Introduction
In 2022, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes regained management of the National Bison Range in Montana, a landscape they had taken care of for generations before being removed from it in the early 1900s. Since taking back control, the Tribes have restored grasslands through controlled burns, removed invasive species, and supported the return of native wildlife. At the same time, regaining this land required major compromises, including letting go of significant water rights. This example reflects a larger tension in conservation today: even when land is returned or shared, power is not always fully restored.
Protected areas like national parks are often framed as spaces created for the public good, but they are also established through histories of Indigenous dispossession. Across the United States, conservationists are advocating for the shift toward co-management, where Tribes and federal agencies share responsibility for land. These arrangements are often presented as collaborative and progressive. However, many still leave decision-making authority in federal hands, which makes it difficult to distinguish whether co-management represents meaningful change or if it is simply symbolic words that reinstate older power structures.
At the same time, research shows that ecological outcomes often improve in areas where Indigenous communities lead land management. Indigenous stewardship of land has been seen to increase biodiversity of an area, lead to stronger ecosystem resilience, and create more sustainable relationships with land. We agree with this notion and believe that how land is governed is directly tied to how it is cared for.
We wanted to explore the tension between co-management and Indigenous sovereignty across parks and protected areas and observe what conservation looks like when power is shared versus when it is truly returned. By examining cases from the United States and beyond, we consider not only how conservation is practiced, but who gets to define it.
Biodiversity and Land Back: With effects from our climate crisis and human activities negatively impacting biodiversity, Indigenous co-management and Land Back are key strategies that can help address historical injustices and help conserve ecosystems. An article entitled Achieving Climate Justice Through Land Back by Racehorse and Hohag expresses how Indigenous land stewardship practices reduce deforestation, increase biodiversity, and help maintain ecosystem health. Indigenous peoples make up around 6% of the global population but manage or hold land tenure influencing around 40% of protected areas and 40% of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), which is a significant portion of our global biodiversity. An example is the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) management of a regained Bison Range. The CSKT used methods including controlled burns, invasive species removal, and native plant restoration in management of the bison population. In doing so, the grassland ecosystem and biodiversity was improved. Though not currently widespread in the US, land return and co-management are more than a theoretical dream to conserve wildlife and ecosystems while remedying historical injustices against Indigenous communities. While rejecting the “ecologically noble Indian” stereotype that labels Indigenous people as living in a perfect harmony with the environment and reduces their rich diversity of beliefs, values, and experiences, Indigenous stewardship can be explored for ecological restoration and climate resilience.
Making A Park
Through our making and doing project, we wanted to explore what collaboration looks like when people in the group hold different types of knowledge, varied levels of access to information, and conflicting perspectives. For the Land Back movement, collaboration through co-management is often framed as a solution, but in reality, power is not always shared equally. Our goal for our project was to see how groups would navigate knowledge asymmetries and power dynamics to demonstrate how co-management systems are uniquely place-based, which can be seen through the various methods/designs groups used to create their park. We wanted to communicate the idea that there is no one right way to construct the park.
Originally, we considered having the class split up to work in groups to build parks with individuals in groups having different levels of allowed collaboration. For example, individuals in groups might have different amounts of time in which they could contribute and share their knowledge (given by us). This was our attempt to highlight injustices in collaboration between different groups in efforts of building and managing parks. However, due to concerns that the activity may be misinterpreted or potentially harmful to an individual who was randomly assigned restricted communication, we shifted our activity to a new variation.
In our updated activity, we still split the class into groups and had the team collaborate on building a park/playground. However, we did not restrict any communication. Instead, we provided individuals in the group with varying amounts of information on cards, different types of information, and sometimes conflicting information. Teams were challenged to collaborate, listen to each other, and interpret discrepancies among their given “knowledge.” Some cards contained instructions that were stated more objectively and clearly came from a biological perspective. Another card used more descriptive terminology and shared the information through storytelling rather than direct facts. Some information was contradictory, and we wanted to see how the groups would deal with this (whether they would choose the information from the direct/scientific card or use the information on the storytelling card or combine them both). Our class was smart, using their knowledge learned throughout the semester in the course, and found ways to incorporate conflicting information into one element. Overall, the class did a good job collaborating to find abstract solutions to the conflicting information rather than believing that one card was right or wrong.The execution of our teaching and doing went smoothly and groups contributed to our post-activity questions. We noticed that some groups constructed their parks/playgrounds faster while others took more time to discuss, ask for permission, and plan. The activity highlighted different ways of collaboration and the class was able to connect it to themes of co-management and land back. However, co-management systems are complex and vary based on many factors including location and those involved. Our activity had limitations including that it was not able to demonstrate the complex histories of colonialism and displacement that are tied to the histories of parks and co-management. Additionally, having a blank piece of paper might have unintentionally represented terra nullius – that there was nothing there and that the “land” (the paper) for the park was uninhabited.
What is Co-management: I learned about co-management, primarily through a literature review of tribal co-management with the US National Park System. Rather than wanting tribal veto power, co-management calls for an end to unilateral decision-making from the US Federal Government. Cooperation between sovereign Indigenous groups and the United States Federal Government should function simply like an international agreement because both groups have decision-making power within their respective communities. This approach recognizes tribal sovereignty while also encouraging shared responsibility for environmental protection. It can be helpful to reframe “co-management” as “co-stewardship” because necessitating management is a Western idea and collaboration can be neutral. The need to manage indicates that people are separate from nature, whereas, stewardship indicates a commitment to care for our shared environment.
In creating protected areas with different levels of access between conservationists and indigenous people, best comanagement practices balance “the rights of Indigenous people, the relationship between biodiversity conservation and the reduction of poverty, and [considers] the arguments of those advocating a return to conventional [protected areas] that exclude people” (Adams 2007).
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Rather than offering a single definition, in On the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Collaborative Concept Whyte focuses on TEK in environmental governance and its impact on collaboration. In many cases, institutions pull specific elements of TEK, like long-term environmental observations or land practices such as controlled burning, and fit them into existing scientific or policy frameworks without changing how those systems operate. This raises questions about whether co-management actually redistributes power or simply expands the range of knowledge used within the same structures. Whyte’s framing of TEK as a collaborative concept stood out because it emphasizes relationships rather than content. If TEK is separated from science, then it risks being positioned as incompatible or secondary. At the same time, perspectives like Kimmerer suggest that different knowledge systems can work alongside each other, not by becoming the same but by staying distinct and relational. These differences shape what collaboration can look like in practice. This tension appears in examples of land return and co-management across the United States.Thinking through this example, I am left wondering what co-management might look like if collaboration meant not just including TEK, but reworking the systems that define how knowledge and power are shared in the first place.
Land Back & Feminism: One perspective that reshaped how I understand the Land Back movement is its connection to Indigenous feminism. Conversation projects led by Indigenous women like Corrina Gould, Cutcha Risling Baldy, and Laura Harjo show that Land Back is not only about returning land, but also about restoring systems of care, leadership, and relationships that were disrupted by colonization. Before colonization, many tribes in California were matriarchal, but colonial systems imposed patriarchy and violence, especially against Indigenous women and Two-Spirit people. A strong example of this in practice is the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust, an Indigenous women-led organization that has returned land to Ohlone stewardship for the first time in over 250 years through “rematriation.” Rematriation is the concept of fighting against settler colonial ideas, capitalism, and the patriarchy, and remembering that care, reciprocity, and healing is for everyone. Through my research, I learned that how land is governed is directly tied to how it is cared for, and conservation successes are directly linked to who is caring for the land. At the same time, these approaches are often limited by existing political and legal systems that still prioritize Western frameworks and restrict full Indigenous authority.
Our Research
The Possibility of Difference: Rethinking Co-management
Rather than treating co-management as a clear solution, this article questions the idea that it is always fair or effective. Drawing on Inuit perspectives, Stevenson points out that Western approaches tend to see nature as something to manage and control, while Indigenous perspectives are based on reciprocal relationships with the environment. Because of this, even well-intentioned co-management systems can still prioritize Western ways of thinking and decision-making. It makes you rethink whether simply “including” Indigenous knowledge is enough if the overall system itself doesn’t change.
Stevenson, M. G. (2006). The Possibility of Difference: Rethinking Co-management. Human Organization., 65(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.65.2.b2dm8thgb7wa4m53
From paternalism to self-determination: examining evolving tribal-federal relationships and comanagement arrangements through three case studies
This article looks at how land management in the U.S. is shifting away from federal control toward more Indigenous leadership through examples like the Oglala Sioux, Snoqualmie Tribe, and Bears Ears. The Oglala Sioux case shows that even with co-management, the federal government still holds most of the power, while the Snoqualmie Tribe’s land purchase shows what it looks like when tribes have full control and can prioritize ecosystem protection. The Bears Ears example adds another layer by showing how unstable these arrangements can be when political leadership changes. Together, these cases make it clear that co-management exists on a spectrum, but only the models closer to full Indigenous control start to move beyond surface-level collaboration.
Lefthand-Begay, Clarita & Redmore, Lauren & Armatas, Christopher & Brisbois, Jesse & Choden, Kunsang & Craig, Dara & Baca, Angelo & Martin, Jaime & Ross, Michael & Lopez-Whiteskunk, Regina & Lomahquahu, Alfred & Mills, Monte. (2025). From paternalism to self-determination: examining evolving tribal-federal relationships and co-management arrangements through three case studies. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 12. 10.1057/s41599-024-04122-x.
Key Strategies for Securing Land Rights Employed by Native Nations in the United States: An Overview for International Indigenous Audiences
This report looks at how Native Nations in the United States are working to regain land and strengthen their land rights after a long history of dispossession. It breaks down different types of land ownership, like Trust Land and Fee Simple Land, and shows how each one affects how much control Tribes actually have. It also explains how co-management is becoming more common, allowing Tribes to share decision-making power with federal or state agencies, even when land isn’t fully returned. What stands out is how often these arrangements expand access but stop short of giving full control, which keeps the bigger goal of sovereignty just out of reach.
PACT (Pathways Alliance for Change and Transformation). 2025. Key Strategies for Securing Land Rights Employed by Native Nations in the United States: An Overview for International Indigenous Audiences. Ann Arbor: Pathways Alliance for Change and Transformation.
How tribes are reclaiming and protecting their ancestral lands from coast to coast
This article uses case studies like the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) to show how Land Back can directly lead to ecological restoration. After regaining control of the Bison Range, the CSKT restored grasslands through controlled burns, removed invasive species, and helped native species recover. These examples show how Indigenous stewardship can produce ecological outcomes that Western conservation has struggled to achieve, especially since tribes had successfully managed these landscapes long before being removed from them. At the same time, the story also shows that these successes often come with trade-offs, like giving up water rights, which complicates what “getting the land back” actually looks like in practice.
Aadland, C. (2022). How tribes are reclaiming and protecting their ancestral lands from coast to coast. Audubon Magazine
U.S. parks and protected area power structures: From historic policies to Indigenous futurities
The authors examine how U.S. parks and protected areas are still shaped by colonial history and argue that real change can’t happen unless power is actually shifted to Indigenous communities. National parks were created through the dispossession of Indigenous land and still operate under systems that limit tribal authority, which challenges the idea that they are neutral conservation spaces. Their framework, ranging from “To/For” (colonial control) to “By/As” (Indigenous-led management), makes it clear that most current co-management efforts still keep decision-making centralized. This really highlights how co-management can look collaborative on the surface while still holding onto the same power structures underneath.
Jacobs, Lara A., JonathanFisk, Andrew KalaniCarlson, AshleyD’Antonio, SerinaPayan Hazelwood, Elizabeth E.Perry, MelindaAdams, et al. 2025. “U.S. Parks and Protected Area Power Structures: From Historic Policies to Indigenous Futurities.” Earth Stewardship2(3): e70016.
Achieving Climate Justice Through Land Back: An Overview of Tribal Dispossession, Land Return Efforts, and Practical Mechanisms for #LandBack
Racehorse and Hohag argue that Land Back and Indigenous co-management are essential not just for addressing historical injustice, but also for tackling climate change. They show that Indigenous stewardship increases biodiversity, reduces deforestation, and supports overall ecosystem health, with Indigenous-managed lands protecting a large share of global biodiversity. What stands out is that they frame Indigenous leadership as a practical solution, not an abstract idea, especially since existing laws already support greater tribal involvement. It shifts the conversation by showing that giving power back isn’t just about justice, it’s also what makes conservation actually work.
Vanessa Racehorse & Anna Hohag, Achieving Climate Justice Through Land Back: An Overview of Tribal Dispossession, Land Return Efforts, and Practical Mechanisms for #LandBack, 34 Colo. Env’t L. J. (2023).
“Land Back is the starting point to the radical reimagining of the future that we want to build… where everybody can drink the water, where everybody is cared for.” – Cutcha Risling Baldy
Conclusion
Focusing on Parks, Co-management, and the Land Back Movement around the world has been really eye-opening. We learned about different relationships between people and the environment. Although it seems like parks, co-management strategies, and the land back movement are on a spectrum from the most colonial approach (Parks) to compromise (co-management) to indigenous-led approaches, it is far more nuanced than that. The tension between Western science and traditional ecological knowledge is rooted in different ontologies, or ways of knowing. It is not that one way is better than the other, but they are strongest together. The idea of co-stewardship is likely the most all-encompassing, as each group can have its way of understanding, living with, and managing its ecosystem. This allows for different ontologies to coexist while caring for their shared resource, but it still revolves around power dynamics and questions sovereignty. We have seen this tension in the United States with the Oglala Sioux at Badlands National Park, in Canada with the Inuit, and Mapuche-Williche, Kawésqar, and Yagán in Chilean Patagonia. Each place is managed differently, and they all work. One thing to consider that our research really brushed over is the tension between symbolic inclusion and material restitution. Symbolic inclusion means Indigenous peoples are recognized or included in ways that are visible and meaningful—but don’t fundamentally change who holds power. This can be seen at the Tribal Heritage Center at Yellowstone National Park or small signs at other US National Parks. Material restitution, on the other hand, means actual transfer of land, authority, or resources. Since land is a commodified way of accessing resources, this will always be politicized. Protected Areas, National Parks, Co-management, and Land Back remain ever-changing, and it is not our responsibility to push for a change in power, but it is our job to always listen and learn.
“While it cannot be ignored that some Indigenous communities exercise their autonomous rights to partake in the extraction of natural resources on their lands, those groups remain in the minority, and there remains “good reason to believe that if Indians are permitted to chart their own future they will continue to serve not only themselves, but also the global environment.”” – Vanessa Racehorse and Anna Hohag
Leave a Reply