RE: Tribal Limitations

[Scott Haight <shaight@mt.blm.gov>]

Mr. O'hara's comments and the responses illustrate a typical, but largely undiscussed problem during consultation.  What I'm refering to is the confusion and resentment from those outside the G2G process that the Tribes are getting special treatment or access to decisionmakers (and indeed they are, that's the point).  However, the, "you're on their side" accusation comes up quite often.  Sometimes from people who should know better (e.g., Congressionals).  Explanations of the constitutional/legal basis for consultation cited in the earlier messages often sound like bureaucratic maneuvering to the public, creating further mistrust of the agency's motives.

Don't berate Mr. O'hara for his views.  I hardly think they are atypical and have heard them expressed time and time again as we consult on tough projects where support or opposition falls along tribal and non-tribal community lines.  It took quite a few years of working in government before I fully appreciated the special relationship between the fed govt. and tribes.  I guarantee 99% of the public outside govt. isn't aware of it.  Instead, it would be useful to hear some suggestions on ways to adequately explain to the general public why consultation is required and what its goals and limitations are.  If nothing else, this might help decrease the divisiveness between Indian and non-Indian communities during individual project review.