Motivators, Stressors, and DISTRESS
So many people ask, "why would they do that?"
When we speak about agricultural leases, we have to understand that motive is there to cheat. It isn't so great that every single farmer will cheat land owners out of fair deals, but the motive it there nonetheless.
Let's say that we are in the year 2004. Let's say that I am a farmer. I could be a fair farmer or I could be a cheat, the answer will make itself evident in each different situation.
So, back to 2004. I need to plant my crop on the land I lease from a tribal land owner (lot B-3). I will need some gas to run my machines to plant seeds. I will need seed. I will need money to pay labor to help me. I am running low on cash, money, credit; any means to pay for all of this.
What is a quick way to gain means to pay for all of this?
I can sell my futures. What are my futures? I promise to sell you ( a person with money to loan) my 2007 crop at $4.60 per bushel if you give me money now in 2004. So I sell you my crop that I will harvest in 2007 for $4.60 per bushel. Land owners are not involved in any of this.
Why would I do this? Well in a perfectly balanced market, it will never work. I guarantee that I will sell my 2007 harvest for at least $4.60 per bushel...now in 2004 You guarantee that you will pay at the most $4.60 per bushel right now in 2004, for a crop that hasn't grown yet in 2007. I am locked in, in a guaranteed price; guaranteed against poor crop prices. You are locked in; locked in at a guaranteed price that guarantees that you won't pay an outrageous price in 2007 if the price goes up. You release a check to me, I plant my 2004 crop.
How much do I sell and how much do you buy? Well on average, let's say I promise under this contract to sell you 6,000 bushels off of lot B-3 (or 60 bushels per acre; I have 100 acres [100*60=6,000]).
You pay me for $4.60 for each of the 6,000 bushels. $4.60 *6,000 = $27,600 dollars. I subtract my costs that I borrowed the money for and let's say I have $8,000 dollars left over.
Three years later it is now 2007. I promised you 6,000 bushels off of lot B-3, remember? Well April 2007 rolls around and my crop looks pretty good, and then without any warning, I wake up to a forecast for frost. Sure enough it frosts and ruins my crop. I wait it out; I do what I can with the crop I have left to help produce a good crop. End of the year rolls around and I am harvesting! I am trucking crops to elevators! I am counting bushels! I am dividing bushels by acres. I get 5,000 bushels. I have 100 acres under lot B-3. 5,000 / 100 = 50 bushels per acre. I go to the elevator and deposit my 5,000 bushels, and I let you know I deposited 5,000 bushels for you that we agreed to back in 2004.
You point at me and laugh; "You" you say as you point and laugh. "You" you repeat as you point at my farmer's overalls. You say, "Did you forget we agreed to 6,000 bushels? Ha ha! You big joker, you didn't forget! Let me know when you get 6,000 bushels in that elevator!"
And I do let you know when I get 6,000 bushels in that elevator...
Do I:
replace the frost damage by going out and buying bushels which now in 2007 are going for $10.45 per bushel? Do I sacrifice some crop from another field which I personally own? I would do that by telling the elevator to take some crop from lot A-1 (what the elevator knows my personal field crops as) and put it under lot B-3 (which is what the elevator calls the harvest on the land I am leasing)? What is the damage if I do tell them that? I just lost 1,000 bushels of my own crop. That cost me (1,000 * $10.45 =) $10,450 dollars. If I am an ethical man, I will sleep well the night I clear my debt like this. Remember I only had $8,000 dollars left over back in 2004, so that's probably gone by now in 2007.
Or Do I:
start pulling truck loads of crops from Lots D-7, E-89, G-104, and accounting for all of them under B-3? Why isn't lot A-1 contributing crops toward B-3?
"Why, silly A-1 is my field! All them other fields are leased lands and it's not like they're really losing money anyway, most of them work for the tribe ya big goofball. One truck load from their fields is not gonna hurt anybody. "
The ethical man would not sleep well knowing his friend just screwed not one but a bunch of land owners out of part of their profits from their crops. The less-than-ethical man would simply shrug it off and decide that this was the only way to make up for his loss.
HOW IT'S DONE:
You can't do this unethically without shuffling crops. It won't work if everything goes to the same place. You have to have a reserve-your own storage bin. And if you plan on doing this every year, you will need your own storage bin. Then you send what you want to the elevator for the land owners, and every 3rd truck load goes to your own personal storage bins. You also have to avoid leases that require all of the land owners crop to go to a licensed elevator. If there is a lease that requires that, you chance it and send an approximate amount to your personal storage bins because BIA doesn't fund enough to staff a complete lease compliance department so, you're probably going to get away with it anyway.
And if you're really good, then you negotiate with the land owners for a cash rent that is outrageously low, and then you really don't have to account for any total crop harvested on their land. You are only responsible for paying a mere pittance and doing what you want with the crops. If you are an unethical farmer, you will tell BIA that the land owner and yourself can't come to an agreement so, "in the interest of the land owners" BIA should sign your version of a cash rent lease or a 1/4, 3/4 crop share lease because even a little bit of profit for the tribal land owners is better than none at all...right? And then because it's legal, you offer all kinds of incentives to the high interest shareholders, who may be low income residents with a need for cash in hand. You prey on the weakness of the ones who need money the most.
Motivators=influence of needs and desires on the intensity and direction of behavior or Perceived Probability of Success (Expectancy)
[An all-too-willing BIA superintendent signing papers for "you" buddy is a sure perception of a probability of success]
Stressors=an external event that may be neutral, positive or negative which I have to handle according to Lazarus and Folkman.
Distress=an event that I do not have the resources or skills to handle. Ahh!!! RESOURCES!
Learned Helplessness= According to Seligman, et al. Learned Helplessness occurs when a person perceives that their actions do not lead to the expected outcome. [We try to do something to fix or prevent an event and it doesn't work] This is not dissimilar to when BIA signs for less than beneficial leases, even though we argue that we don't want the leases.
So when a less-than-ethical farmer's need to meet a financial commitment on a grand scale is negative because they don't have the crop, they handle it by taking somebody else's resources.
We continually speak up to tell BIA, BLM, OST, FSA, EPA, and the Supreme Court how we are all suffering from negative results and we are met with retorts like "Why do you have to be so difficult, just sign the lease?" and "This is to protect the land owners from not getting ANY money!"
Hopefully even thinking about how this could all be possible will motivate you, the people, to continue to speak out; speak out for the first time; live up to the prayers of our ancestors who prayed for us to protect the land.
I'll see you at the harvest..."YOU!"
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Return to the scene of the Crime
"and if you dig deep enough, you too will fall into the hole over your head"
The appraisal system is really not a sound system as we can see from the information on smart money's website in their article titled FRAUD IN NEW MEXICO. It seems that the Office of Special Trustee's responsibility to oversee objective appraisals has indeed fallen by the wayside, and you better not dare question them on it.
Deborah Lewis, an appraiser with the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), a branch of the Interior Department, filed an affidavit8 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia detailing allegedly illegal activities she uncovered in 2002.
The appraisal system is really not a sound system as we can see from the information on smart money's website in their article titled FRAUD IN NEW MEXICO. It seems that the Office of Special Trustee's responsibility to oversee objective appraisals has indeed fallen by the wayside, and you better not dare question them on it.
Deborah Lewis, an appraiser with the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), a branch of the Interior Department, filed an affidavit8 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia detailing allegedly illegal activities she uncovered in 2002.
Lewis's 18-page affidavit chronicling her assignment at the Navajo Regional Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Gallup, N.M., reveals that she had found...improper appraisal methodologies that allegedly violated federal law and resulted in consistently low values for rights-of-way easements used by oil and gas companies on Indian land.
This article was put out by Smart Money in 2004.
And if you dig further, you find that Office of Special Trustee has had some less-than-ethical practices going on from the top down in 2005 as shown in a memorandum from the Office of Inspector General for the Department of the Interior. The memorandum details how Donna Erwin, Doug Lords and Jeff Lords created an appearance of preferential treatment to the firm of Chavarria, Dunne and Lamey, LLC while a non-competitive contract was repeatedly awarded to the firm for trust fund accounting and risk management services to the tune of $6 million dollars.
As if that hole weren't deep enough, they had the gall to challenge the employees who questioned their actions of drinking and golfing with the contractors. Donna had the nerve to ask a really junior employee why he was "bitching" that she was drinking with the firm. So, now we move to my phone call with an Office of Special Trustee employee who yelled at me asking if I was an expert appraiser and acquainted with United States Professional Appraisal Practices. Well, no, but I can read! I'm not the only one that they like to throw their weight around with. Apparently they also said the Special Master was not an expert or authorized to opine on appraisal issues. "They" now includes an Interior Department spokesman [Dan Dubray] who is reported to have told the trade journal Gas Daily that "we believe the report is faulty and biased. The special master has no authority or expertise on appraisal issues."
Accountability. Can't we just all agree to do things "ethically?" As society would accept them? When you look at an organization's ethics and the effects it has like the effect that the Office of Special Trustee has had in failing their trust responsibility, you kinda wonder how many times "them there Indians was right."
I wonder how many times we have to be right in demanding trust responsibility finally be enacted; how many times we have to scream that the rules mean less and less when following rules has the effect of violating the trust responsibility before someone (?) listens.
So, how many counties will consent to having a city perform a survey to resolve a boundary dispute between the county and a city in the county? How many states will consent to having a county resolve a boundary dispute between themselves? How many states will have a county's preferred contractor-survey firm resolve a boundary dispute between the state and a county?
But if it 's a tribe, well then just write a rule that says a firm separated by five levels from you will just to do things the way you want them to. So, Department of the Interior tells Office of Special Trustee to settle the policies, Trustee tells BLM what they're going to do, Trustee then tells BIA to tell Tribe to pay for it and when it's paid, they have to settle for an "appearance" of less-than-ethical behavior. By making the tribes pay for it, the Federal Government has just released itself of the trust responsibility that it swears to at the start of so many of their documents.
We'll leave it at that for now and pursue this in a follow up. While you're waiting for the follow up, your homework will be to read An Ugly History, which details exactly what happened in the unfair appraisals in the Navajo Regional Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Gallup, NM. This was also published in Dec of 04 on Smart Money.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
housekeeping 1-579-53-99
Before we proceed any further. Remember one thing in all our discussions. What you take for granted will be wished for in the BIA!
BIA employees do not have Internet access at work. So they cannot realistically google any person to find questionable facts, leads, membership in anti-Indian organizations, etc, etc.
Does that make clear a concept that many of you other federal employees may have forgotten?
Well now, we really have blinders on the whole process don't we?
BIA employees do not have Internet access at work. So they cannot realistically google any person to find questionable facts, leads, membership in anti-Indian organizations, etc, etc.
Does that make clear a concept that many of you other federal employees may have forgotten?
Well now, we really have blinders on the whole process don't we?
Socrates should have been a Chief
On Socrates:
Now to sum up what has happened so far, let's look at what we do know. We do know that BLM, BIA, DOI (interior), OST, and farmers (yes farmers too) are operating under the colors of Federal regulation. Whether farmers avoid contact with land owners until their 90 day negotiation period is up so that BIA will sign for them, or whether BLM leaves wide open the qualifications for people who will be exposed to sensitive information, it is all done under a Federal regulation, policy, memorandum, or just because "we've always done it that way."
That doesn't mean it is in the best interest of anybody; it doesn't mean it's done with malice aforethought; it just means that the result is what is so disastrous to Native People. And "results is what counts."
So before you jump all over me for opining on the state of affairs in Indian Land Resources, know this: I don't care who you are; I don't pretend to know why anyone would make such disastrous policy; I only know this: I can ask you these same things written in these previous entries (plenty more coming too) and you will offer me explanations, opposing views, "excuses", but no where will you tell me how the Native American populace feels about this.
You will tell me what your Tribal-member-employee will tell you, but where does your employee live? How much profit from the land does your tribal employee depend on for school clothes? (what are they a GS-07/09/11?) Tell me how many layers you as a policy-maker have to wade through to get to the real meat and bones literally living off the land? How many of you know tribal members who live without electricity, without running water, and still sweat every morning with fire from wood cut on their land? I know someone like that; don't call him naïve', for he is just as Socrates would describe himself. Socrates and this tribal elder, each would claim that a truly wise man would decide that which he didn't know, he wouldn't foolishly think he knew. In other words, if you don't know what the end result really is, is it really in everybody’s best interest to tell other people what you think the end result is?
Socrates made a claim that the greatest endeavor was to constantly question oneself. It was vividly illustrated when several of his young students began questioning statesmen in public forums. The stately men claimed to be very wise, as they were at the top of the political ladder, the art display, the agenda for rhetoric in the squares. Yet, when the politicians were asked what they knew of virtue, beauty and the common good (true politiks), they were left speechless. They claimed wisdom based on what they thought wisdom was. It may be true that if you have an answer already to a question, unless someone can read your mind, it is very likely that they may get the answer wrong. But, that is where true beauty lies. If we question our positions in relation to the questions posed of us before answering, we may see the common good. That is what politiks started out as--the search for what the common good was so that you could effect actions that supported the common good.
Beauty, virtue, and the common good come about as a result of our daily actions in our professions. So how do we affect a beautiful, virtuous, outcome for the common good of the lives of the people affected by our "professions?" That is the 64 million dollar question (split 1/3, 2/3 to be fair).
Now listen to this: how much action does a tribal land owner have to take to have his land surveyed? How much action does a tribal land owner have to take to have his land appraised? How much action does a tribal land owner have to take to effect an agricultural lease on his or her land?
The answers: None. None. And None, but the BIA will sign for them anyway if they don't sign. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Rather than uphold your integrity, BIA will sign an agricultural lease for you to get ripped off by an over-zealous farmer?
Now who else doesn't question the common good in that scenario? Only because it is obvious does not preclude any other programs from scrutiny. Your failure to grant the common good is no less obvious to the tribal people.
Do I question myself? Yes I do. I did ask myself, what am I doing to promote the common good for tribal people? Now you know the answer.
Next question is yours.
Hadji’s Cliff Notes: Don’t tell Tribal members you followed the rules, regulations, or policies. Instead, listen to them when they tell you the results are affecting them negatively. We don’t care what the rules say; we only know how your actions are negatively affecting our well-being. This blog is the result of my questions to tribal members, council members, land owners, and even federal employees in the BIA, BLM, OST, EPA, and FSA.
Now to sum up what has happened so far, let's look at what we do know. We do know that BLM, BIA, DOI (interior), OST, and farmers (yes farmers too) are operating under the colors of Federal regulation. Whether farmers avoid contact with land owners until their 90 day negotiation period is up so that BIA will sign for them, or whether BLM leaves wide open the qualifications for people who will be exposed to sensitive information, it is all done under a Federal regulation, policy, memorandum, or just because "we've always done it that way."
That doesn't mean it is in the best interest of anybody; it doesn't mean it's done with malice aforethought; it just means that the result is what is so disastrous to Native People. And "results is what counts."
So before you jump all over me for opining on the state of affairs in Indian Land Resources, know this: I don't care who you are; I don't pretend to know why anyone would make such disastrous policy; I only know this: I can ask you these same things written in these previous entries (plenty more coming too) and you will offer me explanations, opposing views, "excuses", but no where will you tell me how the Native American populace feels about this.
You will tell me what your Tribal-member-employee will tell you, but where does your employee live? How much profit from the land does your tribal employee depend on for school clothes? (what are they a GS-07/09/11?) Tell me how many layers you as a policy-maker have to wade through to get to the real meat and bones literally living off the land? How many of you know tribal members who live without electricity, without running water, and still sweat every morning with fire from wood cut on their land? I know someone like that; don't call him naïve', for he is just as Socrates would describe himself. Socrates and this tribal elder, each would claim that a truly wise man would decide that which he didn't know, he wouldn't foolishly think he knew. In other words, if you don't know what the end result really is, is it really in everybody’s best interest to tell other people what you think the end result is?
Socrates made a claim that the greatest endeavor was to constantly question oneself. It was vividly illustrated when several of his young students began questioning statesmen in public forums. The stately men claimed to be very wise, as they were at the top of the political ladder, the art display, the agenda for rhetoric in the squares. Yet, when the politicians were asked what they knew of virtue, beauty and the common good (true politiks), they were left speechless. They claimed wisdom based on what they thought wisdom was. It may be true that if you have an answer already to a question, unless someone can read your mind, it is very likely that they may get the answer wrong. But, that is where true beauty lies. If we question our positions in relation to the questions posed of us before answering, we may see the common good. That is what politiks started out as--the search for what the common good was so that you could effect actions that supported the common good.
Beauty, virtue, and the common good come about as a result of our daily actions in our professions. So how do we affect a beautiful, virtuous, outcome for the common good of the lives of the people affected by our "professions?" That is the 64 million dollar question (split 1/3, 2/3 to be fair).
Now listen to this: how much action does a tribal land owner have to take to have his land surveyed? How much action does a tribal land owner have to take to have his land appraised? How much action does a tribal land owner have to take to effect an agricultural lease on his or her land?
The answers: None. None. And None, but the BIA will sign for them anyway if they don't sign. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Rather than uphold your integrity, BIA will sign an agricultural lease for you to get ripped off by an over-zealous farmer?
Now who else doesn't question the common good in that scenario? Only because it is obvious does not preclude any other programs from scrutiny. Your failure to grant the common good is no less obvious to the tribal people.
Do I question myself? Yes I do. I did ask myself, what am I doing to promote the common good for tribal people? Now you know the answer.
Next question is yours.
Hadji’s Cliff Notes: Don’t tell Tribal members you followed the rules, regulations, or policies. Instead, listen to them when they tell you the results are affecting them negatively. We don’t care what the rules say; we only know how your actions are negatively affecting our well-being. This blog is the result of my questions to tribal members, council members, land owners, and even federal employees in the BIA, BLM, OST, EPA, and FSA.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A penney for your appraisal
For today's discussion I will be drawing information from the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which is located on the appraisal foundation's web page. Now, there a few things you need to know when a firm is contracted to perform a reservation-wide appraisal to determine leasing stipulations.
Appraisals for Tribes/reservations are located under the Office of Special Trustee, office of appraisal services.
Now, you should also know that when an reservation-wide appraisal is performed, that office is also the "Client," not the actual tribe where the reservation-wide appraisal is done. So any requests for information must be done through the Office of Special Trustee's office of appraisal services. Ahhh, therein lies the ugliness of the process.
I looked at a reservation wide appraisal, and at first I was surprised at the fact that they sampled 15 different farming operations for determining fair value for leases. Unfortunately, the appraisal firm forgot to tell everybody that they were only talking to 6 farmers in all actuality. This meant that when questioned for fair market value, each farmer would get two votes for their 1/4, 3/4 crop share lease plan. 3 farmers would get three votes to cast for leases more favorable for them. That is an important omission of fact in my book. Now maybe it is not an "error of omission" as the USPAP would see it, but it is an omission never-the-less.
Now before you assume that I am being harsh, you should also know that I called the appraisal firm up to ask where they got their information to back up their recommendation that the leases should be 1/4, 3/4. Currently leases on the reservation usually go for 1/3, 2/3. Instead of calling me back, they called the office of appraisal services, because they are the client of the appraisal firm, not the tribe. We never did get an answer on this subject. I recommend to all land owners that if they want 1/3, 2/3 crop share then that is what they should ask for and if the farmers give their usual excuse that times are hard and they can't afford to pay 1/3, 2/3, then be fair and ask the farmer to open his books up to show that. Prove that 1/3, 2/3 is too much. So far, no farmers have opened their books. And neither did the appraisal firm that performed the appraisal. They can make recommendations to the Office of Special Trustee which they will use to tell BIA how much leases should go for, but they can't tell the tribe how they got that conclusion. That is hardly in the true essence of "employing those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal;" That would be standard 1-1 a for those of you following in the good book of USPAP. Credible means offering reasonable grounds for being believed according to a dictionary definition. I would like to believe the appraisal firm, but just show me one time how you came to your conclusion when you never interviewed any objective source.
Another strange thing is that Idaho is a non-disclosure state. So how did the appraisal firm come to their conclusion? If they used available information to come to their conclusion, lets all take a look at it. Because if not, then it could fall under the color of a secret hand shake. Now listen to that carefully. It's not that all appraisal firms work in collusion with farmers to screw the tribes. It just looks that way for now. It is that their process cannot be independently substantiated by the tribes who will later be regulated by their decision. It is that their process, especially in my case, will be advantageous to the local farmers, and not to the tribal Land Owners.
You see they can't have it both ways. The appraisal firms use farmer-fed-suggestions to arrive at a new leasing recommendation that the tribes must comply with, but they don't give the tribes any due process to refute these alleged facts, to have the real facts disclosed by farmers (open them books up!), to negotiate fair leases. I am not a fan of non-disclosure rules and apparently neither are a fair share of other people whose states are a changin' their ways.
A good read for realtors, appraisers, people interested in knowing how hard your realtor will work for you, and tribes would be Freakanomics. It is especially enlightening to the effects that knowing the secret price has on the sale of your property.
Now, what is the fix? How do we make this objective? Can everybody be happy? I don't know about happy. But then that should concern people. Why is it many farmers are so happy and so many tribal members are very unhappy with their leases? (or in many cases oblivious to the whole process)
The fix, is to have farmers back up their claims with an opening of their accounting books. Let's see where their money is really going. If it was so un-profitable, why do they keep coming back? We won't change the non-disclosure any time soon. So make them open their books. Not much else is going to change either so let's put the tribes on the contract as a co-client. Office of Special trustee should give tribes due process.
Ah, now you're thinking that tribes should just ask for this now anyways. Interesting, so that works in all situations except where BIA offices handle the leasing provisions for the tribes.
My friend Ron in the CFEDs program needed to hear that the tribes will not necessarily know things similar to this are happening, just like they don't know about the CFEDS appraiser selection process, and even if they are handling their own leasing office, they won't know in all situations that they should have some recourse. They won't understand how the process works enough to stand up and ask for their rights to be restored. The tribes have a right to be objectively, and culturally regulated and have leases negotiated by the BIA, with OST that defer to the landowners' determination that the lease is in their best interest, to the maximum extent possible.
Go forth and do not concquer, simply cooperate, and if you don't get cooperation, stand your line until they come to the line prepared to offer everything contained in the term fiduciary responsiblity.
Appraisals for Tribes/reservations are located under the Office of Special Trustee, office of appraisal services.
Now, you should also know that when an reservation-wide appraisal is performed, that office is also the "Client," not the actual tribe where the reservation-wide appraisal is done. So any requests for information must be done through the Office of Special Trustee's office of appraisal services. Ahhh, therein lies the ugliness of the process.
I looked at a reservation wide appraisal, and at first I was surprised at the fact that they sampled 15 different farming operations for determining fair value for leases. Unfortunately, the appraisal firm forgot to tell everybody that they were only talking to 6 farmers in all actuality. This meant that when questioned for fair market value, each farmer would get two votes for their 1/4, 3/4 crop share lease plan. 3 farmers would get three votes to cast for leases more favorable for them. That is an important omission of fact in my book. Now maybe it is not an "error of omission" as the USPAP would see it, but it is an omission never-the-less.
Now before you assume that I am being harsh, you should also know that I called the appraisal firm up to ask where they got their information to back up their recommendation that the leases should be 1/4, 3/4. Currently leases on the reservation usually go for 1/3, 2/3. Instead of calling me back, they called the office of appraisal services, because they are the client of the appraisal firm, not the tribe. We never did get an answer on this subject. I recommend to all land owners that if they want 1/3, 2/3 crop share then that is what they should ask for and if the farmers give their usual excuse that times are hard and they can't afford to pay 1/3, 2/3, then be fair and ask the farmer to open his books up to show that. Prove that 1/3, 2/3 is too much. So far, no farmers have opened their books. And neither did the appraisal firm that performed the appraisal. They can make recommendations to the Office of Special Trustee which they will use to tell BIA how much leases should go for, but they can't tell the tribe how they got that conclusion. That is hardly in the true essence of "employing those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal;" That would be standard 1-1 a for those of you following in the good book of USPAP. Credible means offering reasonable grounds for being believed according to a dictionary definition. I would like to believe the appraisal firm, but just show me one time how you came to your conclusion when you never interviewed any objective source.
Another strange thing is that Idaho is a non-disclosure state. So how did the appraisal firm come to their conclusion? If they used available information to come to their conclusion, lets all take a look at it. Because if not, then it could fall under the color of a secret hand shake. Now listen to that carefully. It's not that all appraisal firms work in collusion with farmers to screw the tribes. It just looks that way for now. It is that their process cannot be independently substantiated by the tribes who will later be regulated by their decision. It is that their process, especially in my case, will be advantageous to the local farmers, and not to the tribal Land Owners.
You see they can't have it both ways. The appraisal firms use farmer-fed-suggestions to arrive at a new leasing recommendation that the tribes must comply with, but they don't give the tribes any due process to refute these alleged facts, to have the real facts disclosed by farmers (open them books up!), to negotiate fair leases. I am not a fan of non-disclosure rules and apparently neither are a fair share of other people whose states are a changin' their ways.
A good read for realtors, appraisers, people interested in knowing how hard your realtor will work for you, and tribes would be Freakanomics. It is especially enlightening to the effects that knowing the secret price has on the sale of your property.
Now, what is the fix? How do we make this objective? Can everybody be happy? I don't know about happy. But then that should concern people. Why is it many farmers are so happy and so many tribal members are very unhappy with their leases? (or in many cases oblivious to the whole process)
The fix, is to have farmers back up their claims with an opening of their accounting books. Let's see where their money is really going. If it was so un-profitable, why do they keep coming back? We won't change the non-disclosure any time soon. So make them open their books. Not much else is going to change either so let's put the tribes on the contract as a co-client. Office of Special trustee should give tribes due process.
Ah, now you're thinking that tribes should just ask for this now anyways. Interesting, so that works in all situations except where BIA offices handle the leasing provisions for the tribes.
My friend Ron in the CFEDs program needed to hear that the tribes will not necessarily know things similar to this are happening, just like they don't know about the CFEDS appraiser selection process, and even if they are handling their own leasing office, they won't know in all situations that they should have some recourse. They won't understand how the process works enough to stand up and ask for their rights to be restored. The tribes have a right to be objectively, and culturally regulated and have leases negotiated by the BIA, with OST that defer to the landowners' determination that the lease is in their best interest, to the maximum extent possible.
Go forth and do not concquer, simply cooperate, and if you don't get cooperation, stand your line until they come to the line prepared to offer everything contained in the term fiduciary responsiblity.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Surveys on a Reservation
The latest craze to sweep federal surveyors offices is the program called CFEDs. It's a training program for certifying surveyors to perform federal surveys, cadastral services, BLM surveys, surveys for Tribes.
The requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor are really loose. REALLY really loose. REALLY REALLY REALLY LOOSE!
Why is this so important? Well if your tribe needs a survey performed that is of a Federal survey type, or a cadastral survey for oh, lets say a border dispute between the Tribe (reservation) and a state or a county, BLM usually is the one to do that. BLM has always done tribal cadastral surveys I am told. This CFEDs program replaces BLM surveyors with CFEDs surveyors because BLM cannot keep up with the demand for surveys from tribes. Basically, they are contracting out their services, their role in the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, their oversight of an ethical survey. (remember the ethics part, I'll address this later in this entry)
So how loose are the requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor? Well if you look at the CFEDs Site you'll find that you have to meet two requirements:
1. be a licensed surveyor in any state
2. have no (negative) disciplinary actions in any state regulatory board or court in the last five years.
That is all that is required. For anything else, the sky's the limit. hmmmmmmm.
"Anything else" covers a lot of ground doesn't it? It does indeed!
What is meant when I said "anything else?" Let's say you're a CFEDs surveyor working at your normal job, and you get a call from Bureau of Land Management, or a tribe to go to a reservation to settle a border dispute between the Tribe and the State. You go in you do your thing, you check titles, you check monuments, you recheck titles, you do everything to uphold the integrity of your profession and decide that the land in dispute goes to the State. Easy right? Too easy!
How can you uphold the integrity of your profession...recommend a boundary dispute resolution in favor of a state, between a tribe and the state, as a CFEDs surveyor...when you are a state or county elected-surveyor? Remember the only requirements are listed above. There are no restrictions on anything else! So, elected surveyors, and state and city employee-surveyors, can (AND ARE) participating in the CFEDs process!
Which God will this surveyor serve? Will he serve the state, county or city he is an employee at, or an elected official of, or will he serve the Tribe for whom he is under contract through the BLM?
I brought this up quite a long time ago (2 years ago at a BIA realty conference in Lincoln City Oregon) and there was no answer. Now the first class has graduated from the CFEDs course and within the first four pages of my print out from the list I have found three CFEDs surveyors who meet the ethical dilema I have described here. I have also found several who have written questionable material as it relates to Tribal cultures.
So, what about that crazy word "ethics?" Let's see what one of the coordinators of the CFEDs program has to say about ethics. Dennis Mouland, one of the training coordinators has a venerated book called Ethics for the Professional Surveyor. He also has a fan, William Schmidt, who wrote a glowing review of the book, for Professional Surveyor Magazine.
He describes Dennis Moulan's "thoughts" on the subject of ethics as a word that '...originally meant habit, or the way someone is disposed to act.' He also says the word means the "right way," or "the approved or a proven way."
Well I have news for Dennis Mouland. I do not approve of the way that they are randomly creating a plethora of ethical dilemas for a bunch of surveyors whose real jobs may depend on how they are "disposed to act," during a border dispute between the Tribe and their real employers.
And really now, how can anybody who works for any state (say California) understand the real complexities of a border dispute between a tribe and another state (say Idaho) when they are working for another state?
I don't know, what do you think? What is your stand on this?
What about background checks? How many people serve on organizations that purport to deny tribal jurisdiction exists and are on the list of CFEDs surveyors? (I'm looking at you--you know who you are, and it's only a matter of time before this becomes painfully evident to the world)
Talk to your tribal councils, talk to your chairmen, your presidents, your program directors, ask them if they understand how screwed up this program is in its implementation from the ground up.
A friend of mine from Haskell Indian Nations University who shall remain nameless to protect Cricket's identiy, (Hi Cricket!) has this on her page and I think it's only too appropriate:
He who serves two masters has to lie to one.
The requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor are really loose. REALLY really loose. REALLY REALLY REALLY LOOSE!
Why is this so important? Well if your tribe needs a survey performed that is of a Federal survey type, or a cadastral survey for oh, lets say a border dispute between the Tribe (reservation) and a state or a county, BLM usually is the one to do that. BLM has always done tribal cadastral surveys I am told. This CFEDs program replaces BLM surveyors with CFEDs surveyors because BLM cannot keep up with the demand for surveys from tribes. Basically, they are contracting out their services, their role in the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, their oversight of an ethical survey. (remember the ethics part, I'll address this later in this entry)
So how loose are the requirements for becoming a CFEDs surveyor? Well if you look at the CFEDs Site you'll find that you have to meet two requirements:
1. be a licensed surveyor in any state
2. have no (negative) disciplinary actions in any state regulatory board or court in the last five years.
That is all that is required. For anything else, the sky's the limit. hmmmmmmm.
"Anything else" covers a lot of ground doesn't it? It does indeed!
What is meant when I said "anything else?" Let's say you're a CFEDs surveyor working at your normal job, and you get a call from Bureau of Land Management, or a tribe to go to a reservation to settle a border dispute between the Tribe and the State. You go in you do your thing, you check titles, you check monuments, you recheck titles, you do everything to uphold the integrity of your profession and decide that the land in dispute goes to the State. Easy right? Too easy!
How can you uphold the integrity of your profession...recommend a boundary dispute resolution in favor of a state, between a tribe and the state, as a CFEDs surveyor...when you are a state or county elected-surveyor? Remember the only requirements are listed above. There are no restrictions on anything else! So, elected surveyors, and state and city employee-surveyors, can (AND ARE) participating in the CFEDs process!
Which God will this surveyor serve? Will he serve the state, county or city he is an employee at, or an elected official of, or will he serve the Tribe for whom he is under contract through the BLM?
I brought this up quite a long time ago (2 years ago at a BIA realty conference in Lincoln City Oregon) and there was no answer. Now the first class has graduated from the CFEDs course and within the first four pages of my print out from the list I have found three CFEDs surveyors who meet the ethical dilema I have described here. I have also found several who have written questionable material as it relates to Tribal cultures.
So, what about that crazy word "ethics?" Let's see what one of the coordinators of the CFEDs program has to say about ethics. Dennis Mouland, one of the training coordinators has a venerated book called Ethics for the Professional Surveyor. He also has a fan, William Schmidt, who wrote a glowing review of the book, for Professional Surveyor Magazine.
He describes Dennis Moulan's "thoughts" on the subject of ethics as a word that '...originally meant habit, or the way someone is disposed to act.' He also says the word means the "right way," or "the approved or a proven way."
Well I have news for Dennis Mouland. I do not approve of the way that they are randomly creating a plethora of ethical dilemas for a bunch of surveyors whose real jobs may depend on how they are "disposed to act," during a border dispute between the Tribe and their real employers.
And really now, how can anybody who works for any state (say California) understand the real complexities of a border dispute between a tribe and another state (say Idaho) when they are working for another state?
I don't know, what do you think? What is your stand on this?
What about background checks? How many people serve on organizations that purport to deny tribal jurisdiction exists and are on the list of CFEDs surveyors? (I'm looking at you--you know who you are, and it's only a matter of time before this becomes painfully evident to the world)
Talk to your tribal councils, talk to your chairmen, your presidents, your program directors, ask them if they understand how screwed up this program is in its implementation from the ground up.
A friend of mine from Haskell Indian Nations University who shall remain nameless to protect Cricket's identiy, (Hi Cricket!) has this on her page and I think it's only too appropriate:
He who serves two masters has to lie to one.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Gross Revenue Crop Share Vs. Cash Rent Leases
A Little Bit of Knowledge Can Hurt You
A lot of knowledge can help you. It’s when you don’t know the whole story that you can get shorted by someone, something, or a policy. The same goes for the land leases on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. There are a lot of things that you need to consider before signing on the dotted line.
Gross Revenue Crop Share Leases:
In a typical Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, you take a cut of the profits, and because it’s a Gross revenue crop Share; the total cost of farming expenses is covered by the operator-farmer. The original way this lease was set up back in the 30s-1950s was for 1/3 to go the Tribal land owner, 1/3 to go to the farmer-operator, and 1/3 to the maintenance and upkeep involved with farming; basically the expenses related to farming such as fuel, chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), seeds and maintenance of farming equipment. The fight for 1/3-2/3 Crop Share Leases has been an issue since the 1950s when advocates argued that it was a fair deal for everyone involved in reservation farming.
So in a gross revenue crop share lease, your farmer should justify if they need more money for drainage or other requirements. If you don’t agree with your farmer but you want to be fair, you might ask for the farmer to open his books to you; you may ask him to show you his farm’s accounting books and show you where his expenses have gone before you sign any lease papers. A Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease is reflective of the profit available in that year’s market. Whatever the farmer can potentially make off his 1/3 crop share is exactly what the tribal landowner can make off his 1/3 crop share. For a Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, in a bad year, we all suffer diminished returns on our crops. In a good year, for a Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, we all share in the increased profit returns on our crops.
Cash Rent Leases:
If you make a Cash-Rent Lease you agree to a certain amount of money each year. That’s it. You simply make a minor profit. It is not based on any market. It does not fluctuate.
In a bad crop year, the farmer’s returns are not drastically affected by our cash rent. In a good crop price year, however, the large returns are not shared by everyone. In a really good year, if you have a Cash Rent Lease, you get your cash rent. That’s it. The profits are not shared equally when you have a simple cash rent lease.
You do not get to share in the amazing market prices. So if the price of wheat goes above $10 dollars a bushel like it did this year, if you have a Cash Rent lease, all you get is your cash rent. On the other end of your crops, however, your farmer can get a huge return because he paid you your cash rent, and now he can potentially go and market your crops at the $10 dollar per bushel rate. And if he had to pay on loans as we’ll see later, then the bank is making money off the crop by holding shares of wheat until the market is beneficial to them. In that case the crop just left the reservation along with all the profits.
Feeling like you missed out? Well, if you had a cash rent crop in effect this year, you did miss out on a potential gain. This year the price of wheat went over $10 dollars per bushel. What does this all mean?
A lot of knowledge can help you. It’s when you don’t know the whole story that you can get shorted by someone, something, or a policy. The same goes for the land leases on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. There are a lot of things that you need to consider before signing on the dotted line.
Gross Revenue Crop Share Leases:
In a typical Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, you take a cut of the profits, and because it’s a Gross revenue crop Share; the total cost of farming expenses is covered by the operator-farmer. The original way this lease was set up back in the 30s-1950s was for 1/3 to go the Tribal land owner, 1/3 to go to the farmer-operator, and 1/3 to the maintenance and upkeep involved with farming; basically the expenses related to farming such as fuel, chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), seeds and maintenance of farming equipment. The fight for 1/3-2/3 Crop Share Leases has been an issue since the 1950s when advocates argued that it was a fair deal for everyone involved in reservation farming.
So in a gross revenue crop share lease, your farmer should justify if they need more money for drainage or other requirements. If you don’t agree with your farmer but you want to be fair, you might ask for the farmer to open his books to you; you may ask him to show you his farm’s accounting books and show you where his expenses have gone before you sign any lease papers. A Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease is reflective of the profit available in that year’s market. Whatever the farmer can potentially make off his 1/3 crop share is exactly what the tribal landowner can make off his 1/3 crop share. For a Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, in a bad year, we all suffer diminished returns on our crops. In a good year, for a Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease, we all share in the increased profit returns on our crops.
Cash Rent Leases:
If you make a Cash-Rent Lease you agree to a certain amount of money each year. That’s it. You simply make a minor profit. It is not based on any market. It does not fluctuate.
In a bad crop year, the farmer’s returns are not drastically affected by our cash rent. In a good crop price year, however, the large returns are not shared by everyone. In a really good year, if you have a Cash Rent Lease, you get your cash rent. That’s it. The profits are not shared equally when you have a simple cash rent lease.
You do not get to share in the amazing market prices. So if the price of wheat goes above $10 dollars a bushel like it did this year, if you have a Cash Rent lease, all you get is your cash rent. On the other end of your crops, however, your farmer can get a huge return because he paid you your cash rent, and now he can potentially go and market your crops at the $10 dollar per bushel rate. And if he had to pay on loans as we’ll see later, then the bank is making money off the crop by holding shares of wheat until the market is beneficial to them. In that case the crop just left the reservation along with all the profits.
Feeling like you missed out? Well, if you had a cash rent crop in effect this year, you did miss out on a potential gain. This year the price of wheat went over $10 dollars per bushel. What does this all mean?
It means that just this year alone you lost money in the above scenario on the table. Even if you got an up front cash signing bonus, is that just for this year? If it is then you lose money on every succeeding year. If your signing bonus is for every year, it better be for more than what you would make off a 1/3-2/3 crop revenue share lease. In the scenario in this table that means that your signing bonus on a Cash Rent Lease for everyone on the lease better make up $15, 166.67 dollars every year (or the amount you would receive at 1/3 of the total crop value).
The numbers are random in this table, but the formula is correct, and reflects a true return for 50 bushels per acre harvest on 100 acres when wheat was 10 dollars per bushel in 2007. The numbers are also only for a single tribal land owner. To be fair if you had five tribal owners then you would divide the “OWNER” amounts by five, or the total number of land owners. It is just meant in this form to magnify the division of profit going to the farmer-operator.
According to a United States Department of Agriculture publication released July 12, 2007 at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/Producers_News/pdf/Crop%20Prod%200707.pdf Idaho’s expected winter wheat production for this year was up 59.9 million bushels, up 10 percent from last year. Harvested acreage of winter wheat yields, as of July 1, is expected to be 81.0 bushels per acre, up from last year's 77.0 bushels per acre. Producers with spring wheat are expected to yield an estimated at 68.0 bushels per acre, 5.0 bushels less than 2006.
So the estimation in the above table (at 50 bushels per acre) was obviously a conservative one. If you had a Cash Rent Lease, it should have considered the higher yields per acre that you would lose according to these more accurate statistics.
Summary
The main difference between Gross Revenue Crop Share and Cash Rent Leases:
Gross Revenue Crop Share Leases
· Full crop sales prices in good years are shared by everyone. (Good for Farmer and Owner)
· Bad years are shared by everyone, but impact of Tribal members is only 1/3 of the
total payout. (Good for farmer, and also guarantees tribal member 1/3 of any small profit made.)
Cash Rent Leases
· Full crop sales prices in good years are NOT shared by everyone. (Extremely good for farmer, bad for owner)
· Bad years are not shared by everyone, but impact of Tribal members’ cash rent is minimal (Fairly Good for farmer, and the Owner still ONLY gets their tiny cash rent payment)
So if you think about it, what’s the point of having a Cash Rent Lease when the good years’ profits are not shared by the Tribal Members?
In any year, farmers, without knowledge of the tribal member owners, may apply for Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding or technical assistance. This information can be found at http://www.id.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/eqip_how_08.html. Farmers make efforts at meeting the requirements for this program and they could get money for it. The checks from the Natural Resources Conservation Service under the United States Department of Agriculture go directly to the farmer. Now his costs of farming have been offset and you didn’t even know about it. His 1/3 for the costs of farming has just been partially funded by the Federal government. Does your lease stipulate that any and all federal program offsets be reported to all the land owners and divided up at 1/3-2/3 share?
When fields are burned, you save the farmer up to three passes over a field depending on the situation. So, now the farmer is saving gas he would have spent tilling and preparing fields. His cost has just gone down again. This is even more reason to pass on the savings under other programs, and another reason to stick to a 1/3-2/3 Gross Revenue Crop Share Lease.
Did all the crop get sent to the nearest licensed elevator? If it says so in your lease, the entire crop should be sent to the nearest elevator. That ensures accountability. How? Well, then no “estimates of total yield” are used to figure out what your 1/3 share is. If it all gets sent to the nearest licensed elevator, then the total yield is there to divide up.
If farmers “estimate” how much your 1/3 of the crop in the field should be and then send the rest (an "estimated" 2/3) to their own personal storage bins, true accountability cannot be attained. In other words, we’ll never really know if the tribal owners got an actual 1/3 of the total crop. This merely keeps honest farmers honest, and identifies questionable procedures on the part of others, like “accidentally” sending a truck from one “lot” (field) to the elevator and accounting for it under the wrong “lot,” which is how elevators account for crops since they don’t physically see the fields and the crops cut on different fields. Even if the farmer is farming honestly, if the lease says the entire crop goes to the nearest licensed elevator, then, in all honesty, that’s what should happen. Any land owner can call the elevators and ask for the total amount of the crop sent to the elevator labeled under their lot. That will tell you if the entire crop was sent there.
Don’t feel like you’re the only one who missed out though. If a farmer requested a loan from the bank last year and did not allow time for the crop to be marketed, then as soon as the grain was cut, the banks were right there demanding money. As a result some farmers were forced to sell their grain at $6.00 per bushel before the full market potential was realized.
Agriculture is an extremely volatile market with a lot of pitfalls. Everyone needs to be market savvy and stay on top of the prices, leasing and loan provisions, and your rights as a land owner.
Another very important thing to remember when signing your lease is to either check yes or no to the question on the lease of whether the farmer can market your crop for you, if it’s on your lease. If you check yes, your farmer could sell your grain as soon as he cuts it (when prices are low because supply is high).
If you check no, then you could get a receipt for your crop at the elevator, watch the market for better prices, and sell your crops when you think the prices are better (when prices are higher because the supply is lower). Other countries’ crops are under drought conditions, so orders from overseas have had positive effects on the prices of grains for land owners this year. But if your farmer sold the crop for you the day after it went to the elevator, you lost your ability to market your crop. So read your lease carefully.
Remember through all of this, farming on the reservation is a privilege for non tribal members, not a right.
There is nothing written into the Code of Federal Regulations which gives farmers a right to farm Indian land.
The fact that they are farming here is a privilege, granted by the owners, and when we all profit equally, we all make best use of the land.
Don't let this kind of article fool you or your farmer at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/fr-fact/0002.html It has no basis for being used in Tribal land issues. And they seem to advocate for farmers, which isn't bad. But if you're a land owner or co-land owner, you need to advocate for yourself. I could elaborate on this article from Ohio State, but I'll leave it alone for now. Just know that there are a multitude of issues in this Ohio State article which do not apply to Indian Land, and they only seem to give one side of the story. There are other articles just like this one so be aware of them. They're out there, and some people would like to use articles like it to justify cash rent leases on Indian land.
Know the facts, know the history, fulfill the prayers of our ancestors who prayed for us to use wisdom to take care of the land.
Ground work
Before we get started, lets get one thing clear from the outset. This identification of "issues" is not personal. There is practically nobody in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Offices whom I do not have good feelings for, on a personal level. There is at least one person in the Office of Special Trustee Office with whom I feel I will never have good feelings for, but he's not Tribal so I think the problem is that the whole Native protection concept goes right over his head.
When I identify "issues" (some of you call them problems, screw ups, fluster clucks, etc), it is just that. I am identifying some thing, some action, lack of action, mistake, that could be done differently, better, quicker, or slower. I identify the issue and I will try not to blame anybody for the issue. I will clarify that by saying if it was my best friend doing the same thing in that position, it is the issue I am identifying. So don't think if your'e a BIA employee in any of these positions that I am slamming you. If you got replaced next week, and the FNG did the same thing you did, I would still be identifying the issue that is happening. It's not because of you, it's because the issue will affect us that I will identify issues.
There is no danger in trying to do something better. There is no shame in mistakes. There may be guilt, or responsibility assessed. Because like I've said before, guilt is feeling badly for having done something wrong. SHAME is feeling bad about who you are.
No shame, no foul, and hopefully no harm comes from looking at land "issues" objectively and asking all of ourselves,
"How can we do it better?"
When I identify "issues" (some of you call them problems, screw ups, fluster clucks, etc), it is just that. I am identifying some thing, some action, lack of action, mistake, that could be done differently, better, quicker, or slower. I identify the issue and I will try not to blame anybody for the issue. I will clarify that by saying if it was my best friend doing the same thing in that position, it is the issue I am identifying. So don't think if your'e a BIA employee in any of these positions that I am slamming you. If you got replaced next week, and the FNG did the same thing you did, I would still be identifying the issue that is happening. It's not because of you, it's because the issue will affect us that I will identify issues.
There is no danger in trying to do something better. There is no shame in mistakes. There may be guilt, or responsibility assessed. Because like I've said before, guilt is feeling badly for having done something wrong. SHAME is feeling bad about who you are.
No shame, no foul, and hopefully no harm comes from looking at land "issues" objectively and asking all of ourselves,
"How can we do it better?"
Friday, November 9, 2007
What is a Native Land Issue?
It is a well-known fact that if you are not Native, you will not understand what a Native Land Issue is. So, what is a Native Land Issue?
It is any action, any failure to act, or any proposed action that has any positive or negative effect on land formerly under the control of Native Americans, currently under Native control whether in Trust or Fee, or any land that will be under Native American control in the future.
If you are a land-owner, this will be a place to learn about what issues are affecting you, will affect you and how to identify what issues already have affected you if you didn't already know it.
It is understandable to think that if you are not Native, you won't understand our issues with our lands; however, it is reprehensible to think that you are not Native and you don't understand our issues with land IF you are an employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Special Trustee, Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Natural Resouces Conservation Service, or if you are a member of the Supreme Court, United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, or the White House Staff including the President.
People in those positions in government affect policy that creates Native Land issues. So like we always say in the Army, "Shooters, watch your lanes!" Watch out for these guys! Like the sitting Vice President, they may shoot where they don't think anyone is occupying space.
We're in the lane (my Native relatives). It's our job to make that known in as many ways possible to affect a positive outcome on Native Land issues.
I'm downrange right alonside you so the more we all move at once, the easier it will be for us to be seen.
You did bring your bullet proof vest didn'cha?
It is any action, any failure to act, or any proposed action that has any positive or negative effect on land formerly under the control of Native Americans, currently under Native control whether in Trust or Fee, or any land that will be under Native American control in the future.
If you are a land-owner, this will be a place to learn about what issues are affecting you, will affect you and how to identify what issues already have affected you if you didn't already know it.
It is understandable to think that if you are not Native, you won't understand our issues with our lands; however, it is reprehensible to think that you are not Native and you don't understand our issues with land IF you are an employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Special Trustee, Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Natural Resouces Conservation Service, or if you are a member of the Supreme Court, United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, or the White House Staff including the President.
People in those positions in government affect policy that creates Native Land issues. So like we always say in the Army, "Shooters, watch your lanes!" Watch out for these guys! Like the sitting Vice President, they may shoot where they don't think anyone is occupying space.
We're in the lane (my Native relatives). It's our job to make that known in as many ways possible to affect a positive outcome on Native Land issues.
I'm downrange right alonside you so the more we all move at once, the easier it will be for us to be seen.
You did bring your bullet proof vest didn'cha?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
