San Francisco Chronicle LogoHearst Newspapers Logo

Bears Ears perfects America’s best idea by including tribes

By
The best preserved of the seven Pueblo ruins that date to the 13th century called Cave Canyon Towers is photographed at Bears Ears National Monument June 11, 2017 in Cedar Mesa, UTAH. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Katherine Frey
The best preserved of the seven Pueblo ruins that date to the 13th century called Cave Canyon Towers is photographed at Bears Ears National Monument June 11, 2017 in Cedar Mesa, UTAH. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Katherine FreyKatherine Frey/The Washington Post

President Trump has stated he plans to begin a prolonged legal battle with five Native American tribes next month by eliminating large swaths of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. He should rethink this plan, given our evolving legacy of our national parks and continued mistreatment of the 567 sovereign tribes. The United States rightfully claimed what Wallace Stegner called “America’s best idea,” the first national parks, with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872.

Beloved, heavily visited, patriotic, bipartisan and emulated around the world, our national parks are American treasures. But there is a darker story, and that is of the displacement of Native Americans from their aboriginal lands by force, broken treaty and disease. Then largely unoccupied, these extraordinary lands were easy to designate as national parks, ignoring the fact that Native Americans had occupied, and actively and sustainably stewarded, these lands since time immemorial.

The U.S. concept of national parks spread around the world, encountering lands of national park quality that were essential to the traditions of the indigenous peoples who still inhabited them. A new park model was adopted that incorporated traditional activities, such as hunting and gathering, protection of sacred sites and cultural practice. The best of these new park models included management of the park by the local indigenous people, giving them a leadership role in the future of the lands that had sustained them for centuries. While other nations have embraced this new model, the United States has not, at least not until 2016, when President Barack Obama established Bears Ears National Monument.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Bears Ears presented the opportunity to preserve an area of extraordinary natural and cultural resources, rich with archaeological sites and essential to the culture and subsistence of at least five tribes. The Obama administration responded to the petition of a tribal coalition — a voice that historically has been ignored — and engaged it in a meaningful role in the future of 1.35 million acres of stunning forest and canyon landscapes. I traveled there twice with delegations from the Interior Department.

I sat with and listened to elders tell their stories of how sacred the land was to their way of life. I also sat on the stage at the public meeting in Bluff, Utah, and heard the opposition from residents who were fearful of the change, of federal restrictions, and the potential loss of jobs. I do not for a second discount their concerns. But for me, the native voice is more compelling. Any reduction of the Bears Ears National Monument, as suggested by President Trump, would result in the conversion of these lands to short-term commodities. That would not only be a desecration, a loss and a tragedy, but is extremely disrespectful to the tribal members who tirelessly worked for its permanent protection.

We must consider the legacy we want to prevail. We must embrace the opportunity Bears Ears presents to truly bring the United States into a new era of land management — one that respects and incorporates the native peoples who have lived on these lands for thousands of years.

Jonathan B. Jarvis is the former director of the National Park Service.

By
About Opinion

Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.