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

2. 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

3. Alleviate interethnic conflict Correct past injustices Against Native people Against non-Native land-based people Common source of place identity Common goals for sustainability Shared Space

4. Ho-Chunk Nation - Closed munitions plant - Defeated dam project Wolf River tribes - Mole Lake Ojibwe, Potawatomi, Menominee - Defeated mine project Possible Wisconsin Precedents

5. Ho-Chunk Nation Formerly Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe Origins in the effigy mound builders of Southern Wisconsin Agricultural people along waterways

6. Ho-Chunk treaties Strategic waterways Lead Rush of 1820s Rich farmland for settlement, 1830s Resistance to Indian Removal (Loew 2001)

7. Ho-Chunk removals

8. Resistance to Removal Wazijaci (Dwellers Among Pines) hid out Many returned from new reservations Some white farmers actively opposed removal by 1870s

9. Ho-Chunk survival Wisconsin homesteads permitted, 1870s Poor in income and land Little federal interference with cultural autonomy

10. Ho-Chunk survival Purchased land parcels in 14 counties Tribal status in 1962 5,000 + members by 1990s Casino success in 1990s Casino near Wisconsin Dells

11. Ho-Chunk survival Using gaming revenue to acquire a few parcels 832 acres into trust by 1997 Federal trust relationship used for return of other parcels Muscoda bison ranch Whirling Thunder stables

12. Kickapoo Reserve and Sauk Prairie Kickapoo Reserve and Sauk Prairie Ho-Chunk ceded lands in purple; Present-day lands in red

13. Kickapoo Valley Vernon County, Southwestern Wisconsin

14. Kickapoo Valley Ho-Chunk sacred sites, rock art Very few Ho-Chunk remained after Removal Maintained visits to Kickapoo River

15. 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

16. 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

17. Kickapoo Reserve Ho-Chunk & farmers had common history of forced removal Yet conflict over who is “local” Some resentment of DNR by former landowners

18. Kickapoo Reserve division Joint land- use plan protects natural and cultural resources, enhances recreation

19. 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

20. 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. 4 2 3 2 Kickapoo Reserve Management Board

21. xxxx Badger Ammo Plant on Sauk Prairie

22. Sauk Prairie Glacial outwash plain south of Baraboo Hills Ho-Chunk farm fields on rich soil Fire management of vast prairie for hunting Native Americans removed, 1830s Sauk County, South-Central Wisconsin

23. Sauk Prairie

24. Badger Ordnance Works Badger Ordnance Works Built in WWII on some of Wisconsin’s richest farmland. Flat area with access to water and labor.

25. 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

26. Badger Army Ammunition Plant Made propellant for shells, bullets, rockets Open during WWII, Korea, Vietnam Mothballed 1975 (Goc 2002)

27. Badger Army Ammunition Plant Nitrates contaminated groundwater (uninhabitable) Army clean-up begun Prairie grasses, birds, wildlife flourished above

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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.”

32. Future Land Use Concepts

33. Future ownership proposals Future ownership proposals Most polluted sites in north/ central zone Ho-Chunk sovereignty over tribal land

34. Proposed Crandon mine Zinc-copper shaft mine upstream of the Mole Lake Ojibwe Reservation and Wolf River in northern Wisconsin

37. 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

38. “You couldn’t find a more difficult place to mine.” -Exxon engineer Wetlands & springs in 4,800-acre mine site

39. Objections to mine 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

40. Alliance to stop mine 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

41. Company position, 2003 Low metal prices Wants to sell mine site, but keeps permit process Governor backs purchase if price not too high

42. Alliance 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 resources and cultural resources

43. Mix of public and private funds for acquisition? How fund management?

44. 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)

45. STATE (4) Dep’ts of Natural Resources, Tourism, Administration, State Historical Society TRIBAL (4) Mole Lake, Potawatomi, Menominee, GLIFWC LOCAL COMMUNITIES (4) Forest County, Towns of Nashville and Lincoln, Langlade Co. or Town of Ainsworth PRIVATE GROUPS (3) Chosen collectively by private groups participating in acquisition; at least one from downstream county 4 4 43

46. 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 Space

47. 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.htmlwww.ho-chunknation.comkvr.state.wi.uswww.co.sauk.wi.us/badgereuseplanwww.saukprairievision.orgwww.cswab.comwww.treatyland.com www.alphacdc.com/treaty/purchase.html

48. 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.

49. 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: grossmzc@uwec.edu Website: www.uwec.edu/grossmzcgrossmzc@uwec.eduwww.uwec.edu/grossmzc