Image provided by: Oregon Historical Society; Portland, OR
About Spilyay tymoo. (Warm Springs, Or.) 1976-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 13, 2009)
Spilygy Tyrnoo, Warm Springs, Oregon Tribes: Page 7 August 13, 2009 Grand Ronde has no off-reservation treaty rights at gorge (Continued from page 1) determined to be the legal suc- Because o f the vital role of cessors-in-interest to an 1855 the Columbia River and its fish treaty securing express eries to the Columbia River offreservation treaty fishing Tribes, these tribes were resolute rights. in protecting their culture and T he T reaty w ith the Kalapuya, January 22, 1855, to Evelihoods. Indeed, the Warm Springs, which the Grand Ronde claims Umatilla, Nez Perce Tribe, and to be the successor-in-interest Yakama Nation took action in (although no court has so ruled), 1977 to form the Columbia cedes title to some land located River Inter-Tribal Fish Commis on the western edge of the Na sion (CRITFC), which provides tional Scenic Area. a forum for the four tribes’ co However, a critical distin ordinated management and en guishing factor is th a t the forcement o f treaty Indian fish Kalapuya treaty does not reserve any off-reservation treaty rights eries on the Columbia River. When the Gorge Act legisla in the Columbia River or else tion was first proposed in the where. Furthermore, in the 1988 act mid-1980s, it was clear that the proposed legislation could have o f Congress passing the Grand wide ranging impacts to the daily Ronde Reservation Act, PL 1 GO- management of tribal interests 425, Congress expressly pro and the treaty rights o f the four vided that the Reservation Act did not provide any off-reserva- Columbia River Tribes. Accordingly, all four Colum tion rights to the Grand Ronde. Disregarding the fact that bia River Tribes participated in the drafting of the legislation to another Oregon tribe (Siletz) has claimed successor status protect these interests. The result was Congressional under the Kalapuya treaty, ac enactment o f Gorge Act provi cepting “ceded lands” as a basis sions that specificaUy recognize for inclusion o f Grand Ronde the off-reservation treaty rights in the Gorge Act is not consis and associated management au tent with the reasons Congress thority o f the four Columbia originally included the four Co lumbia River Tribes in the Act. River Tribes. Indeed, neither the Umatilla We understand that the Con federated Tribes o f G rand nor the Nez Perce Tribe has Ronde have asserted that they “ceded lands” as described in should be included as one of the their 1855 treaties, within the “Indian T ribes” because, it boundaries o f the National Sce claims, it has “ceded lands” nic Area Act. However, Eke Yakama and w ithin the Colum bia River Gorge National Scenic Area. As Warm Springs, these tribes’ 1855 explained above, providing spe off-reservation treaty fishing cial status to “Indian Tribes” rights attach to “aU usual and within the Gorge Act was based accustomed stations” and “aE on off-reservation treaty rights usual and accustomed places”, reserved to the four Columbia which extend beyond ceded area River Tribes, not the assertion boundaries. The inclusion of the UmatiUa of “ceded lands.” To explain, “ceded lands” are and Nez Perce iEustrates that it ment interests in the Gorge Act. Ceding title, without reserv ing express o ff-reserv atio n treaty rights, does not afford a tribe with these management interests. In addition, if the Gorge Act were to be amended in a way to recognize land use interests w ithout associated reserved treaty rights, it would be diffi cult for the Columbia River Gorge Commission to manage the numerous tribal interests in the National Scenic Area. It is weU documented that a Native commerce focal point, relating back at least 10,000 years, was situated within the National Scenic Area, particu larly at Celilo. Many federaUy recognized tribes have such interests in the National Scenic Area; yet it was the intention o f Congress in passing the Gorge Act not to recognize those interests in the implementation of the Gorge Act. That was left to the Colum bia River Tribes that have day- to-day management interests in the National Scenic Area. Last, it should come as no surprise that the Gorge Act was an intensely negotiated biU. It was highly controversial because o f the “super-zoning” effect of the Act. The Gorge Act includes a very deEcately balanced negoti ated settlement between envi ronmental, recreational, cultural, and economic interests in the Gorge. Indeed, despite some the claim s o f som e advocacy groups, the Gorge Act is not intended to turn the National Scenic Area into a national park. Rather, the Gorge Act has two co-equal goals: to encour age ongoing economic develop those lands that an Indian tribe is on the basis o f off-reserva- m en t in th e N atio n al Scenic ceded to the federal government in exchange for an exclusive use reservation and federal protec tion of other rights, both on- and offreservation, in negoti ated and ratified treaties. Each of the four Columbia River Tribes has been judicially tion treaty rights, not on ceded land status, that Congress rec ognized the Columbia River Tribes’ day-to-day management obEgations and interests in the National Scenic Area and the need to protect the Columbia River Tribes rights and manage Area and to protect the scenic, natural resource, recreation, and cultural resources in the bound ary. Pervasive Etigation over the meaning o f the Gorge Act has been the norm , and interest groups are considering their RB> D e s i g n CCB 86976 The Grand Tonde Tribe has no off-reser- vation treaty rights within the National Scenic Area, which was the underlying rationale fo r definition o f ‘Indian Tribes9 in the enactment o f the Gorge Act. options to request amendments of the Gorge Act to serve their constituents and donors. A substantive opening, such as this, o f the Gorge Act could provide a vehicle for such pro p o sed am endm ents, w hich could u p set the n eg otiated settlement that provided the very basis for passage o f the Gorge Act. Even as the four Columbia River Tribes supported the biU with the included protections, there was no Grand Ronde par ticipation. It was the intent of Congress not to reopen the Act for any substantive purpose such as this. Indeed, recent pro ceedings at the Columbia River Gorge Commission had occa sion to invite former congres sional staffers and other local staff to discuss the intent of Congress in its passing o f the Gorge Act. The unanimous opinion of these experts was that, given the deEcate balance struck by Con gress, it was the intent o f Con gress to allow the Columbia River Gorge Commission to ex ercise its judgment in the imple mentation of the Act. In Eght o f this testimony and given the competing interests re- lated to implementation o f the Gorge Act— and the active Eti gation related to the same—it is the stated position of the Co lumbia River Gorge Commis sion that it does not support opening the Gorge Act. In sum, the four Columbia River Tribes oppose the pro p o sed am en d m en t adding Grand Ronde to the Gorge Act for the foUowing reasons: • Congress had a weU-consid- ered rationale— the existence of off-reservation treaty rights and associated tribal management authority in the Gorge— that was the basis for the designation o f the four Columbia River Tribes as the “Indian Tribes” under the Gorge Act; • The Grand Ronde Tribe has no off-reservation treaty rights within the National Scenic Area, which was the underlying ratio nale for definition o f “Indian Tribes” in the enactment o f the Gorge Act; • Grand Ronde has no asso ciated daily fishery and land use management authorities stem ming from off-reservation treaty rights that could be affected by the Gorge Act; • The unadjudicated nature o f the G rand Ronde “ceded lands” claims within the N a tional Scenic Area; • Opening the Gorge Act for a substantive amendment, such as this, would be contrary to the Act’s original intent and could lead to additional inconsistent amendments; and • Including Indian tribes on the basis of claimed ceded lands or historic ties to the area, such as claimed by the Grand Ronde, could result in additional tribes seeking to be added to the Act, and would dilute the Columbia River Tribes rights and manage ment responsibiEties. For the foregoing reasons, the unanimous position o f the Columbia River Tribes is to op pose amending the Gorge Act to include the Grand Ronde as one o f the “Indian Tribes” un der the Act. We appreciate your consider ation of this joint letter. Very truly yours, Ron Suppah, Chairman, Tribal Council Confeder ated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Or egon; Antone Minthorn, Chairman, Board of Trust ees, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reser vation; Samuel N. Penney, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee; Ralph Sampson, Chairman, Tribal Council Confeder ated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. /fe ® Springs Market Indian Arts and SrâSs 2132 Wfm Springs S(. Wfrm Springs, 02 97761 ($41)353-1597 Toys-Tools-Housewares-Clothing-Crafts-Gifts- V A ll N e w A ll T h e T im e ! i 0! 0 C 7 1 7 S.W. 5 th St. M a d ra s Or. c VI IP N e w S h ip m e n t n $ REMODEL YOUR HOME ADD A ROOM FIX THAT BATHROOM or KITCHEN 0 Ü ÛI V» tfl 1 I ■ New Home Construction ■ Carpet ■ Tile ■ Wood Floors ■ Cabinets ■ Countertops ■ Window Coverings u œ s <u □ fl) 1 r 5x8 Area $29.00 6x9 Premium $49.00 2x3 Area $6.00 6x9 Hand Carved $56.00 0 L ___________ _______________________ ___ ___________ _______ ________ il 2 VI p 1 NOW ACCEPTING THE OREGON TRAIL CARB EGGS/WILLAMETTE LRG A 2 VI h t t p : //w w w .t h e o u t p o s t s t o r e .c o m / Maurice Langsev I 01 0 541-546-9008; cell 503-806-4830 J 3 n (/I I VI o r+ IÛ i I I FREE ESTIMATES & CONSULTATION n Toys-Tools-Housewares-Clothing-Crafts-Gifts- ) -4;
