Bears Ears is just the beginning

Long before former President Barack Obama established Bears Ears National Monument — and former President Donald Trump nearly destroyed it — these geographically stunning southern Utah canyons were the setting of countless battles over who belongs to this land and whose history is worth saving. 

In the first weeks, if not days, of his administration, President Joe Biden is expected to restore the boundaries of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. But tribal leaders say that returning millions of acres should be only the beginning of Biden’s commitment to protect more public lands — and that tribal nations should be leading the charge. It’s more than just the threat of degradation, they say; Indigenous voices are long overdue in public-land management.

While Biden’s nomination of U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland as secretary of the Interior has given Indian Country reasons for hope, tribal leaders and advocates say she should be only one of many Indigenous people working with or inside the new administration. Biden has pledged to work toward protecting 30% of the country’s land and oceans by 2030. Tribal nations and communities have always asserted that their ties to and knowledge of the land should be consulted when land-management decisions are made. That’s a notion likely familiar to Biden.

The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, a group of tribal governments, worked with the Obama administration to create the original boundaries of Bears Ears. The partnership demonstrated an unprecedented reliance on tribal consultation for the federal government. For many Indigenous leaders, it became a blueprint for how to involve tribes in the stewardship of lands that were originally stolen from them but are also important to the country as a whole. 

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

<><><><><><><><><><><>

If the environmental community and others were really concerned these tribal lands were "originally stolen from them", wouldn't returning the goods to the original owner be the logical thing to do? If goods were stolen from you, would you want the authorities to turn the management of your goods over to a third party who would "consult" with you from time to time on the eventual use of the goods? That is essentially what the enviros are trying to sell here. Their way of showing deference to the tribes but keeping the lands in federal hands. If they truly revered these tribes and their historical ties to these lands, they would support returning them to tribal ownership and control.

I respect the views of vice chairman Tenakhongva, but believe he errs in two ways.

He uses the terms kiva and church to describe the importance of these cultural sites:

I try to focus on the relationship. Like a church and the kiva: What is the resemblance? It’s a place of worship. It’s a place of prayer, and it’s a place where community gathers. This is a place where a lot of decisions of culture, hope and recognition of life (are made).”

 It is a significant mistake to establish and attempt to practice any religion on government property. Over time the ability to gather, worship, and pray will be subsumed by other government priorities and either banned or regulated beyond recognition.

Tenakhongva states he would like these lands to be protected by "permanent, formal legislation." There is no such thing. Any law passed can be later amended or completely struck. The closest thing to permanent would be to have those cultural sites transferred to the tribes. And I don't mean held in trust by the feds on behalf of the tribes, but owned by the tribes themselves. Only then would you control your own destiny.