Indian Land Rights and the Sagebrush Rebellion

Federal ownership of land is an old controversy in American political history. The federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 reaffirmed federal ownership of public lands except in special circumstances. Many western states, nevertheless, continue to press for the transfer of title to public land to them. Nevada and Utah passed legislation that presumed to extend state jurisdiction over federal lands in their borders. No state has yet asserted such a claim to designated national parks, refuges, or Indian reservations. The movement for state control of federal lands is known as the The movement is an important commentary on the meaning of the public domain in terms of the continued economic growth of the West.1 Few observers in the current debate have acknowledged the significance of Indian reservations to the public domain. As Larry Echohawk of the Shoshone Bannock tribe in Idaho recently reminded protagonists in the sagebrush rebellion, treaty rights are still outstanding over much of the public lands.2 Two facts are immutable. The majority of Indian tribes inhabits land in the West, and most of the public domain is there. The Indian reservations are either on residual parcels of tribal territory that were excluded from the cession treaties that transferred vast acreage to the public domain or on lands that were designated for tribes from areas already ceded to the federal government. The Indian Claims Commission was abolished in 1978, and the remaining claims were transferred to the Court of Claims, where many are still pending.3 In the hopes of regaining land rather than money, many tribes continue to oppose a litigation process for resolution. The general sentiment is that tribes seek land, not money. The unrest of the Shoshone caused by the intrusion of the MX missile project, the unacceptable monetary awards of approximately forty-seven cents an acre in the second California land-claims case, and the rejection of the final judgment by the Sioux Nation in its suit over claims in the Black Hills are indications that the tribes recognize a common foe in the sagebrush rebellion. Current demands of the western states not only run counter to long-standing policies of resource management but also, if met, would undermine the recent revisions of federal land-management practices. Among other goals, they seek to strengthen the role of the Bureau of Land Management by providing it with a specific mission in the West. Fears exist that many states, if they were granted additional federal land, would dispose of it as they had done in the past. Barely 5 percent of the original land grants to California and only 1 percent of those to Nevada remain in state ownership, while New Mexico retains 90 percent of its original grants. Whether western states would keep or dispose of newly acquired federal land is not the only important consideration. The collective record of these states in resource management has arguable merit.4 The transferred lands would be subjected to new and perhaps less environmentally oriented conditions of resource management. Currently both federal and state lands are selectively 357

Agriculture · Agroforestry · Archaeology · Environmental planning · Geography · Land law · Land rights · Land tenure · Political science · American Environmental and Regional History · Archaeology and Natural History · Environmental Science · Rangeland and Wildlife Management

• The Continuing Saga of Indian Land Claims

  Open Access•Imre Sutton•American Indian Culture and…•2000

  Add to list

• Property and whiteness

  Joshua F J Inwood, Anne Bonds•Space and Polity•2017

  Add to list