Courtesy Sen. Barrasso’s office Pictured, from left, are: Troy Eid, Chairman of the Indian Law and Order Commission; Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Vice-Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; Commissioner Affie Ellis, Navajo, of Wyoming; and Commissioner Tom Gede of California.
Tanya Lee, ICTMN
Radical, revolutionary, exceptional or just plain common sense are some of the terms used to describe “A Roadmap to Making Native America Safer,” the result of two years’ work by the nine-member Indian Law and Order Commission established by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
For more than 200 years Congress has consistently passed legislation that deeply erodes the authority of tribal justice systems. The TLOA began to reverse that trend by increasing tribal courts’ sentencing authority, and the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 again enhanced tribal judicial authority to some extent. The TLOA also called for the establishment of a commission to make recommendations as to how to improve public safety in Indian country in response to skyrocketing crime rates.
The commission presented its report in November, saying that it had “concluded that criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is an indefensible morass of complex, conflicting, and illogical commands, layered in over decades via congressional policies and court decisions and without the consent of tribal nations.” The report makes more than three-dozen recommendations about how to change things, some of them breathtaking.
The commissioners, all volunteers acting as private citizens, represented a spectrum of political views, yet easily reached consensus on some basic principles. Commissioner Tom Gede, a former California deputy attorney general and executive director of the Conference of Western Attorneys General, says, “What is really remarkable is that all the commissioners felt unanimously that the current system, which is in fact a multitude of systems in Indian country, does not serve the public safety of individual Indians and tribes very well and that tribes should be given the opportunity to engage their own justice systems and law enforcement systems free of the overarching control of other governments, subject, however, to the same constitutional constraints faced by all other governments in the United States.”
Local, that is, tribal control of law enforcement and the judiciary is the theme that runs through the report. The commission’s first recommendation is that Congress pass legislation allowing tribes simply to opt out of the current federal and/or state law enforcement and justice systems and replace them with their own systems. “There’s no certification process, no U.S. Department of Justice working group or pilot project. The [commission] emphatically rejected the approach…. We want Indian tribes to have the freedom to choose and to not have to go on their knees to Justice or BIA and say ‘Please tell us that we’re ready,'” says Commission Chairman Troy Eid, a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado and currently on the faculty of two law schools.
This and all the other recommendations are based on extensive field hearings and comments from tribal members. “We struggled over these issues out in the field and in forums with sometimes 400 or 500 local people who were telling us what they thought. If there ever was a grassroots effort, this was it,” says Eid.
Commissioner Ted Quasula, Hualapai, has more than 40 years’ experience in law enforcement in Indian country. “Probably the most important part about putting the report together was getting the thoughts and the viewpoint and the position of all the tribal people that have firsthand information on what the problems are,” he says.
The one stipulation to the opt-out recommendation is that Congress establish a U.S. Court of Indian Appeals to which a defendant could appeal on the grounds that his 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution had been violated. Such a court is also needed, says the report, “because it would establish a more consistent, uniform, and predictable body of case law dealing with civil rights issues and matters of Federal law interpretation arising in Indian country.”
Commissioner Jefferson Keel, lieutenant governor of the Chickasaw Nation, retired U.S. Army officer and former president of the National Congress of American Indians, says, “This and the whole process of appointing a commission to look at the conditions of law enforcement and tribal law and order in Indian country is extremely important. The tribes across the country … can take it and really make some inroads in creating a legal level playing field.”
The question of what the tribes will do with the report brings up the question of how President Barack Obama, Congress and federal agencies such as the Departments of Justice and the Interior will respond. “Our hope,” says Quasula, “is that it doesn’t sit around and collect dust,” a concern expressed over and over again by the commissioners. “With tribal leadership taking charge, there will be change to the outrageous child abuse, domestic violence, violence against women statistics. They’re just unacceptable, totally unacceptable,” he says.
Commissioner Carole Goldberg, a justice of the Hualapai Tribe’s Court of Appeals and a professor at UCLA’s School of Law, is taking the lead in crafting an implementation plan, which will be “a distillation of recommendations of the commission’s report into a set of more specific actions. For example, there may be points where we need to specify whether a specific action would best be undertaken through seeking a solicitor’s opinion in the Interior Department or modifying a regulation. If there’s to be a statutory change, where in the federal code would that statutory change be most appropriately located,” she says.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, says, “It is important that we now move to the next stage. I’ve asked the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to hold a hearing on the report, because I think it’s important for us not just to put this on a shelf and ignore it. There are some pretty important issues we should address here.”
Those issues include the need for base funding for tribal law enforcement, justice systems and detention facilities and for better cooperation between federal, state and tribal law enforcement. The report also recommends a requirement that federal agents turn up in tribal court when they are called, not a trivial issue, says Eid.
The unique situation in Alaska gets a chapter, as does juvenile justice, which Goldberg describes as “an urgent problem that needs to be remedied.” Those recommendations follow the principle of the Indian Child Welfare Act in putting young offenders – and the dollars to provide services – in the control of the tribe rather than of the federal and state justice systems ill-equipped to deal with them.
The report’s recommendations may look like a hard sell, but, Eid says, the report “is not to tell anyone what to do, but it’s also to say, ‘Local government works best; it’s the American way.’ It’s emphatically a better way to prevent crime…. It’s clear that many Native governments, even those with not a lot of means, want to and will sacrifice in order to put sovereignty into action through enforcing their own criminal laws.”
Eid says he thinks the movement toward local tribal control of law enforcement and justice systems is unstoppable. “I’m very optimistic,” he says.
The other members of the Indian Law and Order Commission are Affie Ellis, Navajo; former U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin; former U.S. Rep. Earl Ralph Pomeroy III; and Tulalip Tribal Court Chief Justice Theresa Pouley, Colville Confederated Tribes.
As we approach the 159th birthday of the Point Elliott Treay, we also celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Boldt decision, both of which have had tremendous impacts on Tulalip and all of Indian Country. We are re-printing the following article from 2005 in honor of these events.
This photo was taken in Mukilteo during the 1955 celebration of the 100th anniversay of the signing of the Point Elliott Treaty by Tulalip Church of God Pastor B. Adam Williams.
Point Elliott Treaty’s 150th birthday: A cause for celebration
By Sherry Guydelkon, Tulalip See-Yaht-Sub, January 19, 2005
According to the historical record, 4,992 native people took part in the negotiation of the Point Elliott Treaty in 1855. The treaty was signed on January 22nd, one hundred fifty years ago this month.
The Governor of Washington Territory, Isaac Stevens, had sent word to the Indians of northern Puget Sound that he would meet with them towards the end of January to discuss a treaty of friendship. By mid-January, Snohomish and Snoqualmie people began gathering at Point Elliott. As others arrived – Swinomish, Lummi, Duwamish, and so on – the Snohomish and Snoqualmie people lined up on the beach to greet them.
By this time Puget Sound Indian tribes, weakened by new diseases and aware of the fates of tribes in the east who had tried to fight off white invasions, knew it was useless to refuse to deal with the U.S. government. White settlers were already moving onto their land, and the most they could hope for was payment for land taken and the opportunity to be left alone on the land that was left.
Years later Tulalip tribal elder William Shelton would recall that the people who traveled to Point Elliott in 1855 went with hearts open to the whites and with full confidence that they would be allowed to get food and would not starve. “My father was present at the treaty signing,” said Shelton. “He often has told me about the pow-wow – the negotiations, which had to be done through two interpreters. One translated the white man’s language into Chinook jargon and another interpreter translated the jargon into the various tribal languages.” Since Chinook jargon, a sort of code language used originally by fur traders, consisted of only about 50 words, the process was guaranteed to be hopelessly unsatisfactory, but that did not concern Governor Stevens. He had no interest in understanding the wishes of the Indian people anyway.
Stevens, who had received orders from Washington, D.C., to make treaties with all of the Indians in what is now Washington State, arrived with a draft treaty in hand, determined to gain as much Indian land for the United States as possible by concentrating tribes in as small an area as he could get away with.
Stevens believed that Indians must be removed from the path of American progress, and that their removal could be done in a benevolent way. He knew what was best for the tribes of Washington, he said, and that was to put them on small reservations where they could learn to farm (which he believed was more civilized than hunting and fishing) and where they could receive the education necessary to become integrated into white society. Stevens, who saw himself as a stern but just father to the Indians, allowed the headmen to speak, but in the end he did what he had planned to do all along.
Why the treaties were important to the U.S.
In the 1840’s, the U.S. government did not believe that it had a secure hold on the territory that is now Washington State. With British and Russian settlements cropping up on the Canadian and Alaskan coastline, the U.S. felt an urgent need to keep them from encroaching on U.S.-claimed soil, by encouraging American citizens to settle there.
Consequently, in 1850, Congress passed the Oregon Donation Land Act, which offered free land to settlers who would move to the northwest (Oregon Territory included what is now Washington State). At that point, the U.S. government was in the awkward position of offering free land to settlers without first buying it from the Indians. The treaties were intended to buy land already taken by white settlers and to make more land available for settlement. As had been the case from colonial times, the U.S. government was more interested in settling the west than it was in protecting Indian land rights.
The Negotiations
When the Council began at Point Elliott on January 22, 1855, the four chiefs that the whites considered to be the most important were seated in the front row: Chief Sealth (Seattle) who represented the Duwamish, Chief Patkanim who represented the Snohomish and Snoqualmies, Chief Goliah who represented the Skagits, and Chief Chow-its-hoot who represented the Lummis. The sub-chiefs were seated next, and then the rest of the people.
“You understand well my purpose,” said Governor Stevens, “and you want now to know the special things we propose to do for you. We want to place you in homes where you can cultivate the soil, raising potatoes and other articles of food and where you may be able to pass in canoes over the waters of the sound and catch fish, and back to the mountains to get roots and berries.
“The lands are yours and we swear to pay you for them. We thank you that you have been so kind to all the white children of the great Father (President) who have come here from the east. Those white children have always told you that you would be paid for your lands, and we are now here to buy them.
“My children, I believe that I have got your hearts, you have my heart. We will put our hearts down on paper, and then we will sign our names. I will send that paper to the Great Father, and if he says it is good it will stand forever.”
Many lofty speeches were made by both sides, but in the minds of the U.S. representatives there was little room for true negotiation. They knew what they wanted, and their purpose was to convince the Indians to sign the treaty document that they had already drafted.
In the end, the upper Puget Sound tribes, who had for centuries lived comfortably through the efficient use of the abundant fish, game and plants that were native to their homelands, were forced to sign away most of their land and control over their lives.
What the Tribes lost
Tulalip Agency Superintendent Charles M. Buchanan wrote in 1915, “This treaty established the Tulalip Agency and its reservations – Tulalip, Lummi, Swinomish and Port Madison. And by this treaty the Indians of Tulalip Agency ceded to the white man all of the land lying between the summit of the Cascades, the western shore of Puget Sound, Point Pully or Three-Tree Point, and the international boundary line. This area includes all the land lying in the counties of Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Island, San Juan, most of King and a part of Kitsap – the very choicest and most valuable portion of the State of Washington.
Other things given up included: independence from the U.S. government, the ability to declare war on whites or on other tribes, the right to purchase or consume alcohol on the reservation, the taking and keeping of slaves, and the right to trade with the Indian nations on Vancouver Island.
What the Tribes kept or gained
The treaty established four reservations – Tulalip, Lummi, Swinomish and Port Madison. Later the Muckleshoot reservation was added. These amounted to the following number of acres. Tulalip – 22,459 acres, Lummi – 12,543 acres, Suquamish – 7,168 acres, Port Madison – 7,284 acres, and Muckleshoot – 3,714 acres.
In exchange for the land, the tribes received a settlement of $150,000 to be paid over 20 years. Because it was Stevens’ intent to pay for the land taken as much as possible with goods and services and not cash, tribes were also promised that they would be furnished with an agricultural and industrial school, a doctor, farmers, blacksmiths and carpenters.
The treaty also provided for the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations in common with all citizens of the Territory; of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; and of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands.
The treaty minutes show that many Puget Sound native people were most fearful of losing their fisheries, but Governor Stevens repeatedly assured them that they would have the right to go to the place they had always used. At that time, the federal government did not foresee any conflicts between the guarantee of continuing fishing rights for the Indians and the growing population of Washington Territory. The settlers were coming to farm, not fish, and were content to let the Indians provide fish for local consumption. Non-Indians did not become fishing competitors until the late 1870’s.
Education provisions were often included in Indian treaties because both sides wanted them included, but for conflicting reasons. The federal government planned to use schools to change little Indian children into carbon copies of little white children, thus eliminating the “Indian problem”. Indians, on the other hand, viewed education as a means by which Indian children could learn how to understand and deal with the non-Indian world around them.
Perhaps the most important thing that Indian treaties have done is to recognize the tribes’ inherent sovereignty. Sovereignty is the power of a group of people to govern themselves. Indians were not given sovereignty by treaties – they already had the power to govern themselves. However, since the U.S. government defined treaties as binding, legal agreements between sovereign nations, when they made treaties with Indian nations, they legally recognized those nations as sovereign.
There is much legal confusion about the amount of sovereignty an Indian nation can have when its members are also citizens of the United States. But tribal governments, tribal courts, tribal police, tribal taxation, tribal zoning, tribal casinos, tax-free trust land are all indications that federal courts recognize the tribes’ right to at least a certain amount of self government.
How has the Point Elliot Treaty held up in court?
The courts have played the most significant role in the interpretation of Indian treaties. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties made by the United States are the supreme law of the land. The federal courts have generally held that Indian treaties are treaties in the constitutional sense and thus are the supreme law of the land. That means that if a state law does not agree with what is said in an Indian treaty, the treaty trumps state law.
And regardless of the fact that the Point Elliott Treaty is 150 years old, it is as legally binding today as it was when it was ratified by Congress in 1859.
The Boldt Decision is perhaps the most well-known example of a Point Elliott Treaty right being upheld in federal court. The courts agreed with Puget Sound tribes that the treaty promised Indians the right to half of the salmon in their usual and accustomed areas, regardless of Washington State laws and regulations which limited Indian catches.
Treaties are monumentally important documents to Indian peoples because they provide a legal basis around which Indian nations can protect their reservation lands; their rights to minerals, water, hunting, fishing and gathering areas; and their rights to self-government.
Many non-Indians believe that treaties should be abolished and that Indians should just be mainstream Americans with no more or less rights than any other Americans. But treaty Indians know how much they gave up for their special rights, and they know that it is their treaty rights that allow them to remain Indians, following in the footsteps of their ancestors, looking out for one another from birth to death.
Gathering at the beach in Mukilteo. Photo by Tulalip Church of God Pastor B. Adam Williams.
If you did not already have a copy of the Point Elliott Treaty, you have one now (see below). Read it. Keep it. Cherish it. It is a gift from your ancestors to you.
Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855
Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Muckl-te-oh, or Point Elliott, in the territory of Washington, this twenty-second day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the saidTerritory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, head-men and delegates of the Dwamish, Suquamish, Sk-kahl-mish, Sam-ahmish, Smalh-kamish, Skope-ahmish, St-kah-mish, Snoqualmoo, Skai-wha-mish, N’Quentl-ma-mish, Sk-tah-le-jum, Stoluck-wha-mish, Sno-ho-mish, Skagit, Kik-i-allus, Swin-a-mish, Squin-ah-mish, Sah-ku-mehu, Noo-wha-ha, Nook-wa-chah-mish, Mee-see-qua-guilch, Cho-bah-ah-bish, and othe allied and subordinate tribes and bands of Indians occupying certain lands situated in said Territory of Washington, on behalf of said tribes, and duly authorized by them.
ARTICLE 1.
The said tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied by them, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point on the eastern side of Admiralty Inlet, known as Point Pully, about midway between Commencement and Elliott Bays; thence eastwardly, running along the north line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States by the Nisqually, Puyallup, and other Indians, to the summit of the Cascade range of mountains; thence northwardly, following the summit of said range to the 49th parallel of north latitude; thence west, along said parallel to the middle of the Gulf of Georgia; thence through the middle of said gulf and the main channel through the Canal de Arro to the Straits of Fuca, and crossing the same through the middle of Admiralty Inlet to Suquamish Head; thence southwesterly, through the peninsula, and following the divide between Hood’s Canal and Admiralty Inlet to the portage known as Wilkes’ Portage; thence northeastwardly, and following the line of lands heretofore ceded as aforesaid to Point Southworth, on the western side of Admiralty Inlet, and thence around the foot of Vashon’s Island eastwardly and southeastwardly to the place of beginning, including all the islands comprised within said boundaries, and all the right, title, and interest of the said tribes and bands to any lands within the territory of the United States.
ARTICLE 2.
There is, however, reserved for the present use and occupation of the said tribes and bands the following tracts of land, viz:the amount of two sections, or twelve hundred and eighty acres, surrounding the small bight at the head of Port Madison, called by the Indians Noo-sohk-um; the amount of two sections, or twelve hundred and eighty acres, on the north side Hwhomish Bay and the creek emptying into the same called Kwilt-seh-da, the peninsula at the southeastern end of Perry’s Island, called Shais-quihl, and the island called Chah-choo-sen, situated in the Lummi River at the point of separation of the mouths emptying respectively into Bellingham Bay and the Gulf of Georgia. All which tracts shall be set apart, and so far as necessary surveyed and marked out for their exclusive use; nor shall any white man be permitted to reside upon the same without permission of the said tribes or bands, and of the superintendent or agent, but, if necessary for the public convenience, roads may be run through the said reserves, the Indians being compensated for any damage thereby done them.
ARTICLE 3.
There is also reserved from out the lands hereby ceded the amount of thirty-six sections, or one township of land, on the northeastern shore of Port Gardner, and north of the mouth of Snohomish River, including Tulalip Bay and the before-mentioned Kwilt-seh-da Creek, for the purpose of establishing thereon an agricultural and industrial school, as hereinafter mentioned and agreed, and with a view of ultimately drawing thereto and settling thereon all the Indians living west of the Cascade Mountains in said Territory. Provided, however, That the President may establish the central agency and general reservation at such other point as he may deem for the benefit of the Indians.
ARTICLE 4.
The said tribes and bands agree to remove to and settle upon the said first above-mentioned reservations within one year after the ratification of this treaty, or sooner, if the means are furnished them. In the mean time it shall be lawful for them to reside upon any land not in the actual claim and occupation of citizens of the United States, and upon any land claimed or occupied, if with the pe-mission of the owner.
ARTICLE 5.
The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, That they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.
ARTICLE 6.
In consideration of the above cession, the United States agree to pay to the said tribes and bands the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in the following manner – – that is to say: For the first year after the ratification hereof, fifteen thousand dollars; for the next two year, twelve thousand dollars each year; for the next three years, ten thousand dollars each year; for the next four years, seven thousand five hundred dollars each years; for the next five years, six thousand dollars each year; and for the last five years, four thousand two hundred and fifty dollars each year. All which said sums of money shall be applied to the use and benefit of the said Indians, under the direction of the President of the United States, who may, from time to time, determine at his discretion upon what beneficial objects to expend the same; and the superintendent of Indian affairs, or other proper officer, shall each year inform the President of the wishes of said Indians in respect thereto.
ARTICLE 7.
The President may hereafter, when in his opinion the interests of the Territory shall require and the welfare of the said Indians be promoted, remove them from either or all of the special reservations hereinbefore make to the said general reservation, or such other suitable place within said Territory as he may deem fit, on remunerating them for their improvements and the expenses of such removal, or may consolidate them with other friendly tribes or bands; and he may further at his discretion cause the whole or any portion of the lands hereby reserved, or of such other land as may be selected in lieu thereof, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the same to suc individuals or families as are willing to avail themselves of the privilege, and will locate on the same as a permanent home on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable. Any substantial improvements heretofore made by any Indian, and which he shall be compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall be valued under the direction of the President and payment made accordingly therefor.
ARTICLE 8.
The annuities of the aforesaid tribes and bands shall not be taken to pay the debts of individuals.
ARTICLE 9.
The said tribes and bands acknowledge their dependence on the Government of the United States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens thereof, and they pledge themselves to commit no depredations on the property of such citizens. Should any one or more of them violate this pledge, and the fact be satisfactorily proven before the agent, the property taken shall be returned, or in default thereof, of if injured or destroyed, compensation may be made by the Government out of their annuities. Nor will they make war on any other tribe except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of difference between them and the other Indians to the Government of the United States or its agent for decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said Indians commit depredations on other Indians within the Territory the same rule shall prevail as that prescribed in this article in cases of depredations against citizens. And the said tribes agree not to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of the United States, but to deliver them up to the authorities for trial.
ARTICLE 10.
The above tribes and bands are desirous to exclude from their reservations the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and therefore it is provided that any Indian belonging to said tribe who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservations, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her proportion of the annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.
ARTICLE 11.
The said tribes and bands agree to free all slaves now held by them and not to purchase or acquire others hereafter.
ARTICLE 12.
The said tribes and bands further agree not to trade at Vancouver’s Island or elsewhere out of the dominions of the United States, nor shall foreign Indians be permitted to reside in their reservations without consent of the superintendent or agent.
ARTICLE 13.
To enable the said Indians to remove to and settle upon their aforesaid reservations, and to clear, fence, and break up a sufficient quantity of land for cultivation, the United States further agree to pay the sum of fifteen thousand dollars to be laid out and expended under the direction of the President and in such manner as he shall approve.
ARTICLE 14.
The United States further agree to establish at the general agency for the district of Puget’s Sound, within one year from the ratification hereof, and to support for a period of twenty years, an agricultural and industrial school, to be free to children of the said tribes and bands in common with those of the other tribes of said district, and to provide the said school with a suitable instructor or instructors, and also to provide a smithy and carpenter’s shop, and furnish them with the necessary tools, and employ a blacksmith, carpenter, and farmer for the like term of twenty years to instruct the Indians in their respective occupations. And the United States finally agree to employ a physician to reside at the said central agency, who shall furnish medicine and advice to their sick, and shall vaccinate them; the expenses of said school, shops, persons employed, and medical attendance to be defrayed by the United States, and not deducted from the annuities.
ARTICLE 15.
This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States.
In testimony whereof, the said Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs, and the undersigned chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the aforesaid tribes and bands of Indians, have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place and on the day and year hereinbefore written.
Issac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent. (L.S.)
Seattle, Chief of the Dwamish and Suquamish tribes, his x mark. (L. S.)
Pat-ka-nam, Chief of the Snoqualmoo, Snohomish and other tribes, his x mark. (L.S.) Chow-its-hoot, Chief of the Lummi and other tribes, his x mark. (L. S.)
Goliah, Chief of the Skagits and other allied tribes, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwallattum, or General Pierce, Sub-chief of the Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’hootst-hoot, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Snah-talc, or Bonaparte, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Squush-um, or The Smoke, Sub-chief of the Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
See-alla-pa-han, or The Priest, Sub-chief of Sk-tah-le-jum, his x mark. (L.S.)
He-uch-ka-nam, or George Bonaparte, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Tse-nah-talc, or Joseph Bonaparte, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ns’ski-oos, or Jackson, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Wats-ka-lah-tchie, or John Hobtsthoot, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Smeh-mai-hu, Sub-chief of Skai-wha-mish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Slat-eah-ka-nam, Sub-chief of Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
St’hau-ai, Sub-chief of Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
Lugs-ken, Sub-chief of Skai-wha-mish, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’heht-soolt, or Peter, Sub-chief of Snohomish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Do-queh-oo-satl, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
John Kanam, Snoqualmoo sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Klemsh-ka-nam, Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ts’huahntl, Dwa-mish sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwuss-ka-nam, or George Snatelum, Sen., Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hel-mits, or George Snatelum, Skagit sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’kwai-kwi, Skagit tribe, sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Seh-lek-qu, Sub-chief Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’h’-cheh-oos, or General Washington, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Whai-lan-hu, or Davy Crockett, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
She-ah-delt-hu, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwult-seh, Sub-chief of Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kwull-et-hu, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kleh-kent-soot, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sohn-heh-ovs, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’deh-ap-kan, or General Warren, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Chul-whil-tan, Sub-chief of Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ske-eh-tum, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Patchkanam, or Dome, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sats-Kanam, Squin-ah-nush tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sd-zo-mahtl, Kik-ial-lus band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Dahtl-de-min, Sub-chief of Sah-ku-meh-hu, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sd’zek-du-num, Me-sek-wi-guilse sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Now-a-chais, Sub-chief of Dwamish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Mis-lo-tche, or Wah-hehl-tchoo, Sub-chief of Suquamish, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sloo-noksh-tan, or Jim, Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Moo-whah-lad-hu, or Jack, Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Too-leh-plan, Suquamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ha-seh-doo-an, or Keo-kuck, Dwamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hoovilt-meh-tum, Sub-chief of Suquamish, his x mark. (L.S.)
We-ai-pah, Skaiwhamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’ah-an-hu, or Hallam, Snohomish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
She-hope, or General Pierce, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hwn-lah-lakq, or Thomas Jefferson, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Cht-simpt, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Tse-sum-ten, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Klt-hahl-ten, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kut-ta-kanam, or John, Lummi tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Ch-lah-ben, Noo-qua-cha-mish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Noo-heh-oos, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hweh-uk, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Peh-nus, Skai-whamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Yim-ka-dam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Twooi-as-kut, Skaiwhamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Luch-al-kanam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’hoot-kanam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sme-a-kanam, Snoqualmoo tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sad-zis-keh, Snoqualmoo, his x mark. (L.S.)
Heh-mahl, Skaiwhamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Charley, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sampson, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
John Taylor, Snohomish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Hatch-kwentum, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Yo-i-kum, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
T’kwa-ma-han, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Sto-dum-kan, Swinamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Be-lole, Swinamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
D’zo-lole-gwam-hu, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Steh-shail, William, Skaiwhamish band, his x mark. (L.S.)
Kel-kahl-tsoot, Swinamish tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Pat-sen, Skagit tribe, his x mark. (L.S.)
Pat-teh-us, Noo-wha-ah sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
S’hoolk-ka-nam, Lummi sub-chief, his x mark. (L.S.)
Dan Bates / The Herald From left, Qualco Energy treasurer Dale Reiner president Daryl Williams and systems operator Andy Werkhoven discuss the company’s complex digester system that converts cow manure to electricity on Dec. 23. Qualco Energy recently signed a contract with the Snohomish County PUD.
By Bill Sheets, The Herald
MONROE — For the past five years, 300 homes outside Snohomish County have been powered by cow manure from farms near Monroe.
For the next five years, that power will stay in the county.
The PUD provides electricity to Snohomish County and Camano Island. Puget Sound Energy, based in Bellevue, provides electricity to parts of eight counties in the region but not Snohomish.
The PUD “was able to offer a better rate than PSE did,” said Daryl Williams, environmental liaison for the Tulalip Tribes and a Qualco board member.
The PUD will pay Qualco $47.84 per megawatt hour in 2014, steadily rising to $67.60 in 2018, according to the utility. The price is based on a complex formula established by the PUD.
Qualco is a nonprofit formed by three groups: the energy division of the Tulalip Tribes; Northwest Chinook Recovery, a salmon advocacy group based in Anacortes; and the Sno/Sky Agricultural Alliance, a farmers’ group based in Monroe.
Qualco was created after cattle farmer Dale Reiner wanted to use a piece of property he’d purchased but was concerned about flooding and environmental effects on nearby streams.
He worked with Northwest Chinook Recovery on a fish habitat restoration project. Haskell Slough — a former main channel of the Skykomish River that had been diked off to create farmland — was restored into a salmon spawning stream. The project also has served to prevent flooding on Reiner’s property.
The unusual alliance of a farmer and environmentalists clicked, and the participants looked for another project. They brought in the Tulalip Tribes for added perspective on salmon habitat.
The group realized that making use of cow manure could help farmers and fish. Clearing farms of animal waste would reduce pollutants running into streams and cut costs for farmers in complying with environmental regulations. This, in turn, could allow them to add to their herds.
Biogas was the way, the group agreed.
Qualco was formed. The group obtained, through donation by the state, a former dairy farm in the Tualco Valley run by the Monroe Correctional Complex. The group also received a federal loan for renewable energy and a grant from the state Department of Agriculture. The equipment cost more than $3 million.
The group nets about $300,000 a year, Reiner said. The money goes to bond payments, environmental projects and upgrades to the system.
“None goes into our pockets, not a dime,” he said.
The work at the plant is done by dairy farmers on a volunteer basis.
The biogas plant uses the waste from about 1,200 cows. About 900 of them are located at Andy Werkhoven’s dairy farm about a mile and a half away. That waste is mixed with water and sent to the Qualco site via pipeline. The other 300 cattle are located on site next to the plant. Their only job is to eat and put out fuel for the generator.
Qualco also accepts unsold foods and beverages from stores, blood from meat processors and restaurant grease and uses it all in the mix. Qualco collects fees from companies to take the waste.
These materials are dumped into a concrete pit 15 feet deep and about 25 feet across, into which the liquid manure is piped.
An agitator with propeller blades churns the material into a swirling, roiling mix.
It’s then piped into a 1.4 million-gallon underground tank — 16 feet deep, 180 feet long and 74 feet wide — where it bubbles and gives off methane gas.
That gas is piped into a generator in a neighboring building, creating the power. The electricity is sent to the grid through three transformers mounted on a pole outside the building. The PUD is planning to replace those transformers with larger ones, Reiner said.
Previously, the energy went into the PUD’s system and the utility sent an equivalent amount to Puget Sound Energy. Now the power will stay home.
Effluent and solids from the process are applied to several farms as fertilizer.
Qualco’s original agreement with the state requires the fuel mix to be at least 50 percent cow manure and no more than 30 percent food-and-beverage waste. Qualco uses cow manure for the remaining 20 percent, creating a 70-30 ratio.
The sugars in the food waste, however, generate methane gas at a much higher rate than the cow waste, Qualco members said. As a result, the plant produces more gas than it can convert into electricity, and burns it off through an exhaust system.
While the generator creates enough power for about 300 homes, the plant produces enough gas for 800 homes, according to the Qualco website.
The plant would need another generator, or some type of expanded system, to take advantage of the remaining gas.
Qualco members plan to expand the plant, Reiner said. Options include steam power generation and compressing the fuel for use in cars.
“There are many directions we could go, and all of them are good,” he said.
Reiner believes the potential of biofuel is unlimited. Much more food waste and cow manure is available than is being used, he said.
Qualco could burn more food waste if it had the capacity and its agreement with state allowed it to do so, Reiner said.
He said any organic material that’s combustible could be turned into fuel.
Brett Shattuck, forest and fish biologist for the Tulalip Tribes, stands beside the wood debris that was installed during this fall’s restoration of Greenwood Creek to make it a better salmon habitat. — image credit: Kirk Boxleitner
STANWOOD — The coastal stream at 18510 Soundview Drive NW in Stanwood began as a “degraded straight ditch,” according to Brett Shattuck, forest and fish biologist for the Tulalip Tribes, but the gulch came to reclaim its old name of Greenwood Creek in the wake of its restoration as a salmon habitat this fall.
“We spent years studying all the coastal streams in the Whidbey basin, looking for which ones were used the most by juvenile chinook salmon, and we found the highest number of them here,” said Shattuck, who reported that Tulalip Tribal Natural Resources staff counted 280 chinook, out of a total of 600 juvenile salmon that also included coho and other species, during a single day’s electrofishing survey. “Even though this property is owned by Snohomish County and in a public right-of-way, it was an ideal restoration site, so we spent the past year pursuing that. Our neighbors were very supportive, and the county was willing to work with us and the Adopt-A-Stream Foundation to find a strategy that was beneficial to the county, the local residents, the Tribes and the fish.”
Shattuck explained that crews pulled back the banks of the stream to widen it, cleared out invasive species such as blackberry brambles, installed large wood debris to foster a better habitat for the salmon, and planted a dense variety of native vegetation to help hold back the stream banks and provide shade for the salmon.
“We’ve got about 300-400 trees and shrubs, not including the live stakes, all about two feet apart from each other,” said Shattuck, who listed willow, red cedar and red twig dogwood as among those species. “Volunteers and Tribal Natural Resources staff did most of the planting in about a day. The county donated the plants and wood debris, and their staff helped us with the permitting and engineering of the site. Again, the stream’s neighbors were really behind us, and it was good working with the Adopt-A-Stream Foundation’s contractor. Our funding source was the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund.”
According to Shattuck, the contractor work ended in September and the planting took place in October, and all that’s left now is to install the interpretive sign for the site — which he expects will be completed within the next couple of months — and to continue the monitoring work that led the Tribes to select the stream in the first place.
“We monitored this site for three years prior to implementing anything,” Shattuck said. “This is a pilot program, because there are plenty of other drainage streams in the basin that could be made into better habitats for their fish.”
“If we are truly committed to seeing salmon stocks rebound to harvestable levels, we must work together on recovery projects both large and small,” Tulalip Tribal Chair Mel Sheldon Jr. said. “Greenwood Creek represents a small project with a huge benefit. The Tulalip Tribes look forward to working with Snohomish County on future projects to solve our salmon crisis.”
TULALIP — When it came to healing the rift between local Indian tribes and the white world that once stripped Snohomish County’s original inhabitants of much of their culture, there has been no more important figure than William Shelton.
Early in the 20th century, Shelton worked hard to restore and preserve early tribal traditions that had been banned on the Tulalip Indian Reservation for decades.
At the same time, he offered an olive branch to the non-tribal community, reaching out to speak at club meetings and schools. He attended fairs and gave radio interviews.
He served as an ambassador, a liaison between the two worlds.
A Tulalip tribal member, a historian and a filmmaker recently joined forces in hopes of making a documentary to spotlight Shelton’s effect on local tribal and non-tribal culture alike.
“I really think that people need to know about William Shelton,” said Lita Sheldon, the tribal member spearheading the project.
Her goal, she said, is to make an hour-long documentary to air on the History channel, Biography channel or PBS.
Sheldon, along with Everett-based historian David Dilgard and Bellingham video producer Jeff Boice, started the project in 2012 with a short video overview of Shelton’s life.
The 11-minute video, supplemented with historical photos and footage, features an interview with Dilgard in which he describes how Shelton revived tribal art on the Tulalip reservation by carving his “sklaletut” pole in 1912.
Shelton interviewed tribal elders about their encounters with spirit helpers, including animals, birds and people, and depicted them in carvings on both sides of a 60-foot pole.
Sklaletut is the word for spirit helpers in Lushootseed, the language of Puget Sound-area Indian tribes.
“There is a broken link between my race and the white people,” Shelton wrote in “Indian Totem Legends of the Northwest Coast Country” in 1913, an article originally printed for an Indian school in Oklahoma and later in The Herald.
“So I thought I better look back and talk to the older people that are living and try to explain our history by getting their totems and carve them out on the pole like the way it used to be years ago,” Shelton wrote.
The pole has deteriorated over the years, but part of it still stands in front of Tulalip Elementary School on the reservation.
Shelton carved several other poles, including one that stood for decades at 44th Street SE and Evergreen Way in Everett — for which the Totem restaurant was named.
Herald file, 2011 These two poles carved by William Shelton stood in his original longhouse and now are at the cultural center.
The pole deteriorated and was taken down in the late ’80s or early ’90s. It’s now being preserved in a warehouse on the Tulalip reservation.
About 200 of the 1,000 items in the collection of the recently built Hibulb Cultural Center either were made by Shelton or came from among other items stored on his family’s property, assistant curator Tessa Campbell has said.
Shelton ran the sawmill on the reservation and served as a translator for tribal elders who did not speak English. He supervised timber sales, served for a time as police chief and sold war bonds during World War I.
He spoke at the dedication of Legion Park in Everett shortly before his death from pneumonia in 1938 at age 70, according to the city.
In the 1990s, Lita Sheldon worked with Boice, the filmmaker, on short historical and Lushootseed language videos on the reservation.
Boice, a former videographer, editor and producer at KVOS-TV in Bellingham, did freelance video work for the Tulalips for several years, including recording tribal events.
Sheldon said she needs to raise about $60,000 to fully fund the documentary. The cost would include travel to locations in the East and Midwest where William Shelton sent some of his poles, she said.
The film project had a “kickstarter” web page last summer but received only a little more than $2,800 in pledges, so the idea was shelved temporarily.
Sheldon hasn’t given up, though. She said she hasn’t asked the Tulalip Tribes for funds.
Niki Cleary, a spokeswoman for the tribes, said the project could be eligible for funding as a tribal endeavor, but Sheldon’s group would have to apply. The group also could gain nonprofit status and apply through the tribes’ annual charitable contribution program, she said.
Photo courtesy of the Everett Public Library The Tulalip Longhouse interior is shown during a “Treaty Day” celebration in January 1914. Posts inside the longhouse were ornamented by William Shelton with clan and family symbols.
Lita Sheldon, 61, works as the librarian at the Hibulb center but stressed that she is doing this project on her own.
She said it’s not just a matter of money but also of gathering more information about the former tribal leader.
Much of the history about Shelton came through his daughter, Harriette Dover, who died in 1991, as well as from other surviving relatives.
Sheldon is hoping more people with knowledge of William Shelton come forward.
“There’s not a definitive tribal history written,” she said. “This is the closest thing to a tribal history.”
The project
Anyone interested in the William Shelton documentary project may contact Lita Sheldon at litasheldon@yahoo.com.
Photo courtesy Howard Garrett / Orca Network, June Members of L pod, one of the Salish Sea’s resident orca pods, heads north up Boundary Pass to Georgia Strait.
Forty years after the passage of the federal Endangered Species Act, the state and Snohomish County remain squarely on the edge of that preservation frontier.
More than 40 animal species in Washington are listed by the federal government as either endangered or threatened under the law, signed by President Richard Nixon on Dec. 28, 1973. Many others are listed as species of concern.
Among creatures found in waters in and around Snohomish and Island counties, seven species of fish or marine mammals are listed under the act.
Of the local fish species and orcas, salmon and bull trout were listed in 1999, the killer whales in 2005 and the other fish species in 2010.
Reasons cited for the decline of the fish are many, including pollution, overfishing and loss of habitat. In the case of killer whales, dwindling supply of their diet staple — chinook salmon — is a major contributing factor, officials say.
Supporters claim many success stories for the Endangered Species Act, with bald eagles and peregrine falcons among the more prominent examples.
Gray whales were taken off the list in 1994 and steller sea lions just this year.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 99 percent of the hundreds of species listed since the Endangered Species Act became law have been prevented from going extinct.
The law protects species by preventing them from being harmed or captured and by regulating human activity in their habitat areas.
Perhaps the best feature of the Endangered Species Act, some say, is that it keeps the species’ problems in the public spotlight.
“It has pulled people together to talk about what to do,” said Daryl Williams, environmental liaison for the Tulalip Tribes.
Recovery for many species, however, is slow and not guaranteed.
“Listing is a way of sort of planning for recovery, if you will,” said Brent Norberg, a marine mammal biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle.
The southern resident orca population, for example, had 88 whales in 2004, the year before it was listed under the ESA. The population now is down to 80, according to the Orca Network, a Whidbey Island-based group that tracks the whales.
“Because they’re so long-lived and their recruitment is so slow and their numbers are so small, it’s going to be quite a lengthy process,” Norberg said.
William Ruckleshaus, the first director of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon in the early 1970s, is 81 and lives in Medina.
The EPA was created and Endangered Species Act was passed after pollution and declines in species had reached alarming levels, Ruckleshaus said. The Cuyahoga River in northeast Ohio, for example, famously caught fire in 1969.
“The public demanded something be done about it and the president responded,” he said.
He said the endangered species law might have overreached.
“We passed laws that promised levels of perfection that probably weren’t possible. It’s hard to do it, to be honest with you,” Ruckleshaus said. The law has been refined over time, he said.
Among those stories is perhaps the most high-profile recovery: the national symbol, the bald eagle.
The eagle’s numbers in the 48 contiguous states declined from roughly 100,000 in the early 19th century to only 487 nesting pairs in 1963, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website.
Several measures were taken to help the eagle, beginning with the 1940 Bald Eagle Protection Act, which made it illegal to kill an eagle. The pesticide DDT, found to have thinned the eggshells of eagles and other birds, was banned in 1972.
Still, “listing the species as endangered provided the springboard” for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accelerate recovery through captive breeding, law enforcement and nest-site protection, according to the agency’s website
Bald eagles rebounded and they now number about 10,000. The eagles were taken off the list in 2007.
The Endangered Species Act’s effect on salmon is not so clear, the Tulalips say.
Development that destroys habitat is not restricted enough to offset the losses, Williams said.
“We’re still losing habitat faster than we’re gaining it from restoration,” he said.
The problem is inconsistency in rules among various agencies involved in environmental protection, said Terry Williams, fisheries and natural resources commissioner for the tribes.
Also, because of the ESA, some habitat restoration projects have to jump through the same hoops as other construction, causing delays in measures that could help fish, Daryl Williams said.
“I kind of have mixed feelings about it,” he said.
Those restrictions may be a necessary evil, said Norberg, of the fisheries service.
For example, if creosote-soaked logs are being removed from a waterway, if it’s not done properly, it could result in creosote finding its way back into the water, “so it does as much harm as it does good,” he said.
Restrictions also can affect landowners’ use of their property. This not only angers some property owners but can defeat the intent of the law, said Todd Myers, environmental director for the Washington Policy Center, a right-leaning think tank in Seattle.
Because the law governs use of land where a listed species is found, some landowners take steps to eliminate habitat for a species on their property so it won’t be seen there, Myers said.
“You get a regulatory stick that puts landowners at odds with habitat recovery,” he said.
A better way, he said, is to reimburse landowners for measures taken to preserve or promote habitat, he said.
“That at least takes a step toward making a landowner a partner as opposed to an opponent.”
Despite the ESA’s flaws, “it is working well in terms of bringing all the various parties together to talk and to plan accordingly,” Norberg said.
The decline of the salmon might not be reversed without it, Ruckelshaus said.
“It is an extraordinarily complex problem,” he said. “But for the ESA I doubt we would have paid the attention to it we have, and I think that is absolutely necessary for it to recover.”
Tulalip biologist Brett Shattuck strolls along the recently restored, and named, Greenwood Creek.
Source: Northwest Indian Fishieries Commission
The Tulalip Tribes recently improved rearing habitat in a small coastal stream popular with juvenile chinook.
Known to locals as “the gulch,” the unnamed stream had one of the highest densities of juvenile chinook of all the coastal streams sampled in the Whidbey basin by the Tulalip Tribes and Skagit River System Cooperative. During one electrofishing survey, natural resources staff found 280 chinook among a total of 600 juvenile salmon that also included coho and other species.
“They can live there for many weeks, so it’s more than just acclimating,” said Derek Marks, Timber Fish and Wildlife manager for Tulalip. “They’re actually rearing and growing in there.”
Despite those numbers, the tribes saw room for improvement. At the time, the gulch was little more than a ditch overgrown with invasive plants. Old county stormwater assessments referred to it as Greenwood Creek, probably named for a nearby grange.
A degraded culvert partially impeded fish passage upstream. “The culvert was rusting and on its way out,” said Tulalip biologist Brett Shattuck, project manager for what became the Greenwood Creek Stream Enhancement Project. “The stream was lined with rocks that created more of a flume than a channel.”
Greenwood Creek is county-owned and in a public right-of-way. The tribes and Snohomish County worked with Adopt-a-Stream to replace the culvert, clear the invasives and realign about 250 feet of habitat.
Interpretive signs are planned to help the public understand the importance of small coastal streams to migrating salmon. Before the restoration, people may not have realized that the small drainage ditch was being used by juvenile salmon.
“We want to show people how successful restoration can be in coastal streams, and to raise awareness that these streams have value for fish,” Shattuck said. “We monitored fish use for three years before the project and will continue to monitor it for several years after construction.”
Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III turns out of the pocket during the first half of an NFL football game against the San Francisco 49ers in Landover, Md., Monday, Nov. 25, 2013. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
As a former student at Marysville-Pilchuck High School, home of the Tomahawks, Dr. Stephanie Fryberg remembers seeing a fellow student clad in a headdress of feathers and watching as other kids participated in the Tomahawk Chop.
Fryberg, a Native American and member of the Tulalip Tribe, said she always found those displays disturbing.
“I was an athlete in Marysville and I was definitely part of the sports culture, but I always felt weird about that,” said Fryberg, who received a PhD from Stanford University in 2003 and is today an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Arizona, where she is also affiliate faculty for American Indian Studies (she is on leave in the current academic year).
“If you’d go and watch (those displays at Marysville-Pilchuck events),” Fryberg added, “you’d never see Native students participating.”
The use of Native American sports nicknames and mascots has been a controversial topic for many years, and one recently rekindled when President Barack Obama said he would “think about changing” the name of Washington’s NFL team, the Redskins, if he owned the ballclub.
“I don’t know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things,” Obama added in an interview with The Associated Press.
Fryberg agrees, and said she backs her position with research that proves those nicknames and mascots have a negative effect on the self-perception of Native American students. “I’m a scientist,” she said, “and from that level, absolutely, the data is concrete.”
Team names like Indians, Chiefs and Braves, among others, are “a stereotype that’s playing with someone’s identity,” she said.
Likewise, Fryberg finds the Redskins nickname particularly offensive “because it very much has race connotations, though that’s not my area of (research) expertise,” she said.
This issue has always been particularly relevant at Marysville-Pilchuck High School, which serves the Tulalip reservation. There have been periodic discussions over the years about dropping the Tomahawks nickname, and one of the most intense debates occurred in the 1980s when Marysville High School and Pilchuck High School merged to form Marysville-Pilchuck.
Some in the community urged the school board to use Pilchuck’s nickname, the Chargers, for the newly merged school. But among those arguing otherwise was Don Hatch, a member of the Tulalip Tribal Council and a man who later served 16 years on the Marysville School District board.
Hatch says that Native American nicknames and mascots “are not derogatory,” and he believes it so strongly that he purchased Redskins sweatshirts, hats and other team merchandise when he visited Washington while representing the Tulalip Tribal Council.
“I’m proud of the Redskins,” he said. “I support them, just like I do the Tomahawks. … I think it brings to light us as Indian people.”
Years ago, Seattle’s Blanchet High School considered changing its nickname from Braves. Hatch said he visited the high school and spoke to the students at an assembly, urging them to retain the nickname. His words evidently had an impact as Blanchet teams are still called the Braves.
Likewise, Marysville-Pilchuck remains the Tomahawks and that nickname is a tribute to the Tulalip history, culture “and pride we have,” Hatch said. Likewise, the school colors remain red and white, which is emblematic “of the red man and the white man,” he said.
Tulalip Tribes Chairman Mel Sheldon could not be reached for comment, but in a statement released by a tribal representative he said: “It’s time for sports teams to change mascot designations that use Native American names and cultural imagery. Stereotypes, no matter how innocent they seem, help to perpetuate certain perceptions about Native Americans that obscure our history, and the contributions we’ve made to American society.
According to Fryberg, those nicknames and mascots also demean the people they are purported to esteem. “People say they are honoring Natives,” she said. “No, they’re not.
“Given the difficulties Native students have had being successful in mainstream schools,” she went on, “I just don’t think it’s a place where we need to add one more stereotype and one more barrier for Native students to (overcome). … Negative stereotypes are playing with people’s identity, and at the end of the day, how many Native students have to say it bothers them before we care?”
The striking thing about this issue, of course, is how vigorously people disagree, including many Native Americans themselves. While some see nicknames like Indians, Chiefs, Braves and even Redskins as symbols of disrespect, others like Hatch believe those same nicknames help to preserve the historical dignity, pride and heritage of all Native Americans.
Keeping those nicknames “is very important,” he said. “And I’m proud to have (sports teams) named after our Indian people.”
A Tulalip Tribal member and Washington State Legislator, John McCoy has had a significant impact on the reservation simply by being successful. He was elected to serve in the House of Representatives in 2003, and was one of two Native American Representatives in Washington State. On November 27th, 2013, McCoy was unanimously selected by the Snohomish County Council to fill a Senate position left vacant by Senator Nick Harper’s resignation.
“John has always been a mover and shaker,” said Tulalip Chairman Mel Sheldon. “He’s helped change the way the legislature views Native Americans and has paved the way for our young men and women to follow in his footsteps. He’s brought hope that in the near future we’ll see the face of state politics change to reflect importance of tribes, both as economic drivers in the state and as an important part of the history and culture of this land.”
His resonance with tribes is part of what got McCoy elected, but what’s kept him in office, and made him the frontrunner for the senate seat is his dedication to the everyman.
“My priorities haven’t changed,” said John. “My priorities have always been elders, children and the working adult. During this last interim I worked a lot on migrant, low income and mental health housing. I’ll continue that work. There are dental access issues that I’ll be working on.
“I’ll continue working hard for the 38th Legislative District, Snohomish County and Washington State as a whole,” continued McCoy. “WSU (Washington State University) is coming to Everett, so that’s another thing I’ll be working on. There are some environmental things I’ll be working on. Again, whatever is best for the district, the county and the state, it’s the same stuff, different chamber.”
Tulalip Board of Director and Business Committee Chairman Glen Gobin described McCoy’s appointment by saying McCoy is simply the best man for the job.
“Congratulations to John,” said Gobin. “John has stayed very active and involved, not just the legislative district he is elected to, but all across the state as well as this nation. John also has served, unofficially, as an ambassador for Washington State Tribes, helping to educate those he serves with, and his constituency, about Native American issues as well as misperceptions about Native Americans. John’s commitment to serve the people is reflected in the vote from the Snohomish County Council. I am proud of John. He is well suited to do the work that is needed, and I know well he will do a great job.”
For those who haven’t thought about State governance since high school civics class, McCoy described the differences between the House of Representatives and the State Senate.
“There aren’t as many senators. Each district has two representatives and one senator, 98 representatives and 49 senators,” he explained. “The representatives serve two-year terms and senators serve four-year terms. The house side gets through processes faster, the senate is designed to be more constrained. The Washington State Legislative House cranks out between 3,000 and 5,000 bills a session. Consequently, some are good and some are not. The Senate is more pragmatic and selective, they work the issues more. That’s by design.”
That pragmatism is a good fit for McCoy who believes his popularity in politics are a result of being honest and caring, but blunt.
“I don’t beat around the bush,” said McCoy, “I had a couple meetings this morning with some folks who wanted money. I said, ‘I support your issues, but I don’t know that we can get you money this year.’ It’s about being up front with people and letting them know where you stand. I can’t make everybody happy, but at least they can understand why I can’t make them happy. They generally feel good as long as they know where they stand.”
When the term for his Senate seat ends, McCoy plans to run for election.
