Valley Journal
Valley Journal

This Week’s e-Edition

Current Events

Latest Headlines

What's New?

Send us your news items.

NOTE: All submissions are subject to our Submission Guidelines.

Announcement Forms

Use these forms to send us announcements.

Birth Announcement
Obituary

What the Tribes didn’t say

Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local. You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.



Subscribe now to stay in the know!

Already a subscriber? Login now

Last week the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes released the second draft of the National Bison Range Transfer and Restoration Act of 2016. The Tribe also released a summary of key changes that had been made to the original draft. The revisions that were made came in response to suggestions made during a five-week-long public comment period solicited by the Tribes according to CSKT spokesman Rob McDonald.

There were some other key changes made to the original draft that were not contained in the summary. The original bill draft contained the word “transfer,” or a form of the word “transfer” 20 times; the final draft has deleted the word “transfer” and replaced it with the word “restore” or “restoration.” Removal of the word “transfer” from the legislation does not alter the process that would need to be followed before the Tribe could assume ownership and management of the National Bison Range. The land is now owned by the Federal Government and administered as public land by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Ownership of the land, bison, equipment, buildings, etc. would have to be transferred to CSKT, who could then apply to have the land put in federal trust status. The original title of the Act, the “National Bison Range Transfer and Restoration Act of 2016” accurately described the legislation. The revised title, the “National Bison Range Restoration Act,” came about because Montanans are overwhelming opposed to the transfer of public lands to private individuals or other entities. The semantics change is clearly an attempt to quiet the argument that the proposed transfer is a giveaway of public land.

There is also a fundamental change in the funding arrangement for management of the NBR. The original draft contained language describing the two year transition period from management by United States Fish and Wildlife Service and how the Secretary of Interior was to “cooperate with the tribes in transition activities regarding the management of lands, bison and resources under this Act including, but not limited to transfers to the Tribes of funds….” The re-write states that the Secretary shall cooperate by providing funds to the Tribes for the first two years of Tribal management. In the original funding narrative for the NBR put forth by the Tribe in February when the transfer proposal was first floated, McDonald stated to the Missoulian that, “The Fish and Wildlife Service made clear that, once it (the National Bison Range) leaves the National Refuge System, there would be no funding coming to operate it, all operating costs would fall upon the tribes.” Providing Federal funding for operation was not part of the original bill, but is clearly inserted into the new proposal. The current funding level for NBR operation is about $750,000 yearly.

One of the key changes noted in the summary produced by CSKT was that the revised bill had addressed the management of noxious weeds on the NBR if a transfer was to occur. Apparently, the CSKT feel they have adequately addressed the problem by inserting language that they will have a publicly available management plan that will include actions to address management and control of invasive weeds. A management plan is not enough, there must be a clear, quantifiable pledge of money dedicated to noxious weed management. The Tribe has released a document that shows they have spent about $110,000 a year for the past five years to combat noxious weeds on the entire reservation. That amount alone could easily be spent on just the NBR. A plan has no credibility without a delegation of resources to carry out the plan.

The new, final bill is still unacceptable and should not be introduced into the United States Congress.

Sponsored by: