Does this mean the tribes are basically (unilaterally?) claiming economic rights over these waters?
It's not clear from this article if this statement is explicitly supported by the CA gov.
It's not clear from this article if this statement is explicitly supported by the CA gov.
This is SOP for California politics. CA jurisdictions have been ceding territory to Indian tribes for a while. This is purely an economically motivated cash grab layered under miles of politically correct double-speak. There is an indian tribe in Montana that has a massive coal mine that wanted to run a rail line to a port through the area that was shut down last year. This is possibly another strategy to do the same thing.
> and be it further resolved, these waters are also claimed by the State of California, who through its California Natural Resources Agency Pathways to 30x30: Accelerating Conservation of California’s Nature Report, support the concept of Indigenous Marine Stewardship
Do you have any evidence pointing towards this being a money grab? That’s a serious accusation.
"Tribal and State co-management of critical ecosystems to protect and support cultural lifeways and economies"
Follow the money. Everything else is bullshit.
To me that line reads as “some of our people fish a bit.”
I’m asking, as gently as I know how, if there’s anything here besides “because they’re Indians.” Because that’s not a very good reason.
Its not a proposal, it is a program established by law and which the first deadline for the early round of grants has already passed.
> Does it even involve the same tribes?
Potentially, since the grant program is open to all California tribes, whether or not federally recognized.
The joint declaration here could plausibly be a foundation for the tribes to establish one or more projects within the declared protected area and apply for grants to carry them out, so it could be directly related.
Newsom…
> wanting to give $100M+ to tribes to buy back ‘ancestral land’
…proposing, and the legislature establishing, a $101M grant program for tribes to carry out “multi-benefit nature-based solutions projects located within the state of California.” [0]
It is not solely or primarily for acquiring land, and to the extent land is acquired, it may or may not be ancestral land. (There is a separate and earlier deadline within the program for grants applications for up to $25M of “Time-Sensitive Shovel Ready Ancestral Land Return Projects” for projects that meet that description and are already partially funded and which also meet the other requirements of the program.)
> despite multiple groups claiming ancestry.
To the extent projects under the grant program are ancestral land return projects, and are in “shared ancestral territority”, there is explicit approval priority for those which “will be jointly owned and/or managed by inter-tribal consortium, tribal conservation district, or partnership”.
[0] Program homepage: https://resources.ca.gov/Initiatives/Tribalaffairs/Tribal-Na...
And I can’t wait to see how this gets legally tested — native rights haven’t been properly respected and these kinds if tests are deeply important in restoring rightful sovereignty and tribal agency to our hosts and neighbors.
I’m chuckling as I imagine they’re going to do a better job of protecting and managing the Earth than the government of California and Oregon have done over the last 150 odd years.
Otherwise I wish the natives would give us some tax cuts too.
> We do not seek the permission of other governments
> these waters are also claimed by the State of California, who through its California Natural Resources Agency Pathways to 30x30: Accelerating Conservation of California’s Nature Report, support the concept of Indigenous Marine Stewardship
So I guess the State of California theoretically supports IMSAs, but does the state support this one? Does the state need to approve an IMSA for it to be official? Or are tribes independent enough that they can just declare it?