removal reversed : native/non-native joint management of reclaimed lands
DESCRIPTION
REMOVAL REVERSED : Native/non-Native joint management of reclaimed lands. Dr. Zoltán Grossman, Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. Shared Space. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
REMOVAL REVERSED : REMOVAL REVERSED : Native/non-Native jointNative/non-Native joint
management of reclaimed landsmanagement of reclaimed lands
Dr. Zoltán Grossman, Assistant Professor of Dr. Zoltán Grossman, Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin - Eau ClaireGeography, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
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 SpaceShared Space
Alleviate interethnic conflict
Correct past injustices Against Native peopleAgainst non-Native land-based people
Common source of place identity
Common goals for sustainability
Shared SpaceShared Space
Ho-Chunk Nation
- Closed munitions plant - Defeated dam project
Wolf River tribes- Mole Lake Ojibwe,
Potawatomi, Menominee - Defeated mine project
Possible Wisconsin PrecedentsPossible Wisconsin Precedents
Ho-Chunk NationHo-Chunk Nation
Formerly WisconsinWinnebago Tribe
Origins in the effigymound builders of Southern Wisconsin
Agricultural peoplealong waterways
Ho-ChunkHo-Chunktreatiestreaties
Strategic waterways
Lead Rush of 1820s
Rich farmlandfor settlement, 1830s
Resistance toIndian Removal(Loew 2001)
Ho-Chunk removalsHo-Chunk removals
Resistance to RemovalResistance to Removal
Wazijaci (DwellersAmong Pines) hid out
Many returned fromnew reservations
Some white farmersactively opposed removal by 1870s
Ho-Chunk survivalHo-Chunk survivalWisconsin homesteadspermitted, 1870s
Poor in income and land
Little federal interferencewith cultural autonomy
Ho-Chunk survivalHo-Chunk survival
Purchased land parcels in14 counties
Tribal status in 1962
5,000 + members by 1990s
Casino success in 1990s
Casino near Wisconsin Dells
Ho-Chunk survivalHo-Chunk survival
Using gaming revenueto acquire a few parcels
832 acres into trust by 1997
Federal trust relationship used for return of other parcels
Muscodabisonranch
WhirlingThunderstables
KickapooKickapooReserve Reserve and Saukand SaukPrairiePrairie
Ho-Chunkceded lands inpurple;Present-daylands in red
KickapooKickapooValleyValley
Vernon County,Southwestern Wisconsin
KickapooKickapooValleyValley
Ho-Chunk sacred sites,rock art
Very few Ho-Chunkremained after Removal
Maintained visits toKickapoo River
La Farge DamLa Farge Dam
Proposed 1961, butenvironmental opposition
Local white residentsremoved from 14-milestretch of river
8,600-acre site grew over;little dam construction
Dam plans scuttled, 1975
Kickapoo ReserveKickapoo Reserve
Army Corps of Engineerspromised to State forconservation, 1997
State promised toturn over 1,200 acres toHo-Chunk Nation
Entire 8,600-acre siteunder joint management, 2001
Kickapoo ReserveKickapoo Reserve
Ho-Chunk & farmershad common historyof forced removal
Yet conflict overwho is “local”
Some resentment of DNR by former landowners
KickapooKickapooReserve Reserve divisiondivisionJoint land-use planprotects natural andcultural resources,enhancesrecreation
Kickapoo Reserve Management BoardKickapoo Reserve Management Board
11 member, appointedby Governor; State-funded
Local majority principle
Represents State, Tribe, Local Communities, Watershed
Ho-Chunk own 1,200 acres
STATE (3)At-large non-local agencyrepresentatives with expertise in resources, tourism, education.
TRIBAL (2)Ho-Chunk Nation reps, one of whom is a watershed resident.
STATE
TRIBAL
LOCAL
WATERSHED
LOCAL COMMUNITIES (4)Nominated from adjacentcommunities, school boards
KICKAPOO WATERSHED (2)At-large members from watershed; not all adjacent.Executive Director runs KRMB.
44 22
3322
Kickapoo Reserve Management BoardKickapoo Reserve Management Board
xxxxBadger Ammo Plant on Sauk PrairieBadger Ammo Plant on Sauk Prairie
Sauk PrairieSauk PrairieGlacial outwash plainsouth of Baraboo Hills
Ho-Chunk farm fieldson rich soil
Fire management ofvast prairie for hunting
Native Americansremoved, 1830s
Sauk County,South-Central
Wisconsin
Sauk PrairieSauk Prairie
Badger Ordnance WorksBadger Ordnance Works Built in WWII on some of
Wisconsin’s richest farmland.Flat area with access to water and labor.
Removal of farmers, 1942Removal of farmers, 1942
Sited Nov. 1941 oversites with poorer soil
Accepted after Pearl Harbor
Some of 90 landownersnot paid fair price
7,400 acres evacuated;buildings torn down
Badger Army Ammunition PlantBadger Army Ammunition Plant
Made propellant for shells, bullets, rockets
Open during WWII, Korea, Vietnam
Mothballed 1975 (Goc 2002)
Badger Army Ammunition PlantBadger Army Ammunition PlantNitrates contaminated groundwater (uninhabitable)
Army clean-up begun
Prairie grasses, birds, wildlife flourished above
Badger closure begins, 1998Badger closure begins, 1998
Claims of Tribe (1,500 acres), Federal (USDA) over State (DNR).
No local claim, but ex-residentfamilies want to have say
Choice between conservation/tourism and reindustrialization
Badger land use plan conflictsBadger 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
Agriculturaluse on site
Conflict over who is “local”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, 2001Badger 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 ConceptsFuture Land Use Concepts
FutureFutureownershipownershipproposalsproposals
Most pollutedsites in north/central zone
Ho-Chunksovereignty over tribal land
Proposed Crandon mineProposed Crandon mine
Zinc-copper shaft mine upstream of Zinc-copper shaft mine upstream of the Mole Lake Ojibwe Reservationthe Mole Lake Ojibwe Reservation
and Wolf River in northern Wisconsinand Wolf River in northern Wisconsin
Mine site ownership 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
“You couldn’t find a more
difficult place to mine.”
-Exxon engineer
Wetlands & springsin 4,800-acre mine site
Objections to mineObjections 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 mineAlliance 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, 2003Company position, 2003
• Low metal prices
• Wants to sell mine site,
but keeps permit process
• Governor backs purchase
if price not too high
Alliance positionAlliance position• Public acquisition of 4,800 acresPublic acquisition of 4,800 acres
• Permanent protection from miningPermanent protection from mining
• Joint management of naturalJoint management of natural
and cultural resourcesand cultural resources
• Mix of public and private funds for acquisition?• How fund management?
Possible Wolf Headwaters Reserve BoardPossible Wolf Headwaters Reserve Board
Represent State, Tribes, Local Communities, Private Groups
15 members, appointedby each entity; rotating chair
Local majority principle
Majority against mining(reflects alliance)
STATE (4)Dep’ts of Natural Resources,Tourism, Administration,State Historical Society
TRIBAL (4)Mole Lake, Potawatomi,Menominee, GLIFWC
STATE
TRIBAL
LOCAL
PRIVATE
LOCAL COMMUNITIES (4)Forest County, Towns of Nashville and Lincoln, Langlade Co. or Town of Ainsworth
PRIVATE GROUPS (3)Chosen collectively by privategroups participating in acquisition;at least one from downstream county
44 44
4433
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)
Shared SpaceShared Space
Ho-Chunk Nation www.ho-chunknation.com
Kickapoo Valley Reserve kvr.state.wi.usBadger 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 Purchasewww.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 GeographyP.O. Box 4004University of Wisconsin-Eau ClaireEau Claire, WI 54702Tel. (715) 836-4471 E-mail: [email protected]: www.uwec.edu/grossmzc