Because they don't have to pay taxes?

Jeese, I don't know, because we forced them to go to our schools for 60 years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_as...E2.80.931920.29

If they are living off the reservation they are directly (if owners) or indirectly (if renters) paying taxes to support their local school district. If they elect to live off the reservation that is fine but what I do not understand is making that decision and then deciding to send children to an Indian school with a (presumably) longer bus ride which we, the Federal taxpayer, pay for.

No different than someone getting a voucher to send their kid to a better school outside their district.

There is no requirement for you to understand it...

Sorry, but as a taxpayer I should be able to understand it. Now, if you simply believe that everything that the various levels of Government decide to do is reasonable and cost effective for you and the rest of the citizens and should not be understood then I am sorry for you.

And, now that you bring it up, why should someone be able to send their kids to a "better" school outside their district without having to pay the new school district for any "premium" costs the residents have voted to assess themselves to provide that "better" school? No, just consider that a rhetorical question.

Just because., you are correct, except that the school district must accept you or allow you to attend if you are out of district. I almost certain, however, that they would not be able to get federal funds to bus your kid 30 or more miles to the school of your choice, simply because you liked the racial balance better. And yes, I have seen the tribal buses well over 30 miles away picking up kids. I think most of us agree that if they want to attend the school, they should have to drive them or pay for the bussing.

As my kid pointed out by accident if we say they are different from us, we are racist. When they say they are different from us, then we are racist if we disagree--- on the same exact issue.

Larry B said "If they are living off the reservation they are directly (if owners) or indirectly (if renters) paying taxes to support their local school district. If they elect to live off the reservation that is fine.. ."

I thought this thread started because they only now just were granted a reservation?!

I am not unconcerned with my tax dollars being used unwisely, btw. It's just that I don't pick a couple of Indian kids being bused to school as a seminal issue to take up. !Warning!, non sequitur coming.....For Christ sake, we could bus every damn Indian kid anywhere they want to go for the price of one obsolete fighter jet!

Krijack,

No one (at least not me) said anything about anyone being a biggot. I think some folks just read a lot of these threads that have to do with tribes and see that everyone makes a Federal case (no pun intended) about every "special" right that they think the tribes have and feel the reaction is a bit, well, over-reactive.

They are simply posturing to get special privileges and in the end will fatten their wallets by preying on the people who cannot legally access gambling, cigarettes, and fireworks off the "reservation".

My response was to Krijack's story about Indian kids being bussed from their own school district to Chief Leschi. And, yes, it was also a collective "they" because the Federal Government (your tax money) reimburses the tribes for such transportation costs not withstanding where those students may live off the reservation nor the quality of the school district in which they reside.

And, yes, your assertion of being able to send every Indian kid anywhere they want to go (to school) for the price of one obsolete jet fighter is certainly a non-sequitor. And maybe we already are.....

Salmo, I was citing information i read in a 2013 book by Riffe native Buddy Rose. The book is titled Stories From Riffe,Wash.
In 1951 ,the examiner for the FPC,William J. Costello, denied Tacoma's application for the dams. He said Tacoma could get power they needed from from the BPA and that their plans to protect the river's fish resources were inadequate.
Costello was overruled by the head of the FPC, Monrad Wallgren, in 1951. Wallgren was a former Governor of Washington as well as a U.S. Representative and Senator.He had been appointed chair of the FPC 1950 during the Tacoma hearings there with help from Washington's Senator Harry Cain, a former Mayor of Tacoma. Cain was,understandably, a staunch supporter of Tacoma's Cowlitz dams. Within a month after the ruling in favor of Tacoma,Wallgren resigned as chairman and retired from public office.
Maybe I am going out on a limb to say he was in the pocket of the dam interests, but that is my opinion.

In Roy Wilson's book , History of the Cowlitz Tribe, he states that the tribe filed suit against the dams and Tacoma because of the waters covering up burial sites and important ritualistic areas. They pointed out where these were located and they won the first decision in 1950. This was overturned and Tacoma ordered to relocate the remains. This did not happen.
I for one would hope the Cowlitz tribe would pursue the matter of fishing rights and if they did win those rights, be a new voice in how the (mis-) management of the Cowlitz runs would be handled.