Should the National Parks be Returned to Tribal Administration?

Citation:

Treuer, David. “Return the National Parks to the Tribes.” Atlantic 327, no. 4 (May 2021): 30-45.

Importance of This Article:

Historically, the formation of the national park system has often involved the violent disenfranchisement of native peoples. In this article, David Treuer traces several examples of this disenfranchisement and argues that to help rectify past injustices and ensure the continued ecological preservation of national park areas, the governance of the national parks should be transferred to native tribes.

Summary:

David Treuer’s article in The Atlantic offers a critical examination of the U.S. national parks system’s history, particularly focusing on the significant displacement and suffering of Native American tribes due to its establishment. Treuer recounts the forceful eviction of tribes, such as the Miwok and Nez Perce, from their ancestral lands, leading to the creation of parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone.

The author argues that despite being admired as “America’s best idea,” national parks were established on stolen lands, often after tribes were forcibly removed or signed treaties under duress. He outlines how land dispossession was common, citing historical instances like the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Dawes Act of 1887.

Using his personal travels and historical insights, Treuer showcases the ironic contradiction between the ideal of national parks and their violent, often overlooked history. He also highlights the struggles and efforts of tribes such as the MHA (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) Nation to preserve their culture and traditions in the face of repeated dispossession and dislocation.

The article criticizes the mismanagement and degradation of national parks due to overcrowding, habitat loss, shrinking staff, and political interference. Treuer advocates for the return of these lands to the Native tribes as a form of restitution and to ensure better management and preservation. He cites precedents in Australia and New Zealand where significant natural landmarks have been returned to indigenous control. He concludes with a call for permanent, unencumbered access for Native people to their ancestral lands to strengthen their communities and cultures.

                                                                                                                                              Report compiled by Samuel Holman – article summary generated by GPT-4 

Back to Top

The Displacement of Others: Early Euro-American Settlers Forced Off Their Lands During the Formation of Shenandoah Park

Citation:
Henderson, Kristin. 2023. “A Monumental Effort.” National Parks 97 (3): 46–53. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.library.ewu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=164496513&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Importance of This Article:

By the 1930s, thousands of people had settled and were living in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Many individuals and families living in this area were displaced in order to make Shenandoah National Park become a reality. This article is important because it discusses the modern efforts that have made to remember and honor those individuals and families who left, and were sometimes forced, off of their land during the formation of the park.   

Summary:

The article discusses the efforts of descendants of the mountain people who were displaced during the creation of Shenandoah National Park in the 1930s. The displacement caused significant pain for the families who had settled in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and their stories were often overlooked.

To honor these stories, Bill Henry, a retired high school teacher, initiated the Blue Ridge Heritage Project. The project aims to build eight monuments, each located in a county that gave up land for the park. The monuments consist of stone chimneys with plaques listing the names of the displaced families. This initiative has provided a means for the descendants to find closure and healing, as they are able to tell their own stories and ensure that their history is not forgotten.

This article focuses on the efforts of a group of individuals in Virginia to honor the displaced families. They have built monuments in each of the eight counties affected, with the final one in Augusta County set to be completed soon. These monuments serve as touchstones for displaced families and offer teachable moments for visitors. The effort has also inspired gatherings to celebrate mountain culture and a Mountain Museum has been opened. The counties’ tourism directors are collaborating on a driving tour app to direct visitors to important sites. The article highlights the efforts of individuals like Darryl G. Merchant and Carrie Eheart, who have personal connections to the displaced families and have worked to preserve their history.

                                                                                                                                      Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back To Top

How do the National Park Access Rights of Native Americans Compare to the Indigenous Groups of Russia and Australia?

Citation:

Poirier, Robert, and David Ostergren. “Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights and National Parks in Australia, Russia, and the United States.” Natural Resources Journal 42, no. 2 (2002): 331–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24888882.

Importance of This Article:

In the U.S., the creation of the National Park system as a way to preserve natural landscapes led to the exclusionary treatment of indigenous people groups. However, this historical theme is not unique to the United States. This article compares how the U.S., Russia, and Australia all created areas that preserved natural landscapes at the expense of indigenous access, and how the relationships between the indigenous peoples of these countries and the natural preservation areas have evolved over time.

Summary:

In Poirier and Ostergren’s “Evicting People from Nature,” the authors embark on a comparative exploration of how the national park systems of Russia, Australia, and the United States were created at the expense of indigenous people groups, and how, in recent decades, the respective governments of each country have begun to recognize and protect the existence, cultural traditions, and resources of these indigenous groups. The authors note that at around the same time, all three countries expanded across large land areas while encountering indigenous resistance. All three exploration periods offered significant opportunities for natural resource exploitation and political reward. Each country initially created national parks out of a nineteenth-century viewpoint that excluded indigenous peoples from its idea of wilderness – but in recent times, all three countries have moved towards a recognition of how indigenous human influences affected the evolution and formation of the natural environment. [1]

To combat ambiguity in their comparisons, the authors define a national park as an area set aside by a national government in order to protect and preserve the region’s natural resources while still allowing visitor access. They also note some distinctions between each country’s method of national park administration. The United States primarily operates the parks through federal governance under Congress and the National Park Service, while Australia’s management is more decentralized, involving both federal and state agencies. For the purposes of the article, the Soviet and Russian systems of administration – directed from Moscow – are treated as synonymous. [2]

Turning to a historical overview of each country’s national parks, Poirier and Ostergren describe how the economic draws of tourism, combined with a perception of Native Americans as part of a hostile landscape that needed taming, prompted the dichotomous creation of national parks and reservations in the United States. Similarly, Australian settlers viewed the indigenous population as a threat that needed to be conquered. The indigenous people of Australia were never explicitly forced out of an area for the creation of a national park. However, they lost their land rights, and, when the first national parks were created in the late 1800s, the parks encompassed significant amounts of land inhabited by indigenous Australians. Russian patterns of expansion were governed by economics – if indigenous peoples could offer useful resources, they were permitted to continue pursuing traditional lifestyles. The authors note that by the 1870s, the works of George Perkins Marsh – notably his 1864 essay “Man and Nature” – had generated a worldwide ideal embracing the preservation of “wild” natural environments, an ideal that influenced the national park concept in the U.S., Australia, and Russia. [3] In 1921 Lenin established a system of protected preserves in Russia, a system which largely ignored indigenous peoples and their rights. In many cases, the areas set aside for inclusion in this system had already been vacated, but several instances of forced indigenous relocation took place. [4]

While acknowledging the vast diversity of indigenous people groups, traditions, and lifestyles contained within the U.S., Australia, and Russia, Poirier, and Ostergren argue that most indigenous groups assigned significant spiritual and intrinsic value to their natural surroundings, in addition to any value that natural resources had as a commodity. The natural world was not something to be conquered, but a critical part of their traditions and belief systems.  Thus, the physical dispossession of traditional lands eroded much more than simple access to a physical place of residence. [5]

The authors then offer a brief overview of the jurisprudential history surrounding indigenous land claims. They note that in contrast to Russia and Australia, the United States has operated within the context of treaty relationships between the federal government and indigenous groups. Nevertheless, all three countries have functionally disregarded indigenous land claims. However, since the mid-twentieth century, international law propagated by bodies like the UN, the World Conservation Union, and UNESCO has led to increased recognition and consideration for indigenous peoples and the necessity of preserving culturally significant sites. [6]

Moving onto the current policies of each country, the authors describe how the National Park Service of the United States has entered a more cooperative relationship with the indigenous population in recent years, though true joint management is not present. Australia, on the other hand, has incorporated forms of joint management in several national parks. In Russia, multiple legislative measures that emerged in the years following the fall of the Soviet Union have generally reflected increased recognition of indigenous rights and traditional lifestyles, though implementation methods of this recognition have remained murky. [7]

Concluding the article, Poirier and Ostergren offer a final comparison: all three countries have restricted indigenous land rights in the creation of the national parks, but while Australia has taken significant steps to improve access and recognition of indigenous rights, the United States has only provided small concessions to indigenous claims. Meanwhile, Russia has offered recognition of indigenous rights, but the practical amount of national park access granted by this recognition still remains unclear. The authors finish by calling for the continued adoption of joint management in Australia and consideration of a similar management model in the United States. [8]

1. “Evicting People from Nature,” 331-332.
2. “Evicting People from Nature,” 332-333.
3. “Evicting People from Nature,” 334.
4. “Evicting People from Nature,” 333-335.
5. “Evicting People from Nature,” 335-338
6. “Evicting People from Nature,” 338-343.
7. “Evicting People from Nature,” 343-350.
8. “Evicting People from Nature,” 350-351.

Report by Samuel Holman

Back to Top

How has the Dispossession of Public Lands Negatively Impacted Native Americans?

Citation:

Long, Jonathan W., and Frank K. Lake. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps through Tribal Stewardship on National Forest Lands in the Pacific Northwest, United States of America.” Ecology and Society 23, no. 2 (2018). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799109.

Importance of This Article:

It is critical to understand the impact that the dispossession of Native American lands for the purpose of creating public reserves like the National Parks and Forests had on Indigenous communities. This article examines how varied aspects of European colonization and land dispossession generated “social-ecological traps” that have endangered the well-being of tribal communities in the context of the Pacific Northwest. Understanding these situations can create new mindsets for policymakers and the American public, provide a greater awareness of the reciprocal relationship that has existed between Native Americans and the Pacific Northwest landscape, and offer possible paths to safeguard tribal well-being and traditional lifestyles.

Summary:

Long and Lake begin their article with a brief overview of research that others have previously conducted in the field, noting that several scholars have found that pre-European indigenous cultures proved long-lasting and able to sustain important natural resources. They further describe research indicating that European colonization, the subsequent loss of traditional lands, and the resultant inability to practice traditional lifestyles led to detrimental economic and health issues and contributed to the erosion of traditional family and community structures among Pacific Northwest tribes. The authors outline how they plan to build on this research by examining how forest land management – specifically, those administrated by public land agencies like the U.S. Forest Service – can be conducted in a way that provides ecological resources and stewardship opportunities critical to the well-being of Pacific Northwest tribes. Furthermore, they want to investigate how an approach that involves collaborating with indigenous peoples in the pursuit of these management strategies can help both restore ecological resources and improve tribal well-being. [1]

The authors provide a brief history of tribal relationships with what is now public land, noting how Euro-American colonization led to indigenous confinement on reservations and estrangement from ancestral lands, many of which came under the control of federal agencies. Treaties required these agencies to protect tribal rights and resources, but in the mid-1900s the U.S. Government ceased recognition of a number of tribes and removed many lands from tribal jurisdiction, a disruption that led to long-lasting conditions of poverty in many tribal communities. [2]

Long and Lake then introduce the concept of social-ecological traps, describing them as lasting disadvantageous states resulting from the relationships between social actors, institutions, and the natural environment. The authors assert that such traps were created in the Pacific Northwest through the federal separation of tribes from their traditional lands and resources, and the subsequent development methods – such as dam construction – which have negatively affected resources of tribal significance. Misguided rejection of indigenous land management methods – such as guided burns – has also contributed to this state. The authors do note that in recent decades, some tribes have experienced economic benefits from the usage of the natural resources that still exist on their lands. In addition, the same time period has also seen indigenous groups gain increased influence over the management of tribal and traditional lands, though many indigenous groups assert that public lands have not met their potential to support tribal communities and preserve the ecologies that have traditionally been overseen by the tribes. [3]

After briefly describing their research methods, the authors relate the results of their studies. They explain how they identified numerous factors contributing to the creation of social-ecological traps, namely the removal of indigenous populations to reservations, the cessation of traditional land-management methods, the legal termination of tribal status, the restraints imposed on practices like controlled burns, the extermination or disappearance of wildlife, the construction of dams, the pollution of streams and forests, the inhibitions imposed on tribal resource access, the resource competition from non-indigenous parties, and the erosion of traditional tribal knowledge and intertribal connections. [4]

Long and Lake describe how these factors have had both natural impacts – such as the increase of unsustainable resource-harvesting practices – and human impacts – including a rise in malnutrition and suicide among indigenous populations – in the Pacific Northwest. With these effects in mind, the authors propose several solutions to combat the social-ecological traps established in the Pacific Northwest. They emphasize the management of forest resources and fires – the aspects most applicable to the federal land management agencies that the article is focused on. The measures proposed include active management and conservation of old-forest ecologies, adaptive introduction of fire management, establishment of reserved areas for indigenous communities to access traditional resources, species reintroduction, dam removals, incorporation of tribal influence through cooperative management, and integration of tribal resource restoration endeavors with efforts to preserve Pacific Northwest ecological landscapes. [5]

The authors conclude the article by noting that overcoming social-ecological traps may require an extended process of experimentation, adaptation, and the overcoming of public misconceptions about the interconnected nature of social-ecological systems. They finish by arguing that a greater understanding of social-ecological traps can help policymakers and the public grasp the complex nature of relationships between humans and the ecology and offer a chance to both benefit tribal communities and enhance the sustainability of public lands in the Pacific Northwest. [6]

1. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps,” 1.
2. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps,” 1-2.
3. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps,” 2-3.
4. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps,” 4-7.
5. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps,” 7-9.
6. “Escaping Social-Ecological Traps,” 9-10.

Report by Samuel Holman

Back to Top

Citation:

Bergeron, Emily. “The Price of Global Conservation: Benefits and Burdens of Parks and Conservation Areas.” Natural Resources & Environment 33, no. 2 (2018): 3–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27010473

Summary:

This article discusses the negative impacts of parks and conservation areas on indigenous populations, including displacement, resource deprivation, and exclusion from decision-making processes. It emphasizes the need for recognizing indigenous rights and addressing environmental justice issues in conservation efforts.

Sample Question:

Q: What are examples of specific cases where indigenous people have been displaced from their lands for the creation of protected areas?

A: One example is the illegal eviction of the Baiga, an indigenous people from India’s Kanha National Park. This eviction was carried out in March 2018, despite the fact that it breached the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of India, which was established to protect the rights of indigenous people and forest dwellers to their land and resources.

Another case is the displacement of the Nuevo Lamas Kichwa community in Peru. Their homes were overlapped by a protected area, and in 2016, they received title for only 31 hectares of the 1,650 hectares of their land. The rest of the territory was put under a leasehold agreement that retained the area under state ownership, granting use and access rights to the community. However, the titled land was insufficient to support the people, and the nature of the contractual agreement meant that the community could lose even these limited rights.

                                                                                                                                          Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back to Top

How Have National Parks in Costa Rica Displaced Rural Communities?

Article Citation:

Lenti, Joseph U. 2023. “‘Only the Rivers Do Not Come Back’: Conservation Displacement and Rural Responses in Costa Rica.” Latin American Research Review 58 (2): 326–41. doi:10.1017/lar.2023.2.

Importance of This Article:

Conservation efforts, whether embodied in national parks or another form, are generally espoused as worthy goals. However, in some cases, there is a human cost to environmental preservation. This article explores how that human cost manifested in the country of Costa Rica, where preservation efforts helped create situations where rural residents found themselves displaced from traditional living spaces and lifestyles.

Summary:

This article examines the impact of land conservation efforts in Costa Rica and the resulting displacement of rural communities. While conservation initiatives have successfully protected natural resources and supported the growth of the ecotourism industry, they have also led to the loss of land access for rural people, who relied on these lands for their survival. As a result, there has been resistance through land invasions, squatting, unauthorized activities, and even environmental crimes. The article explores how displacement has disadvantaged rural communities, and how communities have responded to said displacement.

The article notes that the issue of rural displacement in Costa Rica predates conservation efforts. Land concentration and the expansion of the ranching industry were already causing displacement of rural communities before the establishment of protected areas. However, the creation of national parks and nature reserves exacerbated the problem, as rural people lost access to even more lands that were designated for conservation.

The concept of the “nature state” is introduced and discussed in relation to conservation efforts in Costa Rica. The term refers to the tension between genuine conservation efforts and policies that may serve social control or geopolitical interests. In the case of Costa Rica, conservation initiatives have successfully protected natural resources and supported the growth of the ecotourism industry. However, these efforts have also led to the loss of land access for rural people who relied on these lands for survival. In other words, the Costa Rican government pursued policies that valued ecological preservation at the cost of rural displacement – acting out of both preservationist sentiment and a desire to emphasize the lucrative ecotourism industry.

The establishment and challenges faced by national parks in Costa Rica, particularly Santa Rosa National Park and Corcovado National Park, are discussed in another section of the article. Issues such as squatting, illegal hunting, and resistance from local inhabitants are highlighted. The government has worked to evict settlers and relocate them while also protecting the parks’ resources.

Notably, the creation of Corcovado National Park in 1975 led to conflicts with farmers and ranchers who posed a threat to the preservation of the area. In the 1980s, large mining companies displaced small gold miners into the park, causing environmental damage. Despite the revenue generated by tourism, the perception among the poor was that gold mining was more lucrative. The government attempted to evict the miners, but they continued to return. The situation reached a breaking point in 1983, leading to urgent action from the former president. The influx of miners continued, causing further damage to the park. The government sought a peaceful solution and reached an agreement in 1986, providing land and assistance to miners who wanted to become farmers. However, evictions continued, and the problem of squatting and gold mining in the park has yet to be fully resolved.

In conclusion, the article provides a detailed examination of the issue of rural displacement caused by land conservation efforts in Costa Rica. It highlights the various ways in which rural communities have resisted conservation displacement and the methods used by the government in addressing this issue. The article explores some of the complexities and contradictions inherent in conservation efforts, where genuine conservation goals may sometimes overshadow the rights and needs of rural communities.

Report compiled by Samuel Holman – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back to Top

Food or Forest? Park Land-Use Planning in Zambia

Citation:

Hou-Jones, Xiaoting, Phil Franks, and Jin-ho Chung. “Case Study: Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW), Zambia.” Creating Enabling Conditions for Managing Trade-Offs between Food Production and Forest Conservation in Africa: Case Studies from Ethiopia and Zambia. International Institute for Environment and Development, 2019. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28978.6 

Summary:

This report discusses the case study by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia about efforts to manage trade-offs between food production and forest conservation. It emphasizes the importance of participatory land-use planning and engaging multiple stakeholders in the process. The report also highlights the enabling conditions and barriers to managing these trade-offs and identifies opportunities for scaling up efforts.

Topics Addressed in This Source:

• How does the Department of National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia manage trade-offs between food production and forest conservation?
• What are the challenges and successes of managing competing land-use needs in game management areas?
• How can stakeholders be engaged in the participatory land-use planning process at national and local levels?

  Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI

Back to Top