The Dec. 4 history column in the Spokesman-Review titled "'Fair Offer' of $37", was about the opening of the Colville Reservation to white settlement in 1905. In the story, I mentioned that many of those lands have been re-acquired, and that the Colville Tribes have a policy of buying back lands put up for sale.
I received an e-mail from a person identified only as "a concerned tribal member" who said that the policy falls short of the reality. The writer said that if tribal members can't get a competitive offer from a tribal member, they are allowed to sell to non-tribal members -- and this is happening all over the reservation.
"This is disturbing to me as a tribal member," said the writer. "I see these small acres with huge houses going up all over my family's historic hunting/fishing/gathering sites. Sure, I am jealous, but I am also outraged because the tribes cannot compete with non-members in every instance."
So what do you think? Is this indeed cause for outrage? I'd like to hear from tribal members and non-tribal members on this subject.

I'm a Colville member having some realty interests on the Reservation. As I understand the Tribal Council policy, when white-owned parcels are offered, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation is most interested and, if it is of strategic value and the CTCR has funds available, they will attempt to make a deal.

It's no outrage if the parcel is surrounded by large fee (i.e., white-owned) holdings, reducing strategic value, or the CTCR treasury is low, or the owner wants an unreasonable price. That's just unfortunate.

Your correspondent refers to a different situation, a tribe member trying to sell reservation property. Presumably, the property is in trust (rather than fee simple) status, which means that transfer will be overseen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (It also means that the property is exempt from property taxes!). The BIA function is to assure the Indian receives a fair price and is not exploited. However, we're talking real molasses-like bureaucracy here! They will offer the property first to individual Indians and then to the Tribe, before allowing the seller to seek a non-trust buyer. Again, if the parcel adjoins Tribe-held land and if funds are available, the Tribe will probably buy it.

The real outrage, of course, was original Dawes Act policies, giving individual Indians 160 acres, in a country where much more than that is needed to make a living, and then opening the balance of the reservations to homesteading. The authors knew that checkerboarding would result and cynically believed that would cause the reservations to vanish in a few years.

Thanks, Paul, for helping to clarify a complex issue. I would like to pursue the entire issue of the opening up of the reservations to homesteading -- and the Dawes Act -- in upcoming history columns. People today need to know how that came about and how it affects reservations today.

My GrandPa grew up on a reservation in Minnesota. He said that he learned at an early age how to read between the lines when dealing with government treaties, contracts etc; He said that from the start for an Indian, the final result could always be found when you read between the lines. It was all in black and white. White is what you find when you look between lines. Same color as the hand that wrote the words. So if the question is who is right? Or who will prevail? Or who will have the final say? Just read between the lines!

dear reader,I am an enrolled native member of the lummi tribe, currently living in the boundrays of bellingham city limits at my cost unfortunitly theres not much help in terms of housing assistance for me other than renting from one of there investment programs. I am interested in purchaseing a small acerage with in the colville res can you give me some sort of contact or sujestions that might help me. thank you charlene wilbur-charlenew333@hotmail.com

Problems do exist when non Indians purchase land on reservations, since most whites do not understand the concept that reservations are sovereign nations governed by Tribal Law & the Federal Government. Using the example; Idaho has different laws than the state of Washington, Washington residents cannot control or dictate to residents of the state of Idaho, Washington law. Non Indians run into problems living on Reservations when they can not abide or respect the governing body of that Reservation. Its sometimes hilarious to me to hear non Indian's lack of knowledge of history, concerning indigenous peoples, or their ideas on what Indian Reservations are all about.