Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O 'J- , -1 ?" <br />r 1-1.......0 <br /> <br /> <br />A Crow Indian Tribe Carpel Mill Provides <br />Needed Employment <br /> <br />Indian tribes and individuals. when within the exterior <br />boundaries of the indian reservations, are generally not <br />subject to Stale and county criminal jurisdiction but <br />rather to tribal and Federal jurisdiction. <br />The peculiar autonomy of the Indian tribes enabks <br />them 10 appeal directly to the Congress for special <br />legislulion. This approach has been exercised on <br />numerous occasions by various lribes, often resulting in <br />Federal legislation peculi;.H to one specific trib~. <br />Thus, the Indians, with their differing economic and <br />social charactcristir..'s. have to he considered ;IS separate <br />entities in the planning of resource developments. <br />Further complicating the situation arc spedal water right <br />Tes~[vations 'o.\sSQc~'J\e\.\ w~\h tre3ty provisions as <br />discussed in ~hilpter 6. PerhjJps the most serious mistake <br />that could bt: made is to assume (hat the Indians <br />subs.:ribe to the sjJme values. the s~me social philoso- <br />phies, or lhe sallle outlouks on life as are commonly held <br />by the non-TescTv,Hion communities within the basin. <br /> <br />POPULATION <br /> <br />In the decade or the 1880's the Missouri Region <br />experienced its gre;Jtest relative growth in population, <br />with 11 rate or increase nearly double thjJt fur the Nation. <br />However, during the IjJst decade of the 19th century, the <br />rate of populjJtion growth dropped below that for the <br />Nation, and from 1900 to the present the region has <br /> <br />failed to keep pace with the Nation. In the region, <br />population increased by only 4.3 percent from 1940 to <br />]950 and 12.3 percent from 1950 to 1960 as shown in <br />figure I), while nationally the population increased by <br />J 4.5 and ]8.4 percent in the two time periods. <br />Relative Tates of growth between the region and the <br />Nation can be compared considering the region's share <br />of the total population of the United States_ In 1940. <br />the region contained 5.1 percent of the population of <br />the conterminous United States. In 1950, it contained <br />4_7 percent but by \960 its share had dropped to 4.5 <br />percent. Although the total population in the region <br />increased between 1940 and 1960, more people <br />currently are migrating out of the region than are <br />moving in. The rural.to-urban movement of people <br />which characterized the Nation during the 1940 to 1960 <br />period was even more signitlcant in this region because <br />of the relatively large percentage of rural population. <br />Rural farm popul:.lIion as a percent of total population <br />for the Nation was 23.0 percent in 1940, 15.3 peTcent in <br />1950, "nd 7 _5 percent in ) 960_ In the region for the <br />comparable decades the percentages were 36.5, 27.6, <br />and 18_6. Rural IiIflll population fell by more than one <br />million people between 1940 and 1960. a loss of 40 <br />percent as compared to 56 percent for the Nation during <br />the same period. <br /> <br />Total urban growth, although identical to national <br />urban growth rates, has varied significantly between <br />cities of the region. The urban centers which have <br />remained dependent upon providing services to agricul~ <br />ture have not tended to grow as fast as those with <br />manufacturing bases. Further. the larger urban areas <br />have tended to have higher growth rates than the smaller <br />areas_ Cities with 5,000 to 10.000 populations have <br />tended to remain relatively stable or grow slightly _ The <br />exceptions seem to be those with governmental or <br />educational institulions, bedroom communities, and <br />those which have been able \0 attract a major industry <br />stich as tourism or a large food processing plant. Cities <br />over \0,000 have had the largest percentage of growth_ <br /> <br />The) I Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas with <br />42 percent of the region's Ulban population have <br />experienced very large :.IJld rather constant population <br />increases since the 1930's. These cities have continued to <br />function ;JS the gateways of commerce. In addition, their <br />economic bases have been diversified, with manu- <br />facturing, professional services, and governmental <br />functions becoming important segments of their <br />economies. <br />Denver is something of a special case. Aside from its <br />immediate h.interland of agriculture, tourism, and mining <br />pursuits, it hilS been able to increase its economic base <br />by attracting regional offices of national corporations <br />and other organizations, research inst\tut\om., \\ght <br /> <br />29 <br />