Colorado Has Become a Battleground for Disputes Over Hunting and Trapping
Reply
Siletz Tribe regains full fishing rights, 45 years after being forced to give them up
The tribe’s hunting, fishing and gathering rights have had strict limits under a 1980 agreement with the state and federal government, now set to be repealed.
- Next up in 5San Antonio Spurs’ Season: How many more wins can they add? | Locked On Spurs
- BEST & WORST MOVES: New Orleans Saints’ Justin Reid BEST Free Agency Signing So Far
Author: Blair Best
Published: 5:08 PM PDT March 17, 2025
Updated: 7:01 PM PDT March 17, 2025
SILETZ, Ore. — For decades, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians have faced strict limitations on their hunting, fishing and gathering under a 1980 agreement between the tribe, the state of Oregon and the federal government. That agreement is now set to be repealed, restoring the tribe’s full right to its traditional foods.
In western Oregon, the Siletz River winds its way through the heart of the Siletz reservation. The name comes from the Tillamook language and refers to something coiled up like a rope, according to Siletz Tribal Council Member and Treasurer Robert Kentta.
“The town of Siletz is almost like an island because of this big loop the river takes,” he said.
The river is rich in resources like crawfish, Kentta said, but under the 1980 agreement, it’s been a struggle for tribal members to access those resources. Tribal member Kevin Goodell described it as a horrible change for tribal members who grew up eating indigenous foods.
The Siletz reservation was first formed in the 1850s, and is the most diverse confederation of tribes on a single reservation, according to Kentta. By the 1950s, they had lost their land under the Congressional Western Oregon Termination Act, part of a U.S. Indian termination policy.
“It meant the last bit of our reservation land was sold by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and a small check was received by each tribal member,” Kentta explained.
Credit: KGW
The tribe reorganized in the late 1970s, and the Siletz reservation was restored in 1980 — but in exchange, the tribe was forced to sign the agreement with the state and federal governments that placed limits on their fishing and hunting rights.
“Even though there was lots of pressure, lots of Oregon newspapers had headlines of ‘if the Siletz tribe is restored there will be nets all over the rivers and the fish will disappear.” Kentta said. “Well, that didn’t happen.”
The restrictions included limited fishing spots, and only several hundred deer and salmon tags, and just 25 elk tags handed out, lottery style, to about 6,000 tribal members — a system Kentta described as very competitive and not very fair.
“It was horrible, because I grew up with my dad who didn’t have any limits,” Goodell said. “And he would hunt and fish and do what he wanted with the community hunting and fishing.”
The decades-long restrictions forced the tribe to go elsewhere for food, falling into what Kentta described as more of a “Safeway and McDonalds culture,” which went against the tribe’s traditional beliefs.
“It means everything,” said Goodell. “I think it’s in our DNA, and what we’re eating today and what you buy in the stores, I have no clue what it’s doing to us.”
Credit: KGW
Two years ago, the tribe and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) entered a new, voluntary agreement, giving the tribe the power to manage their own hunting and fishing rules — but the 1980 agreement was still technically on the books.
That changed late last week, when the state finally repealed it — a move that ODFW Federal Policy Director Davia Palmeri called long overdue. The federal government had already done its part to leave the agreement in the past, so the state’s repeal was the final step to officially remove the restrictions after 45 years.
“It is important to the department and to the state that we can work together with tribal governments to give their members access to those culturally significant resources,” she said.
Gov. Tina Kotek’s office applauded the move in a statement, declaring that “No tribe should have to choose between their land or their sovereign rights.”
Tribal members who spoke to KGW expressed relief, saying that even though they’ve already been operating under the new agreement for the past two years, it felt like the old restrictions were hanging over their heads as long as the 1980 agreement still technically existed.
“It’s awesome for our people,” Goodell said. “Yeah, it’s a big step for us.”
Hunt member found guilty after fox killed by hounds in Warwickshire
China releases three illegal hunting cases resulting in deaths
Bird Flu and Cats: What You Need to Know
Most Americans don’t know the dangers of raw milk and bird flu
03-16-2025
Earth.com staff writer
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detected H5N1 bird flu in raw milk samples from several states in the U.S. Many Americans remain unaware of the health risks associated with consuming raw milk, especially for children.
Raw milk can carry harmful bacteria, including Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Listeria, and Brucella.
More than half of U.S. adults, about 56 percent, understand that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk. However, a significant portion of the population remains uncertain.
Around twenty-five percent are unsure about the safety difference, while 12 percent believe raw milk is just as safe as pasteurized milk. Six percent think raw milk is actually safer, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC).
Children face greater health risks
A concerning survey finding reveals that two-thirds of respondents, about 66 percent, do not know that children face higher risks from consuming raw milk. This lack of awareness can lead to serious health consequences.
“Consuming raw milk and raw milk products can make you sick and pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illness,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.
“Looking for the pasteurization label before buying or consuming milk or milk products such as cheese is good practice.”
Bird flu cases linked to raw milk and poultry
As of March 10, 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed 70 cases of H5 bird flu in 13 states.
Most infections were linked to exposure to infected poultry or dairy herds. One person in Louisiana has died from the virus. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission at this time.
Since January 2022, bird flu has affected nearly a thousand dairy herds in 17 states and infected over 166 million poultry and wild birds.
Global data from the World Health Organization (WHO) reports 954 cases of human avian flu infections between 2003 and December 2024, with 464 fatalities.
Risks of bird flu in raw milk
The majority of U.S. adults are unaware that bird flu has only been detected in raw milk. Only 17 percent correctly recognize this fact, while 68 percent remain uncertain. Some incorrectly believe bird flu has been found in pasteurized milk or both types of milk.
Scientists have found that mice can contract bird flu by drinking raw milk, raising concerns about potential human transmission.
Although the FDA has not confirmed whether H5N1 can spread to humans through raw milk, studies suggest a possible risk. The National Institutes of Health states that untreated milk containing the virus could infect those who consume it.
Public perception of raw milk safety
The APPC survey found that 22 percent of Americans believe drinking raw milk increases the risk of contracting bird flu. Another 22 percent think it has no effect, while 53 percent remain unsure.
The FDA stresses that pasteurization eliminates harmful bacteria and viruses, including H5N1 if present. Yet, misinformation continues to influence public opinion on raw milk safety.
Misunderstood health benefits
Despite scientific evidence, raw milk advocates continue to make claims about its supposed health benefits. The APPC survey examined several of these beliefs and found that many Americans remain uncertain about their accuracy.
Twenty-six percent believe raw milk is as effective as pasteurized milk in preventing osteoporosis. Ten percent incorrectly believe raw milk is more effective, while 59 percent are unsure.
Forty percent recognize that raw milk does not cure lactose intolerance. Ten percent incorrectly believe it does, while 50 percent remain uncertain.
Thirty-nine percent correctly identify that raw milk does not reduce asthma symptoms, while 54 percent remain unsure. Seven percent believe it does.
Thirty percent believe raw milk does not enhance the immune system, but 23 percent think it does. Nearly half of respondents, about 47 percent, are unsure.
The FDA refutes these claims, stating that raw milk does not provide superior health benefits and poses serious risks, especially for children.
Government regulations and public opinion
Since 1987, the FDA has banned the interstate sale of raw milk. However, 30 states permit some form of legal sale. Public opinion on regulation remains divided.
Nearly 24 percent of survey respondents support allowing raw milk sales across state lines, while 28 percent oppose it. A significant portion remains uncertain.
In-state raw milk sales also generate divided opinions. About 24 percent favor unrestricted sales, while 25 percent support limiting sales to farm owners selling from their own land. Fourteen percent believe raw milk sales should be completely banned in their states.
Federal regulations on raw milk spark debate. About 32 percent believe these rules represent unnecessary government intrusion. Another 34 percent disagree, while 33 percent neither agree nor disagree.
A quarter of respondents believe state laws prohibiting raw milk sales violate the constitutional rights of sellers. A slightly larger group, about 34 percent, disagrees. Over 40 percent remain uncertain.
Testing and warning labels
More than half of Americans, about 56 percent, do not believe that state laws requiring warning labels on raw milk containers violate sellers’ constitutional rights. Fourteen percent think they do, while 30 percent are unsure.
Many Americans remain unaware of the extent of bird flu testing in raw milk. When asked how many states participate in USDA testing, 74 percent of survey respondents said they were unsure.
As of January 8, 2025, the USDA reports that its National Milk Testing Strategy includes 28 states. These states account for nearly 65 percent of the nation’s milk production.
Bird Flu and Cats: What You Need to Know
US reports first outbreak of deadly H7N9 bird flu since 2017
Controversial bobcat trapping rules to be heard at Natural Resources Commission meeting
Man charged for selling iguanas during closed Hunting Season
Loop News
6 hrs ago
ALas Lomas man was arrested and charged for the illegal possession of wildlife during the closed hunting season.
The 39-year-old man was arrested by Predial Larceny Unit officers was arrested on March 11 during an operation in the Central District
The Unit said it received information about a man selling iguanas.
Upon investigating the tip, police arrested the man.
He is expected to face six charges for being in possession of iguanas during the closed hunting season.
Advertisement
The Praedial Larceny Squad has asked members of the public to report any illegal hunting or wildlife trafficking activities
Exposing the Big Game 