ACTION REQUESTED - Forest Service to grant exclusive tribal access

[Special T]

I talked to one of my County commissioners about the Swinomish tribes influence on the county. He said he was back in DC and the chief was spreading around over $150k in campaign donations...

While federal contributions are a stickier subject because they are a "state" the contributions for or against city County or state issues/officials is a conflict of interest. It's this conflict of interest that needs to be a dresses because it covers so many issues.

[Knocker of rocks]

They are residents of that county, and of the state.

Hence they are allowed the rights therein. 

[Special T]

Well that kinda depends on if they live on the Rez or not... additionally since the tribe itself is a sovereign state it would be the same as wa state contributing it's dollars to influence  an initiate or election in another state.

[Knocker of rocks]

It's basically decided and a done deal thru SCOTUS starting about 150 years ago. 

Good luck trying to change that.

[bracer40]

........ if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!!

So the what you're saying is if gambling is legal, the tribes will come hat in hand to the greater US for money, and happily bargain away treaty and other rights such as those steming from Boldt?

I just don't think that is at all workable, and so likely to become mired in the courts as to be a much bigger than could be imagined.

1) Boldt was a Federal decision.
2) The State is not empowered to bargain with the tribes regarding anything to do with Boldt except on how to manage the resources as per Boldt (and following court orders).  What is being discussed here is removal of Boldt guarantees, something the state is not allowed to do.
3) The monies tribes receive are largely due to Federal programs or funds, often managed by states.
4) These treaties which cause so much aggravation and angst to some here are between the US and the indigenous nations, and actions by the states to dismember these treaties through other acts could be looked upon by the courts at all levels (especially State Supreme and Federal) as a form of coercion, and treated upon very unfavorably.

Knocker,

Always enjoy the factual nature of your posts. Refreshing juxtaposition against so many of the "knee-jerk, emotional rants" that are so frequently expressed.
Thanks for keeping us informed!

[Knocker of rocks]

Well that kinda depends on if they live on the Rez or not... additionally since the tribe itself is a sovereign state it would be the same as wa state contributing it's dollars to influence  an initiate or election in another state.

Contributions from out of state interests are common in the initiave process.

Your state analogy is flawed because states are universally prohibited from such spending by their charters or constitutions.

Some of your other ideas amount to disenfranchisement, which ain't going to happen.

[fireweed]

Contact your federal representatives (but probably don't bother with the senators)
Seems like the DNR tried something similar with some tribes also.  Time to scream NO WAY loud and clear because the precedent is horrible for the average citizen . 

[PlateauNDN]

........ if we legalize gambling it takes ALL the power away from every tribe with casinos, WE the regular people have the leverage then, tribes would lose so damn much money that they would relinquish all kinds of stuff!! Money is the only way to fix this and it's through the CASINOS!!

So the what you're saying is if gambling is legal, the tribes will come hat in hand to the greater US for money, and happily bargain away treaty and other rights such as those steming from Boldt?

I just don't think that is at all workable, and so likely to become mired in the courts as to be a much bigger than could be imagined.

1) Boldt was a Federal decision.
2) The State is not empowered to bargain with the tribes regarding anything to do with Boldt except on how to manage the resources as per Boldt (and following court orders).  What is being discussed here is removal of Boldt guarantees, something the state is not allowed to do.
3) The monies tribes receive are largely due to Federal programs or funds, often managed by states.
4) These treaties which cause so much aggravation and angst to some here are between the US and the indigenous nations, and actions by the states to dismember these treaties through other acts could be looked upon by the courts at all levels (especially State Supreme and Federal) as a form of coercion, and treated upon very unfavorably.

Good post knocker. But rights didn't stem from US v WA. ST (aka Boldt decision) they stemmed from the Treaties as reserved rights. Judge Boldt reaffirmed the rights were reserved by the Tribes. The Reserved Rights were there in the Treaties the whole time he just acknowledged them.

[Special T]

Well that kinda depends on if they live on the Rez or not... additionally since the tribe itself is a sovereign state it would be the same as wa state contributing it's dollars to influence  an initiate or election in another state.

Contributions from out of state interests are common in the initiave process.

Your state analogy is flawed because states are universally prohibited from such spending by their charters or constitutions.

Some of your other ideas amount to disenfranchisement, which ain't going to happen.

Yes but not from the states themselves and that is the crux of my point.

[jonjcb]

Fellow Hunters and outdoor enthusiasts, this is a huge huge deal, and a significant "Land Grab" essentially by the USFS. Their closure of significant roads and access into National Forest Land, then adding more pain, to allow for Tribal access only, denying all the tax paying public access is a disgrace. This not an;  "oh no what a shame" moment. If this can happen here, with a "supposed" outreach to the public" to get their input, yet only a handful of people even heard about it, then it can be done anywhere! Who is this USFS official, District Ranger Erin Uloth ( euloth@fs.fed.us) and why does she have the authority to single handily make these decisions? What the hell is going on! Stand up people. Learn more about this issue!!! objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us

Please get involved!!! Also send your concern to: Suzanne Delbene 1st congressional district

[ribka]

Welcome to the Democratic Party's " identity politics"
Where some groups are more equal than others.

There is indicative of an entire political movement going on in our new hope and change country from BLM, tranny rights , anti gun pro wolf , pro tribe etc

Say good bye to the America you grew up in

Orwell predicted this would happen in the Soviet Union Europe and now the US

[Knocker of rocks]

Tribal access only, denying all the tax paying public access is a disgrace.

Only the roads are closed, access is still open

[Fl0und3rz]

Motor vehicle access is open to everyone? 

[Knocker of rocks]

Motor vehicle access is open to everyone?

Nope, you're going to walk.  But that is still a far different thing than denying access.

[Fl0und3rz]

Not for disabled, youth, and senior hunters, who may not be able to strap 50# on their backs to take advantage of such "access." But that is beside your technical point.