It has come to the attention of the Ruffey Rancheria Tribal Council
that there is confusion regarding the Tribe and it's goals.

We would like to provide
accurate information
so that all can be properly informed.

Question: Why didn’t the Ruffey Rancheria pursue the administrative process or the Federal Acknowledgement process?

FACT: Ruffey Rancheria explored the Federal Acknowledgement process but realized that because Congress terminated the Tribe in 1961, only Congress is able to restore Ruffey Rancheria back to its federal status.  Only an Act of Congress will restore the Ruffey Rancheria.

Question: Is it true that proponents of HR 3535, the Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of 2018, “have no lineal connection to the original Rancheria members of Ruffey Rancheria.” 

(https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/04/05/lamalfa-bill-create-new-tribe-raises-questions/474844002/).

FACT: No.  Ruffey Rancheria’s members are lineally descended from the original Ruffey Rancheria that was terminated by Congress in 1961.  Chairman Gomes’ Great-grandfather was a member of the original Rancheria.

Question: How many people will be eligible for membership in Ruffey Rancheria when HR 3535 is enacted?  Is it true that “enrollment in this new tribe could exceed 10,000 members,” and that Ruffey Rancheria may therefore be the largest tribe in California when it is restored?

(https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/04/05/lamalfa-bill-create-new-tribe-raises-questions/474844002/).

FACT:  No.  There were originally 57 people and several native families living in the area of Etna, California, that were part of the 1907 founding of Ruffey Rancheria (also historically referred to by the Department of Interior as the “Etna Band of Indians”).  Although the Department of Interior will oversee enrollment and ultimately certify whether potential members meet the membership criteria, we anticipate that the Tribe will actually be about the same size as other restored California rancherias.

Question: Is it true that “[o]ver 4,000 individuals with Karuk ancestry alone would be eligible” for membership in Ruffey Rancheria if the tribe is restored, and that “[n]umerous other Indians not currently enrolled in a tribe are also eligible.”

(https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/04/05/lamalfa-bill-create-new-tribe-raises-questions/474844002/).

FACT:  No.  In response to the concerns of the Karuk Tribe of California and others regarding the potential scope of membership under the original draft of the Bill (which has not yet gone to markup), Ruffey Rancheria has requested amendments that limit membership of the restored Ruffey Rancheria to the members of the original Rancheria, those who would have been eligible for membership when the Rancheria was terminated in 1961, and their lineal descendants.


Question: Is it true that the Ruffey Rancheria may put a casino in Southern Oregon (or Shasta County) when the tribe’s federally recognized status is restored?

(https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/04/05/lamalfa-bill-create-new-tribe-raises-questions/474844002/; http://www.mailtribune.com/news/20180403/tribal-recognition-could-mean-casino-in-ashland).

FACT:  No.  Although the original draft of the Bill provided that a casino could ultimately be established within 25 miles of the Rancheria’s reservation (the location of which has yet to be determined, but would be in Siskiyou County), Ruffey Rancheria has met with Oregon and California tribes, and in response to their concerns has requested amendments to the Bill that will prevent it from taking land into trust in either Shasta County or Oregon, and prevent a casino from being established in either.

(http://www.mailtribune.com/news/20180409/tribal-bill-wont-open-way-for-ashland-casino; http://www.mailtribune.com/opinion/20180405/editorial-casino-dont-bet-on-it).

Question: Is it true that the Ruffey Rancheria is tightening membership criteria to exclude those of Karuk descent?

(Facebook post by Josh Saxon, Executive Director of Karuk Tribe of California https://www.facebook.com/karukpeople/).

FACT:  No.  As noted above, amendments to membership criteria were actually made at the specific request of the Karuk Tribe of California and others, to address concerns that they were over broad and allowed people with no ties to the Etna area or the original Tribe, to enroll.  The Department of Interior has approved those changes.  Although the majority of Ruffey Rancheria’s original members were of Shasta descent, there were also members of Karuk and mixed descent.  The proposed amendments ensure that the modern distribution will reflect this historic reality. We try to avoid inter-tribal conflict and find discrimination based on ethnicity abhorrent.  Anyone who is certified by the Department of Interior as meeting the amended eligibility criteria will be welcome in the tribe, regardless of whether they are of Shasta, Karuk, or mixed descent.  Our people will always be our strength.

Question: Was the historic Ruffey Rancheria a Shasta or Karuk tribe?

FACT:  Neither, or both.  The original Ruffey Rancheria was not established for just the Karuk or just the Shasta people.  It was established for “landless Indians” that were living in the area of Etna, California at the turn of the century.  As noted above, the proposed amendments to the membership criteria relate back to the original membership criteria, and will ensure that RuffeyRancheria’s tribal membership is limited to former members, those who were eligible for enrollment when the Rancheria was terminated in 1961, and their lineal descendants.


Question: Will the Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of 2017 result in the much-needed federally recognized status of the Shasta tribe?

FACT:  Yes and no.  Because the membership of the original Rancheria were primarily of Shasta descent, the Bill will result in the recognition of some eligible Shasta (as well as some eligible Karuk).  As noted, the amendments that were requested by the Karuk Tribe of California and others require the membership criteria to relate back to the historic rancheria.  Because not all people of Shasta descent people can establish that they or their forebears were members, would have been eligible at the time of termination in 1961, or are the lineal descendants of these, this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for restoring federally recognized status to all Shasta.  It is, however, a start, and if you want the Shasta to be federally recognized, you should support the Bill.

Question: Is it true that the proponents of HR 3535 are trying to “reinvent” Ruffey Rancheria?

(https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/04/05/lamalfa-bill-create-new-tribe-raises-questions/474844002/; Facebook posts by Josh Saxon, Executive Director of Karuk Tribe of California https://www.facebook.com/karukpeople/).

FACT:  No.  Ruffey Rancheria is one of over 40 California Rancheria that were terminated during a disgraceful anti-native period, and only one of a few that have not yet been restored to federally recognized status.

Question: Is it common for native tribes to oppose another tribe’s federal acknowledgement or reinstatement legislation?

(https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/04/05/lamalfa-bill-create-new-tribe-raises-questions/474844002/; Facebook posts by Josh Saxon, Executive Director of Karuk Tribe of California https://www.facebook.com/karukpeople/).

FACT: No.  Most American Indian tribes refrain from opposing federal reinstatement and recognition of other tribes, and are very proud of that fact.

Question: Has Ruffey Rancheria consulted with neighboring tribes regarding their concerns?

FACT: Yes.  Ruffey Rancheria has met or attempted to consult with its neighbors in good faith, and has requested amendments to HR 3535 to address legitimate concerns raised by the Redding Rancheria, the Karuk Tribe of California, and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, among others.  As a result of this consultation, Redding Rancheria now supports HR 3535, and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon does not oppose the legislation.

Question: Is HR 3535, the Ruffey Restoration Act of 2018, an unusual bill as compared to similar legislation?

FACT: No. HR 3535 is modeled after similar legislation that restored other terminated California tribes.

Chairman Gomes has addressed these topics and more:

https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/speak-your-piece/2018/04/11/speak-your-piece-ruffey-rancheria-tribes-lineage-legitimate/507204002/

http://www.dailytidings.com/news/20180405/tribal-chairman-casino-in-ashland-wont-happen

http://www.mailtribune.com/opinion/20180405/editorial-casino-dont-bet-on-it

Ruffey Rancheria thanks you for keeping an open mind, checking the facts, and considering the sources and motivations of those who oppose HR 3535.  We want to be good neighbors with all of the tribes in the area, and also our local, state, and federal partners.  We value communication and want to work through any legitimate concerns that our neighbors and governmental partners may have, but must correct misinformation and inaccuracies as they arise.

HR 3535, the Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of 2018, is intended to right a historical wrong.  As Chairman Gomes stated before the Congressional Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs: “For us, Restoration is not a political issue.  It is not a partisan issue. It is a question of justice.”

came

Mt. Shasta. Credit: Stephen Leonardi