Letters: Seeking information on my sister

On or about 1955 while living in San Gabriel, Calif., my parents brought into our home a little Indian girl. My parents had legal custody of her and were going to apply to adopt her. I believe she might have been about 7 years old, maybe born around 1946-1948. I believe she was Navajo and was brought to San Gabriel with her sister about the same age.

For some reason I do not know, she was separated from her sister when I first met her (my new sister). I do not know what her Indian name was but I believe she was introduced to us as Bernice. I remember spending Christmas together and how excited she was with her new Christmas presents.

In that period of time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) assisted in helping the American Indians with any needs, if possible. Wondering if the Mormon Church might be able to help I had contacted this Church but they stated they have no existing information from that period of time and also added that by today’s law they could not have given me any information anyway due to the private laws on today’s U.S. law books. She was only with us for maybe eight months or so before she had to return to the reservation.

I later found out that her sister tested positive for tuberculosis and the decision was made on the reservation that both her and her sister had to return.

I do not remember how many days I cried losing my sister. Why has this taken me so many years to write this request I do not have an answer for this.

I can be contacted at flyme_too@yahoo.com.

If there are any readers that might be able to share any information, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you.

Bob Percy
Temple City, Calif.

Added bureaucracy ‘unnecessary’ at Grand Canyon Watershed

The proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument was initiated by several groups as a way to “protect” the area from uranium mining, logging of old growth forests, and “inappropriate grazing” by livestock.

Road closures: Most of the roads will be closed in the area, and Navajo people from the west side of the reservation will be prevented from firewood cutting, pinon gathering, and visiting sacred sites within the proposed monument.

“Inappropriate grazing” or “overgrazing”: There is no “overgrazing” allowed on any public lands. The ranchers, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management manage grazing allotments in ways to prohibit the overuse of grasslands, and to serve the best interest of public lands. To say that there is “overgrazing” being allowed on the forests is a slap in the face of ranchers, and the Forest Service/BLM personnel. These people are passionate about doing an excellent job of managing the rangelands for the conservation of natural resources on multiple-use lands for future generations.

Hunting: the loss of hunting in the units impacted would be a severe blow to our Arizona Game and Fish Department. Hunters are very concerned that they will lose the privilege to hunt the area also.

Yes, the proposal states that grazing and hunting would temporarily continue, but ultimately they would cease to exist.

Because the ranchers maintain the water supplies for their cattle, and therefore the wildlife, when the rancher goes away, so will the wildlife numbers. It is very shortsighted to assume that wildlife can exist without water.

Protection of “old growth forests” from logging: there has been no cutting of old growth trees on the Kaibab National Forest for over 20 years. Mainly trees smaller than 16 inches in diameter – not old growth – are included in thinning contracts on the forest, and a broad coalition has approved future thinning under the Four Forests Restoration Initiative. There are no large sawmills left to process the logs, even if logging were to be allowed to resume today.

Mining: Uranium mining operations and mine cleanup are already regulated and required by the U.S. government. Opponents argue that radioactive tailings will contaminate the Colorado River. They seem to forget that the river runs through a canyon full of radioactive uranium, and that the river already contains radioactive elements put there by nature.

The government is currently $12 billion behind on maintenance of parks and monuments, and is $516 million behind in Arizona alone. It would be irresponsible to burden them with another monument until they can maintain ones that already exist.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to proclaim national monuments that “contain landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures.” The president is to reserve “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

At 1.7 million acres, this proposed monument is larger than the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined, and stands completely against the original intent of the law.
The Grand Canyon Watershed is already protected by the BLM and Forest Service from “inappropriate grazing” and logging. In short, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM are already doing an excellent job of managing these lands, and another layer of bureaucracy is totally unnecessary.

Jim Parks
President
Coconino County Farm Bureau and Cattle Growers Association
Flagstaff, Ariz.

---