The Canary: Guess what guys - the Chumash Tribe was here first

A view of the Chumash Tribe's land-into-trust site in Santa Barbara County, California. Photo from Chumash EA

The Canary comments on the bad blood between the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, officials in Santa Barbara County and opposition groups in California:
My feathers are positively drooping with disappointment. I bet it was jam-filled with passionate comments from both sides of the fee-to-trust line. Oh, that awe-inspiring fight dripping with spittle and historically-spurred antagonism. It comes with any discussion surrounding reservations, especially when it comes to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and its struggle to be recognized as a sovereign government by Santa Barbara County officials, who uninspiringly vote repetitively against the notion that a federally recognized tribe—and therefore, recognized as a sovereign entity by the federal government—should be seen as such at the county level.

Fortunately for the county, groups with names like Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens, Save the Valley, and P.O.L.O. (the Board of Preservation of Los Olivos) are solidly in agreement with them. The Valley must be saved from the annoying habits of the tribe.

Guess what guys? The tribe was here first! They should be the ones who have to recognize the county as a government, but that ship sailed when our forefathers planted missions all over the great state of California.

Of course, my twittering voice wouldn’t be heard without that great blip in history, but back to HR 1157. P.O.L.O. called the bill “a targeted assault on our rights” in a recent email about the hearing.

Get the Story:
The Canary: Camp 4's still here (The Santa Maria Sun 6/16)

Also Today:
Bill in Congress addresses Chumash plans for development of 'Camp 4' (KCBX 6/17)
S.B. Supervisor, CEO Take Opposite Sides During D.C. Camp 4 Hearing (The Santa Barbara Independent 6/17)
Congress urges county to start talks with Chumash (The Lompoc Record 6/17)

Committee Notice:
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1157, H.R. 2386, H.R. 2538 (June 17, 2015)

Join the Conversation

Related Stories
Lawmakers slam county for poor dealings with Chumash Tribe (6/18)
Vincent Armenta: Setting the record straight on land-into-trust (06/01)
Chumash Tribe reaches fire services agreement with county (05/13)
Opponents not happy with land-into-trust bill for Chumash Tribe (03/05)
Chumash Tribe cheers introduction of land-into-trust measure (3/4)
Opinion: Let's rethink federal policy toward tribal sovereignty (02/19)
Vincent Armenta: You can't rewrite tribes and tribal sovereignty (02/09)
Eldon Shiffman: Give Chumash Tribe a chance to reclaim its land (02/02)
Luis Alejo: Apologize to the Chumash Tribe for 'hurtful' remarks (1/30)
County files appeal over Chumash Tribe land-into-trust decision (1/27)
Opinion: Wealthy tribes shouldn't follow land-into-trust process (1/26)
Chumash Tribe slams official for questioning 'reservation system' (01/16)
Chumash Tribe welcomes approval of land-into-trust application (01/08)
Editorial: County and critics must stop fighting Chumash Tribe (11/20)
Judge dismisses lawsuit against chairman of Chumash Tribe (11/13)
County to dispute Chumash Tribe's land-into-trust application (11/6)
Chumash Tribe praises BIA movement on land-into-trust bid (10/22)
IBIA dismisses challenge to Chumash Tribe land-into-trust bid (06/09)
Column: Chumash Tribe land-into-trust bill stirs up opposition (05/12)
Rep. Capps opposes Chumash Tribe's land-into-trust measure (03/14)
Opinion: Chumash Tribe too wealthy to follow land-into-trust (02/03)
IBIA dismisses challenges to Chumash Tribe land consolidation (11/05)
Opinion: Far-away lawmaker introduces bill for Chumash Tribe (10/31)
Bill introduced to place 1,400 acres in trust for Chumash Tribe (10/29)
Vincent Armenta: Chumash Tribe strives to be good neighbor (10/24)