Kate Nolan
The Arizona Republic
May. 11, 2007
Federal wildlife authorities may face lawsuits from Indian tribal leaders in Arizona who are upset over the handling of their views on the proposed delisting of bald eagles as endangered species.
Tribal leaders walked out of a Wednesday session at Cabela's in Glendale, threatened legal action and affirmed their unified opposition to taking the bald eagles off the list.
Benjamin Tuggle, Southwest regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invited 13 Arizona tribes to the hearing after the tribes charged they hadn't been consulted on the issue. The San Carlos Apaches had passed a resolution against delisting. The bald eagle is sacred to many Native Americans, and 20 percent of the animals' 50 breeding areas in Arizona are on Indian land.
Tuggle called the meeting so tribes could express concerns and he could clarify the eagle delisting process, which Fish and Wildlife first proposed in 1999.
After Tuggle acknowledged that the delisting decision was beyond the scope of his regional office, tribal leaders increasingly questioned whether their comments would have any impact.
Tuggle said the decision would be based entirely on scientific findings.
Paul Schmidt, a Fish and Wildlife official from Washington, D.C., explained that the agency would protect bald eagles if they are delisted, but his comments stirred debate about why he wasn't specifically addressing Arizona's bald eagle population of 43 breeding pairs.
The Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon have sued the government, making a case that Arizona's eagles are an endangered population segment apart from the 20,000 eagles in the rest of the country that appear to have recovered after being decimated by pesticides in the 1950s.
"That's what everyone in this room came to hear about," said Verbena Seiber of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Apache Environmental Department.
Loretta Jackson, preservation officer for the Hualapai Tribe, said her tribe opposes delisting and saw little purpose in the meeting.
"It seems the decision has already been made, and that doesn't encourage a two-way dialogue," Jackson said.
Angela Garcia Lewis of the Gila River Indian Community raised questions about federal obligations to consult with tribal governments on decisions that affect them under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Steve Spangle, Fish and Wildlife's manager for Arizona, said that the agency received no responses to letters sent to tribal authorities during the public comment periods over the lengthy delisting process.
That raised the issue of whether tribes can be viewed as the public. Federal law maintains that government agencies must respect tribal sovereignty and communicate with tribes government to government.
"We are not the community of Fountain Hills. We are a tribal community that's been around since before the U.S. Constitution. In respect to that, I would hope you could readjust," Seiber told the federal officials.
"The feeling here is not good. And the reason is that you are talking about our religious belief," said Wendsler Nosie Sr., chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. "It's always been part of U.S. policy that it's bad to discuss religion.
"The eagle experienced death like we did, genocide like we did. When people thirst for water, the bird will come show you.
"But there's more to this. We're not dummies," Nosie said, protesting that mining and development forces had more access to government decision-makers than Indian tribes do.
Tuggle said he was sympathetic but insisted that the delisting decision would be based on science.
Dr. Robin Silver, a non-Indian audience member who is board chairman of the Center for Biological Diversity, said biological data support the tribes' view that the eagles should remain protected.
"I'll be the first to admit the (biological evidence) is not unequivocal," Spangle said.
Tribal leaders pressed for further talks with Tuggle before a decision is made.
"Will you commit to a date to discuss these issues?" a San Carlos tribal representative asked. Tuggle answered no.
Nosie and the San Carlos tribal delegation then walked out.
"This last response - that's it. They're not going to listen because it's already been decided," Nosie said in the hallway. He said he would meet with other tribal governments to consider legal action.
Raymond Aspa, the fish and game director for the Colorado River Indian Tribes, remained inside and told the federal authorities: "You gentlemen probably have good intentions, but this may be the end. There probably will be further legal action. That's why these gentlemen left. They're done with you."
Where that leaves the process is subject to question.
"We had this meeting because we had the courage to come and listen," Tuggle said. "I learned that the traditional way we communicate with the tribes doesn't work. I don't have a defense."
Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, said he sees no reason to change the endangered status of Arizona eagles. The Hopis have made a pact with the Navajo Nation to manage the region's golden eagles, he said, suggesting a similar pact should be created for bald eagles.
"It's a good reason to hold off and keep our birds protected until we see how it works out," he said.
The Arizona Republic
May. 11, 2007
Federal wildlife authorities may face lawsuits from Indian tribal leaders in Arizona who are upset over the handling of their views on the proposed delisting of bald eagles as endangered species.
Tribal leaders walked out of a Wednesday session at Cabela's in Glendale, threatened legal action and affirmed their unified opposition to taking the bald eagles off the list.
Benjamin Tuggle, Southwest regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invited 13 Arizona tribes to the hearing after the tribes charged they hadn't been consulted on the issue. The San Carlos Apaches had passed a resolution against delisting. The bald eagle is sacred to many Native Americans, and 20 percent of the animals' 50 breeding areas in Arizona are on Indian land.
Tuggle called the meeting so tribes could express concerns and he could clarify the eagle delisting process, which Fish and Wildlife first proposed in 1999.
After Tuggle acknowledged that the delisting decision was beyond the scope of his regional office, tribal leaders increasingly questioned whether their comments would have any impact.
Tuggle said the decision would be based entirely on scientific findings.
Paul Schmidt, a Fish and Wildlife official from Washington, D.C., explained that the agency would protect bald eagles if they are delisted, but his comments stirred debate about why he wasn't specifically addressing Arizona's bald eagle population of 43 breeding pairs.
The Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon have sued the government, making a case that Arizona's eagles are an endangered population segment apart from the 20,000 eagles in the rest of the country that appear to have recovered after being decimated by pesticides in the 1950s.
"That's what everyone in this room came to hear about," said Verbena Seiber of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Apache Environmental Department.
Loretta Jackson, preservation officer for the Hualapai Tribe, said her tribe opposes delisting and saw little purpose in the meeting.
"It seems the decision has already been made, and that doesn't encourage a two-way dialogue," Jackson said.
Angela Garcia Lewis of the Gila River Indian Community raised questions about federal obligations to consult with tribal governments on decisions that affect them under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Steve Spangle, Fish and Wildlife's manager for Arizona, said that the agency received no responses to letters sent to tribal authorities during the public comment periods over the lengthy delisting process.
That raised the issue of whether tribes can be viewed as the public. Federal law maintains that government agencies must respect tribal sovereignty and communicate with tribes government to government.
"We are not the community of Fountain Hills. We are a tribal community that's been around since before the U.S. Constitution. In respect to that, I would hope you could readjust," Seiber told the federal officials.
"The feeling here is not good. And the reason is that you are talking about our religious belief," said Wendsler Nosie Sr., chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. "It's always been part of U.S. policy that it's bad to discuss religion.
"The eagle experienced death like we did, genocide like we did. When people thirst for water, the bird will come show you.
"But there's more to this. We're not dummies," Nosie said, protesting that mining and development forces had more access to government decision-makers than Indian tribes do.
Tuggle said he was sympathetic but insisted that the delisting decision would be based on science.
Dr. Robin Silver, a non-Indian audience member who is board chairman of the Center for Biological Diversity, said biological data support the tribes' view that the eagles should remain protected.
"I'll be the first to admit the (biological evidence) is not unequivocal," Spangle said.
Tribal leaders pressed for further talks with Tuggle before a decision is made.
"Will you commit to a date to discuss these issues?" a San Carlos tribal representative asked. Tuggle answered no.
Nosie and the San Carlos tribal delegation then walked out.
"This last response - that's it. They're not going to listen because it's already been decided," Nosie said in the hallway. He said he would meet with other tribal governments to consider legal action.
Raymond Aspa, the fish and game director for the Colorado River Indian Tribes, remained inside and told the federal authorities: "You gentlemen probably have good intentions, but this may be the end. There probably will be further legal action. That's why these gentlemen left. They're done with you."
Where that leaves the process is subject to question.
"We had this meeting because we had the courage to come and listen," Tuggle said. "I learned that the traditional way we communicate with the tribes doesn't work. I don't have a defense."
Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, said he sees no reason to change the endangered status of Arizona eagles. The Hopis have made a pact with the Navajo Nation to manage the region's golden eagles, he said, suggesting a similar pact should be created for bald eagles.
"It's a good reason to hold off and keep our birds protected until we see how it works out," he said.