Howard Tommie, the Chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, appeared at the morning session of the public hearing and expressed the desire of the Seminole Tribe to preserve the natural condition of the land, and to limit human growth in the area. Mr. Tommie pointed out that the Seminole Tribe has an interest in the land area, which interest is embodied in part in the 1960 agreement, and that the Seminole Tribe does not intend to give up its rights in the land. Mr. Tommie indicated that the Seminole Tribe would not endorse any agreement respecting the area unless it is a party to the agreement.
Nearly two hundred members of the public at large attended the hearing.
Those who attended were asked to give their name and address. A list of those who attended is attached to this report. Sixty persons requested the opportunity to present their views. The names and addresses of each person who spoke at the hearing are set out as an attachment to this report. The following paragraphs are summaries of the statements made by witnesses at the hearing.
Dale C. Bennett, the Mayor of the City of Hialeah, and a member of the Everglades Recreational Planning Board testified that the legislation creating the Everglades Recreational Planning Board (Florida Statutes Sec. 375.025), and the proposed agreement conflict. He considers it mandatory that the position of
the Planning Board be considered, and that the Board be a co-signer in any forthcoming agreement. The witness recognized that the Tribes have an interest in the land and should be given the opportunity to reap economic benefit from it, but he stated that the Tribes should not be "given" so much land. The witness expressed his opinion that any agreement reached without the Board being a signatory would go beyond the legislative purpose of Florida Statutes Sec.
372.025.
Bob Mitchell, a member of the Governor's Council on Indian Affairs, testified that the Tribes should be permitted to use the land as they see fit. The witness pointed out that the Miccosukee Tribe has very little land, and that a portion of its land has been granted as a revocable license from the Federal Government. The witness noted that if the Tribes do not have use of this land, and if developers acquire an interest in it, no one would have use of the land. He testified that the State acquired this land by taking it from the Indians, and that the Government should give Indians the land that it pushed them onto. The witness expressed his opinion that white hunters are notoriously bad conservationists.
Warren Jay, a student a North Miami Beach High School, testified that in his opinion Indians' rights under the 1960 agreement are inherent, and that the Tribes are the parties giving up rights in the land through the proposed agreement. The witness testified that Indians are good conservationists, and would not deplete stocks of wildlife. He expressed the view that the proposed agreement is an effort on the part of the Tribes to share their land. Mr. Jay expressed amazement that the recipients of such generosity could object to the proposed agreement.
Marshall Orson, a student at North Miami Beach High School, expressed the opinion that the 1960 agreement is a moral obligation. The witness testified that the Tribes must have this land area in order to be economically self-sufficient. The witness expressed his opinion that the State made an agreement in 1960, and would not have revoked it through the passage of the Everglades Recreational Planning Act (Florida Statutes Sec. 372.025), or any other law if it had considered the agreements.
Wayne V. Zunigha, a professional city planner who has been working with the Miccosukee Tribe for approximately six years testified that the Tribe has shown great respect for the lands, and has been willing to approve only very carefully planned development. The witness testified that in his opinion the State should provide this land to the Miccosukee Tribe.
Marjean Packard, a representative of an educational organization known as Delta Kappa Gamma, testified that her organization has been working with the Miccosukee Tribe to improve educational opportunities. She testified that the best educational environment for members of the Tribe would be their natural environment. She stated her support for the proposed agreement. Florence Cadwallader, another representative of the same organization, endorsed Ms. Packard's statements.
Gilbert Cowheard, a representative of the Half Track Conservation Club of Florida, expressed opposition to the proposed agreement. Mr. Cowheard expressed fear that if the Tribes control the land they will lease it in such a way as to prevent public recreational usage. Mr. Cowheard questioned how much of the land area would be used for ceremonial purposes, and how many frogging permits would be issued to Indians. He expressed his opinion that the State is
a better conservationist than the Tribes. Mr. Cowheard's testimony was endorsed by John H. Meyer, Jr., and Merritt Milano.
Betty Luckey expressed shame that a public hearing was even necessary in this matter in view of all the injustices committed in the past toward Indian peoples. She expressed her firmest desire that the proposed agreement be ratified.
Ann Hemingway, a student at the University of Miami, and a participant in an ecological action group at the University, testified that Indian peoples have shown for infinite years that they are able to maintain land in its natural condition.
Wesley W. Sarvis, the Chairman of the Everglades Coordinating Council, expressed the position of that group. The witness offered a fourteen paragraph proposed agreement with the Miccosukee Tribe, which was received in evidence as Exhibit 7. This was the initial list of points prepared by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Mr. Sarvis' group agrees with the original proposal.
The original proposal would permit public hunting and fishing on those portions of the Miccosukee Reservation which lie within Conservation Area 3 (See: Exhibit 7, Paragraph 14).
A. A. Fisikelli, a member of the Everglades Coordinating Council, expressed opposition to certain provisions of the proposed agreement. The witness perceived the proposed agreement as an extension of the Miccosukee Reservation. He stated that many non-Indian Floridians have an interest in the land, and he asked why the land could not be called a "joint land use area". The witness expressed his opinion that paragraph 4 of the proposed agreement is in conflict with Florida Statutes Sec. 285.151. Paragraph 4 of the proposed
agreement would allow members of the Indian tribes to hunt and fish for personal consumption without regard to hunting seasons, and to take frogs for personal consumption or for commercial use. The statute empowers the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Regulation to issue permits for these purposes. The witness asked that an environmental impact study be made to determine whether Indians are in fact good conservationists. The witness expressed his desire to permit all people the same use of the land that is permitted Indian people. He expressed his desire and the desire of his organization to preserve the land for the benefit of all of the people of Florida. Guidelines proposed by the Coordinating Council were offered into evidence, and were received as Exhibit 10. Bobby Bell endorsed the testimony of Mr. Fisikelli.
Sandra P. Marina pointed out that all of the land in question, and much more land, was once Indian land. She expressed her concern with over- development of the South Florida area. The witness offered a photograph of a portion of Miami Beach circa 1935, and a picture of the same area circa 1963. The two pictures show the profound development that has occurred in Miami Beach. The pictures were received as Exhibit 8. Ms. Marina expressed support for the Tribes' rights in this land and urged that the final agreement allow the Tribes more control over the area than is set out in the proposed agreement.
Mr. Ralph E. Johnson, the Region Four Director of the Florida Wildlife Federation, testified in opposition to the proposed agreement. Mr. Johnson offered a resolution of the Florida Wildlife Federation into evidence, and it was received as Exhibit 9. Mr. Johnson expressed concern for the rights of all Floridians to use the land. The witness noted that game management is the responsibility of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and not the Tribes.
He testified that in his opinion Indians should be required to follow the same wildlife laws, including hunting seasons, as other people are required to follow. He expressed his opinion that Indians should have first rights to revenue projects in the area, but in the event that Indians do not exercise their rights, that other persons be permitted an opportunity to engage in revenue projects. Mr. Johnson testified that the agreement is too vaguely written, and is written solely for the benefit of the Tribes. He expressed the opinion that the final agreement should accomplish the following goals: (1) Indians should not be allowed any authority for game management, and should be required to follow the same hunting laws as other persons must follow; (2) Indians should be allowed to use lands for religious and cultural purposes; and
(3) If any revenue structures are placed on the land, Indians should have the first opportunity to manage the structures. The witness' primary opposition to the proposed agreement is the provision allowing members of the Indian tribes to hunt and fish without regard to seasons. The following persons endorsed Mr. Johnson's testimony: Robert Ryan, Harold Johnson, Tom Munroe, L. R. Milks, Terry R. Wingerson, Jim Snively, Bill Masters, Smokey Hillsworth, Leonard Baxter, Walter Phillips, and Barbara H. Kline.
Katrina Eadie, a student at the University of Miami, noted that Indians have been on the land for centuries, have protected the land, and have never needed artificial wildlife management. She stated that it was shameful that hearings would be necessary to give Indians what is rightfully theirs. She expressed her opinion that the proposed agreement does not give enough authority to the Tribe.
Cy Maus, the principal of the Miccosukee Indian School, testified concerning Indian concepts of land ownership. He noted that this matter is legally complex, and that non-Indian groups talk about morals from the perspective of legal concepts of ownership. Indian peoples view land ownership differently. When they live in a place for a long time, Indians view the land as their land. Their concept of the relationship of people to land is different from non-Indian concepts, and is more personal. He expressed hope that the proposed agreement would not be revokable, and expressed his opinion that morally it could not be revokable.
Dr. Hazel H. Weidman, an anthropologist, testified that historically the Miccosukee Indians are remarkably adapted to the Everglades environment.
She stated that the Indian peoples have treated the land with respect and have been nourished by it for hundreds of years. She expressed her opinion that what is right for the Miccosukee Indians in this case would be right for all of the people of Florida, because the Miccosukee Indians will preserve the land in its natural condition. She expressed her further opinion that the proposed agreement is a masterpiece of culture brokerage in that it will permit everyone to have their purpose protected.
Viter-Juste testified that no man of good will can be secure if anyone is deprived of legitimate rights. He noted that the Miccosukee Indians are claiming the right to maintain their culture on 143,000 acres of hundreds of millions of acres taken from them by white people for the benefit of selfish interests. He expressed his opinion that this land should go to the people who have occupied it since the beginning of time.
Jesse Freeling testified that the needs of the conflicting interest groups in this matter are not equal. One group is interested in recreation, another in survival. Mr. Freeling testified that there is no need for expansion of white people's hunting rights onto reservation lands. He noted that for
thousands of years Indians have used and preserved the land, and expressed his desire that the agreement be ratified and made permanent.
Frank Nix, a representative of the Everglades National Park, expressed support for the proposed agreement. He indicated that in his opinion the land area is vital to the South Florida eco-system. If this land is not maintained in its natural condition, Mr. Nix indicated that the Everglades National Park would be ecologically threatened.
Polly Pascal, a representative of Friends of the Everglades Conservation Group expressed support for the proposed agreement. She urged that the agreement be non-revokable.
J. Marion Gay expressed support for the proposed agreement. He expressed his opinion that the provisions of the agreement are plain and that the Tribes' special rights are justified in view of their long standing ties to the land.
William B. Webster, the President of the American Indian Association of Florida, testified in support of the proposed agreement. He stated that Indians have had rights-taken away from them and that they should get them back. He expressed his opinion that the fact that such a new agreement is necessary is another example of the trail of broken treaties. He testified that the Miccosukee Tribe should be given complete control of the land without any strings. He expressed his opinion that if the lands are turned over to Indian control, the white man will get justice.
Charles Lee, a member of the Florida Audubon Society, expressed the support of his organization for the proposed agreement. He testified that the Miccosukee Indians cannot be separated from the Everglades eco-system any more than sawgrass. He stated the issue as being the protection of the total Everglades eco-system, which includes the Miccosukee Indians. He expressed his view that the proposed agreement is a first step back in the long line of dues which white people owe to Indians. Mr. Lee offered a map into evidence which was received as Exhibit 12. He pointed out that the boundaries of the proposed area are arbitrary ones, and not natural ones. He suggested that the agreement be designed to cover all of the western portion of Conservation Area 3 eastward to the Miami canal. He testified that this would make a clear boundary that could be easily enforced, and would constitute a logical eco-unit within the Everglades. He expressed his opinion that the proposed agreement fundamentally protects the rights of the Tribes and of legitimate recreational users. He noted that the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission would be in control of game management, and that public access to the land would be guaranteed.
Billy Cypress, a member of the Miccosukee Tribe, testified that Indians are giving up a lot of authority, and are asking for only minimal controls over the area. He expressed support for the proposed agreement.
Margaret Aung-Thwin, a citizen of Burma who has lived and worked with the Miccosukee Tribe for four years, expressed support for the proposed agreement.
Wayne Rogers urged that morality govern this matter, and expressed support for the proposed agreement.
Ray Norton, a member of the Airboat and Half Track Association, stated that he was disturbed that Indians are trying to take the land away from
everyone else. He expressed his love for the land and stated that the land is dear to all, not just Indians. The witness testified that he favors the proposed agreement, but opposes making the land a reservation.
George Rellsback, a member of the Dade County Conservation Club, testified that the Federal Government, rather than the State Government, should be concerned with giving land to Indian Tribes.
Charles R. Thourot testified that the State has donated extensive land to the Everglades National Park, and to the Indian Tribes. He expressed his opinion that if the Tribes want more land they should look to the Everglades National Park rather than to State lands. The witness did note that at one time all of the Everglades land was Indian land. Pat Robinson supported the testimony of Mr. Thourot.
Lester Holt inquired about the status of hunting camps that already exist. in the area. Although none of the persons at the hearing were able to answer questions respecting the legal ramifications of already existing hunting camps, it was apparent that such camps are of questionable legal standing without regard to whether the proposed agreement is ultimately ratified.
Nancy Clark testified that the land was and is Indian land, and should be totally under the control of the Tribes. Ms. Clark decried the fact that
non-Indians are deciding what to do with Indians.
Rodrigo A. Pascual, a member of the Half Track Club, testified that the Everglades should be kept in their present condition, and that the land should not be made into a reservation. Karol Meyer endorsed Mr. Pascual's testimony.
John E. Cooper testified in support of maintaining the land area in its present condition, and stopping pollution in the area.
Tom Spackler, a member of the Airboat Association since 1953, testified in support of preserving the land area. He expressed his opinion that if Indians acquire the land, the future of the land may be jeopardized.
Barbara Cooper, a thirteen-year-old resident of Hollywood testified that she had been going into the Everglades area since she was three years old. She testified in favor of permitting all persons equal rights to the area.
Duchess Cooper, President of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Half Track Club testified in favor of preserving the natural condition of the land. She endorsed the statements and views of the Florida Wildlife Association as expressed by Ralph E. Johnson.
Sharon Coleman testified in opposition to allowing a specific group of persons to take wildlife in the area without restrictions. She testified that the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was created to protect the wildlife, and that allowing the Tribes extensive hunting and fishing rights is not a unifying proposal. James Slaymaker endorsed the testimony of Ms. Coleman.
Tony Gonzalez, an Everglades property owner, testified that he wants the area to remain in its present condition, and does not care who uses it. He endorsed the views expressed by Ralph E. Johnson.
Mrs. Annelle Slaymaker asked that the future be considered. She does not want her son to have to be an Indian in order to enjoy this land.
Bob Kline testified that he does not want to lose his right to use the land for recreational purposes. He endorsed the views expressed by Ralph E. Johnson.
Ken Chandler testified in favor of making the land a joint land use area, not a reservation. He expressed his opinion that if the Indian tribes need to have a reservation they should go to Everglades National Park rather than to State lands. Ray Sutton endorsed the testimony of Mr. Chandler.
