[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4180-S4184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE SALVAGE LAW AND NATURAL RESOURCES DECISION MAKING
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as part of the negotiations with the
White House on appropriations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1996, we
have agreed to eliminate language designed to make the so-called
Salvage Rider more workable for the Administration. To my colleagues
with whom I worked to fashion this language, let me say that I did not
drop it willingly. I dropped it in the face of a direct and specific
veto threat by the President. I continue to believe it is sound policy
and makes many desirable changes to the original salvage law.
This language would have given the Administration the authority, for
any reason, to halt for 90 days the green tree sales released under
Section 2001(k) of the law on which harvesting had not begun by March
28, 1996. During that 90 day period, the President would have been able
to negotiate with contract holders to provide replacement timber or a
cash buy out as a substitute for harvesting the original timber sale.
Current law restricts the President's ability to enter into such
agreements.
[[Page S4181]]
The proposed language would also have lifted the completion deadline
imposed by current law so that the owners of these sales would not have
been rushed to harvest their timber before the deadline. By lifting
that deadline, I sought to provide a longer time frame for parties to
negotiate with the Administration on mutually agreeable ways to avoid
operating sales that may have adverse environmental consequences.
Mr. President, I have always believed that the high road for public
officials is in solving legitimate policy problems, not in retaining
issues for some perceived partisan gain. In negotiating improvements to
the current timber salvage law, it is my view that the Administration
dropped the former approach for the latter. The President determined,
for reasons that puzzle me greatly, that he was unable to embrace the
additional flexibility that we had offered to him under the salvage
law. I can only assume that the White House has determined that
retaining the issue as a political cudgel is more valuable during an
election year than actually solving the problem.
Recall that when the President signed this measure into law, he
issued a statement praising Congress for making a number of changes
that would greatly improve the provision. Soon thereafter, with the
wrath of the environmental community unleashed upon it, the White House
changed its tune. The new, and unflattering, message was that the
President had been duped into signing the Salvage law.
As someone intimately involved in much of the process, I can say with
absolute confidence that the White House was aware of every letter in
this provision. It was negotiated in excruciating detail over a period
of 6 months.
Even though I am convinced the White House was fully aware of what
was included in the current salvage law, I appreciate the controversial
nature of the subject matter and the need to address genuine problems
with the law. For this reason, I have attempted in good faith to
address the President's legitimate concerns. In fact, I share a number
of the same concerns. Since December, when the White House first
approached me for assistance in amending this law, my staff and I have
met repeatedly with the President's staff. I have responded to the
White House's concerns by proposing effective solutions that are,
frankly, difficult for supporters of the Salvage Law to accept.
It now appears to me that the thinking at the White House has again
changed since we began our meetings last December. Only the President
and his advisors know the political calculus behind his decision to
reject this language. Most of the changes to the current salvage law
were suggested by the White House. It would have given the President
the unilateral authority to immediately halt the very timber sales he
has publicly objected to.
By threatening to veto the entire budget agreement over the inclusion
of this single provision, the President appears to be willing to
continue the budget stalemate and furlough thousands of Federal workers
in order to play politics with the forests of the Northwest.
I hope the President's advisors will keep this language handy. Later
this summer, these sales will be rapidly harvested prior to the
deadline and within weeks of the November election. I am confident the
President will wish he had the substantial authority the Congress had
offered to give him and which he had originally requested. He could
have stopped the very sales he and the environmental community have
objected to so strongly in the press. Let no one be confused about why
the President lacks the authority to resolve concerns with these
sales--the President rejected it.
It is my belief that the White House rejected this reasonable
language because of its fear of being at odds with the environmental
community. The position of the environmental community is total repeal
and they oppose anything less.
I told the President when he was about to announce his forest plan
for the Pacific Northwest that his advisors were putting him in a box
in which he would have no choice but to take the extreme position.
Today, the President has found himself inside that same box.
The historic timber debates in the Northwest have never been about
owls or old growth. I have argued for many years that the true agenda
of many in the environmental community is to eliminate timber harvests
on Federal lands--zero cut. Now this view is in the mainstream of the
environmental movement, a movement the President is determined to
satisfy.
The Sierra Club voted 2-to-1 this week to back a ban on logging of
any kind on all Federal land. The adoption of this single-minded
preservation perspective by one of our Nation's largest environmental
organizations has finally disrobed the underlying agenda of the
environmental community--lock-up of our Nation's forests. We can now
debate the merits of entirely eliminating timber harvest on our
millions of acres of Federal lands.
Today, in Oregon, the zero-cut proposition has been put squarely
before the public in the form of the Enola Hill timber sale.
This sale is about 40 miles outside Portland on the way to Mount
Hood. The Forest Service initially prepared this sale in 1987. Since
then, it has undergone a long and distinguished legal history. It has
been unsuccessfully challenged in four separate lawsuits. It is now in
the midst of its fifth legal action and was the focus of hundreds of
protesters last week.
With this kind of controversy and divisive legal history, one might
imagine that the Enola Hill sale involves critical salmon habitat,
various listed endangered species, miles of new forest road
construction or huge clearcutting of 1,000-year-old trees. My
colleagues may be surprised to learn that the Enola Hill sale involves
none of these controversial things.
There are no Endangered Species Act concerns with this sale. There
are no spotted owls, no marbled murrelets, no endangered salmon runs to
be concerned about in the area.
The sale is comprised of second growth timber, not old growth.
The sale is not a clearcut, but rather a 250 acre selective cut which
will remove about one third of the trees. The entry will hardly be
visible when the sale is completed.
The sale involves no new roads to be built. How can this be? Because
all logs will be removed by helicopter, a fairly expensive, but much
more common practice in timber management in the Northwest today.
The sale has the further attribute of addressing a very real forest
health problem. Laminated root rot is killing these trees that are to
be harvested. This sale is designed to slow the spread of this disease
to other forest stands.
So why all the controversy? The primary challenge to this sale is
cultural. A number of individual Native American tribal members have
argued that the Enola Hill area is sacred. However, no Tribe has
objected to the sale going forward, including the largest Tribe in my
State and the one in closest proximity to the sale area, the Warm
Springs Tribe.
The Courts and the Forest Service have weighed the questions of
cultural significance of the site and the evidence has been
inconclusive at best. The Forest Service continues to state its
willingness to consider adjusting the sale to accommodate any
identified culturally significant areas, but those individual tribal
members who object to the sale refuse to identify any particular areas
as being any more culturally significant than other areas in the Mount
Hood National Forest. I have chosen to highlight this sale only because
the environmental community has chosen to highlight it. It is the
flagship sale for the Northwest environmentalists as they protest
``lawless logging.''
I have a difficult time locating any environmental issue on the Enola
Hill sale that would not be present in any timber sale. We have now
reached the bottom line debate: Is cutting down trees in our national
forests to satisfy the public's increasing demand for wood products
inherently unsound from an environmental perspective?
In this debate, the environmental community's true agenda comes
through loud and clear: zero cut, lock up. This position is socially
and environmentally irresponsible and I reject it in the strongest
possible terms.
As I have said before, I do not enjoy seeing trees being cut down. I
am a former tree farmer. I plant trees. Like many others, however, I
enjoy having a
[[Page S4182]]
roof over my head. I enjoy having furniture to sit on, and I imagine my
colleagues enjoy these beautiful wooden desks and the wood paneling
here in the Senate Chamber. The demand for wood products to fulfill our
Nation's housing and other wood fibre demands is growing, Mr.
President, not shrinking. Fortunately, our primary resources for
meeting these demands, wood products, are renewable and are grown from
free solar energy.
Moreover, arguably the greatest tree growing region in the world is
the Pacific Northwest. It troubles me greatly that timber harvesting in
this very region has been drastically reduced and is now well below
scientifically sustainable levels.
With demand continuing to rise, America is now forced to look
elsewhere to satisfy its needs. I have called this practice
Environmental Imperialism--lock up our own forests but go to the Third
World and other countries to satisfy American demand. Unfortunately,
most, if not all, of these countries do not have comprehensive forest
practices statutes in place like we do here. Their harvesting is most
often based on satisfying economic needs without consideration for
ecological concerns.
I have seen the detrimental effects of this U.S.-centered policy with
my own eyes. I traveled to Russia last summer, and I learned of an
interesting comparison--the timber lands of Siberia are 15 times less
productive than the timber lands in western Oregon. In other words, it
takes 1.5 million acres of Siberian timber land to grow the same amount
of timber we can grow on 100,000 acres in the Northwest. I have also
recently visited the rain forests of South America and seen the impacts
that the exporting of our domestic problems has caused in that area.
These experiences have helped me put the global nature of our timber
policies in perspective. When we reduce timber production from the
great timber growing lands of the Pacific Northwest, there is an
undeniable global impact.
I believe that the administration wants to be sensitive to the global
effects of our environmental policies in this country. I want to
commend Secretary of State Christopher for his commitment to looking at
environmental issues on a global basis. However, along with this view
must come the recognition that not only do the practices of other
nations impact us here in the United States, but that our domestic
practices and policies also have a great impact on other nations.
Mr. President, I have always believed that we have a responsibility
to conserve our natural resources. I have authored nearly 1.5 million
acres of wilderness legislation in Oregon and added 44 river segments
to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. At the same time, I
believe that we have a moral obligation to satisfy the demand of
Americans with the wise use of American resources, not by going abroad
to rape the resources of other countries.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, with its latest action to oppose giving
itself flexibility on the Salvage Rider, the White House has chosen
political convenience over the best interests of the environment both
in the Pacific Northwest and throughout the world. The provisions
stricken from the Omnibus Appropriations package would have given the
President significant authority to resolve problems with sales released
under the current Salvage Law. I hope that in the future our
negotiations will hinge on the resolution of legitimate policy issues,
rather than clinging to a political issue for perceived partisan
advantage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rejected language,
and a letter related to the issues I have raised here be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Salvage Flexibility Language--Dropped
Sec. 325. Section 2001(k) of Public Law 104-19 is amended
by striking ``in fiscal years 1995 and 1996'' in paragraph
(1), and by striking paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu
thereof:
``(3) Timing and Conditions of Alternative Volume.--For any
sale subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
Secretary concerned shall, and for any other sale subject to
this subsection, the Secretary concerned may, within 7 days
of enactment of this paragraph notify the affected purchaser
of his desire to provide alternative volume, and within 90
days of the date of enactment of this paragraph, reach
agreement with the purchaser to identify and provide, by a
date agreed by the purchaser, a volume, value and kind of
timber satisfactory to the purchaser to substitute for all or
a portion of the timber subject to the sale, which shall be
subject to the original terms of the contract except as
otherwise agreed, and shall be subject to paragraph (1). Upon
notification by the Secretary, the affected purchaser shall
suspend harvesting and related operations for 90 days, except
for sale units where harvesting and related activities have
commenced before March 28, 1996. Except for sale units
subject to paragraph (2), the purchaser may operate the
original sale under the terms of paragraph (1) if no
agreement is reached within 90 days, or after the agreed date
for providing alternative timber until the Secretary
concerned designates and releases to the purchaser the
alternative timber volume in the agreement. The purchaser may
not harvest a volume of timber from the alternative sale and
from the portion of the original sale to be replaced which
has greater contract value than the contract value of the
alternative sale agreement. Any sale subject to this
subsection shall be awarded, released and completed pursuant
to paragraph (1) for a period equal to the length of the
original contract, and shall not count against current
allowable sale quantities or timber sales to be offered under
subsections (b) and (d). A purchaser may enforce the rights
established in this paragraph to obtain substitute timber
within the required or agreed upon time frame in federal
district court.
``(4) Buy-Out Authorization.--The Secretary concerned is
authorized to permit a requesting purchaser of any sale
subject to this subsection to return to the Government all or
a specific volume of timber under the sale contract, and
shall pay to such purchaser upon tender of such volume a buy-
out payment for such volume from any funds available to the
Secretary concerned except from any permanent appropriation
of trust fund, subject to the approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. Such volume and such
payment shall be mutually agreed by the Secretary and the
purchaser. Any agreement between the purchaser and the
Secretary shall be reached within 90 days from the date on
which the negotiation was initiated by the purchaser. The
total sum paid for all such buy-out payments shall not exceed
$20,000,000 by each Secretary and $40,000,000 in total. No
less than half of the funds used by the Secretary concerned
must come from funds otherwise available to fund Oregon and
Washington programs of the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management. The Secretary is authorized to offset any
portion of a buy-out payment agreed under the provisions of
this paragraph with an amount necessary to retire fully a
purchaser's obligation on a government guaranteed loan.''
Section 325. Deletes language regarding the redefinition of
the marbled murrelet nesting area and inserts a new provision
that amends subsection 2001(k) of Public Law 104-19 to
provide alternative timber options or buy-out payments to
timber purchasers for both Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management sales offered or sold originally in units of the
National Forest System or districts of the Bureau of Land
Management subject to section 318 of Public Law 101-121. The
new language neither expands nor reduces the sales to be
released under subsection 2001(k). The managers do not intend
to interdict or affect prior or pending judicial decisions
with this language.
The provision increases the Administration's flexibility by
allowing the Secretary concerned to notify a purchaser within
7 days, and agree with a purchaser within 90 days of the date
of enactment, to provide alternative volume for part or all
of any sale subject to subsection 2001(k) in a volume, value,
and kind satisfactory to the purchaser, by a date agreed by
the purchaser. The precise designation of alternative timber
need not occur within the initial 90-day period. Upon
notification by the Secretary, the purchaser shall suspend
harvesting and related operations for 90 days, except for
sale units where harvesting and related activities have
commenced before March 28, 1996. For any sale that cannot be
released due to threatened or endangered bird nesting within
the sale unit, the amendment requires the agreement for
alternative volume, in quantity, value, and kind satisfactory
to the purchaser, and by a date agreed by the purchaser, to
be reached within 90 days of the date of enactment of this
section.
The Administration has delayed implementing subsection
2001(k) well beyond the original 45-day time limit set by
Congress, and still has not released all the sales required
under the statute. Therefore, except for sale units affected
by paragraph (2) of subsection 2001(k), the purchaser may
operate the original sale under subsection 2001(k) if: 1) the
Secretary has not designated and released timber by the date
agreed or 2) if no agreement has been reached 90 days after
notification. Also, a purchaser may enforce the rights
established in this paragraph to obtain substitute timber
within the required or agreed time frame in Federal district
court. The managers continue to endorse the statement of the
managers language accompanying the conference report on the
1995 Rescissions Act (House Report 104-124; Public Law 104-
19) relating to section 2001(k).
A purchaser may not be compelled to accept alternative
volume over the purchaser's
[[Page S4183]]
objection, as he cannot be under present law. The purchaser
may not operate on both the portion of the original sale to
be replaced, and the alternative timber such that the
combined contract value harvested exceeds the contract value
of the alternative timber in the agreement. Sales with
alternative volume under the amendment are subject to the
original terms of the contract unless the parties agree
otherwise and are subject to paragraph (1) of subsection (k).
Any alternative volume under paragraph (3) shall not count
against current allowable sales quantities or timber sales to
be offered under subsections (b) and (d) of section 2001 of
Public Law 104-19. Alternative volume may, at the Secretary's
discretion, come from areas not otherwise contemplated for
harvesting.
To avoid forcing purchasers to operate sales hastily before
environmental considerations can be taken into account, the
limitation in paragraph (1) to fiscal years 1995 and 1996 is
deleted, and all sales awarded or released under subsection
2001(k) are now subject to the legal protections in paragraph
(1) for a period equal to the length of the original contract
(including any term adjustment or extensions permitted under
the original contract or agreed by the Secretary and the
purchaser). The period of legal protection for each sale
begins when the sale is awarded or released under subsection
2001(k), or when alternative volume is provided under this
statute.
The provision also gives the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request of a sale owner,
the authority to purchase all or a specific volume of timber
under the sale contract covered under this subsection.
Payment may be made directly to the purchaser, or to agents
or creditors to retire fully the purchaser's obligation on a
government guaranteed loan. The volume and payment must be
mutually agreed by the Secretary and the purchaser. The
payments would come from any funds available to the Secretary
concerned, except for any permanent appropriation or trust
funds, such as the timber salvage sale funds and the Knudsen-
Vandenburg fund. In order to relieve partially the burden on
programs in the rest of the nation, no less than half of the
funds used for the payments must come from accounts which
otherwise would be available to the Secretaries for Oregon
and Washington programs of the Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management. The Secretaries shall follow established
reprogramming procedures when seeking the approval of the
House and Senate appropriations committees to designate funds
for the buy-out payments. Each Secretary may use up to $20
million for such payments. Any agreement between a purchaser
and the Secretary concerned shall be reached within 90 days
of the date on which a negotiation was initiated by the
purchaser.
____
The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Spring Reservation of
Oregon, Natural Resource Department,
Warm Spring, OR, April 3, 1996.
Kathleen McGinty,
Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair McGinty: The April 10, 1996 correspondence to
President Clinton from Richard Moe, president of the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, regarding Enola Hill and its
potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic
Places and related issues is extremely dismaying. During the
past 10 years the Mount Hood National Forest administrators
and technical staff have consulted at both the government to
government and technical levels regarding resource issues at
Enola Hill.
The destruction issue raised by the opponents of the Enola
Hill timber sale is debatable. It is our understanding
through direct coordination and consultation with the Mount
Hood National Forest staff and administrators that the sale
is being implemented to insure the forest health on Enola
Hill. The existing timber stand is approximately 80 to 100
years old and represents a monoculture of Douglas fir which
is being affected by laminated root rot. This affliction is
endemic, yet can be controlled through stand manipulation.
The proposed treatments through harvest and introduction of
fire and pathogen control will mimic the natural stand
regimes present in the region prior to Euro-American
settlement. The timber sale will thus add to the quality of
the natural and cultural landscape.
The planning process for the Enola Hill timber sale has to
our satisfaction attempted to document the tangible and
intangible values associated with the area. It is also our
understanding that the C6.24 clause of the award contract is
to insure that upon discovery of any properties potentially
eligible to the National Register of Historic Places all work
will cease and mitigation measures developed in conjunction
with professional staff and in consultation and coordination
with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs and public.
Ongoing claims and concerns regarding Native American
traditional use and cultural resources at the Enola Hill area
has created an air of controversy within the Native American
community, the Forest Service, non-native people and the
judicial system. Our tribal government adopted the ``Warm
Springs Tribal Council Position Paper Regarding Enola Hill''
through Resolution 8607 on January 19, 1993 in the interest
of the Tribe and its members. This position paper firmly
expresses that the Warm Springs elders and religious leaders
are the only Indian people with the sovereign authority to
speak about the cultural significance of Enola Hill as well
as the entire area surrounding Mount Hood. The proposed
timber sale opposition to Enola Hill are voices of those
individuals not from our tribes who claim the right to speak
as Indian people about cultural significance, traditional
uses and sacred sites.
We are currently unaware of any tribal government request
to consider Enola Hill as a ``traditional cultural property''
eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic
Places. A true traditional Indian interpretation of cultural
significance of any part of Mount Hood whether within the
ceded or traditional lands is based on a special relationship
of Warm Springs tribal members and their ancestors since time
immemorial with Wy'east or Mount Hood. Consent for use has
and is still based on ancestral courtesy and custom with
regard to exercising aboriginal and treaty rights within the
ceded or traditional use lands.
In addition it is the Tribal Council position that ``the
Federal Government, the State of Oregon, the Federal Court,
and the non-Indian public, look to our people for the answers
to their questions about what Mount Hood, including Enola
Hill, means to the traditional people of this area. We are
those people and we should be the only ones to answer those
questions.''
Sincerely yours,
Charles R. Calica,
General Manager.
Resolution
Whereas, The Tribal Council has determined that the
controversy over management of the area of Mount Hood
National Forest called ``Enola Hill'' is of great concern to
the Tribe; and
Whereas, Non-Indians and Indians from other tribes have
made many public claims about the cultural and spiritual
significance of Enola Hill; and
Whereas, The Tribal Council believes that our tribe has
primary rights in the Mount Hood area and that we are the
only Indian people with the sovereign authority to speak
about the importance of Enola Hill to Indian people; and
Whereas, The Tribal Council has reviewed the ``Warm Springs
Tribal Council Position Paper Regarding Enola Hill'' attached
to this resolution as Exhibit ``A'', and believes that the
approval of this position paper is in the best interest of
the Tribe and its members; now, therefore
Be it Resolved, By the Tribal Council of the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon pursuant to
Article V, Section 1 (1) and (u) of the Constitution and By-
Laws that the ``Warm Springs Tribal Council Position Paper
Regarding Enola Hill'' attached to this resolution as Exhibit
``A'', is hereby approved and adopted.
certification
The undersigned, as Secretary-Treasurer of the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, hereby
certifies that the Nineteenth Tribal Council is composed of
11 members of whom 7, constituting a quorum, where present at
a meeting thereof, duly and regularly called, noticed,
convened and held this 19th day of January 1993; and that the
foregoing resolution was passed by the affirmative vote of 6
members, the Chairman not voting; and that said resolution
has not been rescinded or amended in any way.
Warm Springs Tribal Council Position Paper Regarding Enola Hill
This paper represents the official position of the Tribal
Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon regarding the controversy over logging
and other activities in the area of Mount Hood National
Forest known as ``Enola Hill.''
Enola Hill is part of Zig Zag Mountain and is located north
of U.S. Highway 26 on the lower slopes of Mount Hood near the
community of Rhododendron, Oregon. The entire area
surrounding Mount Hood, including the headwaters of the
Sandy, Zig Zag, and Salmon Rivers where Enola Hill is
located, is very familiar to our people. The seven bands and
tribes of Wasco and Sahaptin-speaking Indians who signed the
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon of June 25, 1855, all
lived within close proximity to Mount Hood. The mountain
itself, the trees and berries and plants that grow on its
slopes, the deer and elk and other wildlife that call the
mountain home, and the rivers, springs and other waters that
originate on Mount Hood, and the fish and other creatures
that live in these waters, all occupy a special place in the
cultural, spiritual and historical life of our people.
There is no federally recognized Indian tribal government
in existence today with closer ties to Mount Hood than the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of
Oregon. In pre-treaty times, Mount Hood rose high into the
sky above our traditional homes along the Columbia River and
its Oregon tributaries. Today, the mountain is located mostly
within our treaty-reserved ceded area and just outside of the
Northwest boundary of our present reservation. In short, we
regard Mount Hood as our mountain.
Based on our special relationship with Mount Hood, which
has existed since time immemorial, we believe that no other
tribe, band or group of Indian people has a right greater
than or equal to the natural sovereign right of the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
to speak about the importance of Mount Hood
[[Page S4184]]
from an Indian point of view. Our historic, cultural and
spiritual attachment to Mount Hood has caused us to be
involved in many public policy, administrative and legal
proceedings involving use and development of the mountain.
Currently, we are party to several legal proceedings
involving land management decisions of the Mount Hood
National Forest. We are concerned about these decisions
because of the potential impacts of these developments on our
treaty fishing rights, and other legally protected interests.
We are, for example, the only tribes involved in the Mount
Hood Meadows Ski Area expansion proceedings. We believe that
Mount Hood National Forest should consult only with our tribe
on issues relating to proposed developments on public lands
in the vicinity of Mount Hood.
With regard to the area called ``Enola Hill,'' our people
are familiar with this place. Many of our elders camped with
their families in this area, fished for salmon and picked
huckleberries in the general vicinity of Enola Hill. Whether
there is special cultural significance to Enola Hill as a
whole, and whether there are special religious and spiritual
places there, is not something we wish to speak about in a
position paper or put down in writing. In the past, our
tribal elders have provided such information to appropriate
officials once they have been assured of confidentiality and
convinced of the serious need for the information. However,
we are concerned that culturally sensitive information our
elders have disclosed concerning Enola Hill could be
exploited and used for improper purposes. Unwarranted public
access to such information through the courts or the media
only makes our job of protecting our people's sacred sites
more difficult. We hope that the cure does not become worse
than the affliction.
We believe very strongly that only Warm Springs tribal
elders and religious leaders should be questioned on this
issue. Certain individuals who are not from our tribe, and
indeed some of them are not even Indian, have spoken out
frequently and loudly about what they believe is the
desecration of sacred Indian religious places at Enola Hill.
Mount Hood, including Enola Hill, is not theirs--it is ours.
It is not for them to talk about the traditional Indian
cultural and religious significance of any part of Mount
Hood. It is the mountain of our people and we believe that we
should be the only ones asked to give the true traditional
Indian interpretation of the significance of any part of the
Mount Hood region. For this reason, we oppose the voices of
those individuals about the importance of Enola Hill.
Furthermore, we ask that the Federal Government, the State of
Oregon, the Federal Court, and the non-Indian public, look to
our people for the answers to their questions about what
Mount Hood, including Enola Hill, means to the traditional
Indian people of this area. We are those people, and we
should be the only ones to answer those questions.
Dated: January 20, 1993.
____________________