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;