[env-trinity] Two opposing Op-Ed's from Two Rivers Tribune on Hoopa Commercial Fishing

Tue Jun 28 15:19:10 PDT 2011

OP-ED-Fishing for the Future (Danny Jordan-Hoopa, Calif.)
http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/05/op-ed-fishing-for-the-future-danny-jordan-hoopa-calif/  
By DANNY JORNDAN, Hoopa Valley Tribal Self Governance Coordinator and Hoopa Tribal Fisherman

Several Federal Courts have interpreted federally reserved Indian fishing rights as being a right to:

“Up to 50% of the harvestable fish or the amount needed to accommodate a moderate standard of living, whichever is less.

I was recently asked: Who defines Indian fish needs based on a moderate standard of living? The answer – The Tribe does. Under the existing federal trust responsibility standards the Hoopa Tribe is legally entitled to our share of 50% of fish that is produced by the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. However, if the referendum passes then the Tribe will have formally given up its allocation right in order to accept a lesser amount of fish. This decision will have far reaching impacts on the Trinity River, the Federal Government’s trust obligations to the Tribe, and the extent that future generations of Hoopa members continue to have meaningful fishing and water rights.

I pushed for the referendum language regarding commercial fishing in 1989. The referendum was placed on the ballot 11 years prior to signing the Trinity River Record of Decision. At that time, we needed to know how aggressively that the Tribe wanted to fight the Central Valley irrigators and Federal Government in order to restore the fish populations that were damaged by construction of the Trinity River Dam. Based on the approved referendum, the Tribe mounted one of its more aggressive fights against the Federal Government and Central Valley water users to get water turned back to the Trinity River. However, if the 1989 referendum been voted down then, it is likely that the Federal Government and Central Valley irrigators would have had justification for only delivering enough water that was needed to provide for minimal populations of fish. But, the 1989 referendum did pass and a team of Hoopa tribal members and highly skilled fishery and water experts ended up delivering the Trinity River Record of Decision, which was signed in Hoopa on December 19, 2000. The Trinity ROD and the Tribe’s aggressive fight to restore the fish populations are the basis for the largest transfer of water ever done in California’s history when 268,000 acre feet of water annually was delivered back to the Trinity River.

The Hoopa Tribe has signed 2 treaties with the United States. The first was in 1864 and the second was the Trinity ROD in December, 2000.

We all know how the first 1864 treaty turned out. At first the Hoopa homeland was set aside and the Hoopa people thought their land, resources and rights would be protected forever. But in 1891, the United States decided to change its agreement with the Hoopa Tribe by adding the “extension” to the Hoopa Square. What followed was the Federal Government and Jessie Short lawyers carrying out decades of challenges to the existence and ownership rights to the Hoopa Tribe to our homeland and its resources. Contrary to its commitments made to the Tribe under the 1864 treaty, the Federal Government turned out to be a ruthless opponent against the Tribe by draining our funds, attempted to steal Hoopa’s land, restrict our rights, and destroy our Tribal Government. In the end, the Hoopa Tribe fought to get the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act enacted by Congress that once again promised to protect the Hoopa homeland from outside attacks. The unfortunate reality is that the conditions that were placed on the Hoopa Tribe for getting our land back were that the Tribe had to give away $10’s of millions to buy our land back. Another unfortunately reality the same story can be told over and over again by Indian people around the Nation where the Federal Government has set aside its promises and legal obligations to Indian people in order provide more benefits to its non-Indian political allies.

The second Hoopa treaty was entered into on December 19, 2000, when the Trinity River Record of Decision (ROD) was signed. Again, the ROD treaty was the basis of returning 268,000 acre feet of water back to the Trinity River, the largest water transfer in California history. The legal basis for the ROD treaty is expressed in the Congressional law that was enacted by the Hoopa Tribe in 1992 that states:

“In order to meet the federal trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe…”

This time, however, it may be that the Tribe will be giving up its rights that are protected under the ROD treaty. Instead of continuing to fight for the levels of fish that have been directed by Congress and Federal Courts, is the Tribe willing to reduce our fishing rights and accept less than what we are legally entitled to? It must be clearly understood that giving up commercial fishing rights represents an agreement by the Tribe to give up a portion of our federally reserved fishing rights – and possibly the amount of Trinity River water that would have been needed to support a higher population of fish. We need to clearly understand that we are engaging in the “use it or lose it” policy discussion that will be used against the Tribe by Federal judges, Federal agency representatives and non-Indian agricultural interests in the future.

The “use it or lose it” policy is not one that I dreamed up. Instead, it is included in Federal Court orders when interpreting Indian rights. For those who do not believe that the “use it or lose it” policy is real only need to ask themselves why the Karuk and Klamath Tribes do not have fishing rights to anadromous fish in the Klamath River today? The answer is that both tribes were not able to protect their aboriginal fishing rights against the aggressive attacks of the Federal Government who wanted their rights stripped away. We also need to ask ourselves why the Federal Government is demanding that tribes waive their fishing and water rights in the KBRA? Again, the answer is that the Federal Government is not interested in protecting senior Indian rights when water is in so high demand by non-Indian irrigators in the Upper Klamath and Central Valley areas.

Both the Federal Government and non-Indian irrigators need Indian people to give up their rights in order for them to secure their own permanent senior legal rights to already over allocated water supplies. I have provided the Tribal Council and Fish Commission information that demonstrates that the State of California will need 40% more water by 2030 than is presently available. State and Federal agencies are presently designing water conveyance systems around the San Francisco Delta that will make it easier to deliver Trinity water to Los Angeles and San Diego. Giving up Indian fishing rights today will only lead to giving up water rights in the future. We only need to look at the endless violations of every treaty that was ever entered into between Indian tribes and the United States to understand that protecting Indian rights is a low priority for our Federal trustee agencies.

There should be no misunderstanding that the fishing and water rights of future tribal members will be impacted by the upcoming referendum to modify the Tribe’s fishing rights.

Op-Ed (Dania Rose Colegrove-Commercial Fishing)
http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/06/op-ed-dania-rose-colegrove-commercial-fishing/ 

Thank you to all the Hoopa Tribal members that helped out and signed the petition to get the Commercial Fishing issue and question on the Hoopa Valley Tribal General Election ballot. Remember to VOTE NO on commercial fishing on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

We believe commercial fishing is not compatible with the cultural and environmental traditions of the Hoopa Valley People. We want to protect our river for cultural and subsistence purposes only! We do not approve of the harvesting of salmon for sale for individual financial gain without regard to the subsistence and cultural ways of the Hupa people. We believe in order to preserve our way of life in the Hupa way we need to protect our environment, our river, and our fish.

When a handful of people took the liberty to commercial fish the Gorge of the Trinity River, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day with no day of rest, setting nets completely from shore to shore without regard for salmon runs entering the upriver Hoopa Valley, denying the Hupa people of the their right to enjoy their traditional way of life, and all for individual financial gain, the Hupa people were outraged and called upon the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council to act.

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council failed to act on these irresponsible and poor fishing practices, they failed to impose a moratorium and made the decision that commercial fishing would be allowed on the Hoopa Valley Reservation’s Trinity River unregulated. Tribal members were disappointed that the Tribal Council allowed these atrocities to continue, when they clearly affect our daily lives, our cultural and religious values and our traditional way of life for years to come.

We the people decided that we will be a part of the decision making process! Therefore, we packed a petition to place the commercial fishing question on the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s General Election ballot for a referendum vote. The petition passed with 426 signatures.

Please vote no on Commercial fishing on June 21.

The following except was taken from a January 24 news article published by the High Country News. It sheds some light on the truth behind why certain powerful people are fiercely protecting an unregulated commercial fishery.

According to records from the tribal police and a wholesale fish company, Mike Orcutt, the director of the tribal fisheries department, has made more money from the commercial fishery than anyone else on the reservation. Daniel Jordan, the director of the tribe’s self-governance office, which advises the tribal council, has also sold fish off the reservation, as have at least three other fisheries department employees. And many Hupas charge that Orcutt, Jordan and other fisheries employees did their best to conceal the fact that there were opportunities to market the fish. “This was a clandestine commercial fishery,” says Lyle Marshall, a former tribal chairman. “And if you look at the list  of  people  who  fished,  they’re either employees of the fisheries department or their relatives; or the (tribal) chairman’s relatives; or the self-governance director’s relatives. Nobody else knew about it.”

Many tribal members’ bitterness has been stoked by the fact that, as fisheries director, Orcutt already makes close to $100,000 a year. In 2009, Orcutt, his brother, Kevin, and his wife, Vivienna, sold more than 800 fish to Wild Planet, for about $32,000. Last year, the family made $19,000 selling fish to the company — accounting for more than half the fish that Hupa tribe members sold to it.

The petition reads:

We the undersigned members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and citizens of the Hoopa Nation, hereby petition the Election Board to conduct a Referendum Election to overturn the July 1989 referendum resolution 89-104 in order to reinstate the ban on commercial fishing found in the Tribe’s Fishing Ordinance in its entirely. The July 1989 Referendum on Resolution 89-104, provides for commercial fishing on the Hoopa Valley Reservation.

In order to ensure and enhance the preservation of the Cultural and Traditional Hoopa Tribal fishing rights, commercial fishing shall not continue.

The question that will appear on the June 21, 2001 General Election ballot reads: Shall the Hoopa Valley Tribe continue commercial fishing on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110628/4673f5f9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1724nocommercialfishing.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44513 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110628/4673f5f9/attachment.jpg>