2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

One issue that has not been included in your discussion is the issue of Indian treaty rights. Indian tribes had extensive fishing rights along the Oregon coast, and these fishing and gathering rights were confirmed in ratified Indian treaties. Then the western Oregon tribes were terminated in the 1950s. When they were legislatively restored to federally recognized status beginning in the 1970s, the State forced the tribes to give up most of their treaty gathering and fishing rights on the Coast. The Siletz Tribe, for example, had to enter into a consent decree in 1980 giving up most of their treaty rights in order to get a reservation, and retains only limited shellfish gathering rights in Lincoln County along the coast, which rights can be limited by applicable state laws and regulations. In creating large marine reserves, the State must take into account whether its actions will further diminish the already limited tribal gathering rights along the oregon coast.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context