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: grossmzc@uwec.eduWebsite: www.uwec.edu/grossmzc