VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Actually, a shot at pre-enlightenment Europe and the old catholic church.
Decolonizing conservation - shortcomings of NAMWC
- Thread starter Hydrophilic
- Start date
Bluffgruff
Well-known member
Other people have said more eloquent things, but most reservations that have lots of game still manage for opportunity for their members, and may or may not offer nonresidents a chance to share their good work.
And most reservations are NOT like big ranches, they are a patchwork of nonmember fee lands, tribal fee lands, and tribal trust lands, which makes game management even more complicated.
CowboyLeroy
Well-known member
Sounds like a ranch to me
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,602
Could we get some bona fide natives and anthropologists on this thread? I’ve read over all of the well-written insights here posted by we experts. Discourse appears to have devolved into righteous opines of those born into privilege.
RobertD
Well-known member
The difference is even though the tribe might own the land it isn't one single piece of land with one single land manager. I think that's the point he's making.
Bluffgruff
Well-known member
Imagine you are trying to grow a healthy
herd of anything on green, yellow, and red, but somebody on a white patch kills 25 subadults a year in their alfalfa field.
No law is perfect. The NAM helps all users. Yes the money collected goes to the state. And is open to all , equally.
In Ak local knowledge is considered. In my opinion, the biggest problem is that we have 2 management systems. Federal system using passive management and state using harvesting for maximum use open to all. And the federal system giving a priority over resources that belong to all equally.
In times of shortage of game for food local folks have the highest opportunity in both systems.
I do not have the same rights to the resources because of my bloodline per federal law. I live in Ak, in America. I can't fix what some perceive to be shortfalls in the past. Because they were not treated equal. And trying to balance the scales by giving more to others based on politics will only continue to cause controversy.
Hey, I'm American believing we should all be treated equal.
In Ak local knowledge is considered. In my opinion, the biggest problem is that we have 2 management systems. Federal system using passive management and state using harvesting for maximum use open to all. And the federal system giving a priority over resources that belong to all equally.
In times of shortage of game for food local folks have the highest opportunity in both systems.
I do not have the same rights to the resources because of my bloodline per federal law. I live in Ak, in America. I can't fix what some perceive to be shortfalls in the past. Because they were not treated equal. And trying to balance the scales by giving more to others based on politics will only continue to cause controversy.
Hey, I'm American believing we should all be treated equal.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I am having trouble wrapping my head around the term "decolonization". I guess I get the jest of it, but it seems like an unattainable notion. We can't turn back the clock.
We can empower indigenous peoples to have more input on management decisions as well as lean on their knowledge base to help make better decisions, but are we really going to decolonize?
We can empower indigenous peoples to have more input on management decisions as well as lean on their knowledge base to help make better decisions, but are we really going to decolonize?
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,602
CWD management by allowing predators is a great example of what I think could be decolonization. Short history on CWD- it was first identified in captive CO deer in the 1960’s and other than proximity, the true origin has never been identified. The 1960s were also about the time almost all of the predators in the lower 48 had been wiped out. And we had to do that, you know, for agriculture and to protect the deer.
Since the 60’s, CWD has spread throughout the free world and none of our valiant annual efforts to manage cervid populations by shooting them can stop the spread. Sure, natives everywhere sometimes kill predators for whatever reason, but they do not wipe them out. There was a natural balance lightly influenced by native anthropogenic activities that was working when Europeans arrived to bring the uncivilized out of the cave. But just maybe the presumptive dismissal of letting Nature well enough alone makes it worse.
Here’s an institution that has the cojones to ask that question:
Since the 60’s, CWD has spread throughout the free world and none of our valiant annual efforts to manage cervid populations by shooting them can stop the spread. Sure, natives everywhere sometimes kill predators for whatever reason, but they do not wipe them out. There was a natural balance lightly influenced by native anthropogenic activities that was working when Europeans arrived to bring the uncivilized out of the cave. But just maybe the presumptive dismissal of letting Nature well enough alone makes it worse.
Here’s an institution that has the cojones to ask that question:
Shangobango
Well-known member
Valid point but I still don’t think what you are talking about is decolonizing.
I digress. I just think that calling this effort decolonization of conservation is inaccurate and quite frankly counter productive to the effort.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Maybe, I'm not entirely convinced either way. One example being native people engaging in the slaughter of bison, both for food and commercially. As we re-examine history we are finding tribes had a larger role in the destruction of herds that we originally believed. See Dan Flores scholarship. My only point there is it's complicated and nuanced.
Second point, decoupling 19th century settler ignorance and native knowledge from the current situation. In a lot of ways (all) possibly native knowledge of eco systems far outstripped settlers. Though what does that mean for current management, which also has shown/holds that management practices for 150+ years were wrong?
Are state agencies and/or actors of the NA model arguing about the value of predators on the landscape? Have we and are we not working to expand the range of predators. USFWS conducts reintroductions not a private group, therefore predator reintroduction is a piece of the NA model.
Certainly other view points should be included, all stakeholders should be heard. The article you referenced is part of this conversation and part of the NA model. Where is the gotcha?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also struggle with the idea that (historical) native practices would create a "better" or even different regulatory structure. For instance plains culture lasted around 160 years? 1730s-1890s... Settler culture 1890s -2022 so 130s. So we are almost as far removed from that culture as it lasted, at peak the Sioux were what... 30k people.
Denver has 3.5 million people. There are a lot of different estimates for pre-Columbian contact numbers, but certainly NYC is larger now than the total population of NA and SA combined. The context is just totally different. I'm not saying that cultural values and local knowledge of a landscape are worth nothing, they are, they absolutely are worth something.
Further I think we need to re-examine and be thoughtful about stereotypes and thinking of native as a historical idea. Native/ Indigenous people are present today, they have real struggles now, their reality is not some anachronistic idea of someone on horse back hunting bison.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really in response to your post, but the larger topic in general. I also bring this up as a conversation I don't have any answers. We have a lot of folks out there with some amount of native DNA who are culturally white. Extreme end of this Elizabeth Warren.
To become a member of a tribe is complex, and lots of tribes aren't federally recognized. Tribes that have some financial benefit tend to be hard to get membership in than those who don't.
There is the idea of cultural experience versus heritage.
There are folks that are full, 1/2, 1/4 ect native that pass as white or didn't grow up in the culture. There are also white people who live in Kotzebue and practice a subsistence lifestyle and therefore qualify under the federal AK hunting rules.
There are also folks that are full or 1/2, etc. that experience racism, but aren't part of a recognized tribe.
Who are we talking about then? and what exactly as far as management? What specially should be different, and who qualifies... and why?
Race/Ethnicity/Culture are really complex discussions
Per your request on non white dudes discussing these things... I've really enjoyed listening to this podcast, and hearing this perspective.
LISTEN | All My Relations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by a moderator:
L
longbow51
Guest
In regards to who qualifies, one of my best friends from high school is now a full-blown Indian. 6'7" blonde, blue eyes. He came to this realization later in life, never mentioned it growing up nor in college.
Well, he's more Indian than Elizabeth Warren, enough to qualify for health benefits at the local casino-sponsored hospital.
Fine by me, but it does come into play when we start dividing ourselves.
Well, he's more Indian than Elizabeth Warren, enough to qualify for health benefits at the local casino-sponsored hospital.
Fine by me, but it does come into play when we start dividing ourselves.
Shangobango
Well-known member
Per your request on non white dudes discussing these things... I've really enjoyed listening to this podcast, and hearing this perspective.
LISTEN | All My Relations
www.allmyrelationspodcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link. I will give that a listen on the way to Acadiana tomorrow.
I have always been fascinated by the subject. I have almost 1/4 native DNA. I have always thought of myself as just a white dude. I know that some native knowledge has bound to have been passed down through my family but darned if I could differentiate it from what has been passed down from the white backwoods outdoors side of the family.
Heck the white/Jewish part of my family got to this part of the world before part of the Choctaw side did, but the white side of my family were colonizers, well what was the Choctaw side? So confusing…
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Some of it's super frustrating to hear... because it's a completely different perspective... so net net probably exactly what you need to hear.
Shangobango
Well-known member
Great. At least there will be no one else in the truck to hear me groan and maybe yell at the host…lol.
I find more and more over the last several years that the uncomfortable conversations, as agitating as they may be in the moment, are actually the key to growing as a human, at least for me. Amazing how much provoking oneself or allowing oneself to be provoked leads to a broadening of ones horizons.
That is why I like this place so much.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Exactly
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,602
We’ll ain’t that the damndest thing! 23anMe could be mistaken about me too. Always thought being an Eskimo would be cool.
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,602
You, sir, never parse words. I thank you for a response that is enlightening, well-referenced and maybe gave this sweet thread a kick in the ass to go farther!Maybe, I'm not entirely convinced either way. One example being native people engaging in the slaughter of bison, both for food and commercially. As we re-examine history we are finding tribes had a larger role in the destruction of herds that we originally believed. See Dan Flores scholarship. My only point there is it's complicated and nuanced.
Second point, decoupling 19th century settler ignorance and native knowledge from the current situation. In a lot of ways (all) possibly native knowledge of eco systems far outstripped settlers. Though what does that mean for current management, which also has shown/holds that management practices for 150+ years were wrong?
Are state agencies and/or actors of the NA model arguing about the value of predators on the landscape? Have we and are we not working to expand the range of predators. USFWS conducts reintroductions not a private group, therefore predator reintroduction is a piece of the NA model.
Certainly other view points should be included, all stakeholders should be heard. The article you referenced is part of this conversation and part of the NA model. Where is the gotcha?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also struggle with the idea that (historical) native practices would create a "better" or even different regulatory structure. For instance plains culture lasted around 160 years? 1730s-1890s... Settler culture 1890s -2022 so 130s. So we are almost as far removed from that culture as it lasted, at peak the Sioux were what... 30k people.
Denver has 3.5 million people. There are a lot of different estimates for pre-Columbian contact numbers, but certainly NYC is larger now than the total population of NA and SA combined. The context is just totally different. I'm not saying that cultural values and local knowledge of a landscape are worth nothing, they are, they absolutely are worth something.
Further I think we need to re-examine and be thoughtful about stereotypes and thinking of native as a historical idea. Native/ Indigenous people are present today, they have real struggles now, their reality is not some anachronistic idea of someone on horse back hunting bison.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really in response to your post, but the larger topic in general. I also bring this up as a conversation I don't have any answers. We have a lot of folks out there with some amount of native DNA who are culturally white. Extreme end of this Elizabeth Warren.
To become a member of a tribe is complex, and lots of tribes aren't federally recognized. Tribes that have some financial benefit tend to be hard to get membership in than those who don't.
There is the idea of cultural experience versus heritage.
There are folks that are full, 1/2, 1/4 ect native that pass as white or didn't grow up in the culture. There are also white people who live in Kotzebue and practice a subsistence lifestyle and therefore qualify under the federal AK hunting rules.
There are also folks that are full or 1/2, etc. that experience racism, but aren't part of a recognized tribe.
Who are we talking about then? and what exactly as far as management? What specially should be different, and who qualifies... and why?
Race/Ethnicity/Culture are really complex discussions
Per your request on non white dudes discussing these things... I've really enjoyed listening to this podcast, and hearing this perspective.
LISTEN | All My Relations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
I think the way tribal nations are treated is despicable. However, before we get to the topic of “decolonizing” the NAM, perhaps we could decolonize how we interact with Tribes on their own sovereign lands. The USA keeps their foot on the neck of the Indian while pretending to be asserting their trust obligations.
When Indians are treated as sovereign within the bounds of their so called sovereign nations, maybe then we can evaluate revisit widening that approach.
With the amount of mysticism and Superstition already allowed into what should be scientific management, a little more probably won’t hurt.
If bison aren’t wildlife, who the hell are we to say that the little people in the Pryor mountains aren't real.
When Indians are treated as sovereign within the bounds of their so called sovereign nations, maybe then we can evaluate revisit widening that approach.
With the amount of mysticism and Superstition already allowed into what should be scientific management, a little more probably won’t hurt.
If bison aren’t wildlife, who the hell are we to say that the little people in the Pryor mountains aren't real.
