We can see here a clear example of how the concept of the private ownership of land , contrasts with the idea of land held in common by a group of people.
The first is that which was promoted by the European Colonists and the latter a concept that the First Nations people adopted.
In the former a person or enitity that does not even reside in the area can do to that land anything s/he or it pleases under the premise it for that persons or entities sole use from which to extract profits. Whether it destroyed or contaminated or put to a use not beneficial to the society at large is immaterial. As property its sole purpose is to return a profit and that profit might well flow into the pockets of some banker in England or some investor in China or New York City. Those "owners" can then use the wealth they extracted from the same to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions.
In the latter the people live on or near the land itself and rely upon it for sustaining their own life or well being. They see that land more as something that sustains life itself rather than something that has as its sole purpose the increase in individual wealth of a small handful.
Private property is theft. It does not, as claimed by John Locke , promote freedom and liberty. It destroys and transforms entire societies into wage labor servitude. It extinguishes the rights of both a community to a livelihood not dependent on a handful of wealthy peoples , and the rights of Nature itself to co-exist in a given ecosystem as suggested by leaders such as Morales in Bolivia.