Lummi Nation has released a written statement responding to the letter sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, expressing concern over the statemate in negotiations beween Lummi Nation and Whatcom County over a new lease for the mainland Lummi Island Ferry dock on the Lummi Reservation.
The statement reiterates tribal concerns about traffic safety and the need for a hefty county expenditure on safety improvements in the area as part of any new lease deal.
The statement also refers to a 2009 traffic study prepared for both the county and tribe. In general, the study tends to downplay the safety issues arising from ferry operations.
The emailed statement also includes an interesting chronology of ferry history from the tribe’s perspective. Among other things, the chronology mentions unsuccessful efforts to get funding for traffic safety improvements.
Here is the text of the tribe’s statement, which is silent on the question of whether the tribe is prepared to take steps to stop ferry operations after April 10, 2011, when the tribe’s deadline expires:
The Lummi Nation appreciates Congressman Larsen, Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell engaging in this complex, longstanding issue.
For ten years the Lummi Nation has worked to resolve these issues and obtain a lease that is fair for everyone.
Safety is of paramount concern to the Lummi Nation.
There are numerous safety issues associated with the ferry traffic through the Lummi reservation: increased traffic volume, increased speeding that has contributed to fatalities, delayed access to the roadway because of traffic volume, and fear that our families and our community feel for their safety.
There are numerous safety issues at the side of the ferry dock that is on the Lummi Reservation: ferry line-up interferes with fishermen’s ability to exercise Treaty rights, and ferry line-up impacts pedestrians, including school children and families trying to go to the grocery store. Treaty-protected fishermen often find the boat ramp blocked by the ferry line-up, and ferry wake has damaged boats and led to injuries.
“At the Lummi Nation’s request Whatcom County has studied traffic safety and boat safety related to the side of the Gooseberry Point ferry dock, and these studies identified simple solutions that improve safety for everyone,” Lummi Nation Chairman Cliff Cultee said. “The Lummi Nation has participated in negotiations with Whatcom County for 10 years. The county need only review the findings in its own studies to understand our safety concerns.”
I think that is about time we, the next generation, stand up and keep our kids & grand kids safe ? Because it is going to be them walking on the roads on Haxton !! They are going to be the ones living or Dieing on that road ??? We Indian people are trying to teach our kids & grand kids to get along with all people ??? We are no longer just a bunch of Dumb Indians out here !!! We go to school. We go to College. We are Policemen & Policewomen. We are Doctors and Nurses. We are Teachers. We run our own Goverment. Thank you all – God loves All .
That was an unusually quick response from the Lummi Nation.
What are the odds that the original letter and the response were written by the same lawyers? Can you say COLLUSION?
Pete cc’d the President.
We are on our way to resolution now.
Move the ferry to a new location. Enough of this. The roads out there are better than a lot of areas in other parts of the County. At the most, road improvements need to be made at and around the entrance/exit of the ferry, thats it. Their is some overflow when cars are waiting to get on at times. Thats the only problem I have seen. Heck they even have the rumple strips on the shoulder, that are needed in other areas of the county besides Haxton. I understand the Natives got screwed but this Lummi “shakedown” mentaility needs to end. Its to time to pack up and get the heck out.
The only safe ferry route is the shortest possible distance between the start and the end.
Otherwise, it’s called a cruise and a whole new boat would be needed.
citizen,
Did you by any chance read the Traffic Study?
Here are proposed alternative “Ferry Dock Relocation” sites:
“A total of 14 sites were initially examined and five of those sites were identified for further
analysis. Those five sites are as follows.
• The existing dock.
• A new dock west of the existing dock.
• Hilton Harbor.
• Whatcom Waterway (two sites – East and West).
• Mt. Baker Plywood. ”
Have a nice ride!
Uh, the longest routes have the least chance of being used.
The goal to a Podunk ferry is to keep time on the water to a minimum,
not to drive around until you find a spot free from lease infringements.
I’ll betcha that argument is eventually used to force tribal adherence to the existing ROW.
County road,
meets county ferry,
meets county road,
it’s too bad the Lummis are claiming sovereignty over public ROW.
Have you seen the original documents that Tip Johnson has posted in several places, including here, as I recall?
Your post tells me you have.
And the missing Chief Paper?
http://lummiislandferryforum.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/35493166-lummi-tribe-petition-to-boi-to-keep-ferry-at-gp-1928.pdf
Funny, up till now I thought traffic at Gooseberry Point was just a matter of Lady Luck…..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50000643/GP-Casino-1991
I thought traffic was the issue; looks like the tribe has been dealing in bad faith all along, and decided in 1992 that they weren’t going to renew the lease for utterly different reasons:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50002429/Public-Works-Cannery-Hill-Tribe-Letter-1992
Did I say 1992? The tribe was threatening the county even before the lease was signed, this time in 1982
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50003410
Actually the tribe does understand county government single cheek, like the Tom Anderson
Shirly Van Zanten, and the Ed Henken fleece job on the courthouse remodel.
Just a little south of Picketts Bridge, and you too can find another Whatcom County Pig War, and San Juan Special from the thieves of the local democratic party.
http://content.statelib.wa.gov/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/lummi&CISOPTR=6&CISOBOX=1&REC=4&DMROTATE=360
The Whatcom County “gentlemen’s agreement” clause, explaining facts in another United States District Court, Judge Boldt presiding.
55. The present reef net operators occupy fixed positions at the reef net grounds in Legoe Bay and maintain a “gentlemen’s agreement” among themselves. The agreement is to the effect that an occupant of a location is entitled to maintain that location to the exclusion of all others. It further provides that no location will be yielded unless to one who agrees to purchase the equipment from the occupant. If the occupant does not desire to sell his equipment no change in occupancy of the location can occur. [Tr. 3681, l. 1 to 3682, l. 4; Tr. 3704, l. 4 to 3705, l. 10; Tr. 3717, l. 13-22] Reef netters do not voluntarily give up their locations or rotate to any other location. [Tr. 3771, l. 19-22] Members of the Reefnetters’ Association do not recognize Lummi Indians as having any treaty right to occupy a position on the reef net grounds, and these Indians are, as far as these reef-netters are concerned, in no different position than a non-Indian who would seek to acquire a location. [**116] [Tr. 3717, l. 23 to 3719, l. 20]
56. In years past, the few Lummi Indians who operated reef net boats were gradually squeezed out of the reef net fishery by non-Indian pressure and by physical crowding of boats on Indian locations. [Tr. 2936, l. 20 to 2938, l. 17; Tr. 2962, l. 6-21; Tr. 2963, l. 18 to 2964, l. 1; Tr. 2966, l. 7 to 2967, l. 2] No present day Lummis are willing to contest any of the present occupants for possession of a reef net site. [Tr. 3008, l. 13-21] The Lummis are not willing to invest money and gear to occupy locations which are not economically productive. [Tr. 3007, l. 24 to 3008, l. 12] There are Lummi Indians who would be interested in participating in the reef net fishery at Legoe Bay if they could gain access to economically productive locations. [Tr. 2941, l. 13 to 2943, l. 1; Tr. 3009, l. 16 to 3010, l. 2] However, they object to having to purchase a non-Indian’s fishing gear in order to occupy a good location. [Tr. 3029, l. 15-24]
John/Jared, wasn’t the fatality that occurred a nation member returning from the Casino and on their way to buy beer at the landing store rather than someone hurrying to catch the ferry?
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and yet highly subsidized lunches are what the islanders have been gobbling up for year and years.
Either pay to use the property where the ferry has been running or pay and invest in a new ferry and a new route to the north or south. The name calling and slandering of the tribe in this matter is a shallow cover-up for the fact that a very small group of people feel entitled to fast, cheap, and convenient and are unwilling to pay for services (#entitlement).