Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:12:24.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Parks and Native Peoples in Northern Canada, Alaska, and Northern Australia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

J. E. Gardner  and
J. G. Nelson
J. E. Gardner
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
J. G. Nelson
Affiliation:
Professor of Geography and Dean, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the very general level, the aim of this paper is to compare the interaction of national parks and native peoples in Northern Canada (Yukon Territory), Alaska, and the Northern Territory of Australia. Currently these areas are subject to increasing land-use pressures from mining, industrial development, the creation of national parks and related reserves, and native attempts to maintain traditional wildlife and renewable resource use. The study focuses on the interactions between national parks and native peoples on the premise that experiences can be compared and problems encountered in one area but possibly avoided in another.

The study begins by briefly describing native land-use issues, land-rights arrangements, and organizations, in the Yukon Territory, central Alaska, and Northern Australia. The national park agencies are described, compared, and shown to differ considerably in institutional character, field of management, control of land, and external links with interest groups such as native peoples. Case-studies of the national parks etc. named Kluane (Yukon), Gates of the Arctic (Alaska), and Kakadu (Northern Territory of Australia), are presented to provide more details on similarities and differences in planning, types of tenure, native subsistence activities, and other factors.

In the Yukon Territory, neither the national parks agency nor the native people are highly motivated to interact. In contrast, the park agencies and native people in Alaska and the Northern Territory of Australia recognize mutual benefits from interaction—largely as a result of legislation and policies which encourage cooperation. Native involvement officers now facilitate coordination in the Yukon and Alaska. Park agency native employment programmes are proceeding in all three ‘hinterlands’, while native people can own land on which national parks are established in Alaska and the Australian Northern Territory. Only in Australia are native people known to be directly involved in upperlevel national park management. Potential limitations on native subsistence and associated use of national parks range from moderate to severe, and are only defined clearly in Alaska. Lack of definition leads to confusion in deciding upon native use, while exceedingly precise definition precludes flexibility at the park level.

A number of aids to a more mutually satisfactory interaction can be identified. One is motivation, or recognition by both parties that there are advantages to consultation and cooperation. Another, not yet achieved in the Yukon, is a land-claims settlement, stating the legislated rights of native peoples in the ‘hinterlands’ and giving them a land-holding and bargaining status which is comparable with that of government agencies. A third aid is comprehensive systematic and regional planning efforts involving opportunities for informed input from all affected parties. Such planning would provide a forum for consideration of a variety of interests, including national parks and native peoples. Finally, satisfactory interaction on the park site could be assisted by clear yet flexible means of deciding upon acceptable native use of parkland, the conservation of wildlife, and associated economic and cultural factors.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1981 , pp. 207 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, G. (1977). A comparison of Australian and Canadian approaches to national park planning. Pp. 220–8 in Leisure and Recreation in Australia (Ed. Mercer, D.). Sorrett Publishing, Malvern, Australia: 264 pp.Google Scholar
Council for Yukon Indians (undated). Together Today For Our Children Tomorrow. Carters Publishing Company, Brampton, Ontario: 140 pp.Google Scholar
Department of Aboriginal Affairs (1979). Background Notes: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. No. 1 (Revised). Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Canberra, Australia: 8 pp.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. E. (1979). National Parks and Native People in Northern Canada. M.A. thesis, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario: viii + 223 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. E. & Nelson, J. G. (1980). Comparing national park and related reserve policy in hinterland areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia. Environmental Conservation, 7(1), pp. 43–50, 3 maps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. D. (1978). Approaches to native land settlements and implications for northern land-use and resource management policies. Pp. 5–41 in Northern Transitions, Vol. 2 (Ed. Keith, R. T. & Wright, J. B.). Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa, Ontario: xiv + 470 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kresge, D. T., Morehouse, T. A. & Rogers, G. W. (1977). Issues in Alaska Development. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington: 223 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Parks Canada (1978). Parks Canada Draft Policy. Parks Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario: 118 pp.Google Scholar
Parks Canada (1979). Parks Canada Policy. Parks Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario: 79 pp.Google Scholar
Redpath, D. K. (1979). Land Use Programs in Canada: Yukon Territory. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec: 303 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Theberge, J. B. (1978). Kluane National Park. Pp. 151–89 in Northern Transitions, Vol. 1 (Ed. Peterson, E. B. & Wright, J. B.). Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa, Ontario: xv + 320 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Theberge, J. B., Nelson, J. G. & Fenge, T. (Ed.) (1980). Environmentally Significant Areas of the Yukon Territory. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa: xiv +134 pp., illustr.Google Scholar