The tables were turned on a former star of the reality show Mantracker, in which contestants become prey stalked by the series’ stars, when he was shot by Canadian police in Alberta on August 1 during a traffic stop.
Two Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers were being investigated by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team after a run-in with Curtis Hallock, 38, an expert outdoorsman and horse whisperer of Grande Cache, the Edmonton Journalreported on August 3.
At about 10 p.m. on Thursday August 1, two RCMP officers pulled Hallock over “on suspicion that he was impaired,” the newspaper said. A confrontation of some sort ensued—police are not revealing details—and Hollock was shot, receiving two bullet wounds to a leg and one in the shoulder, his sister, Priscilla Bowen, told the Journal.
Though he fled on foot, he was apprehended and brought to the hospital, the newspaper said. Details were scant on what caused the confrontation, but Bowen was less concerned with that than with “how an unarmed man gets shot so many times by the police,” she told the Edmonton Journal.
This is a question being posed in Toronto as well, given the July 26 shooting of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim on an empty streetcar by metropolitan police. As with Yatim, Hallock has no history of violence. Indeed, as his biography on the Mantracker Season Two website notes, “grizzly bear encounters and raging river crossings on horseback” are more his speed.
“Curtis has lived off the land surrounding Grande Cache for his whole life,” the bio says. “He cares for a herd of horses that roam free in the area and he considers the rugged wilderness and dense bush his own backyard.”
Former colleagues described the Mantracker sidekick, one of several who played alongside star Terry Grant, as one of their favorites, with a gentle temperament.
“In the seven years that we produced Mantracker … he was the number one sidekick that everyone loved and adored from all the sidekicks we had,” Ihor Macijiwsky of Bonterra Productions told CTV News.
Hallock was scheduled to undergo surgery for his wounds over the weekend.
The first meeting of the White House Council on Native American Affairs took place July 29 without tribal leaders present.
The Council, established by President Barack Obama by executive order June 26, is intended to oversee and coordinate the progress of federal agencies on tribal programs and consultation with tribes across the federal government.
Tribal leaders have been asking Obama to establish such a workgroup since day one of his presidency. They generally support the idea of the current Council, which has roots in several other U.S. presidential administrations, but some have problems with its structure, saying it strikes them as odd that tribal representatives have not been invited to have a seat on the Council.
Instead, Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, appointed chair of the council by Obama, solicited tribal leaders’ input in a conference call held July 26, and this input helped guide the meeting, according to Interior officials.
The meeting was closed to the press and public. Pictures released by Interior showed many federal agency officials sitting around a square table looking at Jewell. Federal Indian employees, including Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; Yvette Roubideaux, director of the Indian Health Service; and Jodi Gillette, Senior Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs on the White House Domestic Policy Council, were there. Senior Advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett, White House Domestic Policy Director Cecilia Muñoz, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, were also present, according to Interior.
“For context, today’s meeting was a bit more organizational in nature—in order to get priorities in order,” said Jessica Kershaw, a spokeswoman for Interior, when asked if tribal leaders were in attendance.
“At the top of the meeting Secretary Jewell provided a summary of matters raised by tribal leaders in a conference call held on Friday and through written comments,” Kershaw said. “That call was meant to inform some of the priorities that the Council should be focused on as it gathered today to discuss how the federal family can best coordinate efforts to address these issues.”
Kershaw said the input from tribal leaders included: “job creation and economic development in tribal communities, honoring treaties and the federal trust relationship, strengthening tribal justice systems, the need for coordination and education on Affordable Care Act enrollment for Native Americans, expanded education opportunities for Native American youth, protection of sacred sites and natural resource development, addressing the challenges tribes are facing due to the sequester and shortfall in contract support costs, and that tribal leaders want to see the federal agencies working together to build on the previous accomplishments of the Obama administration.”
Tribal leaders also informed the administration that they want to meet in face-to-face, organized sessions with federal agency officials that are more intimate than the yearly White House Tribal Nations Conferences, where it has been difficult to hear a variety of tribal voices given the overwhelming size and structure of the events.
Being relegated to input via conference call did not sit well with some tribal leaders.
“That’s not a real government-to-government relationship,” said Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes, who believes that tribal leaders and citizens have been set up via this new federal bureaucracy to be “on the outside looking in.”
Hall has advocated for the creation of a Native American White House council based on the model established under President Lyndon B. Johnson that would make tribes actual members of the council and give the council strong budget powers over Indian affairs.
Derek Bailey, former chairman of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, said he does not trust federal policy makers to be able to accurately represent tribal views without tribal leaders in the room.
“I am not confident, from my experiences, that all federal bureaucrats will accurately represent concerns of the tribes to the White House Council,” Bailey said. “For tribal relations to truly rise to the next level with the U.S. government, having opportunities for engagement and meaningful dialogue is imperative, and I believe welcomed by most tribal leaders.”
It’s disheartening to Bailey that the Council is not providing tribal leaders with the opportunity to be heard in person, because he believes Obama’s intent in creating the group is to develop stronger working relationships between federal officials, agencies and tribal nations.
“[A]ny time tribal leaders can be included and rightfully given the opportunity to increase understanding and awareness of issues affecting Indian country, [it can] only help all involved,” Bailey said.
Interior officials are aware of the desires of tribal leaders, but they have not said how they will account for them.
Jewell, meanwhile, has not publicly addressed the controversy, saying in a statement that she believes the “meeting underscores President Obama’s commitment to build effective partnerships with American Indian and Alaska Native communities.”
EVERETT — An undercover operation in Snohomish County by state fish and wildlife agents has netted two men with suspected ties to an international fish-poaching ring.
The men are accused of illegally selling caviar, steelhead and salmon. One of the men admitted to illegally “snagging” at least 100 pounds of steelhead, prosecutors said. The men were charged on Tuesday with unlawful trafficking of fish, a felony.
“It’s bad enough when they’re stealing by harvesting illegally. They’ve added to the egregiousness by then making a profit,” said Mike Cenci, a marine patrol captain with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Agents say the men are believed to be connected to a fish-poaching ring that was operating out of several other states. Earlier this year, eight men were indicted in Missouri on federal charges for poaching and trafficking in American paddlefish and their eggs. More than 100 other people were arrested or cited for their part in illegally selling Missouri paddlefish to national and international caviar markets.
American paddlefish, also known as spoonbills, are native to the Mississippi River watershed. The prehistoric fish can live for decades, weigh up 160 pounds and reach seven feet long. Criminals sell eggs from the boneless fish as higher-quality caviar.
“Paddlefish are often sold under the guise of sturgeon,” Cenci said.
With a decline in the highly-sought-after and expensive sturgeon roe, paddlefish eggs have gained popularity. The increase in demand has led to a decline in the paddlefish population, according to federal fish and wildlife agents. Chinese paddlefish, once plentiful in the Yangtze River, are believed to be almost extinct.
Authorities allege that Igor Stepchuk, 38, of Lynnwood, sold an undercover agent five jars of American paddlefish eggs for $500. He also is accused of illegally selling steelhead, and coho and chinook salmon.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife began investigating Stepchuk after receiving a tip in 2011 that he was trafficking illegal caviar. The agent met with Stepchuk numerous times. His friend Oleg Morozov, of Kent, also is accused of trafficking fish.
Stepchuk, a convicted felon, eventually offered to sell the agent steelhead, court papers said. He reportedly told the agent he had poached about 100 pounds of steelhead. It isn’t clear where he caught them. He reportedly showed the agent a freezer full of fish.
Non-tribal fishermen are banned from selling steelhead. Commercial and recreational salmon fishing also is heavily regulated.
Cenci said it’s also illegal to catch fish by snagging, which often means dragging a hook through the water and impaling the fish, rather than waiting for a fish to bite.
“It’s offensive to sportsmen and sportswomen. It’s a matter of ethics,” Cenci said.
The defendants reportedly went on to sell the undercover agent more than a dozen jars of caviar and more steelhead. In total, the men charged the agent more than $4,500 for the fish and eggs.
Detectives sent samples of the caviar and fish to the department’s molecular genetics laboratory to confirm the species. The lab is used primarily to help manage wildlife and fish resources, but enforcement agents use the facility to assist with criminal investigations. DNA testing was done, and the samples were consistent with steelhead and chinook and coho salmon, court records said.
“That kind of activity has a great impact when you’re dealing with endangered salmon runs,” Cenci said.
Bob Heirman, conservationist and longtime secretary-treasurer for the Snohomish Sportsmen’s Club, has been planting salmon and trout in Snohomish County for decades.
Poachers are “robbing resources while some people are trying to recover them,” Heirman said.
Stepchuk and Morozov are expected to answer to the charges later this month in Snohomish County Superior Court.
Unfortunately, the state’s fish and wildlife species often find their way to illegal national and international markets, Cenci said. “We’ve seen everything poached from roe to bear gallbladders,” he said.
He encourages seafood eaters to make sure they are buying from licensed and legitimate sellers. “If there aren’t people willing to buy (illegal products) the incentive to poach for profit goes away,” Cenci said.
Humanity’s difficulties dealing with climate change trace back to a simple fact: We are animals. Our cognitive and limbic systems were shaped by evolution to heed threats and rewards close by, involving faces and teeth. That’s how we survived. Those systems were not shaped to heed, much less emotionally respond to, faceless threats distant in time and space — like, say, climate change. No evil genius could design a problem less likely to grab our attention.
This is a familiar point, but some new research on sea level throws it into sharp relief. Let’s quickly review the research, and while we do, keep this question in the back of our minds: “Does this make me feel anything? Even if I understand, do I care?”
Sea-level rise is a vexed issue in climate discussions because everyone wants to know where sea level’s going to be in 2050, or 2100 — years that we can, at least dimly, imagine. I’ll still be alive in 2050, presumably, and my kids or grandkids in 2100, with any luck.
The problem is that it’s much easier to project long-term sea levels than short term. It’s difficult to nail down the near-term timing of “nonlinear” (abrupt) events involving, say, ice sheets, but over a few thousand years, it all evens out. A century just isn’t that long in climatic terms.
A team of researchers led by Anders Levermann at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has done something novel. They said, screw the short term. We know that CO2, once it’s in the atmosphere, is effectively permanent. We know that for a given level of CO2 concentrations, eventually you get a given temperature, and for a given temperature, sooner or later sea level will rise to adjust. When you raise the temperature, you “lock in” a certain amount of sea-level rise, even if you don’t know exactly how quickly it will happen.
So Levermann and co. set out to determine how much sea-level rise gets locked in for every degree that global average temperature rises. They modeled all the main drivers — thermal expansion (warm water expands), glaciers melting, the Greenland ice sheet, and the Antarctic ice sheet — and then compared the results to the paleo data to make sure they matched up with the patterns in the historical record (they did).
This is, scientifically speaking, easier to do that predicting short-term sea levels. “On a 2,000-year time scale,” they say, “the sea-level contribution will be largely independent of the exact warming path during the first century.” A lot of stuff that might be abrupt or unpredictable over the next century or two washes out over the long-term.
So what’s the verdict? Long story short, for every degree Celsius that global average temperature rises, we can expect 2.3 meters of sea-level rise sometime over the ensuing 2,000 years. (U.S. translation: for every degree Fahrenheit, 4.2 feet of rising seas get locked in.) We are currently on track to hit 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, if not sooner. That means locking in 9.2 meters, or 30 feet, of sea level rise. Suffice to say, that would wipe out most of the major coastal cities and towns in the world.
There you have it: If we stay on our current trajectory, by the end of the century we will ensure the eventual destruction of our coastal developments. But! That destruction will happen at some point over the next 2,000 years. Maybe not for 100, maybe not even for several hundred, long after you and your children and your grandchildren are dead.
——
Do you care? Should you? Should you mobilize and put lots of money and effort toward an emissions-reduction regime that will prevent it? If you knew you were committing the place you live to destruction in 100 years, would it move you to action? What about 200 years? 500? 500 years ago was 1513, the year Juan Ponce de León “discovered” Florida and claimed it for Spain. I wonder if he worried what would happen in 2013.
——
Sea-level “lock in” is happening 10 times faster than sea-level rise itself, but thanks to the long time lag, it’s even more invisible. To bring it a little closer to home, Ben Strauss at Climate Central follows up on Levermann’s analysis by examining what sea-level rise might mean for America. (It’s a preview of a new paper that will be published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) [Editor’s note: Strauss is on Grist’s board of directors.]
There’s grim news right up front:
To begin with, it appears that the amount of carbon pollution to date has already locked in more than 4 feet of sea level rise past today’s levels. That is enough, at high tide, to submerge more than half of today’s population in 316 coastal cities and towns (home to 3.6 million) in the lower 48 states.
That’s a done deal. Those places are effectively doomed. But the choices we make today will have huge repercussions on sea levels to come:
By the end of this century, if global climate emissions continue to increase, that may lock in 23 feet of sea level rise, and threaten 1,429 municipalities that would be mostly submerged at high tide. Those cities have a total population of 18 million. But under a very low emissions scenario, our sea level rise commitment might be limited to about 7.5 feet, which would threaten 555 coastal municipalities: some 900 fewer communities than in the higher-emissions scenario.
If we take heroic measures, we could lose “only” 555 American towns and cities to the ocean. Whee!
If we do nothing and stay on our current trajectory, over 1,400 are threatened, including:
Nationally, the largest threatened cities at this level [50 percent submerged at high tide] are Miami, Virginia Beach, Va., Sacramento, Calif., and Jacksonville, Fla.
If we choose 25 percent [submerged] instead of 50 percent as the threat threshold, the lists all increase, and would include major cities like Boston, Long Beach, Calif., and New York City.
So, yeah, lots of American places are screwed over the long term. But how long? I mean, if it’s in 2,000 years … who knows if humanity will even exist? By then, surely the robots will have taken over.
Strauss addresses this question:
The big question hanging over this analysis is how quickly sea levels will rise to the committed levels. Neither Levermann and colleagues’ analysis, nor my new paper, address this question.
In a loose analogy, it is much easier to know that a pile of ice in a warm room will melt, than to know exactly how fast it will melt.
Levermann and company do put an upper limit of 2,000 years on how long it will take the sea level commitments described here to play out. Recent research indicates that warming from carbon emitted today is essentially irreversible on the relevant timescales (in the absence of its massive-scale engineered removal from the atmosphere), and will endure for hundreds or thousands of years, driving this long run unstoppable sea level rise.
On the other hand, our sea level rise commitment may be realized well before two millennia from now. The average rate of global sea level rise during the 20th century was about half a foot per century. The current rate is 1 foot, or twice that. And middle-of-the-road projections point to rates in the vicinity of 5 feet per century by 2100.
Such rates, if sustained, would realize the highest levels of sea level rise contemplated here in hundreds, not thousands of years — fast enough to apply continual pressure, as well as threaten the heritage, and very existence, of coastal communities everywhere. [my emphasis]
OK, so we’re probably talking hundreds instead of thousands of years. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that business as usual will put Miami under water in 100 years.
What is Miami worth to us? What will it be worth to the humans of 2113?
It depends, I would say, on what you think of those 2113 humans. Most people assume that humanity is going to experience a continual rise in wealth, technological sophistication, and living standards. That’s certainly the assumption baked into most economic models. If it’s true, the people of 2113 are going to be immeasurably more wealthy than us. Perhaps they’ll live in floating cities, or space stations. Perhaps they will drive amphibious vehicles. Perhaps they will leave their corporal bodies behind entirely and live on as clusters of electrons in Google data centers. What need will they have of Miami? They have transcended Miami. At any rate, we’re not inclined to worry about them. They’ll be better prepared to deal with the loss of Miami than we are to prevent that loss. Or so the thinking goes.
But there’s another way of seeing it. What if, as many people fear, we are churning through irreplaceable natural capital and our descendents are going to have less to work with than we do? What if our descendents face a world of resource shortages, insane weather, and denuded biodiversity? What if they need all the help they can get? If that’s true, it seems unthinkably irresponsible to allow a huge swath of our invested energy and capital to wash away in the sea.
What do you think? Do you care — really feel it, in your gut — that we’re in the process of consigning hundreds of American towns and cities to destruction? What does being a good ancestor mean to you?
An 1832 act of Congress prohibited all alcohol in Indian Country.
Today, Pine Ridge is the only South Dakota reservation that remains dry. Despite that status, alcoholism and alcohol-related crime run rampant.
Recently, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council decided that the people should vote on whether to allow sales on the reservation.
For some, the issue is about tradition. For others, it’s about maintaining sovereignty. And for others yet, it’s about ending the steady flow of money over the border to a tiny town called White Clay, Nebraska.
White Clay – population approximately 14 – is an unincorporated town located a couple miles from Pine Ridge – the largest community on the reservation of the same name.
Alcohol is White Clay’s big industry – really, its only industry – and many Oglala are angry.
“It’s committing slow genocide on our people,” said tribal member Olowan Martinez.
More than four million cans of beer are sold in White Clay’s four liquor stores each year – mostly to tribal members. Meaning the money is leaving not only the reservation, but the state.
Now, in a special election August 13, the people will decide whether to allow alcohol sales on Pine Ridge.
Tribal Vice President Tom Poor Bear doesn’t think that’s enough time.
“I don’t feel we’re ready for it. I feel there’s a lot of questions to be asked. We need to regulate it right to begin with. We need to change a lot of laws within our tribal code that surround alcohol.”
Part of Poor Bear’s concern involves allowing outside government in.
“You know, my biggest concern on this is I really feel we really need to do our homework in depth, and we really need to do some research. Because what I’m afraid of is state jurisdiction. We are a sovereign nation. And we’re going to be buying this alcohol – if it is legalized – from the state. We probably have to get an alcohol tax, which violates the treaty, because we’re a tax exempt people. Is State Patrol going to be allowed to patrol our reservation highways?” asked Poor Bear.
Many make the argument that the only way to stop hemorrhaging money into White Clay, and stop other problems that come with alcohol is to take the power back and eradicate what many consider a parasite.
“They’re just sucking us. Capitalizing on the disease that we have. White Clay is just…we’re in the belly of another little monster,” said Poor Bear.
For some, that means the tribe selling its own alcohol and using revenues toward treatment and prevention programs. For others, like a group of tribal members camped at the border since April 30, the solution is a return to traditional ways – saying no to alcohol under all circumstances.
“There are many issues facing White Clay, but personally for us here, the main goal we’re trying to achieve is changing the mentality of our nation. If we teach a ten-year-old today that alcohol is the enemy, and any time their parents bring it into their home, they know there’s an enemy in their home,” said Martinez, who is part of the months-long protest.
When asked about the example set by other tribes that have legalized alcohol, perspectives differed.
“We don’t want to join the rest of the sell-out tribes, by allowing alcohol or the state in. That’s out of the question for many of us. We’re the only nation that defeated the U.S. government, and we will never forget that,” said Martinez.
“I’ve been to other reservations that aren’t dry reservations. Like our neighbors to the east, the Sicangus – the Rosebuds – they do sell alcohol there. I do go to Rosebud a lot, and I don’t see the White Clays on Rosebud. Where you see empty cans, empty bottles. Their reservation’s really clean,” said Poor Bear.
And while opinions differ on the alcohol question, tribal members KSFY News spoke with acknowledge that the Oglala people must be the ones to answer.
“I don’t think we should dictate to our people how they should live their lives,” said Poor Bear.
“We know it’s not going to pass. Because when we set our camp up, we went to ceremony, and the spirits aren’t gonna have us put our camp here and give up our lives to break our hearts in the end,” said tribal member Misty Sioux Little.
Off-sale liquor licenses were first issued in White Clay during the 1970’s.
Today, more than 90-percent of crime in and around the tiny town is alcohol-related.
Position calls into question future of massive Gateway Pacific shipping facility
Source: Pyramid Communications
LUMMI INDIAN RESERVATION, BELLINGHAM, Wash.—Building the proposed Gateway Pacific export terminal and rail spur at Cherry Point would “have a substantial impairment on the Lummi treaty fishing right,” the Lummi Nation said in a formal opposition letter sent this week to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Opposition by the tribe could imperil the terminal and rail spur.
“It will make us reassess the direction we are going,” Muffy Walker, the Corps’ district regulatory branch chief was quoted as saying by The Bellingham Herald. The Corps of Engineers has authority to grant permits necessary to build the terminal. “We have denied permits in the past, based on tribal concerns,” Walker was quoted as saying.
In the letter, Lummi Indian Business Council Chair Tim Ballew writes, “Any impact on the Lummi treaty fishing right is inherently an impact on the Lummi way of life…. We believe that the Corps should see that these projects would without question result in significant and unavoidable impacts and damage to our treaty rights.
Lummi Indians maintain the largest Native fishing fleet in the United States, and Lummi fishers have worked in the XweChiexen (Cherry Point) fishery for thousands of years.
If constructed, the Gateway Pacfic export terminal would be the largest coal terminal on the West Coast of North America. It would significantly degrade an already fragile and vulnerable crab, herring and salmon fishery, dealing a devastating blow to the economy of the fisher community.
“It is imperative that the Corps carry out its trust responsibilities as they relate to the Lummi Nation and the treaty rights to fish, gather and hunt in the usual and accustomed places,” Ballew wrote.
The complete text of the letter follows.
July 30, 2013
Colonel Bruce A. Estok, District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers – Seattle District
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124
The Lummi Nation has unconditional and unequivocal opposition to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (Ref. No. NWS-2008-260) and the inter-related Custer Spur Rail Expansion project (Ref. No. NWS-2011-325) projects at Cherry Point. As described in our resolution 2012-060 and in our previous letters dated October 17, 2011 and January 21, 2013 (attached), the Lummi Nation has a number of significant objections to the proposed projects.
In developing the Lummi Nation’s position on the projects, the Nation heeded the following principles:
“Everything is connected.” As our elders conveyed through our Xwlemi’chosen (Lummi language) that cultural and spiritual significances expressed by our ancestors for the land, water and the environment are all connected.
“We must manage our resources for the seventh generation of our people.” Our unique heritage requires us to honor our past, present and future generations. Since time immemorial we have managed resources that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren.
As a tribal government, we have adopted the critical goal that we must preserve, promote, and protect our Schelangen (“way of life”).
Review of the known facts, data, site plans, and the development and operational goals of the projects have resulted in a clear and convincing conclusion that the proposed projects, if built and operated, would have a substantial impairment on the Lummi treaty fishing right harvest at XweChiexen (Cherry Point) and throughout the Lummi “usual and accustomed” fishing areas. Any impact on the Lummi treaty fishing right is inherently an impact on the Lummi way of life. The Lummi Nation cannot see how the proposed projects could be developed in a manner that does not amount to significant impairment on the treaty fishing right and a negative effect on the Lummi way of life. Please recognize this letter as a clear statement of opposition to these projects from the Lummi Nation.
The Lummi Nation expects that the Corps of Engineers (Corps), on behalf of the United States of America, to honor the trust obligations to the Lummi Nation related to these proposed projects. We believe that the Corps should see that these projects would without question result in significant and unavoidable impacts and damage to our treaty rights. If the projects at Cherry Point are constructed and operated there will be impacts on the Lummi treaty rights forever. It is imperative that the Corps carry out its trust responsibilities as they relate to the Lummi Nation and the treaty rights to fish, gather and hunt in the usual and accustomed places.
These comments in no way waive any future opportunity to participate in government-to-government consultation regarding the proposed projects and the associated state or federal government issued permits. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the attached comments or to schedule a government-to-government meeting regarding these projects.
Respectfully,
Tim Ballew II, Chair
Lummi Indian Business Council
The Navajo Nation is about to wade into the heated debate over a horse-meat processing plant in Roswell and will support Valley Meat Co. becoming the first horse slaughterhouse in the U.S. in seven years.
“They’re eating up the land and drinking all the water,” Erny Zah, spokesman for Navajo Nation President Ben Shelley told New Mexico Watchdog of the feral horses on Navajo Nation land that encompasses 27,425 square miles, including parts of Arizona and Utah as well as a large section of northwest New Mexico.
Zah estimated there are 20,000 to 30,000 “feral horses on our lands,” and that Navajo Nation lawyers in Washington, D.C., are in the process of finalizing a letter that Shelly will sign in support of the horse slaughter facility “with the next couple of days.”
COMING OUT IN FAVOR: The Navajo Nation is about to come out in favor of a controversial horse slaughter facility in Roswell, NM. Photo from Facebook.
“I’m sympathetic to the native nations but all this is going to do is make New Mexico the slaughter state,” said Phil Carter of Animal Protection New Mexico, one of the facility’s opponents. “We have to move forward beyond this outdated and cruel slaughter model.”
The debate over the facility in Roswell has sparked heated arguments that extend beyond state borders.
Opponents of the facility include Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, former Gov. Bill Richardson, state Attorney General Gary King and State Land Commissioner Ray Powell, as well as actor Robert Redford and animal rights groups. The Humane Society of the United States is one of a slew of plaintiffs seeking an injunction to stop the company from opening its slaughterhouse operations.
Supporters say that given the rising cost of hay, horses have been abandoned and left to starve. They argue it’s better to have unwanted and dying horses killed in a federall -inspected facility in the U.S. than have them sent to plants in places like Mexico, where they often meet gruesome deaths in unsanitary conditions.
“Which would you rather do, put them down in a humane fashion or let them starve to death,” the facility’s attorney Blair Dunn said earlier this month.
Last Saturday, a fire broke out at the company and officials suspect it may have been deliberately set. The blaze burned part of the exterior of Valley Meat Co.’s building and damaged a refrigeration unit. A Chaves County sheriff’s lieutenant described the fire as “very suspicious.”
Zah said the Navajo Nation’s decision to weigh in on the matter is “more economic” than anything else.
“We’re already in a drought,” Zah said. “We already have our registered cattle and sheep and registered horses to care for. We’re concerned about water and vegetation” being eaten by feral horses.
Zah said a horse slaughter facility in Roswell is simply closer and more cost-effective.
“We need some place to take them,” he said. “There are other options but they are more costly … The plant Roswell provides us this opportunity.”
But Carter says there are other options, including injecting horses with contraceptives, gelding stallions and euthanizing them.
But isn’t that expensive?
Carter points to the New Mexico Equine Protection Fundthat his group administers and says the cost to tending to feral horses has been reduced to about $200 per head. “And there’s no reason those costs couldn’t come down more,” Carter said.
“They’re sacred animals,” Zah acknowledged but added, “We also have a kinship with our land. There’s a delicate balance there. Everything is related, everything is intertwined. When one is out of balance, we have to take care of that delicate balance.”
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act is Set to Expire in Two Months
From the Chair of Maria Cantwell
WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced S.1352, to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA), which is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2013. They were joined by Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Begich (D-AK), Al Franken (D-MN), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND).
In 1996, Congress first passed NAHASDA to help ensure that Tribes and their members are provided safe and affordable housing, and that housing programs meet the needs of Tribal members well into the future. NAHASDA helps address a critical need for housing assistance in Indian Country, where more than 28% of reservation households lack adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities, while nationally only 5.4% of households lack such infrastructure.
“Housing conditions in Native American communities remain some of the most challenging in the nation. This Act is designed to assist those communities, where substandard housing is rampant and poverty is a serious issue,” Cantwell said. “The reauthorization of this Act is critically important to help ensure that Tribes continue to have access to the tools necessary to provide for the basic housing needs of their members. While more must be done, I am pleased to note that this is one of the most successfully implemented programs in Indian Country to date.”
“Our bill responds to a fundamental need on our nation’s Indian reservations: safe, adequate housing for low income Indian people. Without adequate housing, families can’t thrive and parents can’t provide a healthy environment for their children so they can do well in school and life. This problem takes a toll on entire reservation communities and we have to address it,” Barrasso said. “I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and other members of the Committee to move this bill forward in the Senate as soon as possible.”
This bill improves the current law by:
Increasing usage of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits by developers and investors that target projects serving Indian communities.
Elimination of duplicative requirements when multiple agencies are involved in a housing-related project by identifying the majority federal partner and using that agency’s standards.
Allowing Tribes access to the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH).
Promoting clean energy and sustainable projects by raising the total development cost ceilings cited as barriers to building energy-efficient housing.
An estimated 200,000 housing units are needed immediately in Indian Country and approximately 90,000 Native families are homeless or under-housed. A 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report found that Native Americans make up 8% of the country’s homeless population, while they comprise less than 1% of the general population. Nearly 46% of Native households are overcrowded, a rate almost three times that of the rest of the country, according to a 2010 report from the General Accounting Office.
In 2002, NAHASDA was reauthorized for five years, and was again reauthorized in 2008 for a five-year period which expires in September 2013. NAHASDA replaced funding under the 1937 Housing Act with Indian Housing Block Grants and provided Tribes with the choice of administering the block grant themselves or through their existing Indian Housing Authorities or their Tribally-designated housing entities.
Haggen has recalled some ground beef because of the threat of E. coli, but none of it was sold at stores in Whatcom County.
If you bought beef under the NatureSource label at Haggen or TOP Food stores outside Whatcom County, you might be affected.
Here is the information from Haggen.
Posted by DEBBIE TOWNSEND on August 1, 2013
The Bellingham Herald
BELLINGHAM, Wash. (August 1, 2013) — In an abundance of caution, Haggen, Inc. today announced it is issuing a recall prompted by a nationwide recall from ground beef supplier National Beef Packing Company. National Beef announced the recall of approximately 50,100 pounds of ground beef due to a sample testing positive for E. coli O157:H7. There have been no reported illnesses related to the recall.
Haggen’s recall is isolated to the 97% lean ground beef sold under the NatureSource label produced on July 18, 2013, with a use by/freeze by date of August 7, 2013.
The recalled item was sold in Haggen stores in Snohomish and Oregon City, as well as TOP Food & Drug stores in Olympia, Woodinville and Grays Harbor, Washington.
Haggen has removed the affected product from its stores and initiated its customer recall notification system. The company is asking customers of the affected stores to carefully check their refrigerators and freezers for recalled ground beef. Any opened or unopened products included in this recall should not be consumed and should be returned to their local Haggen or TOP Food & Drug store for a full refund.
Consumers who have questions about the recall may contact Haggen at 1-360-733-8720 or may contact National Beef’s consumer relations toll free at 1-800-449-BEEF.
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160° F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature.
OLYMPIA – The final push in a decade-long effort to clear Puget Sound of derelict fishing nets within 105 feet of the surface will get under way later this year with funding approved by the Washington State Legislature.
The state budget adopted last month provides $3.5 million for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to complete the task in partnership with the Northwest Straits Foundation, which has led the net-removal effort since 2002.
Since then, divers working for the non-profit organization have removed 4,437 lost or abandoned fishing nets, 2,765 crab pots and 42 shrimp pots from the waters of Puget Sound. Animals found dead or entangled in that gear include porpoises, sea lions, seabirds, canary rockfish, chinook salmon and Dungeness crab.
According to one predictive catch model, those derelict nets were entangling 3.2 million animals annually every year they remained in the water.
Robyn du Pré, executive director of the foundation, said the new funding will support the removal of approximately 1,000 derelict nets in high-priority areas of Puget Sound after current funding runs out in December.
“These legacy nets have been fishing the waters of the Salish Sea for decades,” du Pré said. “We are thrilled to have the opportunity to finish the job and to celebrate a true conservation success story in 2015.” Du Pré added that current fishing net loss is minimal and commercial fishers are now required to report any lost nets.
State Rep. Norma Smith of Whidbey Island led the legislative effort to fund the net-removal initiative.
“I am deeply grateful to my colleagues who helped achieve the goal of a $3.5 million appropriation for the Northwest Straits Foundation to remove the last of the legacy nets from the Puget Sound,” Smith said. “Lost in previous decades, they have had a devastating impact on harvestable natural resources and marine life. Once removed, because of the reporting requirements now in place, this challenge comes to an end. What an achievement!”
WDFW Director Phil Anderson said the new funding is specifically designed to support the removal of derelict fishing nets in areas of the Sound where historic fisheries coincide with bottom conditions likely to snag nets. The foundation locates those nets using sidescan sonar surveys, then dispatches recovery vessels with dive teams to retrieve them.
Few efforts have been made to remove nets from depths of more than 105 feet, because of safety concerns. However, the foundation recently completed an assessment of deepwater net-removal strategies that include the use of remotely operated vehicles, grapples, and deepwater divers.
“Working in conjunction with our partners at Northwest Straits and in the State Legislature, we have made enormous strides toward eliminating the risks posed to fish and wildlife by derelict fishing gear,” Anderson said. “This is difficult work, and it requires a real commitment from everyone to get it done. We look forward to celebrating the next milestone in 2015.”
