Native populations around the world had no "transferable right of ownership" because they had no written laws.
The speculation probably is less radically wrong if you consider property interest in land rather than personal property, though it's worth noting that the kind of free transferrability (some) Europeans wanted wasn't even the norm for land, in Europe until the end of feudalism, which was millenia after the development of written laws. Heck, some of the colonial powers neither sought nor had it as a norm themselves—not everyone was England—relying instead on right of conquest to impose what amounted to a feudal system (Spain, I'm looking at you) many places.
The land would typically be claimed, not owned. As soon as you stopped using the land somebody else was in the right to come and use it.
The would ignore the local culture as much as possible. Ask for the chief around here, come to him, plant the seed of thinking he actually is a king, and then it is easier to talk to just one guy than get everybody in agreement.
This is better explained in "The Origins of Political Order" by Francis Fukuyama, if anybody is interested.