admin, Author at Tulalip News

The Surprising Cause of Most ‘Spider Bites’

By Douglas Main, Staff Writer LiveScience.com

Date: 05 July 2013 Time: 09:01 AM ET

If the thought of spiders makes your skin crawl, you might find it reassuring that the chances of being bitten by a spider are smaller than you imagine, recent research shows.

Most so-called “spider bites” are not actually spider bites, according to researchers and several recent studies. Instead, “spider bites” are more likely to be bites or stings from other arthropods such as fleas, skin reactions to chemicals or infections, said Chris Buddle, an arachnologist at McGill University in Montreal.

“I’ve been handling spiders for almost 20 years, and I’ve never been bitten,” Buddle told LiveScience. “You really have to work to get bitten by a spider, because they don’t want to bite you.”

For one thing, spiders tend to avoid people, and have no reason to bite humans because they aren’t bloodsuckers and don’t feed on humans, Buddle said. “They are far more afraid of us than we are of them,” he said. “They’re not offensive.”

Not very scary

When spider bites do happen, they tend to occur because the eight-legged beasts are surprised — for example when a person reaches into a glove, shoe or nook that they are occupying at the moment, Buddle said.

Even then, however, the majority of spiders are not toxic to humans. Spiders prey on small invertebrates such as insects, so their venom is not geared toward large animals such as humans.

Many spiders aren’t even capable of piercing human flesh. Buddle said he has observed spiders “moving their fangs back and forth against his skin,” all to no avail. [Creepy, Crawly & Incredible: Photos of Spiders]

Only about a dozen of the approximately 40,000 spider species worldwide can cause serious harm to the average healthy adult human. In North America, there are only two groups of spiders that are medically important: the widow group (which includes black widows) and the recluse group (brown recluses). These spiders do bite people, and if they live in your area, you should know what they look like, Buddle said. But still, records show bites from these spiders are very infrequent.

The bite of widow spiders like the black widow is one of the only well-recognized spider bites in North America, with obvious, unmistakable symptoms, said Rick Vetter, a retired arachnologist at the University of California at Riverside. Signs can include intense pain and muscle contractions, which occur because the bite interferes with nerves in muscles.

Nowadays, deaths from the bite are rare thanks to widow spider antivenom. Before this was developed, however, treatments for black widow bites included whiskey, cocaine and nitroglycerine, according to a review Vetter published this month in the journal Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America.

Misidentified ‘bites’

Often, black widow and brown recluse spiders are misidentified, and reported in regions where they are extremely unlikely to actually live, Vetter said. For example, In South Carolina, 940 physicians responding to a survey reported a total of 478 brown recluse spider bites in the state — but only one brown recluse bite has ever been definitively confirmed in the state. Recluses are mainly found in the central and southern United States, according to Vetter’s study.

“I’ve had 100 recluse spiders running up my arm, and I’ve never been bitten by one,” Vetter told LiveScience.

The vast majority of “spider bites” are caused by something else, research shows. One study Vetter cited found that of 182 Southern California patients seeking treatment for spider bites, only 3.8 percent had actual spider bites, while 85.7 percent had infections.

And a national study found that nearly 30 percent of people with skin lesions who said they had a spider bite actually had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Other things that can cause symptoms that mimic spider bites include biting fleas or bedbugs, allergies, poison oak and poison ivy, besides various viral and bacterial infections, Vetter said.

In recent years, doctors have become better at identifying true spider bites, Vetter writes.

But spiders are still widely regarded as dangerous to humans, which is generally not the case, Buddle said.

Spiders are good at killing “nuisance insects,” which may be more likely to bite humans than spiders, Buddle added. “In the vast majority of cases, spiders are our friends.”

Email Douglas Main or follow him on Twitter or Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook orGoogle+. Article originally on LiveScience.com

Quinault Nation Harvests Razor Clams for Canoe Journey

Quinault Pride Seafood employees collect and weigh razor clams from tribal members during a commercial razor clam dig near Ocean CityD. Preston — Quinault Pride Seafood employees collect and weigh razor clams from tribal members during a commercial razor clam dig near Ocean City
D. Preston

By D. Preston

As featured in the NWIFC News

One of the iconic foods of the Quinault Indian Nation will be available to share with the thousands of people who will gather in Taholah for the 2013 Canoe Journey from Aug. 1 to Aug. 6.Tribal members collected razor clams in several ceremonial digs. The clams were frozen so they can be served during the week-long Canoe Journey celebration.

“I can’t imagine hosting the Canoe Journey without razor clams,” said Lisa Sampson Eastman, who has been digging clams since she was 11 years old. “My sister Sabrina and I learned to dig clams from our dad, Charles Sampson.”

Historically, Quinault tribal members used pliable yew sticks to tease the evasive mollusk from its hole in the sand. Today, tribal members use clam shovels to efficiently harvest for ceremonial, subsistence and commercial uses. As co-manager of the resource, the nation also shares surveying duties with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, protecting razor clams for the future. Surveys of the clam populations are under way now, following the harvest season.

Quinault Pride Seafood purchases the clams from tribal members, providing income for many who are not yet working in seasonal jobs that begin in early summer. The clams are sold for public consumption and bait for fishermen.

Deaf, Dumb and Blind Justice: Thomas Is Wrong on Tribal Sovereignty

Mark C. Van Norman

July 14, 2013 ICTMN

In the Baby Veronica case, Associate Supreme Court Justice Thomas writes that the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional because it is not “commerce” in the sense of “trade.” Domestic relations, he says, are left to the states. When it comes to American Indians, Native Nations and the Constitution, Thomas is wrong. The Constitution’s Treaty, Commerce, Supremacy, Apportionment and Property Clauses, the War Powers, and the 14^thAmendment are the foundation for the Indian affairs powers and the United States’ nation-to-nation relations with Native Nations.

The starting point for analysis is always: Indian nations and tribes were independent, sovereign nations prior to the formation of the United States. Indian nations managed native justice systems, economies, education, health care, and domestic relations. In the earliest Indian treaties, the United States extended its protection to Indian nations—for example, the Cherokee Nation Treaty of 1785 provides that: “[t]he Indians for themselves and their respective tribes … do acknowledge all the Cherokees to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.” The United States intended this provision to oust the British from North America, yet it must be read as the Cherokee Nation would have understood it—a pledge of protection for the Native Nation, not U.S. dictatorship, tyranny or despotism. Thomas Jefferson recognized that Native Nations were governed by native traditions, customs, and laws.

The Articles of Confederation, America’s original governing document, provides that:

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of … regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated.

Articles of Confederation, Art. XI (Passed by Continental Congress 1777, ratified 1781–1789). In practice, this allocation of power was not practical because the grant of authority to Congress was too qualified and the states continued to claim concurrent power over Indian affairs. The weakness of the Indian Affairs power was exemplary of the overall problems for the United States under the Articles of Confederation. This provision does not inform the Constitution by reserving state’s rights in the field of Indian affairs.

General George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention, and contrary to Justice Thomas’s suggestion, he did not carry forward the Articles of Confederation. In partnership with Franklin, Jefferson and others, Washington and his party of Federalists, Jay, Hamilton, and Madison, rewrote the Constitution to ensure the success of the United States of America as one Nation. Washington made sure that the Federal Government had plenary authority—vis-à-vis the states—over Indian affairs (and other areas of Federal authority). Washington sought to forestall brushfire wars along the United States border because he knew that American citizens, who encroached on Indian lands and “endangered” the peace of the Union by violating Indian treaties, started Indian wars.

Accordingly, the Constitution says simply, “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce … with the Indian Tribes,” and state laws that are contrary to Federal law are preempted by the Supremacy Clause. Thomas’s broadside notwith-standing, this is not the only font of Federal authority concerning government-to-government relations with Indian nations and tribes. The United States negotiated 17 treaties under the Articles of Confederation prior to the Constitution, and 10 of those were treaties with Indian Nations (Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, Six Nations). The Constitution affirms those treaties already made, including the treaty pledges of protection for Indian nations. The Constitution also authorizes new treaties. The Constitution, through the Treaty and Supremacy Clauses, recognizes Indian nations and tribes as prior sovereigns, with authority to enter treaties and those treaties reserved tribal self-governance over Indian lands and tribal citizens. Over 370 Indian treaties were entered under the Treaty Clause. The Apportionment Clause expressly excludes tribal citizens from direct taxation and congressional apportionment as “Indians not taxed.” Our people were citizens of our own Native Nations, not the United States.

As Chairman of the Constitutional Convention, Washington is a reliable guide to the Constitution’s meaning. In 1790, one year after its ratification, President Washington entered the Treaty with the Creek Nation, guaranteeing Creek territory, pledging protection, promoting justice, agriculture, and civilization. With regard to the “beloved” Cherokee Nation, President Washington exhorted them to undertake agriculture, sell their surplus to their white neighbors, gather in national council and send delegates to Congress, expressing their priorities and concerns.

Jefferson’s legacy is the Louisiana Purchase. In the 1803 Louisiana Purchase Treaty, the United States pledged to honor the international treaties with Indian nations, until such time as the United States by “mutual consent” entered its own treaties. Under Jefferson’s leadership, the United States passed laws for Indian traders, Indian education, and restricted liquor sales. Later, Indian treaties included provisions for tribal territorial integrity, self-government, agriculture, allotment of lands, education, health care, “civilization.” Domestic relations were addressed through treaties, when non-Indian husbands of Indian women were included in allotment of tribal lands and crimes between Indians were reserved to tribal self-government. Indian children were often sent far from home to military boarding schools, like Carlisle School in Pennsylvania, or educated in government boarding schools on Indian reservations. InUnited States v. Quiver(1916), the Supreme Court explained that:

At an early period it became the settled policy of Congress to permit the personal and domestic relations of the Indians with each other to be regulated, and offenses by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian to be dealt with, according to their tribal customs and laws. Thus the Indian intercourse acts of 1796 and 1802 provided for the punishment of various offenses by white persons against Indians and by Indians against white persons, but left untouched those by Indians against each other.

After 90 years of Indian treaty-making, Congress promulgated, and the states ratified, the 14^thAmendment. Congress intended to make freed slaves citizens through the Citizenship Clause, but intentionally excluded the citizens of Indian nations from U.S. Citizenship. Native people were not “subject to” the jurisdiction of the United States, as required by the new Clause. Our people were subject to tribal government jurisdiction.

When the 14^thAmendment removed the constitutional reference to slavery (3/5s of other persons) and counted “All persons, excluding Indians not taxed,” the political status of tribal citizens was affirmed. Under the Indian Peace Policy of the post-Civil War era, the United States entered into over 70 Indian treaties while the 14^thAmendment was considered and ratified. By repeating the original language of the Constitution, the 14^thAmendment should be read to affirm the original Indian affairs powers of the United States. In this way, the Nation approved an expansive view of the Indian affairs power and the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian nations.

The Supreme Court has found that the War Powers are also among the Indian affairs powers because the United States, having made war on Indian nations, also had the power to make peace. Indeed, President Washington put Secretary of War Knox in charge of treaty-making with the Cherokee Nation in 1790. The Department of War was the original home of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The United States destroyed traditional tribal economies and disrupted our Indian communities by warfare, so the United States has the power to assist Indian nations in restoring tribal economies and Indian communities. (Think of the Marshall Plan.) And, under the Constitution’s Property Clause, the United States, having taken original Indian lands as “surplus” and having claimed title over remaining Indian lands to protect them against alienation, also had the power to restore Indian lands.

In his Baby Veronica opinion, Thomas would have us believe that because no furs, beads or kettles, hatchets or guns were traded, the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional. His view ignores the history of the United States relations with Indian nations, the Constitution’s text, treaties, statutes, and a rich body of Supreme Court precedent. As Chief Justice Marshall said in the 1830s Cherokee Nation cases, the duty to protect is not a license to destroy. Where the United States pledged through treaties (affirmed by the 14^thAmendment) to protect Indian nations, Congress now has the power to protect our Indian children so they, as our future citizens, are not stripped away from our Indian nations.

Under the Constitution, it is well within Congress’s power to protect Indian families and children through the Indian Child Welfare Act. Justice Thomas is just plain wrong when he says otherwise.

Mark C. Van Norman is the Executive Director for the National Indian Gaming Association.

Good idea, but not in our neighborhood

Posted: 07/14/2013 1:55 pm

Huffington Post

By Tim Giago

Founder, Native American Journalists Association

If you are Native American and you have lived in Rapid City for any length of time, the actions of the Department of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board last Thursday would have come as no surprise.
After two previous meetings, the board finally voted 4 – 3 to deny Native Americans the opportunity to place four bronze busts of famous Native Americans in Rapid City’s Halley Park.

I felt from the moment I entered the arena of the old Sioux Indian Museum at Halley Park that we were about to face a rigged and forgone conclusion of a decision. That feeling just hung in the air. The board saw to it that five of the grandchildren of Mr. James Halley, for whom the park was named, were present. It was almost as if they collectively brought a feeling of “Oh my God; they are trying to place the busts of Indians in our precious park.”

Most of the people standing up in opposition to the plan were folks who lived in the park neighborhood. To a person they said, “Oh, the idea is a really good one, but not in our neighborhood.” One elderly lady almost uttered the racist words that seemed to be on the minds of those people opposed to the project. She said, “I’ve lived in Rapid City for 70 years and if they put those statues there the next thing you know . . . . . . . . Oh, I can’t even find the words.” Every Indian in the place knew the words. They were, “The next thing you know there will be a bunch of drunken Indians panhandling and dirtying up the park in our precious neighborhood.”

Actually the idea of the Sculpture Garden of Native Americans was hatched by the longtime activist and professor, Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, a member of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. She wanted to place the busts of accomplished Native Americans like Vine Deloria, Jr., a noted Indian author, Oscar Howe, one of the great Indian artists of our time, Charles Eastman, an author and physician, and the famous holy man Black Elk, in the park to show the rest of the world that we (Native Americans) had intelligent, professional scholars and artistic members in our history who seldom make it into the history and text books of non-Native America.

At a previous meeting a few months back Cook-Lynn was quoted as speaking of “little white girls” and this comment set off board member Jeff Schild. His impression of one of the ‘good ole boys,’ intentional or not, was right on. His efforts at making light of a serious proposal were embarrassing to some of the other board members and definitely to all of the Native Americans in attendance.

Mr. Schild made it his goal to attack and embarrass the elderly Dakota woman, Liz Cook-Lynn. “I didn’t like your comment about little white girls because I have two daughters of my own and Oh yes; I’m of Russian and German descent.” Retorted Liz, “Well you folks refer to our children as ‘little Indians,’ so what’s the difference? But Schild kept jabbing away until he forced an apology from Cook-Lynn. It seems that his attacks upon Cook-Lynn were his only reason for showing up that night and his obvious opposition to the proposal to place the statues in Halley Park was secondary.

For more than 50 years the Sioux Indian Museum was located in the very park Cook-Lynn selected for the Sculpture Garden of Native Americans. The lame excuse that by placing the statues in the park would create traffic problems was repeated over and over and the proven fact that the Sioux Museum never caused traffic problems in all of the years it shared the park was never mentioned.

The placing of the Indian statues in the park would then become a “destination” according to Mr. Schild, Nick Stroot and Chuck Tinant, three of the board members who voted against the plan. “The location is a big concern,” they almost chimed in unison. And they could have added, yes, my dear little Indians, it’s a good idea, but not in our neighborhood.

There are statues of past white American presidents on nearly every street corner in downtown Rapid City. Are they also considered a “destination” because there is certainly a lot of traffic passing through downtown? No, they are more of a distraction than a destination.

We ask Elizabeth Cook-Lynn to stick to her guns and don’t give up the fight. Discouragement is the first roadblock to accomplishment.

The next step of the Four Nations Sculpture Park Corporation will be to take the fight to the newly elected, second-term mayor, Sam Kooiker. As Mr. Schild would probably say in his best impression of one of the “good ole boys,” There’s more than one way to skin a cat.”

(Tim Giago can be reached at unitysodak1@knology.net)

School Policies Reduce Student Drinking – if They’re Perceived to be Enforced

By Doree Armstrong | University of Washington 07/09/2013 10:39:00

“Just say no” has been many a parent’s mantra when it comes to talking to their children about drugs or alcohol. Schools echo that with specific policies against illicit use on school grounds. But do those school policies work?

University of Washington professor of social work Richard Catalano and colleagues studied whether anti-alcohol policies in public and private schools in Washington state and Australia’s Victoria state were effective for eighth- and ninth-graders.

What they found was that each school’s particular policy mattered less than the students’ perceived enforcement of it. So, even if a school had a suspension or expulsion policy, if students felt the school didn’t enforce it then they were more likely to drink on campus. But, even if a school’s policy was less harsh – such as requiring counseling – students were less likely to drink at school if they believed school officials would enforce it.

“Whatever your school policy is, lax enforcement is related to more drinking,” Catalano said.

The study was published recently in the journal Health Education Research.

The results were similar in Washington, where the legal drinking age is 21 and schools tend to have a zero-tolerance approach, and Victoria, Australia, where the legal drinking age is 18 and policies are more about minimizing harm.

In the study, 44 percent of Victoria eighth-graders and 22 percent of Washington eighth-graders reported drinking alcohol. Victoria students also reported higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol-related harms.

Apart from perceptions about enforcement, harmful behaviors in both states were reduced when students believed policy violators would likely be counseled by a teacher on the dangers of alcohol use, rather than expelled or suspended.

“Schools should focus on zero tolerance and abstinence in primary and early middle school, but sometime between middle school and high school they have to blend in zero tolerance with harm minimization,” said Catalano, director of the Social Development Research Group at the UWSchool of Social Work and principal investigator for the International Youth Development Study. “By the time they get into high school they need new strategies.”

Those strategies could include talking to a teacher or being referred to treatment. The likelihood of binge drinking was reduced if students received an abstinence alcohol message or a harm minimization message, and if they believed teachers would talk to them about the dangers of alcohol. Catalano said such remediation policies are an important predictor of less alcohol use among ninth-graders.

He said the study shows harsh punishment for drinking on school grounds, such as calling the police or expelling the student, doesn’t inhibit alcohol use on campus. Instead, long-term negative impacts of expulsion mean students feel disconnected from school and may subsequently drink more. Calling the police, which gives the student a police record, appears to make things even worse.

“What we’ve seen in other studies from this sample is suspension policies actually worsen the behavior problem,” Catalano said. “What that says to me is, although you want policies and you want enforcement of policies, there are other ways of responding than suspension, expulsion and calling the police: Getting a student to talk to a teacher about how alcohol might be harmful, or a session with the school counselor.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, and Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. Co-authors are Todd Herrenkohl of the UW, lead author Tracy Evans-Whipp and Stephanie Plenty ofRoyal Children’s Hospital in Victoria, Australia, and John Toumbourou of Deakin University in Australia.

Source: University of Washington

Native bee species spotted for first time since ’90s

Bee enthusiasts beat the bushes Sunday to see if the colony of rare insects is still active, and biologists are planning conservation efforts.

By Sandi Doughton

Seattle Times science reporter

Courtesy of Will Peterman / Copyright 2013

Will Peterman snapped the “Bigfoot” shot July 7: a blurred image of a creature so rare that many experts feared it had been wiped out in Washington.

But even out of focus, there was no mistaking the feature that distinguishes the Western bumblebee from other species in the Northwest.

“White butt,” Peterman explained.

On Tuesday, he returned to the tiny park in Brier, northeast of Seattle, where he took the first picture. This time, he captured a sharp portrait of a fat, fuzzy, white-bottomed Bombus occidentalisforaging in a blackberry hedge.

“There was some shouting,” Peterman said, recalling his excitement. On Sunday, he and a group of biologists and bee enthusiasts from the University of Washington made a more systematic sweep through the park and nearby areas.

The group didn’t locate the colony’s nest, but they did spot a solitary queen.

“We got scads more pictures,” Peterman said.

The discovery of what may be the only population of Western bumblebees in the state has raised hopes that the species could be making a comeback.

“The best case scenario is that this turns out to be a strain … that’s actually resistant to whatever it is that knocked them back in the first place,” Peterman said.

But even if the bees in Brier are just a remnant population, the find is significant, said biologist Rich Hatfield, of the Oregon-based Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. “We can target conservation efforts on the ground; we can get people in that area to create habitat and to keep an eye out for them.”

Western bumblebees were once among the most common bumblebees in the Western United States. Then they began to vanish in the mid-1990s.

No one knows for sure what is killing the species, but the decline coincides with the development of commercial bumblebee-breeding programs. Breeders sold colonies to tomato farmers in the United States and Europe. (bumblebees are the only native pollinators for tomatoes.)

Scientists at the University of California, Davis hypothesize that some of the bees shipped to Europe picked up a gut parasite called Nosema bombi. When infected queens were shipped back to the U.S., the infection could have spread quickly through bumblebee populations with no native immunity.

Bees are also vulnerable to a wide range of pesticides.

“Nobody has seen Bombus occidentalis in Seattle since the mid-1990s,” said Peterman, a writer, photographer and self-described bee nerd.

The first sighting in more than a decade came from Brier resident Megan O’Donald, who spotted one of the bees in her mother’s garden last summer and reported it to the Xerces Society. The insects returned this year, and O’Donald said she saw one Sunday on a goldenrod plant.

When Peterman heard about the earlier sightings, he decided to launch a bee-hunting expedition. Using Google Earth, he identified several patches of likely habitat — mostly small parks or unmown lots. At the fourth site on his list, he got lucky.

The colony, which is located underground, may be shutting down for the season. In late summer, after the broods are raised, the bees that will develop into the next season’s queens start gorging on nectar in preparation for their winter hibernation.

“Probably all we can do now is let the bees continue their cycle and go back next spring,” said UW biology instructor Evan Sugden, who joined the hunt on Sunday.

Later this summer, the Xerces Society is launching a citizen science project that will recruit people across North America to monitor bumblebee populations, Hatfield said. A lot of attention has been paid to the decline of non-native honeybees and the mysterious killer called colony-collapse disorder, but new studies show that many bumblebees are in serious trouble, too.

Bumblebees are key pollinators for many plants because they start work early in the spring and stay on the job when the weather is too cool and cloudy for honeybees.

“If we start to lose species from our landscape,” Hatfield said, “there will be economic consequences.”

Sandi Doughton at: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com

American Indian descendants of Sand Creek Massacre seek reparations

By Keith Coffman

DENVER | Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:32pm EDT

(Reuters) – Four descendants of Arapaho and Cheyenne Indians slaughtered in 1864 by U.S. federal troops in Colorado sued the federal government on Thursday for reparations over what became known as the Sand Creek Massacre.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver accuses federal authorities of reneging on an 1866 promise to compensate victims of the massacre, and is demanding an accounting for the money that was set aside to pay the claims.

The Sand Creek Massacre, which took place when Colorado was a U.S. territory still 12 years away from statehood, was one of many skirmishes in the 19th century Indian Wars as white settlers expanded westward.

The suit says the U.S. federal government is responsible for an army that “committed acts of genocide, torture, mutilation, harassment and intimidation” against Indians who were camped along the Colorado creek when they were attacked without provocation, the lawsuit said

A spokesman for the Interior Department could not immediately be reached for comment.

At dawn on the morning of the massacre on November 29, 1864, about 700 U.S. cavalry troops, commanded by Colonel John Chivington, descended on an encampment of some 500 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians along the Sand Creek near Fort Lyon, Colorado.

The Indians at Sand Creek were non-combatants in the Indian Wars and were led to believe under the terms of the 1861 Treaty of Fort Wise that they were in a safe haven. Nevertheless, cavalry troops opened fire with “artillery and 12-pound mountain howitzers,” according to the lawsuit.

An elderly Cheyenne Chief, White Antelope, ran toward the troops and crossed his arms, signifying that the villagers did not want to fight.

He was shot dead, and the “plaintiffs still have the bullet hole-riddled blanket” the chief wore when he was gunned down, the lawsuit said. An estimated 165 Indians – many unarmed women, children and the elderly – were killed over the next several hours.

The massacre grounds are now a National Historic Site operated by the National Park Service.

The federal government conducted an investigation and promised to pay reparations to the survivors under the Treaty of Little Arkansas but never made good on the promise, the lawsuit claims.

“The DOI (Department of the Interior) is believed to have since 1866, controlled and held in trust reparations owed to plaintiffs and their ancestors,” the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, which a federal judge must approve. The suit names the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs as defendants.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Lisa Shumaker)

Barge moves crane to Skagit River Bridge construction site

A work barge stationed downstream next to the I-5 Skagit River bridge was positioned there Tuesday morning. Work will begin this summer on the permanent replacement span. Scott Terrell / Skagit Valley Herald

Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:00 am

By Kate Martin @Kate_SVH

Construction equipment and supplies are moving into the area north of the Interstate 5 Skagit River Bridge as the contractor prepares to build a permanent replacement for the span that fell May 23 after a truck with a high load struck several trusses.

Spokane contractor Max J. Kuney Construction has brought in a crane by barge and has stored some equipment in the Dike District 12 lot northeastof the bridge, said Jay Drye, assistant regional administrator for the state Department of Transportation. The company had to widen the levee access road to allow room for another crane on top of the flood-protection structure, Drye said.

The permanent span, which will have the same width as the rest of the bridge, will be built west of the temporary bridge. Kuney will also install pilings upriver of the bridge, Drye said. When the permanent span is completed — sometime after Labor Day but before Oct. 1 — the company will slide the temporary span off of the piers and move the permanent span into place.

For now, construction activity will be “pretty slow for quite some time,” he said. The company continues to create designs for the permanent span.

“We are working on a lot of the details,” Drye said.

Max J. Kuney had the winning bid of $6.9 million last month. Four companies bid on the span’s construction.

For more stories and videos about the bridge collapse, visit http://skagit.ws/bridgecollapse.

– Reporter Kate Martin: 360-416-2145,kmartin@skagitpublishing.com, Twitter: @Kate_SVH,facebook.com/KateReports.

Beer delivery truck shot at by air soft rifle in Whiteclay

Watch the on scene report here

Another beer delivery truck has been attacked by anti-alcohol activists in Whiteclay.

Nebraska State Patrol officials say air soft rifles were fired at a High Plains Budweiser truck Monday afternoon.

Lieutenant Lance Rogers with the Nebraska State Patrol says the investigation has been turned over to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs because the altercation crossed state lines.

The plastic pellets were shot at the beer truck in the Nebraskan town of Whiteclay from the ‘Zero Tolerance’ camp on the South Dakotan border.

The small town of Whiteclay has been the center of many as anti-alcohol protests, where activists say they want to keep alcohol off of the Pine Ridge Indian reservation.

Will the native legal winning-streak hit 200?

25 June 2013 11:36

Written by Administrator 3 The First Perspective

Analysis by Bill Gallagher: Lawyer / Strategist / Author

Resource Rulers – Fortune and Folly on Canada’s Road to Resources

Many commentators are saying that the courts are tightening up and that the native legal winning streak will be harder to maintain for future legal challenges.

They could be right but then again they could be wrong – big time!

Recently, I cautioned that natives need to be more judicious in some of the cases that they are advancing and have warned them of over-reaching (recently they incurred three losses in a row – in my view – all in legal actions that may not have furthered their social justice causes).

Still they nevertheless also won two significant procedural wins at the appellate court level: ‘cumulative impacts’ in Alberta (#180) and ‘Rupert’s Land’ in Yukon (#181). Both these key issues will now have new trials: the first potentially impacting the oilsands; the second potentially impacting 40% of Canada’s land mass. Stay tuned!

So what makes one think that natives might hit the 200 mark? A hint comes from a case decided this week on Vancouver Island having to do with the Douglas Treaties. Again the native-side did not prevail because they failed to reciprocate by discharging their duty-to-consult obligations (being as it is a two-way street) and they were properly called-out by the court for their consultation intransigence.

Likewise the British Columbia government was called-out for its narrow legal-mindedness. The following paragraph from the judgment appears at the halfway point – and took me (a close reader of rulings) completely by surprise:

d) Did the Provincial Crown have a Duty to Consult in respect of the Kwakiutl First Nation Traditional Territory beyond the KFN Treaty Lands?

[123] The Provincial Crown concedes that it had a duty to consult with respect to the treaty rights but denies this duty extended to the whole KFN Traditional Territory. (excerpt Chartrand v The District Manager 2013 BCSC 1068) (author’s underlining)

The fact that this assertion appears in a Supreme Court ruling in mid-2013 tells us something about the narrow legal mindset emanating from BC government lawyers.

Needless to say the court made short work of it:

[147] All three elements that give rise to a duty to consult in respect of the KFN Traditional Territory were present. Accordingly the Provincial Crown had a duty to consult with the KFN in respect of the Decisions and their potential for adverse impact on the KFN Traditional Territory and its treaty rights. (ibid)

No wonder the judge told BC to bear its own court costs, along with making other recommendations in the pursuit of furthering real reconciliation down the road:

[208] Although this declaration does not provide the relief the Kwakiutl First Nation advocated for in terms of their quest for a resolution of their Aboriginal land claims, neither does it ignore the problem. I encourage and challenge both the Federal Crown and the Provincial Crown to engage the KFN regarding the KFN’s asserted and treaty rights, titles and interests with a view to the negotiation of a treaty without any further litigation, expense or delay. (ibid) (author’s underlining)

While the province did adequately consult the KFN in this instance – even with this outcome – the native side did not leave court empty-handed. More over, if the same type of provincial government narrow legal-mindedness permeates the other native legal challenges presently before the courts, then hitting 200 native legal wins in the Canadian resources sector will soon be a litigation track-record certainty. And it’s no wonder then that pipelines, dams, transmission lines, woodlots, mines, run-of-river hydro projects are all heading into the legal blender in BC.