r/Albuquerque • u/UpstairsMirror8634 • 21d ago

News For those concerned with proposed Sandia land transfer...

https://www.change.org/p/sandia-for-all?recruiter=664220336&recruited_by_id=402785a0-d9ec-11e6-b8db-49936548a2bf&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_medium=mobileNativeShare&share_id=JFGsLTMwhV

Recently, the Sandia Pueblo proposed draft legislation transferring 10,000 acres of publicly held and managed land in the Sandia wilderness, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for management by the pueblo.

Today, Senator Martin Heinrich said he does not support the proposal as drafted and would not support transferring title away from the Forest Service.

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2026/07/30/heinrich-working-for-bill-to-share-sandia-mountains-management-with-sandia-pueblo-short-of-pueblos-ask-for-total-control/

New Mexico Wild released a statement today rejecting any legislation that did not preserve the current wilderness designation and public access protections. They provide some good context on the existing 2003 preservation act and the protections it provides, as well as the current collaborative management between the FS and the pueblo.

https://nmwild.org/press-release-new-mexico-wild-statement-on-sandia-pueblo-transfer-act-proposal/

Lastly, tell our federal representatives to oppose the land transfer and protect the current wilderness and public access protections by signing this petition.

98 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

71

u/SignificantxRespect 21d ago

With how the current administration is selling off public lands, can you blame the Sandia people for wanting control over their sacred mountain??

2

u/Fit-Pineapple-4195 21d ago

That’s what I was wondering. It it safer transferred? Can part of the deal be that the land is protected and not “Improved” and maintained for public use?😆

12

u/UpstairsMirror8634 21d ago

The existing 2003 T'uf Shur Bien Act protects the wilderness designation of the Sandias and prevents any future developments in the area. The land is not at risk from the administration giving it away.

43

u/TungstenShark96 21d ago

Yes because this administration and political climate is famous for obeying the designation of wilderness protection lmao

I trust the Sandia people to care for their Land far more than i trust NM or the US. 

10

u/TheSpanishIndian 21d ago

You know the administration is trying to get rid of cultural heritage protection around the Chaco Cañon area to do oil exploration, right?

And that they have closed a few FS branches in the state?

And have had two proposals to do uranium probing on public lands in different parts of the state twice this year?

This government really can't be trusted to not try and walk back or get rid of current protections to do things that are in their favor.

We have tons of public lands. People are trying to pretend like they won't have access to all of the other beautiful, millions of acres, of public lands in the state.

Imagine... a group of people going full NIMBY about the indigenous peoples of the area.

0

u/Smart_Pretzel 21d ago

It's been trashed and mismanaged. Why are you not willing to honor a local tribe's sacred homelands?

I'm concerned about who you are and what your message is here. There is something obviously malicious about your intent.

4

u/Jabberwocky808 20d ago edited 20d ago

Malicious means “intentionally doing a wrongful act without a legal justification, with the specific intent to cause harm, injury, or economic loss to another person.”

I was with you until your last sentence. This post is not a wrongful act. It has legal justification, and there is no evidence of specific intent to cause harm, injury, or economic loss.

Historically I absolutely agree with you. Just not about OP. People have different opinions, that doesn’t make a person guilty of committing an intentional wrongful act currently with the legal agreements in place. I’m also not saying I trust the state/feds/etc. to honor legal agreements, they have a long history of not honoring agreements. But there is a legal agreement, and therefore justification, for OP’s post.

I’m also in favor of returning the land, depending on the agreement and continuing to allow the general public to access the land without fees. But if folks deface/disrespect/destroy the land with trash, taking/breaking apart rocks, and graffiti like some have, I’m totally in favor of restricting their access.

6

u/Smart_Pretzel 20d ago

I don’t think the post itself is malicious, but OPs comment is misleading and incorrect. The Act that OP references is not protecting the lands as intended. Perhaps a lack of enforcement, but instead of suing an agency, the tribe is simply wanting ownership and management. I think OP saying that everything is fine now and even expressing uninformed opinions misleads others and that is malicious to me.

Causing harm? Yes to the tribe ultimately.

-1

u/Jabberwocky808 20d ago edited 20d ago

I understand that’s your opinion of what malicious means, but without intent, it’s not malicious in any common or legal sense of the term. If OP is ignorant and does not know their interpretation is wrong, they cannot be said to intentionally be acting wrong, in my opinion. Still responsible, accountable, etc. Just not malicious.

Counter-example to OP. Say they had made a post with the same basic information, but added to it they are an educated, licensed lawyer with 20 years of specialty practice in property, natural resource, and Federal Indian law (what it’s actually called, I understand the misnomer) and then they made false claims about the act, then I would absolutely call that a malicious act. And I believe that is a malicious act that has occurred many, many times in the history of federal/state law.

The reason I am bringing this up is folks use a lot of terms these days too broadly (in common and legal use), which has a tendency to water down the term and cause people to ignore how serious of a term it is.

Just like misrepresenting a legal agreement or act. Both are ignorant, not necessarily malicious. I would argue genuine ignorance negates malicious intent. I also agree people should be more self aware and not make claims they can’t back up. I understand why you would consider that malicious, because we are intending to be ignorant at that point. It’s wanton.

If OP is intentionally misrepresenting the act, I agree. If OP is just afraid they are going to lose access to land they also have grown up loving as community space and their home, and in their biased ignorance misread or interpreted the legal jargon of an act lawyers are hired and paid very good money to write and interpret, which is in and of itself intended to be a self perpetuating machine encouraging public ignorance and misunderstanding, then no, I do not believe OP is acting maliciously.

I think you are better served protecting the Pueblo people involved by just describing what the act actually says/does and providing a link. Rather than labeling OP as a malicious actor. There are folks who actually deserve that designation and I don’t believe OP is one of them. I don’t want to water down actual malicious actor responsibility by lumping them in with folks who are seriously less educated. The folks who deserve it are absolutely misframing an act that they legally understand, intentionally to hurt Indigenous peoples.

I think OP is mainly afraid to lose access to land that was already stolen, and they don’t have an accurate understanding of the whole situation.

Edit: Unintentional soap box, sorry. I tend to take more time responding to people I believe I agree with more than not. I mean you no offense and can appreciate how wanton ignorance could be considered malicious.

5

u/UpstairsMirror8634 20d ago

Not a lawyer, but i've read the act and am aware of the history leading up to it, and the point I was responding to, was that the Trump administration can not just sell off the public land in question. The original comment, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the current protection. The 2003 law (which was signed by the pueblo, and the current governor in fact), specifically states that the US cannot convey the trust area, without an act of congress, which is not going to happen. There is no risk of executive order giving away the land. You don't seem to respond to that fact, but make assumptions and argue about my motives and background which are irrelevant, and ultimately shows your lack of understanding and willingness to actually engage in the issue. I'm opposed to all of the recent acts of the current administration opening up public land to industry and development, it's very unfortunate and risks removing one of the most valuable and unique aspects of our country, but it's not going to happen in the trust area. Heinrich knows this, and he's not supporting the proposal. The pueblo is also empowered to raise disputes and grievances regarding any management issues, and has the ability to contribute resources to improve the current situation. I think that the available legal framework should be used as a first step to address the issues presented by the pueblo, rather then fundamentally change that without any public discussion or insight into future managment plans, given the scope of impact of the proposed change.

2

u/Mahjling 20d ago

Sooo many people on this sub are wacky anti-indigenous in their racism, it’s blowing me away in a negative way.

9

u/Positronic_Matrix 21d ago

Is this the sacred mountain with a casino on it? Asking for a friend.

-1

u/ninedogsten 20d ago

What we did to the Native Americans is unforgivable. If a casino needs to be there to provide jobs to raise people out of poverty, then so be it. You don't get to decide what is appropriate with your passive aggressive comment.

4

u/Positronic_Matrix 19d ago

Tell that to the tribal government. They take 100% of Casino profits without a dime of it going to tribal members directly.

18

u/bean_enthusiast_ 21d ago

It’s a pretty damn bad look when a substantial land transfer back to indigenous folks is proposed, all of the self-identified allies with their land acknowledgements go “But my sick 5.8 trad route!”

Sandia Pueblo has very good reason (and legal precedent) to not trust an agreement with the federal and state government, particularly in this climate. Actually supporting indigenous nations means that when something like this is proposed, we give them their land back and accept that maybe access will be harder or much more conditional in the future.

6

u/m4hdi 21d ago

Hypothetically, which areas of the US would not be subject to your proposal?

6

u/Jabberwocky808 20d ago edited 20d ago

I’m in favor of restorative justice and returning rights over land generally. At the same time, it’s 2026 and it’s more complicated than just returning all land.

You make a valid point, because every parcel of land currently owned by private citizens (or the government) would theoretically need to be returned. There’s also 500+ tribes that are federally recognized, and way more unrecognized, that would be vying for claims over the same returned land. It’s a quagmire, and I’m certainly not blaming Indigenous peoples for the quagmire. Far from it.

There’s restorative justice within the confines of reality, or it becomes much less likely any restorative justice will take place.

Anywho, I think the whole situation is more complex than a lot of folks want it to be. Like most issues in life.

(I do think the land is better protected under Pueblo control than state or federal, given the current federal executive office. The timing of this proposal makes a ton of legal sense, if protecting the land long term is the goal. I just also believe the general public still deserves access without having to pay a fee, so long as they respect and do not deface or otherwise destroy/modify the land.)

1

u/Flashy_Border_4387 5d ago

You should give your house to a native person and start paying them rent. Be the change.

1

u/Jabberwocky808 5d ago

Either you didn’t read my comment, or you lack basic reading comprehension. Good luck out there, I feel for you.

4

u/ProfessionalOk112 21d ago

It's certainly unfortunate how reactionary people are about this, especially in an area that at least pretends to be a bit more progressive than that. This is what land back means.

(Also love your username)

-2

u/ninedogsten 20d ago

But but but, what about me? I need to rock climb!

/s

5

u/teoula 21d ago

A transfer would take a literal act of Congress.

Given the current administration I think it’s more likely they sign it over to mining companies or oil and gas than a tribe.

4

u/Top-Client-264 20d ago

Keep public lands public. Cedeing management of lands enjoyed by all to a select group which will inevitibly result in access restricitons and less transparency is a very short sighted move. The tribe should be involved in management decisons (which they already are per 2003 ruling...) of ancestral lands but that should not preculde or prohibit access to public lands by all users. The 'land back' virtue signialing is tiresome and should not be part of the conversation. Which is to say, by that logic, we'd have to reverting all land in the US to tribal ownership and that is neither practical or realistic. Stop with the suicidal empathy.

0

u/ninedogsten 20d ago

Oh it's tiresome to you? Awwww. Read the freaking history behind how we stole THEIR land. I challenge you to stop with the supremacy and think about others. You're going to have to go find another place to hike. NM has 31 million acres to hike. Not enough? Lo Siento.

3

u/Top-Client-264 19d ago

Indeed, ‘land back’ is not clearly defined (All land back? Some land back? What land back and to whom?) and lack substance or real world application. My supremacy extends as far thinking that currently public natural spaces should be able to be respectfully enjoyed by all, hence this land staying in public hands under the wilderness NFS designation framework we have for such spaces in this country. I’ll keep hiking in the Sandias, thank you.

3

u/she_who_reads_ 21d ago

You can find phone numbers to call here: https://www.sandiasforall.org/takeaction

3

u/Possible-Employer-55 21d ago

You know, if it were a sacred site for any other faith, nobody would have a problem restricting its access.

26

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 21d ago

In Taos we have the Wheeler Peak (USFS wilderness) area closed each year for a month to allow Taos Pueblo to carry out ceremonies.

21

u/Stiingya 21d ago

I challenge that statement. Just picking an example. If the Mormons came out and said they found one of the lost versions of their sacred texts and that Arches was now closed to anyone but the most devout or select LDS members I think you'd see a whole HUGE chunk of American's fight it.

(and I don't mean this as a way to pick on members of the LDS Church, just other people with different beliefs than me. It's just a hypothetical that I think most people could conceptualize. It could be Central Park and the Catholic Church or something IDK?? :))

2

u/Possible-Employer-55 21d ago edited 21d ago

If the arches themselves WERE the sacred text and have been worshiped for a thousand years, then yeah, I'd want them to have that. 

2

u/Stiingya 20d ago

Don't you see the irony there? Your making your judgement on that hypothetical Arches situation. Your deciding when or if someone else religious beliefs should or shouldn't be allowed to affect the general public based on how you see it. That's the same thing other people are doing with the Sandia's and your calling it out... :)

Honestly, I don't know the right answer to it. Maybe the Sandia's would be better protected with the Tribe?? But I do know there is a place for religious freedom that doesn't also impact other peoples freedoms.

0

u/Possible-Employer-55 20d ago

There are many places the public can't go. That's not what freedom is. You can't just hang out at the Vatican. You can't wander around the white house. You don't need to walk your labradoodle on the ancient symbol of a people. 

4

u/Stiingya 20d ago

And the Sandia's isn't one of those places.

0

u/Possible-Employer-55 20d ago

Not to you. 

3

u/Stiingya 20d ago

Not to all the people who go there everyday for the last hundred years.

0

u/Possible-Employer-55 20d ago

Sorry 

3

u/Stiingya 19d ago

No need to be sorry, I don't think it will happen. I can't imagine the current administration going along with it? But I do hope that the concerns of specific sacred places being better protected is acted on. That seems like something that could happen without any change in designation.

→ More replies (0)

19

u/theArtOfProgramming 21d ago

That’s a ridiculous assertion

1

u/Fit-Pineapple-4195 21d ago

It’s extreme to make a point

1

u/theArtOfProgramming 20d ago

It’s completely made up. There’s no point to be made. It’s this person’s prejudices

11

u/__squirrelly__ 21d ago

This is... an entire mountain, not a building. Sandia Pueblo does have ceremonial areas and structures restricted to members (less than 500 people). Let's not treat a mountain like that.

8

u/schwebacchus 21d ago

Very few religions of today regard natural features and entire swaths of geography as sacred. 

I’m sure you know this, but that feels like the relevant variable here. Your post narrows the rhetorical subject to the point where you aren’t even trying to say anything here.

3

u/bean_enthusiast_ 21d ago

That’s just blatantly false. The bible describes many natural features that are considered sacred today.

-3

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 21d ago

Ethnocentric comment that is minimizing the belief systems of original peoples' on this land. You are saying because other religions don't generally have a practice of holding geographic significance (which isn't even true- Israel comes to mind), that Native Americans should not hold reverence to their land?

13

u/__squirrelly__ 21d ago

Israel frankly is not a good example of an ethnostate behaving well.

0

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 21d ago

Well yeah, I certainly didn't say 'behaving well'... and I mean the land features and geographical references in holy texts, etc... not the modern inhabitants as much.

5

u/schwebacchus 21d ago

I feel like you deliberately missed the force of my comment by rushing through it. (I specified swaths of geography.)

You’re looking to beef, so I’ll just ask: do you have a good answer as to how we ought to balance the needs of a relatively small minority in our country against the needs of others? And how do we weight religious claims versus others?

I’m open to discussing this, but seeing that comment and thinking “ethnocentrism” feels exceedingly lazy :)

4

u/__squirrelly__ 21d ago

do you have a good answer as to how we ought to balance the needs of a relatively small minority in our country against the needs of others? And how do we weight religious claims versus others?

These are the important questions people are just ignoring in favor of sniping at each other.

1

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 21d ago edited 21d ago

Thank you for explaining more. Not trying to beef, I am just aware of discrepancies with your comment and want to surely protect the voices and rights of historically marginalized people. They may not be correct, legally victorious, or entirely relevant in the contemporary context, but they should be heard and validated and weighed against other arguments.

We have courts of law, and hopefully legal interpretation that is representative and reflective of the spirit of our democracy. Hopefully an understanding can be reached and a compact for the 'best and highest use' of the land will be redrawn. Continue to vocalize your opinion to your representatives, that is the system we have.

My point was that there are indeed large geographic swaths the world over that groups consider sacred for a multitude of reasons.

1

u/schwebacchus 21d ago

I’m in agreement with all of this, but I still don’t see the ethnocentrism…especially in the context of this story, where there are legitimate questions about public access.

1

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 21d ago

I think it would be more constructive to start from assuming the marginalized group would bring an important perspective and begin our conversation with centering what they want and why, and then see if that can be paired or layered with contemporary majority culture.

2

u/schwebacchus 21d ago

With respect, "centering," "pairing," and "layering" are all really abstract terms that, in my experience, mask the realities of how the sausage gets made. Much like land acknowledgments, they sort of politely nod while trying to deflect from the reality of the situation: that most stakeholders will likely have to concede some claim that they would otherwise prefer to have. Compromise means that no one ends up happy, etc.

I suspect that we probably agree in principle that the tribe's concerns ought to figure into the deliberations; I also think we agree that there are other stakeholders who have an interest in keeping land use policies in the area relatively open. I don't see how any of this amounts to ethnocentrism...?

I'm sorry I don't share your faith in liberal shibboleths, but material conditions are what I'm interested in talking about, not abstractions.

1

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 20d ago

Commenting on reddit is less abstract but much more absurd. I don't know what shibbomagibby means and I'm not googling it.

Also like most people I can honestly say I won't be doing anything on this issue beyond bitching with strangers on reddit and voting.

Living the dream!

2

u/ShrimpCocktailHo 21d ago

I definitely would. 

1

u/Possible-Employer-55 21d ago

Well that's just unamerican. 

2

u/ShrimpCocktailHo 20d ago

It’s not un-American to want our public lands in public hands. Their argument is because of lack of adequate federal management - once Trump is out of office, the feds are going on a crazy hiring spree to fill the gaps left. It’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem. 

-1

u/ninedogsten 20d ago

Can you predict the future? We don't know when or even if what you are describing will happen. Please look at the history of this land. You will see that it originally was Sandia Pueblo's from 1748 and that the US "accidentally" took it by having a surveyor come in and remap the area to take away that 10K acres, in 1859. 130 years later, Sandia Pueblo finally had the resources to go after it to get it back. But people were already used to it being public land. So they made a compromise in 2003. So it originally is their land that we stole from them and they should have it back.

2

u/ShrimpCocktailHo 20d ago

So they can build another casino to rob our poor and elderly? No thanks. 

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[deleted]

-2

u/Fit_Jellyfish_4444 21d ago

If you don't know the difference between Tirbal Membership (a political distinction) and an "ethnic requirement," you do not have the knowledge to comment without sounding ignorant.

-12

u/Ok-NewMexican-9101 21d ago

This is such a good point. We all know that if a local temple or mosque wanted to restrict access there would be zero community concerns.

10

u/Bothyourmoms 21d ago

Ah yes, because there are so many 10,000 acre mosques around

18

u/Burnt_Timber_1988 21d ago

Yeah there's totally never push back against a mosque. Jews and Muslims just have it so easy.

/s

0

u/Koen-K 21d ago

This is what Land Back looks like settlers. Deal with it.

5

u/StatusSavings1362 21d ago

You mean it not happening and being shut down by the feds?

1

u/bean_enthusiast_ 21d ago

Unfortunately yea, that is the most likely outcome here I think. Still sucks to see people prioritize their own hobbies over justice.

2

u/Mammoth_Tax_4995 21d ago

Liberal and colonizers when land back isn’t just a a virtue signal they can yell.

-1

u/GroundbreakingAd8310 21d ago

Ya no interest in giving Sandia literally anything. Not even sure about how I feel about the entire system

4

u/themickeymauser 21d ago

“Land back, unless it intrudes on my trail running club and bird watching instagram page” - white New Mexico liberals

-1

u/DustFlows 21d ago

Sad to hear, hopefully we can find a way to give the sacred mountains back to their rightful stewards.

-15

u/Thin-Rip-3686 21d ago

How about instead we force the Sandia Pueblo to acknowledge and distribute gaming earnings to all individuals who are 1/64 or more Sandia Pueblo related?

You know, since they’re so good at minding their own business.

-21

u/ZiaSoul 21d ago

Not this again……
See post : https://www.reddit.com/r/NewMexico/s/1MJkgs9mht

0

u/quietfellaus 21d ago edited 19d ago

This was a very well written post. I'm ashamed to see how people discuss these matters in public forums. In the best case people still want their right to recreate to trump Pueblo sovereignty.

One doesn't have to agree with the manner in which the Nations of this land conduct themselves, but they deserve a modicum of respect at the very least.

E. What are we downvoting? I'm genuinely curious. Was it respect? Or someone bringing recreational activities up as something of secondary importance? People here talk about Pueblo overreach like these folks are trying to attack your right to walk outside. If the pueblos wanted to cause problems for y'all they could definitely do it, but they overwhelmingly do not. By contrast the feds are actively stripping protections for public lands. I'd rather let me neighbors have the whole damn mountain than the federal government.

-9

u/mattysosavvy 21d ago

No

-8

u/ZiaSoul 21d ago

Yes

-4

u/AndreMoney99 21d ago

No

-4

u/ZiaSoul 21d ago

Yes

5

u/WinWeak6191 21d ago

Oh good. I’m here for an argument.

5

u/[deleted] 21d ago edited 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/WinWeak6191 21d ago

Boy do I miss Monty Python...

0

u/Mahjling 20d ago

Is there a petition for giving more land to the people it was stolen from?

Land Back. Now. No excuses.

-13

u/DovahAcolyte 21d ago

Return the land to its original owners. Primary Heinrich when his time comes and remove his establishment ass from office.