Abbildungen der Seite


at the present time there is any justification for additional land for the Fish and Wildlife Service, but we have supported in other instances studies by both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation looking toward the authorization either of a joint project or of either a wildlife project or a reclamation project.

Senator NEUBERGER. Do you disagree with Secretary Seaton's observations in his letter to me that this marsh is the major waterfowl nesting area in the country presently unprotected!

Mr. STRANTZ. Well, I am certainly not in the position that Secretary Seaton is to know the problems of the country.

Senator NEUBERGER. Why are you opposed to it being taken over by the Wildlife Service?

Mr. STRANTZ. I was just about to mention, our district embraces the largest refuge in the upper Klamath Basin, the Tule Lake refuge. Our refuge protects an estimated two-thirds, 60 percent to two-thirds of the birds of the basin. We are having quite a controversy with the Wildlife Service over that refuge, because the refuge was developed exclusively by Reclamation funds and not by Wildlife funds, and we feel that the time has come for the reclamation development in that area. The laterals and drains are all in, and we believe there are adequate lands of poorer quality, of quality adequate for wildlife purposes but of poorer quality for agricultural purposes outside of our district, and at the present time, I believe there is something in the neighborhood of 20,000 acres that the Fish and Wildlife Service now has in refuges which are relatively undeveloped, or almost completely undeveloped as wildlife refuges.

For example, their Upper Klamath Lake refuge is almost completely ineffective. They don't even collect statistics on the protection that they afford birds in that area. They have almost a third of their lower Klamath refuge that is unprotected, and for those reasons we would like to see them develop the land they now have before they get additional lands. That is very simply our position.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much.

Mr. STRANTZ. I would like to point out one other fact. You asked about public hunting. From a fourth to a third of the Tule Lake refuge is open to public hunting.

Senator NEUBERGER, I am glad to have that. Thank you very much for coming here. (The documents referred to by the witness are as follows:)


Tule Lake, Calif., October 1, 1957. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

Washington, D. C. ŞIR: The Tule Lake Irrigation District has adopted the attached resolution with regard to the termination of Federal control over the Indian lands in the upper Klamath River Basin. As an irrigation district receiving water from the Klamath project we are naturally interested in the disposition of public lands in our watershed. We have reviewed the hearings and material presented by the Management Specialists and we certainly agree that good forestry management will contribute to the maintenance of the resources and economy of the upper Klamath River Basin and thus the Indian lands should not be disposed of in a manner that would encourage the clear cutting this stand of timber.

We do believe that the Management Specialists are saying on the one hand that the only way to get the maximum value out of this land is to sell it off in many small tracts and at the same time they are saying there is not an available market for many tracts of such land.

We would like to observe that the Indians themselves have asked for this termination program and that at the present time the payments to the Indians are supported by a program of forestry management based upon a sustained yield. We do not, therefore, believe that the Indians would be penalized by requiring a sustained-yield management when the tracts are sold to private interests. We also believe that it can and should be financed by private enterprise and thus the land returned to the tax rolls.

We are also troubled by section 30 (b) of S. 2047 which provides for the transfer of the lands of the Klamath Marsh to the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fisheries. We believe that the Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fisheries have adequate lands at the present time in the upper Klamath Basin. There have been no reports presented indicating a need for this additional land for wildlife purposes.

We believe that a proper solution for these lands is for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fisheries to prepare reports requesting authorization of projects. Upon completion of these reports, if there is a conflict of interests between the two reports, the Congress, with the advice and counsel of the people in the upper Klamath River Basin should decide which development should be made. We do not believe that at the present time there is adequate information to indicate that there should be a reclamation project or a wildlife development in this area. I appreciate the opportunity for us to present our views on this matter. Very truly yours,

SAM ANDERSON, President of the Board of Directors.

RESOLUTION Whereas the Tule Lake Irrigation District receives its water supply from the works of the Klamath project including upper Klamath Lake, and

Whereas the water supply in upper Klamath Lake is affected by the runoff of its tributaries particularly the Williamson River, and

Whereas the Williamson River arises in the Klamath Indian Reservation and its runoff is affected by the forestry practices in the Indian reservation, and

Whereas, pursuant to Public Law 587, the United States is liquidating its trusteeship of the Indians in the Klamath Indian Reservation, and

Whereas S. 2047 proposes that the interests of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the upper Klamath River Basin would be expanded by the addition of the lands of the Big Klamath Marsh: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Tule Lake Irrigation District proposes as follows: (1) That the lands of the Klamath Indian Reservation should be disposed of into private ownership, (2) in this disposition the new owners be required to exercise the standard forestry practice of sustained-yield management, (3) that the Big Klamath Marsh area should be retained by the United States and the Indians paid for the appraised value thereof pending the preparation of reports on utilization of these lands by the Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fisheries and by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Approved unanimously upon motion by Director Cushman, seconded by Director Rogers. Attest:

MAURICE K. STRANTZ, Secretary. Senator NEUBERGER. I will put in the record a number of documents which I think are important in that they shed light on public opinion regarding this issue. I have a letter to me from Mr. Loren L. Palmerton, of Klamath Falls, Oreg., which embodies what I believe are his personal views on this issue, and without objection his letter will be included in full in the record.

And I have a statement of policy from the Klamath County division of the Oregon Education Association, which states their policy, and which concludes:

Therefore, we believe that Federal purchase of these tribal properties would be in the best interest of the Indian, the Klamath Basin, the States of Oregon and California, and the United States of America.


And I believe, if I make out the signature correctly, it is signed by Mr. William O. Kurtz. That statement will be included in full in the record.

And I have a resolution from the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, Lakeview, Oreg., signed by Mr. R. L. Weir, Jr., the president of that organization, which goes on record in favor of the recommendations of the Management Specialists and resolvesThat the public lands committee of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce be on record as favoring the Management Specialists committee's recommendation of Federal Government acquisition of the Klamath Indian Reservation. And this resolution from the Lake County Chamber of Commerce will appear in full. (The documents referred to are as follows:)


United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In your forthcoming hearing at Klamath Falls, Oreg., concerning the liquidation of the Klamath Indian Reservation, I would like to express my personal views.

Having spent most of my adult life in the lumber business and the past 27 years in Klamath Falls, I believe I can be recognized as an Oregonian.

Your opinions that you expressed in the newspapers regarding the liquidation and management of the reservation somewhat meets with my approval. I have had considerable experience with social, community, economic, and international relations in conducting different phases of the lumber business.

First. I am against any more owned and controlled business by the Federal Government pushbuttoned from Washington. Let's keep these problems within the State. So I think that the State of Oregon should control the administration of the reservation, thus helping to keep our people farther away from socialism.

Second. In the further administration and liquidation of the Klamaths, this in the days ahead will be strictly a Klamath County and State of Oregon problem, and will be of little concern and importance to people in Kansas or Vermont, namely, the welfare, education, and economics of the surviving Klamaths.

Third. If the economics would not permit the State of Oregon to acquire by ownership, I would like to recommend that the BLM be empowered to administer the reservation, as I believe that they are closer to our timber and lumbering problems.

I do hope that this liquidation can be enveloped in a State of Oregon procedure, that as soon as an appraisal, cost figure can be divulged, that a method can be arrived at for financing the processing. A considerable amount of acreage of the reservation could be immediately be sold for agriculture and ranch purposes and thus put on the State tax roll, which would help immediate cash requirements, the State to retain mainly a forest and controlled wildlife areas, this would also help to reduce management costs. I also believe that a good plan of acquisition would be voted on favorably by the people of Oregon. Through treaty obligations with the Klamaths, the United States Government should furnish long-term financing for eventual State ownership and for the Klamaths that desire to be private owners.

Time is the essence, and it is too bad time is running out, now the chips are down, let not poor judgment make a poor decision. Respectfully yours,


LAKE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, LAKEVIEW, OREG. Whereas the liquidation and administration of the natural resources and asset of the Klamath Indian Reservation is of vital interest and importance to the economy and welfare of Lake County, Oreg.; and

Whereas the recommendation of the appointed management specialist committee is of Federal Government acquisition; and

Whereas under Federal Government administration, the practice of sustainedyield forestry will be followed, thus protecting the watershed value of this area to the maximum; and

Whereas under Federal Government administration, the welfare of the Klamath Indian will be paramount: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the public lands committee of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce be on record of favoring the management specialist committee's recommendation of Federal Government acquisition of the Klamath Indian Reservation.

R. L. WEIR, Jr., President, Lake County Chamber of Commerce. Dated at Lakeview, Oreg., this 30th day of September 1957.



The Klamath County division of the Oregon Education Association believes :

1. That Federal or State supervision of any group of people for a long period of time is not good. The Indian, like any other member of society, is capable of making a good adjustment to society without such supervision. Congress is to be commended for its effort to terminate that supervision.

2. The sudden disposal of the assets of the Klamath Indian Tribe would not be in the best interest of the Indian people or the people of Oregon and California.

With such a large block of timber going on the market, it seems obvious that the price of timber would decrease and the Indian would not get full value for his assets.

Modern forestry practice has shown the value of sutained-yield cutting. Under this plan, the watershed, which is so important to the agricultural, recreational, power, and lumber industries of the Klamath Basin, will be preserved. Federal purchase of the tribal lands would assure such a plan. Sustained-yield, cutting would assure the Klamath Basin of a steady economy rather than a “boom-andbust” economy. Rapid disposal would necessitate selling in small units to companies who would probably cut out and get out.

The schools of the area would become overcrowded, additional buildings would be needed, later to be left vacant as the trees and people were gone.

3. Therefore, we believe that Federal purchase of these tribal properties would be in the best interest of the Indian, the Klamath Basin, the States of Oregon and California, and the United States of America.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. and Mrs. Wade Crawford are our next witnesses. Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, we are glad to have you here.


KLAMATH TRIBE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Senator. Senator, Mrs. Crawford and I, we appear here before your committee, as you know, representing the people that enrolled on the Klamath Reservation that want to withdraw from Federal supervision. I think that has been a matter of record over a period of years, and I think that the record shows before this Congress that we are the official representatives of the 75 percent of the Indians that want to withdraw from Federal supervision. There is a petition filed before the different committees of Congress to verify that. So, we speak for 75 percent of the Indians that are interested in withdrawing from Federal supervision.

Senator NEUBERGER. By what machinery is that decided ? Were you elected by 75 percent of them?

Mr. CRAWFORD. We were; that was by petition of the Indians that are enrolled on the reservation, speaking for them and their families.


[blocks in formation]


Senator NEUBERGER. In other words, by petition you are representing 75 percent of the Indians ?

Mr. CRAWFORD. That is right. That is, let's put it this way: We represent the Indians that want to, that have stood to withdraw from Federal supervision, and your survey by the Management Specialists through the Stanford Research and their own survey shows that from 61 to 75 percent of those Indians want to withdraw from Federal supervision as individuals.

Senator NEUBERGER. What is the title of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Cook and Mr. Kirk? What title did they have, with respect to Indian representation!

Mr. CRAWFORD. They are members of the executive committee.
Senator NEUBERGER. How were they chosen ?

Mr. CRAWFORD. They were elected by the secret-ballot vote of the Indians that lived on the reservation. They were not elected; they were not elected by the Indians that were entitled to a secret-ballot vote on and off the reservation. Jackson, the council records shows that they opposed, were in opposition to give the Indians a right to vote for the executive committee by absentee ballot votes, and we have Indians living in 18 States besides Oregon, and those people were denied of a vote to elect someone to represent them on handling their tribal affairs and representing the tribe as a group. And the record shows that.

Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Crawford, are you a member of the tribal executive committee?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mrs. Crawford and I both are.

Mr. GAMBLE. Were you elected by the tribe, both by absentees and by those living on the reservation?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Not from absentee ballot. We were elected the same time Mr. Jackson, Mr. Kirk, and the present executive committee were elected.

Senator NEUBERGER. In other words, you were elected by the same procedure?

Mr. CRAWFORD. By the same procedure, which we opposed We don't think it is proper representation because we have got over, well, we have Indians living in 18 States and throughout the adjoining towns of the reservation that didn't have an opportunity to elect someone to represent them.

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Crawford, just to clarify in my mind who you represent, you say 75 percent of the Indians wish to withdraw?

Mr. CRAWFORD. That's right.
Mr. WOLF. That is as shown by the Stanford Research Institute?
Mr. CRAWFORD. And by the Management Specialists' own survey.

Mr. Wolf. Did 75 percent of the Indians elect you to represent them?


Mr. WOLF. How many elected you to represent them on this matter, on withdrawal ?

Mr. CRAWFORD. I think if you will examine the petitions you have in your files and the record, I think there are 225 of the adults which represents about possibly 600 or 700 children.

Mr. Wolf. In other words, 225 adults have petitioned you to represent them but it is not by an election?

« ZurückWeiter »