Trust in the Land: New Directions in Tribal Conservation

Notes

Notes Foreword 1. Lt. James Doty, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Minutes of the Walla Walla Council, 1855,” in Report on the Source, Nature and Extent of Fishing, Hunting and Miscellaneous Related Rights of Certain Tribes in Oregon and Washington (Los Angeles: Office of Indian Affairs, Division of Forestry and Grazing, 1942). 2. Ibid. Preface 1. The Sierra Institute for Community and Environment is a nonprofit research and educational organization in the northeastern Sierra Nevada. Through its Forestry Center, the Institute offers outdoor learning and networking opportunities . See http://www.sierrainstitute.us for more information. 2. Marvin Cunningham, telephone communication, December 28, 2009; Paul Hardy, executive director of the Feather River Land Trust, agreed that this must have included 120 acres in Hungry Creek and three parcels in the valley of 80, 120, and 160 acres (telephone communication, January 8, 2010). 3. Farrell Cunningham, tour of Heart K Ranch, May 16, 2009. 4. Marvin Cunningham, personal communication, Genesee Valley, California , December 20, 2009. 5. According to Marvin Cunningham, not all of the heirs in the Davis family knew of the transfer of the land until after it had occurred (personal communication , Genesee Valley, California, December 20, 2009). 6. Paul Hardy, telephone communication, December 7, 2009. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. For example, the Feather River Land Trust mission is general enough to amply accommodate cultural preservation. The mission is “to conserve, restore, and manage land in the Feather River region in cooperation with willing 258 NOTES TO PAGES xvi–xviii landowners for the benefit of current and future generations.” In a discussion entitled, “Why We Believe in Our Mission,” the land trust notes that “the Feather River region . . . contains critical wildlife habitat, as well as historic ranches, Maidu cultural sites, scenic open spaces, and important recreation areas.” See http://www.frlt.org/whoweare.html. 10. Jason Moghaddas, Feather River Land Trust conservation director, e-mail message to author, January 7, 2010. 11. Plumas County Health Department. Parcel 008–160–0–20. Sewage system red tagged, November 10, 1987. On file with the author. 12. Paul Hardy, telephone communication, January 8, 2010. 13. The FRLT has since expanded to a staff of seven. The organization has helped conserve fifteen properties, totaling nearly 30,000 acres in the Feather River region. 14. Trina Cunningham is still the representative, but her tenure is almost up, and it is unclear whether another Maidu person will replace her on the board. 15. Trina Cunningham, presentation at the “Cultural Conservation Easements Workshop,” Public Interest Environmental Law Conference, Many Nations Longhouse, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, February 27, 2009. Transcript on file with the author. 16. Wood and O’Brien, in one of two seminal works by Wood on tribal engagement in the land trust movement, note the important role of Native board members for Native land trusts. This can be extended to Native participation on non-Native land trust boards as well: “Board members act as spokespersons for the organization and can educate the public about the Native approach to restoration.” Mary Christina Wood and Matthew O’Brien, “Tribes as Trustees Again (Part II): Evaluating Four Models of Tribal Participation in the Conservation Trust Movement,” Stanford Environmental Law Journal 27, no. 2 (2008): 531. 17. Paul Hardy, personal communication, Quincy, California, 2003. 18. Trina Cunningham, telephone communication, May 2009. 19. Chad L. Hoopes, Domesticate or Exterminate: California Indian Treaties Unratified and Made Secret in 1852 (Loleta, CA: Redwood Coast Publications, 1975). 20. Greenville Rancheria (Maidu, Wintun) is in Plumas County, Susanville Rancheria (Maidu, Paiute, Pit River) is in Lassen County, and Mechoopda, Enterprise, Mooretown, and Berry Creek (Concow Maidu) rancherias are in Butte County. Rancherias are small reservations that were established in the early twentieth century for “homeless” California Indians following the nonratification of treaties with California tribes. The people who lived on these lands and their descendants became federally recognized tribes, often comprising multiple tribal groups. Some rancherias were canceled within a few decades of their establishment . Taylorsville, for example, was declared “abandoned” (its residents may have been forced off or were away working) and the land was put up for sale. The 1953 Congressional Resolution 108 removed tribes from federal supervision in order to assimilate members into the general public, which eliminated many NOTES TO PAGE xviii 259 rancherias. California passed its own version of termination legislation (Public Law 85–671) in 1958, terminating sixty-one California tribes and bands. In 1983, Tillie...