For decades, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has followed a policy of placing into power Indians who will support the tactics necessary to keep Indians dependent and BIA bureaucrats employed. Among other things, this strategy pits "Federally Recognized Tribes" against non recognized tribes; that is, tribes recognized as such by everyone but the US government as being coherent tribal entities.No where has this policy of setting up local fiefdoms been pursued with such vigor as on Washington state's Olympic Peninsula, home to the Chinook, Cowlitz, Chehalis, Queets, Hoh, Makah, Quinault, and other "fish eating Indians of the Washington coast." For decades, the peninsula has been dominated by two tribes -- the Makahs, a pretty decent bunch who mind their own business, and the Quinaults.
During the past almost 40 years, I have personally witnessed leaders of the Quinault tribe frame white land owners on the Quinault reservation, threaten members of their own tribe (including elderly women), threaten leaders of inter tribal organizations and disrupt meetings of organizations they oppose.
Now, the Cowlitz tribe, whose people and leaders have an outstanding reputation are applying for Federal recognition, and the leaders of the Quinault tribe are doing everything they can to block it. Of course. - Rod Van Mechelen, editor
On July 8, 1997, the Quinault Indian Tribe requested an extension of time to comment on our preliminary finding. They requested an additional 180 days for the following reasons:
In late July 1997, Marsha Williams, Roy Wilson and I met with the President of the Quinault Tribe, Pearl Capoeman Baller, in Taholah, to discuss our positive finding and to see what the intentions of the Quinaults were regarding the positive finding for the Cowlitz Tribe. At this meeting we were informed for the first time of their filing for an extension of time. They were supposed to send a copy of the request to the Cowlitz Tribe but this has never transpired. At the meeting, Ms. Baller was very evasive as to the time requested and the reasons for the extension.
Immediately, I requested our attorney, Dennis Whittlesey, to write a response to Holly Reckord, Chief of BAR, strongly opposing the Quinault's request. We were finally given a copy of the Quinault's request on July 29, 1997, by BAR.
I am including some of the material from Whittlesey's letter to Holly Reckord to better enable you to understand the situation. The following direct quotes are given:
Please know that the Cowlitz Tribe rejects the notion that the Quinault Tribe has any standing to even comment on its petition, let alone request additional time in which to do so. While we recognize that the BAR will permit so-called "interested parties" to participate in the process, we feel that such is wrong and unfair to the petitioning tribes.Accordingly, we now will submit the following for your consideration:
- The Cowlitz Petition was submitted in January 1994. Three years and seven months have passed, during which time the Tribe's full documentation was before BAR and available to third parties. The Quinaults have had more than adequate time to secure copies of any and all documents relating to the petition available under FOIA and have only themselves to blame if they did not avail themselves of the opportunity in a timely manner.
- The Cowlitz Tribe was informed in October 1996 that the Quinaults had dispatched a research team to BAR for the purpose of going through the Cowlitz Petition and documents and making extensive photocopies. If such is true, then these materials have been in the hands of the Quinaults for at least 10 months.
- BAR issued its findings in February 1997. The Quinaults have had six months in which to review and formulate substantive objections or findings contrary to those made by BAR. A request now is untimely and not justified.
- The Quinaults have alleged that the Cowlitz Petition raises jurisdictional questions about the Quinault Reservation, but has cited nothing specific. What counts are the BAR findings which represented staff assessment of the petition and supporting materials. BAR's narrative certainly does not raise any jurisdictional questions about the Quinault Reservation nor has the Cowlitz Tribe asserted jurisdiction on that Reservation. It has only pointed out that some of its members hold allotments in trust on the Reservation.
- The Cowlitz Tribe has participated actively in the Federal Acknowledgment Process since 1978. The Quinault Tribe has had ample opportunity at every stage to review every Cowlitz submission, including its initial petition and documentary materials which were submitted to BAR in 1987. Any Quinault failure to do so is its own fault and should not be grounds for delaying the final determination of the Cowlitz Petition.
- The Quinault arguments are old and well known. Indeed, the Quinault Tribe has opposed the Cowlitz Tribe on many occasions with the very arguments it will present in this matter, and it is a certainty that Quinault tribal computers have all of the Quinault arguments. There is nothing new, and the Quinaults have utterly failed to explain why they should be permitted to delay a process involving the Tribe which they have opposed for decades in numerous administrative and judicial proceedings. The Quinaults' arguments are well known, and they could produce a comprehensive opposition within a few hours; it is time for them to do so.
- The Federal Acknowledgment Process has been slow but careful. BAR has made an exacting scrutiny of the records, including many documents held by the BIA to which the Cowlitz Tribe did not have access. BAR has issued its finding. It is now time for this matter to reach resolution. Further time extension is unwarranted and obstructionist.
On August 8, 1997, the BIA once again bowed to extreme pressure from a "recognized tribe" and granted the Quinaults a 90-day extension. The Quinaults were still not satisfied and asked again for a full 180-day extension. As of this writing no answer has been given to the request. There are certain court cases and policies that make life most uncomfortable for the Quinault Tribe: the Halbert Supreme Court Decision, the Dawes Act, and Article 6 of the Treaty of Olympia.
It saddens me to recall all the times in my long career in this "recognition fight" to once again see the Cowlitz people subjected to such racism. There is no worse discrimination than one Indian against another. My people, keep the faith and patience and we will eventually prevail.
On another sad note, I must inform you that my personal character and integrity have been seriously attacked. I have been accused of cheating Indian people out of timber profits, that I violated federal law and regulations in my dealings with allottees of timber lands, and in a direct quote in the May 8-14, 1997, edition of The Stranger, a Seattle-based publication, "Barnett's basically slapping the hell out of Indian people all over the place, screwing them over in the name of greed. That's what really sucks, that the greed for the dollar has brought to crapping in our own living rooms." This was followed by accusations of racketeering, conspiracy, and conflict of interest in a letter written to Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of Interior.
On my behalf I must inform you that I deny any and all accusations made against me. I have not bought or logged Indian timber on the Quinault Reservation for the past 16 years with one exception. Last winter I was contacted by an Indian lady whom I had logged for 20 years ago. At that time she had some small timber on part of her allotment too young to log. The timber was now mature and she asked me to do the work as she was fearful of the "right to meet the high bid" policy that has been in place on the Reservation for the past ten years. This policy has suppressed both bidders and timber prices for the Indian owners.
The ignoring of the fact that every element of logging Indian timber is carefully regulated and supervised by federal officials is a serious flaw. At no time has any regulator even suggested that my dealings with timber owners was anything less than fair, honorable and fully in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The accusations will only continue until challenged. Perhaps that time has come.
About 16 years ago, when my father was chairman of the Quinault Allottees Association as well as chairman and founder of the "Indians of the Quinault Reservation Organization," John Barnett and a few others brought to my father's attention an illegal practice covertly sanctioned by federal officials charged with regulating logging of Indian timber. The practice had to do with how the amount of usable wood in a log is measured.Inspectors are supposed to measure the diameter of a log at its base, then plug that value into an equation that adjusts for how trees taper from the base to the tip. They use this to calculate how many board feet of lumber each log will yield. What John and a few others observed was that, for certain large white owned logging companies, the inspectors measured the diameter of the tip of the log rather than its base, thus producing a measurement much smaller than it really was.
With help from John and others, my parents obtained documentation proving this, and took it to Washington, DC, where they sat down with whoever headed up the Justice Department at that time. They presented their case and asked that the Justice Department investigate. Instead, the director told them that the Justice Department exists to serve the Federal government and its bureaus first, and citizens last. If they pressed the matter, the director told them, the Justice Department and other government agencies would come after them and anyone else involved in the complaint.
My guess is, someone is calling in a favor to take John down with this malicious accusation. - Rod Van Mechelen, editor
| Home | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
The Backlash! is a feature of New Chivalry Press
Copyright © 1993 - 1997 by New Chivalry Press
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.