Michael Spear:
>I have heard that a serious move is afoot to transfer ownership of Toppenish
>NWR and Conboy NWR from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the Bureau of
>Indian Affairs, effective very soon (like next week).

I heard about this issue last month from Bob Fields, who recently
joined the Portland Audubon Board after retiring from the USF&W
(at retirement, he was responsible for managing all refuges in
California and Nevada, which include Tule and the Klamath complex
Ruby Lakes, the Central Valley comples, etc).

He wasn't entirely sure in his own mind as to what to think about
it. It hasn't come up as a cost-saving measure, it came up
as the consequences of a bill passed a year or two ago (when
the Demos were still in control) to give control to tribes
of many areas which were removed from their control many
years ago. Apparently in violation of treaty, at least
in many cases. This isn't just restricted to NWRs.

When were those NWRs established?

He was mentioning a couple in his old region of CA/NV. The
dilema is that they were (in some cases at least) yanked from
the tribes in much the same way the Winema NF (or was it the
Fremont? I get confused 'tween them. Naming the resulting
NF the Fremont would've been damned insulting) was yanked
from the Klamath tribe in the 1960s or 1970s, i.e. shady
dealings driven by the BIA's ability to (legally) control
many aspects of tribal decision making. At least that's
my understanding.

I'm not sure how the process is picking which NWRs to give up.
If you have interest in the subject, you might talk to
the USFW regional folks.

In the cases he was aware of, though, there was going to
some fairly extensive grandfathering in of existing rights.

Unfortunately, he was just learning details himself. As you
said, it's happening quickly and Bob felt there was a lot
of confusion within USF&W too.

Not just about what exactly was happening, but whether it
was "right" or "wrong". Or righting a portion of past
wrongs.

Though the Klamath tribes case involves an NF, not NWR,
here's what happened roughly 25 years ago: they were
forced (I forget the mechanism) to give up their reservation
lands which were formed into the NF. The legislation
authorizing it listed a whole list of stuff that would
be maintained for the tribe's use in those lands, including
maintenance of healthy fish populations, game, and I
imagine religious and cultural values as well. The USFS
responded by putting the forest into the matrix, with
management no different than other NFs. The tribe's
been fighting in court off and on over the past decade,
at one time I knew their lawyer and one of the fisheries
biologist (who was having a great time because the
streams he was studying had been largely trashed).

Now, I truly don't know the background on the NWR situtation
other than the skimpy details I was able to provide above.
But, what I do know tells me the issue probably involves
more than a simple land grab on the part of the tribes.

Though, of course, in part it might boil down to that.

Anyone know the specifics of the two NWRs listed by
Michael? I'd appreciate any other info people have
on this issue. Unfortunately, I only see Bob occasionally
and as far as I know he's not on the net.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>