Post by blackcrowheart on Dec 27, 2005 6:08:45 GMT -5
Tribes Hitting BIA's Wall
Are There No More New Ones Or Is Politics Blocking The Way?
By RICK GREEN
Courant Staff Writer
December 25 2005
A string of recent rulings by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs
against the recognition of tribal groups has raised a critical
question for both sides of the issue:
With more than 500 federal tribes on the books, could it be that
there just aren't any more?
Or have political opponents who don't want any more Indian tribes -
or Indian gambling - gained the upper hand again?
Tribal leaders say politics is behind the fact that 10 out of the
last 11 recognition rulings by the BIA have gone against tribes,
three of them from Connecticut.
The truth probably lies somewhere between these extremes, but it's
clear that the long, troubled history of relations between Native
Americans and the country has reached another crucial moment.
"There is one question that Indian people don't like to be asked:
What's the outer limit on this thing?" said Sam Deloria, director of
the American Indian Law Center at the University of New Mexico and a
member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. "This is not an unlimited,
wild card thing. You've got to start thinking about that."
Connecticut's Eastern Pequots and Schaghticokes - both appealing the
federal government's decisions in October to deny them recognition -
are facing this reality. More than 200 other groups have told the BIA
they, too, want federal recognition, creating a backlog that could
take 15 years to resolve.
The continuing flow of recognition applications - including eight
long-shot prospects from Connecticut - was spurred at least in part
by a 1988 law permitting gambling on reservations in states that
allow it elsewhere, even if only in the form of charity events, such
as Las Vegas nights.
Recognition also brings other federal entitlements for health care
and housing, as well as the opportunity to restore reservation lands.
But a confluence of controversies has made it increasingly difficult
for tribes to succeed in Washington, according to tribal leaders and
their advisers. This includes the growing scandal over political
payoffs by Indian casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a long-running
impasse over the billion-dollar mismanagement of royalties from
leases on tribal lands belonging to Indians and a backlash against
gambling run by Indians and tribal sovereignty in general.
What's more, Congress and the White House have shown little interest
in adding significant resources, or changing the rules, to allow the
Department of the Interior, in which the BIA resides, to begin to
plow through the logjam.
Interior Department spokesman Daniel J. DuBray said petitions for
federal recognition are reviewed individually, so there's no point in
looking for trends.
"The criteria for recommending federal recognition of tribes is very
specific and involved and is quite detailed and arduous and complex,"
DuBray said. "The idea that some, over the course of time, don't
stand up to the criteria ... I don't think that should be surprising."
There are now 561 federal tribes, with the last positive final
recognition decision by the BIA coming in 2002, involving the Cowlitz
Tribe of Washington state.
"I don't see much hope for other tribes coming behind us," said
Marcia Flowers, chairwoman of the Eastern Pequots, who lost
a "reconsidered" final decision in October along with the
Schaghticokes. "All you have to do is look at the number of tribes
that have received negatives. It speaks for itself. It sends a very
clear signal."
Among the hundreds of tribal groups still looking for federal
recognition, perhaps only a dozen will eventually win, said Steven
Austin, a former BIA researcher who in recent years has helped a
number of tribes with their efforts, including the Schaghticokes of
Kent.
"At some point they are going to reach the point of diminishing
returns," Austin said. "It's a little hard to judge whether it's
because of political bias or whether there are other reasons."
Richard Velky, chief of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, has no such
uncertainty. He said there is a de facto moratorium because anti-
gambling and anti-Indian forces don't want more tribes. "It's pretty
apparent why we ended up with a negative ruling. It was a political
move," Velky said.
But state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a national figure in
the opposition to expanded tribal recognition, said groups such as
the Schaghticokes and Eastern Pequots are failing for a more basic
reason.
"Many of the recent petitions have no merit or inadequate merit,"
Blumenthal said. "The heat and light generated by my office and other
critics certainly got [the BIA's] attention. The effect was to grab
them by the collar and shake them and say, `Are you living in the
real world here?'"
There are routes to recognition that go around the BIA. A handful of
tribes have won recognition through Congress, notably the
Mashantucket Pequots in 1982. Congress last recognized a tribe in
2000.
Tribes also may turn to the federal courts. This past fall, a federal
judge ruled that the Long Island-based Shinnecocks are a tribe.
Although the courts have been reluctant to step into the recognition
process, growing frustration with the BIA may lead more tribes to try
that route.
As the $20 billion Indian gambling industry continues to grow at a
brisk pace, it also brings more detractors. Both the Eastern Pequots
and Schaghticokes were derided by critics as fronts for casino
investors - despite documented histories in the state going back
hundreds of years.
"Gaming has really muddied the waters," said Kay Davis, a member of
the Boise Forte Band of Minnesota Chippewa and a former BIA
researcher who evaluated recognition petitions, including those from
Connecticut. "But it is not about gaming. It is about being an
Indian. "
"Everything [the BIA does] now is political. It is looked at very
cautiously because of gaming," Davis said. "There are still some
tribes out there still. They are scared of the federal government. We
have been taught as Indians to be scared of the federal government."
Non-Indians are equally worried about the power of casino-rich
tribes, said Elaine D. Willman, chair of the Citizens Equal Rights
Alliance, based in the state of Washington, which bills itself as an
organization protecting the rights of citizens living near
reservations.
There is a backlash against "all the resources that have been thrown
to Native Americans," Willman said. "We are going to go through some
very rocky, very controversial and very sensitive times where some
changes must occur and some balance must be found."
Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant
Are There No More New Ones Or Is Politics Blocking The Way?
By RICK GREEN
Courant Staff Writer
December 25 2005
A string of recent rulings by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs
against the recognition of tribal groups has raised a critical
question for both sides of the issue:
With more than 500 federal tribes on the books, could it be that
there just aren't any more?
Or have political opponents who don't want any more Indian tribes -
or Indian gambling - gained the upper hand again?
Tribal leaders say politics is behind the fact that 10 out of the
last 11 recognition rulings by the BIA have gone against tribes,
three of them from Connecticut.
The truth probably lies somewhere between these extremes, but it's
clear that the long, troubled history of relations between Native
Americans and the country has reached another crucial moment.
"There is one question that Indian people don't like to be asked:
What's the outer limit on this thing?" said Sam Deloria, director of
the American Indian Law Center at the University of New Mexico and a
member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. "This is not an unlimited,
wild card thing. You've got to start thinking about that."
Connecticut's Eastern Pequots and Schaghticokes - both appealing the
federal government's decisions in October to deny them recognition -
are facing this reality. More than 200 other groups have told the BIA
they, too, want federal recognition, creating a backlog that could
take 15 years to resolve.
The continuing flow of recognition applications - including eight
long-shot prospects from Connecticut - was spurred at least in part
by a 1988 law permitting gambling on reservations in states that
allow it elsewhere, even if only in the form of charity events, such
as Las Vegas nights.
Recognition also brings other federal entitlements for health care
and housing, as well as the opportunity to restore reservation lands.
But a confluence of controversies has made it increasingly difficult
for tribes to succeed in Washington, according to tribal leaders and
their advisers. This includes the growing scandal over political
payoffs by Indian casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a long-running
impasse over the billion-dollar mismanagement of royalties from
leases on tribal lands belonging to Indians and a backlash against
gambling run by Indians and tribal sovereignty in general.
What's more, Congress and the White House have shown little interest
in adding significant resources, or changing the rules, to allow the
Department of the Interior, in which the BIA resides, to begin to
plow through the logjam.
Interior Department spokesman Daniel J. DuBray said petitions for
federal recognition are reviewed individually, so there's no point in
looking for trends.
"The criteria for recommending federal recognition of tribes is very
specific and involved and is quite detailed and arduous and complex,"
DuBray said. "The idea that some, over the course of time, don't
stand up to the criteria ... I don't think that should be surprising."
There are now 561 federal tribes, with the last positive final
recognition decision by the BIA coming in 2002, involving the Cowlitz
Tribe of Washington state.
"I don't see much hope for other tribes coming behind us," said
Marcia Flowers, chairwoman of the Eastern Pequots, who lost
a "reconsidered" final decision in October along with the
Schaghticokes. "All you have to do is look at the number of tribes
that have received negatives. It speaks for itself. It sends a very
clear signal."
Among the hundreds of tribal groups still looking for federal
recognition, perhaps only a dozen will eventually win, said Steven
Austin, a former BIA researcher who in recent years has helped a
number of tribes with their efforts, including the Schaghticokes of
Kent.
"At some point they are going to reach the point of diminishing
returns," Austin said. "It's a little hard to judge whether it's
because of political bias or whether there are other reasons."
Richard Velky, chief of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, has no such
uncertainty. He said there is a de facto moratorium because anti-
gambling and anti-Indian forces don't want more tribes. "It's pretty
apparent why we ended up with a negative ruling. It was a political
move," Velky said.
But state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a national figure in
the opposition to expanded tribal recognition, said groups such as
the Schaghticokes and Eastern Pequots are failing for a more basic
reason.
"Many of the recent petitions have no merit or inadequate merit,"
Blumenthal said. "The heat and light generated by my office and other
critics certainly got [the BIA's] attention. The effect was to grab
them by the collar and shake them and say, `Are you living in the
real world here?'"
There are routes to recognition that go around the BIA. A handful of
tribes have won recognition through Congress, notably the
Mashantucket Pequots in 1982. Congress last recognized a tribe in
2000.
Tribes also may turn to the federal courts. This past fall, a federal
judge ruled that the Long Island-based Shinnecocks are a tribe.
Although the courts have been reluctant to step into the recognition
process, growing frustration with the BIA may lead more tribes to try
that route.
As the $20 billion Indian gambling industry continues to grow at a
brisk pace, it also brings more detractors. Both the Eastern Pequots
and Schaghticokes were derided by critics as fronts for casino
investors - despite documented histories in the state going back
hundreds of years.
"Gaming has really muddied the waters," said Kay Davis, a member of
the Boise Forte Band of Minnesota Chippewa and a former BIA
researcher who evaluated recognition petitions, including those from
Connecticut. "But it is not about gaming. It is about being an
Indian. "
"Everything [the BIA does] now is political. It is looked at very
cautiously because of gaming," Davis said. "There are still some
tribes out there still. They are scared of the federal government. We
have been taught as Indians to be scared of the federal government."
Non-Indians are equally worried about the power of casino-rich
tribes, said Elaine D. Willman, chair of the Citizens Equal Rights
Alliance, based in the state of Washington, which bills itself as an
organization protecting the rights of citizens living near
reservations.
There is a backlash against "all the resources that have been thrown
to Native Americans," Willman said. "We are going to go through some
very rocky, very controversial and very sensitive times where some
changes must occur and some balance must be found."
Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant