Opinion ID: 412102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Agreement reserved priority grazing rights to the Tribes.

Text: 46 The district court erred in finding that the 1898 Agreement reserved only a fair proportion of the grazing rights in the lands in question to the Tribes. There is no language in the Agreement granting or reserving use rights in the grazing lands to non-Indians. In the absence of such language, an Indian treaty may not be read to grant such rights to non-Indians. Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. at 684-85, 99 S.Ct. at 3073-74; United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d at 683. Both of these cases held that the explicit use of the words in common with in the treaties granted non-Indians an equal share of the disputed resource. 47 There is no in common with language in the Agreement. By the terms of the Agreement, the Tribes did not grant use rights to non-Indians. The trial judge erred in inferring the grant of such rights. The fair proportion principle could result in the Tribes enjoying only a small portion of the available grazing capacity. Under the 1978 Memorandum of Understanding the Tribes were allotted approximately one-third of the available capacity. Since the trial judge ruled that a determination of fair proportion would be based on historical factors, including the relative frequency and intensity of use by both Indian and non-Indian users, the Tribes could lose much of their grazing rights, since from 1907 to 1978 the Forest Service effectively kept them off the land. They do not yet own a sufficient number of livestock to take full advantage of the rights reserved by the Agreement and allotted to them by the Memorandum of Understanding. 48 The source and authority of the trial judge's conclusion that the Tribes were entitled only to a fair proportion of the available grazing capacity is not evident from the record. Our de novo examination of the written record reveals no ambiguity in the language of the Agreement that would allow for such a conclusion. Even such an ambiguity would not resolve the issue in favor of the non-Indian permittees. It is a well settled rule of construction in Indian law that any ambiguity in treaty language must be resolved in favor of the Indians. Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 199-200, 95 S.Ct. 944, 948, 43 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975); Skeem v. United States, 273 F. at 95. 49 We conclude that priority is the proper measure of the scope of the grazing rights reserved to the Tribes by the 1898 Agreement. 50 VI. The permits of the non-Indian permittees may be modified or cancelled in order to implement tribal grazing rights. 51 The non-Indian permittees assert that their grazing permits are property rights which the government may not revoke or modify without compensation. We reject this assertion. The license to graze on public lands has always been a revocable privilege. 52 It is safe to say that it has always been the intention and policy of the government to regard the use of its public lands for stock grazing, either under the original tacit consent or, as to national forests, under regulation through the permit system, as a privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of compensation. 53 Osborne v. United States, 145 F.2d 892, 896 (9th Cir.1944). The rights of the non-Indian permittees in their grazing permits flow from three sources: 16 U.S.C. Sec. 580l ; Permit, Part 2, Sec. 8(b); and 36 C.F.R. Secs. 222.4(a)(1), (6). None of these sources supports their assertion of a property interest in the permits. Section 580l provides: 54 The Secretary of Agriculture in regulating grazing on the national forests and other lands administered by him in connection therewith is authorized, upon such terms and conditions as he may deem proper, to issue permits for the grazing of livestock for periods not exceeding ten years and renewals thereof: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed as limiting or restricting any right, title, or interest of the United States in any land or resources. Section 8(b) of the Permit provides: 55 This permit will terminate whenever the area described in this permit is withdrawn from the National Forest or National Grassland by land exchange, modification of boundaries or otherwise, or whenever the area described in this permit is needed by the Government for some other form of use. 36 C.F.R. Sec. 222.4 provides in part: 56 (a) The Chief, Forest Service, is authorized to cancel, modify, or suspend grazing and livestock use permits in whole or in part as follows: 57 (1) Cancel permits where lands grazed under the permit are to be devoted to another public purpose including disposal. In these cases, except in an emergency, no permit shall be cancelled without two years' prior notification. 58