An involvement with the stream clearance and in developing enhancement programs and things like this, here again, Congressman McCloskey, we have run up against a wall when we try to do these things because of the lack of government or the lack of the Bureau of Indian Affairs accepting that responsibility that they are our guardians more or less and they should be able to accept funds and delegate those funds to us. OK. Now, there was some funds that came in here. They don't delegate it to the Indian people. They delegate it to the Fish and Wildlife or some other outfit like this and a recommendation like you guys have here from the college. Now, I think we can regulate, we can control the whole river. We can get along with the Hoopas and we can work out and resolve these problems. The court system-we haven't had an Indian judge there for years. I don't know where he came from. He's not an Indian judge. The prosecutor is not an Indian. They kicked me off the jury because I told the truth. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. They said they would kick you off a jury because you told the truth? Mr. LARA. Because I told the truth, right. They wanted me to be a juror and I went up there and sat down and they asked me some questions and I told them the truth. I told them what I thought about the situation. I told them the court was set up illegally and the whole thing and the guy kicked me off the jury. I couldn't believe it, because I could have been an honest juror. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Would you feel comfortable being tried by a jury of Hoopas? Mr. LARA. I wouldn't mind it. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Let's let Mr. Kinney get in here at this point. Mr. Kinney, could we have your testimony? STATEMENT OF ROBERT KINNEY, AN INDIAN OF THE HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION Mr. KINNEY. Thank you for inviting me to speak today. My testimony shouldn't take too long. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, as an Indian of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, I am glad to be here to aid the committee in finding possible solutions to the pressing controversies surrounding the reservation's river resource. I would like to speak from an Indian's point of view in relationship to the fish resource and the important social, spiritual, and cultural factors that characterize the Indian people of the reservation. My intention is to explain four basic points of interest that the Indian people are concerned with in relationship to the fish re source: First, the fish resource is a major part of the spiritual culture and subsistence status quo to the members of the reservation; Second, the blending of villages helped the people of the reservation to thrive in their spiritual and social culture; Third, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is using the fishing issue to undermine the individual rights of the Short case plaintiffs; and Fourth, the proposed solutions to the pressing controversies surrounding the fish resources on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. No. 1, the fish resource is a major part of the spiritual culture and subsistence status quo to the members of the reservation. The Indians of the reservation engage in numerous spiritual ceremonies of which hunting and fishing are the primary themes to assure prosperous living among the people. The two main ceremonies which require months of preparation are called the white deerskin dance which is followed by the Jump Dance. Both ceremonies require 10 days of sacred activities such as praying, fasting, singing and dancing. During these ceremonies, spiritual leaders are responsible to verbalize, exactly, special religious formulas that bring the salmon up the river and fulfills the requirement for an abundant acorn crop, or allows plenty of deer to be hunted in the forest. These ceremonies are all connected with particular foods which are important to the Indian people. Besides the participants in these ceremonies, people from the surrounding villages assemble as spectators. As the ceremony includes feasting and celebration for 10 days at 10 different village camps, a camp leader is required to supply enough food for everyone attending the ceremony. Then everyone shares the feast, salmon being an essential food. No. 2, the blending of villages helps the people of the reservation to thrive in their spiritual culture and subsistence status quo. It is a well-documented fact that the Indians of the reservation resided in villages primarily along the Trinity and Klamath Rivers. Indian people of this region, and in California generally, lived in a village society, as opposed to tribes or nations characterized east of the Rocky Mountains. This village society is mainly due to California's geography. Even though villages spread throughout the northwestern coast region, the Indian people of the reservation shared in their social, economic, and spiritual culture. This intertwining of cultural sharing had several benefitting factors for social prosperity. For instance, before there were roads and cars on the reservation, a spiritual leader named Milo travelled from a village in the Hoopa Valley by redwood canoe down the Trinity Canyon to my ancestral village at Weitchpec to gather dried fish from my great-grandmother, Eliza Dowd. It was not unusual, particularly during spiritual ceremonies, for village leaders to obtain the necessary dance regalia, foodstuff and redwood canoes from other villages up and down the Trinity and Klamath Rivers to meet the needs of the upcoming sacred ceremonies. In addition, since intermarriage was a common practice throughout the reservation region, there has never been a separation for sharing in the river resources. In effect, the blending of villages on the reservation meant very close family ties which resulted in the Indian's spiritual concept of having a oneness with the people. The concept of "oneness" among the people of the reservation is still practiced today in 1979. Indian folk residing in the Hoopa Valley continue to join their relatives who live along the Klamath River when salmon, lamprey eel or acorn crops are in abundance. I think the members of this committee should know that the members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe are close relatives of other Indians on the reservation. Approximately 35 percent of the persons who have been members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, since its organization in 1950, still have a family relationship between the Jessie Short plaintiffs and one or more in the capacity of spouse, half-brother or half-sister or lineal ancestor. Additionally I would like to point out that not all of the Short plaintiffs live below the reservation's square. Not all the Hoopas live above the 40-mile strip of the Klamath with respect to the reservation. Approximately the same number of the Short plaintiffs live on the "square" as those who live in the "strip." No. 3, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is using the fishing issue to undermine the individual rights of the Short case plaintiffs. The BIA has for years looked for a way to divide the Yurok plaintiffs and the Hoopa Valley Tribe to keep them from forming the largest Indian tribe in the State of California. They have tried many times to get the Yuroks to organize separately from Hoopa. The BIA has found an issue that touches closely to the Yurok people-fishing. Last year the BIA ignited the fishing controversy by publishing fishing regulations that actually encouraged commercial gill-netting on the reservation. Immediately, dissention set in by Indians and non-Indians alike, because all but a few of the Indians of the reservation are opposed to commercial fishing for individual profit. The people do not favor commercial fishing at this time because of the need to save the salmon. Mr. Forrest Gerard, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, claims that the fishing which so closely touches the Indian people, should be used as the sole reason to organize-that is a subtle means to subvert the rights of the Short plaintiffs. I don't want this committee to be misled into thinking that a new tribal organization is essential for the proper management of the Klamath fishery. Most of all, I do not want this committee, by any means, to lend support to the present BIA organizational plan that is intended to deny the Short plaintiffs their individual rights to the reservation. At this time, the Indian people seriously regret that the Interior Committee did not join in these hearings today because they could directly provide assistance to help combat the oppressive tactics of the BIA. The Interior Committee could conduct a full scale congressional investigation of the BIA's illegal conduct in this case. If the Yurok people in the Short case organize to form a tribe, the Secretary of the Interior will assume full control over all monies, assets, resources, and members of the tribe and will not have to account for discrepant accounts of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation resource revenues back to 1955. In the Short case, to accredit a money judgment to a tribe instead of individuals would work as a compromise and defeat the right of each individual to their lawful right to per capita payments back to 1955. A compromise would put the individual claims at the mercy of the Secretary and a compromise would automatically wipe out any wrongdoing back to 1955. The Short case was decided in favor of individuals, "as proven their individual claims to be Indians of the enlarged reservation." It was not decided in favor of a tribe. The Supreme Court has made this decision final in 1974. No. 4, proposed solutions to the pressing controversies surrounding the fishing resource on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. A. Place an indefinite moratorium on commercial fishing as a reservation resource. No. 1, based on the fact that commercial fishing has caused severe social and economic hardships on Indians and non-Indians alike, an indefinite moratorium is recommended to alleviate the situation. No. 2, the commercial fishing resource is in the same category as the timber resource. It is a reservation asset belonging to all the Indians; not to any special interest groups. No. 3, since the Klamath and Trinity Rivers are interrelated, separate fishing regulations and fishing management plans would not only be ineffective, but detrimental to Indian people. B. Only in the judgment between the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior, should reservation commercial fishing be reinstated. No. 1, after a fishing conservation master plan for the reservation is approved by the committee and the Secretary should tribal commercial fishing commence. No. 2, ceremonial and subsistence fishing should be controlled under reasonable, easy-to-understand regulations in order to be enforceable. C. The present Bureau of Indian Affairs plans to organize the Short plaintiffs into an artificial "Yurok Tribe" be stayed until the BIA complies with the entire 1973 Court of Claims decision. No. 1, the Secretary should be urged to honor the full Short decision in good faith in order to bring about a conclusion of the Short litigation. The BIA's scheme to use an organizational plan as a means of interfering with the Short case is the major deterrent for introducing a workable solution to the Klamath fishery. The Secretary of the Interior should assist the Department of Justice in determining who are the Indians on the reservation. That is my statement and I welcome any questions by the committee at this time. Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Kinney, for your statement. I am sorry, but I missed your name because you are substituting for somebody who could not be here today. Mr. WILLIAMS. She is substituting today for Miss Ollie Foseide. Mr. Chairman, I present Miss Vera Ryerson. Mr. BREAUX. Fine. Miss Ryerson, we would be happy to receive your testimony at this time. STATEMENT OF VERA RYERSON, REPRESENTATIVE, YUROK INDIAN TRIBE Ms. RYERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Vera Ryerson and I am a Yurok Indian. I have lived on the reservation-born and raised there-till about 10 or 12 years ago. I don't have with me today a written statement, just things that I jotted down listening to the meeting here today and things that I wanted to bring up. So, if I make any mistakes I hope you will bear with me. Mr. BREAUX. That will be fine. No problem at all, Ms. Ryerson. Ms. RYERSON. First, I am very concerned about this Gerard plan and this Gerard plan has been voted down any number of times and it has been turned around and revised, so to speak, but then to us it means the same thing. Now, if this Gerard plan is successful, we fear that we will lose. our judgment in the Jessie Short case. Therefore, we ask the Congress to intercede for us, because we do need help. Mr. BREAUX. Can I interrupt and ask you a question, Ms. Ryerson, or Mr. Williams or Mr. Lara or Mr. Kinney? Now apparently what you said is you indicated a very serious. mistrust in the BIA, that if the Yuroks organize into a tribe that that will somehow very much adversely affect your rights to the claims. Suppose it could be made very clear by an act of Congress that if a Yurok would organize into a tribe or tribal organization with authority to determine which of the members of the tribe are eligible to receive the payments, in other words, let the tribe make the determination of who is eligible to receive the payments, would that still give any of you a serious problem about how the funds. would be handled, and if so, why? Mr. WILLIAMS. There is a good answer to that. Mr. WILLIAMS. We were informed by an earlier solicitor in the Jessie Short case-and as Peter Masten suggested earlier, to go back to a split and talk about enacting a split in this reservationyou see, the Jessie Short case came about because we were kicked off of our reservation. We were kicked off from entitlements and shares that we were entitled to. The Jessie Short case has rendered a decision that says that every individual Indian has that right on that reservation for to share and share alike on that reservation. And I would ask the Congress to consider, you know, I heard Mr. McCloskey say earlier today that there is a Federal thrust right now of formulating tribes throughout this Nation. I look at that. That thrust right now is because of what the precedent of the Jessie Short case has set in this Nation. It's the first time in the known history of this Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs will admit it-it's the first time that an individual Indian has won a right against the Federal Government. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. BREAUX. I will yield. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I don't honestly think, Mr. Williams, that the American Indian Policy Review Commission recommended that we |