Possibly, though just because a family has lived in an area for a long time, it does not automatically acquire title to several hundred thousand acres of land.
There are no doubt at least several families with long time residence in the area. Which of them therefore owns the land? Why should any of them get title, since Indians were living in the area long before their ancestors showed up?
A private person using public land for his private profit without authorization is just as wrong as doing the same on private property.
I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence that this guy owns the land, but AFAIK there isn't any such evidence.
>> “Possibly, though just because a family has lived in an area for a long time, it does not automatically acquire title to several hundred thousand acres of land.” <<
You simply do not understand the treaty. The only lands that the Fed Gov can lay claim to were the historically unused lands.