[env-trinity] Cultural Fish Commissioners Could Be Reinstated

[Tom Stokely]

Cultural Fish Commissioners Could Be Reinstated
http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/04/cultural-fish-commissioners-could-be-reinstated/

By ALLIE HOSTLER, Two Rivers Tribune

It’s too early to tell what the recommended commercial fishing regulations might look like when presented to the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council on May 24, 2011 by the Fish Commission.

But, the foundation of the regulation will shape up over the next several weeks with each commissioner assigned to write specific sections such as seasons, gear, enforcement, conservation, and penalties, etc.

At the Commission’s April 12, meeting Tribal Attorney, Gene Burke reported on a miscommunication regarding the March 28 Council motion to separate cultural commissioners from fish commissioners, which passed and effectively reduced cultural representatives’ input to advisory only. Councilman Joseph LeMeiux voted in favor of the motion, but later changed his mind.

“Joe LeMeiux said he never intended to disqualify voting membership from the cultural members of the Commission,” Burke said. “We need to make renewed contact with those particular commission members noting that wasn’t the intent of the motion.”

The motion was intended to address a potential nepotism issue on the Fish Commission—two members are father and son, one being a cultural member and the other a tribal fisherman.

Hoopa Tribal member, Rhonda Jones-O’Neill, who attends many of the Fish Commission meetings said, “Both commissioners were appointed by the Council. The issue of nepotism should have been dealt with and clarified months ago.”

Ending the discussion, Burke said he would take the issue back to the Council for further direction.

After the commissioners settled on the logistics of compiling each of their sections, the discussion quickly moved to gear. Commissioner Ken Norton explained that the gear section is a rough draft and is subject to discussion and revision as are all sections during the drafting phase.

The gear section could limit the number and placement of gill nets used in the gorge area for commercial purposes—two nets per tribal member, not to exceed 50 feet in length each with mesh between 7-9 inches. And, in the draft, it’s suggested that nets be placed at least 50 feet apart.

A more in-depth discussion about regulating the gorge area will occur at the next Fish Commission meeting on April 19.

Next up—enforcement.

Commissioner Norvin Hostler presented a one-paragraph section on enforcement with the penalties section to come next week. In short, the Hoopa Valley Department of Public Safety will be responsible to enforce the commercial regulations as well as the existing Fishing Ordinance, with the Tribal Court retaining jurisdiction over any and all cases that may result.

Recognizing that actual enforcement of tribal codes is a concern of the Tribal membership, the commission decided they will make a strong recommendation to the Tribal Council that law enforcement be held accountable and responsible for their actions or lack of action.

Board Chairwoman, Lois Risling said there were written comments from Tribal members requesting the right to sue individuals for failing to enforce the regulations, and the ability to file a civil suit against fellow Tribal members if there was evidence they broke the law.

“That won’t solve the problem,” Commissioner Stanley Ferris Jr. said. “The Council just needs to put the pressure on law enforcement to get them to do their job. They take an oath to uphold our laws, why aren’t they?”

Risling also reiterated comments from the membership that echoed a controversial sentiment—those in public trust or policy making positions such as the director of the Fisheries Department, the Department of Commerce, the Tribal Council and Law Enforcement should be prohibited from commercial fishing.

Some members of the commission believe strongly that such a clause would be a deal breaker for the entire regulation, others think a conflict of interest clause is appropriate and that the topic should be further discussed in the ‘eligibility’ section of the draft regulations.

Next, Risling presented her assigned section ‘general,’ which details the authority, vision, purpose, findings, goals and declaration.

Written in an unusual form and sprinkled with traditional Hupa words, her section was controversial, some calling it wordy and cultural. Others thought it was appropriate and should be how all Hoopa laws start out.

“This sets the tone for what we are doing here,” Risling said. “Our current laws are causing conflicts. We need to bring in a more traditional form of law. We’ve been losing a lot of cases and I think the reason is we’re starting our arguments with the establishment of the reservation and the Record of Decision. That is not where Hoopa begins.”

Jones-O’Neill stepped in and said, “I hope you all consider Councilman Byron Nelson’s comment that traditional Hupa law supercedes any law.”

Councilwoman Marcellene Norton said, “There’s been a lot of discussion about tradition, we cannot ignore that.”

The Fish Commission plans to address some of the following sections of the draft regulation at their upcoming meeting on Tuesday, April 19 at 7PM in the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council Chambers: jurisdiction; ceremonial fishing; buyers; penalties; definitions; the gorge; fish runs and seasons; eligibility; conservation; catch; fair distribution; zoning; identifying fishing sites; subsistence fishing; Tribally operated commercial fishing and permissible fishing.

The Commission was created in February to address the commercial fishing dispute looming over the Tribe. Different interpretations of the Tribe’s fishing ordinance, Title 16, and subsequent 1989 commercial fishing referendum have Tribal leaders questioning what the laws actually mean and how to update them to suit the current needs of the Hoopa Tribe. The all volunteer Commission is responsible for creating regulations for the Council to consider.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110420/66ba38a1/attachment.html>