http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013720131_quileute20m.html

What's the general opinion on this? I didn't have a problem with the recent Hoh land swap but that was a swap and this appears to be a give away. I also don't like the Tsunami zone argument. Flooding Ok but could be opening pandoras box as almost every tribe lives in a Tsunami zone.

It worked for 155 years....Trade it for fishing rights....Rod

I kind of feel if they are addament at enforcing the treaties as written then they should be willing to stick to them as written.

Guess contracts only apply to non-natives. What am I talking about?........I was born here to!

Save the indians equates to fast decisions and broken treaties.

Save a threatened species of fish equates to 3-5 days a week of netting!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that human lives are not more important than fish but if a treaty can be broken.........................

As I read it there is somewhat of a trade-off in terms of settling a dispute over access to beach(es) but is that worth what is being given up in terms of Park land?

What everyone also needs to notice is that the acreage proposed to be provided to the tribe will become Trust land meaning that there will be no taxes paid on it (not that the Government paid taxes either) AND the tribal enterprises envisioned thereupon will also not be taxable.

Recently the Puyallup Tribe's request to transfer properties adjacent to its casino in Fife into Trust land was approved. This is where they purchased the property and have already started on a big development to include a grocery store. In this case the property was taken off the State and City tax roles and the revenues will also not be taxable.

I believe in both cases there could have been/could be a better deal cut for the non-tribal citizens possibly to include some negotiation over giving up certain treaty rights. On the Hoh it might be to give up rights to fish native steelhead. For the Puyallups it might be have been to drop all of their fishing rights. As I recall the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Boldt Decision provided a caveat that was tied to tribal economy. Given that the Puyallup Tribe is providing each tribal member over $20,000 per year (non-taxable) out of tribal proceeds things must be going pretty well for the Tribe. Time to look at that?

And, please, this is not an Anti-Indian bigoted rant but one asking for fair and reasonable negotiations related to changing prior agreements.

It's not the first addition to the reservation boundary. Happened a couple of years ago - same reason, get away from the Tsunami zone

If what I have been told is true, part of the problem came from the park squatting on the tribes land north of the river after a huge storm changed the river path and wiped out the old bridge that crossed the river near the current location of the CG station. This happened in 1968 I believe.

The treaty granted the tribe rights to land on both sides of the river mouth, not just the south side like it is currently..

Frankly I think the Feds got off cheap. If I was a member of the tribe I would start by asking for back rent on the land the park is squatting on and then make them re-build the bridge that was wiped out by the storm I mentioned earlier.

The bridge would do two things, it would give the residents of LP a second way to get to Forks and it would also help in tourism due to the increased access to and from both sides of the river.

Just my 2 cents.

WD.

But you'd still be living in a Tsunami zone.

They should have traded many things for fishing rights, Casino's, Land swaps ect. I think they should trade the exclusive rights to slot machines to the casino bearing tribes for all there fishing rights. If they don't agree let any establishment in the State have slots like in Nevada. The revenue off taxes would benifit the State, The fish would be benifited if they agreed. And the Native Casino's wouldn't lose a large share of the 600 millon Indian gaming makes yearly. Money talks- they would have to consider it, The tribes on the upper coast in need of a land swap could be traded for a decreased net schedule, Controlled by the WDFW, Like mentioned earlier it worked for 155years and you throw the treaty's in the faces of anyone that want's to challange them. Well the treaty is as written, Live with it or deal....