an implicit colonizer bias here that Indigenous knowledge stopped being valuable when immigrants shared new technologies. Like other humans, Tribal folks adapt new ideas and technologies that work for them- in ways that might be different from the technologies as introduced. Think horses, woodstoves, and temp roads. What would a court case look like in which a Tribe argued that temp roads, done their way, used the best available science based on Current Indigenous Ecological Knowledge?
Anyway, I could have gotten this wrong, and I realize that there is a theatrical element to proposed legislation, so would appreciate thoughts of folks who know more.
This is discrimination plain an simple, and a violation of our equal rights and civil rights laws.
No group, based upon ethnicity, should be given control over federal lands while not giving equal rights to other ethnic groups.
I’m eagerly waiting for the day when all of this tribal crap winds up in court, and I believe any fair judge will shut down this craziness.
So I think there are two things going on here..(1) is that some Tribes have treaty rights of various kinds.(2) some treaties have been broken and justice would incline toward some kind of recompense and (3) there is a moral duty of some kind to the descendants of Indigenous people whose land was stolen by settlement and violence.
So when we leave the legal world and go into the moral world, there are all kinds of practical realities, like “what would be fair given the suffering that continues to this day” and “who exactly is impacted, by blood, location, economics, culture?” or “if land was originally taken by the Spanish or French, does the US have moral responsibility for the taking” or even if “if a Zambian immigrated to the US today, would they share in moral responsibility”? This seems like a bit of a jungle of questions that I don’t think most folks wade into.
As for me, I would be fine with giving whatever NF and BLM lands back that Tribes currently living there want to have, and with real sovereignty- including freedom from NEPA, ESA and litigation in the federal courts. To develop or not develop as they please. I would trust them to be better managers than people far away. They can have their own disagreements and we can move on to solving other national problems, of which there are many.
Here’s a story on the Ute Tribal Park https://gazette.com/life/the-other-mesa-verde-colorados-lesser-known-no-less-wondrous-tribal-park/article_9841d632-0ff2-11ec-b6f5-3f2527825a18.html
“National parks occupy a place of deep-seated apprehension in Indigenous communities across America. Mesa Verde is no different.
As David Treuer, an Ojibwe author and historian, put it in a recent Atlantic essay: “(W)hile the parks may be near us, and of us, they are not ours.”
They were taken by bloody force or nefarious agreements. The latter was the case for Mesa Verde.
“All of our national parks are built on stolen land,” says Norton, the state archaeologist, “but Mesa Verde, that land was stolen twice.””
“National parks occupy a place of deep-seated apprehension in Indigenous communities across America.”
A gross generalization? Here, tribes would like BLM land made a national monument and transferred to the National Park Service.
https://kiowacountypress.net/content/tribal-nations-push-bahsahwahbee-national-monument
“I would trust them to be better managers than people far away. They can have their own disagreements and we can move on to solving other national problems, of which there are many.”
You and the U.S. have different concepts of who should get to define “better.” And what is a national problem. Congress solved a national problem by deciding federal lands should managed for the benefit of all Americans. That’s the other end of the scale from locals deciding what is best for them, which caused the problems that federal land management solved.
Exactly.
Courts long ago agreed that native tribes (not “ethnic groups”) have treaty rights that others don’t have. (If that is “discrimination,” it’s legal.) This legislative proposal also states that it does not provide “any Indian Tribe with exclusive use of any area within the National Forest.”
I’m curious about the Cultural Foods Obligations from the Public Lands Management Act of 2009 – Google wasn’t very helpful – anyone have more information on that?
If no one here does, you could call the Mt. Hood and report back.
Having done history with the Oregon Congressional folks. It appears they are giving the Warm Springs folks dollars and the environmental folks possibly more roadless areas and saving the big trees. Warm Springs folks have been managing their area for a long time someone should evaluate how their knowledge has helped them with their management.
I think I commented earlier that treaties did not include obligations to enhance treaty rights. This bill would make that a purpose of these Treaty Resource Emphasis Zones, so I think that would stretch the “co-management” paradigm a bit farther.
Here’s an overview of “tribal forest management” that discusses the Tribal Forest Protection Act and incudes one example from 2023 involving the BLM: https://www.doi.gov/ocl/tribal-forest-management#:~:text=The%20Tribal%20Forest%20Protection%20Act,to%20protect%20Indian%20forest%20land.
Hi Sharon: I’m with you — I think the reservation lands should be given back to the Tribes and without government regulations regarding their management.
On the other hand, TEK was an academic/government invention used to pay lip service to the Tribes rather than let them have an actual say in the management of these lands. Same with so-called “indigenous knowledge,” TEK’s replacement. On the surface, these are mostly racist terms based on the idea that some people have valuable genetic information and skills exclusive to them and their ancestors. Mostly I have seen this device used to rationalize government-imposed restrictions in exchange for superficial claims of superior abilities.
Forest roads and trails are almost entirely based on ancient Indian trails connecting ridgeline travel routes with riparian travel routes, campsites, and villages. Phony compliments coupled with cash payments and the Enviros get to create more roadless areas under the guise of Tribal leadership. And fake collaboration. I’ve worked with many Tribes through the years, have had several Indian friends, and dated Tribal members when I was younger. Without exception they have embraced the uses of wheeled vehicles, chainsaws, and built and maintained roads along former pathways — just as earlier generations of Tribal elders also taught and practiced.
For some time my thought has been that living memory and experience is far more valuable for making forest management decisions than academic acronyms or genetics. Local people who have lived on the land and worked and played along its roads, trails, rivers, and creeks the longest are the ones who usually know it best. If their more recent ancestors (one to three or four) had done the same in the same locations, so much deeper the roots and appreciation, whatever the genetics. Those whose ancestors have lived the longest in those locations certainly deserve some positive recognition, but that certainly doesn’t mean they have any more ability to make land (and road) management decisions than other local people. Especially older and more experienced locals.
For these reasons — coupled with several decades off gross and documented mismanagement of our public lands — I think the reservations should be given to the Tribes and federal forestlands should be managed by local businesses and elected officials for their counties or state rather than by bureaucrats and modelers being directed by DC and paid for by taxpayers. The system is broken and fake “co-management” agreements won’t do much to fix it. In my opinion.
Bob, this is way above my level of knowledge but I think that the current state of having the reservation lands in trust has advantages (taxes)? I’m sure it’s been discussed on the internet somewhere by knowledgeable people, if someone would direct us there..
Your comment about turning the land over to the counties caught my eye. I believe the environmental folks have a long term strategy about taking over management of public lands. In the last 1/2 century they have moved the decision making from on the ground to DC because they are not in agreement with local on the ground folks
John: You are exactly right. The environmental industry has systematically and efficiently destroyed much of the “critical habitat” they were supposedly protecting, put thousands of rural families out of work, killed millions of wildlife, polluted the air, cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and ruined most of the rural manufacturing infrastructure without repercussions. I used to joke that the Chinese or North Koreans couldn’t do a better job of destroying the Pacific Northwest forest industry than the federal government, but it’s not funny anymore. Actually, never was. This was all predictable, clearly predicted, and blatantly ignored. Because of Global Warming? Remember Pogo and “the enemy?”
John, I think that there has been a more general tendency to more centralized decisions, not just about the environment. We even have that in Colorado about housing, where the State legislature and local governments are discussing State carrots and sticks.https://coloradosun.com/2024/05/08/colorado-land-use-bills-legislature-2024/
I think Shaun has pointed out that general tendency. We are supposed to believe that better policies will come from higher levels.. based on my experience, I am not so sure.
Ahead of the 2023 White House Tribal Nations Summit and as part of the Cobell settlement the Interior Department’s Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, some three million acres in fifteen states are being returned to Tribal trust ownership.So, a plan by the US Bureau of Reclamation to remand some 60,000 acres on the Wind River Reservation to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes is long overdue.
The moves come as the Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Forest Service announce partnerships with Sweetwater County, Wyoming to soothe Republicans who feel put upon by federal agencies despite handouts like grazing for pennies a head.
On 18 April Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced protections for 4,200 acres in New Mexico for lands sacred to the Santa Ana and San Felipe Pueblos. In Arizona she signed historic agreements with the Colorado River Indian Tribes and pledged $14.5 to the Navajo, Hopi and San Carlos Apache to electrify homes.In Colorado, Senator John Hickenlooper took fire from Republicans opposed to the creation of the Dolores River National Monument.Republicans in Arizona and Utah are challenging Pres. Biden’s authority to limit grazing permits and uranium mining on Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni — Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument and on Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. In most cases President Joe Biden should simply find the money, buy out Republican welfare ranchers and remand the ground to the Nations like the Klamath Tribes have been able to do and rewild the West.
What does Tribal ownership have to do with “rewilding?” Or is that a condition of ownership? If the Tribes are truly sovereign, then federal or state regulations shouldn’t be a part of a “trust” relationship. I honestly can’t imagine a Tribe wanting to “rewild” their land. I would expect maybe traditional practices and products, but fossil fuels, modern equipment, and Internet communications being integrated with modern ownership objectives.
During campaign stops in South Dakota and in the Apsáalooke or Crow Nation in 2008 then-Senator Barack Obama gave Indigenous Americans a ray of hope on the outcome of the centuries-long legal battle over the theft of some 48 million acres of their homeland. During the battle for Bears Ears Republicans nearly trumped the Obama-Biden administration’s efforts.
Jemez Pueblo considers the nearly 140-square-mile Valles Caldera National Preserve in northern New Mexico a spiritual sanctuary and part of its traditional homeland so the tribe sued in 2012 and appealed in 2014. Lawyers presented oral histories as proof of the tribe’s claim to the parcel but a federal district judge dismissed them under the so-called “hearsay rule.”
Indigenous history in the caldera goes back at least 8,000 years and obsidian quarried there for knives and projectile points is found throughout the region. The ancestors of Jemez Pueblo or Walatowa migrated into the area in the late 13th Century after Mesa Verde was laid bare.
In 2019 the case went to the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and in 2020 Native Americans overwhelmingly turned out to vote for Joe Biden. Former New Mexico Representative Deb Haaland is Secretary of the Department of Interior with oversight of the National Park Service and land repatriation as part of her wheelhouse.
In 2023 the Jemez Pueblo was granted title to a portion of the Preserve after the Court of Appeals issued a split ruling creating a precedent for other tribes seeking to regain rights to their traditional homelands. The National Park Service released a statement saying further litigation is likely.
https://www.bighorncountynews.com/news/crow-symposium-land-loss-and-economic-strangulation/article_a6eeeb7e-fc31-11ee-bd19-d7e022e9d5f0.html
From what I’ve seen, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs are much more active in their management than its neighbor, the Mt. Hood NF — about half of the 640,000-acre reservation is forested. The tribe used to operate a mill, but it shut down in 2016.
https://warmsprings-nsn.gov/program/department-of-forestry/
My friend Wayne Knauf is a retired Berkeley-educated forester and Colville Tribal member with strong opinions regarding federal “co-management” of Tribal forestlands — and in particular the BIA, which he doesn’t capitalize. I asked him for his opinion on this topic and he sent the following response to post. He has included his address and telephone number and an open invitation for anyone to respond with an interest in discussing his thoughts further and in more detail:
Bob, I first became acquainted with land management when I worked for my board and room on my three uncles’ ranches on the Colville Indian Reservation. I learned how to use a pitch fork, handle a team, and drive tractor. My first contact with the bia: “Wayne, this is the best job you are going to have, so get used to it.” Entered U.C. Berkely at 17, worked summers for USFS, Collins Pine, Diamond Match. During the school years worked in Forest Products research. Graduated with a B.S. in Forestry and a B.S. in Business Administration.
Applied for work with Diamond, Collins, USFS, Crown Zellerbach, Colville Tribes. Turned down — “over qualified.” Took a job with Rockport Redwood Co. Forester, timber sale administrator. Then to USFS, field and Auditor/ Accountant Regional Office. Western wood products, FM Crawford, merged into Georgia-Pacific, spun off to Louisiana Pacific, left for Barnum Timber, retiring from P&M Cedar Products. Starting as a Dirt Forester to President. And responsibilities in Corporate Operations.
Now to my viewpoint of Native American management of public lands and acquiring such lands. In my career I have managed land adjacent to and within reservations and tried to manage the family tribal allotment. Native Americans used these lands to provide their living, means to travel, and other projects. I have been told that they had a custodial relationship and not a fee ownership; others used the same land with and without conflicts. As I have seen in the west, land has been deeded to the tribes and in many cases it has been idled and Fire has burnt it. I am familiar with this more so in California lands that have gone idle. The 1897 Organic Act is well written and is good management, providing goods, services, and benefits to the local people, and to “furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the people of the United States.” We should be working within existing laws.
Where is the bia in this program? I have had very poor relations and help from this organization that was set up to” eliminate the Native American.” Bia put the family allotment in a timber sale. I offered to help mark the timber. No response except final “it’s already done.“ Bia: “If you do not sign the power of attorney” we can come to Lodi and take your property put your family on the street and take you back to the reservation. Timber sale sold, I asked for a copy of the contract and scale tickets. Bia: “Wayne if we give these to you, it will only confuse you.” Freedom of information request to the Secretary of the Interior got me the requested data. I have several more disappointing stories, resulting in the tribe acquiring the family allotment. Question: Does the bia get a percentage of gross receipts ??
Again I raise the question as to the benefit of giving public land to the tribes, use agreements, or permits. There is a need for the bia and tribes to involve tribal members to appreciate the land, resources, and benefits, in addition to the checks.
Wayne Knauf
President Resource and Recycle
(209) 334-4320
1714 Willow Pt. Ct.
Lodi Ca. 95242
California, RPF # 511
Michigan, RPF # 399
The French and Spanish were the first European invaders in what is now the northwest United States and when Lewis and Clark explored before it was Oregon when much of the region was inhabited by the Northern Paiute. The Malheur River Indian Reservation was created by President Ulysses Grant by executive order in 1871 for Paiutes living at Fort Harney until the Bannock War of 1878 dissolved the settlement. Harney County was split from Grant County in 1889 at the time of Statehood and Burns was named county seat. When it was admitted to the Union the Oregon Constitution even contained a clause forbidding Negroes from moving to the state.
Members of the Wadatika band of Burns Paiute sometimes known as the Harney Valley Paiute spread from the Cascade Mountains to Boise, Idaho but didn’t receive federal recognition until 1968.
Redneck crackers brand Black Lives Matter protesters as unemployed slackers but a horde of Huns that takes over a federal wildlife refuge in Harney County to hasten the End Days can call themselves patriots?
Today, white Republicans in the Northwest have clearly embraced the idea that the ground they live on seized for them from aboriginal cultures by liberal democrat, President Thomas Jefferson through an executive order that even he believed was unconstitutional.
In Montana there are twelve tribal nations living on seven reservations. But, rabid Republicans in that state aren’t just fearful of government overreach; they’re frightened public lands now held by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the US Forest Service will be remanded to the First Nations.
In my home state of South Dakota six Nations have banned a marauding governor.
Every federal department and agency already recognizes Native America as the 51st State so progress toward resolutions of Native trust disputes would have far more political traction after tribes secede from the States in which they reside and then be ratified to form one State, the 51st, sans contiguous borders with two US Senators and three House members as there are an estimated 2.5 million Indigenous Americans living on reservations.