Natives Aff

The critique is wrong and only justifies ignoring urgent native needs

Download 290 Kb.
Size290 Kb.
1   ...   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   ...   75
The critique is wrong and only justifies ignoring urgent native needs

Wood, 1994 (Mary Christina, University of Oregon Assistant Law Professor, “Indian Land and the Promise of Native Sovereignty: The Trust Doctrine Revisited”, 1994 Utah L. Rev. 1471 ajones)

The trust responsibility remains a focal point for tribes in their efforts to gain federal protection of native lands and resources. For example, over the past few years the Columbia River Basin tribes that have treaty rights to harvest salmon have urged federal agencies to fulfill their trust responsibility by restoring salmon populations, controlling water pollution, and conserving water in streams. n153 The trust responsibility is gaining renewed attention in the Clinton administration as well. In an historic meeting on April 29, 1994, with over 300 tribal leaders, the President made a pledge to fulfill his trust responsibility. n154 Several agencies within the executive branch are now developing trust policies to guide their actions affecting tribes. n155 But despite the growing need for enforcing the federal responsibility owed to native nations, and a corresponding tribal reliance upon the trust doctrine to support demands for protection of natural resources, the trust doctrine remains encumbered by its past association with plenary power in the Kagama case. n156 Because it is of- [*1507] ten still characterized as emanating from a "guardian-ward" relationship, the trust responsibility is blemished by policies from past eras which supported federal dominion over tribes and assimilation of native people. Accordingly, it is sometimes rejected as a tool to protect native rights. n157

Share with your friends:
1   ...   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   ...   75

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page