Co-Stewardship of All State and National Parks with Indigenous Tribal Nations from Local Areas

Introduction

Indigenous peoples have inhabited the land in North America for millennia before the origination of United States. There have been over 800 treaties the United States has entered into and broken with Indigenous Tribal Nations (Lyons, 1992, p. x, para. 2). According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Indian Commerce Clause, the federal government is to regulate commerce with Tribal Nations as they do with foreign nations and among the states. Article 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause, recognizes treaties as the supreme law of the land. These treaties were sacred and solemn promises to be kept intact, “as long as the rivers flow and the sun rises in the east” (Lyons, 1992, p. ix). The website digitreaties.org has over 374 treaties in their database, all of which have been broken. The website Native-lands.ca indicates what Indigenous Tribal Nations occupy which area across Turtle Island, otherwise known as the United States.

In McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) the Supreme Court ruled that much of the eastern portion of the state of Oklahoma remains as Native American lands of the prior Indian reservations of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes in Oklahoma, which was never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906. In June of 2016, the Organization of American States ratified the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognized human and civil rights relative to the first peoples of the Americas.

 

Public Policy Issue

The Federal Government owes a legal and moral responsibility to Tribal Nations in terms of land recognition and sovereignty, according to more than 800 broken Treaties with Tribal Nations, which amounted to stolen land and broken promises.

Critical Dimensions:

Policy Type

The issue is political, social, and economic.

Political:

The issue is political as Tribal Nations are sovereign as outlined in the Indian Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Pluralism, of whether Tribal Law, State Law, or Federal Law applies, is also political.

Social:

This issue is social because different Indigenous groups would be able to use these lands to partake in traditional ceremonies with nature, plants, and animals. In the court case of Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service (9th Cir. 2008), artificial snow containing sewage water was used on the sacred San Francisco peaks, and Navajo people and 12 other nations made an appeal under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to stop this. The ninth circuit ruled this was not a “substantial burden” on the religious freedom of American Indians. In Lyng v. Northwest Cemeteries (1988), the Supreme Court ruled the free exercise clause of the first amendment does not prohibit the government from harvesting timber or constructing a road through a portion of the national forest that is considered a sacred religious site by three Native American tribes. Co-stewardship would also be a benefit in the relationship of trust between Indigenous peoples and the federal government.

Economic:

This issue is economic. After all, in 1980, the Supreme Court awarded the nine tribes constituting the Oglala Sioux $105 million for the illegal seizing of the sacred black hills, which broke the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. In 2011, this trust value had increased to $1.3 billion. The Tribes refuse the money as they believe accepting the funds would constitute a transaction of a sale of lands, and the Tribal Nation Leaders emphasize how the land was never for sale. By giving co-stewardship of lands with Tribal Nations, economic responsibility is transitioned to co-stewardship of giving land back to original inhabitants, of the 574 federally recognized Tribes and over 100 state recognized tribes who were here before the United States was established.

Scale      

The scale of this problem is “macro” since this issue is a societal issue and organizational. Depending on what the Federal government decides to agree upon will impact the Tribal Nations, State residents, United States citizens, and visitors.

Location

Since the issue across the United States at all State and National Parks, the physical location is within territories of the Federal, State, and Tribal governments.

Intensity

This issue has come to public awareness because Indigenous rights and treatment by the Federal Government towards Indigenous Peoples is a current discussion in our collective consciousness nationally and abroad. This issue is not something everyone feels strongly about; it is centered around Tribal Nations, State Park agencies, National Park Agencies, Citizens who visit the parks, and visitors from Internationally.  The conversation of Land Back to Indigenous peoples has becomes more prevalent nationally and abroad, and this legislative step would address this issue. Environmental conservation is a top priority globally and incorporating Indigenous knowledge systems and wisdom passed down to Indigenous elders could be mutually beneficial for Indigenous peoples in preserving cultural insights and allies in gaining necessary environmental conservation skills.

Extensiveness

The issue is extensive since federal, and state recognized Tribal Nations across the United States, can offer their support and consultation to establish relationships with State and National parks.

Timeline

The timeline of this issue is cross-sectional (time independent) because the passage of time will not eliminate the solution to change. It is an issue of honoring treaty obligations by the Federal Government to Tribal Nations. If this issue is not addressed in the present moment, the chances of legislative change in terms of land recognition towards Indigenous peoples may likely decrease. The Federal Government will have to decide what is in their best interest environmentally, economically, socially, and morally, and what they may or may not benefit from without time changing the solution.

a)     The stakeholders and their likely positions on the issues.

i) Significant Stakeholder: Tribal Nations  

Position on the issue: To carry out sovereignty in Nation-to-Nation decision making, and practice traditional ceremonies in connection to sacred places on Turtle Island on Mother Earth.

Levels of influence: Initially Low, Potentially High

Preferred solution: Their preferred solution is to have co-stewardship of State and National Parks with Tribal Nations from local areas.

ii) Significant Stakeholder: State Park Agencies    

Position on the issue: To maintain a clean and accessible park

Levels of influence: Initially Low, Potentially High

Preferred solution: Their preferred solution is to maintain a decision-making position in protecting State Parks and having use for all peoples.

iii) Significant Stakeholder: National Park Agencies

Position on the issue: To maintain a clean and accessible park

Levels of influence: Low

Preferred solution: Their preferred solution is to maintain a decision-making position in protecting State Parks and having use for all peoples.

iv) Significant Stakeholder: President of the United States

Position on the issue: To maintain our State and National Parks and make right injustices in the past towards broken treaties and promises to Indigenous Tribal Nations.

Levels of influence: High

Preferred solution: A solution where all peoples are united and care about our land, and each other.

v) Significant Stakeholder: Secretary of Interior, Deb Haaland

Position on the issue: Increase Nation-to-Nation relationships between the Federal Government and Tribal Nations

Levels of influence: High

Preferred solution: Co-stewardship of all State and National Parks with Tribal Nations of Local Areas.

vi) Significant Stakeholder: National Park Service Director, Charles “Chuck” Sams III

Position on the issue: They are the first Indigenous American to lead the National Park service. Sams is Cayuse, Walla Walla, and is a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Sams desires to be a good steward for natural resources and has indicated they look forward to joining the dedicated and dynamic staff of the National Park Service.

Levels of influence: High

Preferred solution: Would likely be in favor of co-stewardship of all State and National Parks with Tribal Nations Local Areas.

 

Policy Alternatives

Status quo: To take no action and maintain a history of 800 broken treaties with Tribal Nations.

Assessment of Alternatives

No action would be a potentially easier path in the short-term. However, the option of no action does not have as much potential for healing, unification, addressing past injustices, and righting economic reparations through giving land back in co-stewardship.

 

Work Cited

American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2016). https://www.oas.org/en/sare/documents/DecAmIND.pdf​

https://digitreaties.org/​

https://native-land.ca/

Lyons, O. (Ed.). (1992). Exiled in the land of the free: democracy, Indian nations, and the US Constitution. Clear Light Pub.

Legro, T. (2011). Why the Sioux Are Refusing $1.3 Billion. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/north_america-july-dec11-blackhills_08-23

“US Constitution.” ConstitutionUS.com, 2022, https://constitutionus.com/