Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />economic "well-being" of the Ute community. Social Nell-being <br />cannot be defined usefully in any ultimate and prescriptive <br />sense. It is not possible to say that a given amount of <br />time, effort, and money spent to produce more tourist days <br />in a Mancos Indian Park \'iill generate more net social ''viell- <br />being" than will that same amount of time, effort, and money <br />invested in irlproving and expanding 1 ivestock ranching <br />operations. But, it is contended that social \~ell-beidg is <br />served by maintaining as many open-enJed futures as possible <br />for the Ute tribe. Social well-being is undercut when possible <br />"futures" are eliminated or reduced in feasibility by the <br />pursuit of anyone future. Social, cultural and economic <br />costs are genera ted \;hen some soci a 1 groups fi nd thei r valued <br />"futures" eliminated or dil.linished by the actions to pursue an <br />incompatible alternative future. The problem, then, is to iden- <br />ti fy whi cll futures arc va 1 ued by different Ute groups, tile <br />points of conflict betlleen the futures, the social, cultural, <br />and ecotiomic costs associated lIit;) eacil alternative future. <br />Since the analysis of tribal social well-being is the analysis <br />of confl i ct poi nts among a lterne; ti ve futures, the fi rst research <br />task is to determine what futures are envisioned by tribal <br />members of different factions--e.g., cattle ranching expansion, <br />the t1ancos Indian Park, ano til~ expansion of pottery operations, <br />etc. <br />Then the task will be to detemine what specific actions must <br />necessarily. be undertakell to real i ze each si ngl e valued future. <br />These actions are then riliila~d according to any necessary sequence. <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />w <br />