Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trust Land Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, tribal members clash at Clallam County meeting over proposed trust transfers and requested letter of support
Summary
Public commenters at the Clallam County Board of Commissioners meeting sharply disagreed over a tribal request for a letter of support and proposed trust transfers affecting the Dungeness Wildlife Refuge; commissioners said the matter involves federal decision makers and invited tribal presenters to a fuller discussion next week.
Public commenters packed the meeting to press the Clallam County Board of Commissioners on a request tied to trust‑land transfers and a proposed letter of support involving the Dungeness Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island.
John Tozer, a Sequim resident, told commissioners they had “completely dropped the ball,” saying parcel numbers in the Bureau of Indian Affairs filings do not match and accusing the board of failing to do basic follow‑up with the regional BIA office. Tozer said the tribe’s recently shared materials contained plans — including a proposed commercial oyster operation — that he said deserve direct public scrutiny.
Charles Wesley Creed, who identified himself as a member of multiple Native clans, urged support and described his own experience with reconciliation and community stewardship: “It’s about community. It’s about doing the right thing,” he said.
Kathleen King Swin, another public commenter, urged the board not to relinquish public property and raised concerns about management, road building and the long‑term effect on tax burdens.
Commissioner Zayas said the request for a letter of support and the underlying trust‑transfer questions “are obviously a complex issue that involves federal decision makers and local interests,” and explained the board’s intent to invite tribal presenters to the next work session so they can address community questions directly. He also said the letter of support requested by the tribe is of a different order of magnitude than routine grant‑support letters and therefore warranted broader community dialogue.
The commissioners did not vote on any transfer at the meeting. Multiple public speakers asked the board to place any transfer on hold until county staff can confirm parcel numbers and provide clearer, public documentation of the parcels and proposed uses.
The board said it will continue the conversation in a scheduled work session and expects tribal representatives to return to address residents’ questions about parcels, conservation goals and proposed uses of the refuge.
