Tribes Ask State to Join Fight at Land Back Conference

Press release from Save California Salmon:

native woman speaking into microphone

Morning Star

Last week, Save California Salmon and Cal Poly Humboldt’s Native American Studies Department hosted the Northern California LandBack Symposium. This first-of-its-kind free event featured Tribal and State leaders, university representatives, foundations, NGOs, land trusts, and lawyers who work to return land to Northern California Tribes and Tribal land trusts.

LandBack is a proven strategy for building climate resilience and addressing some of the most pressing environmental issues facing the State of California and beyond. Indigenous stewardship builds community resilience, positively impacting the biodiversity of the landscape and the mental well being of its inhabitants.

“Our well being has always been interwoven with our natural resources,” explained Jason Reed from the Hoopa Valley Tribe. “Presently our salmon populations are on the brink of extinction and our water is being polluted. The last 170 years of land mismanagement have contributed to high rates of heart disease, poverty, suicide, addiction. Being able to manage these resources again will improve our physical, mental, emotional and also our cultural well being.”

native elder in blue shirt speaking into microphone

Elder at LandBack Symposium

LandBack is also a way to help Tribes heal from attempted genocide, allowing them to return to sacred lands without burdensome restrictions. For instance, over 1000 acres of land was recently returned to the Karuk Tribe from the U.S. Forest Service. These lands are used for the Tribe’s world renewal ceremonies. The return of these ceremonial lands took an act of Congress.

“The Tribal boarding schools and forced assimilation were not that long ago. Our parents and grandparents weren’t allowed to speak our language, practice our culture, but they stayed strong and they stayed resilient. Now there is a movement and it is getting our land back, our ceremonies back, and tying it all together,” explained Karuk Tribe Vice Chairman Kenneth Brink.

In California, implementing land return and protecting Tribal rights can be especially difficult due to the state’s history of refusing to ratify Treaties and of terminating Tribes located in lands that they wanted for building infrastructure, such as dams. Due to this, many Tribes do not have access to sacred sites or have any land holdings. This has meant that many Tribes have had to create land trusts or work with power companies and agencies to hold, use, or manage lands.

“The work and advocacy that we do, it is for the healing and health of our communities and that is only going to happen when we are able to be on our own land freely, when we are able to practice ceremonies without burdens and limitations from people like the Forest Service. We need to be able to have full access and first rights to our sacred lands,” stated Save California Salmon Board Tribal Water Organizer Morning Star Gali.

packed crowd in conference roomWade Crowfoot, California’s Resource Agency Secretary has committed to supporting Tribal land return. He brought up several steps the state has taken to support Tribes and Tribal land return since Governor Gavin Newsom’s apology for California’s genocide during his statements. The steps highlighted were focused around land return and restoration funding through the state’s 30×30 plan, along with recently completed first right of refusal policies for Tribes in land sales and disposal through California energy agencies.

“While we can be proud of our collective progress, there is so much work ahead of us,” explained Crowfoot. “The Newsom administration has three and a half more years left…we are really focused on continuing to drive down the field and identify real, substantive, durable land return, more resource partnerships and stewardship together, and then figuring out ways to institutionalize this. So our best practices I talked about today become our common practices across the agencies, and we will look to the results and conclusions of this conference to help guide us.”

While the State of California has done work to improve pathways to land return and promote the co-management of state occupied lands, significant barriers still stand between Indigenous peoples and the stewardship of their ancestral lands, especially for non-federally recognized Tribes.

“In my personal experience when it comes to consultation they do not care if we are federally recognized or non-federally recognized. We have been treated like the ‘Indian Problem’ in the room,” stated Morning State Gali in her remarks.

“Along with talking about Land Back we need to talk about Tribes back. We need a plan from California for our non-federally recognized Tribes,” said Winnemem Wintu Chief Caleen Sisk.

Save California Salmon and Cal Poly Humboldt’s Native American Studies Department worked with experts to create a draft California LandBack Red Paper to inform policy makers on the history of landback efforts along with current policy and funding needs to help make Tribal land return easier. Recommendations from the Northern California LandBack Symposium will be incorporated before the official release of the paper this summer. A summary of the recommendation from the conference and Red Paper can be found below.

Some Key Recommendations from the Conference:

  • The State creates processes and laws to help unrecognized Tribes who wish to become recognized do so, in order to facilitate land return;
  • California’s tax codes and land transfer laws are changed to allow easier transfers of state, counties and university lands to Tribes and Tribal land trusts;
  • To allow for tax exemption and lower tax rates for Tribally-held lands that are not yet held in trust – similar to exemptions for nonprofits;
  • That state and federal land managers have a first right of refusal policy for lands that are considered excess lands and are to be sold or given away;
  • California universities create streamlined policies for land, ancestor, and ceremonial objects to be returned;
  • Tribal land return be a goal in California’s 30×30 policy;
  • That Land Trusts prioritize Tribal land return, and that land easements for conservation and culture are changed to be less of a burden to Tribes.

Videos of the conference can be viewed at:

Wiyot Opening and Statements from California and Dr. Cutcha Risling Baldy:  https://youtu.be/iCNmwBcs_Q0

Panel 1: Public and Private Lands: https://youtu.be/9RQvhgZonlY

Panel 2: Land Grab Universities : https://youtu.be/PSFWy6e9Qq0

Panel 3: Tribal Land Trusts : https://youtu.be/4DjRulZneK4

The conference schedule and presenter bios can be found at:

https://www.californiasalmon.org/landback

The Draft Red Paper can be found at: https://www.californiasalmon.org/_files/ugd/d97ff6_76b85f1726cb4595871840c91bc9ece9.pdf

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

27 Let us come and reason together. Isaiah 1:18
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago

Time to get past the same stale 20th century tribal rhetoric. Time for the tribes to demonstrate they are actually part of the solution, not the problem. I’ve read there are just 450 Wiyots, out of 137,000 people in Humboldt, if you count everyone who is 1/8 Wiyot, an inflated count. Using a 1/8th (great-grandparent) standard, I qualify for passports from about 4 countries. This 450 people, combined with the ecoNYMBYs, blocked that windmill farm near Scotia. It was a sacred lands claim and these 450 people do have a right to visit these private lands upon request, but these 450 people had not done so for over 15 year. Still they felt holier-than-thou blocking a new source of green energy for an electricity challenged area, even after many, many accommodations from the wind company.

Dano
Guest
Dano
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

No, it is time to fulfill the promises made. That windmill farm was a horrible idea and not the right location. You sound racist and typical of a privileged colonist.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Dano

Ironically, the term “racism” has been so over-leveraged and abused that it become safer to assume malevolence onto the accuser rather than the accused

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago
Reply to  Dano

Dano, Please google holier-than-thou and you’ve splendidly made my case about the need to become part of the solution, not the problem. Thanks!

Last edited 1 year ago
Verified Human Chatbot
Guest
Verified Human Chatbot
1 year ago

Let’s see if the politicians really support this. If they give all of their personal real estate to tribes and agree to never purchase any more, I will believe they are serious. If they don’t, they can piss off as far as I’m concerned. Will Greasy Gavin give up his grapes (vineyards)? Will Pelosi give up her mansion?

Dano
Guest
Dano
1 year ago

Perhaps you should understand what the issue is about. It isn’t about taking personal property.

Griffon
Guest
Griffon
1 year ago
Reply to  Dano

Maybe you would like to explain “what the issue is about.”

Giant Squirrel
Guest
Giant Squirrel
1 year ago
Reply to  Griffon

About government gifting property to Tribes, so taking from taxpayers or public lands users

LakotaBoyLonely
Guest
LakotaBoyLonely
1 year ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

It isn’t about gifting anything it’s about honoring treaties that were blatantly broken. Imagine being upset by the idea of healing a people and a community.

Just Sayin
Guest
Just Sayin
1 year ago
Reply to  Griffon

Virtue signaling. Something woke nymbys love more than the people the signal “for”….

Felice Pace
Member
Felice Pace
1 year ago

Land Back is good, but in Northern California the vast majority of the land is currently controlled by the federal government. And while the Forest Service and other federal agencies pay lip service to the concept, they resist Land Back in the classic federal agency passive-aggressive manner.

Congressman Jared Huffman did secure a bit of land back for the Karuk Tribe. But what about management of the majority of land that is national forests? I believe the appropriate action on those lands is co-management which respects the interests of all Americans or, better yet, allowing federal tribes to manage national forests under all the same laws that currently apply to those lands.

That would be so much more than the symbolic Land Back returns we are currently seeing.

Giant Squirrel
Guest
Giant Squirrel
1 year ago
Reply to  Felice Pace

Then a trespass fee to go hunting?

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago
Reply to  Felice Pace

Land Back makes sense on a case by case basis with a spectrum on new ownership rights. For example, i was very happy when the Karuk got the land at the junction of the salmon and klamath. If I were to make a list of possible centers of the world, that land would be on the list. It’s a truly ancient claim for an unbelievably ancient people and I have no trouble it being under full Karuk control. Then on the other hand, there’s the “dirty energy” carpetbagger tribe trying to lay claim to the sea floor 21 miles off shore, which of course is absurd.

guest`
Guest
guest`
1 year ago

I don’t think the Government should give away land to racists.

I don’t want more Casinos either.

Griffon
Guest
Griffon
1 year ago
Reply to  guest`

What a disgusting comment to call an entire race of people racist👎🏽

guest`
Guest
guest`
1 year ago
Reply to  Griffon

Well, since giving them the land keeps everyone who isn’t in the tribe off it who is being racist again?

Griffon
Guest
Griffon
1 year ago
Reply to  guest`

Yes, that is how land ownership works. You can decide who you would like to give access.

Mega
Guest
Mega
1 year ago
Reply to  Griffon

Yeah kinda like if i exclude everyone who isn’t white from my land that’s super not racist

Griffon
Guest
Griffon
1 year ago
Reply to  Mega

Nowhere in the article suggests the tribes would exclude others from the land back land.

I’m not sure the point of your comment since that isn’t being proposed.

guest`
Guest
guest`
1 year ago
Reply to  Griffon

It is now public land.

Canyon oak
Guest
Canyon oak
1 year ago

Mexicans also claim at least up to Oregon as their rightful territory.
That’ll be fun to watch play out for next centuries observers, lol!
And yet, who will everybody blame when all the white civilizers fade out and California is just Aztec north with a Asian aristocracy?
Is there any legitimate claim to land ever?
Do modern men in tribes consider themselves to be in active war against the US?
Is it the naïveté of political liberals that they cannot see from a warrior perspective to even recognize territorial disputes?
Natives want their land back, specifically ‘public land’.
Six rivers, Mendocino and Klamath national forests. King Range and so on..
current narrative shines on natives favorably so they are making inroads while they can.
Who can blame them?
It’s all about playing the long game, and America is already giving up what it once won.
Would a Nation interested in it’s own upcoming centuries ever do such a thing?

Thatguyinarcata
Guest
Thatguyinarcata
1 year ago
Reply to  Canyon oak

Where have “mexicans” claimed that land “at least up to oregon” is theirs?

Fucking delusional comment

Not a lot of hope
Guest
Not a lot of hope
1 year ago

Public access for non tribal members is the only issue. Federal lands are ours to. We grew up loving the land and doing the same things. To take it from us would be a continuation of negativity. No issue with sacred sights but we are all in this together. We can’t gill net or spotlight deer. We were born in this hills and on these rivers we matter to. Shut up about racism no proper discussion will come from that.

THC
Member
THC
1 year ago

How about Native Americans concentrating on taking care of the land they already have? There’s a lot of reservations out there that aren’t doing so good…. By the by I have enough native American blood in my lineage to qualify for benefits if I wanted them. But I just see my self as an American. Not an Irish, Italian, German,Bulgarian,Native American..

Thatguyinarcata
Guest
Thatguyinarcata
1 year ago
Reply to  THC

So you are saying that you don’t participate in any tribal activity but you have a strong belief that tribal activity isn’t doing what it should be doing? And your suggestion is that…some vague tribes should do some vague things “better”?

THC
Member
THC
1 year ago

No I’m suggesting that tribes get their own house in order before they demand a bigger house.

Last edited 1 year ago
anon
Guest
anon
1 year ago

What a sad day for this comment section.

Folks, no one is coming for your land. This is about so called public land that is currently (mis)managed by government entities.
For us normal folks to access that land, we already have to agree to a set of standards and practices. For example to backpack in a wilderness area I have to apply for a permit and sign a form that i won’t burn down the forest, and if I do I’ll be held liable. Even good old BLM land has a few standards of behavior.
I’ve also been on land currently held by native folks in various forms (as reservation land, as ‘private property’) when invited to do so and have, similarly, agreed to engage respectfully with the people and land.
In our current world, most public land is basically a playground for extractive corporate interests to take all they can with no regard for those of us who live here and send the profits out of the area. There won’t be much left to enjoy if, for example, the salvage logging practices in Klamath national forest continue- clear cutting stands of mixed age forest because there are scorch marks on the trunks of several hundred years old healthy living trees, like they were doing last summer, is harming everyone. Landback of that land would benefit all of us.
In a future with less genocidal racists running around where lots of land is back in native hands, I imagine us folks who don’t trace lineage to this content may frequently have similar access options-if we agree to standards of behavior there, not unlike how we currently access public lands.