Transcript REMOVAL REVERSED : Native/non-Native joint management of reclaimed lands Dr. Zoltán Grossman, Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire.

REMOVAL REVERSED :
Native/non-Native joint
management of reclaimed lands
Dr. Zoltán Grossman, Assistant Professor of
Geography, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
Shared Space
Hybrid space or “negotiated space”
as relates to Native peoples and land use
(Morris and Fondahl 2002, Waage 2001)
Mainly co-management of ceded territory resources
(NWIFC 1998, Ellsworth et al 1997)
Natives and non-Natives removed from landscape
Return for divided ownership, joint control
Shared Space
Alleviate interethnic conflict
Correct past injustices
Against Native people
Against non-Native land-based people
Common source of place identity
Common goals for sustainability
Possible Wisconsin Precedents
Ho-Chunk Nation
- Closed munitions plant
- Defeated dam project
Wolf River tribes
- Mole Lake Ojibwe,
Potawatomi, Menominee
- Defeated mine project
Ho-Chunk Nation
Formerly Wisconsin
Winnebago Tribe
Origins in the effigy
mound builders of
Southern Wisconsin
Agricultural people
along waterways
Ho-Chunk
treaties
Strategic waterways
Lead Rush of 1820s
Rich farmland
for settlement, 1830s
Resistance to
Indian Removal
(Loew 2001)
Ho-Chunk removals
Resistance to Removal
Wazijaci (Dwellers
Among Pines) hid out
Many returned from
new reservations
Some white farmers
actively opposed
removal by 1870s
Ho-Chunk survival
Wisconsin homesteads
permitted, 1870s
Poor in income and land
Little federal interference
with cultural autonomy
Ho-Chunk survival
Purchased land parcels in
14 counties
Tribal status in 1962
Casino near Wisconsin Dells
5,000 + members by 1990s
Casino success in 1990s
Ho-Chunk survival
Using gaming revenue
to acquire a few parcels
Muscoda
bison
ranch
832 acres into trust by 1997
Federal trust relationship
used for return of other parcels
Whirling
Thunder
stables
Kickapoo
Reserve
and Sauk
Prairie
Ho-Chunk
ceded lands in
purple;
Present-day
lands in red
Kickapoo
Valley
Vernon County,
Southwestern Wisconsin
Kickapoo
Valley
Ho-Chunk sacred sites,
rock art
Very few Ho-Chunk
remained after Removal
Maintained visits to
Kickapoo River
La Farge Dam
Proposed 1961, but
environmental opposition
Local white residents
removed from 14-mile
stretch of river
8,600-acre site grew over;
little dam construction
Dam plans scuttled, 1975
Kickapoo Reserve
Army Corps of Engineers
promised to State for
conservation, 1997
State promised to
turn over 1,200 acres to
Ho-Chunk Nation
Entire 8,600-acre site
under joint management, 2001
Kickapoo Reserve
Ho-Chunk & farmers
had common history
of forced removal
Yet conflict over
who is “local”
Some resentment of DNR
by former landowners
Kickapoo
Reserve
division
Joint landuse plan
protects
natural and
cultural
resources,
enhances
recreation
Kickapoo Reserve Management Board
11 member, appointed
by Governor; State-funded
Local majority principle
Represents State, Tribe,
Local Communities,
Watershed
Ho-Chunk own 1,200 acres
Kickapoo Reserve Management Board
2
3
4
2
STATE
TRIBAL
LOCAL
WATERSHED
STATE (3)
At-large non-local agency
representatives with expertise
in resources, tourism, education.
TRIBAL (2)
Ho-Chunk Nation reps, one of
whom is a watershed resident.
LOCAL COMMUNITIES (4)
Nominated from adjacent
communities, school boards
KICKAPOO WATERSHED (2)
At-large members from
watershed; not all adjacent.
Executive Director runs KRMB.
Badger Ammo Plant on Sauk Prairie
xxxx
Sauk Prairie
Glacial outwash plain
south of Baraboo Hills
Ho-Chunk farm fields
on rich soil
Fire management of
vast prairie for hunting
Sauk County,
South-Central
Wisconsin
Native Americans
removed, 1830s
Sauk Prairie
Badger Ordnance Works
Built in WWII on some of
Wisconsin’s richest farmland.
Flat area with access to water and labor.
Removal of farmers, 1942
Sited Nov. 1941 over
sites with poorer soil
Accepted after Pearl Harbor
Some of 90 landowners
not paid fair price
7,400 acres evacuated;
buildings torn down
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
Made propellant for shells,
bullets, rockets
Open during WWII,
Korea, Vietnam
Mothballed 1975
(Goc 2002)
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
Nitrates contaminated
groundwater (uninhabitable)
Army clean-up begun
Prairie grasses, birds,
wildlife flourished above
Badger closure begins, 1998
Claims of Tribe (1,500 acres),
Federal (USDA) over State (DNR).
No local claim, but ex-resident
families want to have say
Choice between conservation/
tourism and reindustrialization
Badger land use plan conflicts
Tribe proposed prairie restoration,
bison herd, cultural site protection
State wanted full DNR control
of contiguous site as park
Tribe can pressure Army clean-up;
critiques DNR track record
Agricultural
use on site
Conflict over who is “local”
Ho-Chunk not treated as “local”
(2nd highest tribal population)
County gov’t opposed tribal role,
feared casino
From federal land to trust land
(no loss in local taxes)
Tribe largest employer in county
Badger Re-Use Committee, 2001
State, tribal, federal
governments divided ownership,
possible joint management?
“Uses and activities … contribute to the reconciliation
and resolution of past conflicts involving the loss and
contamination of the natural environment, the
displacement of Native Americans and Euro-American
farmers, and the effects of war.”
Future Land Use Concepts
Future
ownership
proposals
Most polluted
sites in north/
central zone
Ho-Chunk
sovereignty
over tribal land
Proposed Crandon mine
Zinc-copper shaft mine upstream of
the Mole Lake Ojibwe Reservation
and Wolf River in northern Wisconsin
Mine site ownership
• Exxon proposed mine 1976,
bought land from small loggers
• Withdrew 1986, returned 1992
to face strong opposition
• Withdrew again 1998, plans
kept for 4,800-acre mine site
• Rio Algom or BHP Billiton
(1998-2003); but low metal prices
Wetlands & springs
in 4,800-acre mine site
“You couldn’t find a more
difficult place to mine.”
-Exxon engineer
Objections to mine
• Environmental
– Acidic runoff
– Groundwater drawdown
– Toxic processing
• Economic
– Boom-and-bust
– Lack of local jobs
– Threat to tourism/fishing
• Cultural
– Wild rice beds
– Sacred sites
– Influx of outsiders
Alliance to stop mine
• Environmental groups
– Urban mainstream
– Rural grassroots
– Students, unions, farmers
• Sportfishing clubs
– Had been anti-treaty
– Local governments
• Native American nations
–
–
–
–
Mole Lake Ojibwe
Potawatomi
Menominee
All resisted removal
Company position, 2003
• Low metal prices
• Wants to sell mine site,
but keeps permit process
• Governor backs purchase
if price not too high
Alliance position
• Public acquisition of 4,800 acres
• Permanent protection from mining
• Joint management of natural
and cultural resources
• Mix of public and private funds for acquisition?
• How fund management?
Possible Wolf Headwaters Reserve Board
Represent State, Tribes,
Local Communities,
Private Groups
15 members, appointed
by each entity; rotating chair
Local majority principle
Majority against mining
(reflects alliance)
3
4
STATE
4
4
TRIBAL
LOCAL
PRIVATE
STATE (4)
Dep’ts of Natural Resources,
Tourism, Administration,
State Historical Society
LOCAL COMMUNITIES (4)
Forest County, Towns of
Nashville and Lincoln,
Langlade Co. or Town of Ainsworth
TRIBAL (4)
Mole Lake, Potawatomi,
Menominee, GLIFWC
PRIVATE GROUPS (3)
Chosen collectively by private
groups participating in acquisition;
at least one from downstream county
Shared Space
Land divided but joint management
Return of the land to those who respect and
care for it the most
Possible precedents for shared sovereignties
(Khamisi 2001)
Ho-Chunk Nation www.ho-chunknation.com
Kickapoo Valley Reserve kvr.state.wi.us
Badger Re-Use Committee www.co.sauk.wi.us/badgereuseplan
Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance www.saukprairievision.org
Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger www.cswab.com
Midwest Treaty Network www.treatyland.com
Wolf River Headwaters Protection Purchase
www.alphacdc.com/treaty/purchase.html
Ellsworth, JP, LP Hildebrand, and EA Glover. 1997. “Canada’s Atlantic Coastal Action Program:
A community-based approach to collective governance.” Ocean & Coastal Management 36(2), 121-42.
Goc, Michael J. 2002. Powder, People, and Place: Badger Ordnance Works and the Sauk Prairie.
Friendship, Wis.: New Past Press.
Ho-Chunk Nation and the State of Wisconsin. 1999. “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the
Badger Army Ammunition Plant.” (Dec. 11).
Khamaisi, R. 2002. “Shared Space, Separate Geopolitically. “ Geoforum 33(3), pp 278-283.
Loew, Patty, 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and Removal. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, pp 40-53.
Morris, P., and G. Fondahl. .2002. “Negotiating the Production of Space in Tl’azt’en Territory, Northern
British Columbia.” Canadian Geographer 26(2).
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). 1998. Comprehensive Tribal Natural Resource
Management: A Report from the Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington.
Smith, Susan L. 1997, “Ho-Chunk Land Returned in Kickapoo Valley.”Wisconsin State Journal (Oct. 29).
Waage, Sissel A. 2001. “(Re)claiming space and place through collaborative planning in rural Oregon.”
Political Geography 20(7), pp 839-858.
Wisconsin Cartographers’ Guild. 1998. Wisconsin’s Past and Present: A Historical Atlas. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Zoltán Grossman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Geography
P.O. Box 4004
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54702
Tel.
(715) 836-4471
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.uwec.edu/grossmzc