News

Independent Study Concludes Permanent Barrier Needed to Combat Asian Carp Spread

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, from IPR. An excerpt:

Now there’s a new study that outlines three different options to build physical barriers primarily to block Asian Carp.

Those would be big public works projects with hefty costs of between three and ten billion dollars over the next fifty years.

But the study also shows that preventing even one invasive species from entering the Lakes could save hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That’s what is spent now to treat for sea lamprey or to deal with the effects of zebra and quagga mussels.

If Asian carp get loose in the lakes that could drastically change both sport and commercial fishing. And the lakes would take another economic hit says David Ullrich, director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a group of mayors around the lakes. “So the prevention element is critical. And avoiding costs in the future is a great benefit,” Ullrich says.

UN Special Rapporteur to Visit US This Year

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the text of the announcement:

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to carry out official visit to the United States from 23 April to 4 May 2012
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Professor James Anaya, will carry out an official visit to the United States of America from 23 April to 4 May 2012.
The aim of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the United States is to examine the human rights situation of the indigenous peoples of the country, that is, American Indians/Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. During the visit, the Special Rapporteur will hold meetings and consultations with federal and state government officials, as well as with indigenous nations and their representatives, in various locations.
Of particular relevance to the visit are the implications of the United States’ endorsement, in December 2010, of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Special Rapporteur will assess the ways in which the standards of the Declaration are currently reflected in U.S. law and policy, both domestically and abroad, and identify needed reforms or areas that need further attention in light of the Declaration.
The results of this assessment will be reflected in a preliminary report that will be submitted to the United States for its comments and consideration. A final version of the report will be circulated publicly and presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report will include recommendations to the United States, indigenous governing bodies and, possibly, other interested parties on how to address issues of ongoing concern to indigenous peoples.
The Special Rapporteur has tentatively planned to visit locations in the Southwest, Midwest, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. Further information and updates about the agenda of the Special Rapporteur as it becomes available will be made public on the websites of the Special Rapporteur maintained by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/SRIPeoplesIndex.asp x: and the University of Arizona: http://www.unsr.jamesanaya.org
Background information on the Special Rapporteur and his mandate from the UN Human Rights Council is available on these web sites.
The Special Rapporteur invites indigenous peoples and organizations, and other interested parties, to send information relevant to the visit to the United States or any other aspect of his mandate to: indigenous@ohchr.org

Senate Judiciary Committee Passes VAWA Reauthorization; Sen. Grassley Opposes Tribal Sovereignty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Strict party line vote.

Sen. Grassley’s opposition to tribal sovereignty is reproduced here:

I’ll turn now to some of the provisions that I cannot support. For instance, S.1925 states that it recognizes the “inherent power” of Indian tribes “which is hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons.” Now I believe in the importance of federal responsibility for law enforcement and social services for Indian tribes. And I believe in tribal self-government. But as we meet here today, there is no inherent power of tribes to do anything of the sort the bill says. Self-government is not government over “all persons” – including non-Indians.

Because tribes lack this power, it’s untrue to say that Congress can recognize and affirm it. And if we do, I don’t know what effect such language will have on current law enforcement arrangements. After all, the bill goes much further than changing something for the future. It says that something exists that does not now exist.
For the first time, the Committee would extend tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. I do not believe the Committee has a good understanding of what the consequences would be of doing so. This was put in the bill. Like the other provisions to which I object, it was not the subject of any hearing.

Why would Congress, should it decide for the first time to make such a change, do so on a bill to reauthorize VAWA? Why should domestic violence cases be the first criminal cases to be treated in this way? What precedent would be created that might lead to other prosecutions of non-Indians in tribal courts? The bill’s expansion of the civil jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-Indians also needs more thought.

Well, the good news is that the opposition is on record. And now we know the opposition is explicitly racializing the problem of domestic violence in Indian country. In other words, Sen. Grassley would do nothing about DV offenders in Indian country who are non-Indian. I suspect he is tough on crime in every other instance, except where a non-Indian in Indian country commits a crime (or where the victim is gay).

Pala Band Disenrolls 15 Percent of Its Membership

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Past Repeating Itself? Menominee Girl Suspended for Speaking Language

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here.

NYTs Article on Crime at Wind River

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

WaPo and ICT on the Cobell Letter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the WaPo article.

And the ICT article.

Mashantucket Pequot Slot Tax Decision Expected Soon

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are two news articles on the question. The first (here) details the Town of Ledyard’s crusade to collect taxes on the non-Indian owners of the slot machines used at Foxwoods. An excerpt:

Other grievances, not surprisingly, involve money – particularly the sovereign nation’s deal to pay the state a quarter of its slot machine revenues instead of local taxes on reservation property in the northeastern corner of Ledyard.

Though the town grudgingly concedes it can’t collect these revenues, it has for years been trying to levy taxes on personal property owned by non-Indians on reservation lands – specifically slot machines that a New Jersey company leases to the tribe.

Six years ago the tribe and Atlantic City Coin & Slot Service sued Ledyard to block these taxes, claiming such municipal action disregards well-established principles of federal Indian law and interferes with the tribe’s gaming operations, self-determination and sovereign immunity.

So far, the town has spent $900,000 fighting the litigation – a whopping sum that could have been used to hire teachers, repave miles of roads or buy thousands of new library books.

The second (here) includes a quote on the Indian law implications of the case:

Bethany Berger, a professor of Indian law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said that taxation of non-Indians and their property on tribal lands is complicated. Berger, co-author and member of the editorial board of Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, the pre-eminent treatise in the field, does not think Ledyard’s case is a strong one.

“The machines are leased by the tribe as part of this federally regulated business that the tribe has a big interest in,” she said, adding that the interests of the state of Connecticut in the matter may not be as strong as Ledyard officials hope.

“With respect to state interest, it can’t just be revenue-raising interest,” Berger said. “Ledyard wants to make money by taxing the machines, and that’s not the kind of interest that’s really important. The federal interest is very strong because of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the tribal interest is also strong because this is the business that provides most of the tribe’s revenue.”

Sault Tribe Response to Mayor Bernero’s Gaffe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Mayor Bernero’s Apology for/Denial of Using Racial Slurs in Referring to Lansing Casino Opponents

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

He said: “My passionate support for Lansing and our casino project may have gotten the better of me, but none of my remarks were directed toward Native Americans, and nothing I said can fairly be construed as a racial slur, despite our opponent’s attempt to spin it that way. I make no apologies for using strong language against our opponents, who have made some very impertinent remarks about me, but I do offer my heartfelt and sincere apology to any and all who were offended by my choice of words.”