Your story about the hand-over of three national
wildlife refuges to a Montana tribe oversimplified a very complex
issue (HCN, 7/7/03: Back on the range?). Despite your portrayal of
talks between the Department of the Interior and the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes as a unique attempt to reunite the
tribes with bison and lands taken from them decades ago, these
secret negotiations are setting dangerous precedents for both the
national wildlife refuge system and the national park system.
Seventy-five national parks and wildlife refuges — including
Redwood, Mount Rainier and Glacier national parks, and the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge — are also eligible for similar
tribal management plans.
While Undersecretary of the
Interior Paul Hoffman has stated that “inherently
federal” duties would not be ceded to the tribes, he has also
publicly admitted that “inherently federal” is a gray
area that will be determined by negotiation. Yet, because the
negotiations have been held behind closed doors, without
opportunity for public input or oversight, Hoffman and the tribes
themselves seek to define those functions as they see fit.
This is not a Native American issue, nor is it a question
of whether the tribes could or would successfully operate the
National Bison Range and associated refuges. Rather, this is a case
of Secretary Gale Norton and her aides taking advantage of
political sensitivity to Indian self-determination issues to
advance private management of public assets.
Gene
Hocutt
Aurora, New York
The writer is director
of the Refuge Keeper chapter of Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER).
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Bison range fight is not about Indian rights.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
