We know that the "Boldt" decision gave certain tribes which signed "treaty" special fishing and hunting "rights" that we do not have. I am not really sure how those "tribes" can legally give or pass on those "rights" to there own people or others.

How does that work? Does each tribe make up its own guide lines on what they "consider" to be true blood line members? Does the state and federal have "guide lines" or other "rules" to control who are truly members of a certain tribe?

If we were to have our own DNA tests made on each of us, and it was proven that we had the same DNA in us as some of the treaty tribes, would we also have access to these "special" fishing and hunting rights? Does anyone have any legal knowledge of how this really works?

On December 12, 2003, Komo news broke a story that showed that new DNA testing now has used science to show that we all have come from some just 33 "mothers". The story can be read at;
http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=28763

If it can be proven by doing a DNA test that we have come from the same mother as one of our local tribes have, could the case be made legally that we are also "Indians"?

Since this is all "new science", could it change how the law would review our legal rights to hunt and fish? If we can prove that we have the same DNA as the tribes, could we all get together and out vote them legally? To me, it would make sense, legally, if it could be shown that we indeed had the same blood and DNA as that of that of the tribes do.

Other then blood line, what makes an Indian an Indian?

Anybody got some thoughts on this issue?

PS; please don't bash the tribes on this issue. They have the legal rights to do what they are doing, so this thread is only meant to see, and discuss the issues of blood lines and DNA. If you bash the tribes, someone will surly pull or lock this thread so please DON'T DO IT!

Cowlitzfisherman

Each tribe has their own policy to determain who is eligible for status. Tribes that have a lower number of members have lowered the requirements to increase the number of "tribal members", this increases the federal $$ allocated to the tribe. Locally, we have a tribe that gave fishing rights to a white man who married a tribal women, under family pressure. It is tribe to tribe. I know the more financially sucessful tribes have increased the requirments to prevent people with 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/32 blood becoming tribal members. For example it would be a lot easier to become an Elwha member than a Tulalip. Check your family history, you just might be eligible to net your favorite river!

Steeliegreg

So if I understand you correctly, your saying that tribes can "give" fishing rights to whom ever they want to?

Does that mean that a tribe could double its size if they married all "none Indians" and then double there federal dollars? That doesn't sound like it would fly with the feds to me! So, let's say that a Tribe has only 1000 members; all but 2 or 3 die due to a disease or disaster.

Does that now mean that those 2 or 3 members can still have 50% of all the fish that they originally had rights to and those rights are transferred to who they married? What happens when these people eventually interbreed pass the 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/32 blood lines? Who then decides who has fishing and hunting rights? Will it be done by DNA testing, or is the government just supposed to "take there word"?

At what point does the "tribes" interbreed there fishing and hunting rights away?

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

You have too much time on your hands, a truly dizzying intellect, or both! An American Indian Tribe is a legal entity and a government. So it never "interbreeds" its hunting and fishing rights away. Kind of like the U.S. Constitution, it remains the law of the land, generation after generation. Treaty fishing rights are "owned" by treaty tribes, not by individual persons. A tribal government "franchises" its treaty fishing right to an individual person through a tribal fishing license or permit, much like the state of Washington "franchises" you the privilege of fishing Washington state waters as a sportfisherman through your state fishing license.

While your DNA angle is entertaining, I don't think it's at all relevant to treaty fishing rights. Tribes individually determine who they franchise to exercise their specific treaty fishing right. Some tribes require that you be at least 1/4 blood quantum of that specific tribe in order to be eligible to obtain a fishing permit from that tribe. Others require as little as 1/32 blood quantum to qualify. It's up to the tribe to determine.

As for us all being descended from Eve, what will matter to most tribes is your ancestral lineage from yourself back to 1855 or just prior, which was when the Stevens Treaties were made with tribes in this state. If you were connected by direct relationship with acknowledged tribal members during this time span, you have an excellent case for tribal membership. Otherwise, no.

Oh, and as for a tribe being reduced to 2 or 3 people, whoever is in a tribe with treaty fishing rights has potential access to the full benefits of those rights. This is sort of why numerous north Puget Sound tribes opposed the federal recognition of the Samish Tribe - and previously the Snoqualmie and Stillaguamish Tribes - they recognize that the more tribes there are, the smaller will be each tribe's share of treaty fishing allocations and federal funding for Indian programs like health, education, and housing. Money forms both strange bedfellows and antagonisms alike.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

OK Salmo,

I knew I could draw you out of the waters!

Please explain this:

Does this also mean that ANY treaty must be treated in the same fashion? Example: If we have a treaty that allows another government or "nation" to "share" a resource, does that allow the "other government" or "nation" to also "franchise" it rights out to others too? I think not!

Legally, " Nation to nation" means "nation to nation" and not "nation to another party"!

Legally, why would any other "nation or party" that marries into it get treated any differently under our nations Constitution rules?

The Constitution says; 1. Art. VI, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution provides:

The "Constitution . . . of the United States . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

And: 6. ". . . [The] [treaty] negotiations were with the tribe. They reserved rights, however, to every individual Indian, as though named therein. . . . And the right was intended to be continuing against the United States and its grantees as well as against the State and its grantees." n11 That those rights are also reserved to the descendants [*332] of treaty Indians, without limitation in time, excepting as Congress may determine, has been recognized and applied by the United States Supreme Court from the first to the latest decision of that court involving Indian treaty fishing rights. "


If it can be proven that these tribes came from our "original blood lines", why wouldn't we be allowed to legally share what they have? I don't know for sure, but I believe that the Boldt decision only cover "tribes" that signed the treaties and not the "people" who were in the tribes. So if we can show by the use of DNA that these tribes came from us…then they are us; and us is them!

I don't know for sure, but I would bet you that you could make one hell of a legal argument out of this. They never even knew what DNA was when the tribes brought these issues up in the courts, and I believe that it could now stand up in a new legal hearing.

IF "OJ" CAN GET OFF by using DNA, than DNA should WORK HERE TOO!!!

Legally, what made a tribe a tribe before the treaties were signed? How did one tribe recognize another tribe? Since they didn't keep "records" of who was who, was it by blood lines, or what?

When the treaties were signed in the 1800, no one knew where anyone was from. So if you could show that you had the same amount of matching DNA that they now have, what's stopping you from claiming "ancestral" rights of being an original tribe member?


Happy New year Turkey!

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

While I appreciate your enthusiasm and originality in coming up with "solutions" to the problem, you would be violating at least half a dozen ethical canons if you were a lawyer and actually tried to make that unbelievably ridiculous claim in a court room in front of a judge.

If you really think it requires a more detailed response than that, I'll have to get to it later.

Happy Holidays!

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

You said;
That sounds like exactly what a good attorney would be doing for his clients!

You need to look no further then the "OJ" case; The Scott Petterson case, and the Wacko Jacko case to prove my point.

Times are changing and so are our laws and the attorney who apply them!

I would like to hear your reasoning and a more detailed response as soon as you can find the time.


Have a Happy New year Todd

Cowlitzfisherman

I used to have a hard copy of the 1855 treaties and remember alot of signatures that looked the same: "X".....I'm not sure the tribes had a good identity system then. Like someone else pointed out, the tribes currently enjoying all the perks work hard to prevent other tribes from attaining their status. This probably isn't worth talking about as the answers will be the same from the same people over and over again. I think the PC society that is running things today probably would give away much more than the leaders in 1855 did. So count your blessings. Someday you may be on a reservation and the indians will be giving you an allowance.

Salmo g,

Is there any treaty or agreement that obligates the government to pay for tribal housing, medical care, etc.? No arguement, I would just like to know.

Slug,

I don't have a copy handy, but my recollection is that the Stevens Treaties promised, in addition to hunting, fishing, and gathering, some agricultural supplies and assistance (remember, they thought it would benefit the Indians to teach them to be farmers), medical attention (precurser to the Indian Health Service), an Indian Agent to look after and represent their interests (Rights Protection personnel and funding). I think their was a commitment for education services, too. I don't remember anything about housing, since Indians had housing that satisfied their needs at the time. They were also allowed to graze their stock on open and unclaimed land, but were supposed to geld all horses not used for breeding. There may have been other conditions, but I don't recall them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks Salmo and Happy New Year.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/wa/indians/treaties.htm


Here are links to all the treaties.

The treaties do not deal with many things in a literal reading. They have been determined to have certain intent by legal process.

And the real crock is where the treaties specifically state that the indians will abide by all the territory, state, and federal laws also in kind with the "citizens"..... So why is that not upheld as vehemently as the fishing/hunting parts of the treaty? According to folks like pacificnw and others, tribes are not governed by our laws or authoritive agencies. Read the whole thing, you will be both amazed and probably disgusted..... The treaties clearly were meant (by reading, not "interpreting") to allow tribes to retain heretage while also integrating and acclimating to our society.....

Just wish they would.....

MC

I know of two tribes for sure that have non-indians enroled as tribal members who have fishing and hunting rights.

One tribe has adopted non-indian people and the other opened up their enrolement to everyone local as to get more federal monies back in the 60's.