Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Spilyay tymoo. (Warm Springs, Or.) 1976-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 20, 1976)
PAGE 8 WARM SPRINGS, OREGON , AUGUST 20, 1976 • Fishing cumstances were such that a more violent outbreak might occur.) The following day, the 13th, representatives from Warm Springs, Yakima, Nez Perce, and Umitilla tribes met in the office of U.S. Attorney Lezak to discuss compromise plans to alleviate hard feelings on the lower Columbia, and thus re move the possibility of any harrassment of Indian fisher men. The tentative plan agreed upon was to restore two days of lost fishing time to the lower Columbia gillnetters. However, before this compro mise was offered, the lower Columbia fishermen had ob tained temporary injunctions restoring their entire season; one from a state court in Clatskanie, Oregon and one from the Thurston County Court in Olympia, Washington. These injunctions were ruled invalid by Judge Belloni’s court, though two''additional fishing days were eventually granted. The compromise was of fered “with the understanding that the state would come up with a comprehensive plan as suring that both sides in the dispute would have a reason able chance of catching' their 50 per cent of the harvestable take, ” according to one Warm Springs tribal official close to the case. He added that the plan “should pinpoint the Re sponsibilities of federal, state, and tribal game officials so (Continued from Page 5) that the preservation of the run could be guaranteed and further disputes be avoided in the future.” The federal court intervened in the case as a result of the state’s failure to come up with such a plan, though they had been advised to do so in past years. Double Standard While most Indians express satisfaction with the present arrangement, one lady - who owns part interest in one of the fishing operations - feels that the states could be more con sistent in their treatment of fishermen above and below the dam. Mrs. Neda Greene, Warm Springs, says that the states are employing a double stand ard of enforcement on the river. She cited as an example the Ilwaco, Wash., “fish-in” of a few months back. She said that Indian fishermen are fined up to $505.00 for not tending their nets (wasting fish), while, at the time of the “fish-in” it was illegal to buy fish at all. Thus, she says, the demonstra tors were technically guilty of wasting all of the fish that they caught; yet, they were only cited for fishing out of season. She added that Indian fishermen cited for the same charge have their nets confis cated, while the protestors at Ilwaco were allowed to keep theirs. No state officials associa ted with the Columbia River fisheries could be reached for comment by press time. End Of The Run. Resetting The Net No Hearing Set In Suit by Olney Patt, Jr. No hearing date has been set by recently assigned judge, Gus Solomon, in the suit brought against the Confeder ated Tribes of Warm Springs, The secretary of the Interior, and the Commissioner of In dian Affairs , by several mem bers of the Warm Springs Tribes. The plaintiffs in the case claim “disenrollment” and “deprivation of the right to inherit by due process of law” because of their exclusion from the distribution rolls of the Ceded Area Claim Settle ment. Their exclusion, accord ing to a tribal official, stems from their participation in other claim settlements on other reservations. The suit was filed on No vember 26, 1976 by some 26 tribal members, shortly after the distribution plan was dis closed by Portland Area Direc tor, Paul Weston, (now re tired). Presently in charge of the B.I.A. side of the project is John Weddel. On February 19, 1976, the attorney for the plaintiffs, John C. Barret of the Northwest Legal Clinic, filed an amended complaint with additional plaintiffs. On April 26, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrie L. Rogers filed the response of the gov ernment defendants - a motion to dismiss charges or, in the alternative, for a summary judgement. Barret, on July 12th, filed a memorandum of law in op position to the motion to dismiss. On July 23rd, the plaintiffs gave to the court their exhibits A, B, C and D. Exhibit A is identified (by the plaintiff) as a letter from the BIA summarizing the plan’s exclusions. This is erroneous. It is actually a letter, dated 6-2-76, from attorney Arthur V. Biggs of the Regional Solici tor’s office to the U.S. Attorney furnishing and summarizing in formation requested by the plaintiff’s attorney. Exhibit B is the proposed roll of distri bution under the plan of dis tribution. Exhibit C is the plantiff’s summary of the blood degrees of the distributees in Exhibit B, and Exhibit D con sists of affadavits from six tribal members. The original hearing date had been set for July 19th, but, 5 days before that date, Judge James M. Burns withdrew from the case and Judge Gus Solomon was assigned to it. He has not yet worked the case into his schedule of hearings. “Our work here is done,” said John Weddel of the Area Office,” we have devised a plan for the distribution of the. settlement funds. We could proceed with payment if it were not for the suit.” Returning To The Docking Area ...
