Alaskans: On Indigenous Beliefs and Wilderness – Focus on Common Elements, not Differences

 

Artwork by Linsday Carron

 

A recent article from the Rewilding Institute, authored by a former U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist and two Native Alaskans, cautions us not to focus on differences between traditional Indigenous beliefs and the “modern” wilderness concept. Rather, with the huge environmental threats that we all face, we should recognize what they have in common.

Roger Kaye worked for the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Alaska for 41 years, as Native liaison and wilderness coordinator. He notes that early Indigenous people had no concept of wilderness, but neither did EuroAmericans before they were exposed to environmental degradations that led to developing the wilderness ethic. He cites the notion that “Wilderness” implies such pristine conditions that it fails to recognize the presence of Indigenous peoples on the prehistoric landscape - as an unfortunate misunderstanding. The notion is currently common within major environmental organizations, often justifying their diminished emphasis on Wilderness, replaced by support for “working landscapes”.

Kaye cites the Wilderness Act: “a place where man is [currently] a visitor and does not remain”, a place that appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature. He states the idea of Wilderness was a reaction against environmental threats of the industrial age. “It was certainly not at variance with the Indigenous people or their sustainable lifeways.”

Polly Napiryuk Andrews is Cup’ik Eskimo, working for the SouthCentral Native Foundation. She says “Too often we focus” on differences between the traditional world view and the Wilderness concept, “whereas commonality is what’s important”. She finds Indigenous traditional ways of expressing the relationships upon which our mutual well-being depends are reflected in early justifications of the Wilderness Act, recognizing dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.

Bernadette Dimientieff is Gwitch’in Athabaskan, pursuing protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and environmental justice. Her people have a spiritual and cultural connection with caribou that need the Refuge as a birthing ground. She states, “More than any other land category or management system, Wilderness recognizes our way of relating to the land and the Earth. The Wilderness idea that humans are part of a larger ‘community of life’ has been known to my people for millennia. We can live as respectful, interdependent, and low-impact members of this Earth’s community of life.”

The message of these Alaskans, to focus on commonalities rather than differences, applies to our issue of restoring wild bison to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Our view is that restored public-trust bison should be managed, to the extent practicable, to maintain the wild plains bison genome, the underlying basis for wildness – not domestication. Management would be based on concepts of modern evolutionary genetics. This goal is supported in law and policy of the Fish & Wildlife Service.

In contrast, some Montana Tribes, backed by the National Wildlife Federation, have proposed restoration with Tribal-trust bison and an uncertain management priority for retaining wildness vs. priorities for commercial and nutritional needs of Tribes.

The Indigenous spiritual/cultural view that humans are part of a larger community of life is consistent with modern ecological thought. The view that humans and other animals are “related”, as Plains Tribes considered bison to be “brothers”, is consistent with evolutionary genetics. These common, most basic principles, generating respect based on interdependence and interrelatedness, should lead all of us to support management of CMR bison that emphasizes accepting natural selection, including allowance for great bison mobility – which is the most basic evolved trait of plains bison. There is currently no greater opportunity for achieving this goal, for all the American people, than on the CMR Refuge. Rejecting divisiveness, we all can “let bison be bison”.

 

 

 

Interior and Agriculture Departments Will Fulfill Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in Managing Federal Lands and Waters

 

In November, Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior released a joint order to ensure that management of resources, including National Forests, Parks and Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Land Management lands, protects treaty, religious, subsistence and cultural interests of Native American Tribes. The wide-ranging order mandates Tribal collaboration in management priorities and activities for millions of acres of land, waters and their resources, including wildlife.

The order mandates “collaboration in co-stewardship” of Federal lands and resources, including wildlife and wildlife habitat. Notably, “co-stewardship” is a nebulous term. However, the order recognizes that activities must be “consistent with applicable law”. Laws include Congressionally mandated mission statements for agencies and for individual federal land holdings. Proceeding with some caution, the White House has ordered a legal review of land, water and wildlife treaty responsibilities, and a guidance document on the co-use of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge with science. These are to be completed within one year.

These directives could shape any action on the Coalition’s goal to restore public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR), which is already in an uncertain legal-political quandary. Questions that must be addressed include:

Are states’ rights subservient to federal Tribal treaty obligations that are older than statehood? States claim primary authority to manage most of their wildlife, especially hunting, even on federal land. While federal agencies have superior rights on federal lands, the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) almost always yields to the state assertion. Might FWS use treaty obligations to justify restoring bison on the CMR and eventually to conduct federal hunting seasons, both without the state’s blessing?

What would co-stewardship of a CMR wild bison herd look like? How will Tribes be represented and how will the rest of the general American public be represented. What, if any, priorities will be given to Tribal proposals?

To what degree can Tribal aspirations for bison be fulfilled while prioritizing the general American public and maintaining the genetic and ecological integrities of wild bison, as required in applicable law?

To what degree, must treaty, religious, subsistence and cultural interests of Tribes be fulfilled by CMR bison? Are these interests more properly fulfilled on multiple-use lands than on Refuge lands congressionally dedicated for natural ecosystems and wildlife?