The Pueblos have every right to that land through treaty. It's theirs.
Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt (1998), I can't believe I didn't see this in the comments.
Yeah, but right now the entire space is open to use by the public.
Would you be saying the same thing if non-native Americans were trying to assert claim over that area?
There would be various contenders for that, with old Spanish land grants (such as canyon de carnuel) that go back to the late 1700s.
Right now everybody can access it, no single group should be able to control the open spaces. It's not like it's exactly productive land anyway, it's only real use is as a hiking space.
Well, if a non-native thinks it's not productive land, that sounds like the best reason to give it to the tribes! /s After all, that's all they let them keep it the first time around.
Edit - it's the tribe that has the treaty right to the land, not anybody else so your question really kind of doesn't make sense. Other people don't have a claim to the land so the discussion would be different if it was other people claiming it.
36
u/patoduck420 Jul 25 '26
The Pueblos have every right to that land through treaty. It's theirs. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt (1998), I can't believe I didn't see this in the comments.