Apples and Oranges
At the Feb. 12 meeting in Cherokee, one opponent of the swap said comparing the two parcels was like comparing “apples to oranges” because the two tracts have different geological, biological and ecological traits. But the same physical and natural resource components of both tracts are what will be studied and compared.

However, apples and oranges will be compared. NPS Associate Regional Director John Yancy pointed out that the NPS must weigh the socio-economic and cultural ramifications of the proposed swap as well as the ecological, legal and environmental issues. Natural resources versus human resources; apples and oranges for sure.

Legal questions
Many opponents questioned the legal authority of the NPS to exchange land.

Bob McCollum, chairman of the North Carolina Parks and Parkways Commission, asked about the legality of the federal government exchanging lands the state of North Carolina had acquired through condemnation proceedings.

Greg Kidd of the National Parks Conservation Association, in his comments during the Knoxville meeting on Feb. 13, stated that the land exchange as proposed violates federal law. Kidd said he felt certain if the NPS approved the swap, lawsuits would be filed.

“We’ve fired a shot across the bow of the Park Service,” Kidd said.

Other opponents of the swap feel the Cherokee didn’t go through proper channels be-cause they by-passed the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and went straight to NPS officials in Washington. James Bird, tribal cultural officer for the EBCI, said the tribe was simply following proper protocol.

“The tribe negotiates with the federal government on a nation to nation basis. We are in compliance with all government regulations involving these proceedings,” Bird said.

Throughout the public hearings, a steady stream of land swap opponents complained that the GSMNP had been placed under a gag order regarding the proposed exchange.

GSMNP Superintendent Mike Tollef-son was blunt when asked about that charge. He pointed to the tables set out with literature detailing studies conducted on the Ravensford site and the Blue Ridge Parkway site, literature explaining the scoping process and handouts discussing the legal aspects of the proposed swap.

“If there was a gag order none of that information would be down there.”

Tollefson said park service personnel were free to comment personally just like any private citizen. Bob Miller, GSMNP spokesman, said park service officials could talk about the process and discuss information and resources, but that as an entity “the National Park Service doesn’t have an official position.”

Perspectives and prejudices
Comments from Ted Snyder of the Sierra Club and others that the GSMNP was not meant to be a “land bank” for park neighbors drew quick response from tribal officials. Tribal Council Chairman Bob Blankenship said, “I am appalled to hear people say that the national park is not a land bank. The Cherokee have been a land bank for the United States for many years. Every now and then someone should have paid some interest on the note. We say, the note is now due and payable in full.”

Some say past transgressions against the Cherokee have no place in this discussion. That’s a moot point, they argue. But the tribe is not alone in playing the “wronged” card.

Many comments against the exchange cited the fact that the Ravensford settlement was condemned. Nesta Burke said it was a hardship on her family to give up their land in Ravensford, and if the swap goes through, “their sacrifice will be in vain.”

Cultural Differences
No one denies the need or opposes new schools for Cherokee students. Many, though, feel the tribe has the resources to locate the schools somewhere other than Ravensford. The tribe says they’ve hired engineers to survey the reservation and there were no suitable sites.

Opponents suggest that if the tribe was not determined to keep all campuses together, land could be found on the reservation. Some even suggested it would be better for Cherokee students for the campuses to be separate.

Myrtle Driver, traditional cultural specialist for the EBCI, said those people don’t understand Cherokee culture. She noted many Cherokee still live in extended families and that traditional Cherokee schools were extensions of family.

Public Opinion
Battle lines were pretty well drawn during the three scoping meetings. Environmental organizations and their representatives clearly opposed the swap. Tribal officials and enrolled members staunchly supported it. Probably 95 percent of the comments during the three scoping meetings were from people from one or the other of these camps.

But where does the general public stand regarding the swap? Most people we talked to didn’t know anything about it. Of six people who commented on record, five supported the swap — one after vacillating back and forth — and one thought it was a bad idea.

Richard Miller said it was a bad deal for the park.

“The park is coming out with a net loss of 168 acres. I think that’s a bad deal.”

The other respondents; Bob Kimsey, Joe Magalhaes, Jon Bowman, MaryEtta Burr and Dane Burr supported the exchange as long as the property was used exclusively for schools.