Fish and Game Stamps of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

by David R. Torre, ARA

Please Note: This article is under construction and will be completed this summer.

 

Introduction

Just over three years ago, the article “Fish and Game Stamps of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe” appeared in The American Revenuer (Torre, 1992). For many collectors and dealers, the Crow Creek article served as an introduction to the fish and game stamps which are issued by tribal governments. Since that time, the collecting of Indian Reservation stamps has grown by leaps and bounds. As a specialized collecting area within the fish and game hobby, it currently ranks second in popularity only to the venerable waterfowl stamps. depth information about the stamps issued by various tribes. 

Ostensibly, the purpose of this current article is to tell the story of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s stamp program. Hopefully, readers will also gain an understanding for how the fish and game stamps issued by tribal governments have played an integral role in one of the most significant struggles of the twentieth century for Native American peoples. For it is within the context of this bigger story that Indian Reservation stamps may be seen to have their greatest value as Native American artifacts. The struggle has been to exercise control over their remaining land and wildlife resources.

The Sioux are second only to the Navajo as the largest Native American Tribe in the United States (Grobsmith, 1981). At one time, the Sioux roamed freely over all the northern plains. They relied on their great skill as hunters, fishermen and warriors to survive. They relied on their great skill as hunters, fishermen and warriors to survive. The land and its abundant wildlife resources were the most important things in their lives. Then, as “civilization” expanded westward during the nineteenth century, the Sioux were systematically displaced from their land. Ultimately, they were placed in the custody of a branch of the U.S. government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and confined to small reservations. After moving to the reservations, the Sioux were subjected to a series of government policies aimed at divesting them of their remaining land and assimilating them into white culture.

Finally, under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932-1945), the oppressive Indian policies ended. Aided by the BIA, the various tribes began a difficult struggle to regain some measure of political and economic autonomy and stability. Their land and wildlife resources had always been of paramount importance. During the past half century, however, the Sioux had become greatly dependent on programs run by the federal and state governments. For Example, although the Sioux always retained hunting and fishing rights by treaty, to a large extent they had acquiesced control over the hunting and fishing activity on their land to South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks.

Through the mid-1950s, SD Game, Fish and Parks attempted to regulate hunting and fishing on Indian-owned land in a way that facilitated the best overall conservation for the state’s wildlife resources. By this time, the new tribal governments were fairly well organized and the Sioux were becoming interested in policies and programs that would be in the best interest of their wildlife resources and their particular tribes. Starting in the late 1950s, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe began a determined process to exercise control over their land and wildlife resources. In 1958, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe established their own fish and game code. Then, in 1959, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe became the first tribal government to require the purchase of license stamps prior to hunting or fishing on their Reservation. Separate stamps were is sued for big game, fishing and game birds (including waterfowl). Information about these stamps was first published by editor David C. Strock in the State Revenue Newsletter in February of 1964 (see Figure 1). Additional information about the first Rosebud stamps was provided by E. L. Vanderford in his Handbook of Fish and Game Stamps, published in 1973.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has continued to issue fish and game stamps in every decade since the 1950s. As a means to exert progressively greater control over their land, the Tribe has continued to expand their license and stamp system. At least 46 different fish and game stamps were used at the Rosebud Reservation during the 1980s alone. Remainders of many of these stamps were included in two separate finds made by the author at the Reservation within the past four years. An initial attempt was made to list and describe these stamps in the Indian Reservation Stamp Album published by Michael Jaffe Stamps, Inc. Since the first edition of the album was published, additional research and analysis on these stamps has been completed. The results will be presented in this article.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s license and it has inspired many other tribal govern stamp program has been very successful and it has inspired many other tribal governments in South Dakota and throughout the United States to adopt similar programs. Since 1959, tribal fish and game stamps have been printed for use on at least 18 different Indian reservations (see Table I).

 

The Sioux Nation

The people living on the Rosebud Reservation are descended from a larger group of Sioux which once occupied the area presently known as central Minnesota. The word “Sioux” is French and is derived from a native term applied to these people by the neighboring Chippewa. The Chippewa referred to them as Nadoweisiw-eg or Naudiwisiweg. This translates into “Lesser Adders” (snakes) as the Sioux were their enemies. The term served to distinguish the Sioux from the Chippewa’s more feared neighbors, the Iroquois, which were known as the “True Adders.” French traders and trappers apparently had difficulty with the native term, first calling them Naudiwisioux before finally shortening it to Sioux. Overtime, these people have become widely known by this name. In their own language the Sioux call themselves Dakota, Lakota or Nakota, depending on the band’s dialect. This translates into “a confederation of allies” or “a society of friends” (Cash, 1971; Grobsmith, 1981).

The people living on the Rosebud Reservation refer to themselves as Lakota or simply Rosebud Sioux. While living in Minnesota, the Sioux were organized into seven tribes. The Rosebud Sioux are more specifically de scended from the largest and westernmost tribe, the Tetons. These people all spoke the “L” dialect (as in Lakota). By 1750 the Teton Sioux had further divided into smaller bands and migrated west, following the great buffalo herds onto the plains (see Figure 2).

The Tetons were the first Sioux to cross the Missouri River. They then developed the nomadic hunter and fierce warrior lifestyle which came to characterize all sioux people. Prior to crossing the Missouri, the Tetons divided into seven distinct bands. Although they share a common language and a similar culture, these bands remain independent to this day. The two largest bands crossed first. They were the Oglala and Sicangu. The Sicangu band has also become more widely known by a name given to hem by french traders: Brule. The Ogalala now live primarily on the Pine Ridge Reservation, while the Brule occupy the Rosebud, Lower Brule and Crow Creek Reservations (Hyde, 1974; smith, 1981).

The other five Teton bands were the Hunkpapa, Itazipco, Miniconjou, Oohenonpo and Sihasapa. These smaller bands now live on the Cheyenne River and lower Brule Reservations in South Dakota and on the Standing Rock Reservation, which occupies parts of North and South Dakota. It was here, near Rosebud Creek, that the Rosebud Reservation would one day be established. The creek and the reservation were both named for the wild roses once found there. In his book Spotted Tail’s Folk—A History of the Brule Sioux, Indian historian George E. Hyde provided a description of the area when the Sioux first entered it (approximately 1785):

 

“The White River country … was probably the finest tract of land for Indian occupation west of and close to the Missouri [River]. A real Indian paradise, it was a land full of buffalo and other wild game, with a topography that gave the Indians open plains and prairies on which to hunt, many fine streams with groves of timber in which to camp, and pine ridges from which timber for lodgepoles and other uses could easily be obtained. There were vast areas of the finest native pasture on which to fatten their ponies in summer and a plentiful supply of sweet Cottonwood along the streams which provided bark for feeding ponies in winter.”

 

Their proximity to the Missouri River also facilitated trade with white traders and trappers. First from the French and then from Americans, they obtained such items as guns, ammunition, steel axes and iron kettles. From other Indians, the Cheyenne, Nez Perce and Shoshone tribes to the west and the Comanche and Arapahoe to the south, the Sioux acquired horses in trade and n battle. The horse had a tremendous impact on the Sioux way of life. Horses allowed the Sioux to hunt buffalo more efficiently and also helped transform them into a highly mobile, powerful force. They became great horsemen and subsequently feared warriors.

o the west they conquered the Cheyenne and the Kiowa and pushed the Crow into present day Montana—taking possession of the Black Hills in the process. To the south he Brules moved through present day Nebraska driving the Pawnee from their Platte river homeland. Within a short period of time the Sioux laid claim to virtually all the northern plains. (Cash, 1971; Ortiz,

977; Grobsmith, 1981).

Although the Sioux Nation (also referred to as the Dakota Nation) ruled this area until around 1850, their culture flourished for a much briefer period of time. By the 1920s much of their vast territory was already hunted out, in part due to the fact that the sioux killed huge numbers of buffalo in order to trade buffalo robes and salted tongues for european and American goods. Accelerated trade with whites brought the Sioux into continuous contact with alcohol. As did the horse, liquor tremendously impacted Sioux culture—but in a negative way. Resultant widespread heavy drinking decimated the sioux Nation, reducing it for the most part into disorganized bands (Cash, 1971; Ortiz, 1977; Grobsmith, 1981).

By 1830 the Brule had split up. One band followed the buffalo herds which were moving away from the Missouri, south towards the Platte River. These people became known as the “Upper Brules” and would later become the Rosebud Sioux. Some of the Sioux remained near the Missouri in order to continue their relationships with white traders. They became known as the “lowland people” or “Lowland Brules.” These people eventually became the Lower Brule of the Lower Brule Reservation. This latter group of Sioux, in particular, came into repeated contact with diseases for which they had no built-up immunity; first from the white traders and later from white settlers moving through the area on their way west. Diseases such as measles and smallpox contributed greatly to the decline of the Sioux Nation.

 

The Fort Laramie Treaty was not successful. Indian-white conflicts escalated and included numerous engagements between groups of Sioux and the U.S. Army. In 1867 and 1868 Congress exacerbated the situation by authorizing two large land grants which included land occupied by the Sioux without their consent. One was made to the Union Pacific Railroad for the purpose of building the transcontinental railroad. The other was to various mining interests for the purpose of building a wagon road to connect the Oregon

 

Treaties with the U.S.

During the last half of the nineteenth cen sentatives of the U.S. Government which

tury the Sioux, often unwittingly, signed a series of treaties and agreements with repre completed their transformation from a dominant society to a relatively dependent people.

By 1850 the number of white settlers passing through Sioux territory had increased many fold. This was due in large part to the discovery of gold in California and Montana. The increased interaction between Indians and whites gave rise to numerous conflicts, often resulting in violence. In an effort to minimize the violence, the U.S. Government in 1851 negotiated a treaty with the Sioux and other plains tribes at Fort Laramie, located in present day Wyoming. Known as the Fort Laramie Treaty, it specified that the various Indian tribes would not war on each other or attack whites passing through the region. Perhaps most significantly, it called for the tribes to each designate a ‘Homeland” where they would live. As a result of this treaty, huge tracts of land previously occupied by Indians were ceded to the U.S. In these areas the government planned to build a series of roads and forts in order to facilitate safe passage for white travelers (Ortiz, 1977; Grobsmith, 1981).

The Fort Laramie Treaty was not successful. Indian-white conflicts escalated and included numerous engagements between groups of Sioux and the U.S. Army. In 1867 and 1868 Congress exacerbated the situation by authorizing two large land grants which included land occupied by the Sioux without their consent. One was made to the Union Pacific Railroad for the purpose of building the transcontinental railroad. The other was to various mining interests for the purpose of building a wagon road to connect the Oregon Trail with mines in western Montana. When the Sioux refused to leave these areas, the army was called on to forcibly remove them. However, in a series of victories under Chief Red Cloud, the Sioux managed to resist the army’s efforts. This led army representatives to negotiate the famous—and controversial—Treaty of 1868 with the Sioux (Ortiz, 1977)

The Treaty of 1868 is long and complex and a review of it is beyond the scope of this article. Basically, the Treaty further reduced Sioux territory by designating all of present

day South Dakota west of the Missouri River for them to live. Agencies were established in

several locations where the various Sioux bands were expected to move and the area became known as the Great Sioux Reservation (Cash, 1971; Ortiz, 1977; Grobsmith, 1981).

One of the most important provisions of the Treaty was contained in Article II, wherein the Sioux were guaranteed that no whites. Other than officials conducting business, would enter the Reservation without their consent. The following excerpt from Article II contains the key language:

 

“… and the United States solemnly agrees that no persons except those herein

designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents and employees of the government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory that may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians…”

 

Another important provision of the Treaty was contained in Article XI, wherein the Sioux agreed to end all hostilities toward whites:

 

“Said Indians agree … that they will not attack any persons at home, or travelling, nor molest or disturb any wagon trains, coaches, mules, or cattle belonging to the people of the United States, or to persons friendly therewith.”

 

It was not long, however, before more bloodshed occurred. Although white settlers and prospectors clearly instigated the prob lems by illegally trespassing on Indian land, the U.S. Government was outraged at the Sioux for renewing their attacks on whites in violation of the recent treaty. The violence precipitated the Act of 1871, whereby Congress declared that the United States would cease to recognize the Sioux as a free, sovereign people. Furthermore, the U.S. would no longer enter into treaties with Indians, for treaties implied agreements with sovereign nations. An embittered Congress then turned over millions of acres of land grants to the banker Jay Cook for the purpose of constructing the Northern Pacific Railroad. These grants included parts of the Great Sioux Reservation—land which had been previously granted to the Sioux in perpetuity by the Treaty of 1868 (Ortiz, 1977; Deloria, 1985).

In 1874 gold was discovered in the Black Hills. The western side of the Great Sioux Reservation was soon overrun by white prospectors and settlers—without the Sioux’s consent. Rather than enforce the Treaty, the U.S. Government attempted to get the Sioux to cede the sacred area. The angry Sioux responded by increasing their attacks on the white settlers. Very quickly the situation got out of control and the legendary Indian Wars of the 1870s were in full swing. Among the key events of the Indian Wars were the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn and, ultimately, total defeat for the Sioux. During this time the U.S. Army forced the Sioux to leave the Black Hills and move to the reservation agencies. The Agreement of 1876 specified that the Sioux would cede their most valuable land, including the Black Hills, to the U.S. As a result, the size of the Great Sioux Reservation was further reduced by nearly one-third (Cash, 1971 Ortiz, 1977; Grobsmith 1981).

After the last of the Sioux bands led by Crazy Horse, Gall and Sitting Bull were defeated, the government adopted an even harsher approach toward Indian tribes. Not only were the tribes no longer recognized as sovereign nations, the government began to implement a series of policies openly aimed at divesting them of their remaining land and assimilating them into white culture. The Indian reservations in general—and the Great Sioux Reservation in particular—were now viewed as roadblocks to white civilization as it expanded west.

 

The Dawes Act

In 1887 Congress passed the General Allotment Act to break-up and eradicate the Indian reservations once and for all. The act has become better known as the Dawes Severalty Act or simply the Dawes Act after its sponsor, Massachusetts Senator Henry Dawes (Cash, 1971; Fixico, 1986). The legislation was designed to subdivide the reservations, including the Great Sioux Reservation, by allotting the tribal land to the individual tribal members. Each family was to receive 160 acres which would be held in trust by the U.S. Government for a minimum of 25 years. After this time the Indians could obtain title to their land if they were deemed “competent.” The government expected that the Indians would become independent farmers and ranchers. One of the most significant provisions of the Dawes Act was that after all tion and subsequently declared millions of acres of tribal land to be surplus. At this time a total of 91 million acres of Indian land was reservation had received their allotments, the remaining tribal land was to be declared “surplus.” The government was authorized to then purchase this surplus land and open it for homesteading to non-Indians (Grobsmith, 1981; Deloria, 1985; Fixico, 1986; Cornell, 1988).

The Sioux resisted allotment. A related legislation, known as the Sioux Act of 1889, was then passed to make allotment more acceptable to the Sioux. Instead of 160 acres, each family head would receive 320 acres; single persons and orphans would receive 80 acre allotments. The Act of 1889 also specified that the Sioux would be reimbursed for any surplus land at the rate of $1.25 per acre. This was more than double the price the government had previously offered. Still the Sioux resisted. Finally, the government threatened to cut off rations it had been providing the Sioux under the Treaty of 1868. Since most of the Sioux had become quite dependent upon these rations after being confined to the reservations, it was now a choice between acceptance and starvation (Cash, 1971; Grobsmith, 1981; Deloria, 1985; Cornell, 1988).

In 1889 the first Sioux at the Rosebud Agency accepted an allotment. Others soon followed. The government moved quickly to officially dissolve the Great Sioux Reservation and subsequently declared millions of acres of tribal land to be surplus. At this time a total of 91 million acres of Indian land was made available for sale to non-Indians (Grobsmith, 1981). The very same year South Dakota became a state—with a land base obtained in large part from the ex-Great Sioux Reservation.

In place of the large reservation there remained several smaller ones. The boundaries for these reservations were established around the old agencies, where the Sioux populations were concentrated (see Figure 3). It is important to note that even on these remaining smaller reservations, many tracts of land were now owned by non-Indians as a result of homesteading.

In 1906 the Burke Act was passed by Congress. This legislation allowed the Secretary of the Interior to waive the waiting period necessary for Indians to receive title to their land. Although this Act was not intended to harm the Indians, it had disastrous consequences. After receiving title, the Indians could then sell their allotments (Grobsmith, 1981; Fixico, 1986). Not fully understanding the concept of private property, and being generally naive about real estate matters in general, the Indians were at a great disadvantage when confronted by non-Indian opportunists. Many Indians, including those at the Rosebud Reservation, sold their land shortly after receiving title.

Of the original 3,228,161 acres at the Rosebud Reservation, 2,195,905 were lost to the Sioux by 1934 through a combination of land sales to non-Indians, lands ceded to the U.S. Government and “miscellaneous land losses” (Grobsmith, 1981). In this way the Rosebud Reservation, along with most other Indian reservations, came to develop a checkerboard composition with regard to land ownership. Land within reservation boundaries alternates between Indian-owned and white owned. Within some reservations today, more of the land is actually owned by non-Indians than by Indians (Catlin, 1994).

In fact, the situation is somewhat more complicated. There are four types of land existing within reservation boundaries: 1. There is tribally-owned land, virtually all of which is held in trust by the U.S. Government and managed by the BIA. This includes land which for some reason was neither allotted to individual tribal members nor declared surplus and opened to homesteading, plus land which has been repurchased from individual tribal members and non-Indians by the Tribe. (Much of the latter has taken place in recent years, fueled by profits from tribal gambling operations.) 2. There is Indian-owned land which was allotted to individual tribal members but which has retained its trust status. In other words, neither the allottee nor his descendants obtained title to the land. Many Indians have chosen to allow the government to continue holding the title to their land. With the U.S. as legal owner, the land is protected from sale and taxation. The Indian allottee (or the tribe in the case of tribal land) retains rights for use, occupancy and management of the property—subject to approval of the BIA. 3. There is Indian- owned land for which the title was obtained and it is no longer held in trust. This land is also referred to as fee-patent, fee-title or simply ‘Tee” land. 4. There is non-Indian-owned land, all of which is fee land.

Finally, reservation boundaries have occasionally been moved over the years, resulting in Indian-owned land lying outside of current reservation boundaries. Again, this land may be held in trust for the tribe or individual tribal members by the U.S. Government or it may be fee land.

There is a great deal of Indian-owned land outside of the current Rosebud Reservation boundaries. When the Rosebud boundaries were originally established, the Reservation included all of Mellette, Todd and Trip Countries as well as parts of Gregory and Lyman Counties (see Figure 4). Under the Sioux Act of 1889, Rosebud Sioux living in all five countries accepted allotments. Much of this allotted land is still held in trust but the U.S. Government today. However, so much of the Reservation land in Gregory, Lyman, Mellette and Trip Countries was declared surplus and opened to homesteading, that the Reservation’s official boundaries have since been reduced to Todd County only (Cash, 1971; Grobsmith, 1981; Marshall, 1994).

 

New form of Tribal Government established

The Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt was accompanied by a new attitude toward the American Indian in Washington. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was passed in 1934. The act was aimed at assisting tribes in establishing new tribal governments and to promote independent economic programs on the reservations.

From the Indian’s point of view, the IRA had its good points as well as its bad. On the one hand it put an end to the destructive allotment process. On the other, it encouraged a tribal political structure modeled after the U.S. Government. Therefore, it continued the policy of separating Native Americans from their traditional culture. Nevertheless, in 1935 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe voted to adopt the provisions of the Act and were issued a corporate charter by the Secretary of the Interior. The charter called for a representative democracy governed by a tribal constitution (Cash, 1971; Grobsmith, 1981).

The main governing body of the Rosebud Reservation is the Tribal Council, consisting of an elected President, Vice-President and 33 representatives from throughout the Reservation. To vote or run for office, a person must be an officially enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. To qualify, a person must have been listed on a tribal census compiled in 1935 or be a descendant of the original members and have at least one-fourth Rosebud Sioux blood (Grobsmith, 1981).

The Tribal Council is responsible for administering programs and services to tribal members, for conserving and developing tribal land and resources and for regulating all economic affairs of the tribe.

The Tribal Council establishes committees to oversee programs in law enforcement, health, education, land management and natural resources. The land is the most important tribal resource. While various Acts of Congress were once responsible for drastically reducing the amount of Indian-owned land, now the BIA is responsible for preserving Indian-owned land. For this reason, any use of tribal land must be approved by the Tribal Council and the BIA.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is believed to be one of the first American Indian tribes to formally organize a fish and wildlife program to protect, conserve and manage the wildlife resources on their reservation. Prior to the Rosebud and other Sioux Tribes in South Dakota taking an active role in managing their wildlife resources, the responsibility for conservation and game management on the reservations, for all intensive purposes, fell in the lap of the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (hereafter referred to as SD Game, Fish and Parks). While SD Game, Fish and Parks accepted the responsibility, the effectiveness of their programs has always been compromised by an inability to enforce state game and fish laws on Indian owned land. The issue of jurisdiction has been complicated by the nature of land ownership within—and frequently around—the reservations. Game, Fish and Parks has no

real authority on Indian-owned land which is held in trust and is located within reservation boundaries. In addition, their authority to enforce state laws on either Indian-owned fee land within reservations or Indian-owned land held in trust outside of reservation boundaries are legal gray areas, subject to dispute and frequent litigation. For this reason SD Game, Fish and Parks down through the years has encouraged the state’s Indian tribes to develop their own conservation programs, complete with regulations and seasons established by the various Tribal Councils.

The earliest mention of a Rosebud Tribal license the author is aware of is included in a notice dated November 28, 1947. The notice refers to a deer season held on the Reservation that year. The names of 27 tribal members were selected in a drawing and were then eligible to purchase a deer hunting license for $5.00. At this time tribal licenses were issued by the Reservation Chief of Police (see Figure 5).

During the 1950s the State of South Dakota received much national attention for its abundant wildlife resources. The state actively promoted tourism at this time, including hunting and fishing. In 1950 the state park system (not including Custer State Park or any of the national parks or monuments) had 273,000 visitors. By 1958 the number had risen to three million. During 1949-50, non-resident hunters purchased a total of 21,980 licenses. By 1959-60 the number had risen to 90,785 (SD Game, Fish and Parks Annual reports for 1949-50, 1958-59 and 1959-60).

Along with the great increase in out-of- state sportsmen visiting South Dakota, there was a proportionate increase in persons hunting and fishing on Indian reservations without tribal consent (see Figure 6). Some of this was due to reservation boundaries often not being well-marked. However, the fact of the matter is that prior to 1958, hunters did not give much thought to tribal authority. They simply purchased a state license and hunted—reservation or not. Besides having good hunting, the reservations provided the additional benefit of removing hunters from the scrutiny of state game wardens (Moum, 1994; Nagel 1994).

On July 16, 1958, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council took a major step toward establishing an effective wildlife conservation program by adopting a Fish and Game Code (see Figure 7). The Code specified that all persons intending to hunt, fish or trap on the Rosebud Reservation must purchase a tribal license. This included tribal members as well as non-Indians. The only exception was made for tribal members under 16 years of age.

The purchase of a state hunting or fishing license was made a prerequisite to all non- Indians purchasing a tribal license. How ever, the Code made it clear that non-Indians were expected to conform to state and tribal rules and regulations while on the reservation. Section 1 read:

 

“Applicable Laws.

“All fishing, hunting and trapping by non-Indians on the Rosebud Indian Reservation shall conform to the laws of South Dakota, to the provisions of the Rosebud

Fish and Game Code, to the regulations is sued pursuant thereto, and to the conditions of the tribal licenses.”

 

The code also made it clear that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe would cooperate with Federal and State authorities to see that violators would be prosecuted. Section 7, subsection (g) read:

 

“Penalties applicable to non-members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Any person not

subject to the jurisdiction of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court who violates any provision of this code shall forfeit his tribal licenses and shall be delivered to the custody of [a] Federal or State Law enforcement officer for prosecution under Federal or State Law to the extent applicable.”

 

All Licenses were to be issued by the Rose bud “Fish and Game Committee,” consisting of the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Tribal Council, at the Rosebud Agency. The Code specified the following license fees: Fishing $2.00, Small Game (Upland Birds) $2.00, Hunting (Big Game) $5.00, and Trapping $0.50. It was not made clear whether the above fees applied to non-Indians, tribal members or to all sportsmen. It is assumed that paper licenses were issued to persons upon payment of these fees during the 1958 fall seasons.

 

Stamps Issued

In the Handbook of Fish and Game Stamps, E. L. Vanderford stated that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe issued three kinds of fish and game license stamps starting in 1959. This is of great significance to stamp collectors, as these early Rosebud stamps are now thought to be the first fish and game stamps issued by any tribal government. Furthermore, by adopting both a fish and game code and the system of stamps and licenses previously developed by the federal and state governments, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe made the first serious attempt by a tribal government to exercise control over the hunting and fishing activity on their reservation.

On February 17, 1959, representatives of SD Game, Fish and Parks, the BIA and seven Tribal Councils met in Pierre, South Dakota, to exchange ideas on game, fish and forestry programs. At this meeting SD Game, Fish and Parks Director Harry Woodward talked about the Department’s lack of authority to enforce fish and game regulations on tribal lands, the problems presented by the lack of well-marked boundaries and “the need for better conservation of game on tribal lands, through regulations and seasons set up by the [Tribal] councils.” Permit systems were discussed and Woodward offered to meet further with “any tribal council which would like to cooperate with the department” (Game Department and Indians, 1959). Since the Rosebud stamps bear such a strong similarity to those issued by the State of South Dakota in 1959 (see Figure 8), it seems likely that Woodward may have shared details concerning stamp design with Rosebud representatives at the February 17 meeting or at sometime afterward.

The three kinds of early Rosebud license stamps correspond to the first three types of license fees specified in the 1958 code. They are oversized, with the design measuring approximately 58.5 mm x 38 mm. Spaces were printed at the top of the stamps to fill in the year date. Vanderford (1973) reported that the same stamps were used through the end of the 1960s. They were printed in green ink on light green paper which was screened with an elaborate background including zig zags, a starburst and the words “Rosebud Indian Reservation.” Serial numbers were printed in red ink (see front cover, Figures 1 and 9). Vanderford (1973) also reported that the stamps were issued in horizontal booklet panes of two (2 x 1) and that fifty panes were stapled together to form a booklet. The panes were rouletted 6 between the stamps and the tab.

It is assumed that the early Rosebud stamps were required to be affixed to tribal hunting and fishing licenses. However, only one stamp has been recorded used an a license and it is affixed to a South Dakota resident hunting license (see Figure 10). According to Rosebud Ranger Mike Marshall (1994), Rosebud stamps have frequently been affixed to state hunting and fishing licenses through the years in error. (A contemporary example is shown in Figure 35.)

Less than five each of the early Rosebud big game and fishing stamps have been recorded. Less than ten of the game bird stamps have been recorded. The author has examined two of the fishing stamps. One has the number “701” rubber stamped in red ink where “N” XXX” is normally found printed on the early stamps (see Figure 11). E. L. Vanderford acquired this stamp directly from the Tribe, through the mail, in 1962 or 1963 (Vanderford, 1991). The other stamp has serial number “739” printed normally (see Figure 12). This latter copy was acquired by David Strock in late 1963 or early 1964. It is possible that some of the early Rosebud fishing stamps, including the one sold to Vanderford, were printed with the serial numbers missing in error. Either the printer or a member of the Rosebud Fish and Game Committee may have subsequently applied the numbers with a rubber stamp.

In the early 1960s, funds obtained from the sale of the Rosebud fish and game stamps served a purpose even more important to the Sioux than wildlife conservation. In 1960 the people living on the Rosebud and neighboring Pine Ridge Reservations were experiencing severe economic hardship. For example, the average monthly income for an Oglala family was less than one hundred dollars. The Rosebud Sioux were not much better off. In hopes of bringing in more money, tribal leaders at both reservations planned to follow the state’s lead and aggressively promote tourism (Fixico, 1986).

To help achieve their goals, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council passed a series of resolutions in 1960 creating a “Tourist Industry Enterprise.” Start-up funds were needed to get the project going and see it through the first few years. Resolution 6037 authorized the necessary funding. It read as follows:

 

“Whereas, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe inaugurated a tourist industry Enterprise for which funds will be needed for further developments and maintenance cost of operation of the Enterprise;”

“Therefore, be it resolved, that the proceeds derived from the sale of fishing and hunting licenses [and stamps] be set aside to be used for further development of the Tourist Industry Enterprise.”

 

The plan to use money obtained from license and stamp sales to fund the Tribe’s important tourism project won immediate approval from the BIA. The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the local BIA Director to Robert Bumette, President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, on June 17, 1960: “You are to be congratulated for taking the initiative in developing tribal resources to meet the present and continually growing needs of the people for tourism and recreational facilities which will, in turn, provide the Tribe with funds to carry out projects in behalf of the Rosebud people.”

In August of 1960 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe took steps to improve fishing on the reservation. The Tribe entered into an agreement with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild- R life of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U ces der the agreement the Bureau he ribe set up a program to develop and man- e their fisheries resource, provided technical assistance and stocked Reservation waters (Resolution 6049; Bennett, 1960b). In l fishing on the Rosebud Reservation would prove to be very popular with non-Indians and tribal-members alike.

 

Native Americans assert sovereignty

Promoting tourism is an example of how tribal leaders were attempting to work within the system in order to bring economic relief to their people during the 1960s. However, it was a decade known for its social unrest and the situation on the reservations inspired many Indian protest groups—both on and off the reservations. Most prominent among these groups was the American Indian Movement (AIM). Members of AIM and similar organizations felt very strongly that non-Indians were continuing to exploit the Indians living on the reservations and were responsible for their continuing economic struggle. The protesters were especially upset over the large agricultural profits derived by white farmers and ranchers on the reservations—while their Indian counterparts lived in poverty. It should be noted that much of this complex problem actually stems from turn of the century policies—specifically allotment—whereby much of the prime agricultural land was purchased by whites from tribal members who had recently received title to their land (see page 110). At any rate, the fact that non-Indians successfully farmed and ranched the majority of suitable land at the Pine Ridge Reservation during the 1960s, while Indians utilized less than one percent, received widespread publicity (Deloria, 1985).

By the early 1970s Indian-white relations were greatly stressed. Native American protest groups were asserting sovereignty based on the Treaty of 1868. Tensions reached a high point during the takeover, occupation and siege of Wounded Knee, located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, which lasted from February 27 through May 8, 1973. At this time two Indian men were killed in exchanges of gunfire between Indian occupation forces and FBI agents (Ortiz, 1977; Deloria, 1985).

Against this background of tension, unrest and violence, SD Game, Fish and Parks and the representatives of various Tribal Councils continued to try to work together to establish mutually beneficial conservation agreements and programs.

During this time SD Game, Fish and Parks took an active role in helping the Tribal Councils to establish their own hunting and fishing regulations. The Department even offered to handle licensing for the tribes. SD Game, Fish and Parks was motivated by the desire to obtain consistent regulations, including seasons and limits, which would result in the best overall conservation for the state’s wildlife resources. For as Ron Catlin, Chief of Law Enforcement for SD Game, Fish and Parks pointed out to the au thor, “The state’s game does not recognize boundaries and frequently crosses back and forth between Indian-owned and non-Indian- owned land.” The Department’s interest in tribal licensing stemmed from a desire to be able to “let sportsmen know where they stood—which licenses and stamps they needed to obtain.” This was becoming a bigger issue as more tribes required sportsmen to purchase tribal licenses and stamps. (Starting in the 1960s, the Crow Creek and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes also adopted the license and stamp system, see Table I.) It was felt that some tribes would welcome the Department’s offer to handle licensing, as they were not currently set up to handle it themselves (Catlin, 1994; Nagel, 1994).

A joint licensing agreement was reached between SD Game, Fish and Parks and the Oglala Sioux whereby persons could hunt elk on the Pine Ridge Reservation during the 1970s. Approved by the State Legislature on March 18, 1971, an Act providing for a “spe cial Pine Ridge Reservation elk stamp” read:

 

“A special Pine Ridge Indian Reservation resident and nonresident big game license [stamp] shall permit the licensee to hunt, take or kill elk … within the confines of Pine Ridge Reservation … and the fee shall be ten dollars; provided that said licensees are holders of valid hunting permits issued by the Pine Ridge Indian Tribal Council” (Laws of South Dakota, 1971).

 

In the Handbook of Fish and Game Stamps, Vanderford stated that the special elk stamps were “first issued for a limited number of hunts, determined on a draw basis, on Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation lands.” Since the handbook’s publication, examples of the special elk stamps have been recorded from every year, 1971 through 1979, with the exception of 1974 and 1976. Department records show that no special elk stamps were issued in 1976. The author has been unable to locate license records for 1974. Therefore, it is not presently known whether any stamps were actually issued in 1974. The records for 1977 through 1979 indicate that only 15 “Reservation Elk stamps” were issued in each of those years (SDGame, Fish and parks Annual Reports for 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80; Vanderford, 1984; Porter, 1994).

The 1971 elk stamps were printed in black ink on white paper and measure approximately 48 X 35 mm. Serial numbers were printed in red. They were printed in panes of five (1×5) with a tab at the top. The panes were perforated 12 between the stamps and the tab (see Figure 13). The author has examined complete panes from several years and they are lacking staple holes in the top tab. For this reason, it is believed that the panes of special elk stamps were not stapled together in booklets. Many subtle printing varieties, as well as one significant one, have been discovered on the 1973 elk stamps. 1973 stamps from position one have the serial numbers set with a different style and size of type than positions two through five. The smaller serial numbers measure 4.0 mm as compared to 4.5 mm (see Figure 14).

Vanderford (1984) noted that fourteen panes of 1973 elk stamp reminders were sent to him by SD Game, Fish and Parks License Section Supervisor Ed Nielson, for distribution to fish and game collectors and members of the State Revenue Society. Nielsen generously provided Vanderford with remainders of South Dakota stamps on a regular basis, starting sometime in the 1960s and continuing through the early 1980s. (After which time Nielsen retired.) It should be noted that throughout this period, some or all of the remainders for specific issues were frequently lost or destroyed before Nielson got around to sending them (Vanderford, 1991).

Although the design and layout of the special elk stamps remained similar through the years, the exact wording varied. For example, the only year that “Pine Ridge Indian Reservation” was completely spelled out was 1977 (see Figure 13). For descriptive information on elk stamps from specific years, see Table II.

A similar joint licensing agreement was reached between SD Game, Fish and parks and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe during the 1970s. According to the SD Game, Fish and Parks Commission Minutes from July 1974:

 

“There is hereby established a big game hunting season on the Lower Brule Indian reservation. … The unit open to hunting shall be that portion of the State of South Dakota lying within the boundaries of the Lower Brule Indian reservation…. Licenses [(stamps)l issued hereunder shall be valid only for the unit and species for which they are issued. … Both residents and nonresidents may apply for [a] license. Licenses will be sold in order of application but not to exceed a total of sixty deer and forty antelope. No person shall purchase more than one deer license and one antelope license. No licensee shall hunt except under the guidance of a person designated by the appropriate tribal council or authority.”

 

The licenses referred to in the commission minutes were regular state antelope or deer hunting license stamps which were then overprinted “LOWER BRULE / INDIAN RESERVATION” with a rubber stamp (see Figure 15). Six different South Dakota stamps have been recorded with the over print. They are as follows: 1973 Resident Antelope; 1973 Resident Eastern Deer; 1973 Non-Resident Archery Antelope; and Non- Resident West River Prairie Deer for 1973, 1974 and 1975. As with the Pine Ridge elk stamps, most of the overprinted Lower Brule stamps in collections today can be traced back to reminders sent to E. L. Vanderford by Ed Nielson (Vanderford, 1991; Porter, 1994). All of the stamps examined by the author have the overprint in purple ink, with “LOWER BRULE” measuring 3.8 mm in height and “INDIAN RESERVATION” measuring 3.0 mm in height.

 

Tribal licensing becomes more independent

In 1973 an Indian-State Task Force was organized by the State Legislature and authorized to work on Indian-State matters. The task force was comprised of nine state

representatives and representatives from the nine South Dakota tribes. According to SD Game, Fish and Parks Attorney Clint Nagel, the Department’s representative on the taskforce, “The taskforce was created to promote cooperation between the tribes and the state.” Although the task force worked on many issues aside from conservation, a considerable amount of time was spent: first, attempting to clarify jurisdictions as related to establishing and enforcing hunting and fishing regulations on the reservations and sur rounding Indian-owned land (SD Game, Fish and Parks maintained that it alone had jurisdiction over non-Indians on these lands); and, second, discussing licensing—more specifically, who would do it (SD Game, Fish and Parks Commission Minutes, March 1974 and June 1974; Nagel, 1994).

At this time the tribes were becoming more assertive regarding hunting and fishing on the reservations. They desired to have conservation programs that would be in the best interest of what they viewed as their wildlife resources and also their particular tribes. In order to achieve these goals, many tribal leaders felt that the time had come to do things more independently from SD Game, Fish and Parks rather than to work more closely with the Department. Perhaps it was not best for the tribes to have rules, regulations and seasons that were exactly consistent with the state. If this was the case, then the tribes would be understandably reluctant to concede any form of jurisdiction on their lands to the state. As far as licensing goes, if the tribes issued their own licenses and stamps, they would clearly be able to exert more control over their land and wildlife resources.

In 1973 the Oglala Sioux requested advice and recommendations from the Bureau of

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on how to establish an independent wildlife management plan (Wildlife Management Information and Recommendations, February 1973). The Oglala then shared this information with the Rosebud Sioux. (The author found a copy of the federal recommendations in the Rosebud Department of Natural Resources files at the Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University.) Later that year, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council created their own Parks and Wildlife Commission in order to “administer their Parks and Wildlife Resources in the best interest of their people” (Resolution No. 7351).

Also in 1973, a Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks Code was established. The new Code was very similar to the 1958 Fish and Game Code, with a couple of notable exceptions. First, all references to sportsmen conforming to state rules, regulations and jurisdiction were deleted. Section 1 now read:

 

“Applicable Laws.

“All fishing, hunting and trapping by any persons on the Rosebud Indian Reservation shall conform to the laws of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and provisions of the Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks Code, to the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and to the

conditions of the tribal permits” (see Figure 16).

 

The second item of interest is directly related to the issuance of licenses and stamps. Section 3, subsection (b) read:

 

“Permits issued. All tribal fishing, hunting or trapping permits shall be issued by the Director of Natural Resources or his designated vendor.”

 

By allowing for vendors, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe was preparing to put a more sophisticated license and stamp distribution system in place, no doubt modeled after the one employed by SD Game, Fish and Parks and other state conservation agencies.

 

Rosebud dove season inaugurated

Indian-white tensions in general, and negative publicity surrounding the events at Wounded Knee in particular, precipitated a decline in non-Indian bunting on the reser vations during the first half of the 1970s. Then, in 1976, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe made a bold move to attract non-Indian sportsmen back to their Reservation.

During the 1970s, doves were the number one game bird in the United States. There were more doves, about 15 million, in South Dakota “than all other game birds and animals combined” (Post, 1980). However, in November of 1972 dove hunting in the state was stopped by a referendum vote. When the Oglala Sioux obtained advice from the Bu reau of Sport Fisheries in 1973, one of the recommendations they received (and shared with the Rosebud Sioux) concerned the possibility of allowing dove bunting on the Reservation. The Bureau’s comments were as follows:

 

“The mourning dove presents an unusual opportunity for hunting on the Reservation. At the same time, some rather unique legal questions arise, although Federal regulations would permit hunting of mourning doves in the State. The status of the Reser vation in offering such a hunt to non-Indians should be determined” (Wildlife Management Information and Recommen

dations, February 1973).”

 

On April 7, 1976, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, by unanimous vote, estab lished a mourning dove season on their reservation. RST Resolution No. 76-54 stated:

 

“…Whereas, South Dakota, through a referendum ballot struck the mourning dove from the state’s game bird list, thus effectively placing the reservation in a seller’s market, and”

“Therefore be it resolved, that the mourning dove be established as a game bird with season lengths and bag limits to conform with Federal Regulations as established” (see Figure 17).

 

This opportunistic move did not sit well with SD Game, Fish and Parks, Shortly before the start of dove season, the Department requested then State Attorney General William Janklow issue an opinion regarding the Department’s legal position relative to enforcing the state’s no dove bunting law, in view of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s proposed season.

Janklow wrote an opinion which basically allowed the Tribe to bold it’s dove season, even though dove hunting was illegal throughout the rest of the state:

 

“In my opinion, state conservation officers cannot lawfully arrest persons having mourning doves in their possession, if the persons in possession of the doves have the doves tagged so as to identify the birds as being taken from trust land on the Indian reservation having the dove season” (1975-1976 Report of Attorney General).

 

Subsequently, hunters who had lived without one of their favorite sports the previous two years, descended upon the Rosebud Reservation in great numbers (Moum, 1994; Post, 1994). From this point on, hunting and fishing on the Indian reservations steadily gained in popularity among non-Indian sportsmen.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe resumed issuing fish and game license stamps in the late 1970s. One kind of stamp has been recorded from this period, a small game stamp which is believed to have been used in 1979 (and perhaps earlier). The stamps are non-pictorial, with text and serial numbers printed in black ink on white paper. They are imperforate and measure approximately 40 x 39.5 mm. Padding cement, similar to that used to make scratch pads, was applied to the top edge of a stack of stamps and they were is sued in pads of unknown quantity (see Figure 18a).

While visiting the Rosebud Reservation during the spring of 1991, the author was able to purchase some old licenses and stamps that were stored in boxes in the basement of the Rosebud Department of Game, Fish and Parks headquarters. This would prove to be a major find, for the boxes contained remainders of many previously unrecorded stamps. In a box dating from the early 1980s, the author found a partial pad of thirty of the small game stamps shown in Figure 18a. The back cover of the pad was still intact. It has a notation indicating that the stamps were audited on April 25, 1980 (see Figure 18b). Although the stamps do not have a fee printed on them, records show that residents (including tribal members) were charged $5.00 for the small game stamps and non-residents were charged $15.00 (RST Resolution 78-112).

A second type of small game stamp, believed to have been used during the early 1980s, was also found in the boxes. Similar to the earlier stamps, they were printed in black ink on white paper but without serial numbers. Rosebud Ranger Mike Marshall, who worked in licensing during the early 1980s, recalls that the unnumbered stamps were printed and used subsequent to the numbered stamps (Marshall, 1994). They are also imperforate and measure approximately 37.5 X 37.5 mm. The stamps featured pres sure sensitive adhesive which was protected by a peelable backing material (see Figure 19).

 

RST license and stamp system expanded

By this time the Rosebud Reservation was attracting large numbers of non-Indian sportsmen, who were interested in hunting antelope, deer, dove, grouse and pheasant. As Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks continued to develop the Reservation’s wildlife resources, tribal-member interest also increased. Fishing on the Reservation was becoming more and more popular. In order to achieve better control over the rapidly increasing hunting and fishing activity on the Reservation, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe devel oped a more comprehensive licensing system during the 1980s. Within this expanded system, fish and game stamps played an integral role.

A total of 46 different Rosebud stamps have now been recorded from the 1980s. The majority of these were discovered during one of the author’s visits to tiie Reservation in 1991. Several others were included in a box of old stamps acquired in 1994. Early in 1994, Michael Jaffe, a stamp dealer who specializes in Indian Reservation stamps, learned that another box containing old licenses and stamps had been found at the Reservation (Jaffe, 1994). He passed this information on to the author, who was then able to purchase the stamps from the Tribe. The box had been located while cleaning out a safe in the Tribal Office (Marshall, 1994).

Ideally, the author s research and analysis on the stamps from both finds (which included nearly all recorded examples of Rosebud stamps from the 1980s), would have been completed prior to the publication of the Indian Reservation Stamp Album. Unfortunately, there was a major complication; all but two of the stamps were intended to be used year after year and for this reason, it did not have dates printed on them. The album was delayed, but eventually it became clear that not enough information was available to determine the period of usage for many of the stamps. It was decided that this one section should not delay the album further, and it was published with estimated in dates while the research and analysis continued. In this current article, many of the dates for the Rosebud stamps of the 1980s have been revised. While the dates are now much more accurate, it should be noted that many of them are still estimated and therefore subject to further revision should new information become available in the future.

The Rosebud stamps of the 1980s were produced in many separate printings. With the exception of the small game stamp shown in figure 19, all of the stamps are semi-pictorial and were printed in black ink on white paper. With the exception of the small game stamp shown in Figure 19 and two small game stamps first issued in 1989, all were printed in booklet panes of five (1×5) with a tab at the top. The panes were perforated between the stamps and the tab. With the exception of the three small game stamps and one fishing stamp, all of the stamps are similar in size, measuring approximately 35 x 25 mm (see Figure 20). The height measurement often varies one to three millimeters and some panes were perforated very unevenly, producing se-tenant pairs which include unusually tall and short stamps (see Figure 21).

With the exception of the small game stamp shown in Figure 19 and a rifle deer stamp issued in 1988, all Rosebud stamps in the 1980s have “Resident” or “Non-Resident” printed on them. According to the tribe’s License Vending Guidelines (Section, a resident is defined as “any person residing in the State of South Dakota or any enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe gardless of state of residence.” A non-resident is defined as “any person residing in a state other than South Dakota.”

The majority of Rosebud stamps from the 1980s may be divided into five groups based on shared printing characteristics. The stamps may be differentiated on the basis of the presence or absence of serial numbers, the color of the numbers when present and stamps were printed on matte (uncoated) or chrome-coated (shiny) paper. One group consists of stamps which were printed with red serial numbers on matte paper; a third with black serial numbers on coated paper; a fourth with no serial numbers on matte paper; and the fifth with no serial numbers on coated paper. For a description of all recorded Rosebud stamps from the 1980s, see Table III.  

According to Mike Marshall (1994), the stamps with the red serial numbers were printed and issued first, in 1980 or 1981. The documentation which is currently available supports this. The earliest recorded usage for a Rosebud stamp from the 1980s is for one with a red serial number. A license issued on supports this. The earliest recorded usage for November 25, 1981, bears a resident deer stamp which was overprinted “SENIOR CITIZEN” with a typewriter (see Figure 22). This usage is three years prior to the earliest recorded for a stamp from the other four groups. With some exceptions, the stamps with red serial numbers are now believed to have been used year after year throughout the decade or until supplies were exhausted. The latest recorded usage for a stamp from this first printing is April 15, 1988 (Charles Souder Collection). The total number of stamps from this printing that the author has examined used on license is eight, and distributed as follows: 1981 (1); 1984 (3); 1986 (3); and 1988 (1).

A total of thirteen face-different stamps from the first printing have been recorded. They include: resident and non-resident antelope; resident, resident archery and black powder, and non-resident deer; resident and non-resident dove; resident and non-resident fishing (depicting a walleye); resident and non-resident grouse; and resident and nonresident pheasant.

Not all of these stamps were used throughout the entire decade. The Rosebud antelope herd suffered tremendous losses during the unusually severe winter of 1985-86. For this reason, only tribal members were allowed to hunt antelope after 1985. Both the resident and non-resident antelope stamps were discontinued and tribal members were issued special antelope stamps and tags from 1986 through 1989, for which no examples have been recorded (1986 Hunting License Application Form; Marshall, 1994; Finnegan, 1995).

The resident deer stamps which were overprinted “SENIOR CITIZEN,” may have been issued for a special hunt held in 1981 only. The author is not aware of any information which indicates they were used in subsequent years.

By 1986, the fee charged non-residents to hunt deer with a rifle was raised to $100.00 (RST Hunting Seasons and Fees, 1986). Therefore, the non-resident deer stamps with red numbers (face value $50.00), could not have been used later than 1985 without being revalued.

The fee charged residents to hunt doves was raised from $4.00 to $5.00 sometime in September or early October of 1986. A license delivery form issued to current Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks Director Robert Rattling Leaf, dated September 2, 1986, shows that he received 25 resident dove stamps with a value of $100.00 ($4.00 each). However, a printed hunting license application form, dated October 16, 1986, lists the resident dove hunting fee at $5.00. It is possible that the resident dove stamps with red numbers (face value $4.00) were used through mid-October of 1986, but no later. It is assumed that the resident dove stamps with red numbers and $4.00 crossed out—but no new face written in—were used during the 1986 season.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe never allowed non-residents to hunt doves during the 1980s. Therefore, the non resident dove stamps with red numbers must be classified as “printed but never issued.” (1984 Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks License Invoice; 1986 Hunting License Application Form; Finnegan, 1995; Marshall, 1995)

Two different printing errors have been recorded on stamps with red serial numbers. In one case, an error in selecting a numbering unit with the wrong style of type resulted in a constant variety. Resident antelope stamps from position five have “No.” and the numbers

themselves set with a different style of type (see Figure 23). A second error resulted in two consecutive panes of resident fishing stamps being printed with a bizarre numbering sequence. One pane, which should have been numbered “991” through “995,” has the number 998 where 993 should have been printed. The next pane, which should have been numbered “996” through “1000,” has the number “1003” where “998” should have been printed (see Figure 24).

As the supply of each of the different stamps with red serial numbers ran low or was exhausted. Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks ordered replacements. According to Mike Marshall (1994), if one of the vendors ran out of a particular stamp during the season and the License Section was also running low, or if the License Section itself ran out of a stamp, then new stamps were ordered with no serial numbers. The reason being that it took extra time to get stamps with serial numbers printed. If, on the other hand, it looked like the supply of a particular stamp was running low prior to the start of a season (when time was not such a factor), then stamps with black serial numbers were or dered. The reason being that it was more expensive to have stamps with red serial numbers printed and Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks became budget conscious during this time of nation-wide recession.

At this point it becomes virtually impossible to determine the exact period of usage for many of the replacement stamps (whose shared printing characteristics fall into the remaining four groups). The author has, therefore, developed Table IV in an attempt to show the estimated period of usage for each stamp.

A variety of data was used to develop Table IV. The greatest weight was given to stamps attached to documents clearly showing dates of distribution to vendors, usage or audit. These are indicated within the estimated periods by an “X” and consisted of examples attached to booklet covers bearing notations made by Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks personal; examples used on license; and examples attached to forms reporting license and stamp sales.

Additional data included license and stamp invoices issued to vendors; hunting and fishing regulations from several years; hunting license applications; correspondence between Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks personnel and various sportsmen; and personal communications with current Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks officials. Finally, the following assumption has been made: If a stamp from one of the four groups has been documented to have been used in a particular year, then it is possible that the other stamps in that group may also have been used in that year. For example, the earliest recorded usage of a stamp with no serial number is from 1984. A Rosebud general hunting license issued September 7, 1984, bears resident dove and grouse stamps, each with no serial number, along with a resident pheasant stamp with a red number (see Figure 25). Both of the stamps without serial numbers are printed on coated paper. Therefore, the estimated period of usage in Table IV for all stamps with no serial numbers on coated paper starts in 1984.

One thing now seems certain. From the time any stamps were printed and put into use (no matter what group they fall into), in most cases they remained in use through the end of the decade or until supplies were exhausted. This was due to the fact that when remainders of any kind were returned to the Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks License Sec tion following a season, they were thrown together in a box and then redistributed to vendors the following season (Finnegan, 1994).

(Over the next several paragraphs, some of the remaining Rosebud stamps from the 1980s will be discussed, alphabetically by game type.)

A rifle deer stamp has been recorded with the year “1988” printed on it (Charles Souder Collection). In addition, resident archery deer stamps have been recorded with “1989” printed on them (see Figure 26). These are the only Rosebud stamps from any decade that have been recorded with year dates. It is assumed that these stamps were only used during 1988 and 1989, respectively.

As previously stated, the fee charged residents to hunt doves was raised from $4.00 to $5.00 in 1986. At that time, resident dove stamps with no serial numbers on coated paper were revalued by hand. A ballpoint pen was used to cross out the $4.00 printed on them, then $5.00 was written in (see Figure 27). These revalued dove stamps have remained in continuous use through the 1994 season (Finnegan, 1994; Marshall, 1994).

Many different fishing stamps were used during the 1980s. Resident stamps with black serial numbers were in use by 1984 (documented by usage on a license issued May 25, 1984). An oversized non-resident five day fishing stamp was issued by 1985 and believed used through inid-1990. Some these stamps were found with “Issued 1-25-85” written across the top tab. They measure approximately 35 x 35 mm (see Figure By 1988 new resident, non-resident five da and non-resident yearly stamps had been printed with an illustration of a northern pike (documented by booklet cover notations and a license issued April 7, 1988). The new resident fishing stamps were once again printed with red serial numbers, but were lacking the “No.” which precedes the serial numbers themselves on all other Rosebud stamps from the 1980s (see Figure 29a). According to booklet cover notations, the fee charged residents for fishing was raised from $3.00 to $5.00 sometime in 1988. At the time, new resident fishing stamps were printed without the fee and without serial numbers (see Figure 29b). Prior to the 1990 season, new stamps were printed once more this time with black serial numbers (see ure 29c).

Individual grouse and pheasant stamps were no longer issued after 1988. Starting in 1989 the rights to hunt grouse, pheasant and waterfowl were conveyed by resident and nonresident small game stamps (Letter from Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks Secretary Dorothy Two Eagle to Johnny Mayfield on September 1, 1989; Marshall, 1994). Included on the small game stamps are separate illustrations of a grouse (left side) and a pheasant (right side). They are imperforate and measure approximately 70 x 26 mm. Padding cement was applied to the left edge of a stack of stamps and they were iss pads of 50 (see Figure 30). These resident

small game stamps were still being used when the author visited the Reservation in november of 1993, but were no longer in use by an August 1994 visit. The non-resident stamps were no longer being used when the author visited the Reservation in March of 1991, and it is believed they were only used during the fall 1989 seasons.

Although the reverse of Rosebud hunting licenses issued during the early 1980s had boxes for turkey stamps printed on them (see figures 22 and 25), there was no turkey season held on the Rosebud Reservation until 1986. Turkeys were brought into Todd County in 1985 (1986 Hunting License Application Form;  Finnegan, 1995). The two types of turkey stamps listed in Table III may have been used from 1986 through the spring turkey season of 1990. During this time, turkey hunting was open to residents only (RST hunting Seasons and Fees, 1986; RST Hunting Seasons and Fees, 1989).

 

The Oglala Sioux Issued Similar Stamps

The Oglala Sioux of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation issued their first fish and game stamps during the 1980s. At first glance, the Pine Ridge stamps might be confused as Rosebud stamps. As were the first Rosebud stamps of the 1980s, the Pine Ridge stamps were semi-pictorial, were printed in black ink on white paper and had red serial numbers. The layout, format and size of the Ridge stamps are virtually identical to the Rosebud stamps (see Figure 31). This is due to the fact the same printer, State Publishing Company of Pierre, South Dakota, produced the stamps for both tribes (Roberts, 1991).

Upon closer inspection, the Pine Ridge stamps may be readily distinguished from the Rosebud stamps. First, only one illustration was reproduced exactly alike on both tribe’s stamps—the walleye shown in Figures 24 and 31. Second, all of the Pine Ridge stamps are labeled “MEMBER” or “NON- MEMBER,” whereas the Rosebud stamps from the 1980s are labeled “Resident” or “Non-Resident.” Third, although the Pine Ridge stamps all have red serial numbers printed across the top, as do the Rosebud stamps from the first printing of the 1980s, none of the serial numbers on the Pine Ridge stamps include the prefix “No.” In contrast, all of the Rosebud stamps from the 1980s have “No.” preceding the serial number, with the exception of the resident fishing stamps issued from 1988 through 1990. Finally, there were at least two printings of the Pine Ridge stamps, resulting in two different types. The primary difference between the two types is that one was rouletted and the other was perforated 11 1/2. The size of the serial numbers is also larger on the perforated stamps, as compared to the rouletted stamps (see Figure 32). While the Rosebud stamps were also perforated 11 1/4, no rouletted Rosebud stamps have been recorded. For a checklist of all recorded Pine Ridge stamps from the 1980s, see Table V.

It is not known for certain in what year the Oglala Sioux Tribe first issued their stamps. According to Terry Roy, Chief of Law Enforcement for Oglala Sioux Fish and Wildlife, it was in 1987 or 1988 (Roy, 1995). Tom Roberts, President and General Manager of State Publishing Company, recalls first printing stamps for the Tribe and he also believes it was in 1987 or 1988 (Roberts, 1991 and 1994). The earliest recorded Pine Ridge stamp used on license is from 1988 (Dumaine, 1993). The same stamps were used year after year through 1992.

 

Rosebud Sioux Issue New Style Stamps

Prior to the fall seasons of 1990, Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks had new style stamps printed to replace all those used during the 1980s, with the exception of the revalued dove stamps. It should be noted, however, that some 1980s remainders were occasionally used during the early 1990s; the resident small game stamps would be an example. The new style stamps were semi-pictorial and were printed in black ink on white paper. Only the resident fishing stamps were printed with serial numbers. As the stamps were intended to beds sued over a long period of time, spaces were printed on many of them to write in the current fee. All of the stamps were die cut and featured pressure sensitive adhesive. They were on a protective backing material, which was then cut into long strips 38 mm wide, and issued in rolls of 1,000 (see Figure 33). A total of 19 different new style stamps were issued during the fall of 1990. The stamps were printed by Midland News and Printing of Valentine, Nebraska (Finnegan, 1994). For a description of all new style Rosebud stamps, see Table VI.

New license forms were not printed for use with the new style stamps. Instead, the

stamps were placed on the reverse of license remainders from the 1980s (see Figure 34). As has been the case throughout the history of the Rosebud license and stamp program, the tribal stamps were sometimes affixed to state hunting or fishing licenses in error (see Figure 35).

Several new kinds of stamps were included in those issued in 1990. For fish and game collectors, the most exciting would no doubt be the Rosebud elk stamps. In 1984, the Rosebud Tribal Council authorized funds for the establishment of a buffalo and elk range on the Reservation and also approved the acquisition of buffalo and elk to populate the range (Resolution No. 84-12). In 1986, the Tribal Council authorized the Rosebud Natural Resources Department to operate as an outfitter and conduct guided package hunts for various kinds of game. Among the available hunts were two for elk. One was a three day hunt for an elk with five points or less and the other was a five day hunt for an elk with six points or better (on each side of his rack or antlers). The license fee charged for the two elk hunts was $1,500.00 and $2,500.00, respectively. Guides, meals, motels and transportation was extra (RST Resolution No. 86-111).

A total of four to six elk hunts have been allowed on the Rosebud Reservation each year, starting in 1986. The hunts are sold on a first-come, first-served basis (Finnegan,

1995). From 1986 through 1989, printed permits were issued to hunters. Starting in 1990, stamps were issued to hunters. The elk stamps have a line printed on them for the license agent to write in either the $1,500.00 or $2,500.00 fee (see Figure 36). At a minimum of $1,500.00, the Rosebud elk stamps have the highest “face value” of any fish and game stamps on record.

In 1989 or 1990, Rosebud Game Fish and Parks started to license nonresidents to hunt prairie dogs (Marshall, 1994). According to a tribal hunting information brochure,

 

“The Rosebud Reservation currently boasts one of the finest hot spots for prairie dog hunting in the state. The majority of [the prairie dog] towns are found in Mellette and Todd Counties. These two counties have approximately 63,500 acres of prairie dog towns on both Tribal and Deeded [(fee)] properties.”

 

Two new style prairie dog stamps were issued in 1990, a non-resident 10 day stamp with a face value of $10.00 and a non-resident yearly stamp with a face value of $100.00 (see Figure 37). In 1991, the 10 day fee was raised to $25.00 and new stamps were printed (see Figure 38a). In June of 1993, one or more vendors ran out of the 10 day prairie dog stamps and additional stamps were ordered from State Publishing Company in Pierre. According to Rosebud Biologist Jim Finnegan (1994), State Publishing promised to deliver the needed stamps much faster than Midland News and Printing. The new stamps printed by State Publishing resembled those printed for the Rosebud and Oglala Sioux Tribes in the 1980s. They were printed in black ink on white paper and measure approximately 37 x 26 mm. They were printed in booklet panes of five (1×5) with a tab at the top. As were those in the 1980s, the panes were perforated 11 1/2 between the stamps and the tab (see Figure 38b).

The prairie dog stamps printed by State Publishing are somewhat unusual in that they feature pressure sensitive adhesive protected by a peelable backing material.* Pressure sensitive adhesive is more commonly used on die cut stamps, which are issued on protective backing material that has had adhesive paper between the stamps (waste) stripped away during the die-cutting process. This facilitates the peel and stick process, Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks personnel found that perforated self-adhesive stamps with a flush peelable protective backing are difficult to work with. Therefore, another roll p of die cut stamps was ordered from Midland, The 10 day prairie dog stamps which were printed by Midland in 1993 may be distinguished from the 1991 printing only by the backing material, which was cut into narrower strips measuring 31 mm wide (see Figure 38c).

Starting in 1990, separate stamps were printed and issued for the spring and fall turkey seasons. Resident and non-resident fall turkey stamps were printed with a line for license agents to write in the fee and they were first issued in 1990. Resident and non resident spring turkey stamps were printed with $15.00 and $50.00 face values, respectively, and they were first issued in 1991 (Figure 39).

 

Special deer stamps Issued

Tribe During the 1991-92 and 1992-93 season the Rosebud Sioux Tribe issued three special rifle deer stamps. These stamps were required of South Dakota residents who were not tribal members (non-Indians), who tended to hunt on Rosebud a Sioux land located in Gregory, Lyman and Tripp Counties (Marshall, 1994). These are the only fish and game stamps the Tribe has ever issued specifically for areas outside of odd County. The stamps represent the latest in a series of significant efforts on the art of the Tribe to exercise control over the hunting and fishing activity taking place on their land.

As previously discussed, there has been disagreement between SD Game, Fish and parks and the state’s Indian tribes over jurisdiction on the various types of land located within and around the reservations. To a large extent, the tribes base their authority on rights granted them by the Treaties of 1851 and 1868. However, the Act of 1871, whereby Congress stripped the tribes of their sovereignty, confused tribal rights and subjected them to future legal interpretation.

In 1973, SD Game, Fish and Parks stated that their position was the state alone had jurisdiction over non-Indian sportsmen on Indian-owned land, regardless of trust status (see page 118). This position, while enabling the Department to retain some measure of control over wildlife conservation throughout the state, also seems to have impeded the spirit of cooperation between SD Game, Fish and Parks and the tribes. Increasingly, licensing disputes have ended up in litigation.

Since the 1970s, SD Game, Fish and Park’s position has gradually evolved to the point where the Department now recognizes the authority tribes have to license non-Indians on trust lands—especially those within the boundaries of closed reservations (Torre, 1992; Catlin, 1994). In recent years, disagreements over jurisdiction have often involved Indian-owned land which lays outside of current reservation boundaries.

When the original Rosebud Reservation boundaries were officially reduced to include Todd County only (see page 110), a considerable amount of Indian-owned land—approximately 373,250 acres—was left outside of the Reservation in Gregory, Lyman, Mellette and Tripp Counties. Subsequently, SD Game, Fish and Parks decided that the Indian-owned land in these outlying counties should be under their sole jurisdiction, no different from any other counties in the state. The Tribe, however, always retained hunting and fishing rights on its land outside of Todd County (Marshall, 1994). This disagreement became an important issue to the Tribe during the 1980s.

In April of 1983, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe was jolted by an unfavorable court decision involving jurisdiction over non-tribal members on trust land in Tripp County. Then, in a rehearing decision handed down on January 10, 1984, State Circuit Court Judge Marvin S. Talbott upheld his original ruling. The judge stated that there was “no evidence … of any extensive development by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the hunting resources [in Tripp County].” Talbott also noted “that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe itself, by its regulations printed in its Game, Fish and Parks Code Handbook, did not make any attempt to extend its regulations to Indian Country located outside of Todd County but [still] within the original boundaries of the Rosebud Sioux Reservation” (Memorandum Decision on Rehearing, January 10, 1984).

The judge’s decision and remarks greatly upset the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The following excerpts are taken from (Tribal Council) Resolution No. 84-13, a formal protest to the BIA:

 

“…Whereas, this court decision could and will have a direct bearing on the hunting and fishing rights of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and its Department of Game, Fish and Parks operations and its future development; and

“Whereas, the Rosebud Department of Game, Fish and Parks has spent many hours and a gi-eat deal of money in the past few years and has never conceded to the fact the reservation is just Todd County, South Dakota; and

“Whereas, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Game, Fish and Parks manages these trust properties in the outlying counties of the original reservation. …

“Therefore be it resolved, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take whatever legal action necessary to halt this invasion of our rights. …”

In June of 1988, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe received some more disturbing news. At this time, SD Game, Fish and Parks proposed to enter into a joint licensing agreement with the Tribe. The agreement would have covered Indian-owned land within the current reservation boundaries, as well as in Gregory, Lyman, Mellette and Tripp Counties. Among the many points in the proposed agreement, SD Game, Fish and parks offered to “honor the tribal permits issued to non-members, without having to have the corresponding state permits, when such hunting

and fishing is done on trust lands of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe within the boundaries of the

Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Todd County).” In effect, the state was proposing to give something to the Tribe which it already felt it had—the authority to regulate all persons within its official reservation boundaries.

The proposed agreement also contained the following key provision: “The state will issue all [of] the non-member firearm deer, antelope and turkey permits in Tripp, Gregory, Lyman and Mellette Counties and share the revenue from such sales with the Tribe based on [the] percentage of trust lands in each county. …” With this provision, the state was proposing to take away something the Tribe felt very strongly it had—the authority to regulate persons on trust land outside Todd County.

Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks Director Thomas Frederick forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement to the Tribal Council, along with the memorandum reproduced in Figure 40. After reviewing the proposed agreement, the Tribal Council apparently recommended that Frederick submit a copy to Tribal Attorney Terry Pechota in Rapid City, South Dakota, for an opinion. Pechota responded, “I would say that the state is attempting to regulate non-member hunting in Todd County and on trust lands outside of Todd County. … The Tribe clearly has jurisdiction to regulate all persons within Todd County. That being the case, they [South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks] clearly have no authority … within these areas.” (Letter from Terry Pechota to Tom Fredericks, August 3, 1988)

The proposed agreement was never signed. However, it did serve an important purpose. Combined with the unfavorable decision previously handed down by Judge Talbott, it prompted Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks to become more assertive in its regulation and management of Indian-owned land in the outlying counties. The 1989 Rosebud Sioux Tribe hunting regulations and hunting application forms contained specific provisions for Gregory, Lyman and Tripp Counties. In these counties, the Tribe began to require non-members to purchase special deer permits. They were sold on a first-come first-served basis and were limited to 35 for Gregory, 10 for Lyman and 35 for Tripp. The same quotas remained in effect through the 1992-93 season (Finnegan, 1995).

Starting with the 1991-92 season, non-members were required to purchase the special deer stamps to hunt in the outlying counties. The stamps were of the new style, peel and stick variety (see Figure 41). According to Mike MArshall (1944), the stamps were only used during two seasons because Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks could not spare enough law enforcement personnel to ensure that hunters would not cross over into a neighboring county for which their stamps were not valid.

Although the Rosebud special deer stamps were short-lived, they nevertheless were symbolic of the tribe’s determination and resolve to exercise control over their land and wildlife resources. Today, SD Game, Fish and Parks is reluctant to press the issue of jurisdiction on any indian-owned lands held in trust, particularly when tribal hunting and fishing seasons approximate those of the state. However, the Department has not completely given up on the idea that they should at least share in the jurisdiction of non-members on trust lands. Furthermore, the only place where the Department currently recognizes tribal authority to license non-members on Indian-owned fee land is within the boundaries of the Lower Brule Reservation— and that by court order (Catlin, 1994).

Part of the reason for SD Game, Fish and Park’s continued insistence on retaining jurisdiction over non-members is due to pressure placed on them by the non-members themselves (the non-Indian residents and constituents of South Dakota). As previously explained, until the late 1950s non-Indian sportsmen did not have to worry too much about tribal laws when hunting or fishing on Indian-owned land. But then, as tribal governments became interested in exercising control over their land, things started to change. According to Ron Catlin, Chief of Law Enforcement for SD Game, Fish and Parks, “[Over the past 36 years] there has been an evolution from total state control over hunting and fishing on Indian-owned land, to largely tribal control. This has occurred as the tribes have developed the ability to regulate, control and manage their wildlife resources” (Catlin, 1994). Many non-member sportsmen have been very unhappy about this. They feel the rules of the game have been changed on them, making their sport and recreation more complicated and expensive.

Some of those most concerned are the non Indians who own land within or around the reservations and those who lease Indian-owned land. Many of these people are uncomfortable with the idea of being placed under the jurisdiction of another form of government—especially one they may perceive as somewhat foreign (Moum, 1995).

Since the new style Rosebud stamps have been issued, one significant printing error has been recorded. In 1993, the supply of resident small game stamps was running low. Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks ordered additional stamps from Midland News and Printing. The stamps, while having the correct face value printed on them ($10.00), were labeled “Non-Resident” in error. While waiting for new stamps to be printed, it was decided to overprint the error stamps “RESIDENT” with a rubber stamp and issue them to hunters. The overprint is in black ink with letters measuring 5.5 mm in height. The length of the overprint is 30.5 mm. As were the non-resident 10 day prairie dog stamps, the resident small game stamps printed by Midland in 1993 (both the error and corrected versions), were on a protective backing material which was cut into long strips measuring 31 mm wide (see Figure 42).

 

Oghia Sioux issue new style stamps

Once again, the Oglala Sioux of the Pine Ridge Reservation have followed the Rosebud Sioux’s lead. Starting in 1993, the Oglala Sioux replaced their 1980s style stamps witii die cut, peel and stick stamps. Since the new style Pine Ridge stamps are also printed by Midland News and Printing, current stamps from the two tribes may be easily confused. The best way to distinguish between the two is that all of the new style Pine Ridge stamps are labeled “Tribal Member” or “Non-Tribal Member” (see Figure 43), whereas all of the new style Rosebud stamps, with the exception of the antelope and deer stamps for tribal members and the elk stamps, are labeled “Resident” or “Non-Resident.” The new style Pine Ridge antelope and deer stamps have “Tribal Member” printed across the top of the stamps, whereas the new style Rose bud stamps have “Antelope” or “Deer Rifle” printed across the top and “Tribal Member” printed across the middle (see Figure 33). In addition, some of the illustrations used on the semi-pictorial stamps are different. In the near future, all of the new style stamps from both tribes will be pictured and identified in the Indian Reservation Stamp Album, published by Michael Jaffe Stamps, Inc. (Jaffe, 1995).

Many tribal governments have renewed or started stamp programs within the past ten years (see Table I). This presents collectors and students of fish and game stamps with a golden opportunity to do some primary research and publish information that will help guide a collecting area currently experiencing tremendous growth. The author would be happy to discuss ideas and provide support to anyone interested in such a project. Also, if anyone has knowledge of any Rosebud stamps from the 1980s that are not listed in Table III or any usages not indicated by an “X” in Table IV, the author would appreciate hearing from them and/or receiving photocopies (front and back on licenses please).

 

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the following persons, without whose help and support this article would not have been possible:

 

Marcella Cash, Director of the Dakota Archives and Historical Research Center, Sinte Gleska University, Rosebud Sioux Reservation; Ron Catlin, Chief of Law Enforcement for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; David Curtis; Jim Finnegan, Biologist for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Terry Gray, Dakota Archives and Historical Research Center, Sinte Gleska University, Rosebud Sioux Reservation; Michael Jaffe; Ed Kettenbrink; Mike Marshall, Ranger for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Ken Moum, Information and Education Officer for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Clint Nagel, former Attorney for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Chuck Post, Information and Education Supervisor for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Ken Pruess; Robert Rattling Deaf, Director for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Terry Roy, Chief of Daw Enforcement for Oglala Sioux Fish and Wildlife; Jean Stradler, South Dakota State Library; Tommy Tibbitts, Tourism Manager for the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority; E. D. Vanderford; and the staff at the South Dakota State Archives.

 

References

1949-50 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1950.

 

1958-59 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1959.

 

1959-60 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1960.

 

1975-1976 Report of Attorney General. Pierre, SD: State of South Dakota, page 619.

 

1976-77 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1977.

 

1977-78 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1978.

 

1978-79 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1979.

 

1979-80 Annual Report. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1980.

 

1986 Hunting License Application. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Department of Game, Fish and Parks, undated. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

 

1989 Hunting License Application. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Department of Game, Fish and Parks, undated. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

Agreement (Proposed) by South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks concerning joint licensing with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. June 1988. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Bennett, R. Letter to Robert Burnett, President Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council. June 17, 1960a. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Bennett, R. Letter to Robert Burnett, President Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council. August 30, 1960b. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Cash, J. H. The Rosebud Sioux People. Phoenix, AZ: Indian Tribal Series, 1971. Catlin, R. Personal Communications. August-December 1994.

 

Catlin, R. Personal Communication. February 1995

 

Cornell, S. The Return of the Native. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988.

 

Cummings, W. C., Editor. Scott 1995 Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps. Sidney, OH: Scott Publishing Company, 1994.

 

Deloria, V. American Indian Policy in the Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985.

 

Dumaine, R. Stamps of Sioux tribes move to new level. Linn’s Stamp News, February 1, 1993; page 38.

 

Eklund, W. Letter to Thomas W. Frederick, Director RST-Natural Resources Department. January 17,1984. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Finnegan, J. Personal Communication. August 1994.

 

Finnegan, J. Personal Communications. January-February 1995.

 

Fish and Game Code. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Indian Reservation, July 16, 1958. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Fixico, D. D. Termination and Relocation (Federal Indian Policy, 1945-1960). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1986.

 

Frederick, T. W. Letter to Webster Two Hawk, President Rosebud Sioux Tribe. January 18, 1984. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Frederick, T. W. Subject: Jurisdiction over

 

Trust Property outside to Todd County. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Department of Game, Fish and Parks, memorandum to RST-Tribal Council and Administration. June 10,1988. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Game Department and Indians Hold Conservation Talk. The Martin Booster. February 26, 1959. Game, Fish and Parks Code. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Indian Reservation, 1973. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Game, Fish and Parks Commission, State of South Dakota, Minutes, March 1974. [Courtesy South Dakota State Archives]

 

Game, Fish and Parks Commission, State of South Dakota, Minutes, June 1974. [Courtesy South Dakota State Archives]

 

Game, Fish and Parks Commission, State of South Dakota, Minutes, July 1974. [Courtesy South Dakota State Archives]

 

Grobsmith, E. S. Lakota of the Rosebud. Orlando, FD: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1981.

 

Hyde, G. E. Spotted Tail’s Folk (A History of the Brule Sioux). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1974. (Hunting information brochure).

 

Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 1994.

 

Jaffa, M. Personal Communication. March 1994.

 

Jaife, M. Personal Communication. February 1995.

 

Jaffa, M., Editor. Indian Reservation Stamp Album. Vancouver, WA: Michael Jaffe Stamps, Inc., 1994.

 

Laws of South Dakota 1971. Pierre, SD: State of South Dakota, page 291. (License invoice).

 

Rosebud, SD: Game, Fish and Parks, Rosebud Sioux Tribe. July 6, 1984. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

 

Marshall, M. Personal Communications. August and October 1994.

 

Marshall, M. Personal Communications. January-February 1995.

 

Memorandum Decision on Rehearing, before Marvin S. Talbott, Circuit Judge, State of South Dakota, County of Tripp. January 10,1984.

 

Moum, K. Personal Communications. August-December 1994.

 

Nagel, C. Personal Communication. November 1994.

 

Pechota, T. L. Letter to Tom Fredericks, Director, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Department of Game, Fish and Parks. August 3, 1988. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Porter, B. L. Personal Communication. July 1994.

 

Post, C. Dove Hunting—1981? South Dakota Conservation Digest 1980; 47(4):18-19.

 

Post, C. Personal Communications. August and October 1994.

 

Ortiz, R. D. The Great Sioux Nation. Cincinnati, OH: United Methodist Church, 1977.

 

Resolution No. 5808. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, March 5, 1958. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution No. 5843. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, July 16,1958. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution 6036 of The Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, June 10, 1960. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution 6037 of The Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, June 10, 1960. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution No. 6049. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, August 10, 1960. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution No. 7351. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, 1973. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution No. 84-12 of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, January 25, 1984. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Resolution No. 84-13 of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, January 25, 1984. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Roberts, T. Personal Communication. March 1991.

 

Roberts, T. Personal Communication. August 1994.

 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Hunting Seasons and Fees 1986. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Hunting Seasons and Fees 1989. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Department of Game, Fish and Parks] (Rosebud Sioux Tribe license permit delivery issued to Robert Rattling Leaf). September 2, 1986. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Natural Resource Department License Vending Guidelines. 1994. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

 

Roy, T. Personal Communication. March 1995. RST Resolution No. 76-54. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, April 7, 1976. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

RST Resolution No. 78-112. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, December

11, 1978. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

RST Resolution No. 86-111. Rosebud, SD: Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, 1986. [Courtesy Dakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

Souder, C. Personal Communication. February 1995.

 

Strock, D. C. Rosebud Indian Reservation Tribal Game and Fishing License Stamps. State Revenue Newsletter 1964 February; 55:37.

 

Torre, D. R. Fish and Game Stamps of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. The American Revenuer 1992 February; 46:24-30.

 

Torre, D. R. 1994 Specialized Catalog of U.S. Non-Pictorial Waterfowl Stamps. The American Revenuer 1994 September; 48:173 – 200.

 

Two Eagle, D., Secretary Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks. Letter to Johnny Mayfield. September 1, 1989. [Courtesy Rosebud Sioux Tribe Department of Game, Fish and Parks]

 

Vanderford, E. L. Addenda to the Handbook of Fish and Game Stamps (South Dakota). Unpublished, 1984. [Courtesy E. L. Vanderford]

 

Vanderford, E. L. Handbook of Fish and Game Stamps. Lincoln, NE: State Revenue Society, 1973.

 

Vanderford, E. L. Personal Communication. March 1991.

 

Wildlife Management Information and Recommendations for the Pine Ridge, Sioux Indian Reservation, South Dakota (February 1973). Pierre, SD: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1973. [Courtesy Lakota Archives, Sinte Gleska University]

 

——-

 

Figure 1 the first pictorial Indian Reservation fish and game stamps were issued by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in 1989.

 

Figure 2 Reverse of passbook/licenses printed in 1994.

 

Figure 3 Semi-pictorial stamps were printed for the fall 1994 seasons.

 

Figure 4a Error (left) and corrected (right) versions of the 1994 daily small and upland game stamp. b Error and corrected versions of the 1994 daily waterfowl stamp.

 

Figure 5 With the exception of the tribal member guide stamp, all of the 1995 Crow Creek stamps were printed in full color (stamps shown courtesy Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.

 

Figure 6 the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe’s stamp collector policy.

 

——-

 

Figure 1 This rosebud game bird stamp was illustrated in the State Revenue Newsletter of February 1964.

 

Figure 2 Map showing Sioux migration routes onto the great plains.

 

Figure 3 Reduction of the Great Sioux Reservation between 1868 and 1889.

 

Figure 4 Map showing exterior boundaries of the original Rosebud Reservation.

 

Figure 5 Letter of notification for a deer hunting season held on the Rosebud Reservation during 1947.

 

Figure 6 Resolution No 5808 was in response to the increasing amount of non-member hunting and fishing activity taking place on the reservation during the 1950s without tribal permission.

 

Figure 7 Resolution 5843 adopted the first Rosebud Fish and Game Code.

Figure 8 South Dakota non-resident hunting license stamp issued in 1959.

 

Figure 9 Rosebud big game license stamp issued in 1963.

 

Figure 10 Rosebud game bird stamp affixed to the reverse of a South Dakota resident hunting license in error.

 

Figure 11 (Far left) Rosebud fishing stamp with number rubber stamped in red ink.

 

Figure 12 (Near left) Rosebud fishing stamp with serial number printed in red ink.

 

Figure 13 Special elk stamps issued by South Dakota in 1971 and 1977 for hunting on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

 

Figure 14 Top pair of 1973 special elk stamps showing difference in serial numbers.

 

Figure 15 South Dakota non-resident West River Prairie Deer stamp overprinted “LOWER BRULE / INDIAN RESERVATION.”

 

Figure 16 The Rosebud Sioux Tribe established a Game, Fish and Parks Code in 1973. The new code deleted all references to state regulations and jurisdiction.

 

Figure 17 Resolution No. 76-54 established a mourning dove season on the Rosebud Reservation.

 

Figure 18a Rosebud small game stamp issued in late 1970s b. back cover of pad showing audit date of April 25, 1980.

 

Figure 19 Rosebud small game stamp issued in early 1980s.

 

Figure 20 Rosebud resident dove stamp issued during the early 1980s.

 

Figure 21 Pair of Rosebud resident antelope stamps showing uneven perforating.

 

Figure 22 Rosebud resident deer stamp, overprinted “SENIOR CITIZEN,” affixed to reverse of Rosebud general hunting license. Note the license is also overprinted “(FOR DOE ONLY)” above the stamp.

 

Figure 23 Pair of Rosebud resident antelope stamps showing typestyle variety on serial numbers from position five.

 

Figure 24 Pane of Rosebud resident fishing stamps printed with erroneous numbering sequence.

 

Figure 25 Reverse of a Rosebud general hunting license issued on September 7, 1984. The license bears resident dove and grouse stamps with no serial numbers. Both are printed on coated paper.

 

Figure 26 Rosebud resident archery deer stamp printed with 1989 year date.

 

Figure 27 Rosebud resident dove stamp which has been revalued.

 

Figure 28 Rosebud non-resident 5 day fishing stamp with “Issued 1-25-85” written across the top tab.

 

Figure 29a-c Three different Rosebud resident fishing stamps were issued between 1988 and 1990.

 

Figure 30 Resident and non-resident Rosebud small game stamps first issued in 1989. The resident stamps were in use through 1993.

 

Figure 31 Pine Ridge member fishing stamp issued during late 1980s.

 

Figure 32 Two different types of the Pine Ridge member small game stamp. The stamp on the left is rouletted and has a smaller serial number; the right stamos is perforated and has a larger serial number set in a different type face.

 

Figure 33 New-style Rosebud tribal member antelope stamp first issued in 1990.

 

Figure 34 Six different new-style stamps affixed to a Rosebud resident general hunting license issued January 4, 1993.

 

Figure 35 Obverse and reverse of South Dakota duplicate sportsman’s license issued May 25, 1991. A rosebud resident / non-member deer stamp has been affixed to the state license in error.

 

Figure 36 Rosebud elk stamp.

 

Figure 37 Rosebud non-resident 10 day and yearly prairie dog stamps issued in 1990.

 

Figure 38a in 1991, new non-resident 10 day prairie dog stamps were issued due to a fee increase. b The 1993 printing by State Publishing Company resembled the 1980s style stamps. The 1993 printing by Midland News and Printing can only be differentiated from those printed in 1991 by a narrower backing material.

 

Figure 39 Rosebud spring and fall turkey stamps.

 

Figure 40 Memorandum from Rosebud Game, Fish and Parks Director Thomas Frederick to the Tribal Council on June 10, 1988.

 

Figure 41 Rosebud special deer stamps issued during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 seasons.

 

Figure 42 Error (top) and corrected (bottom) versions of the resident small game stamps printed in 1993.

 

Figure 43 New style Pine Ridge stamps first issued in 1993.