Tribes Archives - Page 7 of 16

“Being Frank” Tell The Truth

Note: Being Frank is the monthly opinion column that was written for many years by the late Billy Frank Jr., NWIFC Chairman. To honor him, the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington will continue to share their perspectives on natural resources management through this column. This month’s writer is Dave Herrera, a Skokomish tribal member who serves as the tribe’s fish and wildlife policy advisor, and who also is an NWIFC commissioner.

By Dave Herrera, Skokomish Fish and Wildlife Policy Advisor

The late NWIFC chairman Billy Frank Jr. left us all many lessons during his time on this earth. One of the most important was also one of the simplest: “Tell the truth.”

But that’s not what the state of Washington is doing when it comes to salmon recovery. You wouldn’t know it from what state government tells us, but the truth is that salmon recovery is failing.

At the center of that truth is the fact that we are losing salmon habitat faster than it can be restored. We cannot recover wild salmon until we stop the bleeding in our watersheds and estuaries.

Another truth is that tribal treaty rights are one of the few things strong enough to stand between all of us and the extinction of wild salmon. We have demonstrated that time and again over the decades.

Most recently, we showed that truth with a victory in the culvert case. We the filed suit in 2001 to force the state to repair hundreds of failing, fish-blocking culverts. These blockages under state roads cut off salmon from hundreds of miles of spawning and rearing habitat. The case was filed as a sub proceeding of the 1974 Boldt decision in U.S. v. Washington that upheld our treaty fishing rights reserved in treaties with the United States.

On March 29, 2013, federal district court Judge Ricardo Martinez confirmed those rights by issuing a permanent injunction. He ordered the state to repair more than 600 of its fish-blocking culverts over the next 17 years. He wanted to “ensure that the State will act expeditiously in correcting the barrier culverts which violate treaty promises.” Martinez noted that funding for the repairs would come from the state’s separate transportation budget, not at the cost of education or other social services.

Judge Martinez clearly ruled that our treaty-reserved right to harvest salmon also includes the right to have those salmon protected so that they are available for harvest. And not only by tribes, but by everyone who lives and fishes in the region.

It’s the same with tribal hatcheries and the 40 million or so salmon they produce every year. Tribal hatchery production makes the pie bigger for all because everyone can harvest those fish.

Without the tribes, the salmon and its habitat would be in far worse shape than it is today. We bring to the table our treaty rights, traditional and scientific knowledge, funding, and a strong cultural commitment to recovering the salmon resource. Everyone benefits from the work we do.

Perhaps most importantly, tribes and our treaty rights bring the rule of federal law to natural resources management. Federal law trumps state law and treaties are protected under the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”

The truth is that tribes aren’t the only beneficiaries of treaty rights. Non-Indians benefit from them as well. Besides sharing the natural resources of the region with the tribes, non-Indians have homes, businesses and schools on lands ceded by the tribes in return for the fishing, hunting and gathering rights tribes reserved in the treaties.

But our treaty rights – and the protection they give to all – are under constant, heavy attack by those who want to close our fisheries, shut down our hatcheries and destroy the salmon’s home. That puts treaty rights at risk for everyone.

We’re all in the same canoe, so let’s tell the truth: salmon recovery is failing. Tribal treaty rights are one of the few things that might keep salmon from disappearing altogether. The tribes will not allow salmon recovery to fail. That is why we must pull together to protect our natural resources and the treaty rights that protect those resources and all of us.

Yakama Nation to Coal: And Stay Out.

“The Yakama Nation will not rest until the entire regional threat posed by the coal industry to our ancestral lands and waters is eradicated.” ~Yakama Nation Chairman JoDe Goudy.

Yakama Chairman JoDe Goudy asserts his rights under the Treaty of 1855 to fish traditionally on the Columbia River

By: Michael O’Leary

Governor Kitzhaber’s Department of State Lands has issued a landmark denial of Oregon’s only proposed coal export terminal, keeping millions of tons of coal right where it belongs – buried in the ground.

Back in May the Yakama Nation protested that the coal terminal proposed for their traditional treaty recognized fishing grounds up on the Columbia Rover, near modern day Boardman, was an attack on the water, the salmon, their way of life, and a contradiction to the idea of living in balance with our surroundings.

The Australian coal mining company in question, Ambre Energy, denied the tribal claims in comments to the media and in filings to state regulators.

Evidently the claims by the coal company about where tribal fishing rights do or don’t apply were not pursuasive.

In their findings released on August 18th the Department of State Lands had the final word on the matter:

“The agency record demonstrates that the project would unreasonably interfere with a small but important and and long-standing fishery in the State’s waters at the project site.”

In response to this news Yakama Chairman JoDe Goudy made the following statement:

“This is only the beginning of what I expect will be a long fight. Yakama Nation will not rest until the entire regional threat posed by the coal industry to our ancestral lands and waters is eradicated. We will continue to speak out and fight on behalf of our people, and for those things, which cannot speak for themselves, that have been entrusted to us for cultivation and preservation since time immemorial. Today, however, we thank and stand in solidarity with the State of Oregon, and celebrate its decision to protect the Columbia River from further damage and degradation.”

So what’s next?

The Columbia River could still be impacted by two remaining coal export terminals.

Up in Bellingham, Washington the proposed coal terminal will rumble 9 loaded coal trains down the Columbia River Gorge every day. Up there the fight against has also been taken on by local tribal leaders.

Lummi Nation Chairman, Timothy Ballew II, had this to say about today’s good news from Oregon:

“The State’s action makes a strong policy statement by recognizing Tribal Sovereignty and the Treaty Rights of the Columbia River tribes. Such decisions are few and far between. This is important not just for the Yakama and Umatilla but all Indian fishing tribes. Together we can, and will, protect our way of life.”

And we’ve still got a coal proposal on the Columbia River, just over in Longview, Washington, that will barrel 8 loaded and uncovered coal trains a day through Portland. That one may be the most likely threat left on the radar. Just this week the Longview coal terminal supporters just threw a summer picnic for 300 of their closest supporters – for a terminal that hasn’t even seen a draft EIS yet.

According to the spokesperson for the coal company, Millenium Terminals, “We wanted to find way to say thank you to folks in the community.”

I guess it must be all about who you include in your definition of community.

Remarks by Associate Attorney General Tony West at the Four Corners Conference

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

Flagstaff, AZ ~ Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Carlie for that kind introduction and for hosting this important gathering along with U.S. Attorneys Judge Leonardo from the District of Arizona, John Walsh from the District of Colorado, and Damon Martinez from the District of New Mexico.

With the Native America Issues Subcommittee of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee meeting here today, we are fortunate to have over a dozen additional U.S. Attorneys in attendance. Thank you all for your commitment to serving Indian Country in your districts.

I am so pleased to be with you at this twenty-second convening of Four Corners Conference. For over two decades, this conference has provided federal and tribal leaders, social service providers, law enforcement officers, judges and prosecutors with a unique opportunity explore ideas, share best practices and forge critical collaborations that help us move forward in our common desire to make Indian Country safer and stronger.

Two years ago, I had the privilege of speaking to this Conference when you gathered in Pojoaque Pueblo, New Mexico. I said at that time ours was a moment of hope, challenge and opportunity, as we confronted the reality of alarmingly high rates of violence against Native women and girls in Indian country.

You’ll recall that at that time, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act – or VAWA 2013 – hung in the balance. And notwithstanding efforts by the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, to push forward legislative recommendations that would enhance the ability of tribes to protect Indian women from domestic violence, the outcome of that effort, you’ll remember, was far from certain. In fact at times, it looked as if VAWA would not be reauthorized by Congress for the first time in nearly twenty years.

But thanks to the many courageous Native women who stood up and spoke out and told their stories of pain and heartache; thanks to the many tribal leaders who said enough is enough, that whether a Native woman receives justice should not depend on the race of her perpetrator; indeed, thanks to many of you in this room today, together we met that challenge and today VAWA 2013 remains the law of land, and now with additional statutory tools for both Federal and tribal governments to prosecute intimate partner violence.

And VAWA’s reauthorization was just the latest in what has been a remarkable surge in positive federal activity in Indian Country over the last five years, a commitment that began with Attorney General Holder’s convening of over 500 tribal leaders for a listening session in his first year of office.

It’s a commitment we reflect in the litigation positions we take as a Department – from our work to resolve decades-long, painful disputes like the Cobell tribal trust litigation and the Keepseagle Native American farmers discrimination lawsuit; to our repeated court filings in support of presumptive tribal jurisdiction over Indian child-custody proceedings, even though our arguments do not always prevail, because standing up for ICWA means standing strong for tribal sovereignty.

In fact, earlier this month, the Department took a strong stand on behalf of Indian children and their families involved in state child welfare proceedings in a South Dakota federal court. We filed a brief in the case out of concern for the harm to Indian families that even the temporary removal of their children can cause. This case could set important precedent regarding how the emergency removals and placements of Indian children are to be handled and how ICWA is interpreted.

Our commitment to Indian Country has likewise led us to create CTAS, an effort to streamline the way we administer Justice Department grants to tribal grant applicants.

And that commitment is made manifest in the tireless work of so many federal investigators, AUSAs and SAUSAs throughout the nation — including many of you here today – to enhance public safety on tribal lands throughout Indian Country – efforts that have resulted in a remarkable 34% increase in Federal criminal prosecutions in Indian Country since 2009.

Indeed, today, the Justice Department is releasing its second Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions report to Congress, and it reflects this Administration’s commitment to public safety in Indian Country. Although declination rates alone are not the best way to measure the success of our law enforcement efforts, the report show that with few exceptions, areas where the largest populations of American Indian people live and suffer from the most serious crime rates – such as here in the Southwest and in the Northern Plains states – federal declination rates were among the lowest in the nation.

So we’ve come a long way and made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time. We are witnessing an unprecedented era of collaboration among U.S. Attorneys’ offices and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors across the country.

Yet it’s in that success that lies our greatest and perhaps most difficult test: How do we take the success we’ve achieved over the last five years and make it sustainable over the long term?

I believe solidifying those gains requires us to double-down on the collaborations that enhance tribal public safety; to expand the culturally-informed law enforcement training we’ve conducted; and to encourage and incentivize interdisciplinary approaches to violence reduction.

What’s essential to our long-term success is for us – at the federal, tribal, state and local levels — to takes steps that will institutionalize our commitment to Indian Country public safety, such that the best practices you are sharing, the promising pilot projects you’re launching, the interdisciplinary collaborations your spearheading – they need to become part of the routine work we do to pursue effective law enforcement in Indian Country so that the impact you are having will continue to be felt for years, even generations to come.

Our dedication to Indian Country must be transformed from an initiative defined by the contours of any one Administration’s commitment and ingrained into the DNA of federal law enforcement practice. It must be part of the yardstick by which we measure our own success or failure as federal law enforcement professionals.

So what does institutionalizing our commitment to justice in Indian Country look like? I think there are three areas that illustrate this, and they are areas where I am pleased to report we are making good strides.

First, institutionalizing our commitment means enhancing our existing collaborations between tribal and federal law enforcement, and a good example comes from our recent experience with VAWA.

As soon as VAWA’s reauthorization was signed into law, the Justice Department ’ s leadership engaged in an expedited but extensive consultation with tribal officials on how best to implement VAWA’s newest provisions dealing with tribal special criminal jurisdiction.

We came up with a voluntary Pilot Project that allowed some tribes to begin exercising that jurisdiction earlier this year – ahead of law’s March 2015 effective date – if the tribe’s criminal justice system has adequate safeguards in place to protect defendants’ rights. Six months ago, I authorized three tribes – the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation – to become the first tribes in the United States to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction.

And importantly, while these tribes have moved swiftly, they have also acted with deliberation to combat domestic violence by protecting the safety and rights of victims, while simultaneously safeguarding defendants’ rights. They are closely coordinating with their local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to identify those cases that are best handled in tribal court and those which are more appropriate for federal prosecution. Here in Arizona, for example, the Pascua Yacqui Tribe worked with the United States Attorney ’ s Office to refer four of the 12 non-Indians arrested by the tribe for federal prosecution.

Other tribes are also carefully preparing to exercise the new jurisdiction. Since June of last year, 39 tribes have voluntarily joined the Department’s Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group, working with Department officials and other tribes in an effort to exercise effectively the new special criminal jurisdiction in 2015.

And as more tribes step up to assume this new exercise of sovereignty, more Tribal-Federal partnerships will be established; more interdependence and collaboration on public safety matters will result; and more tribal capacity to protect the integrity, culture and safety of the tribe will be created, enhancing the opportunity for long-term, sustainable tribal justice.

Second, we can institutionalize our commitment to public safety in Indian Country by expanding our training efforts, thereby increasing the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute effectively Indian Country crimes, which in turn heightens the priority of pursuing these crimes for law enforcement.

Most of you know Leslie Hagen, who is here and who has been instrumental in leading the Justice Department’s training efforts around Indian Country public safety. One of the many Indian Country training modules she conducts for federal and tribal investigators, prosecutors, advocates, and medical professionals around the country in one that raises awareness about the lethality risks for strangulation and suffocation crimes. It is work that can pay dividends in our efforts to better protect Native women from violence, because almost half of all domestic violence victims have experienced at least one episode of strangulation prior to a lethal or near-lethal violent incident.

One FBI agent who took the training wrote Leslie an email saying fifteen days after he had taken her course, a strangulation assault occurred that was assigned to him. He wrote the training helped him to ask the right questions and present the case persuasively to the AUSA, who successfully prosecuted the assailant. According to the FBI agent, “this conviction is a direct result of the Indian Country Strangulation and Suffocation Class,” and he went on to teach what he had learned to other local, state and federal investigators.

And with VAWA 2013, Congress recognized the gravity of strangulation and suffocation crimes and amended the federal assault statute to include a specific charge of assault or attempted assault by strangulation or suffocation – making Leslie’s training all the more important and relevant to federal law enforcement priorities. Indeed, just over a year after Congress enacted these new provisions, U.S. Attorney Mike Cotter and his office in the District of Montana secured one of the first federal strangulation convictions: a 2.5-year prison sentence against a man who strangled his girlfriend into unconsciousness on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation.

Finally, I believe institutionalizing justice in Indian Country means intensifying our work and deepening our investment in efforts to reduce violence against Native women and children, not only because rates of victimization remain intolerably high; but also because our best hope of reversing those rates begins with early and predictable intervention – both from a prevention and enforcement standpoint – that helps us break the cycle of violence.

U.S. Attorneys Tim Purdon and Mike Cotter know well what I’m talking about. In their districts of North Dakota and Montana, a meteoric population boom in the geographically isolated region of the Bakken has led to escalated rates of violence, particularly against Native women. Earlier this year, Tim and I met with local law enforcement officials who spoke of the dramatic spike in sex and drug trafficking which was taxing their capabilities. We met with service providers from around the state who told us of their inability to absorb the sudden increase in demand for victim’s services. And I heard tragic stories of sexual exploitation suffered by women and girls.

To address the unique and critical needs of victims, responders, and service providers within this rural region, the Department’s Office on Violence Against Women established its Bakken Region Initiative. And as part of that effort, today, I am pleased to announce the award of seven new grants, totaling nearly $3 million, to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana; the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; the North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services; the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation of North Dakota; and the First Nations Women’s Alliance in North Dakota. These awards will fund Tribal Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys – attorneys who are cross-designated tribal-federal prosecutors – as well as victim service providers who are working to prevent violence and support survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

Now at the same time we are strengthening our efforts to protect Native women, we must also do more to shield Native children from violence.

We know that more than 60 percent of all children in the United States are exposed to some form of violence, crime, or abuse, ranging from brief encounters as witnesses to serious violent episodes as victims. And while current research doesn’t give us a complete picture for American Indian and Alaska Native children, a 2008 report by the Indian Country Child Trauma Center calculated that Native youth are two-and-a-half times more likely to experience trauma when compared with their non-N ative peers.

In fact, the rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for Indian youth is almost triple the rate of the general population – comparable to the rates of PTSD among soldiers returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the CDC, suicide is the second leading cause of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives aged 15- to 34-years of age and is 2.5 times higher than the national average for that age group.

Appalled by these statistics, the Attorney General last year invested Justice Department resources to establish a Task Force on American Indian and Alaska Native Children’s Exposure Violence, including a Federal Working Group led by U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall and OTJ Director Tracy Toulou. And over the last year, the Task Force’s Advisory Committee held public hearings and listening sessions around the country – including one here in Arizona – examining the unacceptably high levels of violence that Native children suffer.

I participated in three of those hearings, the most recent of which was held in Anchorage, Alaska. And at each hearing, researchers told us about how victimization can steal a child’s future. Practitioners shared lessons learned from experience and outlined approaches that could help us better serve child victims in the future. Survivors courageously shared their experiences in the hope that by telling their stories, they might lift the curtain of shame and fear that too often shrouds acts of violence and exploitation against children.

And this fall, based on those hearings, the Task Force’s Advisory Committee will present the Attorney General with a blueprint of comprehensive policy recommendations for preventing and reducing the negative effects of Native children’s exposure to violence – a guide for action we are eagerly anticipating.

So let me close by saying this. Fifty years ago, Attorney General Robert Kennedy predicted that the tide was turning for Native American generations yet unborn; that the shadow of poverty and affliction and unfairness in Indian Country would be lifted.

Working with you to help make that prediction a reality has been among the highest privileges of my professional life. Still, it’s clear we have much work to do.

As long as Native youth on reservations endure rates of suicide we would never tolerate in any major American city;

Or as long as Native men and women living in remote corners of this country are denied the fundamental right to vote by state laws that make it harder for them to access the ballot box and have a voice in offices that shape their everyday lives;

Or as long we have to explain, over and over again – because of a long, sorry chapter in American history of violence, termination, forced relocation, and discrimination – why the use of “Redskins” is so painful to so many, Native and non-Native alike, then we have work to do.

But I also believe that your work over the last five years — those of you in this room – you are helping to turn the tide. You know that like any relationship that is worthwhile, our relationships with sovereign tribal nations continue to be works in progress. They require constant attention, unwavering commitment, candor about what is working well and what is not. And they require the most important of ingredients — mutual trust, faith and respect — born of a common history and shared destiny.

And with that knowledge you are forging a legacy and a future of reconciliation and respect; of support for sovereignty and self-determination; of commitment to tribal safety. And for that unwavering dedication, know that I salute you, proudly stand with you, and look forward to supporting you today and in the days to come.

Thank you.

For tribes, generosity is tradition

Ian Terry / The HeraldLeno Vela (center), 11, talks with JJ Gray (right), 5, at the Tulalip Boys and Girls Club. — Ian Terry / The Herald
Leno Vela (center), 11, talks with JJ Gray (right), 5, at the Tulalip Boys and Girls Club.

By: Chris Winters, The Herald

TULALIP — Chuck Thacker was working as the principal of Quil Ceda and Tulalip Elementary School when he was approached about starting a Boys and Girls Club on the reservation of the Tulalip Tribes.

The tribes, Thacker and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County all saw the need for a safe after-school program targeted at tribal youth. Thacker would contribute his leadership and experience working with kids, Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County would provide the model, and the tribes would provide the startup money and location, as well as the kids.

The Tulalip Boys and Girls Club opened in 1996, the first club located on an Indian reservation in Washington and one of the first in the United States. The Tulalip Tribes continue to support the club financially to this day.

Charitable contributions by tribes have become more visible in an era in which some tribes have become financially successful in their business undertakings. But giving has always been a part of Native American culture, even before the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created a national legal framework in which tribes could operate casinos on their reservations.

In Washington state, tribes such as the Tulalips who run casinos are required to donate a certain percentage of the proceeds to charity. But the tribe routinely exceeds that amount, and even tribes without significant income give back to their communities.

“This rule is not new to Indian Country, as it has now been formalized,” said Marilyn Sheldon, who oversees the Tulalip Charitable Fund.

“We’ve always been givers,” she said.

Ian Terry / the heraldFrom left, Georgetta Reeves, 8; Ladainian Kicking-Woman, 6; Tristan Holmes, 11; and Isaiah Holmes, 6, hang out together in the gym at the Tulalip Boys and Girls Club. — Ian Terry / the herald
From left, Georgetta Reeves, 8; Ladainian Kicking-Woman, 6; Tristan Holmes, 11; and Isaiah Holmes, 6, hang out together in the gym at the Tulalip Boys and Girls Club.

The Tulalip Tribes

When Chuck Thacker sat down with Terry Freeman of the county Boys and Girls Clubs and Stan Jones, the former chairman of the Tulalip Tribes, they outlined a vision for the new club: It had to address needs of both the tribe and the surrounding community.

The goal was to create a safe after-school program that would accept both native and non-native kids; provide reading programs, other educational activities and sports activities; and remain open as many hours as possible. Most important, it would also provide a meal program.

Thacker recalled what Jones told him: “Feed our kids good, because a lot of them don’t get a good meal at home.”

The Tulalip Tribes backed up its support with financial assistance, and has provided the club with financial support every year since, allowing tribal kids to come to the club free of charge even while it has gradually expanded its services to include arts programs and a technology center.

The meal program now serves three meals a day to up to 250 youths.

Ian Terry / The HeraldDuring a Pacific Science Center demonstration at the Tulalip Boys and Girls Club, Ashton Rude, 9, looks through animal furs and tries to identify them. — Ian Terry / The Herald
During a Pacific Science Center demonstration at the Tulalip Boys and Girls Club, Ashton Rude, 9, looks through animal furs and tries to identify them.

Thacker, who has directed the club since its inception, said “99 percent of them come in for activities, and they know the food’s going to be there.”

The Tulalip Boys and Girls Club is just one organization that’s been on the receiving end of the tribes’ charitable giving.

Since 1993, shortly after the Tulalip Tribes opened its first casino, charitable giving from the Tulalips has risen from $273,000 then to $6.9 million in 2013.

In the first half of 2014, the Tulalip Tribes has given more than 160 grants to nonprofit organizations, groups or programs both on and off the reservation. They include community groups, the Boys and Girls Clubs, arts organizations, environmental groups, educational programs and specific events, such as the tribe’s annual Spee-Bi-Dah celebration and parade and an emergency grant of $150,000 to the Cascade Valley Hospital Foundation and the American Red Cross to help victims of the Oso mudslide.

Marilyn Sheldon recalled that when she was growing up, her own mother and other tribal women in the ladies clubs would support their community with various fundraisers.

Tribal giving has been formalized since then, but it still draws on tradition. During the tribe’s annual Raising Hands gala, all attendees receive gifts as a way of honoring them. Children at the Montessori school also spread the table at the end of each year, Sheldon said, and gifts are traditionally given at funerals.

“That’s part of the healing of the family, to put all that love and energy into giving,” Sheldon said.

Since the Tulalip Resort Casino opened in 1992, a portion of all profits has been donated to charity.

Agreements between the tribe and Washington state set a minimum percentage of proceeds that must be given to charity, but the Tulalips now regularly exceed that baseline, said Martin Napeahi, the general manager of Quil Ceda Village, the Tulalip Tribes’ business and development arm.

In 1993, the Tulalips donated $273,000 to charitable causes. That rose to $6.9 million in 2013, the 20th year in which the Tulalip Charitable Fund has operated.

A committee weighs grant applications, but the members are all anonymous. Each serves for a two-year term and oversees one subsection of the grant requests — for example, natural resources, education, arts or social services.

Then, at the end of every quarter, the committee members switch assignments, so no one member evaluates the same subset of applications.

“That way it adds to the fairness of deciding who gets funding,” Sheldon said.

In the end, the tribes’ board of directors reviews the committee’s recommendation and decides which applications are funded and to what extent.

The fall Raising Hands gala is not just a celebratory event, but an opportunity to create more lasting bonds within the larger community.

Dignitaries and community leaders are invited to mix and mingle with the recipients of the tribes’ giving.

“The beauty of putting that together is you can put other groups together at the same table,” Sheldon said.

That, coupled with presentations honoring the work the various grant recipients do, turns the gala into a educational event as well, which creates connections among the disparate groups and may lead to future collaboration.

“We are doing the best we can to make a difference in our communities,” Sheldon said.

The Stillaguamish Tribe

The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians has seen marked economic growth in the last decade.

When its Angel of the Winds Casino and Hotel opened in 2004, the tribe’s charitable giving evolved from a more casual undertaking to a formalized system.

“Prior to the casino we didn’t have a whole lot of money to give,” said Eric White, vice chairman of the Stillaguamish tribe.

“In fact, we were the ones out there asking for help,” he said.

Since instituting a formal giving program, the Stillaguamish convene a committee of tribal members and employees to evaluate grant requests.

The Stillaguamish gave $800,000 in donations during the tribe’s last fiscal year, which ended in October 2013, White said

So far this year, the Stillaguamish have donated about $1.9 million, with some of the larger recipients being relief agencies working in the aftermath of the mudslide. But recipients also have included community organizations, such as a $300,000 gift to local food banks that the tribe made before Christmas in response to an acute need.

“Basically our main mission would be to help the folks who are in need,” White said.

The Stillaguamish also make charitable donations to environmental organizations, animal rehabilitation services, recreation and health care, especially to the American Cancer Society, which White said the Stillaguamish has long supported.

The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe

Tucked up in the mountains near Darrington, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe doesn’t have a casino, other large business enterprises or even easy access to the sea for fishing.

The tribe derives its revenue from running the gas station in Darrington and a smoke shop on its reservation, and from leasing its gambling licenses to other tribes that do operate casinos.

Nonetheless, the Sauk-Suiattle tribe makes a point of contributing to the community.

“We do, on a yearly basis, take $30,000, sometimes $40,000 if we have extra, and make small grants to the city of Darrington,” said Ronda Metcalf, the tribe’s general manager.

Beneficiaries include the local senior center, the grange, the school and some programs through the pharmacy to help people pay for medication.

“We’re not obligated to do that, but it’s something the tribe felt would be a good way to build community with the city,” Metcalf said.

When the Oso mudslide cut Darrington off from the rest of the county, Sauk-Suiattle members came together and donated about $5,000 to families affected by the slide, and then came to the Darrington Community Center to lay out a blanket in a traditional form of fundraising, bringing in about $1,100 more on the spot.

A committee looks at requests and decides where the need is greatest. If there are many needy causes, the tribe tries to give out something to most of them, Metcalf said.

“Tribes have been doing that for a long time, it’s part of who they are,” Metcalf said.

Coming soon

This story is part of Snohomish County Gives, a special section highlighting the spirit of philanthropy in the county. Look for more stories on HeraldNet throughout the week and the full section in the print edition of The Herald on Sunday, Aug. 31.

Prehistoric Native Remains Found in California and Indiana

Courtesy of the California State Indian MuseumA view of the Sacramento River — Courtesy of the California State Indian Museum
A view of the Sacramento River

Simon Moya-Smith, Indian Country Today, 8/21/14

Teeth and bone fragments were found last week near Sacramento, and officials say that they belonged to a prehistoric Native American.

At 11 a.m. on August 15, a passerby noticed what looked like human teeth and bone fragments on a small beach near the Sacramento River, the Daily Democrat reported. The human remains were noticeable because the water levels in the area have dropped due to a drought. And on Wednesday, the Yolo County Coroner’s Office announced that the bones were, indeed, prehistoric – which means they predate written record.

Chief Deputy Coroner Gina Moya said the bones were collected and later submitted to the Chico State Human Identification Laboratory. It was there that the bones were discovered to be prehistoric Native American. Once the bones were identified as Native American, Moya said, officials contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission, so the bones could receive a ceremonial burial.

On August 16 – one day after the human remains were found in California – more bones were discovered at a popular lake in Steuben County, Indiana.

A resident in the area found the bones by the shoreline of a lake, News Channel 15 reported. Additional human remains were located in the water by Indiana Department of Natural Resources scuba divers following an underwater search.

Archeologists with the University of Indianapolis reported Monday the remains are of a “prehistoric” Native American.

“We’ll pull together both state folks and some researchers, and we’re also going to be working with the tribes to get as much information as we can,” Indiana State Museum Director of Archeology Michele Greenan told Wane.com. “But, right now, it’s still really early. My first call will be to the tribes and different researchers to try and figure out what steps to take.”

Video: Klamath Fish Kill Redux? Teens Tell Grown-Ups to ‘Put More Water in the River’

YouTube/Yurok youth videoThis is what the Klamath River looked like in 2002, when conditions were similar to those present now. Releasing water from the Trinity River into the Klamath would cool it down and raise water levels, enabling fish to survive. — YouTube/Yurok youth video
This is what the Klamath River looked like in 2002, when conditions were similar to those present now. Releasing water from the Trinity River into the Klamath would cool it down and raise water levels, enabling fish to survive.

By: Indian Country Today

“It’s time to put more water in the river.”

So says one teen in this video put together by Yurok youth who, fearful of a fish kill on the Klamath River in California, went out and interviewed tribal leaders as well as those who witnessed mass fish death in 2002.

Water levels are low in the river, and the temperature is rising. Fish, especially salmon about to spawn, congregate in the cooler water, and their proximity can spread disease—which gets cultivated in warmer water. In 2002 this resulted in the deaths of 60,000 to 80,000 fish, crippling fisheries and severely compromising sustenance fishing.

Members and leaders of the Hoopa Valley, Karuk and Yurok tribes have confronted U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell about the decision not to release water from the Trinity River into the Klamath. They have also protested outside state government buildings in Sacramento.

“The Klamath River is on the brink of another massive fish kill,” claim the makers of this video.

The river smells terrible, one girl describes, and the salmon, while alive, had gills that “looked weird to me,” she said. “It made me angry and broke my heart, seeing that happening.”

The river looks sad and sick, said a Yurok man, recalling when it used to be a glorious emerald green, when he was a child. Now it’s green, alright—neon toxic green with things floating in it.

“It’s pretty sad,” he said.

Much of the video is devoted to recounting what transpired during the 2002 fish kill, then drawing parallels between the conditions then and now. Is the Klamath River on the brink of another fish kill? Wathc Yurok youth investigate, below.

Inslee Water Quality Plan Too Little, Too Late

Note: Being Frank is the monthly opinion column that was written for many years by the late Billy Frank Jr., NWIFC Chairman. To honor him, the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington will continue to share their perspectives on natural resources management through this column. This month’s writer is Russ Hepfer, Vice Chair of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and an NWIFC commissioner.

“Being Frank”

Inslee Water Quality Plan Too Little, Too Late

By: Russ Hepfer, Vice Chair of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

More delay is about the only thing that any of us who live here in Washington can count on when it comes to a badly needed update of state water quality standards to protect our health.

After decades of foot-dragging by previous governors, Gov. Jay Inslee recently unveiled his plan to revise our state’s ridiculously outdated water quality standards. While the plan offers a small increase in protection from 70 percent of the toxic chemicals regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, it maintains the inadequate status quo for the other 30 percent.

At best Inslee’s plan offers minimal progress in reducing contamination; at worst it provides a tenfold increase in our cancer risk rate.

Water quality standards are based in large part on how much fish and shellfish we eat. The more we eat, the cleaner the water needs to be. Two numbers drive our water quality standards: our fish consumption rate and our cancer risk rate from pollution in our waters.

Inslee’s plan rightly increases our fish consumption rate from the current 6.5 grams per day (about one serving of fish or shellfish per month) to 175 grams per day (at least one meal of fish or shellfish per day).

Support for that amount is a huge concession by tribes. Most tribal members, as well as Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders eat far more than 175 grams of fish and shellfish per day. Current studies show daily consumption rates of 236 to 800 grams. Even those numbers represent suppressed rates. If more fish and shellfish were available for harvest, more would be eaten.

While giving a little with one hand, Inslee takes away a lot with the other, increasing our “acceptable” cancer risk rate tenfold, from one in a million to one in 100,000. Do you think anyone who gets cancer from the pollution in our fish and shellfish would find that risk rate acceptable? Would you?

That one in a million rate has protected all of us for the past 20 years. By increasing the cancer risk rate Inslee effectively cancels out most of the health benefits and improved water quality provided by the increased fish consumption rate.

The fish consumption and cancer risk rates are supposed to protect those who need it the most: children, women of childbearing age, Indians, Asian and Pacific Islanders, sport fishermen and anyone who likes to eat local fish and shellfish. When the most vulnerable among us is protected, so is everyone else.

To make up for the loss of protection under the cancer risk rate, Inslee proposes a statewide toxics reduction effort that would require legislative approval and funding. While the idea of a large toxics reduction program is a good one, it is not a substitute for an updated state water quality standards rule that carries the force of law.

No one knows what the Legislature might do, but two things are certain. There will be more delay and more opposition to Inslee’s proposal. Boeing and other opponents to improved water quality rules will likely engage in full-strength lobbying during the session to block any meaningful change, claiming that it will increase their cost of doing business.

The state has a clear duty to protect the environment to ensure that our treaty foods such as fish and shellfish are safe to eat. If not, those rights are meaningless. We will not put our hard-won treaty rights or the health of our children in the hands of the governor or state Legislature.

Our treaty rights already are at risk because most salmon populations continue to decline. The reason is that we are losing salmon habitat faster than it can be restored. What good is restored habitat if it does not include clean water?

Washington could have joined Oregon as a leader in protecting human health and natural resources. Oregon two years ago increased its fish consumption rate to 175 grams per day and kept the one-in-a-million cancer risk rate. Now Oregon has the highest standards of protection in the United States.

Meanwhile, the Oregon economy hasn’t suffered and not one company has gone out of business as a result. Don’t we all deserve the same level of protection as Oregonians?

Any kind of justice that is delayed is justice denied. That includes both social and environmental justice. Further delays and weak water quality standards only worsen the suffering of many. Inslee’s plan is too little, too late.

Tribes hold vigils for Columbia River salmon

By: Associated Press, August 4, 2014

HOOD RIVER, Ore. (AP) — Native American tribes in the U.S. and Canada are holding vigils along the Columbia River to pray for the return of salmon migration as the two countries prepare to renegotiate a treaty concerning the river.

The treaty, signed in 1964, governs operations of dams and reservoirs that have caused salmon run declines.

Tribes are pushing to include salmon restoration to the upper Columbia, above Grand Coulee Dam in northern Washington State, in the treaty.

In recommendations for potential negotiations, the U.S. says the two countries should study the possibility of restoring fish passage over that dam. But Canada says restoring fish migration and habitat is not a treaty issue.

Seventeen vigils will be held along the length of the river, in Oregon, Washington state and British Columbia.

S.D. tribes gather to talk about ensuring water rights

By: Scott Feldman, July 29, 2014, Argus Leader

RAPID CITY – More than 100 years ago, a treaty established that all water on Native American land or that naturally flowed to Native American land was to be held by the sovereign tribes.

But tribal governments say they still are fighting to make sure their water rights and, by extension, rights of sovereignty are protected.

Representatives from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, all members of the Great Plains Water Alliance, gathered last week for the Missouri River & Ogallala Aquifer Indian Water Rights Conference in Rapid City to discuss those rights, how they are being undermined and what can be done to protect what is theirs.

The purpose of the conference was to figure out how to prevent federal and state governments from infringing on the water rights legally held by the tribes, said Dennis “Charlie” Spotted Tail, Solider Creek Council representative of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and chairman of the Great Plains Water Alliance.

Presentations at the conference included an explanation of the dangers of uranium mining in the Black Hills, the potentially damaging effect the Keystone XL Pipeline could cause to the Rosebud Sioux Reservation and an explanation of the history of tribal water law.

Spotted Tail claimed that as the conference was being held, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was navigating waters from the Missouri River that naturally would flow to the tribes of the Sioux Nation to other users.

“They are totally disregarding our treaty rights,” Spotted Tail said.

He said engineers are following rules established by the 1944 Flood Control Act but are ignoring the Winters Doctrine precedent that has been in place since 1908.

The Winters doctrine came from the case of Winters v. United States in 1908, when the Supreme Court ruled that when the United States creates an Indian reservation, it implicitly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, with the water claim priority date established as of the date of the reservation, according to a presentation by David Ganje of the Ganje Law Office in Rapid City.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to use water flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although the treaty did not mention water rights, the court ruled that the federal government intended to deal fairly with Native Americans by preserving their water, Ganje wrote in his presentation.

“We need enough water to supply the reservation for what it was created for and to preserve enough for future use,” he said.

The Great Plains Tribal Water Alliance and the The Seven Council Fires of the Great Sioux Nation are working toward a federal congressional hearing to lay claim to what is rightfully theirs, using the help of water law experts and lawyers, Spotted Tail said.

“The theme of this whole meeting is to formulate a strategy after the meeting for a hearing, utilizing the knowledge provided by our water rights experts and attorneys,” he said.

Tester Takes a Hard Look at Disaster Relief in Indian Country

Indian Affairs Committee Assesses Impact of Amendments to the Stafford Act

Source: United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

U.S. SENATE – At a hearing today on the state of disaster response in Indian Country, Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs had one message: more work needs to be done.

Tester authored changes to the Stafford Act in the last Congress that allow federally-recognized Indian tribes to directly request a Presidential disaster or emergency declaration through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Before the change, tribes were required to make requests through their State governors.

“After listening to the needs of Indian Country, I changed the Stafford Act to allow tribes to request a disaster declaration directly from the President,” Tester said. “While that was an important step for tribes, there is more work that needs to be done”

Hearing witnesses echoed Tester’s sentiment in their testimony.

Ronda Metcalf of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribal Council, sought more coordinated responses among relief agencies, “The tribe understands that on-the-ground personnel in these disaster response situations face significant challenges and pressures. This is all the more reason why FEMA must better coordinate with Indian tribes to provide accurate information and improved delivery of services. FEMA must also provide closer supervision over organizations like the Red Cross to ensure that they are properly carrying out services for which they seek FEMA reimbursement.”

Matt Gregory, Executive Director of Risk Management for the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, spoke about concerns many tribes have over the damage threshold for federal support. “The Stafford Act set $1 million in damage as its threshold for applying for a declaration. This may not work well for a tribe like the Choctaw Nation, with small communities spread out over a wide rural area. We are faced with a number of disasters throughout the year, and without quick and specific direction, our new-found Stafford Act authority lacks some practical effect.”

Jake Heflin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Tribal Emergency Management Association, said, “When a catastrophe strikes, the Federal response to natural disasters in Indian Country is slow, tedious, and in significant need of a comprehensive overhaul. Despite providing pre-disaster support, technical assistance, and planning before a disaster strikes, at the time of the incident, FEMA steps away from tribes until monetary thresholds are met by the disaster. Even when FEMA responds to a disaster, FEMA does not support the tribes operationally.”

One of the many tribes facing the long-term effects of climate change induced disasters is the Santa Clara Pueblo. Their Governor, J. Michael Chavarria said, “Given the realities of life in the Southwestern United States and the increasing effects of climate change, disaster relief policies must be shifted to focus on long-term response such as addressing Santa Clara’s post-fire, periodic flooding, which will remain a great hazard to our well-being for perhaps a decade.”

Mary David, Executive Vice President of Kawerak, Inc., a tribal consortium in the Bering Strait region of Alaska said, “The impacts of global climate change, severe arctic storms and arctic shipping on marine life is of high concern. The Stafford Act is a response when a disaster happens, which is important. But due to changing climate conditions, our communities are in imminent danger and preventative measures are needed.”

Tester concluded that better coordination between FEMA and the tribes must occur. “For this to be an effective partnership, FEMA must understand the unique needs of Indian Country. Based on what I heard today, some progress has been made, but there is a lot more work to be done and we’re going to get it done.”

Background

The President can issue major disaster declarations after a natural disaster to provide certain types of federal disaster assistance depending upon the specific needs of the stricken areas. Such declarations give broad authority to federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state, local, territorial and tribal governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organizations, recover from the incident.