Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Tribes category.

Alaska: Internet threats hound teen subsistence hunter after he kills bowhead whale

Tribes, Wildlife

PNP comment: This is so sad. So many opinionated people that don’t know a thing about living in the Arctic nor appreciate the need and skill of hunter! — Editor Liz Bowen


August 12, 2017

Before his story made the Anchorage paper, before the first death threat arrived from across the world, before his elders began to worry and his mother cried over the things she read on Facebook, Chris Apassingok, age 16, caught a whale.

It happened at the end of April, which for generations has been whaling season in the Siberian Yupik village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island on the northwest edge of Alaska. More than 30 crews from the community of 700 were trawling the sea for bowhead whales, cetaceans that can grow more than 50 feet long, weigh 50 tons and live more than 100 years. A few animals taken each year bring thousands of pounds of meat to the village, offsetting the impossibly high cost of imported store-bought food.

A hundred years ago — even 20 years ago, when Gambell was an isolated point on the map, protected part of the year by a wall of sea ice — catching the whale would have been a dream accomplishment for a teenage hunter, a sign of Chris’ passage into adulthood and a story that people would tell until he was old. But today, in a world shrunk by social media, where fragments of stories travel like light and there is no protection from anonymous outrage, his achievement has been eclipsed by an endless wave of online harassment. Six weeks after his epic hunt, his mood was dark. He’d quit going to school. His parents, his siblings, everybody worried about him.

[Residents rally behind teenage Gambell whaler]

In mid-June, as his family crowded into their small kitchen at dinnertime, Chris stood by the stove, eyes on the plate in his hands. Behind him, childhood photographs collaged the wall, basketball games and hunting trip selfies, certificates from school. Lots of village boys are quiet, but Chris is one of the quietest. He usually speaks to elders and other hunters in Yupik. His English sentences come out short and deliberate. His siblings are used to speaking for him.

“I can’t get anything out of him,” his mother said.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


No Comments

Op-ed: Navajo people have already been restricted enough

Federal gov & land grabs, Tribes

Deseret News.com

By Genevieve Mitchell

For the Deseret News

I am Navajo, born on the Navajo Nation. My parents and ancestors are from the reservation. My mother’s families are from the Ganado and Window Rock area in Arizona. My father’s families are from the Shiprock and Aneth area of New Mexico and Utah. My late paternal grandfather, John Mitchell Sr., is from Aneth, Utah. He was a medicine man practicing many of our traditional ways and was very respected in the community.

I was dissappointed when environmental organization pushed to have the Feds designate the Bears Ears area as a national monument. These groups have claimed they are assisting a grassroots group of Native Americans to push for the designation.

While researching I couldn’t help but think of one person: Stella Peshlakai Smith. I read about Stella a few years ago. Her story was heartbreaking. She was born in an area that was designated Wupatki National Monument in 1924. Stella is Navajo. Her father and many other Navajos have resided in this area after they returned from Bosque Redondo, a time we call Hweeldi (The Suffering) but better known as The Long Walk. Once the national monument was designated, the park service restricted a lot of things the Navajos could do in this area. Making it near impossible to continue their way of life. Raising sheep has always been a way of life for our Navajo people. The people in Wupatki were restricted and they slowly started moving off the national monument because of this. Stella stayed. She continued her way of life, only to find that her children and grandchildren are exempt from calling this area home due to the designation. Her “permit” to continue to live here did not apply to her children and grandchildren. Once Stella passes into the spirit world, so does her permit. Therefore, no one will ever call this place, with so much culture and ancestry, home.


Knowing this fact, I have the stance and spirit to say that I am against the Bears Ears National Monument. My Dine’ brothers and sisters, friends and family in this area will be affected. The people who are wanting the designation argue that there are ancient sites in these areas that need to be protected. What they fail to cite is the list of multiple federal laws that have been established to ensure the protection of these sites and the way of a national monument was unnecessary.

One can simply read The Antiquities Act to make this determination. Though I understand there is a difference between Wupatki and Bear Ears, the restrictions will still be the same for people who live and sustain a way of life with the land. It is stated in the proposals that the Native Americans will have access to the area. My question is, what will the future generations of my people have access to? There is no guarantee that our future children will be able to access the land. We know there is no absolute guarantee, but our history is proof of what could and would happen.


Our Navajo history, our teachings, our upbringing and our beliefs come from many different places, but it is emphasized in many to care for and respect the land. Without access, how can we continue to teach this? Where will our future generations go to collect the resources they need for their prayers? Our Navajo people are already struggling. My Navajo people have already been restricted enough to land that they have ties to.

I, as a member of the Navajo Nation, with ancestors tied to different regions to Dinetah, the “Navajo Land,” am opposed to the Bears Ears National Monument.

Genevieve Mitchell is a member of the Navajo Nation.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Tribes call for agreement termination

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams

Herald and News.com

May 18, 2017

After mediation failed to find a solution to sustain the Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (UKBCA), Klamath Tribes and Upper Basin irrigators differ on the future of the agreement.

In an April 26 letter, Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry asked U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for the UKBCA’s termination through issuing a “Negative Notice,” citing unmet stipulations in the agreement and termination of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

Gentry recently visited with U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both Oregon Democrats, as well as U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) in Washington, D.C. and Department of Interior staff regarding the UKBCA.

“We provided a status of the Upper Basin agreement, and our intentions to continue the Negative Notice,” Gentry said.

“It was centered on trying to resolve litigation over water,” Gentry said of the UKBCA. “It was never intended to be a stand-alone agreement. In fact, it really couldn’t survive without the KBRA.”

Agreement request

Upper Klamath Basin irrigators submitted an April 28 letter asking Zinke to keep the agreement in place, via attorney Dominic M. Carollo on behalf of Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners, Sprague River Resource Foundation and the Modoc Point Irrigation District. Upper Basin irrigators continue seek a solution to keep the agreement intact.

“Terminating the UKBCA at this time, just as the irrigation season commences, would have devastating consequences for livestock producers in the Upper Klamath Basin by subjecting them to calls for fulfillment of Tribal in-stream water rights at their full levels as opposed to the reduced levels negotiated under the UKBCA,” Carollo said in the letter.

The Klamath Tribes met with Oregon representatives, land owner entities and Interior officials Oct. 3, 2016 to find a way forward following termination of the KBRA. Attempts for a solution failed.

“The Klamath Tribes determined that the parties could not cure the losses incurred by the termination of the KBRA or address the issues listed in our Notice, as these programs were inextricably tied to KBRA funding sources,” Gentry wrote in the letter to Zinke.

Mediation efforts

Following that determination by Gentry in October 2016, he and other Tribal members continued to seek a solution through mediation. On Feb. 23, Gentry met with a select group of landowners, officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor and the Department of Justice, as is required by the Upper Basin agreement.

Mediator Susan Driver, who led the mediation, concluded parties were unable to reach a solution, according to the letter to the Interior.

“The expiration of the KBRA is too big to overcome to successfully implement the UKBCA,” Gentry wrote in the letter to the Interior. “…The overall benefits the KBRA was designed to provide to the Klamath Tribes cannot be accomplished through the UKBCA alone.

“When the Klamath Tribes and the other parties negotiated the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, it was envisioned that they were going to try to bring as many parties that were battling over water together to reach a solution that would work for all,” Gentry added.

The KBRA terminated Jan. 31, 2015.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Court Says NO to Tribe’s Water Rights Claims

Tribes, Water rights

Redoubt News.com

May 15, 2017

Property Owners Win Summary Judgment Battle
in North Idaho ‘Water War’

By Rich Loudenback

(Gem State Patriot) – State District Court Judge Eric J. Wildman, presiding in the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane River Basin Adjudication (CSRBA), has ruled on motions for summary judgment regarding tribal water right claims filed by the United States.

Bob Bingham, Kootenai County Commissioner is the founder and past president of the North West Property Owners Alliance (NWPOA), one of the parties to the CSRBA. Although not actively involved in the Alliance any longer due to county obligations, he shared his read on this important ruling with Gem State Patriot News. The following are the most important points that stand out to him:

Water right claims really must be based upon the “primary purposes” of the federal reservation at the time it was created.

  • The court ruled the tribe cannot receive federal water rights for “secondary purposes”, i.e. things like commercial, municipal, industrial, instream flows for fish habitat, maintenance of lake levels in Lake Coeur d’Alene, water storage, power generation, aesthetics, recreation, religious, cultural, ceremonial, and maintenance of wetlands, springs, and seeps for game habitat and gathering activities.

  • The tribe is not entitled to water rights or any other right outside the boundary of the current reservation.

  • Because the tribe was provided land and the land was to reside, hunt, fish and raise crops”, the tribe has an implied right to water for those purposes and those purposes only.

  • The tribe’s domestic and agricultural water rights within the reservation are prior (established 1873) to other water rights within the reservation.

What is left to decide in future negotiations and/or court is the amount of water the tribe gets for domestic and farming activities and fishing and hunting within the boundaries of the reservation. This next round of litigation is called the “quantification phase.” That phase will seek to quantify the tribe’s water right quantity – if any -for each of the following:

  • Agriculture

  • Domestic uses

  • Fishing and hunting

Two points can be well defined; DOMESTIC – the tribe has <2100 actual members, AGRICULTURAL – the rates of required crop irrigation are well known.

For the other two; HUNTING – wildlife have no trouble living in the reservation boundaries with the natural ebb & flow of our climate, FISHING – the tribe has the lower 3rd of the lake to fish from, nothing interferes with their right to fish.


NWPOA’s attorney Norm Semanko, with the Idaho law firm of Moffatt Thomas, who also represents the North Idaho Water Rights Alliance and others in the case, confirmed that the CSRBA Court’s ruling was a positive one. “There is a lot to like. Judge Wildman determined that the primary purposes of the reservation are limited to agriculture, fishing and hunting, and domestic uses. All other purposes and the related claims were disallowed by the court. The judge found that the tribe has relinquished all of its rights and interests outside of the current reservation.”

Semanko further noted that the judge specifically rejected the broad “homeland” purpose of use for the reservation as overly broad (it would include every possible use of water) and contrary to law. The secondary purposes that were rejected by the court include industrial, commercial, water storage, power generation, aesthetics, recreation, and maintenance of Lake Coeur d’Alene lake levels – anything that isn’t agriculture, fishing, and hunting, or domestic.

“Importantly, the judge recognized that the tribe ceded the northern portion of the reservation, including approximately two-thirds of Lake Coeur d’Alene. In doing so, he relied directly on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Lake Case, thereby rejecting the tribe’s arguments in the CSRBA,” Semanko added.

The judge concluded that the tribe relinquished its off-reservation rights in prior agreements. The court ruled: “The language of the agreements is plain, unambiguous and absolute. It establishes that the Tribe gave up all of its off-reservation rights and interests.” “Accordingly, the tribe is not entitled to federal reserved water rights outside the boundaries of the reservation for instream flows, as a matter of law”, Semanko stated.

Also important, Judge Wildman found that the tribe’s domestic and agriculture water rights are limited to the lands within the current boundaries of the reservation and do not reach to places like the Rathdrum Aquifer. “There are no off-reservation rights”, Semanko observed.

“NWPOA and the other objectors prevailed on most of the important issues and are to be commended for a fine job of helping protect the water rights and private property interests of those living in the area,” Semanko concluded.


Back in February 2015, NWPOA director Jeff Tyler commented in his article ‘Watch For Water Wars’ in the Coeur d’Alene Press, “Getting to the Tribe, I have met with the representative of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and it was conveyed to me that their desire was to be a good partner in a process they did not ask for.

You see the Bureau Of Indian Affairs (federal government) files the claims for all tribes across the nation. They promise tribes that if they go along they can together control large amounts of state water worth millions of dollars in negotiated settlements. (You would think they have learned from previous government promises)

The Tribe spokesman told me “The Tribe is most interested in making sure that the lake and its tributaries have enough water to protect future generations of people, animals, and fish living in the basin and that we have enough water for people living on the reservation for the foreseeable future into perpetuity.”

Does that sound like they are only interested in the waters of the Reservation land, about 345,000 acres, in which they only own around 25 percent with about 2,000 tribe members? I would like to trust our local Tribe but Ronald Reagan once famously quoted “trust but verify.”


Court Says NO to Tribe’s Water Rights Claims

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Water squeeze in Oregon’s Klamath Basin pits ranchers against tribes, both with strong ties to the land

Agriculture, cattle, Klamath Tribe, Lawsuits, Water rights

PNP comment: This is a fairly good background article on the lawsuit and eventual settlement in favor of the Klamath Tribes being allowed to take other water right users’ water allotments away. — Editor Liz Bowen

Oregon Live.com

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian
Follow on Twitter
on July 06, 2013 at 12:00 PM, updated July 08, 2013 at 6:30 AM

SPRAGUE RIVER — A summer evening on Jim and Caren Goold’s  front porch. The river meanders through their cow pasture, a curly blue ribbon framed by foothills dotted with ponderosa pine. And, yes, the cattle are lowing.

It’s about as pastoral as a scene gets. But the upper Klamath Basin, already three months into a drought emergency, is far from peaceful this summer.

Two parties with strong ties to the land, the upper basin ranchers and The Klamath Tribes, are pitted against each other for limited water, the latest skirmish in one of the nation’s most persistent water wars. And deep historical divisions stand in the way of compromise.

In late June, a state watermaster handed Jim Goold a yellow card ordering him to shut off irrigation for the first time in his 40 years on the 617-acre ranch.

“It’s beyond frustrating,” Caren Goold says. “We have all this wonderful water going by and we can’t touch any of it.”

The Goolds worry they’ll lose pasture for 300-plus cows, their income and their ranch, where Jim’s parents are buried out back. They see a future land grab through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with land values falling as irrigation water evaporates.

Here’s where history’s twists come in. Much of the upper basin, including the Goolds’ ranch, was once The Klamath Tribes‘ reservation land. The federal government “terminated” the tribes in 1954, a move that included cash payouts, but is widely seen as a tribal disaster.

This year, fortunes sharply changed. The state of Oregon ruled that the tribes’ “time immemorial” water rights on the former reservation remain intact, giving the tribes a firm upper hand. Last month, tribal leaders called their water rights to sustain their hunting and fishing grounds, triggering the shutoffs.

Twenty miles down Sprague River Road, at the tribes’ offices in Chiloquin, Perry Chocktoot  talks about his own attachment to the land, too. He grew up hunting and fishing here. His grandmother taught him how to smoke and can fish –110 minutes, 15 pounds of pressure.

Chocktoot, the tribes’ cultural and heritage director, says court cases and water rights decisions should have warned the ranchers what was coming. But too many of them view Indians as “drunken idiots,” he says. “And, guess what, we’re not.”

“We’re here by the gift of our creator to help the community,” he says. “That mindset has never been reciprocal. They had a chance to effectively work with the tribes, but they said not just no, but hell no.”

Dry times

Absent a judicial reprieve or a settlement, the water rights decision means irrigation with river water will be shut off to hundreds of ranchers this summer, shriveling pasture for 70,000 to 100,000 cattle.

GS.10025953A_GR.KLAMATHFALLS-02.jpgView full size

So far, state watermasters have shut off water to roughly 300 irrigators on the Sprague and Williamson rivers, with more tributaries of Upper Klamath Lake still to be evaluated.

It’s an echo of Klamath water fiasco a decade ago.

In 2001, the U.S. government cut off water to irrigators who tap Upper Klamath Lake as part of the century-old federal reclamation project. The shutoff stemmed from Endangered Species Act listings of coho salmon and two species of suckers and strict ESA requirements on federal projects.

The next year, with intervention from Dick Cheney, the farmers got water instead, and 30,000 chinook salmon died in the lower Klamath River.

That crisis pushed project farmers to negotiate with the tribes, federal and state governments and others to share water and restore riverside habitat. The 2008 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement was coupled with a plan to remove four PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath River by 2020, which would be the largest dam removal in U.S. history.

But this year is different. Cattle ranchers above the lake, outside the reclamation project, were free to irrigate despite the ESA listings — until this year’s water rights decision.

Many of the ranchers are still fighting, in court and on the streets. On Monday, they rallied in Klamath Falls, driving cattle trucks down Main Street.

They also have challenged the water rights decisions in Klamath County circuit court, asking for a stay this summer. They say the state gave the tribes more water than they need to support hunting and fishing habitat.

The tribes’ water calls would reduce irrigation even in normal water years, the ranchers argue. State officials figure tribal rights fall well below normal streamflows, but the ranchers think the state’s flow estimates are too high.

Roger Nicholson, who leads two ranching groups, raises cattle on 3,000 acres near Fort Klamath. Some of that land came from tribal members, he says, but most has been in his family since the 1890s.

The tribes’ water calls affect his draw even on streams outside the former reservation, he says, since those flows are needed to meet the water rights the tribes won downstream.

The water rights decisions were “a travesty of justice,” Nicholson says, and the shutoffs are “an economic catastrophe beyond compare.” Affected ranches cover more than 100,000 acres, ranching groups estimate.

“It’s bankrupting a whole community,” Nicholson says.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Klamath Tribes terminate water compact, potentially devastating ranchers, farmers

Agriculture, cattle, Klamath Tribe, Tribes, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Free Range Report.com

April 24, 2017

In April 2014, ranchers and the Tribes signed the Upper Basin Comprehensive Agreement. The ranchers agreed to retire 18,000 acres of land or 30,000 acre feet of water and do riparian repair work on the rivers in exchange for an allotment of water each year…

At the end of February, the Tribes indicated to the ranchers they wanted to terminate the agreement…

Gerry O’Brien

Herald and News

Tribes issue water claim, ranchers fear the worst

There are few options for the Upper Klamath Basin ranchers who are now under a call for water from the Klamath Tribes, just as irrigation season is fast approaching.

The ranchers believe their livelihood is at stake and so may be much of the economy for the county. The issue affects some 300,000 acres of land and 1,000 or more ranchers north and east of Klamath Falls.

Two weeks ago, the Tribes called on its water rights for “flood plain” water on the Sprague and Williamson Rivers, which are running high due to spring runoff. The Wood River is under the same call, which is expected to take effect Monday, experts predict. All three feed into Upper Klamath Lake.

The Tribes have primary water rights, which supersede any secondary rights of the ranchers and irrigators.

The Herald and News was unable to get a comment from the tribal chairman for this story, but Chairman Don Gentry has said in the past the call was necessary now to benefit fish habitat in high water zones, basically flushing out the river to allow for new growth. That will help endangered fish, such as Lost River and short-nosed suckers, downstream.

The ranchers say that by June or July, pastures will be turning brown and those without underground wells and adequate stock water for cattle will be forced to ship cattle elsewhere for forage, an expensive proposition.

Options are limited

Ranchers hope to get the Tribes to either remove the call, or return to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal that would benefit both sides. Also, the state could join the negotiations or Congress could step in to help by pushing legislation to resolve the issue.

Those who have their water shut off, may file an appeal with the watermaster, which would put a hold on the shutoff unless the state rules otherwise. That could buy some time for the ranchers and the upper Basin irrigators are exploring that avenue.

Any federal appeal, such as seeking an injunction to the call, would be a costly proposition, experts say.

“This would not have happened if the unprecedented agreement (KBRA) produced by tribes, irrigators and conservationists had not been blocked. I stand ready to put in the work again to resolve this longstanding issue with an agreement that addresses the long-term needs of all the parties,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in an email.

(One reason the bill failed was it was tied to removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Congressmen in Northern California were opposed to the dam removal).

Andrew Malcolm, spokesman for Rep. Greg Walden, said, “This shows the continued need for a long-lasting solution in the Basin. Greg’s been working on these issues a long time, and continues to work with stakeholders to find a solution that has the needed support with the public and in Congress.”

What the call means

A few of the ranchers and irrigators met with the Herald and News editorial board last week to lay out their concerns.

In April 2014, ranchers and the Tribes signed the Upper Basin Comprehensive Agreement. The ranchers agreed to retire 18,000 acres of land or 30,000 acre feet of water and do riparian repair work on the rivers in exchange for an allotment of water each year. That pact was linked to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) for the lower basin that eventually failed to gain congressional approval. Without it, the agreements had no money to be carried out.

At the end of February, the Tribes indicated to the ranchers they wanted to terminate the agreement, but have yet to file formal notice of termination with the Interior Department.

“Last year, we worked under the agreement and there was no call,” said Larry Nicholson, a fourth-generation Forth Klamath rancher. He’s also a member of the Klamath Tribes. “Now there is no communication with the Tribes, and everything just fell apart. We have nothing else to give.”

The way the call works is: Any amount of water flowing above 2,190 cfs can be called on by the tribes; When flows get down to 2,190 cfs, the call ends and irrigators will be able to irrigate again. When flows hit 1,440 cfs the water is shut off for the summer.

So, once ranchers are able to turn the water back on, nearly all of them will begin irrigating as fast and as much as possible. Some experts say that could be a short window of just a couple of days to a couple of weeks.

“On the Wood, this a straight up call to shut the whole Wood River down for the summer,” said Larry Nicholson. “Unless we can come up with an agreement, it will be like a domino effect and the Wood River will be the first one to fall.”

Economic fallout

Roger Nicholson, a cousin of Larry’s, also has a longtime family ranch in the valley.

“It is going to start hurting shortly. These are Draconian instream flow levels. What adjudication has meant for us is a taking of our water,” he said. “We’re the whipping boy now.”

The economic impacts could be “a $1 billion hit” Roger Nicholson predicts. Not only will Klamath County suffer, the region will suffer, he said.

“We send cattle to the San Joaquin Valley for feed; we send them to the state of Washington as feeders and for the packing industry. I send 7,000 head alone. All that could go away,” Nicholson said. Plus, the ripple effects will be felt across the county, he warned.

Klamath Tribes terminate water compact, potentially devastating ranchers, farmers

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Klamath Tribe wants all the water

Agriculture, Agriculture - California, Air, Climate & Weather, cattle, Klamath Tribe, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Herald and News.com

Ranchers in the Upper Basin react

Tribal water call: ‘Devastating’

The call on water by the Klamath Tribes will be devastating economically for the cattlemen in the Upper Basin, affected ranchers said Tuesday.

The Tribes made the call last week. A water call puts the rest of the secondary water users on notice that the Tribes intend to use its water allocation in the Williamson, Sprague and possibly the Wood rivers for the benefit of fish habitat over irrigation for farming and cattle operations.

“This call is potentially devastating to both irrigators and the Tribes,” said Becky Hyde, a member of a long-time cattle ranching family in the Upper Basin above Upper Klamath Lake. “Our ag communities want what is best for the fish as well, but this puts a tremendous strain on our relationship with the Tribes.”

 While the call focuses on the current high water flows in the rivers — and if they fall to a certain level, irrigators can actually irrigate — there is still the concern that the irrigation window will be short-lived.

This is the first time the regulations have taken effect with spring runoff, which could run to June 1 or end sooner.

Water agreement

Hyde and several other ranchers spent years hammering out an Upper Basin agreement over water use with the Tribes. That agreement is still on the books, but has no funding behind it, hence is moot. The agreement would retire some 18,000 acres of land from use to put water back into the streams. In turn, there will be water security for ranchers.

Larry Nicholson, whose family also has historic cattle ranches on the Wood River, said the economic impact will be huge. A water call has not been made on the Wood, but Nicholson expects it.

“There are some 30,000 head of cattle that are moved into the area from ranches in California,” Nicholson said. “The grass in the Fort Klamath area is highly nutritious, but it is only good in the summer as it’s too cold to keep cattle there in the winter. Most ranches are not setup for stock water. If there is no water, the cattle will be kept in California, crowding out those ranch resources.”

After that …

“We have yearlings who need to grow all summer on grass,” Hyde said. “It’s a scramble to find alternative grazing. If you multiply that across the region, the water call a big deal,” she said. “We will be OK in the spring thanks to the early moisture and growing grasses. After that, it could be devastating.”

A couple of years back, Hyde shipped some cattle out after water supplies dwindled.

“This will be worse. There will be no water,” Hyde said.

Randall Kiser, who is a fifth-generation rancher on the Sprague and Wood, said, “When you have a snowpack at 138 of average and there is still a call for water, something is wrong.” Kiser, too, worked on the water pact with the tribes. Some 150 large and small ranches on the Sprague will be affected by the call.

“It’s a serious situation,” Kizer said.

“It would be nice if we could negotiate a settlement, finalize it and keep moving” he said. “This call affects everybody in the Upper Basin. When we last met in February, the Tribes told us they were ‘settlement-minded.’”

Fisheries status

Tribal Chairman Don Gentry said of the call Monday, “I understand the concerns for the agricultural community, but there needs to be concerns for the status of our fisheries.”

Both Hyde and Nicholson point out that the agreements work both ways. The idea was to have cattlemen build fences to keep cattle out of the rivers so fish habitat could grow.

“If you don’t have fences, it stands to reason the cattle will be drinking from the river,” Nicholson said, damaging habitat and eroding banks.

“Just having water doesn’t restore habitat,” Hyde said. “That’s where everyone loses. The Klamath Tribes have a powerful card that they are playing, but that doesn’t, mean they win in the end.”

READ it here


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


No Comments

Former Northern California tribal chair gets death penalty for gun, knife attack on fellow members


ALTURAS The former head of a Northern California Indian tribe was sentenced to death Monday for a 2014 rampage inside the tribal hall that left four people dead.

Cherie Louise Rhoades will be taken to San Quentin to await execution.

Judge Candace Beason called the killings at the Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Headquarters “intentional, premeditated and willful,” rejecting the option to modify a Placer County jury’s death sentence to life in prison.

Dressed in a grey-striped prison jumpsuit and plastic orange shoes, Rhoades, 47, shook her head as she listened to the judge read the sentence during a three-hour hearing in Modoc County Superior Court.

Rhoades was a former chairwoman of the 35-member Cedarville Rancheria Tribe of Northern Paiute. She launched her attack on her fellow tribal members, including three close relatives, during a Feb. 20, 2014 hearing at which the tribal council was expected to decide whether Rhoades and her son should be evicted from tribal housing. She had been suspended as chairwoman pending a federal investigation into allegations that she embezzled at least $50,000 from the tribe.

After asking that all the windows be closed at the tribal hearing, she pulled out a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and began shooting in a rampage that continued several minutes.

Pronounced dead at the scene were Rhoades’ brother, Rurik Davis, 50, her niece; Angel Penn, 19, her nephew, Glenn Calonicco, 30, and Shelia Lynn Russo, 47, a tribal administrator who managed evictions.

After she emptied at least one firearm, Rhoades grabbed a butcher knife and began stabbing people. Sisters Melissa Davis and Monica Davis were both injured.

Now chairwoman of the tribe with nine adult voting members, Melissa Davis appeared at the hearing. Her mother, Diane Henley, was among the victims who addressed Rhoades directly: “You tried to wipe out my daughters. They survived. They are stronger than ever. Nothing is going to stop them from moving on, and you will not be a part of it,” Henley said.

Phillip Russo, Shelia Russo’s husband, told Rhoades “Shelia lives forever… and you will be forgotten and die alone.”

Before delivering her sentence, Beason denied a defense motion for a new trial. Defense Attorney Antonio Alvarez argued that the testimony of then-Alturas Police Chief Ken Barnes was “false,” weakening his case that Rhoades did not plan the murders.

District Attorney Jordan Funk called the motion “a tempest in a teapot.”

Beason also tentatively authorized $64,874 be paid in restitution to the victims pending further discussions with the attorneys.

Read more here:


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Federal agents raid California casino in ongoing probe


April 4, 2017

Federal and state authorities have raided a Southern California casino as part of an ongoing investigation.

Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles, says agents executed search warrants Tuesday at the Bicycle Hotel and Casino in Bell Gardens.

Kice said in a statement that officials could not comment on the scope or nature of the investigation. She says the raid was carried out by a financial crime task force that includes agents with ICE, the IRS and the California bureau of gambling control.

Kice says the warrant was filed under seal.

The casino is about 10 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Read more here:


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Court sides with Auburn tribe over former chairwoman’s ouster

Lawsuits, Tribes

Sac bee.com

The ruling by the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to a bitter 2013 clash in one of California’s wealthiest casino tribes and ensuing litigation, effectively rejected claims that the tribe “imposed unlawful restraints” on the “liberty” of Tavares and three other members by cutting off their income and banning them from United Auburn properties.

In October, 2013, Tavares and the other members brought legal action, filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento as a writ of habeas corpus under the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act. She charged that the tribal council for the United Auburn Indian Community wrongly denied her $40,000 a month in benefits and bonuses, based on casino profits, and illegally banished her for 10 years.

Tavares was stripped of payments for 3 1/2 years, starting in 2011, reduced by the tribe from an original sanction of four years. The others were denied payments of $30,000 and up for five months and given a two-year banishment, a punishment since expired.

Tavares and the other plaintiffs – Dolly Suehead, Barbara Suehead and Donna Caesar – were part of an unsuccessful recall effort against five tribal council members that focused on the dissidents’ protests over what they charged were excessive legal fees paid to the firm of tribal attorney Howard Dickstein. The lawyer contended he had provided “a phenomenal net benefit to the tribe.”

The 9th Circuit upheld a district court ruling that rejected the Tavares’ faction’s habeas corpus claim on grounds that federal courts lacked authority to intervene in internal tribal politics.

“We ground our opinion in two fundamental principles in the Indian law canon – tribal sovereignty and congressional primacy in Indian affairs,” wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown in the court’s decision. “We have long recognized that Indian tribes are ‘distinct, independent communities, retaining their original natural rights.’ 

In a partial dissent, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw supported the ruling that the court couldn’t intervene by overturning the tribe’s financial sanctions against the members. But Wardlaw wrote that United Auburn’s continuing 10-year-banishment order against Tavares “severely restrains her liberty and constitutes ‘detention’ under the Indian Civil Rights Act” and, thus can be overturned by the courts.

“Taveras presents us with precisely the kind of case over which Congress intended to establish federal jurisdiction: having exercised her right to free expression,” Wardlow wrote, adding “Tavares suffered retaliation … in the form of ‘severe restrains on individual liberty’ not shared by other members of her tribe.”

According to court documents, Tavares and the other members were sanctioned for claims in their recall petition that raised “a litany of allegations” against tribal council members, including ‘financial mismanagement, retaliation, electoral irregularity (and) denial of due process.’ 

The tribal council ruling, which banned the members from tribal events, offices and properties other than the members’ own homes, was also imposed because the tribal government ruled the Taveres’ faction wrongfully took its grievances to the news media, including The Sacramento Bee in “a sensationalized publicity stunt.”

Tavares served as chairwoman of the tribe for many years. She led the group when it opened its wildly successful casino on Highway 65 in 2003.

Read it here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article138501293.html#storylink=cpy

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments
« Older Posts