Tribes need to reach stronger consensus

September 6, 2005

Klamath Falls Herald and News

It's clear at this point that the Klamath Tribes have internal differences to resolve before pursuing their goal of a reservation.

In July, tribal Chairman Allen Foreman made public a proposal to buy former reservation lands that are now part of the Winema and Fremont national forests.

Further meeting or meetings were intended to be held to discuss the matter with Klamath County commissioners, but were postponed.

Now, the proposal is on hold indefinitely after the Tribes held a special General Council meeting to discuss the offer among tribal members. General Council meetings aren't open to the press, but the Herald and News was able to learn that questions were raised by tribal members regarding specifics of the offer and what it would mean to the Tribes' future.

That the Tribes have differences among the membership makes them no different from any other group dealing with big issues, especially ones that are also emotional.

A little history:

The Tribes were terminated from federal recognition in a process that began in 1954 and ended in 1961. Payments were made to Tribal members when the reservation land was converted to national forest land in a process that remains wrapped in accusations that it was unfair.

Tribal recognition was restored in 1986, after it had been shown that the former tribal members lagged far behind the rest of the population by every measure of economic and social progress.

With restoration came federal help, but no land, and land was not part of the original efforts to restore tribal status. The word on that point comes from former U.S. Rep. Bob Smith, who assisted tribal members at the time.

Several years ago the Tribes began pressing for restoration of land which would come from former reservation lands still in public hands. The offer to buy was the latest major step in the effort.

Foreman said the goal to re-establish the reservation remains, but that: "We are going to take some time and regroup."

Obviously, tribal members need to agree among themselves before they can continue the push for a reservation. The fact they have differences among them makes them no different than any other group - irrigators or environmentalists, for example - who deal with big issues that are also emotional.

At best, they're going to have a hard time building local support for such a proposition, and they're going to need local support to make it happen. Internal differences will make it that much more difficult.

As for the Tribes' goals: If there is a moral wrong to right, the Tribes shouldn't have to pay to correct it. If there is no wrong to right, then there's no reason to come up with some relief.

Deciding which proposition is true, or if there is some sort of middle ground, remains at the heart of the debate over the Tribes' goals.