FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Klamath People, Destructive KBRA Politics and the Spiritual Battle for Water
May 4th, 2015 (Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon)
The Klamath Basin riddled with complex water issues, has yet another aspect few are aware of.
The
Klamath people, their culture and spirituality are at high risk, with
politics taking priority over individual tribal members inherent rights
and the rights of resources and species that are integral to their
Indigenous lifestyle.
In
an article written by Andrea Smith in April 2013, she offers us insight
into varying perspectives on the definition of sovereignty.
"Whereas
nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, Indigenous
sovereignty and nationhood is predicated on interrelatedness and
responsibility."
As Sharon Venne explains, "Our
spirituality and our responsibilities define our duties. We understand
the concept of sovereignty as woven through a fabric that encompasses
our spirituality and responsibility.
This
is a cyclical view of sovereignty, incorporating it into our
traditional philosophy and view of our responsibilities. It differs
greatly from the concept of Western sovereignty which is based upon
absolute power.
For us absolute power is in the Creator and the natural order of all living things; not only in human beings...
Our sovereignty is related to our connections to the earth and is inherent."
Although
a government entity may be tribal, unfortunately does not mean they are
advocates for the environment, spirituality or their people.
The
controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and associated
documents do not appropriately advocate for resources that are
necessary for the survival of Klamath, Modoc, Yahooskin culture and have
also proven to be damaging to personal relationships within the tribe.
Many tribal members no longer have contact with family and close friends over divisive and destructive KBRA politics.
Others have been denied tribal employment based solely on their stance regarding the dubious Klamath Basin water agreements.
The
Klamath tribal council and "water team", otherwise known as the Klamath
Tribes negotiation team (KTNT), claim the KBRA and associated
agreements are a reconciliation to help heal old wounds within the
Basin.
Contrary to these claims made by elected officials, tribal members are seeing anything but healing.
Water
is a necessity for the survival of Klamath culture and spirituality. As
other parties to the agreements needs are met, the Klamath people and
their concerns have been continuously neglected.
Last
Saturday April 25th 2015, the Klamath Tribes held a "special" general
council meeting that was a closed session in Chiloquin, OR. More than
100 tribal members were in attendance.
According
to attendees, not one person stood up and spoke in support of the water
agreements. Once again, many tribal members vocalized the desire to
withdraw from the KBRA and associated agreements entirely.
The following Tuesday
the Herald and News, a publication in Klamath Falls, OR, released
statements from Chairman Donald Gentry regarding Saturdays meeting that
was supposed to remain "confidential".
According to the Herald and News, ChairmanGentry said he is "hopeful discussions and legislation will keep moving forward."
Gentry continues to claim that, "although
a replacement parcel for the Mazama Forest hasn’t been identified,
members have not indicated that the Tribes should pull out of the
complex water agreement. To do so, the tribes have to proceed with an
agreement termination process, and no such motion was made."
General Council meetings commence at 10 am and frequently do not adjourn until 5 pm or
after. By the afternoon, it is not uncommon for the General Council to
lose a quorum, which consists of 50 enrolled members of the Klamath
Tribes (over the age of 18) or more.
Meeting
attendees state that a motion to proceed with an agreement termination
process was not made due to a loss of a quorum in the afternoon. The
meeting was in a closed session which also limits the actions members
can take.
In
the wake of the loss of the Mazama Tree Farm land acquisition, draft
legislation is now being proposed by Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley
to acquire a new parcel in a desperate attempt to keep the Klamath
Tribes signed onto the KBRA.
The
potential parcels under consideration are currently part of the
Fremont-Winema National Forest. Wyden and Merkley are allegedly working
to gain the support of Congressman Greg Walden. Without republican
backing, new land acquisition and these water agreements cannot proceed.
A
conservation organization known as Oregon Wild who represents
approximately 15,000 members and supporters of Oregon have been
concerned about the environmental impacts of the KBRA. They have
advocated for the wildlife refuges that have been neglected by the
Bureau of Reclamation and signatory tribes, among other resources that
are not properly represented within these agreements.
The
wildlife refuges and marshlands, which were once parts of the former
Klamath reservation (pre-termination), are gathering areas for basket
making materials, as well as home to one of the main traditional food
staples of the Klamath people, Wocus.
Bald
Eagles take refuge in these areas along with migratory birds that also
utilize these areas on their seasonal flight routes.
Due
to over consumption by the agricultural industry, we are not only
witnessing fish kills from artificially low water flows but also bird
kills and the rapid spread of diseases amongst various species.
The
KBRA secures water primarily for agricultural purposes, meanwhile
neglecting other resources that are in desperate need for advocacy.
Though
the Klamath Tribes Treaty of 1864 is supposed to protect these other
resources, Klamath tribal negotiators have turned a blind eye to
resources that are vital to the continuance of Klamath culture and
spirituality.
An article published by the Oregonian last Friday stated "Oregon Wild opposes the sale, citing worries about
diminished public access and concerns that tribal ownership could
result in logging and other industry-related habitat loss."
Oregon Wild Conservation Director Steve Pedery states "There
was a tremendous mistake made in the 1950s, but the problem is 60 years
have passed and this forest today has value for a tremendous range of
things from ecological reasons to economic and recreational ones,"
Though
the Klamath Tribes do have a Forest Management plan that was drafted in
2008, when asked how the tribes propose to manage a new parcel of land
for economic development the only statements that have been given
include logging and constructing a mill.
Statements
such as these can be viewed as problematic to individuals who would
like to see the environment and resources protected.
As
previously stated, just because a government entity is tribal
unfortunately does not imply they are environmental advocates or
defenders.
In
1996 the Coquille Tribe was given 5,100 acres of former ancestral
land. The 5,100 acre Coquille Forest, in Oregon's Coastal Mountain
Range, had been Coos Bay BLM land. It was given to the tribe to manage
under the same environmental laws as the BLM's public lands. The lands
have since been clearcut by the tribe for economic development.
Klamath
Tribal chairman Donald Gentry has made recent statements to tribal
membership and the public abroad, using divisive language to portray
Oregon Wild as "adversarial" to the tribes.
Oregon
Wild Executive Director Sean Stevens submitted a letter to Klamath
Tribes tribal council on April 22nd, 2015 regarding the proposed land
transfer.
Contrary
to Gentry's claims, the letter on behalf of Oregon Wild's 15,000
members and supporters, respectfully outlines the various reasons why
Oregon Wild cannot support this particular land transfer but still
offers alternative options and support.
Their
reasons for not supporting the land transfer include loss of public
access and recreation, lack of public oversight, removal of
environmental safeguards, and desire to maintain America's public lands
network.
Stevens continues to state, "while
we are deeply concerned about proposals to dispose of Fremont-Winema
National Forest lands, Oregon Wild remains supportive of The Klamath
Tribes efforts to re-establish a land base, restore fish and wildlife,
and develop sustainable economic opportunities.
We
believe there are a number of other possibilities that would help
advance these goals that should be given priority over the transfer of
American public lands out of public ownership."
Alternatives
for this particular land transfer include acquisition of private lands,
co-operative management, preference in contracting, and a tribal
restoration fund.
Stevens concludes by stating, "Oregon
Wild recognizes the ugly history of the federal policy of tribal
termination, and the role it played in the establishment of some
portions of the Fremont-Winema National Forest and Klamath Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge.
However, we believe the removal of some or all of the National Forest from America’s public lands system would create unnecessary and unproductive conflict. There are better and more attainable ways for The Klamath Tribes to achieve a land base, environmental restoration, and economic self-sufficiency.
Though
we have at times been in conflict over the disposal of the
Fremont-Winema National Forest, Oregon Wild and The Klamath Tribes have a
long history of working together for the betterment of the Klamath
Basin’s fish and wildlife resources, public lands, and waters.
We
stand ready to work with the Tribes again to resolve the land base
issue without removing the Fremont-Winema from America’s system of
public lands."
The full letter is available to view online at:
In
an e-blast sent April 28th, 2015 by Klamath Tribes public information
and news manager Taylor Tupper-David, Klamath Tribal council and the
"water team" endorsed a letter from private citizen David Hill of
Portland to representatives of Oregon Wild.
This
letter and endorsement has since been posted to the Klamath Tribes
website and shared on the Klamath Tribes Official social media page for
public view.
Hills
letter contains contentious language, that many believe to be counter
productive to healthy relations with others outside and within the
tribe.
Hill's letter states, "I
see the problem is that Oregon Wild fails to see the huge environmental
justice issue here. Are you really willing to join a sordid list of
Euro-American transgressions against the original inhabitants of this
land? It looks like you are. You are pitching in with "volunteers" who
hunted the Indians like animals in the 1800s, with "settlers" who stole
their lands, with "government" thugs who continued to steal and sell
their land, e.
If you continue with this extremely insensitive
stance, you are putting your credibility at great risk. It is
unacceptable for the dominant white culture to continue screwing and
stealing and standing in the way of tribes, and it is unacceptable that
Oregon Wild would join in this long and nauseating, immoral pattern.
To not let them (the tribe) hold and manage these lands sustainably is a great racist act. Please do not be part of it."
The
accusatory, inflammatory language found in Hill's letter can be
extremely damaging to relationships that could help provide solutions to
some of these complex issues. And the fact that this letter is endorsed
by the Klamath Tribal council and "water team" is even further
disturbing, unprofessional, and unproductive.
"Conservation
groups and tribes with the same focus and missions of restoring and
protecting lands should not be pit against each other.
This
is yet another divisive move in the favor of the US Government to not
be accountable for termination era practices that have resulted in loss
of our subsistence lands and treaty resources. Subsequently, these practices have resulted in the destruction of our river ways and ecosystem."
-David M. Ochoa, Klamath Tribal member
Last
week a water call was made by the Klamath Tribes. Their call will help
habitat in the Sprague, Wood and Sycan rivers and it will briefly raise
the Upper Klamath Lake level before the Klamath Irrigation District
diverts it at the A canal.
To the extent suckers are up in the tributaries, the call may help them.
However, the call will not help salmon or the wildlife refuges.
Ironically, the Klamath Tribes will be participating in a 260 mile run for the salmon that will conclude in Chiloquin on June 1st.
In the fall of 2002, 68,000 salmon died from artificially low water levels in the Klamath River.
In
response to the devastating Klamath fish kill, to raise awareness of
the plight of the salmon and promote health within their community,
youth of Hoopa Valley and the Yurok Tribe at Hoopa Valley High School
began the Great Salmon Run of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers on May 27th
2005. The original run began at the mouth of the Klamath River and
ended at the south fork of the Trinity.
The
run is completed in two mile segments. Each person who participates
contributes two miles while carrying a baton in the shape of a salmon.
"The salmon's struggles are our struggles. For that short little run we take on their struggle."
"A lot of people may have read newspapers or may have seen the pictures. That speaks for itself, but in the same sense you need to know the facts behind that. You need to know what caused it so that it can be prevented."
-Erika Chase, Salmon run co-founder
From
the beginning, participants have acknowledged spiritual practices and
places alongside the activity of running. For instance, at the
conclusion of the run, a salmon is ceremonially cooked and then eaten by
designated persons.
Remembering
former First Salmon ceremonies, eaters commit to not eating salmon for a
year as medicine for the continuance of the salmon.
Statements
made by Chairman Gentry regarding the state of the Klamath salmon claim
that having the salmon gone has hurt the tribes economically because
they have to buy salmon instead of fish for it.
However, the Klamath Tribes are actually struggling economically due to financial mismanagement within the tribal government.
Though
Klamath people have not seen salmon in the Upper Klamath Basin in
almost 100 years, the people continue to barter with tribes down river
to maintain a connection to salmon in the basin. This also helps
strengthen relationships between tribal communities along the river, as
it has historically always been.
Unfortunately,
the Klamath Tribes involvement in this years salmon run is merely for
political advocacy. Tribal elected officials have been manipulating the
original spiritual intention of the salmon run to gain support for
Senate Bill 133, the KBRA, and associated documents.
It is disconcerting to witness the commercialization of a spiritual ceremony for political purposes.
"As a co-founder of the Salmon Run, I am for dam removal and against the KBRA. I
would feel bad if someone felt they couldn’t participate because of any
particular runner or coordinator’s stance on the KBRA.
The
run was founded by youth of different tribes in response to the fish
kill in 2002 before the KBRA, and has also always supported non-Indian
participation as well."
-Kayla Carpenter, Salmon run co-founder and Hoopa Valley tribal member
The
KBRA does nothing to heal historical and spiritual damages for Klamath,
Modoc, Yahooskin people. By securing water primarily for agricultural
purposes, the KBRA and associated documents perpetuate these damages and
continue to inflict pain, trauma and division amongst our people.
As
we enter into the summer drought season, there are many issues that
defenders of our sacred water must prepare for and endure.
These issues are political, but most importantly spiritual.
The fight to defend our sacred water, our life source, is above all else a spiritual battle.
Outside forces will try to divide us, discourage us, and break our spirits.
But
as tribal members and descendants of the Klamath Tribes, we refuse to
tolerate, support or indulge in divisive language, behavior and actions.
The fate of our sacred water is in our hands.
Without our sacred water, we cease to be a people.
Honor
The Treaty of 1864 is a group of like minded individuals who want to
honor our ancestors and our 7th generation by protecting our resources
and our rights. While these ideas are not new and many people before us
stood for the same things we do, our group was officially formed in
2014. We welcome all people who support our cause.
1 comment:
I think this is well written all inclusive piece, and I am very proud we have those who can represent more of the memberships concerns. The letter released with Tribal Council endorsement was not approved by the General Council, I guess this falls under day to day business, however it continues to pit blame one one party against another and racism as the culprit rather than addressing the actions needed to find solutions, one of which is to not sign onto agreements that do not afford full representation or full disclosure to our tribal members and if disputes arise does not afford ample representation nor the ability to sue for impacts. Pitting people against each other is an old tactic of divisiveness used by the US Government to take the focus off their actions. We are not arguing about the water table use of the Pipeline or the Water bottling companies, nor the failure of Government agencies to hold irrigators responsible for their pollution to the waterways, but we're pitting Ranchers against tribes, and if not them Conservation groups against tribes who are farming, as well, on public lands. If people could take a bigger look at the hydrological cycle and what it needs to restore healthy waterways and ecosystems, we can see where true mistakes were and are being made, rather than cover them over with a blanket of bureaucratic legal documents to support natural resource degradation and false promises, we can fix the mistakes and make real difference in improving the health of the region, together. We just have to bring the right people with the purest intent to the table, not those who have their hands and interests in many pockets.
Post a Comment