This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

Topic: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development  (Read 5298 times)

hwilliams591

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2011, 08:16:44 pm »
An update on the developement.....


The efforts to slow and cost the snow making developement at SnowBowl is not working as planned for the Hopi Indian Tribe. So now they are again trying to take it to the courts. This time they are sueing the City of Flagstaff for somehow illegally selling water to SnowBowl.  ::)  They are seeking financial compensation. ???

Their past dealings with the courts are a good indication of how this will go. Only thing we can say for them is they are presistant....at losing... ;D

Another group that are against the developement are what many would call contrarians, the type that have no reason other then the attention for objecting to something others are for.  :BangHead:


walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2011, 10:29:55 am »
Brenda Norrell
"Message: Yea!!! They shut down the forest service office here in Albuquerque! Eveything is roped off with police lines and with cops on the roof too. They're scared. PROTECT THE PEAKS!"

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2011, 11:07:47 am »
I am going to apply a slogan here that we use at another such place and issue, Bear Butte in the Black Hills of South Dakota,

"Our Sacred Sites are Not Your Playground"

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3106 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2011, 01:10:32 pm »
Woah! Looks like I missed a good thread! I'll read it later tonight.

hwilliams591

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2011, 07:31:37 pm »
Not really a good read....started as a one-side cry with a lot of misinformation.

Basic run down is SnowBowl did everything they could to make those that opposed happy and they declined them all.
After all attempts thru the courts failed they are now wanting those offers, plus more.

The silly thing is SnowBowl is not even using alot of the land, they are mostly rebuild on existing land. They are making new trails but nothing to disrupt
the so-called sacred land the tribes supposely eat off of.

The last 2 walksalone post have nothing to do with the issue.

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2011, 08:09:21 pm »
Shows how much you really know about the subject Fool.....

Outta Your Backpack Media/Censored News
Louise Benally, Navajo from Big Mountain, Arizona, however, said she was able to enter the building and deliver a letter calling for a halt to the destruction of sacred San Francisco Peaks.
Already, there is clearcutting of the old growth forest for the pipeline of sewage water for snowmaking at the Snowbowl ski resort.
Protests were held at Forest Service offices around the west today, including protests in Golden, Colorado, and Vallejo, California, calling for a halt to the destruction of San Francisco Peaks, sacred to 13 Native American Nations. Medicine men gather healing plants on the mountain and hold ceremonies there, where the Snowbowl plans to make snow from wastewater piped in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service, Region 3                                                                       August 25, 2011

Appeal Deciding Officer: Harv Forsgren

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

To: Corbin Newman, Regional Forester



RE: Record of Decision:  Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements and Forest Plan

       Amendment #21 by Nora Rasure, Forest Supervisor, February 18, 2005

This letter is presented to you in order to call on you to enact an immediate halt to the destruction and desecration of the Holy San Francisco Peaks, located in Northern Arizona, and to demand that the USDA revoke the Special Use Permit for Arizona Snowbowl for the greater public interest.


The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Arizona Snowbowl is currently under review by the USDA in its Draft Report on Sacred Sites. The EIS details the public outcry about the plan to use treated sewage effluent to make snow to "provide a consistent and reliable ski season" for Arizona Snowbowl. It further states that in an effort to build trust with local Native American tribes the USDA will try to reverse some of the damage caused by decisions that have directly contributed to the desecration of sites held sacred to Native American tribes.

However, at the outset of the 60 day public comment period for the Draft Report on Sacred Sites, Arizona Snowbowl had already began clear cutting 40 acres of rare alpine forest and laying a 15 mile pipeline to carry treated sewage water up the Mountain to manufacture snow. The people who hold this mountain sacred implore you as Regional Forester to step in and make the USDA aware that the very mountain your own report’s claim to protect as a show of trust is being devastated. This will destroy any hope of building trust with tribes in the future.


It should also be noted that the Forest Service has violated the MOA with multiple tribal governments, without any recourse by the Coconino National Forest Service. Your position as Regional Forester obligates you to help provide oversight and protections of tribal interests in this matter. The Final EIS is insufficient, faulty, racist, environmentally unsound, scientifically unsound, and is clearly completely biased towards allowing Snowbowl to expand and use effluent water for snowmaking.

As you can see by the national outcry of resistance to the construction of Snowbowl, the citizens of this country strongly object to the decision to approve the Proposed and Preferred Action. Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack needs to be urged to uphold the Environmentally Preferred Action and it is your job as manager of part of this nation’s forests to encourage him to do so.  We demand that you halt construction if at the very least until the Sacred Sites Report is released and taken into consideration.  The entire East side of the Peaks was lost in a fire and it is the Forest Service’s duty to step in and fulfill their responsibilities in protecting the remaining pure wilderness watersheds, which are so rare in Arizona.

The Forest Service decision to expand Snowbowl is a perfect example of what Executive Order (EO) 12898 was created to stop. EO 12898 is an attempt to stop racism within the Federal Government. To continue this desecration would only continue to perpetrate the racism that has been taking place against the indigenous peoples of this land for centuries. Your own EIS clearly states that this will disproportionately affect and has, since 1938, been disproportionately affecting many Native tribes. Remand this decision, as it violates EO 12898, FS policy regarding EO 12898, and EPA policy regarding EO 12898.

 The Forest Service is not delegated with the responsibility of passing judgment on, or measuring the validity of a tribe’s religious belief.  That is, however, exactly what the federal government has done here.  It has forsaken its obligation as “trustee” and effectively undermined the continued viability of native religions, traditions, and culture that it is otherwise charged to protect.  Neither the asserted “improved skiing experience,” nor the undisclosed economic benefit to Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership, can legitimately justify the devastating impact this project has on the tribes and on the individuals that hold the San Francisco Peaks sacred.

The Forest Service is mandated with providing recreation, but it does not mandate recreation at the sake of sacred sites and fragile ecosystems. Artificially creating snow goes against this mandated recreation provision by completely ignoring the natural environment that exists within the SUP and has always existed within the SUP. There is no consistent snow on the Peaks as they are in high desert. In order to stay within Forest Service regulations, CNF should be providing recreation that fits the area the CNF is supposed to be managing—not artificially creating an environment that will benefit the owners of Snowbowl.

Mr. Newman, do your part to halt the construction at Snowbowl so that Mr.Vilsack has the option to remand this decision via the Report on Sacred Sites, primarily because it is unhealthy for all living things and will destroy the rarest ecosystem in Arizona. This decision is not only morally and ethically indefensible, the decision at issue: (1) was based on inaccurate and/or incomplete information; (2) is not supported by the record; and (3) was improper as a matter of law and currently has two lawsuits surrounding the project, one versus the US Forest Service and one against the City of Flagstaff.

Your prompt attention to this emergency situation is greatly appreciated.

hwilliams591

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2011, 08:29:22 am »
Shows how much you really know about the subject Fool.....

Again your one-sided stories trying to make your people the victim is continuing to make your people look stupid and selfish!

And you have no claims/proof to show I don't know anything about this, everything I posted is true.

Continue to waste resources with an un-beatable battle, you would have thought your people were smart enough to give up after the first few court losses.

I do have to say if your post weren't so one-sided and you didn't always cry wolf they might have some warrant to it. Unfortunately not only is this story one-sided it there is alot of misinformation andwrong doing by your people.

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2011, 04:11:17 pm »
Shows how much you really know about the subject Fool.....

Again your one-sided stories trying to make your people the victim is continuing to make your people look stupid and selfish!

And you have no claims/proof to show I don't know anything about this, everything I posted is true.

Continue to waste resources with an un-beatable battle, you would have thought your people were smart enough to give up after the first few court losses.

I do have to say if your post weren't so one-sided and you didn't always cry wolf they might have some warrant to it. Unfortunately not only is this story one-sided it there is alot of misinformation andwrong doing by your people.
See, here again you illustrate how little you truly understand. Quitting is and never has been an option. Although many of our Nations have surrendered individual battles, not one has ever surrendered the war. The NDN wars have never ended and will not for a long time I would surmise. You say we are being selfish? really. Wow. Show me any of the over 300 treaties entered into by the various Nations and the U.S., ceding any land mass, and I can point out where any one or all of them have been broken by the U.S. rendering them each null and void. Yes, I say again OUR sacred sites, are not your playground!!!

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2011, 04:22:23 pm »
Thing is, we have never had issue with sharing the land, however, we will never sit idly by and watch any of it, much less parts of it we hold sacred, be desecrated or dis-respected in any way. Do we win every battle? Of course not, but we will step up and fight each and every one to the very end. I have not cried any thing, only, posted what is going on in various of the issue we are interested in. I did not write any of the articles I have posted but I have first hand knowledge that each has been written in a way reflecting the very truth of the situations. I will never post hear-say without qualifying it as such. If the issues that we find interesting and/or important, you do not find so, so be it, move on to another thread. If you dis-agree with our opinion and stance, that is very well also. I will post facts. I will also post my personal opinion and represent it as so. You have that same right. I have never posted any thing without verifying its correctness, so your claim of me posting mis-information is simply your opinion, which is a far cry from fact.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2011, 05:38:14 am »
Show me any of the over 300 treaties entered into by the various Nations and the U.S., ceding any land mass, and I can point out where any one or all of them have been broken by the U.S. rendering them each null and void.

I can reference several treaties which were initially broken by the tribal signatories, (initial means prior to), but you've already demonstrated an inability to recognize and substantiated opposing argument.  The bottomline in the Snowbowl situation is that a ski resort is not a treaty signatory and the analogy doesn't apply.  What was your federally recognized tribe again?
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2011, 09:39:49 am »
Show me any of the over 300 treaties entered into by the various Nations and the U.S., ceding any land mass, and I can point out where any one or all of them have been broken by the U.S. rendering them each null and void.

I can reference several treaties which were initially broken by the tribal signatories, (initial means prior to), but you've already demonstrated an inability to recognize and substantiated opposing argument.  The bottomline in the Snowbowl situation is that a ski resort is not a treaty signatory and the analogy doesn't apply.  What was your federally recognized tribe again?
Let me first preface the answer to your question by mentioning the fact that tribal recognition by your government simply means that a Nation has jumped through certain government mandated hoops and carries with it much more importance in your world as far as defining a persons rightful status, then it does in ours. However, I am Tsalagi which in fact does have federal recognition.

As far as the questions regarding treaties, I will initiate a seperate thread addressing that at a later time, and will be more than happy to discuss it there. However, I must point out the fact that at present I am very busy with logistics with the Taos Celebration of the Young which is coming up for four days over the laborday weekend. Please note that in the title, Taos referances the town of Taos rather than the Taos Pueblo and is a celebration of all young people regardless of cultural heritage, and is an address of the recent and ongoing issues of youth suicides in the area. Therefor my time available to participate in these debates is severely limited at present, but please do not mis-construe that to illustrate my unwillingness to engage in these discussions.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2011, 04:55:56 pm »
Show me any of the over 300 treaties entered into by the various Nations and the U.S., ceding any land mass, and I can point out where any one or all of them have been broken by the U.S. rendering them each null and void.

I can reference several treaties which were initially broken by the tribal signatories, (initial means prior to), but you've already demonstrated an inability to recognize any substantiated opposing argument.  The bottomline in the Snowbowl situation is that a ski resort is not a treaty signatory and the analogy doesn't apply.  What was your federally recognized tribe again?
Let me first preface the answer to your question by mentioning the fact that tribal recognition by your government simply means that a Nation has jumped through certain government mandated hoops and carries with it much more importance in your world as far as defining a persons rightful status, then it does in ours. However, I am Tsalagi which in fact does have federal recognition.

I would venture to estimate that being a member of a federally recognized tribe carries far more benefits to those members than unrecognized ones.  These range from a certain degree of self-determination and government, (within the US federal government), and supportive benefits, (such as tax breaks, casino funding, food and medical assistance programs, etc.).  Nothwithstanding biting the hand that feeds them, the "hoops" you've mentioned merely consist of: Since 1900, it must comprise a distinct community and have existed as a community from historical times;
it must have political influence over its members; it must have membership criteria; and it must have membership that consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe and who are not enrolled in any other tribe." The existence of persistent political relationship as an aspect of tribal relations is also emphasized.

If the Tsalagi are part of the Cherokee tribe, the Choctaw were more responsible in driving the Cherokee from their tradition land areas than the subsequent encroachments by colonial settlers.  Be that as it may, the cognizant point of a treaty is that the prevailing entity in a conflict gets to establish the terms of a treaty, not the surrending side.

[/quote]
As far as the questions regarding treaties, I will initiate a seperate thread addressing that at a later time, and will be more than happy to discuss it there.[/quote]
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

hwilliams591

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2011, 10:10:03 pm »
Thing is, we have never had issue with sharing the land, however, we will never sit idly by and watch any of it, much less parts of it we hold sacred, be desecrated or dis-respected in any way. Do we win every battle? Of course not, but we will step up and fight each and every one to the very end. I have not cried any thing, only, posted what is going on in various of the issue we are interested in. I did not write any of the articles I have posted but I have first hand knowledge that each has been written in a way reflecting the very truth of the situations. I will never post hear-say without qualifying it as such. If the issues that we find interesting and/or important, you do not find so, so be it, move on to another thread. If you dis-agree with our opinion and stance, that is very well also. I will post facts. I will also post my personal opinion and represent it as so. You have that same right. I have never posted any thing without verifying its correctness, so your claim of me posting mis-information is simply your opinion, which is a far cry from fact.

It is mis-information to act like you never knew that drinkable water was an option the tribes turned down!
And it was mis-information to try to act like the victims here when SnowBowl did everything the could to make the tribes happy.
If you want to make it a better read then tell both sides of the stories.
I don't want to hear about your history.

Funny how you didn't write or copy/cut/paste about the City Council meeting where your people were asked to leave because they were screaming and protesting in there. If you ask me there were only there for the attention. Pretty sad.

But as you said I can disagree with your stance and opinion, but I mostly disagree with how you copy/cut/paste these stories and leave out other facts so that you can tell everyone who the victim is instead of figuring out ourselves.

For the past few years I have watched what the tribes have been doing with this situation and it was greddy and shady then and more so now.

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2011, 11:36:32 am »
Navajo Human Rights Commission: Suspend permit for Snowbowl wastewater

September 14, 2011

NNHRC passes legislation to request US

President to suspend USFS Permit
NNHRC legislation will go to Navajo Nation Council, next

Press statement

ST. MICHAELS, Ariz.—The Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission urges the Navajo Nation Council to formally request the U.S. President to suspend the permit authorizing the use of reclaimed water on Dook’o’osliid [San Francisco Peaks], the sacred mountain to the west marking the traditional boundary of the Navajo people—the Diné.

The request is on the heels of the U.N. Special Rapporteur of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples S. James Anaya’s recommendation in his report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, which was released to the public on August 22, 2011. Anaya will present the report to the U.N. Human Rights Council on September 20, 2011.

“The Navajo people is a part of the world community and the world community has set standards for a good reason,” said Leonard Gorman for the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission and continued, “The United States must be responsible and abide by international standards that protect the human rights of Navajos.”

The NNHRC resolution passed 4 in favor, 0 opposed on September 2, 2011, and will be presented to the Navajo Nation Council at a date to be determined. It is titled, “Acknowledging the Report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, S. James Anaya, and Recommending that the Navajo Nation Council to Formally Request the President of the United States of America to Direct the U.S. Forest Service to Suspend the Permit authorizing the use of Reclaimed Waste Water to make Artificial Snow and follow the Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur; and other recommendations” and indicates the timeline between the NNHRC and Anaya formal correspondences. (To view the report, visit www.nnhrc.navajo-nsn.gov.)

“On May 7, 2010, the Diné Hataałii Association, Diné Medicine Man Association, and Azee’ Bee Nahagha of Diné Nation jointly requested the [Navajo Nation Human Rights] Commission to communicate with Professor S. James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur, regarding the desecration of the San Francisco Peaks and violation of Navajo human rights; and

On May 17, 2010, based on the recommendations of the Commission, the Intergovernmental Relations committee of the Navajo Nation Council authorized the submission of a complaint to Professor S. James Anaya, Special Rapporteur, and requested that Special Rapporteur carry out his mandates to protect the human rights of Navajos and other indigenous peoples as they pertain to their religious beliefs that the San Francisco Peaks is a sacred sites; and

On August 22, 2011, Professor S. James Anaya, Special Rapporteur, issued his report entitled Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Rep. of Human Rights Council, 18th Sess., Aug. 22, 2011, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/18/35/Add.1; UN.GAOR, 65th Sess., (Sept. 14, 2011)., detailing that the United States did not respond to calling attention to information he received “relating to the proposed use of recycled wastewater for the commercial ski operation [on] the San Francisco Peaks, a mountainous area that is sacred to several Native American tribes.”

From the onset, it took about 15 months for a response, but that response came with three recommendations from the U.N. representative to the United States.

The three recommendations were:

“On the basis of the foregoing, the Special Rapporteur respectfully recommends that the United States Government engage in a comprehensive review of its relevant policies and actions to ensure that they are in compliance with international standards in relations to the San Francisco Peaks and other Native American sacred sites, and that it take appropriate remedial action.

In this connection, the [United States] Government should reinitiate or continue consultations with the tribes whose religions practices are affected by the ski operations on the San Francisco Peaks and endeavor to reach agreement with them on the development of the ski area. The [United States] Government should give serious consideration to suspending the permit for the modification of Snowbowl until such agreement can be achieved or until, in the absence of such an agreement, a written determination is made by a competent government authority that the final decision about the ski area modifications is in accordance with the United States’ international human rights obligations.”

“The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress the need to ensure that actions or decision by [the United States] Government agencies are in accordance with, not just domestic law, but also international standards that protect the right of Native American to practice and maintain their religious traditions. The Special Rapporteur is aware of existing government programs and policies to consult with indigenous peoples and take account their religious traditions in government decision-making with respect to sacred sites. The Special Rapporteur urges the
 [United States] Government to build on these programs and policies to conform to international standards and by doing so to establish a good practice and become a world leader that it can in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

With Anaya’s recommendations, NNHRC has respectfully requested the Navajo Nation Council, Speaker of the Navajo Nation Council, and President and Vice-President of the Navajo Nation to formally request the President of the United States, President Obama, to suspend the permit from the U.S. Forest Service authorizing the use of reclaimed waste water to produce artificial snow until the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations contained in his report are appropriately addressed, according to the NNHRC resolution.

“The Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission further hereby recommends that the Navajo Nation Council, Speaker of the Navajo Nation Council and President and Vice-President of the Navajo Nation send a delegation to Geneva, Switzerland, to be present and/or participate in the presentation of the [Anaya] report to the United Nations Human Rights Council by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Professor S. James Anaya,” according to the NNHRC resolution.

Relevant new perspective from a United Nations official

For Navajo human rights official Leonard Gorman, Anaya’s report provides relevant language to the international community who Anaya serves on behalf of indigenous peoples.

Anaya stated, “Under the cited human rights treaties, to which the United States is a party, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States has endorsed, consultations should take place with the objective of achieving agreement or consent by indigenous peoples to decisions that may directly affect them in significant ways, such as decisions affecting their sacred sites.”

Moreover, Anaya said, “Simply providing indigenous peoples with information about a proposed decision and gathering and taking into account their points of view is not sufficient in this context. Consultation must occur through procedures of dialogue aimed at arriving at a consensus.”

Otherwise, Anaya stated, “In the absence of consent by indigenous peoples to decisions that affect them, States should act with great caution. At a minimum, States should ensure that any such decision does not infringe indigenous peoples’ internationally-protected collective or individual rights, including the right to maintain and practice religion in relation to sacred sites.

“The process of snowmaking from reclaimed sewage water on the San Francisco Peaks undoubtedly constitutes a palpable limitation on religious freedom and belief, as clearly indicated by the U.S. Forest Service’s Final Environmental Impact Statement,” stated Anaya.

Anaya continued and stated, “The religious freedom at stake is not simply about maintaining ceremonial or medicinal plants free from adverse physical environmental conditions or about physical access to shrines within the Peaks. More comprehensively, it is about the integrity of entire religious belief systems and the critical place of the Peaks and its myriad qualities within those belief systems.”

Gorman said, “Anaya’s report supports the need to not only elevate the fundamental religious rights into the international arena but importantly the necessity to ensure that United States carries out its commitments to human rights based on binding international treaties.  This is a comprehensive approach to protect Dook’o’osliid.”

Anaya is one of few international representatives on human rights who said in his report, “It is highly questionable that the effects on Native American religion can be justified under a reasonable assessment of necessity and proportionality, if the purpose behind the Government decision to permit the enhancements to the ski operation is none other than to promote recreation.”

###

The 22nd Navajo Nation Council Delegate Jonathan Nez (Shonto/Navajo Mountain/Oljato/Tsah Bii Kin) will sponsor the legislation on behalf of the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, date to be determined.





Rachelle Todea,Public Information Officer
Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission
P.O. Box 1689
Window Rock, Navajo Nation (AZ)  86515
Phone:             (928) 871-7436     
Fax: (928) 871-7437
rtodea@navajo-nsn.gov
www.nnhrc.navajo-nsn.gov

"Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development," according to the Article 3 of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc A/RES/295 (Sept. 13, 2007), 46 I.L.M 1013 (2007).

hwilliams591

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Court Denies Injunction to Halt Snowbowl Development
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2011, 09:30:14 pm »
Round and round we go...... ::)

I wonder why you are not posting about the criminal acts the tribes are doing....again one-sided.

I will say that this whole thing was handled very poorly by the tribes, it was shady, greedy and just plan stupidity that have got things to where they are now.

I have lost alot of respect for the people that against the snowmaking at SnowBowl.

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
959 Views
Last post August 09, 2011, 09:13:42 pm
by Consultsone
8 Replies
1027 Views
Last post August 23, 2011, 06:29:55 pm
by glenda1bruce
29 Replies
3569 Views
Last post July 12, 2015, 05:13:13 am
by countrygirl12
0 Replies
278 Views
Last post August 22, 2019, 09:41:41 pm
by danyvilms
2 Replies
316 Views
Last post May 29, 2023, 09:46:04 pm
by Sphans