tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post1476380731761028503..comments2024-01-11T22:45:53.276-08:00Comments on Tom King's CRM Plus: It’s Not Optional, StupidThomas F Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-89488080361966793912018-03-17T16:16:49.213-07:002018-03-17T16:16:49.213-07:00Good post. I am managing a project for the US Arm...Good post. I am managing a project for the US Army Corps of Engineers that is focused on determining NRHP eligibility for Madeline Island, Lake Superior. It is on WI SHPO's desk.<br />Kenton S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06339997588533661288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-85814379421038121972018-02-21T12:28:15.479-08:002018-02-21T12:28:15.479-08:00The question comes down to, what is the consequenc...The question comes down to, what is the consequence of them not doing it?<br />The ultimate issue of enforceability.<br />Being exposed to a lawsuit? A good sound scolding? <br />Now a good sound scolding from SHPO, THPO, even ACHP... meh<br />A lawsuit... most people, individuals, tribes, organizations don't have the funds and/or backing from their superiors to take it to court.<br />So then, again, if the consequences are not bad if one misbehaves (ignores or screws up), then enforceability isn't there.<br />Lance Fosternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-87024551504103668522017-09-18T12:33:29.243-07:002017-09-18T12:33:29.243-07:00When Tribes declare there to be properties of trad...When Tribes declare there to be properties of traditional cultural or religious importance, the federal agencies shall take those declarations to heart, without demanding proof of them. Instead, the consultation should immediately turn to addressing the adverse effects on the property. Agencies do the same thing with Tribal sacred sites, and Tribal uses of federally protected objects for religious purposes (such as Eagle feathers). It is not the place of the federal agency to question these beliefs, nor to demand some sort of "proof" from the Tribes. The trust responsibility of federal agencies is to try to protect the reserved rights of Tribes to their traditional culture and the practice of traditional religion. That doesn't mean Tribes will always prevail in the consultations. It simply means that federal agencies do not have the prerogative of demanding proof. If Tribes wish to substantiate those declarations of their own volition, they can, but they must not be compelled to do so. Whether the Tribal reserved rights fall under 106, or 13007, or the laws that protect Tribal rights to gather plants and animals, the consultations must never begin by the agency demanding "proof" from the Tribe. That's not how trust responsibility should ever work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-69356628963839144452017-09-09T09:47:35.050-07:002017-09-09T09:47:35.050-07:00Preachin' to the choir, Tom! It's difficu...Preachin' to the choir, Tom! It's difficult to advance these concepts when the policy and decision-makers are incompetent/indifferent. An uneven application of the process is reinforced by compulsory compliance that allows under-performers to hang their hats on what they judge to be a reasonable-and-good-faith effort. A system with no teeth allows for abuse with impunity.Dan Higginbottomnoreply@blogger.com