News Archives - Page 266 of 455

Fishing in common in usual and accustomed areas

Celebrating Indian fishing and treaty rights 40 years after the Boldt decision

Early Tulalip beach seining photos courtesy of the Tulalip Hibulb Cultural Center Museum.

By Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News

A landmark case for Washington Indians and treaty fishing rights, the Boldt decision continues to have far reaching implications for tribes across the United States. For Washington tribes, the Boldt decision settled a conflict that began with the signing of the treaties. It upheld the tribe’s reserved right to fish, hunt, gather, and take shellfish as they always had. The crux of the Supreme Court case was the interpretation of the treaty, specifically the terms “in common with the citizens of the territory,” and “at usual and accustomed grounds and stations.”

The Boldt decision, or U.S. v. Washington as the legal case title reads, was heard in the 9^th District Appellate court in 1973, decided in 1974 by Judge George H. Boldt. The decision was later affirmed in the United States Supreme Court. The interpretation of the terms “in common” and “usual and accustomed areas” (U&A) is paramount to understanding questions of whether Indians have the right to fish off of the reservation and whether Indians are guaranteed an allocation of the available fish.

The case stemmed from the fish wars, in which tribal fishermen were arrested and injunctions were filed limiting tribal fisheries. At the time, as soon as state fisheries were open, fishermen took all of the available salmon resource before they reached tribes’ harvestable waters. One crucial interpretation in the Boldt decision was the definition of “in common,” a legal term that means, in equal parts.

Early Tulalip beach seining photo courtesy of the Tulalip Hibulb Cultural Center Museum.

This was not the first look at what the treaty meant by “in common with the citizens of the territory.” Judge Boldt cited U.S. v. Winans, a case from 1905 settling a dispute between then Yakima Nation (now Yakama Nation) and a private company that was operating a fish wheel on the Columbia River on private deeded land. They built fences intended to exclude access by Yakima Indians in an effort to optimize their business. The lower courts decided that deeded land could exclude Indians from exercising their rights in their U&A, a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court, upholding the Yakama’s treaty. Similarly, Boldt decided on that precedent that the right of a tribe to take fish in their respective U&A, which was secured to them through various treaties, meant they had a right to do so off of the reservation. For this case, “in common” meant equal access and opportunity.

Nearly 70 years later, when the Boldt decision was filed, the fishing industry had grown immensely on a global scale thanks to advancing technology. State fisheries were harvesting salmon in the ocean where tribes had no claim to U&A. Tribal fisheries were then closed under the guise of preserving the salmon runs, though state fisheries continued on inland waters. Judge Boldt reexamined the term “in common with the citizens of the territory.”

Boldt broke down this phrase, defining the territory as it would have been defined at the time of the treaty, meaning the Washington Territory. He then looked at the term “in common,” which he defined not only as equal access and opportunity, but also as equal portion.

Finally, Boldt decided that that State had a responsibility to ensure the tribes’ allocation was met, meaning that the salmon resource had to be kept at healthy levels to ensure there was enough to go around. From his interpretations he drafted what is commonly referred to as the blue book, which outlined what fish allocations and management of the salmon resource would look like. Basically, Washington tribes share amongst them half of the available salmon resource for the state, each tribe receiving different allocations of salmon based on U&A.

The implications from the Boldt decision are still prominent in Federal Indian Law, especially in Washington State. Recently there have been cases that address similar treaty rights as they pertain to harvesting of shellfish, hunting, and gathering of roots, berries, and plants. The most influential issues in the state currently that are built off of the foundations laid in the Boldt decision deal with protecting salmon habitat, which are the Culvert Case and the State’s Fish Consumption Rate.

GMO labeling debate shifts to Olympia

by Associated Press

January 17, 2014

SEATTLE — Months after Washington voters narrowly rejected an initiative requiring labeling of genetically modified foods, lawmakers are reviving the GMO debate in Olympia.

One bill would require labeling genetically engineered salmon for sale, even though federal regulators have not yet approved any genetically modified animals for food. Another bill requires many foods containing GMOs to carry a label.

The debate comes as the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering approval of an apple engineered not to brown. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is also weighing an application for a genetically modified salmon that grows twice as fast as normal.

In Olympia, a public hearing is scheduled Friday in the House Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources on the bill. That measure also would prohibit genetically engineered finfish from being produced in state waters

‘Got Land?’ From T-Shirts to Teach-Ins, Idle No More Calls for Day of Action

Courtesy Tenelle Starr/Via Metronews.caTenelle Starr, a Grade 8 student at Balcarres Community School, wears her, "Got Land? Thank an Indian," sweatshirt. Starr and other students wearing sweaters bearing that slogan were initially instructed to wear them inside-out due to complaints. — Courtesy Tenelle Starr/Via Metronews.ca
Tenelle Starr, a Grade 8 student at Balcarres Community School, wears her, “Got Land? Thank an Indian,” sweatshirt. Starr and other students wearing sweaters bearing that slogan were initially instructed to wear them inside-out due to complaints.

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

The grassroots Idle No More movement was already planning a national day of action across Canada for January 28 to teach people about the First Nations Education Act, which most Indigenous Peoples oppose. Now the organizers are exhorting everyone to dress for the occasion—in a “Got Land? Thank an Indian” t-shirt or sweatshirt.

Idle No More has scooped up 13-year-old Tenelle Starr, the eighth-grade student from Star Blanket First Nation who persuaded school officials to let her wear a hoodie with the words “Got Land?” on the front and “Thank an Indian” on the back.

Since that day, the shirt’s maker in Canada, Jeff Menard, has been swamped with orders. But now he might want to add another phone line. Idle No More is calling on everyone across Canada to don the slogan, which Menard sells on t-shirts and bibs in all sizes, in addition to hooded and non-hooded sweatshirts.

Menard has set up a website, Thank An Indian, to field and fulfill orders. The shirts, bibs and other items that he said are forthcoming are also showcased on his Facebook page of the same name. A portion of the proceeds will go to help the homeless.

Those wishing to buy the slogan south of the 49th Parallel can order at its U.S. source. The White Earth Land Recovery Project, part of the Native Harvest product line that is run by Ojibwe activist and author Winona LaDuke, has sold hoodies and t-shirts bearing the slogan for years. Menard has said he got the idea after seeing friends from the U.S. wearing similar shirts.

The message and the lesson have taken on new urgency as racist comments proliferated on Tenelle’s Facebook page to such a degree that it had to be taken down. But that has only solidified the teen’s determination to make a difference and to educate Canadians, which she said was her intial goal in wearing the shirt to school.

She received support, too, from Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in Alberta, which invited her to the Neil Young concert in support of its efforts to quell development in the oil sands of the province. She attended the Saturday January 18 performance as an honorary guest, according to Idle No More’s website. Young is doing a series of concerts to raise funds for the Athabasca Chipewyan’s legal fight against industrial activity in the sands.

Tenelle “is now calling, along with the Idle No More movement, for people everywhere to don the shirt as an act of truth-telling and protest,” Idle No More said in a statement on January 17. “Now and up to a January 28 Day of Action, Tenelle and Idle No More and Defenders of the Land are encouraging people across the country to make the shirt and wear them to their schools, workplaces, or neighborhoods to spark conversations about Canada’s true record on Indigenous rights.”

CBC News reported that Tenelle’s Facebook page was shut down at the suggestion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), which briefly investigated some intensely negative and racist comments that were posted on the girl’s page after the school ruling.

“It was racist remarks with attempts to shadow it in opinion, but they were pretty forceful, pretty racist,” Sheldon Poitras, a member of the band council for the Star Blanket First Nation, and a friend of the family, said to CBC News. “The family was concerned about Tenelle’s safety.”

The family deactivated Tenelle’s Facebook account “on advice from RCMP,” CBC News reported, and the RCMP confirmed that it was investigating.

The message is a quip laden with historical accuracy that refers to the 1874 document known as Treaty 4, which Star Blanket First Nation is part of, in which 13 signatory nations of Saulteaux and Cree deeded the land to the settlers of what would become modern-day Canada.

Nevertheless, many continue to view the message as racist. Idle No More aims to debunk that notion as well as clarify the historical record. Tenelle has participated in Idle No More rallies with her mother as well, the group said.

“Everyone can wear the shirt,” said Tenelle in the Idle No More statement. “I think of it as a teaching tool that can help bring awareness to our treaty and land rights. The truth about Canada’s bad treatment of First Nations may make some people uncomfortable, but understanding it is the only way Canada will change and start respecting First Nations.”

Although Menard said that support has been streaming in from chiefs and others throughout Canada for both him and Tenelle, there has been negative feedback that shows there’s still a lot of misinformation to be dispelled, he told ICTMN.

“I’ve been getting hate messages, Tenelle has been getting hate messages,” Menard said in a phone interview on January 21, but reiterated that the slogan merely reflects historical fact. “If anybody learns their history they see that the Indians were here first.”

Indian Law and Order Commission: Shelving This Report – A Huge Mistake

Courtesy Sen. Barrasso's officePictured, 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. — 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.

More oil spilled from trains in 2013 than in previous 4 decades, federal data show

By Curtis Tate

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Jan 21, 2014 Bellingham Herald

WASHINGTON — More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents last year than was spilled in the nearly four decades since the federal government began collecting data on such spills, an analysis of the data shows.

Including major derailments in Alabama and North Dakota, more than 1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled from rail cars in 2013, according to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

By comparison, from 1975 to 2012, U.S. railroads spilled a combined 800,000 gallons of crude oil. The spike underscores new concerns about the safety of such shipments as rail has become the preferred mode for oil producers amid a North American energy boom.

The federal data does not include incidents in Canada where oil spilled from trains. Canadian authorities estimate that more than 1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, on July 6, when a runaway train derailed and exploded, killing 47 people. The cargo originated in North Dakota.

564-zD7do.AuSt.91 — A fireball goes up at the site of an oil train derailment Monday, Dec 30, 2013, in Casselton, N.D. The train carrying crude oil derailed near Casselton Monday afternoon.
BRUCE CRUMMY — ASSOCIATED PRESS

Nearly 750,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from a train on Nov. 8 near Aliceville, Ala. The train also originated in North Dakota and caught fire after it derailed in a swampy area. No one was injured or killed.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration doesn’t yet have spill data from a Dec. 30 derailment near Casselton, N.D. But the National Transportation Safety Board, which is the lead investigator in that incident, estimates that more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled there. Though no one was injured or killed, the intense fire forced most of Casselton’s 2,400 residents to evacuate in subzero temperatures.

The Association of American Railroads, an industry group, estimates that railroads shipped 400,000 carloads of crude oil last year. That’s more than 11.5 billion gallons, with one tank car holding roughly 28,800 gallons.

Last year’s total spills of 1.15 million gallons means that 99.99 percent of shipments arrived without incident, close to the safety record the industry and its regulators claim about hazardous materials shipments by rail.

But until just a few years ago, railroads weren’t carrying crude oil in 80- to 100-car trains. In eight of the years between 1975 and 2009, railroads reported no spills of crude oil. In five of those years, they reported spills of one gallon or less.

In 2010, railroads reported spilling about 5,000 gallons of crude oil, according to federal data. They spilled fewer than 4,000 gallons each year in 2011 and 2012. But excluding the Alabama and North Dakota derailments, more than 11,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from trains last year.

Last week, the principal Washington regulators of crude oil shipments by rail met with railroad and oil industry representatives to discuss making changes to how crude is shipped by rail, from tank car design to operating speed to appropriate routing. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx called the meeting productive and said the group would take a comprehensive approach to improving the safety of crude-oil trains.

Foxx said the changes would be announced within the next 30 days.

Click here to view map here.

U.S. Sen Begich speaks out against proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska

January 21, 2014

By Becky Bohrer

ASSOCIATED PRESS

JUNEAU — U.S. Sen. Mark Begich has come out against the proposed Pebble Mine, calling the massive gold-and-copper project “the wrong mine in the wrong place for Alaska.”

In a statement released by his office Monday, Begich said he has long supported Alaska’s mining industry and believes continued efforts must be made to support resource-development industries that help keep Alaska’s economy strong. But he said “years of scientific study (have) proven the proposed Pebble Mine cannot be developed safely in the Bristol Bay watershed.”

“Thousands of Alaskans have weighed in on this issue, and I have listened to their concerns,” he said. “Pebble is not worth the risk.”

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated a review of large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay region in response to concerns about the impact of the proposed Pebble Mine on fisheries. The agency released its final report last week, concluding that large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed posed significant risks to salmon and Alaska Native cultures that rely on it. The region is home to a world-premier sockeye salmon fishery.

The Bristol Bay basin is made up of six major watersheds: the Togiak, Nushagak, Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik.Image source: Wild Salmon Center.org — The Bristol Bay basin is made up of six major watersheds: the Togiak, Nushagak, Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik.
Image source: Wild Salmon Center.org

The report did not recommend any policy or regulatory decisions. But EPA regional administrator Dennis McLerran said it would serve as the scientific foundation for the agency’s response to the tribes and others who petitioned EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay. Mine opponents have been pressing the agency to take steps to block or limit the project.

Begich, a Democrat, is the only member of the state’s congressional delegation to outright oppose the project, and his position, first reported by the Anchorage Daily News, won praise from Pebble critics on Monday.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, last week expressed concerns that the EPA report could be used to pre-emptively veto the project, saying that would set a bad precedent.

“If the EPA has concerns about the impact of a project there is an appropriate time to raise them – after a permit application has been made, not before,” Murkowski said in a release.

Under section 404c of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has the authority to restrict, prohibit, deny or withdraw use of an area as a disposal site for dredged or fill material if the discharge would have “unacceptable adverse” effects on things like municipal water supplies or fisheries, according to an EPA fact sheet. The agency says it has issued just over a dozen final veto actions since 1972.

Mike Heatwole, a spokesman for the Pebble Limited Partnership, the group behind the project, said Pebble is disappointed that Begich had “come out against thousands of new jobs, hundreds of millions in state revenue, and potentially billions in economic activity for Alaska.”

Heatwole said in a statement that it is “no secret that there is a substantial difference of opinion regarding the science of EPA’s recent Bristol Bay Assessment. Not many Alaskans think EPA is impartial.”

He said there is a process that exists for evaluating a project, and there is no environmental harm in allowing Pebble to follow that permitting process.

Begich told The Associated Press that one of the complaints he hears from the mining industry is that it needs to know what federal agencies want before getting too far along in the permitting process. He said if Pebble intends to apply for a permit, the watershed assessment provides a framework for what to respond to before the permit process starts.

Elwha River Restoration: Kruckeberg Botanic Garden Special Lecture

January 21, 2014 KING5.com

KBGF MEMBERS MEETING JANUARY 21

Our guest speaker at the 2014 KBGF Members’ meeting will be Joshua
Chenoweth, head botanist on the Elwha River Dam Removal Ecosystem Restoration Project. Dam removal, once completed, will be the largest dam removal project in the U.S. and the restoration project is the second largest project ever undertaken by the National Park Service. Join us to learn about the unprecendented ecosystem restoration activities occurring in our state!

Revegetation of the Former Reservoirs on the Elwha River 2011-2013

Revegetation of the former reservoirs, Lake Mills and Lake Aldwell, on the Elwha River is an unprecedented effort to reverse the impacts of dams on a major river. Dam removal, once completed, will be the largest known dam removal project in the United States and the Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Project is the second largest restoration project ever undertaken by the National Park Service. Dam removal has exposed nearly 800 acres of valley slopes, terraces, and floodplain that was inundated for 80-100 years. The reservoir trapped nearly 30 million cubic yards of inorganic sediments ranging in

Time/Date: 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM, Tues. Jan 21^st, 2014

Cost: free to KBGF members / $5 suggested donation

Venue:

Shoreline City Hall, Council Chambers

17544 Midvale Ave N # 100
Seattle, WA 98133

Community: Shoreline – Lake Forest Park
View Map | Get Directions

Feds Stand By Current Dam, Salmon Plan For Columbia

The federal government today released its final plan to protect endangered salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. | credit: Aaron Kunz | rollover image for more

Courtney Flatt, Northwest Public Radio

The federal government is standing by its previous plans for managing the Columbia River to prevent the extinction of its salmon and steelhead. That means little would change for dam operations on the West’s biggest river — but only if it wins court approval.

Officials Friday released the finalized plan, known as the biological opinion or BiOp. It guides dam operations to assure they do not lead to the extinction of 13 species of salmon and steelhead that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. The plan has been the subject of more than 20 years of legal conflict between people who want to protect salmon and people who want the dams to produce hydroelectricity and maintain shipping traditions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the lead agency in developing the biological opinion. It says the current plan is on track to meet Endangered Species Act goals for the federally protected fish. NOAA officials say the plan may better protect some fish than previously thought.

“The actions outlined in the biological opinion, and the operation of the hydro system, is designed to move us in the direction towards recovery and avoid jeopardy, and this program does that,” said NOAA’s Barry Thom. “It actually does improve the status of the populations over time. But it is not designed to achieve ultimate recovery of the population.”

Officials say the 610-page plan will protect and improve habitat, with specific attention paid to tributaries and estuaries of the Columbia and Snake rivers.

“A major focus of the tributary habitat program is to help us buffer against potential effects of climate change in the system, so that the habitat projects … are designed to maintain and protect the cool water inputs into the system,” Thom said during a conference call with reporters.

NOAA released a draft version of this plan in September.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge James A. Redden rejected the plan and asked the Obama administration to consider more ways to recover the endangered fish.

Redden’s suggestions included spilling more water over the dams to help juvenile salmon safely make it downriver to the ocean, changing reservoirs to help fish passage, and removing the Snake River dams altogether.

The case has been transferred to Judge Michael H. Simon. He has yet to set a court date for the plan’s sponsors and opponents to argue it. He’ll then decide if the plan is adequate to protect Columbia River salmon and steelhead.

Now that the previous version of the plan is partway completed, supporters say a trend toward larger salmon runs shows the plan is working. Terry Flores is with Northwest RiverPartners, which represents commerce and industry groups that defend the presence of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia-Snake system.

“This plan is amazing. It’s the most comprehensive plan we can find anywhere in this country by far,” Flores said.

Environmental groups say they are disappointed with this finalized plan. Gilly Lyons, with advocacy group Save Our Wild Salmon, said the group is frustrated.

“The federal agencies in charge here have re-isuued a slightly tweaked, but largely status quo federal salmon plan that repeats a lot of the same mistakes over the past decade or so that kept them in court and bound them in litigation over these dams and the salmon that they impact,” Lyons said.

Lyons said it is too soon to tell if environmental groups will file another lawsuit.

“With all the stuff that we see in the plan, or that’s not there, as the case may be, it sure looks like the federal government would like to go back to court,” Lyons said.

NOAA officials said there will be a few years before they have to start writing a new 10-year plan beyond 2018.

“One main priority is to carry out this existing biological opinion,” Thom said. “There will be a period of time between [the 2018 discussions] and the next couple of years where I would like to focus our efforts on talking about long-term recovery. … As opposed to focusing either on A) the litigation or B) the details of a new biological opinion beyond 2018.”

Yakamas to regain full authority on tribal land

Gov. Jay Inslee on Friday signed a proclamation that returns almost all civil and criminal authority over tribal members on the reservation back to the Yakama Nation. The next required step, before this can take effect, is federal approval.

By Kate Prengaman

Yakima Herald-Republic

OLYMPIA, Wash. — In what tribal leaders call a historic development, Gov. Jay Inslee on Friday signed a proclamation that returns almost all civil and criminal authority over tribal members on the reservation back to the Yakama Nation.

Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin said the signing is not only “historic” but the first of its kind in the country.

Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin

“The biggest benefit is that we have the right to determine our own destiny and our own laws,” Smiskin said earlier this week.

But the deal is not done yet. The proclamation needs federal approval, which Smiskin said will probably take another year or so working with the government on final details, including financial support for both law enforcement and civil authority over social issues like school truancy and child and family services.

The Yakama Nation is a sovereign nation that has the authority to govern itself under the treaty signed in 1855 with the federal government. The Nation already has its own police department and jail and has always had some criminal authority over tribal members.

In 1953, under Public Law 280, Congress gave states the authority to take more civil and criminal control over Indian lands. In 1963, Washington’s state government asserted jurisdiction over school attendance, domestic relations, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, adoption, public assistance, and motor vehicle operation on tribal lands.

In 2012, the Legislature created a process for tribes to apply to get that lost authority returned. The proclamation is the result of the Yakama Nation’s petition. A busload of tribal members travelled to Olympia for the ceremony.

The Yakama petition, which was filed in 2012, asked the state to retain authority over mental illness as it arises in the courts and civil commitment of sexually violent predators, but return the rest of the authority taken in 1963.

The state retains jurisdiction over criminal or civil cases that involve non-Indians, even if a tribal member is also involved.

Yakima County Commissioner Kevin Bouchey said that was the county’s main concern, and he was pleased that to see the state retained that authority.

Smiskin said he encouraged the tribe to pursue the move — known as retrocession — because he’d seen the benefits when he worked with the Colville Tribe on the issue in the 1980s.

Criminal jurisdiction was returned by the Legislature for the Colvilles and several other tribes then, but Smiskin said that he used what he learned from that process to improve the Yakamas’ move to regain authority, including civil jurisdiction.

Now that Inslee has signed the proclamation, it goes to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs for review before it will take full effect.

In preparation, the Yakamas already signed memorandums of understanding with the cities and counties that overlap the reservation.

For example, if a tribal member is pulled over on the reservation for speeding by a sheriff’s deputy, the officer will transfer the driver over to a tribal officer, Bouchey said.

Yakima County Sheriff Ken Irwin called the retrocession a “work in progress” and said that he still doesn’t know the final details about how the BIA and the Yakama Nation are going to handle some issues, including major crimes, but he respects the process.

“They have some steps left,” Irwin said. “In the meantime, it’s business as usual and we are working together very well.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Social and Health Services referred questions about the retrocession process to the governor’s office.

A governor’s office spokeswoman said the state doesn’t intend to start planning for the transition in jurisdiction until after the retrocession secures federal approval.

‘Got Land?’ Hoodie Orders Flood in After School Controversy

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

Jeff Menard, of the Anishinaabe Pine Creek First Nation in Manitoba, Canada, has been making “Got Land? Thank an Indian” sweatshirts and t-shirts since 2012 and before this week had sold about 1,000.

But since 13-year-old Tenelle Starr talked her off-reserve school’s officials into allowing her to keep wearing her magenta hoodie bearing those words, Menard’s phone hasn’t stopped ringing, he told CBC News.

“Orders are just coming here left, right and center,” Menard told the Canadian television network. “I’m being flooded with calls.”

He and Tenelle are members of different First Nation bands that are under Treaty 4, which was signed in 1874 by 13 separate Saulteaux and Cree Nations, according to the Pine Creek First Nation website. The treaty currently covers 36 First Nations throughout most of Southern Saskatchewan and parts of southern Alberta and western Manitoba, Pine Creek said.

Tenelle, an eighth-grader from Star Blanket Cree Nation who attends middle school in Balcarres, Saskatchewan, ran into flack from education officials who deemed her new Christmas present racist. They told her to remove it, and when she returned wearing it again a few days later, tried to make her turn it inside out.

Meetings between school officials, her mother and reserve leaders ironed out the problem, and Tenelle was allowed to wear the shirt to school. She has been sporting it proudly ever since, and her story has made waves across Canada.

For his part, Menard told CBC News, he had never intended to make money from shirt sales. In fact all he wants is a thank you—and to see Prime Minister Stephen Harper in one of his hoodies, he told McLean’s.

Menard initially spotted the words on a hoodie in the U.S., he told McLean’s, and started selling them in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. His line also includes bibs and t-shirts.

His main goal, he said, was to get the historically accurate message out there. The shirt has certainly done that.

“The reason why I started this was to bring awareness to the Canadian natives and to unite our people and make them proud of who we are,” he told CBC News. “I’m not in it for the money.”