In this case , it was decided by the High Court that it was always possible to have native title rights (on land) coexisting with the rights of the pastoral leaseholders. Also it was held that merely by entering into a lease agreement, pastoralists would not get the absolute right to enjoy the possession. The terms and conditions of the lease agreement would determine the pastoralist’s authorities and his accountability. Also the law under which the lease agreement came into being is also an important factor in this respect. The remainder native title rights would not get affected by the pastoral lease. Also, it was decided that if there is any disagreement between the two rights, i.e. native title rights and pastoralists rights, then in such …show more content…
The two groups- Wik and Thayorre contended that they were the native titleholders of the land. Holroyd River Holding and Michellton Pastoral Leases are the two leases, which were granted. They submitted that merely because these leases were being granted, their native title must not get affected over the land. They alleged that the two rights, i.e. their native title rights and the rights granted to pastoralists must co-exist.
Briefing about the leases that were granted, I would start with explaining about the Holroyd River Holding. First lease was issued in 1945 to Marie Stuart Perkins under the Land Act 1910 (Qld) for pastoral work. IIn 1973, it was withdrawn. The second lease that was granted in 1974 for the period of thirty years under the Land Act 1962 (Qld) was not only confined to pastoral works.
Coming to next, i.e. the Mitchellton Lease, this lease was granted for pastoral purposes. The first lease that was granted was relinquished in 1918. And so in 1919 the second lease was granted, again for pastoral work. In both the leases, the tenants did not take the actual possession of the land. The second lease was withdrawn in 1921. And then after that the land was kept for the native people. It was contended by both the Wik and Thayorre groups that they were the native titleholders of the land and accordingly have a right over
Although the English and Native Americans were both every different in how they viewed the land, there were some similarities between the two cultures. First of all, both agreed to the terms of a monarchy- the idea that a monarch that ruled over the land was more a symbolic figure of a whole people rather than a rich and wealthy land owner. Even though the English called their monarch a King, and the Indians’ a Sachem, the ideas behind the two were virtually the same. Secondly, if hunters were in pursuit of game, both cultures agreed to the fact that they could cross otherwise strict borders in attainment of the game. This shows that even though both were fairly precise in drawing village borders, food superseded otherwise legal boundaries. Lastly, the English and the Native Americans both were little different in their sense of how land could be bought or sold. Now, this does not mean that they thought viewed property the same or that they us...
Fishing and hunting have been at the core of many American Indian cultures like the Nisqually since precontact. Indian hunting, fishing and gathering were conducted then—as they are now—not for sport, but for food and for a livelihood. This was well understood by the early colonists and later by the U.S. government. Thus, many of the treaties (e.g., Medicine Creek, 1854) negotiated between the federal government and Indian tribes in the nineteenth century contained provisions guaranteeing rights to hunt and fish. In the trea¬ty negotiated by Isaac Stevens, the tribe ceded to the U.S. some of the Nisqually vil¬lages and prairies, but Article Three reserved the tribe’s right to fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in common with all citizens of the Territory.” (FL 12) But the growth of the European American population, and with it the proliferation of fenced lands, the destruction of natural habitat, and often the destruction of wildlife itself, drastically curtailed the Indians' ability to carry on these activities. Charles Wilkinson’s thesis declares that the “messages from Frank’s Landing” are “messages about ourselves, about the natural world, about societies past, about this society, and about societies to come.” (FL 6)
Allotments could be sold after a statutory period (25 years), and “surplus” land. not allotted was opened to settlers. Within decades following the passage of the act the vast majority of what had been tribal land in the West was in white hands. The act also established a trust fund to collect and distribute proceeds from oil, mineral, timber, and grazing. leases on Native American lands.
at first he paid them for the land, but he eventually just takes it - this leads to mistrusts and conflicts
The land of the Native Indians had been encroached upon by American settlers. By the
...d for you to sign and the land will be yours... no-one will bother you on your land” (pg.105). This incident leads to a long chain of corrupt acts. All community members signed, rather, finger printed the document and we’re assured “they could rely on this paper as it is the title to the land” (pg. 105). Two years passed and they returned with the document in hand, claiming the land was no longer theirs to live off of. The signed document was in truth an agreement to live on the land for a mere two years and a promise to uproot once the two years expired. In conjunction with the Labour Unions, Rigoberta’s father fights this upheaval, however the landowners bribe the judges lawyers and interpretors involved in the crooked legal battles, twisting the communities stance says the landowners offered a great deal of money to the judge through -machines/market/lawyers
land away from indigenous people and he did not think is was fair for them to
Under the Native Title Act 1993 Aboriginal people can only claim title to vacant government owned land. They must prove a continuous relationship with this land when making a claim. The process it takes to gain native title is viewed by many as extreme. Should the process in Australia to Native Title claims be streamlined to allow Indigenous Australians the right to use of the land in a timelier manner?
Both parties the Coalition of the tribes and NAGPRA and the scientists believe that they are doing the right thing by this discovery. In this paper I will introduce the Kennewick case and discuss the parties and their personal views that have made this such an important case along with thought of my own to add to the criticisms of the professionals that were involved.
Throughout history the attacks on Native American sovereignty proved to be too much and eventually tribes had to submit. The problems Native American tribes faced when fighting for and dealing with sovereignty in the 18th century are identical to the problems they are facing today. These
...igger people get mean and start to defend what they think is legally theirs. These little quarrels often ended in big trouble and sometimes even war with native people or other countries like England.
...eas about the other to discredit claims to the land and present themselves as better caretakers before potential decision-makers.
Native Americans should have different fishing rights because they’re their own sovereign nation. According to the Treaty of Point
Many Native groups, because they were nomadic, didn't see land as belonging to one person. The idea that someone could come in, claim a piece of land and ban them f...
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.