Given the wrecking ball the Trump administration is taking to our public lands and public values, it might seem trivial to worry about tribal co-management.
Our public lands are among the most democratic of American institutions. Every American has a right to voice their opinion about public lands management, but no group should be elevated and given more authority over how our public lands are managed. Unfortunately, co-management does exactly that.
However, tribal co-management is part of a long-term goal of garnering control of public lands and assets like wildlife. It is an attack on the fundamental value of public lands. It is part of a movement that sees tribes as victims and public lands as a form of “colonialism” and cultural “genocide.”
Public lands have a lot of value beyond cultural and political considerations. I believe public lands are part of the planetary heritage critical to the survival of numerous species, evolutionary processes, and global efforts to reduce climate warming.
Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack mandated federal land managers to create co-management, sometimes called co-stewardship, agreements with tribal entities. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland’s Secretarial Order 3403 dictates that tribal nations be included in the management of federal lands and waters. As with individual co-management agreements, this order, which is a significant change in public policy, occurred without any public review, input or NEPA process.
Whether these co-management agreements strengthen or weaken environmental protections will vary, but how these agreements are created is very undemocratic. Furthermore, some tribal co-management can compromise federal laws as well as ecological and evolutionary values.
Below, I have attached a request from a colleague of mine to obtain a copy of a tribal co-management agreement between the Red Cliff Band and the National Park Service.
Rather than comply with this simple request from an American citizen about the management of our public lands, the NPS asked the following: “Could you please provide details on why you are seeking a copy of the agreement and how you intend to use the information? Once I have this information, I will reach out to the park and tribe with your request.”
Why should any citizen have to justify why they are interested in how “our” public lands are managed? One can ask why the public is excluded from reviewing and commenting upon such agreements. Why are the agreements not available on public websites, so citizens can evaluate them? Why are they “hidden” from public scrutiny?
In her response, the NPS person says she has to get approval from the “tribe” to share the co-management document. And since tribes are considered “sovereign nations,” they do not have to comply. This is the problem with the entire “co-management” process.
The response of the NPS exhibits one of the major problems with co-management. These agreements are made secretly without any public process. No NEPA. No public process. Nothing. Nada.
Our public lands are held in trust for the American people by the federal government. Secret agreements are not democracy.
As I have previously stated in other ways, these agreements lack transparency.
A further problem with co-management agreements is that they lack cohesive legislation or policy. As the Congressional Research Service review of Tribal Co-management of Federal Lands acknowledged, “Co-management and tribal co-management are not defined terms in law. Accordingly, Members of Congress, tribes, and federal agencies may use and apply these terms differently. As a result, federal-tribal co-management on federal lands can take many forms and cover many activities. Tribal co-management generally involves varying degrees of tribal influence in federal decision-making…”
NEPA LACKING
Some co-management agreements might significantly impact public values and should be reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act–NEPA (as long as we still have it—Trump may soon make this moot). Yet I am unaware of any co-management agreements completed where an Environmental Impact Statement was produced.
Beyond the requirements of NEPA, federal agencies appear to treat these agreements as confidential arrangements that do not require public notice or involvement.
MY PROBLEMS WITH OBTAINING CO-MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
The one co-management agreement I could obtain with the Siuslaw NF in Oregon (after going through my Senator to get it) called for more logging than even the Nation Forest would do to benefit the economic opportunities for the associated tribes (they own timber mills).
Here are some specific provisions of the co-management agreement between the Siuslaw National Forest and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon.
“Whereas the Tribe desires that forest management activities on public land within the ancestral territory ensure restoration of tribally significant resources, long-term forest fuel reduction, forest health remediation, climate change adaptation and other forest management efforts beneficial to Tribal Interests”
The document goes on to say, among other objectives, that Forest Service management will benefit the tribes by implementing the following goals:
- Reduction of hazardous fuels and risks of wildfire.
- Protection from disease and insects and other impacts is detrimental to forest health.
- Providing an adequate supply of timber to support the local economy.
If you have been following the bogus arguments by the Forest Service to increase logging on public lands, the above justifications are identical. They do not represent an enlightened or biocenotic perspective. These are the talking points of Industrial Forestry.
When I presented copies of the agreement to several of the so-called conservation organizations fighting logging on Oregon national forests and asked them what they planned to do about the proposal to do more logging on the Siuslaw based on the benefit in the local economy (i.e., the tribal timber mills), they refused to do anything publicly about it, much less inform their membership.
As far as I know, the Siuslaw NF will increase logging, including perhaps old-growth forests, to accommodate the tribal co-management agreement.
Similarly, I tried to obtain a co-management agreement for the BLM-managed Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument in California. There was no copy of the agreement on the BLM’s website, and when I requested a copy, the area manager gave me the same run around as I had from the Siuslaw National Forest.
Any response to my request was repeatedly delayed. I never got a copy.
In March 2024, Sage Steppe Wild filed a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of all co-management agreements implemented by the USDA based on a speech given by the Secretary of Agriculture stating that 120 agreements had been signed. As of today (February 2025), SSW has not received a copy of a single co-management agreement.
This lack of agency response should be alarming to anyone concerned about the public’s right to know what and how our collective public land heritage is managed.
UNWILLINGNESS OF CONSERVATION GROUPS TO CONDEMN THE PROCESS
Another problem with the co-management agreements is the unwillingness and reluctance of conservation groups to condemn or even inform the public about the agreements. This is part of several decades of a shift in conservation advocacy from a biocentric to an anthropocentric perspective where “cultural” values propelled by the social justice movement supersede biological and ecological objectives.
I hasten to add that while I do not deny numerous social justice issues that need to be rectified, ultimately, there is no social justice on a dead planet. If tribal interest emphasizes resource extraction and ecosystem degradation, one is morally obligated to side with the voiceless—wild nature.
Most conservation groups are funded by progressive foundations advocating social justice issues. Tribal people are viewed as victims of past and present government policies, so there is an unwillingness to challenge any tribal objective.
Indeed, some of these foundations require that organizations advocate for and advance tribal goals as a requisite for funding. Of course, most employees of conservation organizations are also sympathetic to tribal demands and desires, so the influence of funding isn’t necessarily the primary driver of organizational policies.
As I have suggested in previous commentaries, in many instances, tribes want public land management to favor their economic or political interests, whether it is more exploitation of forests, minerals, oil, and gas, or wildlife, or enabling the goal of the “Land Back” movement.
Many outside the Land Back movement are unaware that the tribes’ ultimate objective is the transfer of our shared public lands to tribal control. For instance, read this piece, Ending National Parks: Returning national parks to tribal sovereignty could help remedy what is often called America’s “best idea”. A recent article in High Country News also mentions how tribes feel they should control, if not outright own, the public domain. Most of these articles misinterpret history and are guided by a cult-like faith that tribal management will benefit the land and the public.
As a generalization, most tribal groups put their economic and political interests ahead of ecological integrity. This is not necessarily any different from any other political, racial, or ethnic group, so this has nothing to do with those identities. Tribal groups talk a lot about “sacred” lands and “kinship” with wildlife. Still, their behavior when a specific issue financially benefits the tribe is often less than admirable from a conservation perspective.
I have documented numerous examples of this in my essay “The Indian Iron Curtain.”
Yet there is a legal precedent for conservation organizations to challenge these co-management agreements—assuming they want to do this.
For instance, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled on March 5, 2001, that communications between federal agencies and Indian tribes are not shielded by exemption 5 (Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Association). The Court clarified that the limited exemptions in FOIA “do not obscure the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.”
Yet, I know of no conservation group to date other than Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and Sage Steppe Wild that have even attempted to obtain tribal-federal co-management agreements, let alone examine them.
When information about co-management with several national parks was requested, no correspondence between the tribes and NPS was available. So, the public cannot even understand the context of co-management agreements.
People advocating for tribal co-management gloss over these problems.
WE ARE ALL AMERICANS
It’s important to note that all tribal people are American citizens. They have the same right to comment on and review federal agency policies as any other American. What they don’t have, in my view, is a right to greater oversight, greater authority, or greater influence over federal lands that are the birthright of all Americans.
I would be just as opposed to co-management by the timber industry, the livestock industry, the oil and gas industry, and industrial recreation. These industries have already captured federal regulatory agencies to some degree.
Do we need to add one more interest group to the mix?
For that matter, I would oppose the co-management of public lands by the so-called conservation community, whether the National Parks and Conservation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, or any other political entity.
Tribal entities and people have the same right to comment on public lands as any other individual or political party. However, giving any entity greater legal authority over public lands, especially those whose goals and objectives are not necessarily the same as the public interest, should be opposed.
From: Boden, Kathy L kathy_boden@nps.gov
Sent: Feb 5, 2025 7:36 AM
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Agreement with Red Cliff band et al.
Good morning,
I am the Tribal Relations Program Coordinator for the Midwest Region, and your request has been forwarded to me. Before sharing any agreements, I must first obtain approval from both the park and the tribe. As part of this process, I am typically asked to clarify the purpose of the request. Could you please provide details on why you are seeking a copy of the agreement and how you intend to use the information? Once I have this information, I will reach out to the park and tribe to with your request.
If you have any other questions or need anything else, please let me know.
Kathy Miller Boden
Tribal Relations Program Coordinator
National Park Service
Midwest Region, Interior Regions 3, 4, 5
Cell: (531) 250-6129
Office: (402) 661-1946
601 Riverfront Drive
Omaha, NE 68102
Leave a Reply