Search for: All records

We argue for bringing jurisdiction more centrally into geographic and political ecology scholarship. Jurisdiction shapes life in profound and often hidden ways and as a concept helps make sense of the relationship among space, power, law, and governance. Drawing from the scholarly literature and empirical examples, we present an understanding of jurisdiction as the defined space of (legal) governance and the (legal) power to make decisions over this space and the lives, objects, and events within it. Building from this, we show how jurisdiction both unites and is distinct from the core geographic and legal concepts of territory, sovereignty, and borders that are used to unpack intersections of space and power. Jurisdiction, moreover, allows us to attend to consequential spatial dynamics these core concepts cannot fully explain. To further elaborate what exactly jurisdiction is, we identify specific jurisdictional concepts (e.g., overlap, adjacency, and fragmentation) that underscore its consequential yet underappreciated features and show how these merge around jurisdiction’s spatiality, compatibility with other jurisdictions, temporality or changeability, and application. We ground these concepts in examples spanning land and sea to show the ubiquity of jurisdiction and how it carves up, creates, and codifies spaces. Within these spaces, we show how jurisdiction inaugurates life before the law and then governs this life, its well-being, and its death, whether human or more than human. 

Designed to be “wilderness” spaces with minimal human impact, the establishment of national parks contributed to dispossessing Indigenous peoples from traditional territories across North America, preventing access to dwindling populations of wildlife essential to cultural and material well-being. With the systematic near extermination of buffalo during the nineteenth century and forcible relocation of Tribes onto reservations, Tribal food systems collapsed. Tribal Nations across the Great Plains are now restoring buffalo to support food sovereignty and political resurgence, while re-asserting a presence in national parks where Indigenous hunting remains prohibited. This article focuses on the Blackfoot-led Iinnii Initiative working to restore free-roaming buffalo (Bison bison) along the Rocky Mountain Front, supported by Glacier and Waterton Lakes National Parks. Recognizing Tribal rights to hunt buffalo in these parks would enable Tribal hunters to exercise practices that challenge the idea of national parks as wilderness. We coproduce this article as Blackfoot and non-Indigenous scholars and activists, drawing on interviews with restoration practitioners, Blackfoot knowledge holders, and park and other government officials to explore distinct narratives of what it would mean to enable Tribal hunting in national parks, with implications for food sovereignty, political resurgence, and wildlife management. We argue that openness within parks agencies to Indigenous hunting suggests a potential watershed moment for reimagining the role of people in parks. Through this, we examine important links between food sovereignty, political sovereignty, biodiversity conservation, and decolonization. 

In this interview, we hear from influential Blackfoot Elder and Cultural Educator Ninna Piiksii, Dr. Michael Bruised Head. Mike reflects on the colonial naming of national parks and the need to return to Indigenous place-names, examining how we occupy a pivotal moment where park staff are more open to substantive Indigenous engagement and presence within parks, although more needs to be done. Drawing connections across topics that may initially seem discrete, Mike reflects on his experience as a survivor of the Canadian residential school system, colonial dispossession by parks and more broadly, and how Blackfoot restoration efforts—including the return of buffalo oriinnii—can offer paths for healing from these traumas and build a more just, Blackfoot-led future. Through this, Mike asks us to rethink the profound value and potential of conservation, pushing beyond Western understandings. He closes by asking the interviewers to reflect on what motivates them to support Tribal buffalo restoration, turning the tables on the interviewer and interviewee, and reinforcing the importance of connection and responsibility among non-Tribal research collaborators. We open with an introduction to Mike and then turn to hear his words. The interview format reflects a growing trend of expert-interviews-as-articles and Indigenous practices of oral knowledge transmission. We also link to an audio recording of the interview to allow readers to become listeners and hear Mike’s words in full context. The conversation and format are offered in the spirit of opening more space for Indigenous—and particularly Blackfoot—voices, perspectives, and methodologies in conservation scholarship.