Salmo

What a way to start off my new year! A new debate with old Salmo again!

Salmon you say;

Well how does that one work? Don't they set harvest rates on fish that are "harvestable" ? If not, why not? Why is it that sport anglers have to let "wild" steelhead go, while tribes can, and do harvest them? Why are we not setting escapement goal on wild fish and hatchery fish separately for both the tribes and sporters?

As it stands now, we get none…and the tribes get all the wild fish that they manage to catch! How does that one work? Do we get to harvest 50% of whatever the tribes hatchery produce?


You say; That's almost a no brainier; when you consider that we are playing the tribes to hire the best attorneys that our money can buy! They are always being represented by our own government funding. .. right? If that's true, then how can any one state, person or group compete, or take on the government?

Finally, you said;

This is what I have found it to mean :

"NATO(Nah-Toh) indicates inherent ancestral freedoms of spirituality, self-government, self-determination, and our own version of the pursuit of happiness. The title of the Native American Tribal Organization is only a convenient acronym, which may assist us in operating in today’s society. ‘NATO is also an Arapaho word which roughly translates to “we have had enough.”
Originally, the chiefs of the Cherokee, Keetoowah and Choctaw were approached with the idea of a sovereign, humanitarian and legal umbrella for the people. Their counsel was that ‘NATO should be a separate Indian nation that would be free of any connection with the Bureau of Indian Affairs so that ‘NATO’S services would then be available to members of all tribes, not just the Cherokee, Keetoowah or Choctaw.
Generally, when people ask if a tribe is recognized by the Federal Government, they are really asking if that tribe appears on a list of B.I.A. supervised tribes – for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is about the only entity keeping such a list while at the same time not being the exclusive authority or source of these lists. However, there are many tribes that do not appear on the B.I.A. list; and, it is interesting to note that non-supervised tribes seem to fare much better financially, in general, than supervised tribes.
Therefore, recognition is a separate and different legal construct than supervision. How does one ascertain recognition? It is evidenced by the existence and application of a tribe operating on a tribe-to-tribe and/or tribe-to-government basis. ‘NATO has not only maintained legal, political, and business relations with other tribal governments and including Federal, State, and Local government entities, but also has worked with foreign government entities as well. We have a wealth of correspondence from government officials and other Indian Tribes at all levels in several countries, all dealing with ‘NATO on a government-to-government basis.
A major reference text used by the United States Supreme Court is “The Handbook of Federal Indian Law,” by Felix S. Cohen. Page 270, details the legal status of Indian Tribes; and, states:
The practical question, then, is, who were the Indians whose amity was to be maintained? Who were the Indians so affiliated with the depredators in fact that the depredators might reasonable be regarded as a part of them and they be be regarded as a body whose amity it was desirable to maintain.
In dealing with this question, the [Supreme] court has held, first, that a Nation, tribe, or band will be regarded as an Indian entity where the relations of the Indians in their organized or tribal capacity has been fixed and recognized by treaty; second, that where there is no treaty by which the Government has recognized a body of Indians, the [Supreme] court will recognize a subdivision of tribes or bands which has been recognized by those officers of the Government whose duty it was to deal and report the condition of the Indians to the executive branch of the Government; third, that where there has been no such recognition by the Government, the court will accept the subdivision into tribes or bands made by the Indians themselves.
(Tully v. The Apache Indians, 32 C. Cis. R., 1.) . . .
The question of what groups constitute tribes or bands has been extensively considered in recent years by administrative authorities of the Federal Government in connection with tribal organization effected pursuant to section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934. A showing that the group seeking to organize is entitled to be considered as a tribe, within the meaning of the act, is deemed a prerequisite to the holding of a referendum on a proposed tribal constitution, and the basis for such a holding is regularly set forth in the letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior recommending the submission of a tribal constitution to a referendum vote. In cases of special difficulty, a ruling has generally been obtained from the Solicitor of the Interior Department as to the tribal status of the group seeking to organize. The considerations which, singly or jointly, have been particularly relied upon in reaching the conclusion that a group constitutes a “tribe” or “band” have been:
1) That the group has had treaty relations with the United States.
2) That the group has been denominated a tribe by Act of Congress or Executive order.
3) That the group has been treated as having collective rights in tribal
lands or funds, even though not expressly designated a tribe.
4) That the group has been treated as a tribe or band by other Indian tribes
5) That the group has exercised political authority over its members,
through a tribal council or other governmental forms.
Further, the Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. Law 103-263; 108 Stat. 707) which amended Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C.-476, clarified that the Indian Reorganization Act was not intended to authorize the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to create categories of federally recognized Indian tribes. The intent of Congress is that all tribes are Historic irrespective of their origin because of genealogical connections. A person’s ancestry cannot be adjudicated or legislated. (This sounds like my DNA argument on; "DNA vs fishing rights" )

The Supreme Court has rendered decisions in the modern era that tribes have an existence independent of any recognition by Congress and that tribalism is ultimately a matter of self-determination. Tribalism continues until the members themselves extinguish it. The court pointed to self-determination as the key factor in establishing a legal Indian entity, notwithstanding Federal recognition. Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404; United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634.
Because of the unique legal status of Indians in American jurisprudence, legal doctrines often must be viewed from a different perspective from that which would obtain in other areas of law. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracher, 448 U.S. 136,143. Moreover, “standard principles of statutory construction do not have their usual force in cases involving Indian law.” Rather, “the canons of construction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians.” Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759,766; Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226,247.
For instance, a tribe is unlike a city or other subdivision of a state. When a question arises as to the power of a city to enact a particular regulation, there must be some showing that the state has conferred such power on the city; the state, not the city, is the sovereign body from which power must flow. A tribe is its own source of power. Thus a tribe’s right to establish a court or levy a tax is not subject to attack on the ground that Congress has not authorized the tribe to take these actions; the tribe is sovereign and needs no authority from the federal government. Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F.2d 89; Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 149.
Two consequences have emanated from the fact that tribal powers are inherent and not derived from the federal government. First, the provisions of the Bill of Rights that restrict the federal government have been held not to apply to the tribes. Secondly, inherent tribal powers do not violate the Fifth Amendment provision against double jeopardy for the tribe and the federal government to prosecute a defendant for the same offense; both independent sovereigns are entitled to vindicate their identical public policies. Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376; United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313.
The right to change is consistent with the protection against the effects of the passage of time. Tribes requested and received assurances from the United States that tribal lands and societies would be insulated from outside forces – and build “strong fences.” These assurances against encroachment are formed into Nonintercourse Acts, protective statutes and judicial doctrines. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564; Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382; Kennerly v. District Court, 400 U.S. 423.
The most basic and fundamental to the establishment of a tribal entity is membership. “Enrollment” is a common means of establishing membership in a tribe, but it is not the only means. A person may be a member of a tribe without being enrolled. Membership criteria may be established by tribal ordinance or custom and will be unique to that tribe. “The Indian tribes retain their inherent power to determine tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations among members, and to prescribe rules of inheritance for members.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564.
25 USC
Section 450. Congressional state of findings
(a) Findings respecting historical and special legal relationship, and resultant responsibilities
The Congress, after careful review of the Federal Government’s historical and special legal relationship with, and resulting responsibilities to, American Indian people, finds that –
 (1) the prolonged Federal domination of Indian service programs has served to retard rather than enhance the progress of Indian people and their communities by depriving Indian of the full opportunity to develop leadership skills crucial to the realization of self-government, and has denied to the Indian people an effective voice in the planning and implementation of programs for the benefit of Indians which are responsive to the true needs of Indian communities; and
 (2) the Indian people will never surrender their desire to control their relationships both among themselves and with non-Indian governments, organizations, and persons.
25 USC
Section 450a. Congressional declaration of policy
(a) Recognition of obligation of United States
The Congress hereby recognizes the obligation of the United States to respond to the strong expression of the Indian people for self-determination by assuring maximum Indian participation in the direction of educational as well as other Federal services to Indian communities so as to render such services more responsive to the needs of those communities.
(b) Declaration of commitment
The Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Government’s unique and continuing relationship with, and responsibility to, individual Indian tribes and to the Indian people as a whole through the establishment of a meaningful Indian self-determination policy which will permit an orderly transition from the Federal domination of programs for, and services to, Indians to effective and meaningful participation by the Indian people in planning, conduct, and administration of those programs and services. In accordance with this policy, the United States is committed to supporting and assisting Indian tribes in the development of strong and stable tribal governments, capable of administering quality programs and developing the economies of their respective communities.
In conclusion, inherent native sovereign powers existed prior to the advent of European discovery of the Americas. The right to govern ourselves is not dependent upon the approval of The United States Government or anyone else. Our societies and the right to govern are embedded in the fact that we as indigenous native peoples exist and have never surrendered our right to govern ourselves or to be self-determined. Our powers to govern can only be limited by mutual agreement through government-to-government relations as exhibited by some 800 treaties signed by tribal governments and the United States, and through legislative and judicial decisions that are based on those treaties.
“Mitakuye Oyasin”
(We are all related)

Well now you know why tribes have sovereign and we have to treat it at nation to nation!
Cowlitzfisherman