UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Then and now: Blackfeet subsistence and Glacier National Park

Identification

Clé publique

openalex:w2462442311

Auteurs

Charlie Presti

Année déclarée

2005

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

dissertation

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:14:42.767811+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:14:42.767811+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Blackfeet Subsistence and Glacier National ParkChair: JDan Flores The exportation of the national park idea around the world has produced, and continues to produce, detrimental consequences for indigenous peoples residing on or near lands desirable for aesthetic reserves.In the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries in America, changing cultural images of native peoples, the economic realities involved with creating and perpetuating the park idea, and scientific notions about hum ankind's rightful place in nature created the atmosphere in which the federal government established the first national parks under the premise that native inhabitation and subsistence usage of the park units should be prohibited or strictly regulated.One of the most long-standing and contentious examples of the interplay between the National Park Service and native communities developed around Glacier National Park and its adjoining reservation inhabited by the Blackfeet Nation.The Blackfeet sold the western portion of their reservation to the federal government, which later included the ceded land in Glacier National Park and subsequently denied the tribe their explicitlyreserved usufruct rights upon the land in question.With the support of federal legal representatives, officials at Glacier set a lasting precedent of native exclusion from the tribe's former resource base within the park.In the 1970s, the Blackfeet channeled activist impulses into pressuring the Park Service for recognition of rights in Glacier and achieved some policy changes.Nevertheless, the park continued to prohibit subsistence activities that posed a challenge to the underlying goals of the national park ideal.In addition to clamoring for recognition of expressly-reserved usufruct rights, many Blackfeet in the modern era have interpreted the binding agreement with the federal government to mean that the tribe retained a number of implied rights upon the ceded lands that transcend the specific language contained in the agreement.In recent decades, controversies over the grazing of livestock near the park border and employment and business licensing practices have created further tension between the National Park Service and the Blackfeet.Some policy changes have resulted, but I conclude here that those activities that compromise the objectives of the national park idea still meet with interdiction and regulation, and very likely will in the future.resistance to game laws.His chapter on the Blackfeet and Glacier focused on wildlife management and hunting, one of four usufruct rights reserved in the Agreement of 1896, in the first half of the twentieth century.In American Indians and National Parks (1998), Robert H. Keller and Michael F.Turek provided a sweeping review of the historical tensions between national park units and neighboring tribal communities.Although the scope and variety of relationships makes generalization difficult, many similarities exist in the conflicts between native communities and the Park Service and the authors showed how earlier disputes set the stage for modem tensions.Their chapter on the Blackfeet and Glacier briefly detailed the major developments regarding the controversy over explicitly-reserved usufruct rights through the 1970s, and also listed a few modern points of contention.In Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making o f the National Parks (1999), Mark David Spence brilliantly exposed the "dark side" of the conservation movement and showed how the federal government removed Indian peoples from three flagship parks--Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite-and later erased the history of their occupancy in order to create uninhabited wilderness.With penetrating insight, Spence profiled the methods by which early park managers eliminated most Indian occupancy and use in three of the "crown jew els" of the national park system.His chapter on the Blackfeet and Glacier described traditional tribal use of the area and closely analyzed Blackfeet resistance to exclusionary policies and how park responses generated an atmosphere of hostility in the region.Spence focused on the events around the turn of the century up through the mid-1930s, and only briefly explored the subsequent history of the relationship.In Indian Country, G od's Country: Native Americans and the National Parks (2000), Philip Burnham further highlighted land use conflicts in Glacier, Badlands, M esa Verde, Grand Canyon, and Death Valley National Parks.Burnham shed great light on the topic by introducing native voices into the debate.By conducting extensive interviews with Indians living near park units, the author breathed life into the subject and provided a counter-point to the document bias inherent in so many studies of Indian peoples.O f all the aforementioned works, Indian Country, G od's Country most adequately addressed recent issues of contention in the Glacier region, conveyed the feelings held by some Blackfeet towards the park and its policies, and opened up avenues for further exploration, several of which I have tread to formulate the second half of this study.Through personal interviews with tribal members and several unpublished works penned by scholars in recent years, I learned that recent issues of contention, although not centered around the explicit usufruct rights reserved in the Agreement of 1896, are inextricably linked to the agreement and that disparate interpretations of that pact underscore much of the dialogue between the 21st-century Blackfeet and the National Park Service.In "The Ceded Strip: Blackfeet Treaty Rights in the 1980s"(1987), "Glacier National Park on Blackfoot Territory: The Assertion of Rights on Traditional Lands"(2001), and "Blackfeet Oral Tradition of the 1895 Agreem ent"(2002), authors Kenneth P. Pitt, Tarissa Spoonhunter, and Jim Kipp, respectively, highlighted the importance o f the oral tradition in Blackfeet culture and argued that the oral history of the agreement negotiations, still very much alive in Blackfeet country, does not agree with many of the provisions laid out in the written Agreement of 1896.In order to determine 1 Tiny-M an H eavy Runner, interview with author,

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2462442311

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Thèse

Types déclarés par les sources

dissertation

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Glacier · Territoire

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2462442311

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1576082894 · CITES
• openalex:w1966952704 · CITES
• openalex:w1989962258 · CITES
• openalex:w1997213930 · CITES
• openalex:w2014319465 · CITES
• openalex:w2017806519 · CITES
• openalex:w2043617752 · CITES
• openalex:w2064044468 · CITES
• openalex:w2065808191 · CITES
• openalex:w2067159123 · CITES
• openalex:w2086970829 · CITES
• openalex:w2095258507 · CITES
• openalex:w2116649114 · CITES
• openalex:w2477670858 · CITES
• openalex:w2497752351 · CITES
• openalex:w2509493784 · CITES
• openalex:w319842024 · CITES
• openalex:w571438772 · CITES
• openalex:w655653167 · CITES
• openalex:w832923882 · CITES

2 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Hors périmètre juridique après examen

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.