Closing climbing areas due to native American cultural significance.

Some girl was talking about the tribal dynamic in Squamish, and I simply asked her, "were they a migratory people?" She had no idea. I wasn't even trying to be facetious, I was just curious lol.

There are so many ways to be critical to this thought process:

Father grew up on property x, current property owner tells you to screw off.
Grandfather grew up on property x, current property owner tells you to screw off.
Great grandfather grew up on property x, current property owner is confused why you would be interested.
Great great great great great great grandfather grew up on property x, current property owner gives you the property as repayment?

I don't know why people can't share land.

Alan Rubinwrote:

 I’m not saying that all areas will end up being closed or restricted, but it is an issue that we will be addressing with increased frequency in the years ahead.

If we ever get to the point where indigenous land issues become a bigger threat to access than resource extraction, private landowners, and climate change, I'll eat my shoe. As it is i hardly see this much outrage when some farmer decides they don't want climbers on their land anymore. 

I know uncertainty is scary and we like to have hard and fast rules like property law to make sense of the world, but sometimes being human and kind trumps clambering on some rocks. 

 Is the Eagle Wall and All American Wall apart of the closure?  Looks like according to the map it's the Main Wall and Owl Cove. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Some girl was talking about the tribal dynamic in Squamish, and I simply asked her, "were they a migratory people?" She had no idea. I wasn't even trying to be facetious, I was just curious lol.

There are so many ways to be critical to this thought process:

Father grew up on property x, current property owner tells you to screw off.
Grandfather grew up on property x, current property owner tells you to screw off.
Great grandfather grew up on property x, current property owner is confused why you would be interested.
Great great great great great great grandfather grew up on property x, current property owner gives you the property as repayment?

I don't know why people can't share land.

I think this particular issue stems from the whole slaughter/massacre of Native Americans thing. Could be wrong though 

"If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future" - Winston Churchill .

Popcorn is ready 

Nope:

Closing public lands due to a group's religious beliefs violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.  

If you want a voluntary closure such as at Devil's Tower, that's ok.  Preventing access on religious grounds is not ok.  

At first I was on the side of the closure being valid because of its sacred history. However, I got to thinking about Everest. Thousands of people climb it every year, yet the culture around it actively gives religious significance to the mountains. 

I'm not familiar with the area being discussed, but it seems to me it is not actively being used by these tribes in the way it once was. This feeds in to the point that others are making, which is that just because a part of nature had significance in the past, doesn't mean it should be reserved for that same reason for all eternity. 

Maybe I'm speaking a little too harsh here, but isn't this the equivalent of being 16 and not letting your sibling play with your old toys because they have sentimental value, even though you haven't used them in years and your sibling would have years of fun using them? 

If it's as simple as "graves and artifacts", then mark the graves and create fines for removing artifacts.

W Jwrote:

but it seems to me it is not actively being used by these tribes in the way it once was

The slippery slope of that line of thought is when they've been forcefully removed from the lands that are held as culturally significant. You can't then just go, "Seeeeeeeee?! They're not currently using it!" 

Long Rangerwrote:

The slippery slope of that line of thought is when they've been forcefully removed from the lands that are held as culturally significant. You can't then just go, "Seeeeeeeee?! They're not currently using it!" 

The Sho-Ban reservation is about 40 minutes from Massacre Rocks. To the best of my understanding, they do not go out there to hold any type of ceremony.

For those curious about the law here, you can read the 9th Circuit's ruling to the Access Fund's lawsuit about Cave Rock 15 years ago:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1232734.html

IANAL, but as long as the closure is primarily for "cultural" (and not religious) reasons there's no 1st Amendment issue.

That said, the majority opinion was based on the "Lemon Test," which was overturned this year in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Big Redwrote:

 As it is i hardly see this much outrage when some farmer decides they don't want climbers on their land anymore. 

No one has express any "outrage" on this thread. So far, everyone has politely contributed to the conversation without anger. Based on your first comment, you are just expecting everyone to get aggressive. 

In your example above, you liken the BLM removing access to a private property owner removing access. See the thing is the BLM land is public and a privately owned farm is not public land.

Congress tasked the BLM with a mandate of managing public lands for a variety of uses such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting while ensuring natural, cultural, and historic resources are maintained for present and future use. 

According to their mission, ensuring cultural resources is one of the top priorities of the agency. Technically they are doing what they were orgiannly tasked to do. My question is are they going to do it to more climbing areas?

Deirdrewrote:

I spoke with a tribal member about the Massacre Rocks and the closure. He has been an activist around the issue and was willing to speak about it. I had a hard time finding someone to talk to, probably due to the sacred nature of the site. I'm trying to limit what I am saying here only to the most pertinent information. He informed me that the area had been the historical wintering site for the Shoshone. There are grave sites in the area as well as artifacts. He stated that there were reports of graves having been disturbed and artifacts removed. The beliefs of the Shoshone, as I understood what he was saying, are that the cliffs have spiritual significance and that climbing on them is disrespectful. There is more to it than this, but it is not really my story to tell. I had also found some work written by a former ISU professor (I will try to dig it up again) which stated that the site would have been the location where sacred ceremonies would have been performed. These things are not generally spoken of to outsiders so I do not think that anyone would share stories. His argument was that there had been an agreement that the land was supposed to be managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and that there was not supposed to be outside activity on the land - motorcycles, 4-wheeling or climbing. 

 My thought process on this has been evolving. We have been asked to stay out of this area in particular. There is a lot of rock in the region and there is not a move to ban climbing in other areas. Being respectful of this location due to the ceremonial significance is not a huge ask. 

Thanks for the perspective, Deirdre

F Wheelerwrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/now/climbing-permanently-banned-massacre-rocks-022637767.html

“There is a 30-day protest period, which ends on November 24, during which people can lodge complaints about the BLM's proposal, but…the Access Fund is not planning on protesting.”

Weak.

This is why I no longer support the Access Fund.

They were originally focused on getting and maintaining climber access to areas where climbing access was denied or threatened.  

These days, they are more worried about the interests of non-climber groups than they are climbers.  

Access Fund does not support climbing access. Remember when they wasted MILLIONS of dollars suing the federal government? How did that go? 

I will kick the bees nest. 

I think there is this conflation that Americans in worse socio-economic need that wrong righted. I think there is pretty universal agreement that Native Americans were wronged, but I don't think we correct the wrong but giving them back their "land." In the very literal sense they never really owned that land. Much of history different people have had different claims to the land. I think the land issue would be a total non-issue if Native Americans had similar social economic output to White Americans. You see this with African American reparation claims. You don't really see this with Jewish or Asian Americans (broadly speaking they have a similar socio economic status to catholic Americans). I think the land returning is really just people feeling guilty about the socio economic difference. The socio-economic difference should really be the thing that gets fixed.  

Does anyone else find it inconsistent the government is restricting access in areas that don't have any infrastructure? 

If we're "giving back" land that used to belong to people who our ancestors killed then stole from, what about Manhattan? We should start dismantling it brick-by-brick tomorrow. What piece of land wasn't sacred to someone in the past before it was developed? What about the place you grew up at that's turned from a rural dirt-road to urban sprawl? 

It's the man saying "sorry, not sorry" to those it's fucked over in times gone by. Squashing his thumb over your nothingness of existence. If you don't got no money, don't got no power, you're nothing to government at any level. Closing public land in this matter is a stunt to garner support and nothing more.

For those interested, the FEIS is located here:  eplanning.blm.gov/public_pr…

Please take a skim if you're interested about the issue. Otherwise, pontificate away.

The American Falls Archeological District was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1999 (around the same time that sport climbing started in the area - as far as I know). The District was established on the basis of the area's rich cultural resources. When the district was established, it became the responsibility of the BLM, by law, to protect the resources which make the area worthy of being on the Register. Over the course of the EIS, the BLM found that usage by climbers and OHV user groups was degrading the resource. Whether or not this is true is a different debate.

The fact of the matter is that with the impending publishing of the FEIS into the CFR, it is now required that the BLM follow the recommended alternative outlined. This means no more climbing in the District. Some climbing will remain on state land. I believe there are few crags in the canyon (?) and Teddy Bear Cove where climbing will remain legal.

When it comes to the precedence set for other areas, you must look if they have had any sort of special designation. If so, what was the purpose of the designation, and do present uses align with that designation. They're not going to go tearing down Manhattan tomorrow lol

It's only a matter of time before we start seeing similar closures in the Bears Ears Monument.  

The Monument land use plan is going to be a much greater threat to climbing access than any of the historical extractive or other commercial uses of the land.  

You can look to Shiprock to see the future of Bears Ears.  

Kai Larsonwrote:

It's only a matter of time before we start seeing similar closures in the Bears Ears Monument.  

The Monument land use plan is going to be a much greater threat to climbing access than any of the historical extractive or other commercial uses of the land.  

You can look to Shiprock to see the future of Bears Ears.  

Not quite. Shiprock is on Navajo land, where climbing is tacitly banned. More appropriate analogy may be the Grampians.