This thesis questions the adequacy of the Department of the Interior's response to the land claims of Metis settlers in Green Lake, Saskatchewan.<p> Metis people originally settled in Green Lake because of the pattern of development of the fur trade. Green Lake was a major nexus on the fur trade transportation system, which encouraged Metis settlement and community development. After Confederation, when the national policy generated regional differentiation through uneven development, Green Lake remained under fur-trade domination.<P> National policy expansion reached Green Lake with surveys in 1909 and 1911, replacing fur-trade property relations with the Dominion Lands Act. The surveys revealed Green Lake as a fur trade settlement with property claims consistent with the fur trade economy. Prior treatment of such claims under national policy regulations promised recognition of Metis claims based on prior settlement.<P> Economic recession and World War I led to the abatement of national policy expansion. As a result, the department postponed action on the Metis claims until renewed interest in national policy settlement. Legislation passed in 1919 provided new direction to departmental consideration of the Green Lake claims. The only remnant of recognition of fur trade settlement was reference to 1908 legislation requiring occupancy at the time of treaty. The department subsequently disposed of Metis claims by offering most claimants only a right to purchase claimed land.<P> Departmental response to Metis claims at Green Lake was inadequate on several grounds. It failed to consider adequately property relations extant from the fur trade economy. It acted without due consideration for established precedents associated with the national policy. It acted ultra vires to carry out and justify a restrictive and mean spirited response to Metis claims. The retroactive nature of 1908 legislation unfairly penalized claimants in the Treaty Six area. The department's limitation of the eligibility of claimants by constrictive criteria was compounded by its failure to examine seriously the evidence of Metis settlement that would have met such criteria.<P> At the time of the 1930 transfer of land administration to the prairie provinces, the land claims of the Metis settlers of Green Lake remained unsatisfied.

This thesis questions the adequacy of the Department of the Interior's response to the land claims of Metis settlers in Green Lake, Saskatchewan.<p> Metis people originally settled in Green Lake because of the pattern of development of the fur trade. Green Lake was a major nexus on the fur trade transportation system, which encouraged Metis settlement and community development. After Confederation, when the national policy generated regional differentiation through uneven development, Green Lake remained under fur-trade domination.<P> National policy expansion reached Green Lake with surveys in 1909 and 1911, replacing fur-trade property relations with the Dominion Lands Act. The surveys revealed Green Lake as a fur trade settlement with property claims consistent with the fur trade economy. Prior treatment of such claims under national policy regulations promised recognition of Metis claims based on prior settlement.<P> Economic recession and World War I led to the abatement of national policy expansion. As a result, the department postponed action on the Metis claims until renewed interest in national policy settlement. Legislation passed in 1919 provided new direction to departmental consideration of the Green Lake claims. The only remnant of recognition of fur trade settlement was reference to 1908 legislation requiring occupancy at the time of treaty. The department subsequently disposed of Metis claims by offering most claimants only a right to purchase claimed land.<P> Departmental response to Metis claims at Green Lake was inadequate on several grounds. It failed to consider adequately property relations extant from the fur trade economy. It acted without due consideration for established precedents associated with the national policy. It acted ultra vires to carry out and justify a restrictive and mean spirited response to Metis claims. The retroactive nature of 1908 legislation unfairly penalized claimants in the Treaty Six area. The department's limitation of the eligibility of claimants by constrictive criteria was compounded by its failure to examine seriously the evidence of Metis settlement that would have met such criteria.<P> At the time of the 1930 transfer of land administration to the prairie provinces, the land claims of the Metis settlers of Green Lake remained unsatisfied.

Title: “Where the Feral Things Are: An analysis of how the USDA and Department of the Interior’s Agencies Manage Feral Hogs, Horses and Burros” Author: Elizabeth Poczobut, MPA Candidate, Department of Political Science, Public Policy and International Affairs, College of Arts and Sciences, ETSU. Abstract: Many Americans cannot picture the “Wild West” without also picturing the majesty, liberty and mystique of wild horses roaming the plains. This deeply held cultural view of wild horses lead to the 1971 passage of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. This act tasked the Department of the Interior, and subsequently the Bureau of Land Management, with protecting wild horses and burros from “capture, branding, harassment, or death…as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.” In 1971, there were approximately 25,000 free-roaming horses and burros on public land in the western United States. That number has grown to over 70,000 animals today, and the Bureau of Land Management alone spends approximately $81 million in taxpayer money every year to continue carrying out the management objectives set in 1971. Wild horses and burros are a uniquely protected and managed non-native species in the United States due to a variety of administrative, cultural and legal management constraints. They are protected from many forms of eradication and have virtually no natural predators. When feral horses are compared with other non-native species like wild hogs, the management inequalities are obvious. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that there are 5 million feral hogs roaming the United States, and that they are responsible for about $1.5 million in damages to natural resources. Unlike feral horses, feral hogs are managed by a variety of means up to and including unrestricted eradication. This paper will analyze the non-native, mammal management practices of five major United States agencies and compare legislation, cultural expectations and administrative regulations of these two major feral species. The attempted resolutions and new management proposals are also discussed, and the potential implications of these are taken into consideration.

This project inserviced teachers for grades fourth through sixth on water conservation activities that they could implement with their students. Project Wet (Water Education for Teachers) was used as the basis for the workshops. All selected activities correlated with the California State Content Standards.