Contacts:
Stephany Seay, Buffalo Field Campaign, 406-646-0070, bfc-media@wildrockies.org
Mike Mease, Buffalo Field Campaign, 406-646-0070, mease@wildrockies.org

WEST YELLOWSTONE, MT:  Members of America’s last continuously wild bison population, the so-called Yellowstone buffalo, have been intensely attacked by state and federal agencies working under the highly controversial Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). Volunteers with Buffalo Field Campaign, a wild bison advocacy and media group, document all actions made against the buffalo by state and federal agencies and advocate for thier lasting protection.

Watch an exclusive video from Buffalo Field Campaign showing hazing (forced removal) operations that occurred this week:

Click the image to watch BFC’s video or visit this link.

“These taxpayer funded hazing operations are highly abusive, disruptive, wasteful, unjustifiable and certainly unnecessary,” said Buffalo Field Campaign spokeswoman Stephany Seay. “Wild migratory bison are native to Montana, and are an ecologically extinct keystone wildlife species. The Yellowstone herds are beloved the world over, and should be valued and treated with respect wherever they roam, not brutalized to appease Montana’s livestock industry.”

Hazing of wild bison takes place every spring in the Hebgen Basin during the height of calving season. On May 13 through 15, the Montana Department of Livestock and other IBMP agencies seriously disrupted the ecosystem and local residents with industrial-scale bison hazing, using a large number of government horsemen, law enforcement officers, and a helicopter to evict native wild bison from Montana. Hazing occurs because Montana’s livestock interests refuse to accept wild bison on the landscape. The forced removal of native wild bison in the Hebgen Basin takes place on the public lands of Gallatin National Forest and Yellowstone National Park, as well as on private land where wild bison are welcome.

There are currently no cattle present in the Hebgen Basin, and in most places where wild bison roam in Montana, cattle will never graze.

The Hebgen Basin, west of Yellowstone National Park, is also important habitat for the federally protected threatened grizzly bear.

Buffalo Field Campaign is the only group working in the field, the policy arena and the courts to defend and protect America’s last wild bison populations.  More information about Buffalo Field Campaign and their work to help wild bison can be found at http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org.

“You’re not welcome here… We’ve said no from day one.”

And with these firm words the TransCanada representatives were kicked out of Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation last week. The seemingly aloof TransCanada officials showed up at the Tribal Office in Eagle Butte, South Dakota in an attempt to win the tribe over to the pipeline, but were met with a swift, firm response. Robin LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Councilwoman for District 5, saw them in the parking lot and promptly told them off.

The encounter was caught on video:

More on http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/cheyenne-river/

Native Sun News Managing Editor

HANOVER, NH—A recent protest and the response to it by Dartmouth’s Native American student group has left the Native Alumni of Dartmouth at odds with the Ivy League college’s current Native American students.

Nestled in the forests of central New Hampshire, Dartmouth College is home to one of the most successful Native American student programs amongst America’s elite institutions of higher learning.  Originally founded in 1769 by Eleazer Wheelock and Samson Occom, a Mohegan and primary fundraiser, the college has a long history of educating Native people as the charter states its purpose is “for the education and instruction of Youth of the Indian Tribes in this land.” Dartmouth has a reputation for producing highly successful Native American alumni, a group that includes the likes of Charles Eastman (Santee Dakota), one of the first Native Americans in history to earn a medical degree.

However, in the first 200 years of the institutions existence there were only 19 Native American graduates. In 1973, the college recommitted itself to its original purpose of educating Native American students and has since placed a heavy emphasis on both the recruitment of Native American students and the development of a Native American Studies program, which is now widely considered to be the best undergraduate program in the world.

Since the rededication, Native alumni successes include Jodi Archambault-Gillete, a Hunkpapa Dakota and Senior Policy advisor on Native American affairs to the White House; Bruce Duthu, a member of the United Houma Nation who is a professor at the school, chair of the Native American Studies program, and one of the leading minds on federal Indian law; and world renown author Louise Erdrich, a Sisseton Dakota.

The college at any given time has over 100 self-identified Native American students on campus and tens of students who are actually from Native American communities. According to Dartmouth’s admissions office, there are 91 students in next year’s incoming class of freshman who self-identify as being Native American- the most in the school’s history.

A recent reaction by the school’s Native American student group to a protest on campus however has raised the ire of Dartmouth Native alumni who feel that current students have lost track of their role as Native people on campus.

On April 19th during Dartmouth’s Dimensions program, a student group called Real Talk Dartmouth staged a protest that sought to raise awareness of a number of issues that the group felt the college has failed to address. Dimensions is one of two weekends on campus where the college hosts minority students in an attempt to recruit them to attend Dartmouth, the other is the Native American Fly-In weekend that specifically targets the top students in Indian country.

The group crashed the Dimensions event with signs and chants addressing issues including homophobia, high rates of sexual assault on campus, and the continued use of the highly controversial Dartmouth Indian head mascot at sporting events. The mascot was never an official symbol of the school but has been promoted by both alums and current fraternities for years despite opposition from Native students. A video of the protest was placed on YouTube showing the group forcing their way in to a crowded hall of prospective students and shouting their message.

The protest sparked outrage from many students on campus who felt that the forum and way in which the protest was carried out was inappropriate.

“The general opinion is that what happened was uncalled for, and that they deserve some form of punishment, not because they expressed their opinions but because they barged in,” said Nikhil Arora, a student organizer of Dimensions, to the college’s on-campus newspaper The Dartmouth. “There was nothing we could do and we weren’t going to resort to violence,” added Arora.

After the event, threats were made against the protestors on an online message board. The threats led the administration at Dartmouth to cancel classes for a day, and replaced the original message board with online forums for discussion on community development. The cancellation brought national attention to the protest and led to the video going viral.

Acts of civil disobedience at Dartmouth, or on any other college campus in America, are everyday occurrences.  However, when it was learned that a preemptive video that was part of the protest was created and released on the YouTube channel, Savage Media by Taylor Payer, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa nation, the Native community found itself embroiled in the debate surrounding the appropriateness of the protest and were forced to answer questions as to what role the community plays in on-campus political discussion. Savage Media is loosely affiliated with Native students on campus and has served as a place where they can express themselves through video.

“Due to my affiliation with NAD and the video I made originally published under Savage Media, many students blamed the Native community for the protest. To my knowledge, I was the only Native student who participated in the protest and the events leading up to it,” said Payer. “I am deeply saddened to know I played a part in hurting a community I consider to be my family, but I am an activist precisely because of my love for my Native community at home and at school,” she added.

Although Payer acknowledges that the protest was in no way affiliated with Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD), the response from the school’s Native American student group has rubbed many alumni the wrong way. In a statement to The Dartmouth, Phoebe Racine (Blackfeet) and president of NAD distanced herself from the protestors, and subsequently Payer.

“NAD is an apolitical group that does not take an official stance on campus issues, but many individuals in the community are uncomfortable with Dartmouth’s former Indian mascot, which the protesters complained about in their demonstration,” said Racine to the paper.

In the past, NAD has been an active participant in on-campus political diologue and has been quick to take on the fight of Native American students on campus. However according to Payer, the group has not reached out officially to support her against the backlash that has come from the rest of campus.

“There have been a few individuals who have contacted me and expressed their support for me but as far as NAD as a student organization, they have not,” said Payer.

The stance taken by Racine elicited a quick response by alumni on Facebook who feel that the mere presence of Native students on campus is a political statement in itself.

“A Native’s presence anywhere, and especially at a place like Dartmouth, is inherently political because we come from and represent Nations that have been here longer than any other,” said Cory Corneilius, a Dakota, Salish and Oneida alum, to Native Sun News. “Like their ancestors before them believed, for many Dartmouth students we still are a problem. We remind them of the legacy of this country, that we are still here, that we are not confined to our reservations, and that we will continue to be a problem” he added.

In the Native American Alumni at Dartmouth Facebook group support for Payer seemed to be unanimous as alumni recounted their own experiences of speaking out against perceived injustice during their time as students there.

When contacted by Native Sun News, Phoebe Racine declined to comment only saying that her responsibilities as a student were more important than her role as president of NAD, and she did not have time to comment as to what stance NAD would take going forward.

According to representatives from NAAAD, a letter from the organization was being considered and would be sent to both The Dartmouth and NSN detailing the group’s official position and in support of Payer.

Payer did draft a letter of apology to the Native American community at Dartmouth but in it stood by her decision to speak out.

“I have had a rough couple of days and am deeply hurting, because of the hurt I caused in our community. Reflecting back on my actions, I remain self-critical and recognize that I should have done something differently, but ultimately I stand by my politics and actions. I did what I did because I cannot remain complicit in systems of racism, homophobia, sexism, and classism. I will never say it is the burden of Natives to be political and fight the systems that oppress them, but I personally put that burden on myself and won’t ever stop fighting” said Payer in the letter.

(Contact Brandon Ecoffey at staffwriter2@nsweekly.com)Copyright permission by Native Sun News

By Brandon Ecoffey

Native Sun News Managing Editor

RAPID CITY—Very seldom does a story about Indian country garner international attention, especially one that broke in an Indian newspaper.

The story of the sale of the historical site of Wounded Knee has traveled beyond the borders of the United States and with the approaching May 1 deadline for the tribe to buy, the entire world has turned their attention to the Pine Ridge Indian reservation.

Many tribal advocates made note of the national media attention surrounding the recently passed Violence against Women act. Tribal political pundits like Ryan Wilson (Oglala Lakota) noted that for the first time in living memory legislation impacting Indian country was at the forefront of the national news cycle. For those with a significant Native American following on Facebook and Twitter, the days leading up to the passage of the bill were filled with postings urging both lawmakers and friends to speak out in favor of the bill.

One could only imagine how social media would have responded had it been available in the 1970’s during the occupation of Wounded Knee and after the unfortunate murder of the two FBI agents in the nearby town of Oglala mere miles away.

The proposed sale of the historical site of Wounded Knee by landowner Jim Czywczynksi has surpassed VAWA in interest and is now trending globally. The story has been covered by the New York Times, USA today, Los Angeles Times, the British Broadcasting Network, ABC news Australia, CNN, and most recently 11 newspapers from Germany, who will run their story on the sale this week.

Many news outlets in the U.S are now attempting to tap in to their limited resources on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation for information on everything from how the people on the reservation feel about the proposed sale, what the Oglala Sioux tribal government plans on doing, and if Jim Czywczynski has had any real offers on the land.

The Oglala Sioux tribe has so far held their position that the $4.9 million dollar asking price for the two forty-acre tracts of land is just too much for the Oglala Sioux Tribe to pay. This position has been reiterated by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council representatives from the Wounded Knee District, economic development officials for the tribe, and community members.

However, according to a representative from the BBC, a high ranking member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Executive branch stated that the tribe does have an outside investor who is interested in buying the land on behalf of the tribe. According to the source the tribe is currently preparing to make an offer on the land. (See editorial on Page 4)

The community seems to be split as to what action should be taken in regards to the land. The Wounded Knee Survivor’s Association, who speaks for a small number of the descendants of those who were killed at Wounded Knee, believes that the land should not be developed or purchased, or even sold. The group has stated publicly that their wish would be for Mr. Czywczynski to simply hand the land over to the tribe as a donation.

“We cannot support any development or exploitation of the land. For us as Lakota we cannot sell the sacred,” said Nathan Blindman of the Wounded Knee Survivors association.

The land is within the boundaries of the reservation but the tribe has no ownership rights over the land that is the private property of Czywczynski. In the early part of the 19^th century huge portions of reservation lands fell into the hands of non-Natives during a process called allotment that parceled out the land on the reservation to individual Indians.

Some tribal members during that time sold their allotment to white homesteaders. The excess 40 acre plots of land that were still available after the land was distributed to tribal members were opened up to homesteaders. The policy of allotment was originally intended to introduce Native peoples across the country the concept of private ownership and to essentially convert them to farmers and ranchers is now looked at as a failure. It was ended in 1934.

The group has acknowledged that they do not speak for the rest of the descendants of Wounded Knee, the majority of which are from the Cheyenne River Reservation and are part of the Mni Cojou band of Lakota. What has been left out of many of the major networks stories about Wounded Knee is that the people and government on the Pine Ridge reservation are part of the Oglala band of Lakota, a different band than Chief Big Foot and the rest of the people massacred there in 1890.

The Mni Cojou Lakota today are concentrated on the Cheyenne River Reservation in central South Dakota. Recently a representative of the Mni Cojou Lakota spoke out on the sale. Joe Brings Plenty, a former Cheyenne River Sioux tribal president, and the youngest person in the tribe’s history to hold the position spoke out on the issue in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. In the article he called upon President Obama to fulfill his promise to uphold the trust responsibility and buy the land for preservation as a national monument.

“The federal government should buy this land and President Obama should then preserver it as a national monument – just as he did last month at five federally owned sites around the country, including one in Maryland honoring Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad,” wrote Brings Plenty.

The federal government who is responsible for upholding the trust relationship has said nothing on the issue. It seems unlikely at this point that they would be willing to come forward and buy the land on behalf of the tribe.

As of today the owner of the land has said that he will not move the May 1 deadline on the land back for any reason. So far Birdnecklace LLC, a renewable energy company owned by Oglala Sioux tribal member William Birdnecklace, was the only entity to make a public offering on the land. However after a short negotiation on the terms of the purchase Birdnecklace LLC quickly rescinded their offer to buy the land.

William Birdnecklace the CEO of the company has not been heard from or seen since. Although Birdnecklace LLC backed off their intention to buy the land, Czywczynski does not have a shortage of buyers willing to buy the land.

“I have two groups out of California, one from overseas who have made offers on the land and I am expecting more once the BBC and ABC Australia air their stories,” he said. “I have told them however that I will not entertain these offers until after the May 1, deadline. I just hope the tribe will step up and find a way to buy it,” added Czywczynski.

(Contact Brandon Ecoffey at staffwriter2@nsweekly.com)

Re-published with permission by Charles Tanner Jr

This IREHR Special Report takes you inside the April 6 meeting hosted in Bellingham, Washington by the anti-Indian groups Citizens Equal Rights Alliance and Citizens Equal Rights Foundation. The report sheds light on these groups’ anti-Indian ideas and goals, their legal strategy and their plans to re-invigorate anti-Indian activism in Washington State and around the country.

“Take these tribes down”
The Anti-Indian Movement Comes to Washington State

By Chuck Tanner

April 6, 2013. As blue sky peeked through the clouds of an overcast Northwest morning, a group of mostly indigenous people gathered near the Lakeway Inn Best Western in Bellingham, Washington. Drumming and singing pulsed as those present held signs reading, “Honor the Treaties” and “We are All the People.” Event organizers, Idle No More Bellingham, had called community members together to protest two organizations “who are holding a conference to discuss opposition to the existence of tribes as separate and sovereign entities.”[1]

Inside a Lakeway Inn conference room, about fifty people were gathered to hear a lineup of speakers assail the very ideas of tribal sovereignty and treaty rights – of tribal nationhood.  The anti-Indian movement had come to town.  The concerns of Idle No More Bellingham were entirely justified.

The Bellingham conference was sponsored by the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA) and Citizens Equal Rights Foundation (CERF), one of a series of events being hosted around the country by these closely-linked national anti-Indian groups. CERA/CERF held previous meetings in New York and Massachusetts; others are slated for late April in the Midwest and June in Northern California.  CERA/CERF organized these forums after canceling their regular annual Washington D.C. conference.

Baby Veronica sits on Dusten Brown’s lap. Veronica has been with her father for more than a year, but the adoptive parents still hope for her return.

By Christina Rose

Native Sun News Associate Editor

WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will hear the case of  Adoptive Couple v. Baby Veronica which has been at the center of an Indian Child Welfare Act debate since 2009.  It is a classic case of “He said, She said,” according to Chrissi Ross Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General at Cherokee Nation.

The basis of the case is that the State of South Carolina laws defining paternity are trumped by ICWA.  The Supreme Court has been asked to decide if the state laws that say a father must be actively involved in the baby’s life should override the federal Indian Child Welfare Act.

A recent telephonic press conference presented the opinions of American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.  Mark Demeray, past president of the AAAA and adoption attorney in Seattle, called the case “tragic for all parties and especially the child, no matter what the outcome.”  However, court records could show that the true tragedy might be the way the adoption agencies and attorneys neglected to follow ICWA from the start.

Ross Nimmo, said, “It is no secret that the AAAA group and private adoption attorneys do not like the ICWA because ICWA has higher standards than some state laws. It makes it difficult for people who are paying customers of adoption attorneys.  Usually those clients are non-Indians from middle class families trying to secure Indian infants.”

The 1978 ICWA was developed to keep states from improperly removing Indian children from their home. Congress spent several years investigating the need for ICWA “to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.”

An Amicus Brief filed by 18 family agencies including Casey Family Services insists that groups like the AAAA have taken the wrong position. These agencies believe that adoption “as a whole would be better served if all adoptions were held to ICWA’s standards,” and that ICWA’s rules are the “best practices in child welfare.”

Yet Demeray is calling for the US Supreme Court to view the adoption of Baby Veronica through established state laws which say that unless an unwed father has participated in a financial, nurturing or consistent manner in the child’s life, he has no paternity rights. The group insists that through ICWA, Dusten Brown, the father of Baby Girl, has been given paternity rights that are contrary to state law.

The Capobianco family, the adoptive family who hopes to regain custody of Baby Veronica, is using the argument that ICWA offers a preferential right for Indian parents or children.  But the Casey Family Brief argues, “They got it exactly backwards” and “ICWA enforces the gold standard for child welfare decisions for all children. And to unravel its protections could cause significant harm.”

Some court records show that there was suspicion that the adoption agencies purposely neglected to contact Dusten Brown or pursue information that would have had Baby Veronica returned to her father only four months after her birth.

The mismanagement by the adoption agency is questioned throughout court records. Right after the pregnant mother, Christina Maldonado, severed her wedding engagement to Brown she contacted an Oklahoma adoption agency without telling Brown.  She did not tell Brown when the baby was born and avoided telephone contact with Brown and his family.  However, Maldonado did sign statements that she knew the baby was Native American.

The agency contacted the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO) but the information they supplied about Brown was the incorrect spelling of his name and the wrong birth date.  The agency denied their intentions were based in “bad motives” and stated that Brown also “repeatedly misspelled his own name.” The evidence they supplied were checks from a bank that had misspelled Brown’s name.

When the baby was born on September 15, 2009, the mother signed the adoption forms the next morning. Court records show that the forms signed by the Hispanic mother listed Baby Veronica’s ethnicity as ‘Hispanic’ instead of ‘Native American.’”

Because of this misinformation and the inability to obtain correct information from the Cherokee Nation, the adoptive family received permission to take Baby Veronica across state lines from Oklahoma to South Carolina. Court documents show, “Had the birth father’s status as a member of the Cherokee Nation been known, neither the Cherokee Nation nor the Oklahoma agency would have consented to the removal of the child from Oklahoma.”

The adoption agency made no attempts to reach out to the father other than to serve him papers four months after the baby was born, seeking the termination of his parental rights.  Court records indicated that the adoption agency’s pre-placement form said “it was determined that naming him would be detrimental to the adoption.”

In order to satisfy the ICWA paternity requirements, Dusten Brown took a DNA test and was found to be the biological father of the child.  He was shown to be “a fit and caring father” through his relationship with his daughter from another marriage.  Court records stated that even the birth mother of Baby Veronica said that Brown was a good father. “There is no evidence to suggest that he would be anything other than an excellent parent to this child,” court records read. “The birth father is a fit and proper person to have custody of his child.”

The lawsuit filed on behalf of the adoptive family attempts to hold Dusten Brown to state standards because of his lack of involvement with the baby girl.  Few if any briefs that support the adoptive family even mention that Brown said he tried to see the mother, who broke off their engagement months into the pregnancy, without giving any reason.

Trial records state that Brown “was excited to learn of the pregnancy and urged the birth mother to move the wedding date forward so the child would be born during their marriage. In that way, she and the unborn child would have military health coverage during and after the pregnancy, the family could obtain base housing, and his military pay would increase.”

While Maldonado, the baby’s mother, said in court that the father had not contacted her during the pregnancy, court records showed that some people did “not find birth mother’s testimony credible.”

Other records showed, “Mother never informed Father that she intended to place the baby up for adoption. Father insists that if he known, he would never have considered relinquishing his rights.”

During the pregnancy, Maldonando sent Brown a text message asking him if “he would rather pay child support or surrender parental rights.”  Brown agreed to give up his parental rights, but he said he mistakenly thought Maldonando was seeking full custody of the baby and he was simply giving up custody as he had done with his first ex-wife.

Brown said if he had understood what she was asking, he would never have given up his parental rights.  “If I knew that the adoption was going on, I would have said no, I wanted to keep my rights. And I would have fought then. I would have started right then and there,” Brown said in court.

Eventually, the court found that although the adoptive family kept the Baby Veronica for two years, they knew after four months that her father was seeking custody of his daughter and he was contesting the adoption. “They elected to pursue adoption over his objection,” court documents state.

Attorney Demeray stated in the press conference, “But for ICWA, the father would not have had the ability to stop the adoption…he failed to step up in a timely fashion, and but for ICWA he could not have done that.”

Demeray said the AAAA hopes the Supreme Court will establish who and how a father can claim parentage.  “In Washington State, under ICWA law a father must be considered a parent under state law.  In this case, the Supreme Court decision will define under clear rules when paternity is decided in federal law.”

Professor Mary M. Beck, faculty of the University of Missouri Law School and a member of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, said in the press conference that “state laws provide for orderly adoptions of what fathers must do and help inform mothers what rights fathers have.” She said if the South Carolina decision upends “this orderly method” it will allow ICWA to supersede South Carolina law. “If ICWA creates a new classification of fathers, it has implications beyond Indians outside ICWA,” she said.

Even though the court found Brown to be a fit parent and the biological father of the child, the brief filed by the Adoptive Parents v. Baby Girl implies that by approving Brown’s paternity, “Congress intended to confer special privileges on deadbeat dads, sperm donors, or rapists based solely on a biological link. Congress should not be presumed to have placed those men on equal footing with fully committed unwed fathers.”

A Washington Post article quoted Mark Fiddler, attorney for the Capobiancos and tribal member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, as saying, “The intent of the ICWA was good at the time, but I think some courts are making what’s best for the tribe paramount, instead of what’s best for the children. We need to take a step back and ask if that’s what the law intended.”

Those thoughts were echoed by adoption organizations who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Capobiancos, which read, “Congress intended for ICWA to protect Indian families by limiting the circumstances in which they could be broken up.  Congress did not intend for ICWA to allow an unwed father with no parental rights under state law to block a non-Indians mother‘s voluntary adoptive placement of her newborn child, which would lead to the dissolution of the family Baby Girl has known since birth.”

Nicole Adams, communications manager of the National ICWA, disagrees and points to the vast support offered to the Brown family.  She said the number of the Amicus briefs filed for Brown show that, “It is not just Indian Country that has offered support.”

Those who have written Amicus Briefs in Support of Brown and ICWA include 23 different states, The United States, 333 tribes, the ACLU, Adult Native American Adoptees, law professors, people and organizations in the field of psychology, both Native and non-native, who state that ICWA is good adoption process. “Former and current members of Congress have filed on our side,” Adams said.

Adams said, “In response to the agencies saying that ICWA was not meant to be used like this, Congressmen told us they are filing a brief on behalf of the Brown family because they said, ‘We know what our intention was. We wrote it.’

(Contact Christina Rose at Christinarose.sd@gmail.com)

Copyright permission by Native Sun News

Native Sun News Managing Editor

RAPID CITY—The auction of 70 masks that are considered highly sacred to the Hopi people was allowed to take place in Paris after a French judge refused to step in on behalf of the tribe. The auction which took place Friday, April 12, 2013 gained national attention as the Hopi nation fought tooth and nail to prevent it from taking place.

The court made note that the Hopis did hold “sacred value” to the objects but ended up ruling that the value the tribe had placed on the masks did not allow the court to deem them as elements of a human body. The Hopi believe that the sacred objects are living beings and attempted to articulate this belief to the court. The court however was unwilling to accommodate the religious understandings of the tribe and would not assimilate the Hopis traditional understandings into a legal ruling that would have essentially classified the masks as human. In France the sale of elements of the human body is prohibited.

The failure of the court to recognize the beliefs of the Hopi is a continuation of a long history of western-European courts showing an unwillingness to place significant value on the religious beliefs of Indigenous people.

“It is just hard for a non-practitioner to make these decisions and determinations of what the value and sacredness these objects have for the Hopi,” said Sam Tenakhongva a leader from the Walti Village, of the Hopi Nation. It is upsetting for the Hopi and it is upsetting for people around the world,” he added.

There has been speculation from tribal members and by those that were advocating on behalf of the tribes that the masks were acquired illegally, however, there was never any substantial evidence presented to prove these claims. In the U.S. the Native American Graves and Repatriation act may have been able to provide some relief for the Hopi however the law only applies domestically within the U.S.

“There are no provisions banning the sale outside the United States of objects used in religious ceremonies or likely to be applicable in France,” the court said in regards to NAGPRA.

On Thursday, April 11, a day before the auction the U.S. Embassy wrote a letter asking the court to delay their decision until proper analysis of the Hopi’s opposition could take place, however the request fell on deaf ears and the auction was allowed to proceed. The auction of the masks netted nearly $1.2 million.

The auction house Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou, where the sale of the masks took place had stated that they had reached out to the tribe to consult with the prior to the auction, however they did not respond to any correspondence from the Hopi.

“It bothered me to read the statement they made. We sent letters to them over a month prior to the auction and we never heard anything from them,” said Tenakhongva.

The reaction from the tribe has been one of disgust and sadness however some tribal members including Sam Tenakhongva feel that the auction raised awareness about the exploitation of Indigenous cultural and religious items is common and opposed by tribes.

“I think it is a step that needed to be taken. Throughout the entire case the media attention on it has been that the Hopi were opposed to it and made it known,” he said. “The Hopi have stepped forward and brought awareness to the fact that these things are going on and that Indigenous people around the world are being exploited,” added Tenakhongva.

Other tribal members were not measured in their response to the auction. Melissa Pochoema an enrolled member of the Hopi nation and a well-known fashion model expressed her sadness with the sale of the masks.

“From the time we are born and come of age, the Kachinas are better known as our friends, and are what helps us become a well-rounded person. They teach us how to respect all living things as well as how to go about our ceremonies. Our friends are a part of us and are a part of the Hopi/ Tewa way of living. To see them being sold with no understanding of what they mean to the people, is truly a loss that brings a lot of heartache and sadness” said Pochoema. “It is like someone cutting a part of you and saying you have no meaning in this world. Just to see someone put a price on culture is unbearable,” she added.

Prior to the masks being sold the AP reported that the auctioneer alluded to the fact that the objects were no longer sacred but were now simply pieces of art. A sentiment that many Indigenous people have taken issue with.

“Unless you are Hopi or a practitioner it would be hard to have an understanding of their value. It is our hope and dream that they would be taken care of properly by those who bought them, but unless you are a practitioner it would be something that would be extremely difficult to do” said Tenakhongva.

(Contact Brandon Ecoffey at staffwriter2@nsweekly.com)

Copyright permission by Native Sun News

Contact: Stephany Seay, Buffalo Field Campaign, 406-646-0070, bfc-media@wildrockies.org

For Immediate Release:  April 15, 2013

(DENVER) The Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council passed a resolution on March 23, 2013, which became available to the public over the weekend. The resolution urges protection of the wild, migratory buffalo in and around Yellowstone National Park and Montana.

This important resolution was brought forth to the Council by Jimmy St. Goddardd, Spiritual Leader of the Blackfeet Confederacy.  St. Goddard supports the work of the wild bison advocacy group, Buffalo Field Campaign.

“Everyone that has a legal right to manage the buffalo are doing wrong, and with this resolution, the Tribes have crafted strong legal language to protect and preserve our culture and heritage.“  Said Jimmy St. Goddard, Spiritual Leader of the Blackfeet Confederacy.

The resolution urges the Governor of Montana, the Montana Legislature, U.S. Department of the Interior, Yellowstone National Park, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Forest Service, to recognize and honor their trust responsibilities and treaty obligations to American Indian Nations with cultural, religious, and treaty rights and affiliations with buffalo. The resolution urges these agencies to provide for viable populations of wild migratory buffalo (or bison) in the wildlife species’ native habitat.

St. Goddard said, “This resolution puts the agencies on notice that there has to be legal consultation with the Tribes, and a Buffalo Summit has to happen right now.  The Interagency Bison Management Plan needs to be brought back to the table because it is hurting the buffalo instead of helping them.”

Download and review the four-page resolution

SEATTLE – Casey Family Programs with the support of 17 other national child welfare organizations has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).  The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, now before the Supreme Court, calls into question the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

The coalition of philanthropic and nonprofit organizations represents decades of frontline experience working to improve the lives of vulnerable children and their families. The group supports ICWA because it has helped establish the values and practices that have become central to effective child welfare practice. In particular, this law reinforces the important role that families and communities play when determining the best interests of children in their care.

“The Indian Child Welfare Act reflects the best practices in child welfare,” says David Sanders, Casey Family Programs’ Executive Vice President of Systems Improvement. “It works to prevent the unnecessary breakup of families and helps keep children connected to their communities.”

“The same values and best practices found in the Indian Child Welfare Act are reflected in federal legislation that applies to all children and families. The federal government emphasizes three goals for child welfare: keeping children safe from abuse and neglect; ensuring a stable and permanent family; and improving the wellbeing of vulnerable children. We see these goals reflected in recent legislation, including the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Fostering Connections Act,” said Sanders.

Casey Family Programs is joined in this amicus brief by other leaders in child welfare including the Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Voice for Adoption, Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc., Children and Family Justice Center, Family Defense Center, First Focus Campaign for Children, Foster Care Alumni of America, FosterClub, National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds, National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, National Association of Social Workers, National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, and National Crittenton Foundation.

Adoptions are an important permanency option for children when placement with their own family is not possible. Ensuring successful adoptions requires a consistent and transparent process. And that is why is it is important to note that national adoption organizations are supporting the brief.  They recognize that the protections and safeguards included in ICWA support successful adoptions and are reflective of the best practices for children.

Anita Fineday, Casey Family Programs’ Managing Director of Indian Child Welfare Programs says, “For more than 35 years, ICWA has helped to establish important principles for strengthening families and encouraging community engagement to produce the best results for children. That is why we are committed to helping others understand the important role this law continues to play for both Native American families and in shaping broader policies that support the rights of families to raise and care for their children within their own cultures and communities.”

Casey Family Programs has provided direct services to children and families involved in public and tribal foster care systems for more than 40 years.

Hear what Casey Family Programs and other child welfare experts had to say during an Indian Child Welfare Act press briefing regarding the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.

Source: Casey Family Programs