Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
State of the Monuments - Episode 40
82 Plays6 years ago
The Bears Ears and Escalante National Monuments were recently reduced in size by the present administration. Chelsi, Emily, Kirsten, and Jessica discuss the action and its impacts on local populations and archaeology.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Women in Archaeology Podcast
00:00:01
Speaker
You're listening to the Archaeology Podcast Network.
00:00:06
Speaker
Hi, and welcome to the Women in Archaeology podcast, a podcast about for and by women in the fields on our final episode of 2017. And when did it become the final episode of 2017? This year is absolutely flown by.
Downsizing of National Monuments by Trump Administration
00:00:20
Speaker
But on this episode, we will be discussing the recent decision by the Trump administration to downsize two national monuments in Utah, along with the potential to downsize monuments in other states.
00:00:35
Speaker
Joining me on this episode are Emily Long, Kirsten Lopez, and Jessica Irwin. Thank you so much for being here today. I know we're all super busy with the run-up to the holidays, so I really appreciate you all taking the time out to have this really important conversation. So to start off, can someone, I think Kirsten, you offered, give a quick overview of the monument situation as it stands today?
Overview of the Antiquities Act and Trump's Modifications
00:01:03
Speaker
Yes, so what most people I'm sure have heard of is bears ears. Now what exactly is happening isn't entirely very clear as far as popular media has been portraying it, mostly I think because while it's a simple thing, people think it's more complicated than it is. And basically the Antiquities Act being one of the shortest acts to do with
00:01:32
Speaker
preservation, conservation, but it was also the first
00:01:36
Speaker
is being used for the first time to modify previously designated national monuments. So what Trump has done, he has elected to downsize two previously elected or appointed, so not elected, two previously appointed national monuments by Clinton and Obama.
00:02:02
Speaker
both Grand Staircase, Escalante, and Bear's Ears. So there's a number of things going on, but the basic down and dirty is that these have both been reduced significantly, Bear's Ears, by 85%.
00:02:23
Speaker
down to just a tiny fraction of what it was designated as. And at the same time, our current Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Zinke, has written a report on the usage of the national monuments and has declared a number, I think an additional five, that may
00:02:50
Speaker
be up for further reduction or modification of their protections, and that includes in my home state here in Oregon, the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, as well as a number of others.
00:03:05
Speaker
including not just out west here, but I believe there's one in Maine that is also up for review. And this is kind of beyond the review as it had occurred previously. This is going, okay, we've reviewed. These are the five that we think are
00:03:22
Speaker
needing to be revised, and that's what they're looking at doing. I don't know how much public comment is going to be taking place for those once they start to move forward on that, but that's the nutshell version of what's going on right now. Yeah, so that's a really great overview. Thank you for that. And I know one of the things that has definitely been getting some media attention is the question of whether or not
Legal Challenges Against Downsizing of Monuments
00:03:52
Speaker
the decision to downsize these two monuments with the potential to downsize five more is actually legal. And there are some legal challenges that have been filed, one by Patagonia and I believe another by a group of Native American tribes.
00:04:19
Speaker
Because the 1906 American Antiquities Act is so short, I think that there are some questions about
00:04:27
Speaker
What's legal? What isn't? Where's that all going to? And I think, Emily, I believe you did an ARC 365 episode on the Antiquities Act. So do you want to speak a little bit about that? Sure. I'm not going to call you out. No, that's all right. It's like, uh-oh. So yeah, the Antiquities Act, it is incredibly short. It is our first major piece of cultural resource management legislation. And essentially, what it still can be used for
00:04:56
Speaker
is the president is allowed to designate national monuments. And that has been done throughout history. There are very few presidents that decided not to designate national monuments. Now, it has happened in the past that monuments have been changed. And president, there's really nothing in there that says a president cannot change an already established monument.
00:05:23
Speaker
But these changes that have been done in the past have been incredibly small and they weren't really contested in court. So they were really tiny issues where the monuments were changed in one way or another. The big issue here with the act still is that there's really no language in there at all that says it can be
00:05:46
Speaker
Minimized this much and it can really harm the axe ability for monuments to continue to be created Because what's the point if I'm not the next president can say nope. We're not gonna have that monument after all hypothetically Congress said that
00:06:06
Speaker
the president has this right to create and establish monuments, but again, there's really nothing that Congress has ever said that the president can nullify or reduce to such a large degree a monument. Because, I mean, it's one thing to take away a few acres, adjust boundaries, and that's essentially what's happened in the past, but to decrease something by 85%, that's extreme, and that is what is unprecedented, and what the big issue is with the
00:06:36
Speaker
Antiquities Act. Yeah. So I think that another important aspect of the Antiquities Act is that while it doesn't expressly forbid a president from modifying a national monument once it's been designated, it also doesn't officially grant that authority either. So I think that's an issue.
00:07:06
Speaker
that lawyers are going to have some debates over. I know another bit that kind of has to deal with the wording of the Antiquities Act that has been brought up in media is that the Antiquities Act states that
00:07:24
Speaker
Presidents should protect important sites while using the smallest amount of land possible. I think Bear's Ears is 1.35 million acres was what its designation was for. There are a lot of people who say 1.35 million acres is a very large swath of land that
00:07:51
Speaker
you know, essentially can't be used. I think it is also important to note that the original suggestion for the size of bears ears from the Native American Tribal Council that participated in the formation of bears ears was for about 1.9 million acres. So it's already
00:08:13
Speaker
smaller than what was asked for and is actually in line with what a lot of politicians were thinking about and talking about at the time of its creation. If I may real quick, we have to also keep in mind there are a number of parks, forests, BLM, etc. that have even more acreage. It's not like this is unheard of to have so much land designated under a federal agency. There are other places with more acreage.
00:08:42
Speaker
Well, and it's already federal land, and I think some people forget that. It's not being taken away from private ownership. Sure. It isn't being taken away from private ownership. There are people who live in the area, and there's areas who were not a fan of the designation because of what they saw as the economic limitations of having that land no longer being available for
00:09:10
Speaker
grazing or mining or trying to extract crude oil and all of that. And that whole big fear of government overreach in general. It's like, you can't take this from us. It's like, well, it was public lands regardless, but still that big government don't come
Antiquities Act Land Protection Requirements
00:09:30
Speaker
here. Yeah.
00:09:32
Speaker
Well, and to add in, if there are sites and cultural places that are important in that area, if a company had applied to, say, drill for oil, they would have been rejected anyway based on the importance of those sites and of those cultural places. So in essence, the way that I like to look at the way that Bears Ears in particular, but a lot of these different national monuments,
00:10:02
Speaker
work is kind of like, you know, this whole area rather than piecemealing and bits and protecting just like a patchwork
00:10:17
Speaker
bits and pieces, this is protecting the landscape, which is sort of the important part. And the mention earlier of the, which is I think an important piece that is sort of the biggest player in all of the hoopla is the minimum
00:10:36
Speaker
the smallest possible piece of land to protect. Well, it's like, well, what are you protecting? Getting into other, you know, cultural resource law, there's a lot of discussion on areas of potential effect, which can get into view shed, it can get into audio earshot, like protecting a sacred site can also be making sure that there aren't, you know, you can't hear
00:11:05
Speaker
drills in the background, that you're not having skyscrapers or windmills in the viewshed of a place that is special. Yeah, and the other thing too with the way that the Antiquities Act is written, and I think a lot of cultural resource law is written this way, is that it's intentionally ambiguous so that by saying the minimum
00:11:32
Speaker
amount of land without putting any kind of specifications on that is that you can protect the view shed, you can protect the extent of the site, you can protect areas related to one site that are potentially unsurveyed. But I think what's unfortunate in our current political climate is anything that is ambiguous is now just kind of being taken to the extreme other direction where the intent of the law is not
00:12:02
Speaker
being looked at, it's just the letter of the law that they're looking at. If you look at what was happening in 1906 and why the Antiquities Act was written and the potential timber impact at Yosemite and at Yellowstone and this idea that, okay, we need to figure out a way to protect these places,
00:12:25
Speaker
The intent of the law was protection. And now our administration is going through and saying, well, the letter of the law, which is not how any of this is really supposed to work, which is unfortunate. So very true.
00:12:42
Speaker
Exactly. Because if we look at any of the cultural resource management laws, National Historic Preservation Act, any of those things, just like what you're saying, Jessica, the intent is protection, protecting cultural resources. If we're looking at NEPA, protection of natural resources, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all of that. And now all of these seem to be swept aside because it's like, well, we don't really want the intent. We don't really care about the intent. What does it exactly say? So how we can get around it?
00:13:07
Speaker
Well, and I think if you go look at other national monuments and other areas where there are national monuments, you're going to be hard pressed to find 15, 20 years on people that are saying like, oh, we regret that this area around our home was turned into a national monument. It's the opposite. Mining and those industries that
00:13:31
Speaker
they're arguing in favor of like to build economic growth. And I know we're going to talk about this a little bit more later, but, um, you know, they're, they're really short sighted where like, you know, if you sell an artifact, you can only sell it once, but if you want to go and look at an archeological site or go look at a beautiful vista, like it will be there. Um, and so that's, I think the other part that baffles me is the short sightedness of
00:13:59
Speaker
you know, quote unquote economic reasons for limiting cultural and environmental protections. Yeah, sure. But let's like, be honest right here. Nothing that has happened in the last year has given
00:14:14
Speaker
me any cause to think that there is anything other than short sighted, what can line my pocket kind of behavior going on. Why would you say that? You say we're not trying not to be overly put, but like makes me really angry. Yeah. No, that's very true. There's not much, I haven't seen much logic in this past year. Oh, no. Yeah. Not at all. Logic.
00:14:40
Speaker
What is that? Right? And there has just been this entire overwhelming feeling of... Fear? We didn't like Obama. I mean, fear, yes. We didn't like Obama, so we're just gonna undo everything he did because...
00:14:55
Speaker
You know, you want to, with not necessarily a lot of thought about potential impacts on that. And even when the potential impacts are very clear, like earlier in the year with attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, where it was very clear that millions of people were going to lose health insurance and premiums was going to go up.
00:15:16
Speaker
The majority, and I won't say the entirety because I know that there were some Republicans who were opposed to it, but the majority of Republicans basically said, we don't care if millions of people lose their health care and potentially die as a result of this. So like, my belief in their empathy or caring is not.
00:15:32
Speaker
Well, I also think they're trying to just like frame it in this really strange way. And it's been making me really furious every time I read an article that says like, this obscure piece of legislation. It's like, it's not obscure. It's not obscure. It's the shortest. Yeah, every like, the majority of presidents have utilized it. You know, like, there are at least, you know, one anthropology professor in any every university in the country. So I know that people know what this
00:16:00
Speaker
is. It's not obscure. Obscure is some random tax code that's 0.16, 0.07 AC, whatever. That's obscure. The Antiquities Act is not an obscure piece of legislation, and framing it that way just undermines its importance.
00:16:16
Speaker
Exactly. And so that kind of gets to the heart too, then. Why is this really happening? Is it because of this fear of government overreach from those who live in Utah? Is it that, oh, Obama did too much? Or is there other things going on underneath this? And a lot of articles have indicated that there is that fear that we're going to lose out on certain minerals, certain
00:16:40
Speaker
gas and whatnot, but we're moving away so much from that type of exploitation on the landscape. As you guys earlier mentioned, we wouldn't be able to do that anyway because it is public lands, regardless if it's a national monument or not. What I find deeply concerning is like, well, what is at the heart of all of this? It can't just be because they're like, well, we don't really want this monument. It's like,
00:17:04
Speaker
but so many people did. And even those who weren't sure about Grand Staircase now have considered like an essential monument. So it's deeply concerning to me.
00:17:18
Speaker
I think one thing with the mining, while the energy sources is something that we've moved away from and kind of progressed toward sort of alternative, these sorts of alternative energy exploitations is the fact that there is a finite amount of these rare earth elements that are used for high technology and we have those but we can't currently mine them.
00:17:43
Speaker
And while prices are pretty high for the stuff that's coming out of China and Africa, it is specifically certain parts of Africa, you have this desire for opening up that kind of mining. And I haven't seen that voiced a lot, but I have seen it a couple of times. And I can't remember the resources that I pulled that, that I'm pulling that from.
00:18:13
Speaker
But it is something that should kind of be remembered that it's not just the energy resources necessarily, it's these other things that they're trying to not bring up because they're trying to keep it a little bit, I think, on the down low.
00:18:32
Speaker
Yeah, and whether or not that sort of mining would have been able to take place even without the designation, like oil drilling wouldn't necessarily have been able to take place because it was federal land even without the national park designation. I will admit to not being enough of an expert on that particular topic to speak with any degree of certainty.
00:19:00
Speaker
But that being said, there is historically many examples of federal land being used for mining and sometimes fracking or oil. True. Yeah, oil extraction. It's a big issue at Chaco Canyon, and people are very worried it's going to harm cultural resources at one of the most amazing archaeological sites in the United States. Yeah. Yeah.
Potential Impacts of Land Use Changes
00:19:27
Speaker
We are about at the end of our first segment and I can tell that we're all just kind of like itching and getting so close to talking about the potential negative impacts of what using this land for mining or oil or like anything else could be. So I'm gonna suggest that we call this section and then when we come back we can really delve into the issues surrounding what could happen if this land was used for
00:19:55
Speaker
other things. Brilliant. Sounds good. This network is supported by our listeners. You can become a supporting member by going to arcpodnet.com slash members and signing up. As a supporting member, you have access to high quality downloads of each show and a discount at our future online store and access to show hosts on a members only Slack team. For professional members, we'll have training shows and other special content offered throughout the year.
00:20:22
Speaker
Once again, go to arcpodnet.com slash members to support the network and get some great extras and swag in the process. That's arcpodnet.com slash members. Hi and welcome back to the Women in Archaeology podcast. On today's episode so far, we have been discussing the situation surrounding the national monuments and their potential reduction. When we left off last section, we were talking about
00:20:52
Speaker
some of the potential uses for the land and why people might be interested in having the land declassified as a national monument. And moving forward, I'd like to talk a little bit about what some of the human impacts of that are. So I know earlier we were talking, in the break, we were talking a little bit about
00:21:21
Speaker
Uranium mining and that there that's like one resource that's been floated as maybe a thing to be done
00:21:28
Speaker
And Jessica, I think you had strong opinions that should be shared, if you're willing. Yeah. I mean, I like my family, like my extended family has been personally affected by non-disclosed uranium pollution. I have family who lives in Arizona and one of the members of my family after this, you know, she gave birth to a child who had extreme birth defects.
00:21:57
Speaker
like basically like her skin was like the way that skin functions just was like non-existent she had lots of problems with organs and you know like just really like the most horrific thoughts you could have as a potential mother like um and it came to find out it was because a uranium mine close to where they were living was illegally dumping
00:22:21
Speaker
had gotten into the water supply. There was other kids and people who were getting cancer and all those different things. And so in this monument discussion, I've seen this argument that they want to potentially open up the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. And I understand that uranium is a valuable resource that a lot of our weapons are small and defense relies on it. And that's a whole separate issue that we don't need to get into. However, the argument that
00:22:51
Speaker
there would be no pollution and there would be strong protections and regulations to prevent this is honestly just ridiculous. They told us the same thing with all this pipeline stuff. It hasn't even been six months and there's already been oil spills. I listen every day to our president talk about how he wants to get rid of regulations, get rid of regulations, get rid of regulations. So what makes anyone think that
00:23:18
Speaker
you know, they're going to be protected from this potential pollution, not just from uranium, but from really any of these mineral exploits, oil and gas fracking, you know, like you name it. If it's about money going into pockets, like corners will be cut and the people who are going to be impacted are the people who live in these environmentally and culturally sensitive areas.
00:23:46
Speaker
Exactly. And it will travel outside of those areas as well. I mean, if you look at any kind of spill, it travels in the water, it's going to get elsewhere to places where people then may actually get up in arms about it. But well, not only does it travel in the water, if you're talking about the desert and the highlands and the like the plains, like those
00:24:06
Speaker
areas function off aquifers. And once those contaminants are in aquifers, they're there forever. There is no cleaning up from a polluted
Regulatory Challenges and Environmental Safety
00:24:14
Speaker
aquifer. Then that water is just gone. Exactly. Yeah. And I think it's important also to point out that even when sanctions do exist, time and time again, it has been shown that
00:24:31
Speaker
The companies are willing to take the risk of breaking the sanctions and risk being caught because the settlement that they may end up paying for doing whatever they have done that was illegal could very potentially be less costly than having to pay for proper disposal of uranium or other waste products.
00:24:54
Speaker
because that is expensive because they are incredibly harmful. So you have to make sure they're safe. And when that company is all about the bottom line and it's not necessarily measured in the potential harm and the cost to human life, even if the sanctions were incredibly strong, you would still probably see companies breaking sanctions because it's worth it.
00:25:24
Speaker
in terms of their bottom line. Well, I also think that the trust argument is a hilarious one, just like little tangent on that point. Like people go on and on about like, you can't trust the federal government. Like we can't trust them to take care of this land. Like what makes you think you can trust some like corporation to do it? I don't, like these two things do not equate, so. There's a reason to have the regulations. If we didn't have the regulations, companies will do whatever they feel like. That's why we need the regulations.
00:25:53
Speaker
One of the interesting things I've run across in talking to people is that there are people out there who do think that corporations care more about people than the government. They think that corporations will choose what's right for people.
00:26:15
Speaker
Documentation in history doesn't seem to help this situation in their minds like they don't believe it. It's been made up, whatever. So that is a challenge that kind of goes into the anti-intellectualist situation that's going on for a lot of the base of our president. And it's challenging
00:26:46
Speaker
in getting a lot of this stuff heard. Because I'm 100% on board with this fact that all of this that they're looking at trying to do, none of it's going to be good. I mean, you can't trust corporations because time and time again, both in history over the past 200 years, through the history of our country, as well as more recent,
00:27:13
Speaker
History, I mean, you have, for example, the Dakota Pipeline was a really great example of, you know what? There's no repercussions. We're just going to bulldoze it and get this out of our way so we don't have to deal with it because we don't want to go to court. I mean, that was a lot of the mindset of what happened there. So it's something that is
00:27:37
Speaker
I would like to see outside of, I mean obviously I don't think that these should be opened up for any sort of mining exploration, but for the stuff that exists we really need to up the ante on whatever
00:27:58
Speaker
consequences. And I think that point that you made, Chelsea, earlier, I think it was Chelsea. I could be wrong. You can cut that out. But I think the point made on the fact that you have... I don't remember. I lost my train of thought. Never mind. That's okay.
00:28:27
Speaker
When you two have examples of companies, the oil and gas industry for decades, spent decades persecuting this one scientist whose name I can't remember, who was coming out and saying that the leaded exhaust that's coming out of exhaust pipes on your cars is dangerous and is going to harm your children. They literally spent decades and so much money
00:28:56
Speaker
trying to shut this person down. And all that this one individual was doing was trying to save people's lives. So yeah, I mean historically you do have so many examples of companies not doing the correct thing. On the opposite side of the coin, Patagonia has gotten a lot of
00:29:17
Speaker
press in the last couple weeks because they have sued the government over their decision to downsize fairs ears. And there's an amazing interview with the CEO of Patagonia and Teen Vogue and like massive shout out to Teen Vogue. They've been so woke like last year with the election. And I'm just I'm like super stoked. They're doing a great job.
00:29:46
Speaker
you know, talking about issues that matter and not just being like a fashion magazine kind of thing. Exactly. And if Team Vogue would like to ever talk about archaeology and women's roles in it, we would love to join in that. I mean, exactly. But and we'll make sure that we put that interview in the show notes, you know, but but they do actually care that the CEO has created a brand
00:30:13
Speaker
that cares about the ability to get outdoors, but they are also an outdoor brand and the majority of people who work for them go to national parks, they go hulking, they rock climb, they whitewater raft, they birdwatch, I mean, you know, whatever. So they are people who in their personal lives are going to care about the existence of these places. So I mean like mad, mad props to them is kind of really where I'm
00:30:40
Speaker
Well, and also with Patagonia, first of all, woman CEO. All male founders now have woman CEO, so get it. That's awesome.
00:30:55
Speaker
make a lot of money. But they're very clear that profits are not their motives. They are starting this whole initiative of reused product and recycle and you can get your stuff repaired if it breaks and lifetime usage. But with that, it is in their mission to preserve these places and
00:31:15
Speaker
I mean, at the end of the day, like their product is to get you up on the mountain and to get you outside. So if there's no if there's no places to go like their purpose is null and void to begin with. But it's nice and refreshing to see a corporation that is willing to be like.
00:31:32
Speaker
I don't need you, supposedly millionaire person who is in the White House, to bolster my own profits. There's some of us who can exist on our own merits without your help. So I think that is one of the other things that I just really appreciate about that. And also, yeah, go team vote, real issues, smart women. I appreciate it. Yeah, for sure.
00:31:57
Speaker
And outside of just Patagonia, there's been a great response from scientific communities, from various companies, conservation groups, even paleontology organizations.
00:32:10
Speaker
So all this talk of Patagonia, I totally respect the brand and what they're doing is really great. But it's not the first time we've seen outdoor brands kind of take that spotlight. I mean, if you guys remember who our last secretary of the interior was, she was a previous CEO of REI. So you have
00:32:34
Speaker
they have like this purpose, this drive to help preserve. It does help their bottom line, of course, but that's sort of not, that's like almost, I wouldn't say a side effect of their existence. But their drive to make profit is because they want to preserve these other things. You know, they could do a number of other
00:33:01
Speaker
They could have done a number of other things to be more profitable when they first started up early, both Patagonia and REI, and even Columbia have been around for.
00:33:13
Speaker
what, 70 years or more? And it's impressive. I mean, yeah, it's kind of one of those cool hipster things to go and do now, but it wasn't always that way. And that's something that they have, I think because they started out in a time when what they were doing was not so popular, their motives
00:33:36
Speaker
that get them their profit are well-meaning because that's why those companies started in the first place. And I think it's really neat to see them become more prominent because that means that those values are actually being held by more people in the populace. At least that's how I feel. Yeah, I don't know about kind of the foundation of
00:34:06
Speaker
the companies versus where they're at now because like Abercrombie and Fitch is an excellent example that was originally started as an outdoorsman store. Oh, I did not know that. Yeah. So will I appreciate the argument that you are making? I don't know in terms of when they were founded 60, 70, 100 years ago. Obviously it can have a really big impact on
00:34:35
Speaker
the company and what they're doing. But it can certainly be said that the people today are there. Yeah. And I appreciate the point that you're trying to make.
00:34:49
Speaker
But regardless, so they're suing the president, which is awesome. And then other people are suing, but the kind of the question is going to be like, where are these lawsuits going to go? Like who is going to try them? Like how, like, you know, it's hard to see the direction that they're going to go to try
00:35:05
Speaker
And to what aim, to restore the entire monument, just to say that what Trump is doing is illegal. What is the direction that these are going to go? I appreciate that there's these powerful companies that are getting behind it and taking the lead and doing what we obviously are financially and resourcefully incapable of doing as archaeologists. But I'm curious to see where it will go, how it will play out, and
00:35:30
Speaker
how like, I don't want to, this is like not a very tactful way to say it, but like what kind of beating they're going to take before they get, they can get anywhere. Yeah. What's interesting with that, because there have been a number of lawsuits, there are articles that have stated that it's highly likely that a lot of these lawsuits would be consolidated so that it would be a much stronger argument. Whether or not that means there'll be still a separate
00:35:58
Speaker
tribal suit versus all of these different companies and whatnot suit. I'm hoping that the consolidation would at least create a stronger argument because if we look at the history of some of these court cases when it comes to environmental issues, unfortunately, it usually tends to side with government. If we're even just looking at
00:36:24
Speaker
the different legal suits that tribes have brought up against the government, they have won very few of them. It's usually about, they win about 50% of the tribe when it comes to about environmental issues. And so, unfortunately, I don't have the information when it comes to general suits for environmental concerns, government wrongdoing or government
00:36:49
Speaker
overreach I guess for something like shrinking the monuments but um my big hope is with this that at least maybe a stronger argument will be made by having such a large suit including so many people. Yeah I think that's hopefully you know if they consolidate it'll have a stronger impact. I think there's also considerations to be had that
00:37:17
Speaker
extend beyond the environmental. And I'm not trying to say they're not important because they are. But as we've seen in the recent discourse around climate change and global warming in our country, there are certainly people who don't believe in climate change. But some of the other issues that exist with trying to opening up these areas for oil jollying or extraction of coal or other sorts of minerals is
00:37:46
Speaker
that it actually doesn't put the US in a great position technologically in terms of innovation, in terms of ability to compete in the global market. Even countries in the Middle East who are one of the major exporters of oil are working on finding renewable energy sources, be it solar, be it wind turbines, or anything else.
00:38:14
Speaker
because they understand that that is the tide that's currently the tide is turning, that's where we're at. That's going to be the energy of the future. And for us to want to kind of recede, and I use the term us as for kind of the powers that be currently control politics, to want to recede into the energy sources of the 1950s
00:38:42
Speaker
and 60s is just so short-sighted because 20 years from now, we're not now, but we will not be at the head of innovation with renewable energy sources and we will have to get that technology from somewhere else and that's something that we will have to pay for. Even if you're not concerned about the potential environmental impacts of doing this, there are going to be real long-term
00:39:07
Speaker
economic consequences for the United States as an entire country because we refuse to move forward with the rest of the world. That's my soapbox for the day. That's an excellent point because I don't think we look
00:39:23
Speaker
that far into the future for these issues. Like you all said earlier, it's not looking at the long-term effects of what these could be. It's easy for us as archaeologists to say, oh, the resources will suffer, or if we're looking from a tribal aspect, sacred lands will suffer. But if we can convince politicians, hey, our entire economy will suffer in the long term, maybe that's what will change minds if we can't change hearts.
00:39:51
Speaker
Right. And as archaeologists, we do have, I'm going to go with a leg up simply because so many of us deal with history in terms of centuries or millennia. So we are already in a mental space where we think about time in terms of a large time scale rather than a week or a month or a couple of years, which is just something that our profession provides for us.
00:40:22
Speaker
Emily, you had really briefly touched on some of the indigenous rights issues that were also part of the Bears Ear designation and the decision to reduce the size of it.
00:40:42
Speaker
We are at the end of our second segment, but when we come back, I would really love to dive into that issue a little bit. Sounds great. See you after the break.
00:40:57
Speaker
Hey podcast listeners, do you find yourself wondering what the latest tablet or smartphone could do for your business? Wonder what GPS to pair with your device? Just trying to figure out how to go digital in the field without breaking the bank and or making a bad investment? Or did you find a technology company to work with but just aren't sure of the questions you need to ask during the initial conversation? Well, you're not alone. There are literally thousands of tech combinations out there and it can be really tough finding the right one for your business and your workflow.
00:41:20
Speaker
My name is Chris Webster and I've been working in CRM since 2005 and I've been a tech enthusiast my entire life. I spend my time trying to figure out how to make archaeology more efficient both technologically and financially. No one is going to give you a big pile of money to do whatever you want with, so you have to make the most of what you have. Right gear can mean the difference between zero margins on that next project and an employee benefits package.
00:41:39
Speaker
That's where DigTech concierge comes in. Let us be your technology guru. Whether you have just a few questions or want us on retainer 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, we're here to help. With years of experience, tens of thousands of acres of survey done completely digitally, and many, many people trained, DigTech is your tech BFF just waiting to guide you through this process now and through the inevitable changes to come.
00:41:58
Speaker
Should you hold on to those tablets or upgrade? What about the new operating system? Will it crash your apps or can you go ahead and do it? We know the answers and can guide you to a profitable year. Go to www.digtech-llc.com slash tech dash concierge to book a consultation or book us for the year. The yearly retainer includes unlimited calls and support and company training on software and gear. That's digtech dash LLC dot com slash tech dash concierge.
00:42:24
Speaker
and concierge is C-O-N-C-I-E-R-G-E to get going and go digital today. Call us before you make any decisions. We've been there before. Hi, and welcome back to the Women in Archaeology
Impact on Native American Tribes
00:42:39
Speaker
podcast. On today's episode, we've been discussing the recent decision to downsize two national monuments in Utah. In the last couple of sections, we've talked about why people might want
00:42:53
Speaker
the monuments to be downsized, as well as some of the serious drawbacks to downsizing the monuments. One thing that we touched on really, really briefly is the impact that it's going to have to Native American tribes in the area. And one thing that a lot of people don't realize is that the legislation for downsizing the monuments included
00:43:18
Speaker
some languaging about restructuring some of the tribal involvement with Bear's Ears that, you know, is probably not great. Some people are trying to spin it in a good light. I personally don't think it's good.
00:43:35
Speaker
Emily, if you want to kick us off with a little bit of an introduction as to what's going on with that. Sure. Yes. What the administration wants to do with the shrinking of the monuments is that they'll give the tribes co-management of the land. However, we have to keep in mind that
00:43:57
Speaker
A lot of the tribes already wanted about 1. million acres of bear's ears to be protected because it's sacred lands. And co-management of
00:44:07
Speaker
any of that acreage may sound great but it's really in many respects like a slap in the face because it it's really taking um a lot of the consultation a lot of the things that have to be done away so what this legislation would do is that the president could personally he could select who the tribal members would be so it wouldn't be up to the tribes themselves um
00:44:35
Speaker
would exclude any tribe that is outside of Utah. So even though there are a number of tribes that the reservation is outside of Utah, and we want to look at history, that's not exactly the tribe's fault, it's the government's fault, and their ancestors lived in the Bears Ears area and
00:44:54
Speaker
claim that as ancestral land will they no longer be able to have any kind of voice for what is happening to that landscape, whereas the law already stipulates that consultation must take place with federally recognized tribes that hold that area as important and any work that needs to be done there, consultation has to take place. So that's taking away that consultation for anybody who does not, any tribe that's not actually in Utah.
00:45:21
Speaker
Furthermore, it's treating the tribes more as stakeholders as opposed to an actual sovereign entity. And so in these consultations, it's really talking government to government. It's not just like public stakeholders meeting. And so again, it's downplaying the tribal involvement. It's downplaying what their role should be, which is far more important than what the government would actually give to the tribes.
00:45:51
Speaker
in many ways, it's disrespectful. And if we look at the history too of how Zinke went about looking at the monuments, he rarely actually talked meaningfully to the tribes. And so I think this is just another step in a really bad direction that could end up really harming the relationship with the tribes. Yes, I'd also like to add that anyone who is under the thought process of
00:46:19
Speaker
that type of co-management granted by the president would be meaningful. You do have to consider the fact that there are a lot of tribes in the states that do help manage
00:46:36
Speaker
their ancestral lands alongside the federal agencies. They work together in a lot of situations. You have a number of areas.
00:46:52
Speaker
in the Northwest here, where the tribes are significantly involved in the management of rivers, fisheries, and so forth. So you don't have to have an official co-management. And like Emily was saying, not only would it reduce the
00:47:13
Speaker
importance of the role of all of the tribes that claim ancestry, but it would actually lessen the ability of the tribes themselves to manage in a meaningful way for themselves as well, outside of the official consultation portion. Yeah, and I think a lot of this
00:47:35
Speaker
As you mentioned earlier, Emily, like co-management sounds great. Like it's a positive sounding word and that there's been some really effective PR work that's taking on marketing strategies that have been employed here and have been employed quite a bit in the last almost 12 months to make
00:48:04
Speaker
something sound like something other than what it actually is. And then, unfortunately, a lot of people are going to hear co-management and be like, oh, well, that's a good thing, right? Without delving deeper and recognizing that it's not actually. Like you said earlier, the rights
00:48:30
Speaker
of these tribes are being infringed upon. And you can kind of already see that with there was the Navajo woman, I believe, who was against the creation. That's Rebecca Benali, like selected. I believe I could be wrong, but I believe that's right. So, you know, she was appointed to one of these
00:48:59
Speaker
counsels by the government as kind of someone that they could point to and say, oh look, but this person agrees with us. And that with the structuring of the new co-management policies that the position of the tribes would, I mean, be lessened, but it would make them minority stakeholders.
00:49:29
Speaker
rather than sovereign entities whose voices deserve to be heard. And considering that some of the language that's happened around the reduction of the national monuments is that these sites are being minimized because we're listening to the 150,000 people who live
00:49:57
Speaker
in or around the two monuments. And that we're listening to the little guy to then take these steps to actively ignore what a population that has been historically underrepresented and has historically like terrible things has been done to them by the government.
00:50:17
Speaker
It just goes against all of that rhetoric that's really being used. And even for the population too, like what you're saying with those who live directly around these monuments, there has been a big shift that has shown that the monuments are an economic boon for those who are engaged in
00:50:36
Speaker
um tourism um like cabin or cabin um canyon hiking that type of thing leading hikes and so forth so there are a lot of those who still believe that the land is incredibly important and they consider it incredibly important they just didn't want it as a monument but it was already public land so it's like it really doesn't make in general that big of a difference whether it's
00:51:02
Speaker
a monument or blm it just adds extra protection and so the argument that's like well they're taking away the land we didn't want in the first place is ridiculous and now we also have the tribes that want to have these lands protected we have to be respectful and
00:51:19
Speaker
do the right thing. If these lands were already being protected as a national monument, we have the tribes that are saying the same thing, and we have scientists, we have large populations of people, conservation groups saying this place needs to be protected and respected, then it should be. Yes, I agree with you. Sorry, soapbox, that's my rant. No, it's a good salad soapbox, but I think that we have seen
00:51:45
Speaker
a large number of examples of the fact that the current administration doesn't really care what the majority of people want. I mean, you had Republican congressional members who went home over the terms and refused to hold town halls because they didn't want their constituents to be all with them.
00:52:05
Speaker
Because they knew they were doing something your constituents didn't want. So while I completely agree with your argument, they don't think it matters. Exactly. They don't care. And that's what makes it worse is like our constituents are supposed to be doing
00:52:19
Speaker
Our elected representatives are supposed to do what our constituents want. So here's the idea. Or actually vote. Well, and change for the sake of change is not necessarily ideal either. That's, I think, a lesson that is currently being learned by some people.
00:52:47
Speaker
And the disrespect that the president has given to tribespeople of this country or in this, that are located in this country currently, they're U.S. citizens. They are in federally recognized tribes. They have
00:53:12
Speaker
sovereignty as their own nations, and they are not being treated as such by the precedent that we have right now. And that is one of the things that drives me so up the wall. And if our listeners don't believe us, just look at the interview with the Navajo co-talkers' recognition and press release with Trump and how he decided to have the whole thing in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson. And yeah.
00:53:41
Speaker
If you don't believe us, just look that up. Yes. So it's just one thing after another. It really is unfortunate because during the Obama administration, of course, you know, all presidents make mistakes, but the fact that he personally visited
00:54:03
Speaker
reservations and was the first president to really do so in some cases for some tribes. It was an amazing thing to see that there was some steps towards this really great respect, especially when, you know, he stepped in during the Dakota Access situation and the fact that when
00:54:32
Speaker
Trump was elected. One of the first things he, you know, did was try and go ahead and finish this, you know, project. No one is. No one has. What was it? No one has objected.
00:54:49
Speaker
We're screaming at the top of our lives. What planet have you been on exactly? Because I'm sure you haven't been here. But he was a stakeholder and he didn't object and that's really all that mattered to him.
Government Disrespect to Tribal Sovereignty
00:55:04
Speaker
Yes.
00:55:05
Speaker
So, I mean, there's a whole litany of things and that's, you know, there was a comment made earlier of like, you know, this administration has not really been known to be logical to really listen to the people or to
00:55:24
Speaker
respect other nations, whether it be native nations here or anywhere else in the world. So it's been, and I don't unfortunately see an ease on this, but that just means that the rest of us have to kind of pick up and do our best to defend against, you know, what seems to be happening. Sure.
00:55:53
Speaker
Well, as we're talking politics and who the president does and does not listen to, one thing that has also come out during this discussion about Bear's ears is that this may not have been something that he even really cared about, except that even prior to his election, there were
00:56:16
Speaker
Senators and politicians, lobbyists from Utah who reached out to Don Jr. as he is kind of the outdoorsman and the hunter wilderness guy of the family. I use that term loosely. He does like to kill things. How about we go into that? He likes hunting, as far as I can tell.
00:56:43
Speaker
And that is a way that he has been described in the press. But again, you have a situation where people have recognized that the way to get to Trump is through his children. And you have his children acting in capacities that are certainly not the norm and in some cases are illegal. Yes. And I mean, there are serious issues.
00:57:13
Speaker
with that. And this is just kind of another example of when that happens. This is my another political card for the day. It's one of those things, I mean, if you can't tell already what our political leavings are, there's an extra example.
00:57:38
Speaker
Although, I mean, we have had more conservative people in the show, and if you are a listener and you would like your viewpoint to be heard and you are more politically conservative than we are, please come join us on the show. You can send us an email at womenandarchaeologyatgmail.com, and we would be happy to have you on and listen to your perspective and to be with you. We're nice, we promise. We do want everyone's perspectives to be heard.
00:58:03
Speaker
And that's really the goal in a lot of our stuff that we discuss on the show is to try and open it up to as many
00:58:12
Speaker
alternative views as possible. And that said, of course, one of the reason why our views can sometimes seem so homogenous is because we are all in the same field. And when we're discussing these issues, we feel strongly like in favor of them. But I'm sure if you get us talking about something, I don't know what, something, I'm sure we disagree on something. That doesn't have to do with that. That can be the next episode.
00:58:39
Speaker
What do the women of archaeology disagree on? It's like, huh. Coming soon. 2018.
00:58:49
Speaker
So yes, but any new perspectives on the stuff that we do discuss is always welcome. If you feel like you're yelling at your phone or stereo or whatever you're listening to us on, like Chelsea said, email us, ranted us.
00:59:10
Speaker
record something and send it. We're interested in civil discourse. Yes, civil discourse. You can yell at the radio and then take a deep breath and then send us a nicer...
00:59:25
Speaker
A rant. In all honesty, too. I mean, we are very concerned about this monument situation. And so if you believe there are other aspects of this argument that should be talked about, we'd love to hear them. I mean, because it's really outside of our purview. It bears the ears, apparently has a huge number of fossil beds. And the paleontology organizations are terrified of what's going to happen to those types of things. Is that something we're as concerned about? We care. Just that, honestly, was not on my radar.
00:59:55
Speaker
Same goes for certain kinds of endangered species and plants, areas that are incredibly important for gathering wild plants for the tribes we may not be as aware of because we are so used to essentially looking at dead things.
01:00:11
Speaker
We would be happy to hear more about the different things that make Bears Ears, Grand Staircase incredibly important, as well as all these other national parks that are national monuments that are under threat, as well as any suggestions on what you think our listeners should do to help the situation. As always, contact your senators. Congress is really the only power can
01:00:35
Speaker
diminished national monuments. So talk to your senators, talk to your representatives, sign petitions. I mean, I may not feel like enough, but at least it is something. Yes. And you can never, you know, if you if you do something, you don't really have that, oh, I wish or maybe if I had thought that haunts you for the next several decades, you know, that that can avoid that feeling.
01:01:05
Speaker
For sure. I would also, you know, second and third that everyone has voices. And I mean, by all means, come on our show and have your voice heard here, but also contact your duly elected representatives. And I know it's the holiday season and, you know, we all want to have a very happy one. But don't forget about these other very important issues that are happening that could have
01:01:35
Speaker
really profound long-term consequences for the entire United States and your fellow human beings who you should care about. Happy holidays.
01:01:54
Speaker
We do want to say thank you so much for spending whatever part of the year you did with us. It's been an absolutely incredible year. It was our first full year on the air as we only started in, it was April of 2016. We've seen viewership numbers increase and we've gotten some amazing emails from people and engagement on Twitter, at our Twitter handle, at Women Arkeys.
Listener Engagement and Holiday Wishes
01:02:22
Speaker
You know, we love hearing from you. Please keep it up. We're wishing you and your families all of the best in the best holiday season and in the new years. So happy holidays. Happy holidays. Happy holidays. Yay.
01:02:41
Speaker
Thanks for listening to the Women in Archaeology podcast on the Archaeology Podcast Network. Please like, share, rate, and subscribe to the show wherever you found it. If you have questions, leave them in the show notes page at www.arcpodnet.com slash WIA, or email them to womeninarchaeologypodcast at gmail.com. The music is retro-futured by Kevin MacLeod and his royalty-free music. To support the network and become a member, go to www.arcpodnet.com slash members. This show is produced at the Reno Collective in Reno, Nevada.
01:03:13
Speaker
This show is produced by Chris Webster and Tristan Boyle and was edited by Chris Webster. This has been a presentation of the Archaeology Podcast Network. Visit us on the web for show notes and other podcasts at www.archpodnet.com. Contact us at chris at archaeologypodcastnetwork.com.