Feds Threatening ‘Third Wounded Knee’ with Eminent Domain Land Grab on Sioux Indian R

[Cebu_4_2]

Feds Threatening ‘Third Wounded Knee’ with Eminent Domain Land Grab on Sioux Indian Reservation

June 25, 2014 By 21wire (http://21stcenturywire.com/author/21wire/) 30 Comments (http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/06/25/feds-threatening-third-wounded-knee-with-eminent-domain-land-grab-on-sioux-indian-reservation/#comments)
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire (http://wp.me/p3bwni-7L2)
SPECIAL REPORT

In the wake of a Bundy Ranch crisis sparked by a militarized federal land-grab effort in Nevada, it seems that the Department of Interior has set its sights on a new prize - this time targeting once protected Indian reservation land on Pine Ridge in South Dakota.

The Oglala Sioux and Lakota Sioux of the reservation have been told by the Federal Government that the National Parks Service will be taking land that comprises the South Unit of the Badlands National Park as a new ‘Tribal National Park’, only the wording in the bill clearly indicates that it will be a federally managed national park under the Department of Interior, giving mere lip service to its tribal title. The Congressional bill has already been written, and if passed through Congress, both tribal members and non tribal members will be stripped of their deeded land – at a price set by the federal government. If owners do not accept Washington’s offer (expected to be a meager one), the land can be acquired at no cost because the measure has waived all appraisal rights and stipulates that Washington can simply take Indian land by force under ‘eminent domain’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain).

Thousands of tribe members will be affected by the land-grab. Some residents will be forced to relocate, and many more others will lose their income from grazing allotments on the land – a result which will ultimately force any remaining independent cattle ranchers out of business. In addition to all this, Tribal members will lose their share of income from entrance fees collected at the adjacent North Gate of the Badlands National Park – a punitive measure which will further compound the existing economic depression on a reservation where the average annual income is around $8,000 per year.

Washington may be pining for yet another ‘Wounded Knee’, as many residents and tribal members are prepared to stand their ground in the face of a federal imperialist policy inside US borders - a trend which many Americans have experienced first-hand, particularly in western states like Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bud-May-Pine-Ridge.png (http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bud-May-Pine-Ridge.png)
Pine Ridge and Sioux cattle rancher Bud May with father Avery (Photo credit: Bud May)

Tribal member and local cattle rancher Bud May believes the issue is not confined to Pine Ridge.

May states, “There is a feeling of common cause between attached parties on this issue – namely tribes and other reservations. The bottom line is we’ll all be under dictatorial control if something is not done quick”.

The federal move initially gained traction after a Tribal Ordinance passed by the Tribal Council in the spring of 2013. Many Tribal members have been frustrated with the tribal council, which has gone against the will of the people to back the park. All 9 districts on the reservation have passed unanimous resolutions against the park along with the Shannon County Commissioners and several South Dakota State legislators.

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Badlands-Pine-Ridge.png (http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Badlands-Pine-Ridge.png)

Badlands’ located on the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota (Photo Credit: Bud May)

To add insult to injury, it appears that all landowners were only notified of the measure until after it had passed, with their first news of the federal plan coming in the form of eviction notices issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Operations department in the fall of 2013.

The Tribal Council of 19 has yet to allow a democratic referendum on the federal takeover, although sources confirm that the referendum option is on the agenda for next month’s council meeting.

‘Cowboys and Indian’ in Common Cause
The federal land-grab crisis was elevated to national news in April when Nevada independent rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters stood toe to toe in an armed standoff (http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/14/exclusive-new-images-of-blm-warzone-expose-feds-military-fiasco-in-nevada/) with the the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over Bundy’s private property and land rights which trace back to 1870′s.

Lory Storm, a Nebraska radio host who has been following recent developments at Pine Ridge describes the synergy now happening between what were previously strange bedfellows. Storm explains, “The difference between this situation and the Bundy Ranch conflict? It will be the first time in the history of our Country that the Cowboys and Indians pose a united front against a federal government that is used to winning battles by first dividing and then conquering.”

Already, many land owners are taking the position that they will not comply with the latest order from the government – leaving many to wonder whether this potential standoff will become the third ‘Wounded Knee’ incident involving a standoff between the Sioux Nation and the US Federal government.

June 25th is the anniversary of the infamous conflict at the Little Big Horn between General Custer, the Northern Cheyenne and the Lakota Sioux, and this year’s anniversary will see residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation along with other protesters gathering again Wounded Knee to protest the theft of their land by the Federal Government.

Crowds will gather to protest and a symbolic ride will take place today, where tribal riders will be joined by riders from ranches in Nebraska and South Dakota in the afternoon at the Gordon Legion in a show of solidarity on the issue of private property rights and grazing rights.

READ MORE LAND GRAB NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Bundy Ranch Files (http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/bundy-ranch)

[mick silver]

Crowds will gather to protest and a symbolic ride will take place today, where tribal riders will be joined by riders from ranches in Nebraska and South Dakota in the afternoon at the Gordon Legion in a show of solidarity on the issue of private property rights and grazing rights.

[Tumbleweed]

Mathew J Trask grew up in the area and knows the people on the reservation that are fighting this land grab. He's written a couple of stories for the local livestock paper that I think are pretty good. Here is one of them.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/parklandsupdate/B0SAv_YNqcg


Tribal nat’l park could be setback for ranchers
by Matthew J. Trask
for Tri-State Livestock News
By 2016, the Oglala Sioux Tribe could be managers of the nation’s first tribal national park, on ground once condemned by the United States Government and used for 20 some years as a bombing range. Whether or not it becomes a tribal national park, the area may soon be home to a genetically pure conservation herd of buffalo numbering 1,000 head. The OST would get the annual excess from the buffalo herd, and if the tribal national park became a reality, could charge admission. This may sound like a triumph of democracy, but many believe it would be an extreme setback for ranchers in the area and could be a disaster for the Tribe as well.
The South Unit of Badlands National Park
The South Unit of Badlands National Park is comprised of some 133,000 acres on the Pine Ridge Reservation, which were part of the U.S. Air Force Gunnery Range. The United States Government acquired the ground in 1942 in a rather embarassing chapter of U.S. history. Families in the area were given very short notice that they had a limited amount of time to sell their land to the U.S. at Depression-era prices or face eviction. Regardless of their ultimate choice, some families never did find a new permanent residence. The Air Force declared the Range Excess Property in 1968, and it was dispersed in various ways, with the National Park Service managing what became the “South Unit of the Badlands” which was held in trust for the Oglala Sioux Tribe by the U.S. Government. A 1976 Memorandum of Agreement between the National Park Service and the OST authorizes the “Sioux Parks Board” to perform maintenance and upkeep of the South Unit. Under the MOA the OST receives the grazing fees from livestock on the South Unit and half of the fees collected annually at the entrance to the North Unit of the Badlands National Park.
A new management plan
The National Park Service generally updates management plans for each of its National Parks every twenty or thirty years; further, occasional tensions between the OST and the NPS showed the need for a revision to the 1976 MOA. In 1999 the NPS began the process of writing new management plans for both the North and South Units of the Badlands National Park; while the North Unit General Management Plan was completed without delay the General Management Plan for the South Unit was held off until 2006 and completed in 2012, with input from the National Park Service and the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority. A Record of Decision was approved in 2013 stating the preferred course of action and signed by representatives of the National Park Service and the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
The General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement discusses a wide range of options for the South Unit, which were discussed between the NPS and OST. These range from Deauthorization of the South Unit to No Change to Alternative D, The Creation of a Tribal National Park, which became the preferred option. Some of the options varied only slightly from one to the other, and all of them had some things in common, for instance the construction of a Lakota Heritage Education Center just outside the boundary, subject to the availability of funds. Alternative D “focuses on restoration with expanded access for visitors.” Physically, under Alternative D, a small Development Zone around the perimeter of the South Unit would be outfitted with signs, trails and interpretive displays, while the majority of the Unit would be a Recreational Zone with minimal development. In addition there would be a small Research Zone with limited public access. Buffalo would be reintroduced “in range unit 505” and a small herd of buffalo would be kept near the White River Visitor Center “for demonstration purposes.” In addition, “livestock grazing leases would eventually be phased out;” like this idea or not, it has been the intent of the National Park Service since at least the 1976 MOA.
The GMP/EIS also proposes to convert the South Unit of the Badlands into the nation’s first tribal national park; this cannot be done by a General Management Plan, but requires Congressional legislation. “If you want to see a National Park Service lawyer cringe, capitalize the words Tribal National Park, because there’s no such thing yet,” says Eric Brunnemann, Superintendent of the Badlands National Park.
If the tribal national park becomes a reality, the 1976 MOA becomes void, and the OST will cease to receive half of the gate fees from the North Unit; the new park could apply for annual Federal appropriations, but the GMP makes it clear that such funds are not guaranteed. The OST could charge admission to their own park, but revenue generated by such receipts is unquantifiable at present.
Here come the buffalo
The General Management Plan for the South Unit of the Badlands says very little about buffalo itself, except “that they will be introduced in range unit 505.” Its basis in the plan to terminate grazing leases on eleven range units next year, some of which are outside the South Unit boundaries, and introduce 1,000 buffalo in something called the “Stronghold Grazing Unit,” is unclear to say the least. If the OST terminates those grazing leases, it loses approximately $600,000 in annual grazing fees.
“Buffalo could be introduced at any time,” says Brunnemann, “but we need to do an Environmental Assessment, study the social impact, all that. I’ve told the Tribe to slow down, but they won’t listen.”
The affected ranch families are understandably upset, and an offer to pay the first year’s grazing lease somewhere else isn’t helping. “Yeah, they’re offering us leases nobody else wants, that’s why nobody’s on ‘em already,” says Chancey Wilson, who ranches with his family near Kyle. “They’re leases with no water, stuff like that. Or they’re a hundred miles away.” Many ranchers have made improvements on the leases themselves. “This one unit, Dad put a lot of dams out there,” says Curtis Temple, who leases pasture and also owns ground in the proposed Stronghold Grazing Unit. “You know, at first we didn’t go to a lot of these meetings, we thought ‘they’re just gonna do what they’re gonna do.’ But then we started hearing about all these things, these buffalo and losing our leases, and we thought ‘we gotta stop this’”
According to OST Ordinance 13-21, which establishes the “Stronghold Grazing Unit” a group called Ranch Advisory Partners completed a “Buffalo Expansion Feasibility Study” which recommended 100,000 acres for the target 1,000 buffalo. How exactly the target number was reached is unclear. There are buffalo on the North Unit, and the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation authority already manages close to 1,000 head of buffalo in smaller bunches in different parts of the reservation, buffalo that are not forcing ranchers to lose their leases.
The South Unit GMP makes some interesting observations; it tends to suggest that the removal of “livestock” (domestic cattle, apparently) will minimize harm to exposed fossils. It does not explain how 1,000 free roaming buffalo will be different in that respect than smaller groups of more confined cattle. In the GMP’s discussion of the black-tailed prairie dog, it notes that “prairie dog population could increase because livestock are currently grazing.” It does not explain how a similar concentration of buffalo could coexist with a larger population of black tailed prairie dog. And finally, in a section on non-native plant species the GMP states that “A biennial yellow sweet clover is widespread through the North Unit... This plant is of concern because it may be causing ecological damage by its soil changes... Yellow sweet clover seems to be suppressed in the South Unit due to livestock grazing and drier soils. The removal or reduction of livestock grazing may cause an increase in the distribution and abundance of sweet clover in the South Unit.” Allowing for the “drier soils” and the fact that nothing is known of population distribution of buffalo in the North Unit, the buffalo do not seem to be suppressing the sweet clover, a species of concern to the NPS.
The second taking
There are private land holdings, including homesteads, in the area and the landowners and residents are sometimes terrified that they will once again be forced to relocate. OST Ordinance 13-21 notes that “Article V, Section 1 (1) (of the Tribal Constitution) authorizes the Tribal Council to purchase, under condemnation proceedings, land for public use...” Eric Brunnemann makes it clear that this doesn’t have to be. “If that private land is there, if those buildings are there, that’s there. If they want it fenced out, we can fence that out.” He also said he didn’t envision problems with access to private property.
Sandra Buffington is not so sure. “That condemnation language, we’ve asked them to take that out, and they’ve promised to take it out, but it’s still in there. Well, I’ve been around long enough, I know that if it’s in there, they’re gonna use it someday.” Buffington ranches in the disputed area; she and her husband Don operated Buffington Rodeos, a stock contracting company, for years. The idea that she would be forced to relocate by the Tribe weighs heavily on her. “If you’ll recall, there’s a church up on Cuny Table, and there’s a cemetery there too. My grandpa’s buried in that cemetery. And all these other people, the Cunys, the Swallows, the Twiss’, they’re all up there too. These guys, you can tell they don’t have a heart for the people. You look ‘em right in the eye and say ‘you can’t kick us out of there, that’s our home,’ and they look at you like ‘you poor thing, we feel so bad for you.’ Back when I was young, when Don was still alive and we were working together, they put buffalo out there in 505 and Geeminee Christmas, they scattered, just like salt in the wind. They called us up and asked us to help put them back and we spent weeks out there, what a mess. I tell you what; I’m old. I spent years working hard, traveling up and down the road, me and my husband to put together what I got. And I’ll be damned if I’ll let it go without a fight.”
Chancey Wilson says that at one public meeting on the proposal a tribal official called the ranchers, most of whom have Indian blood, “wasicus exploiting cheap land.”
“Some of the other tribal members got up and said ‘Our land ain’t cheap, and the ranchers are doing a pretty good job runnin’ it,’” Wilson recalled.

[Ponce]

The Seminoles in FL are the only tribe that is still at war with the US government because they NEVER sold their land .......once you sell, and no longer hold, something is no longer yours....if the tribe still hold the documents granting them the land then it is still theirs.

That looks like one BIG MEAN indian, I would hate for him to chase me with a tomahawk.

V

[Tumbleweed]

Matt wrote another article about this land grab that's going on. It appears the only ones that want this thing are the tribal council. People are wondering if they've being paid off by the feds to sell out the cowboys and indians that make their living running cattle on the reservation. The indians aren't to good at taking care of cattle but the cowboys are and they pay the indians to graze their grasslands. It seems no one but the tribal council want this thing. Sounds like someone somewhere is getting paid off.

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/11436261-113/tribal-park-national-government


Tribal Tensions: South Dakota park proposal drawing heat from ranchers, others

Matthew J. Trask
for Tri-State Livestock News



Expand Photohttp://www.thefencepost.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=JoXWg $6foyKOVopHHLqFNc$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYvEVNsFIm_kSp9 wcgudkXT4WCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg (http://www.thefencepost.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=bi5E2 3koqaMYqez2vTHIvs$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtNt2F58JNhH3O pduuKOzUKWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg)
unknown |

The proposed Tribal National Park would cover 133,000 acres in Western South Dakota and include some land that is currently being leased by both native and non-native ranchers in the area. This photo was taken southwest of Rocky Ford, which is just across the White River, near the border of the proposed park. Photo Heather Hamilton - Maude


The public has until June 6 to weigh in on the Tribal National Park proposed for the South Unit of Badlands National Park in South Dakota.
Affected ranchers are against it. Residents of the Pass Creek District are against it. Members of the Red Shirt Community are against it. The Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council, which is something like a group of advisors to the various tribal governments, is against it.
But on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, 1,000 head of paper buffalo are relentless in their march to the proposed Stronghold Grazing Unit on the proposed Tribal National Park. The Tribal National Park would be created from the 133,000-acre South Unit and include some land that is currently being leased by both native and non-native ranchers in the area. It would be the nation’s first Tribal National Park, and would require Congressional action to authorize. The idea is supported by the tribal council of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, including President Bryan Brewer, and the National Park Service.
Earlier this year a group of the affected ranchers filed an injunction in tribal court against Ordinance 13-21, which would create the Stronghold Grazing Unit and strip them of their leases in 2015. At the hearing on the injunction there were no tribal government members or lawyers present, despite the fact that they were subpoenaed.
Tribal judge Mary Wynne granted the injunction and scheduled a hearing on the ranchers’ complaints. A few days later, the council voted 12-4-1 to suspend Wynne for 45 days without pay, based on accusations by Nicole Little White Man of a “deteriorating relationship between the chief judge and her judicial assistant that included retaliation, abusive behavior and a breakdown in communication,” according to an article in Lakota Country Times.
Curtis Temple, one of the ranchers named on the injunction said he has plenty to do, but the Tribal Park issue takes precedence over other ranch work. “’Cause if we don’t get this stopped, I don’t know what’s gonna happen to me. But anyway, we were supposed to have a hearing on the injunction in April, and here it’s May and no hearing.”
Bud May ranches with his family near Kyle, S.D. Some of the May family’s leased ground falls in the proposed Stronghold Unit, although Bud is quick to point out that other families are more affected. “But any time the Tribal Park issue comes up, I drop everything. This is more important. We have to stop this,” May said.
In a May 2 meeting of the Shannon County commissioners in Hot Springs, S.D., May asked for the commissioners’ support for the group opposing the implementation of this proposal. The county commission granted that their first obligation is to the taxpayers of Shannon County and that they need more information before reaching a conclusion, but Lyla Hutchison, a member of the commission, said, “The idea of the tribe giving land back to the federal government is just wrong,” according to an article in Lakota Country Times.
“People are telling me they’ve already started putting up the buffalo fence around the area,” May said. “One guy said if they asked him to help fence, he wouldn’t do it. He’s afraid he might get shot out there.”
While gunfire hasn’t been an issue, tensions are running high in the area, as evidenced by the first of what was to be ten National Park Service comment meetings at the Billy Mills Hall in Pine Ridge, S.D., Monday, April 21. The peaceful structure of the meeting was disrupted when someone brought a loudspeaker. “That meeting ended up being not so much a meeting as a protest rally. They pretty much ran the National Park Service out of the building,” May said. Subsequent comment meetings were cancelled, including, at the last minute, one scheduled for Friday, April 25 at the Alex Johnson in Rapid City. “When they found out we might show up at that one, well they just cancelled it too,” he said. “I don’t blame them one bit. It’s always just the NPS guys, the tribal government never shows up at these things. And the NPS guys, they sit up there and just get screamed at. There’s a way to talk to the tribal members, and the NPS just doesn’t have it. If I was them, I wouldn’t show up either.”
May tries to be understanding of the tribal government, but he is frustrated by a long list of things. “I think they have a hard job, so I don’t want to damn them for everything they do, but it’s Washington D.C.-funded anarchy,” he says. “Bryan Brewer and his core team have been Harry Houdini-ing us on this thing. I’ve tried to get them together so we could talk and they’ve ducked and dodged at every turn.”
Both May and Temple say the tribal leaders are straying from good management practices when it comes to employees and finances and the tribal park issue is just one item in a long queue of concerns. May points to a list of general fund contractors for 2013 to illustrate his skepticism of the administration’s ethics. On the list is Wesley “Chuck” Jacobs, who received $30,000 for his duties as tribal park coordinator. “I don’t know what Chuck is actually doing,” says May. “He’s certainly not showing up at meetings.”
In early February the tribal council voted 10-4 to suspend the council’s ethics commission for no more than 60 days, but the council hasn’t discussed reinstating it yet, according to an article by Native Sun News.
Jacobs has been involved in tribal government in various capacities since the 1980s. In 2000, Grass Roots Oyate, a group of concerned Oglala Sioux Tribal members demanded the removal of Jacobs as Oglala Sioux Tribal Treasurer due to the abuse of power, mismanagement and mishandling of financial monies allocated to the members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, according to http://grassrootsoyate.tripod.com. In 2010 he was convicted of a felony and sentenced to 36 months in prison for “assault with a dangerous weapon.”
According to May and others, the Brewer administration removed a clause in the tribal constitution prohibiting felons from tribal employment specifically for Jacobs. “Most of the time, if you’re a felon, they [the Tribe] takes you to the edge of the reservation in a cop car and says ‘don’t come back.’ If you’re Chuck Jacobs, you get a job,” May said.
“Yeah, he’s not a good guy,” says Temple. “We got a ‘bad man’ clause in our Constitution that we’re trying to use to get rid of him so he won’t harm our people.”
Under the plan now being considered, the proposed Lakota Heritage Education Center will be built on Jacobs’ land.
May and others say they would be more agreeable to the proposal if it didn’t look like the U.S. government extracting a final concession from the tribe for lands that are rightfully theirs. “They’re calling this a Tribal National Park. I say we’re giving this land to the National Park Service. I keep saying ‘the National Park Service has never given anything back,’” May said. “ How we can we talk about getting the Black Hills back when we’re giving them all this land now?”
In the 1990s, the Badlands National Park superintendent William Supernaugh rejected the tribe’s demands to regain ownership of the South Unit of the Badlands by threatening to shut off the yearly payment from the North Unit, which sees a great deal more revenue from tourism. In 2013 that payment was $679,283.59. Under the new proposal, the tribe would voluntarily give that up, would cease to collect grazing fees, and the land would still be property of the U.S. government. “There’s no guarantee of revenue for the foreseeable future in this deal,” says May.
“I would like to live in a Utopia with fairy tales and pixie dust, but I don’t,” says May. “I’m not anti-buffalo, I guess. I’m anti-condemnation, and anti-removing the ranchers, and anti-giving our land away. “
“Eric Brunneman [the superintendent of the Badlands National Park] keeps saying ‘I’m just doing my job,’” May said. “Finally one day I said to him ‘Eric do your bosses know how mad these people are down here about what’s going on?’ And he said, ‘Well no I haven’t told them that.’ And I said ‘Don’t you think maybe you should do that?’”
May is still hopeful about the outcome. “I’m trying to get all the parties to a meeting, where we can sit down and just be diplomatic about the whole thing. You know, sit down and talk about it.”
The public comment period for the proposal is open until June 6th. Comments may be submitted at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=117&projectID=49473&documentID=58611

[Tumbleweed]

This is a short video of the Badlands where this fight is shaping up.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3zNU0BVZvo