n
Were
the Klamath Tribes terminated?
No. Federal
Supervision was all that was terminated. Both
the reservation and the Klamath Tribe existed after termination.
Tribal members were given a choice of whether they wanted to stay in the
Tribe, or leave the Tribe and get their share of the reservation in cash.
A full 17 years before Termination took place, tribal
members were discussing selling the reservation – Topic for discussion at the
Dec. 1, 1936 Klamath Tribal General Council Meeting.
February 2, 3, and 9, 1950, the Klamath Tribes voted to introduce the
voluntary withdrawal act in Congress, allowing their members to sell the
reservation for cash, with only the Tribal Chairman opposing.
This act did not pass Congress, but evolved into the Act Providing for
Termination of Federal Supervision of the Klamath Tribes.
This allowed the Tribes to sell the reservation in exchange for cash, for
withdrawing members. This act terminated
federal supervision of the tribes, and the BIA would no longer have any say-so
in the Tribes’ affairs. The
same act also allowed tribal members to withdraw from the tribe in exchange for
cash, something for which the Tribes had lobbied.
The Termination Act also provided for per capita payments.
1,659 tribal members voted to withdraw, 80 voted to remain
and 394 did not vote and thus were included with the remaining members.
The tribal members received over 220 million actual dollars compensation
for the various sales (about 900 million in today’s dollars).
As reported at the
n
Is
it true that Tribal members were “paid twice or three times” for the same
land?
No. Withdrawing
members and remaining members were separate people so the payments to remaining
members at a later date was not being paid twice.
However, the Tribes have had a massive litigation machine for decades and
they went back to court to get ever-increasing payments for the land that they
sold (to that extent they were paid twice).
The Tribes received multiple additional payments for various issues over
the years.
n
Is
it true that the Klamath Tribes were on of the wealthiest tribes in the nation?
Yes, but those revenues came almost entirely from timber
harvest and grazing. And there was a
push to harvest more and more timber . . .i.e. BE IT RESOLVED, that the General Council does hereby agree and
consent to the sale of all the remaining stand of virgin timber and the cut over
lands, in 50 to 100M ft M.B. for cash to the highest Bidder, and that the pro
rata share of each man, woman and child shall be paid to him or her, in cash.”
Results: For 70, Opposed
67, General Council Meeting, October 3 & 4, 1946.
The BIA and the Tribal Chairman eventually got this vote of the tribes
overturned.
n
Will
the Klamath Tribes allow for public access if the forestlands are given to them?
Will the tribes allow access to those who own private property within the
proposed boundaries?
According to the “Frequently Asked Questions” pamphlet
handed out by the tribes, any public access will be regulated by “policies
and laws to be developed by the Klamath Tribes . . . consistent with tribally
adopted ecosystem management goals . . . and they will develop and implement the
Klamath Tribes Recreation Strategy which emphasizes balances Tribal needs with
public access.” “The
Tribes will maintain the right to limit certain routes of access in accordance
with tribally adopted management goals . . .”
There are precedents with other Tribes showing that private access will
either be denied, or exorbitant fees will be charged.
Will those with road maintenance agreements with the Forest Service be
able to continue as now? What about
snow removal, downed trees and slides? In
the “Matters Concerning Return of Forestlands to the Klamath Tribes, “
According to the “Frequently Asked Questions” pamphlet
handed out by the tribes, “non-tribal
access for hunting, fishing, camping, and other recreational purposes will be
pursuant to the Tribes’ policy on public access . . . Hunting, fishing and
trapping permits will be issued to Tribal members and the general public based
on the availability of the resources . . . The Klamath Tribes Recreation
Strategy, which emphasizes balancing Tribal needs with public access for a
variety of recreation experiences.”
It is obvious that tribal needs will outweigh any public access or
recreational, hunting, or fishing access. It
would be up to the tribes to interpret what the “availability of the
resources” means. It is also clear
that, as with other tribally managed lands in the
n
Will
the tribes allow for wood gathering?
According to the “Frequently Asked Questions” pamphlet
handed out by the tribes, “It is the
goal of the Klamath Tribes to implement a woodcutting program that will provide
a sustainable source of firewood fuels for both Tribal members and the general
public.” The emphasis
should be on the fact that tribal concerns will come first, and that it will be
their definition of “sustainable” that would regulate amounts and fees for
firewood gathering.
n
What
guarantee is there that the next tribal council will honor agreements?
None. The
tribes consider themselves to be a sovereign entity within the
n
Does
the
No. The Klamath
Basin Rangeland Trust does not represent all parties in these negotiations.
Two businessmen who live outside of the area head it.
Both of them have profited from special water multi-million dollar
marketing agreements they negotiated with the administration.
They are not representative of local farmers, ranchers and private
property owners. They have hired
Jake Kann, whose science was used in the 2001 Biological opinion, shutting down
the Klamath Project – which was questioned by the National Research
Council’s report,
n
Will
we be subject to tribal police and courts instead of our locally elected
officials?
Since tribes are independent nations, they cannot be sued
to enforce a contract. There are
ample precedents for unfair treatment of non-Indians in tribal courts elsewhere,
and ridiculous sentences for tribal members in tribal court.
In the Regularly scheduled General Council meeting,
n
Didn’t
the Klamath Tribes win the “Adair” case, proving their water rights claims?
No. The 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the
n
How
important is the Sucker fish?
W.H. Slattery, a reservation engineer, made the following
observations while investigating potential repairs to the Chiloquin Dam in 1940.
Please note that suckers are also referred to as “mullets.”
“It is my observation that the fishing activities of the Indians
near the dam could render serious injury to a great number of fish.
In attempting to “gaff” trout, which seem to be more desirable then
mullets, the fishermen often “gaff” mullets, which they immediately return
to the stream after serious mutilation by the removal of the gaff hook.
In fishing along the stream for trout immediately below the dam with rod
and tackle the fishermen often snag mullets, the hooks entering the body which
necessitates they bring the fish to shore for removal of the hook by cutting it
out with a pocket knife or by allowing the fish to tear itself free from the
hook while being brought to shore. The
trout fishermen do not enjoy these difficulties since it results in the loss of
much time and effort besides the loss of valuable tackle.”
“During the run
of fish I have observed as high as twenty-five fishermen both with tackle and
gaff hooks below the dam and I feel that these fishermen would mutilate a great
number of fish in the above manner.”
“As to the fish
which have died in their attempt to pass the dam on their migration upstream,
referred to in office letter
Why do federal biologists claim the suckers need high lake
levels despite increased mortality during high lake levels and lower die-offs
during low lake levels? Why do these
scientists recommend releasing millions of gallons of warm, low oxygen water out
of
n
Will
my property values go down if it is surrounded by the
proposed reservation?
There are precedents showing lowered property values after
the property was surrounded by reservations elsewhere.
Many people purposefully purchased property here because of the proximity
to National Forest lands. In the
Regularly scheduled General Council meeting,