Difference between revisions of "Tribal Resources"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) (Created page with " __NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__ <!-- ------------------------------Banner across top of page------------------------------> {| style="width:100%; background:#fcfcfc; margin-to...") |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
(74 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
− | [[Image:GrandCanyonTribes.jpg| | + | [[Image:GrandCanyonTribes.jpg|900px|thumb|center| Homelands and reservations of Native Americans associated with the Grand Canyon <br> [https://oldwestdailyreader.com/native-american-tribes/ https://oldwestdailyreader.com/native-american-tribes/] ]] |
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | ||
− | =='''Tribal | + | =='''Tribal Perspectives'''== |
The lower reaches of Glen Canyon and the river corridor through Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, have been used by humans for at least 13,000 years. Today, at least nine contemporary Native American Tribes claim traditional cultural ties to this area. Grand Canyon National Park contains more than 4,000 documented prehistoric and historic sites, and about 420 of these sites are located in proximity to the Colorado River. The lower reaches of Glen Canyon contain an additional 55 sites. | The lower reaches of Glen Canyon and the river corridor through Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, have been used by humans for at least 13,000 years. Today, at least nine contemporary Native American Tribes claim traditional cultural ties to this area. Grand Canyon National Park contains more than 4,000 documented prehistoric and historic sites, and about 420 of these sites are located in proximity to the Colorado River. The lower reaches of Glen Canyon contain an additional 55 sites. | ||
In addition to archaeological sites, cultural resources along the Colorado River corridor include historic structures and other types of historic properties, as well as biological and physical resources that are of traditional cultural importance to Native American peoples such as springs, unique landforms, mineral deposits, native plant concentrations, and various animal species. | In addition to archaeological sites, cultural resources along the Colorado River corridor include historic structures and other types of historic properties, as well as biological and physical resources that are of traditional cultural importance to Native American peoples such as springs, unique landforms, mineral deposits, native plant concentrations, and various animal species. | ||
− | ==[ | + | ==[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP) '''LTEMP Resource Goal for Tribal Perspectives''']== |
− | + | Maintain the diverse values and resources of traditionally associated Tribes along the Colorado River corridor through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. | |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
+ | ==[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Portal:Desired_Future_Conditions_-DFCs '''Desired Future Condition for Cultural Resources''']== | ||
'''Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs):'''<br> | '''Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs):'''<br> | ||
• Attributes are maintained such as National Register eligibility is not compromised. These attributes will be specific to the traditionally associated peoples and will need to be identified by the federal agencies in consultation with those groups. Attributes may include aspects of location or physical integrity, as well as be intangible elements that link the resource to ongoing traditional cultural practices.<br> | • Attributes are maintained such as National Register eligibility is not compromised. These attributes will be specific to the traditionally associated peoples and will need to be identified by the federal agencies in consultation with those groups. Attributes may include aspects of location or physical integrity, as well as be intangible elements that link the resource to ongoing traditional cultural practices.<br> | ||
• The ability of traditionally associated people to maintain access to and use of the resources is preserved, in accordance with applicable law.<br> | • The ability of traditionally associated people to maintain access to and use of the resources is preserved, in accordance with applicable law.<br> | ||
− | Culturally appropriate conditions of resources are maintained based on traditional ecological knowledge; integration of the desired condition is included in relevant monitoring and management programs.<br> | + | • Culturally appropriate conditions of resources are maintained based on traditional ecological knowledge; integration of the desired condition is included in relevant monitoring and management programs.<br> |
• Maintain ongoing consultation with the groups for whom the resource has traditional value. Because the desired condition of a TCP needs to be determined by the group for whom it has the traditional value, ongoing consultation is necessary to assess the condition of the resource.<br> | • Maintain ongoing consultation with the groups for whom the resource has traditional value. Because the desired condition of a TCP needs to be determined by the group for whom it has the traditional value, ongoing consultation is necessary to assess the condition of the resource.<br> | ||
• Mitigate impacts that affect the integrity of the TCPs. How and if effects can be mitigated will need to be developed in conjunction with the traditionally associated peoples for whom the resource holds value.<br> | • Mitigate impacts that affect the integrity of the TCPs. How and if effects can be mitigated will need to be developed in conjunction with the traditionally associated peoples for whom the resource holds value.<br> | ||
Line 55: | Line 53: | ||
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"| | |class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"| | ||
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" | {|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" | ||
− | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> | + | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Tribal Perspectives</h2> |
+ | |} | ||
+ | [[Image:ZuniGrandCanyonFilm.JPG|center|700px|thumbnail| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMSLgYb3M8Y Now, Then, and Forever: Zuni in the Grand Canyon <br> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMSLgYb3M8Y] ]] | ||
− | [[ | + | *Taking of life (fish or other) in the Colorado River, with some areas (LCR confluence) being especially sensitive from the tribal perspective. (NPS-CFMPEA_pg 124) |
+ | *[[Media:NEPA and Silencing of Native American Worldview Final 01April2013.pdf| NEPA and Silencing of Native American Worldview]]; presentation by Kurt Dongonske to the National Association of Environmental Professionals (2013) | ||
+ | *[[Media:Here and There- The effects of upriver dams on indigenous peoples-Article 3.PDF | Here and There- The effects of upriver dams on indigenous peoples]] by Benedict Colombi (2014) | ||
+ | == Tribal perspectives on Aquatic Food Base == | ||
+ | The Zuni believe that macroinvertebrates are underwater species that are not yet ready for | ||
+ | this world, and any disturbance to them could have negative consequences. The river’s life | ||
+ | begins at the headwaters. The river is the umbilical cord to the earth, and through the Zuni | ||
+ | religion, prayers, and songs there is also an invisible cord to the Zuni. This statement about | ||
+ | underwater species relates to the Zuni history, as Zunis believe that their most ancient ancestors | ||
+ | emerged onto this world only when they were ready for emergence. To force an aquatic species | ||
+ | to change is to impede the species’ natural development and future progress, a violation of Zuni | ||
+ | beliefs about the world’s natural order. (LTEMP Chapter 3, Page 65) | ||
− | + | == Tribal perspectives on nonnative fish removal == | |
+ | Representatives of the Pueblo of Zuni and the Hopi Tribe provided written comments to convey | ||
+ | the perspectives of these two tribes regarding fish removal. The following text is the full, unedited set of | ||
+ | comments, prepared by Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni) and Michael Yeatts (Hopi Tribe). | ||
+ | Participating Native American Tribes (Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni) have expressed, | ||
+ | through government-to-government consultation, meetings with the Assistant Secretary for | ||
+ | Water and Science, and through federal compliance processes associated with the National | ||
+ | Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, concerns to the U.S. | ||
+ | Department of the Interior (DOI) regarding management actions described above involving | ||
+ | fish suppression flows, mechanical removal of nonnative fish, and other lethal management | ||
+ | actions. | ||
+ | In the 2002–2004 GCMRC Biennial Work Plan, a proposal was made to conduct | ||
+ | experimental mechanical removal of trout centered on the confluence of the Colorado and | ||
+ | Little Colorado Rivers. At the time, the Hopi Tribe expressed concern about the killing of | ||
+ | large numbers of fish and the specter of death that would be created by such activity in a | ||
+ | culturally significant sacred area. The Hopi Tribe also understood the scientific desire to | ||
+ | understand the effect that the non-native trout were having on the native, endangered | ||
+ | humpback chub and if there were management options available to control the trout | ||
+ | numbers, particularly if they were threatening the existence of the humpback chub. To make | ||
+ | the study more culturally acceptable, the Hopi Tribe requested that the fish removed be used | ||
+ | for a beneficial purpose, so that the life they were sacrificing wouldn’t be trivialized. The | ||
+ | non-native fish were viewed as a fully alive component of the ecosystem, which were there | ||
+ | through no fault of their own, and shouldn’t be needlessly punished. | ||
+ | Perspectives of the Hopi Tribe have not significantly changed since the implementation of | ||
+ | the original mechanical removal experiment. Killing large numbers of fish (or any other | ||
+ | group of animals), unless there is an extraordinary circumstance, is fundamentally wrong! It | ||
+ | is not the specific species of fish or the method of killing them that is at the heart of the Hopi | ||
+ | concern; it is the view that their life is somehow less valuable and they are therefore | ||
+ | expendable. | ||
− | + | Since 2006, the Hopi Long-term Monitoring Program asked about the appropriateness of | |
+ | removing non-native fish. To date, 46 percent of the Hopi respondents supported removal; | ||
+ | 37 percent opposed it; and 17 percent were not sure. Those who support removal, however, | ||
+ | clearly state that it should only be used if there is strong evidence that the non-native species | ||
+ | is a real threat to the survival of a native species and that other causes are not more | ||
+ | significant. Killing just because we think it might help, and we can do it, is not suitable | ||
+ | justification. Secondly, they view killing the non-natives as the last resort. If they can be | ||
+ | removed alive, that is preferred. Otherwise, they should be used as food for people or | ||
+ | possibly for some other culturally appropriate purpose. | ||
+ | Finally, the Hopi express puzzlement at the seemingly conflicting management goals of | ||
+ | maintaining native fish and having a recreational trout fishery in the same river; and then | ||
+ | fingering the trout as the threat to the native fish. While there are certainly many avenues | ||
+ | being pursued that make managers feel that these divergent goals are possible, the simplest | ||
+ | reading of the situation is that trying to achieve both of these goals is not appropriate. | ||
+ | Over the past ten years, the Pueblo of Zuni has been the most vocal of the Tribes in | ||
+ | expressing objection to these actions because they involve the taking of life without | ||
+ | sufficient justification. The remainder of this section focuses on the Pueblo of Zuni’s | ||
+ | objections to lethal management actions by situating those objections within the appropriate | ||
+ | Zuni traditional cultural context. In doing so, a more informed and nuanced understanding of | ||
+ | the Zuni position should be obtained. | ||
− | + | For the past twenty-five years, the Pueblo of Zuni has repeatedly emphasized to the | |
+ | Department of the Interior the important cultural, religious, and historical ties the Zuni | ||
+ | people have to the Grand Canyon, Colorado River, and Little Colorado River. The Grand | ||
+ | Canyon is the place of Zuni emergence into this current world at a place called | ||
+ | Chimik’yana’kya dey’a, near Ribbon Falls in Bright Angel Canyon. The natural environment | ||
+ | that Zuni people saw at Emergence became central to traditional Zuni culture. In fact, all of | ||
+ | the plants that grow along the stream from Ribbon Falls to the Colorado River, and all the | ||
+ | birds and other animals, springs, minerals and natural resources located in the Grand Canyon | ||
+ | and its’ tributaries, have a central place in Zuni traditional cultural practices and ceremonial | ||
+ | activities. The confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers is understood to be a | ||
+ | spiritual umbilical connection between the Pueblo of Zuni and the Grand Canyon that is | ||
+ | facilitated through the union of the Zuni River with the Little Colorado and the Colorado | ||
+ | Rivers. The confluence is also held by the Zuni people to be an extremely important and | ||
+ | sacred place because of its abundance of aquatic and terrestrial life that simultaneously | ||
+ | expresses and represents the fertility of nature. | ||
+ | The Colorado River is a particularly important place to the Zuni people because it was the | ||
+ | location of an important historical event. This historical event was conveyed to Frank | ||
+ | Hamilton Cushing, an American Anthropologist, by the Zuni in the late nineteenth century | ||
+ | and is summarized below to convey the deep, intense, and remarkable significance that the | ||
+ | Colorado River and the aquatic life within it indelibly hold for the Zuni people. | ||
+ | “Shortly after Emergence, men of the Bear, Crane, and Seed clans strode into the red waters | ||
+ | of the Colorado River and waded across. The men of the clans all crossed successfully. The | ||
+ | women travelling with them carried their children on their backs and they waded into the | ||
+ | water. Their children, who were unfinished and immature (because this occurred shortly | ||
+ | after Emergence), changed in their terror. Their skins turned cold and scaly and they grew | ||
+ | tails. Their hands and feet became webbed and clawed for swimming. The children fell into | ||
+ | the swift, red waters. Some of the children became lizards, others turned into frogs, turtles, | ||
+ | newts, and fish. | ||
− | + | “The children of these clans were lost to the waters. The mothers were able to make it to the | |
+ | other side of the river, where they wailed and cried for their children. The Twins heard them, | ||
+ | returned, and advised all the mothers to cherish their children through all dangers. After | ||
+ | listening to the Twins, those people who had yet to pass through the river took heart and | ||
+ | clutched their children to them and safely proceeded to the opposite shore. | ||
+ | “The people who successfully made it out of the river rested, calmed the remaining children, | ||
+ | and then arose and continued their journey to the plane east of the two mountains with the | ||
+ | great water between.” (Cushing, 1896, 1920, 1988; as summarized in Dongoske and Hays- | ||
+ | Gilpin, 2016) | ||
+ | As a consequence of this historical event, all aquatic life is recognized by present day Zunis | ||
+ | to be descendants of those Zuni children who were lost to the waters, thus creating a strong | ||
+ | and lasting familial bond to all aquatic life and a fundamentally important stewardship | ||
+ | responsibility. It is precisely because of this familial bond and stewardship responsibility that | ||
+ | the Pueblo of Zuni has for the past ten years communicated to the Department of the Interior | ||
+ | objections to any management actions (for example, mechanical removal, trout suppression | ||
+ | flows, piscicides) that entail the taking of aquatic life. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The implementation of lethal fish management actions is contrary to Zuni worldview and | ||
+ | environmental ethics. Annual ceremonial activities carried out by the Zuni are performed to | ||
+ | ensure adequate rainfall and prosperity for all life. Zuni people pray not only for Zuni lands, | ||
+ | but for all people and all lands. Zuni prayers are especially aimed at bringing precipitation to | ||
+ | the Southwest. In order to successfully carry out Zuni prayers, offerings, and ceremonies | ||
+ | necessary to ensure rainfall for crops and the prosperity of all life, Zuni must maintain a | ||
+ | balance with all parts of the interconnected universe. The animals, including all aquatic life, | ||
+ | birds, plants, rocks, sand, minerals, and water in the Grand Canyon convey special meaning | ||
+ | and have significant material and spiritual relationships to the Zuni people. To needlessly | ||
+ | take life causes an imbalance in the natural world and also disturbs the harmony and health | ||
+ | of the spiritual realm and the Zuni peoples. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Moreover, the Zuni recognize that there is a direct causal relationship between what happens | ||
+ | in and to the Colorado River within Grand Canyon and the Pueblo of Zuni. According to | ||
+ | Zuni religious and political leaders and illustrative of this point, when the initial mechanical | ||
+ | removal efforts were occurring at the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers | ||
+ | between 2003 and 2006, Zuni experienced an increased use of taser guns by Zuni police on | ||
+ | Zuni community members. The increased use of tasers by Zuni police is viewed by the Zuni | ||
+ | religious leaders as a direct adverse effect on the Zuni community that resulted from those | ||
+ | mechanical removal efforts. To underscore this Zuni recognition of a cause/effect | ||
+ | relationship between the Grand Canyon and Zuni, the Zuni religious leaders expressed their | ||
+ | concern that the ongoing mechanical removal of brown trout and other non-natives from | ||
+ | Bright Angel Creek by the National Park Service is contributing to an increase in the number | ||
+ | of Zuni community members that are dying on a daily basis in Zuni. They emphasized that | ||
+ | recognition that has existed since the time of Emergence. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The implementation of lethal management actions to control non-native aquatic species, | ||
+ | especially rainbow and brown trout, within the Colorado River through Glen and Grand | ||
+ | Canyons creates a disproportionately negative impact, materially, spiritually, emotionally, | ||
+ | and psychologically, on the Zuni people. These actions tend to emphasize strong reliance on | ||
+ | reactionary management strategies rather than promoting proactive and productive | ||
+ | approaches focused on identifying and controlling the antecedent environmental and | ||
+ | structural conditions that promote or allow non-natives to enter and thrive within the system. | ||
+ | The continued consideration of lethal management tools to address non-native aquatics | ||
+ | demonstrates a disregard for the Zuni familial and stewardship relationship to aquatic life, a | ||
+ | devaluation of the special relationship that the Zuni people have with the Grand Canyon and | ||
+ | the Colorado River, and a blatant dismissal of previously expressed Zuni concerns to the | ||
+ | U.S. Government. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The comparison of management options directed toward the control of non-native aquatics | ||
+ | by scientists and managers must respect Zuni perspectives and knowledge sovereignty by | ||
+ | providing it equal standing with Western forms of knowledge production. To assume that the | ||
+ | only viable method of controlling aquatic non-natives is through lethal means changes the | ||
+ | expression and impression of the Colorado River as a waterway of life to a river of death. It | ||
+ | is imperative that scientists and managers respective Zuni values through the integration of | ||
+ | Zuni perspectives with scientific analyses to make them more compassionate, caring, | ||
+ | holistic, and ultimately, productive for all life that depends on the Colorado River. Penned | ||
+ | over 56 years ago and directed toward unrestrained pesticide use, Rachel Carson’s | ||
+ | (1961:275) words expressed in Silent Spring, are prescient when considering the lethal | ||
+ | management of non-native aquatics in the Colorado River. She wrote, “Life is a miracle | ||
+ | beyond our comprehension, and we should reverence it even where we have to struggle | ||
+ | against it…. The resort to weapons such as insecticides to control it is proof of insufficient | ||
+ | knowledge and of an incapacity so to guide the processes of nature that brute force becomes | ||
+ | unnecessary. Humbleness is in order; there is no excuse for scientific conceit.” [https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181069] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image:TEK- PIC.jpg|center|400px]] | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Line 82: | Line 241: | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
− | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title= | + | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Portal:GCDAMP_Knowlege_Assessments GCMRC Annual Reports page] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln1tgSLxOGk Desert View Inter-tribal Heritage Site video] |
− | *[http://itcaonline.com/?page_id=1160 Havasupai] | + | *[http://itcaonline.com/?page_id=1160 Havasupai Tribal website: Kam yuu (pronounced "gum yoo")] |
− | *[http://www.hopi-nsn.gov/ Hopi] | + | *[http://www.hopi-nsn.gov/ Hopi Tribal website: Ha'u (pronounced "hah-uh")] |
− | *[http://hualapai-nsn.gov/ Hualapai] | + | *[http://hualapai-nsn.gov/ Hualapai Tribal website: Kam yuu (pronounced "gum yoo")] |
− | *[http://www.navajo-nsn.gov/ Navajo] | + | *[http://www.navajo-nsn.gov/ Navajo Tribal website: Yá'át'ééh (pronounced "yah-ah-t-ay")] |
− | *[http://www.kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov/SPC.html Southern Paiute Consortium] | + | *[http://www.kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov/SPC.html Southern Paiute Consortium Tribal website: Maiku (pronounced "my-kuh")] |
− | *[http://www.ashiwi.org/ Zuni] | + | *[http://www.ashiwi.org/ Zuni Tribal website: Keshhi (pronounced "kay-shee")] |
+ | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=CULTURAL Cultural Resources Page] | ||
+ | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_CRAHG_Page Cultural Resources (CRAHG) AdHoc Group] | ||
*[http://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/cultural_resources/cultural_resources_default.aspx USGS-GCMRC Cultural Resources Link] | *[http://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/cultural_resources/cultural_resources_default.aspx USGS-GCMRC Cultural Resources Link] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Programmatic Agreement (PA) </h2> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | *[[Media:2017 LTEMP Final PA.pdf| 2017 LTEMP Programmatic Agreement (PA)]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:2018 LTEMP HPP.pdf| 2018 LTEMP Historic Preservation Plan ]] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Sacred Sites MOU - 5 Dec 12 (1).pdf| 2012 Memorandum of Understanding on Historic Preservation Regarding Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Tribal Consultation Plan</h2> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | *[[Media:Final GCDAMP Tribal Consult Plan 10-23-2015.pdf | Department of the Interior Tribal Consultation Plan for the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program; 10-23-15]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 98: | Line 275: | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
− | *Zuni Governor Panteah's Letter to Acting Secretary's Designee Regarding Brown Trout removal in Lees Ferry Reach [[ | + | *[[Media:LtrBrentRheesBrownTroutProblemLeesFerry ZuniGovernorSigned 06February2017.pdf| Zuni Governor Panteah's Letter to Acting Secretary's Designee Regarding Brown Trout removal in Lees Ferry Reach]] |
+ | *[[Media:090710 Dissenting Report - TWG FY 2010-11 Work Plan and Budget- Pueblo of Zuni.PDF | Pueblo of Zuni perspective on mechanical removal of non-native fish (2009)]] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09jun22/Attach_13.pdf Letter from Governor Norman J. Cooeyate (Pueblo of Zuni) to Larry Walkoviak, Regional Director, Dated June 30, 2009, Subject: Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (BIO 2.R16.10) for FY 2010 & 2011] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-08-12-amwg-meeting/Attach_08e.pdf 1) Dissenting report, 2) Letter from Governor Normal Cooeyate, Pueblo of Zuni; 3) Bureau of Reclamation Response Letter Dated August 4, 2009] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_20.pdf E-mail Message from Kurt Dongoske, Subj: GCMRC Presentation for TWG Conference Call January 5, 2010: Nonnative Fish Plan.] | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 104: | Line 285: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2024''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2024-05-15-amwg-meeting/20240515-GCDAMPTribalLiaisonUpdate-508-UCRO.pdf Tribal Liaison Update ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2024-02-29-amwg-meeting/20240229-HopiLong-termMonitoringTrip2023-508-UCRO.pdf Hopi Long-term Monitoring Trip 2023 ] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2023''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-ImportanceBirdsANavajoConnectionToPlace-508-UCRO.pdf Importance of Birds: A Navajo connection to place] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-01-26-twg-meeting/20230126-AnnualReportingMeeting-HopiMonitoringTrip2022-508-UCRO.pdf Hopi Monitoring Trip 2022] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2022''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-06-16-twg-meeting/20220616-TribalLiaisonPresentation-508-UCRO.pdf Tribal Liaison presentation ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-02-10-amwg-meeting/20220210-TribalLiaisonReport-508-UCRO.pdf Tribal Liaison Report ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-01-13-twg-meeting/20220113-AnnualReportingMeeting-Introduction2022TribalResourcesSession-508-UCRO.pdf Introduction to the 2022 Annual Reporting Meeting Tribal Resources Session ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-01-13-twg-meeting/20220113-AnnualReportingMeeting-IndigenousEpistemologiesLandTellingsRestorationChange-508-UCRO.pdf Indigenous Epistemologies for Land Tellings, Restoration, and Change. ] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2021''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN9RrPxDpj0&t=85s Remapping A Place: How One Tribe's Art Reconnects Them To Their Land] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2021-02-11-amwg-meeting/20210211-PlaceTimeConsciousnessGCDAMP-508-UCRO.pdf Place, Time and Consciousness in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2021-01-22-twg-meeting/20210122-AnnualReportingMeeting-PlaceTimeConsciousness-508-UCRO.pdf Place, Time and Consciousness in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2020''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMSLgYb3M8Y Zuni in the Grand Canyon] | ||
+ | *[[Media:Making mitigation meaningful to descendant communities an example from zuni (1).pdf |Making Mitigation Meaningful to Descendant Communities: An Example from Zuni ]] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2020-05-20-amwg-meeting/20200520-AMWG-TribalLiaisonProgram-508-UCRO.pdf Tribal Liaison Program ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2020-01-13-twg-meeting/20200113-AnnualReportingMeeting-TakingLifeInventory-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Taking of Life Inventory ] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2019''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2019-05-01-twg-meeting/20190501-SouthernPaiuteVegetationCulturalResourceMonitoringProgram-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Southern Paiute Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program Presentation ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2019-03-14-twg-meeting/20190314-EngagingNavajoNationChaptersHistoricPreservationSurveyResearch-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Engaging Navajo Nation Chapters in Historic Preservation and Survey Research ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2019-03-06-amwg-meeting/20190306-TriballyLedIntergratedStakeholderRiverTrip-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Led Integrated Stakeholder River Trip Presentation] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2018''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-04-23-twg-meeting/Attach_14.pdf Taking of Life Inventory PPT] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2018-02-14-amwg-meeting/Attach_04b.pdf Letter from Governor Val Panteah, Sr.'s Statement on Proposed Stocking of Rainbow Trout at Lees Ferry by Arizona Game and Fish Department to the AMWG dated February 14, 2018] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2018-02-14-amwg-meeting/Attach_05.pdf GCDAMP Joint Tribal Liaison Report PPT] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-01-25-twg-meeting/AR07.pdf Kinship to the Canyon: Hualapai Monitoring & Ethnobotany in the Grand Canyon PPT] | ||
'''2017''' | '''2017''' | ||
− | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-04-20-twg-meeting/Attach_11.pdf Southern Paiute Monitoring Program ] |
− | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2017-02-15-amwg-meeting/Attach_15.pdf Joint Tribal Liaison Report ] |
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/AR7_Fairley.pdf Historical Changes to Culturally-important Riparian Plants Along the Colorado River: A Progress Report on a Pilot Study Integrating Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/AR8_Cannon.pdf Kinship on the Canyon: Hualapai Stories of Success ] | ||
'''2016''' | '''2016''' | ||
− | |||
*[[Media:Parks, Petroglyphs, Fish, and Zuni DongoskeandHaysGilpin 2016 (2).pdf| Relating to Rock Art in The Contemporary World: Navigating Symbolism, Meaning, and Significance]] | *[[Media:Parks, Petroglyphs, Fish, and Zuni DongoskeandHaysGilpin 2016 (2).pdf| Relating to Rock Art in The Contemporary World: Navigating Symbolism, Meaning, and Significance]] | ||
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_09.pdf Federal-Tribal Liaison Report] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_10.pdf Stakeholder’s Perspective: The River of Never-Ending Life – Cultural Resources from Navajo and “TCP Core Values Nihosdzaan Doo’ Dahodiyhngoo Ba’ Hayaa”] |
'''2015''' | '''2015''' | ||
*[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGT1NaNlRGbXk2OU0/view Tribal Liaison Report] | *[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGT1NaNlRGbXk2OU0/view Tribal Liaison Report] | ||
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2015-02-25-amwg-meeting/Attach_06.pdf Joint Tribal Liaison Report] |
− | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2015-04-21-twg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf Southern Paiute Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program] | |
− | *[ | + | |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
'''2014''' | '''2014''' | ||
*[[Media:140322 ProgrammaticAgreements Compliance- Mike Yeatts.pdf| Programmatic Agreements Compliance Document- Michael Yeatts]] | *[[Media:140322 ProgrammaticAgreements Compliance- Mike Yeatts.pdf| Programmatic Agreements Compliance Document- Michael Yeatts]] | ||
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-10-28-twg-meeting/Attach_06a.pdf Navajo Nation Concerns] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-10-28-twg-meeting/Attach_06b.pdf The Hopi Tribe Landscape] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-10-28-twg-meeting/Attach_07a.pdf Navajo Nation Perspectives] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-10-28-twg-meeting/Attach_07b.pdf The Hopi Landscape] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_03a.pdf Joint Tribal Liaison Report] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_03b.pdf Secretarial Order signed by Secretary Sally Jewell;] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_03c.pdf Federal Tribal Liaison Report] |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-02-19-amwg-meeting/Attach_05.pdf Tribal Liaison Report] |
− | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-02-19-amwg-meeting/Attach_09.pdf National Historic Preservation Act Update] | |
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/Attach_07.pdf Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group Report ] |
− | *[ | + | |
− | + | ||
'''2013''' | '''2013''' | ||
− | * [ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2013-08-08-amwg-meeting/Attach_05.pdf Tribal Liaison Report] |
*[[Media:PricingtrainingpowerpointMarianneTribetwohourFINAL (1).pdf| USBR Presentation to tribes- May 9, 2013: When should a cost and/or price analysis be performed?]] [[Media:Handouts.zip| Support Material]] | *[[Media:PricingtrainingpowerpointMarianneTribetwohourFINAL (1).pdf| USBR Presentation to tribes- May 9, 2013: When should a cost and/or price analysis be performed?]] [[Media:Handouts.zip| Support Material]] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2013-02-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_08.pdf Tribal Liaison Positions and Tribal Consultation Plan Update and Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Endangered Species Conservation] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-01-24-twg-meeting/17_Hopi%20Tribe.pdf Hopi Long-term Monitoring Program for Öngtupqa] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-01-24-twg-meeting/18_SoPaiute.pdf Southern Paiute Consortium Monitoring Update] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2013-01-24-twg-meeting/19_Zuni.pdf Zuni Monitoring Program in Grand Canyon] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2012''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2012-04-16-twg-meeting/Attach_03c.pdf Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Background Presentation ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_13.pdf AIF: Update on Tribal Consultation Policy] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_14.pdf AIF: Tribal Liaison Report ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2012-02-02-twg-meeting/Attach_03b.pdf Order No. 3317, Subject: Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Tribes] | ||
'''2011''' | '''2011''' | ||
− | *[ | + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2011-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_14.pdf AIF: Tribal Liaison Report ] |
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2011-05-18-amwg-meeting/Attach_09a.pdf AIF: Tribal Liaison Report ] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2011-05-18-amwg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf Federal Register Notice: Request for Comments on Consultation with Indian Tribes] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2011-01-20-twg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf Bureau of Reclamation Updates ] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2010''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-11-15-twg-meeting/Attach_01b.pdf Letter from Reclamation to AMP Tribes dated June 15, 2010, Subj: Nearshore Ecology Study Research Project (Action Within 30 Days)] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-11-15-twg-meeting/Attach_01c.pdf Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_08.pdf Tribal Coordination and Consultation] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-01-21-twg-meeting/Attach_05a.pdf Pueblo of Zuni Letter dated June 30, 2009] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-01-21-twg-meeting/Attach_05b.pdf Response from Bureau of Reclamation to Pueblo of Zuni dated August 4, 2009] | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2009''' | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_05.pdf Draft Agenda from the Govt-to-Govt Consultation with the Pueblo of Zuni Meeting] | ||
+ | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-03-16-twg-meeting/Attach_12g.pdf Expanding the Tribal Monitoring Role for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program] | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 149: | Line 386: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''2017''' | ||
+ | *[[Media:2017 SPC Annual Report-Final.docx| Southern Paiute Consortium monitoring report]] | ||
'''2016''' | '''2016''' | ||
− | * [[Media:Final River Trip Report 021217 (1).pdf|Hualapai monitoring report]] | + | * [[Media:ZuniColoradoRiverMonitoringTrip 2016 FinalReport 24March2017.pdf | Zuni River Monitoring Trip Report - Skyship Films ]] |
− | * [[Media:CPO - 2016 Annual Monitoring Report.pdf|Hopi monitoring report]] | + | * [[Media:2016 SPC report CLEAN COPY.docx| Southern Paiute Consortium monitoring report]] |
+ | * [[Media:Final River Trip Report 021217 (1).pdf| Hualapai monitoring report]] | ||
+ | * [[Media:CPO - 2016 Annual Monitoring Report.pdf| Hopi monitoring report]] | ||
'''2015''' | '''2015''' | ||
Line 178: | Line 420: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | <Span>[[File:TCP- Definition- PIC.jpg|center|400px]]</Span> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | *[http://www.nps.gov/grca/photosmultimedia/riv-or11.htm NPS Link on Native American Perspectives] and river trip orientation videos | ||
+ | *Land boundary concerns: Some interpretations of federal law hold that the Grand Canyon National Park boundary is at the high water mark of the river. Others hold that it stretches above the rim of the canyon. The issue has never been settled in court. | ||
+ | *Question: Are there some areas along the Colorado River that are considered by the tribes as "off-limits" to non-Indians? Answer: Yes. | ||
+ | *Executive Order 13007 states that a federal agency shall accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and that the federal agency shall avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image:Zuni IMGP2211.JPG|center|400px]] | ||
*[https://youtu.be/gJSJ28eEUjI Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science: Dr. Leroy Little Bear Talk] | *[https://youtu.be/gJSJ28eEUjI Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science: Dr. Leroy Little Bear Talk] | ||
|} | |} |
Latest revision as of 11:06, 23 August 2024
|
Tribal PerspectivesThe lower reaches of Glen Canyon and the river corridor through Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, have been used by humans for at least 13,000 years. Today, at least nine contemporary Native American Tribes claim traditional cultural ties to this area. Grand Canyon National Park contains more than 4,000 documented prehistoric and historic sites, and about 420 of these sites are located in proximity to the Colorado River. The lower reaches of Glen Canyon contain an additional 55 sites. In addition to archaeological sites, cultural resources along the Colorado River corridor include historic structures and other types of historic properties, as well as biological and physical resources that are of traditional cultural importance to Native American peoples such as springs, unique landforms, mineral deposits, native plant concentrations, and various animal species. LTEMP Resource Goal for Tribal PerspectivesMaintain the diverse values and resources of traditionally associated Tribes along the Colorado River corridor through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. Desired Future Condition for Cultural ResourcesTraditional Cultural Properties (TCPs):
|
Tribal Ecological Knowledge |
Cultural Resources Library |
Tribal Perspectives |
---|
Tribal perspectives on Aquatic Food BaseThe Zuni believe that macroinvertebrates are underwater species that are not yet ready for this world, and any disturbance to them could have negative consequences. The river’s life begins at the headwaters. The river is the umbilical cord to the earth, and through the Zuni religion, prayers, and songs there is also an invisible cord to the Zuni. This statement about underwater species relates to the Zuni history, as Zunis believe that their most ancient ancestors emerged onto this world only when they were ready for emergence. To force an aquatic species to change is to impede the species’ natural development and future progress, a violation of Zuni beliefs about the world’s natural order. (LTEMP Chapter 3, Page 65) Tribal perspectives on nonnative fish removalRepresentatives of the Pueblo of Zuni and the Hopi Tribe provided written comments to convey the perspectives of these two tribes regarding fish removal. The following text is the full, unedited set of comments, prepared by Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni) and Michael Yeatts (Hopi Tribe). Participating Native American Tribes (Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni) have expressed, through government-to-government consultation, meetings with the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and through federal compliance processes associated with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, concerns to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) regarding management actions described above involving fish suppression flows, mechanical removal of nonnative fish, and other lethal management actions. In the 2002–2004 GCMRC Biennial Work Plan, a proposal was made to conduct experimental mechanical removal of trout centered on the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers. At the time, the Hopi Tribe expressed concern about the killing of large numbers of fish and the specter of death that would be created by such activity in a culturally significant sacred area. The Hopi Tribe also understood the scientific desire to understand the effect that the non-native trout were having on the native, endangered humpback chub and if there were management options available to control the trout numbers, particularly if they were threatening the existence of the humpback chub. To make the study more culturally acceptable, the Hopi Tribe requested that the fish removed be used for a beneficial purpose, so that the life they were sacrificing wouldn’t be trivialized. The non-native fish were viewed as a fully alive component of the ecosystem, which were there through no fault of their own, and shouldn’t be needlessly punished. Perspectives of the Hopi Tribe have not significantly changed since the implementation of the original mechanical removal experiment. Killing large numbers of fish (or any other group of animals), unless there is an extraordinary circumstance, is fundamentally wrong! It is not the specific species of fish or the method of killing them that is at the heart of the Hopi concern; it is the view that their life is somehow less valuable and they are therefore expendable. Since 2006, the Hopi Long-term Monitoring Program asked about the appropriateness of removing non-native fish. To date, 46 percent of the Hopi respondents supported removal; 37 percent opposed it; and 17 percent were not sure. Those who support removal, however, clearly state that it should only be used if there is strong evidence that the non-native species is a real threat to the survival of a native species and that other causes are not more significant. Killing just because we think it might help, and we can do it, is not suitable justification. Secondly, they view killing the non-natives as the last resort. If they can be removed alive, that is preferred. Otherwise, they should be used as food for people or possibly for some other culturally appropriate purpose. Finally, the Hopi express puzzlement at the seemingly conflicting management goals of maintaining native fish and having a recreational trout fishery in the same river; and then fingering the trout as the threat to the native fish. While there are certainly many avenues being pursued that make managers feel that these divergent goals are possible, the simplest reading of the situation is that trying to achieve both of these goals is not appropriate. Over the past ten years, the Pueblo of Zuni has been the most vocal of the Tribes in expressing objection to these actions because they involve the taking of life without sufficient justification. The remainder of this section focuses on the Pueblo of Zuni’s objections to lethal management actions by situating those objections within the appropriate Zuni traditional cultural context. In doing so, a more informed and nuanced understanding of the Zuni position should be obtained. For the past twenty-five years, the Pueblo of Zuni has repeatedly emphasized to the Department of the Interior the important cultural, religious, and historical ties the Zuni people have to the Grand Canyon, Colorado River, and Little Colorado River. The Grand Canyon is the place of Zuni emergence into this current world at a place called Chimik’yana’kya dey’a, near Ribbon Falls in Bright Angel Canyon. The natural environment that Zuni people saw at Emergence became central to traditional Zuni culture. In fact, all of the plants that grow along the stream from Ribbon Falls to the Colorado River, and all the birds and other animals, springs, minerals and natural resources located in the Grand Canyon and its’ tributaries, have a central place in Zuni traditional cultural practices and ceremonial activities. The confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers is understood to be a spiritual umbilical connection between the Pueblo of Zuni and the Grand Canyon that is facilitated through the union of the Zuni River with the Little Colorado and the Colorado Rivers. The confluence is also held by the Zuni people to be an extremely important and sacred place because of its abundance of aquatic and terrestrial life that simultaneously expresses and represents the fertility of nature. The Colorado River is a particularly important place to the Zuni people because it was the location of an important historical event. This historical event was conveyed to Frank Hamilton Cushing, an American Anthropologist, by the Zuni in the late nineteenth century and is summarized below to convey the deep, intense, and remarkable significance that the Colorado River and the aquatic life within it indelibly hold for the Zuni people. “Shortly after Emergence, men of the Bear, Crane, and Seed clans strode into the red waters of the Colorado River and waded across. The men of the clans all crossed successfully. The women travelling with them carried their children on their backs and they waded into the water. Their children, who were unfinished and immature (because this occurred shortly after Emergence), changed in their terror. Their skins turned cold and scaly and they grew tails. Their hands and feet became webbed and clawed for swimming. The children fell into the swift, red waters. Some of the children became lizards, others turned into frogs, turtles, newts, and fish. “The children of these clans were lost to the waters. The mothers were able to make it to the other side of the river, where they wailed and cried for their children. The Twins heard them, returned, and advised all the mothers to cherish their children through all dangers. After listening to the Twins, those people who had yet to pass through the river took heart and clutched their children to them and safely proceeded to the opposite shore. “The people who successfully made it out of the river rested, calmed the remaining children, and then arose and continued their journey to the plane east of the two mountains with the great water between.” (Cushing, 1896, 1920, 1988; as summarized in Dongoske and Hays- Gilpin, 2016) As a consequence of this historical event, all aquatic life is recognized by present day Zunis to be descendants of those Zuni children who were lost to the waters, thus creating a strong and lasting familial bond to all aquatic life and a fundamentally important stewardship responsibility. It is precisely because of this familial bond and stewardship responsibility that the Pueblo of Zuni has for the past ten years communicated to the Department of the Interior objections to any management actions (for example, mechanical removal, trout suppression flows, piscicides) that entail the taking of aquatic life. The implementation of lethal fish management actions is contrary to Zuni worldview and environmental ethics. Annual ceremonial activities carried out by the Zuni are performed to ensure adequate rainfall and prosperity for all life. Zuni people pray not only for Zuni lands, but for all people and all lands. Zuni prayers are especially aimed at bringing precipitation to the Southwest. In order to successfully carry out Zuni prayers, offerings, and ceremonies necessary to ensure rainfall for crops and the prosperity of all life, Zuni must maintain a balance with all parts of the interconnected universe. The animals, including all aquatic life, birds, plants, rocks, sand, minerals, and water in the Grand Canyon convey special meaning and have significant material and spiritual relationships to the Zuni people. To needlessly take life causes an imbalance in the natural world and also disturbs the harmony and health of the spiritual realm and the Zuni peoples. Moreover, the Zuni recognize that there is a direct causal relationship between what happens in and to the Colorado River within Grand Canyon and the Pueblo of Zuni. According to Zuni religious and political leaders and illustrative of this point, when the initial mechanical removal efforts were occurring at the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers between 2003 and 2006, Zuni experienced an increased use of taser guns by Zuni police on Zuni community members. The increased use of tasers by Zuni police is viewed by the Zuni religious leaders as a direct adverse effect on the Zuni community that resulted from those mechanical removal efforts. To underscore this Zuni recognition of a cause/effect relationship between the Grand Canyon and Zuni, the Zuni religious leaders expressed their concern that the ongoing mechanical removal of brown trout and other non-natives from Bright Angel Creek by the National Park Service is contributing to an increase in the number of Zuni community members that are dying on a daily basis in Zuni. They emphasized that recognition that has existed since the time of Emergence. The implementation of lethal management actions to control non-native aquatic species, especially rainbow and brown trout, within the Colorado River through Glen and Grand Canyons creates a disproportionately negative impact, materially, spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically, on the Zuni people. These actions tend to emphasize strong reliance on reactionary management strategies rather than promoting proactive and productive approaches focused on identifying and controlling the antecedent environmental and structural conditions that promote or allow non-natives to enter and thrive within the system. The continued consideration of lethal management tools to address non-native aquatics demonstrates a disregard for the Zuni familial and stewardship relationship to aquatic life, a devaluation of the special relationship that the Zuni people have with the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River, and a blatant dismissal of previously expressed Zuni concerns to the U.S. Government. The comparison of management options directed toward the control of non-native aquatics by scientists and managers must respect Zuni perspectives and knowledge sovereignty by providing it equal standing with Western forms of knowledge production. To assume that the only viable method of controlling aquatic non-natives is through lethal means changes the expression and impression of the Colorado River as a waterway of life to a river of death. It is imperative that scientists and managers respective Zuni values through the integration of Zuni perspectives with scientific analyses to make them more compassionate, caring, holistic, and ultimately, productive for all life that depends on the Colorado River. Penned over 56 years ago and directed toward unrestrained pesticide use, Rachel Carson’s (1961:275) words expressed in Silent Spring, are prescient when considering the lethal management of non-native aquatics in the Colorado River. She wrote, “Life is a miracle beyond our comprehension, and we should reverence it even where we have to struggle against it…. The resort to weapons such as insecticides to control it is proof of insufficient knowledge and of an incapacity so to guide the processes of nature that brute force becomes unnecessary. Humbleness is in order; there is no excuse for scientific conceit.” [1] |