Recently, a new bill has been introduced to Congress recommending the redesignation of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore as a National Park. These beautiful islands of Northern Wisconsin have long attracted sportsmen and vacationers, but making them a National Park is more controversial than you might expect. Wenabozho Ominisan (The Apostle Islands) have cultural significance for the Ojibwe people, and the process leading to this bill has been marred by backroom discussions and a deliberate lack of consultation with Tribal authorities. Gaa-Miskwaabikaang (The Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa), the closest Ojibwe Nation to the proposed park, has repeatedly sought to initiate these discussions, but the legislator sponsoring the bill has been less than forthcoming.

The Complicated History of Conservation and Indigenous People

Conservation organizations and Native Peoples have often had a more contentious history than people think. Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, arguably the world’s most famous, involved the displacement of thousands of Maasai villagers. This same process is still repeating itself in East Africa, where a proposed game preserve at Loliondo led to violence against villagers and forced some Maasai to become refugees in neighboring countries.

America’s parkland is no different. From our most iconic National Parks like Yellowstone to even State Parks like Red Clay in Tennessee, U.S. conservation efforts have historically involved land dispossession. In Yellowstone, Shoshone bands occupying the site were removed via treaty, while at Red Clay the Cherokee were removed at gunpoint by federal troops. Many lands managed by the National Park Service hold spiritual or cultural significance for Tribal nations, and to help rectify their troubled past, the National Park Service and other federal agencies often consult with Tribal authorities. This is far from a perfect system, but consultation has led to meaningful change and increased cultural awareness.

The Ojibwe history in the Apostle Islands

According to the National Park Service’s own website, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is part of the homelands of the Ojibwe people and written and oral histories identify the Ojibwe as the original inhabitants of the islands. The website even acknowledges that there was a main village located on Madeline Island called Moningwunakauning, and goes on to say that Native Americans have lived on the islands and in the general area for thousands of years.

In the Indian Removal era, the Ojibwe faced tremendous pressure to leave the Apostle Islands, and the government even tried to trick them into leaving the area. By refusing to give promised treaty annuities on the islands themselves, officials forced the Ojibwe to walk to Sandy Lake, Minnesota where many perished due to exposure, starvation, and bad provisions. Their Chief, Gichi-weshkiinh (Kechewaishke) described the situation as follows:

And when a message was sent to me by our Indian agent to come and get our pay, I lost no time in arising & complying with my Agents voice and when I reached my point of destination, verily my Agent fed me with very bad flour it resembled green clay. Soon I became sick and many of my fellow chippewas also were taken sick, and soon the results were manifested by the death of over two hundred persons of my tribe, for this calamity, I laid blame to the provisions issued to us…

This same group of Ojibwe became the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands after returning from Minnesota. They had been tricked, poisoned, and ultimately dispossessed of their homeland: the Apostle Islands.

Interestingly enough, if you visit the webpage for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore there is a dedicated tab discussing Ojibwe culture, highlighting their ties to the Lakeshore, and even promoting the Red Cliff and Bad River Band powwows. It makes you wonder, are the Ojibwe only viewed as a convenient advertising angle, like the Maasai for the Tanzanian parks? With a lack of consultation from Wisconsin legislators, the silence is deafening, and it becomes harder to come to any other conclusion.

How long have legislators been planning to push for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore redesignation?

In 2018, Wisconsin Representative Tom Tiffany first discussed the idea of redesignating the National Lakeshore as a National Park with the Red Cliff Tribal Council. Despite requesting an official proposal in writing from Representative Tiffany, none was provided.

Last October, officials from the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa became aware of Representative Tiffany’s plan to sponsor a bill redesignating Apostle Islands National Lakeshore as a full-fledged National Park. No formal consultation, communication, or prior notice was given to the Red Cliff Tribal Council.

This January, Red Cliff authorities contacted Tiffany’s office for more information and received only a vague overview on the proposed bill, with no possibility for follow-up questions.

By this summer, after expressing concerns to Representative Tiffany’s staff about the lack of transparency, the Red Cliff Band submitted three pages of questions and comments to Tiffany’s office. As of August 1^st, this formal inquiry has received no response.

Recently, the Tribal government has had to seek other means to get answers about how the bill will affect their nation. Contact, and conversations have been had with entities such as the National Park Service, National Parks Conservation Association, Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, other elected officials, surrounding towns, and even community members. Through these conversations, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has learned that Representative Tiffany met with sporting and hunting groups in the region during this process, despite still refusing to meet with the Red Cliff Tribal Council.

Why is this Apostle Islands bill such a big deal to the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa?

Since there has been no formal consultation, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has little access to the information Representative Tiffany has collected for his bill. To the Tribal Council’s knowledge, no economic, environmental, cultural, treaty rights, or infrastructure impact studies have been performed for the proposed change. The Tribal government has expressed that they are willing to work with lawmakers in good faith, but that they cannot endorse the bill without knowing the outcomes of these studies.

As the largest employer in the area, a Tribal nation near the Apostle Islands, and a people who once inhabited the islands, the Red Cliff Band has much to lose or gain with the proposed bill. A sudden influx of tourists might provide economic opportunities, but it might also take huge tolls on reservation infrastructure, use up local resources, and increase environmental degradation on Tribal lands. Without more certainty on these issues, it’s hard to tell whether the change would have a positive or negative impact on their community. Open and honest consultation could help to clear this up, but it doesn’t seem like this is likely to occur.

Why won’t Representative Tiffany consult with the Red Cliff Band?

Your guess is as good as mine. After viewing his campaign website though, its apparent that Representative Tiffany is not a friend of Native American interests. On his website, he hosts an article titled “Wisconsin Residents Illegally Held Hostage In Their Homes By Native American Tribe.” Beyond the obviously inflammatory headline, the article trots out a whole host of tired Anti-Native tropes.

The article centers on a dispute between the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the town of Lac Du Flambeau, and non-Native residents of the Lac Du Flambeau reservation. In the dispute the Lac Du Flambeau Band barricaded several roads on their reservation over unpaid easements that grant public access to the road for non-Natives. The article on Representative Tiffany’s website weighs in by questioning whether the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa even have rights to the land:

 But is the Lac du Flambeau reservation really the tribe’s land? After all, the Sioux Indians occupied the area until the Chippewa Indian ancestors of the Lac du Flambeau tribe fought a bloody war against the Sioux and forced them off their land.

This ridiculous line of rhetoric has no impact on the legal status of the Lac Du Flambeau reservation, but is ultimately meant to undermine the indigeneity of the Lac Du Flambeau Band to the area. The incredibly banal “but tribes were fighting each other” argument also doesn’t hold the weight many think. Warfare between indigenous groups does not equate to the centuries of outright genocide, boarding schools, and cultural destruction non-Native politicians inflicted upon tribes like the Red Cliff Ojibwe. It’s also worth noting that this narrative leaves out the fact that European fur traders deliberately caused the rapid Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) expansion that helped push the Lac Du Flambeau into Siouan territory in the first place.

Additionally, the article seeks to undermine the very concept of Tribal sovereignty by claiming that since Tribal nations accept federal funding and are made up of U.S. citizens, they are not sovereign entities:

But as Pollard suggested, the tribe isn’t really sovereign. Natives born on the reservations are born with American citizenship (and are eligible for Social Security, Medicare, welfare, and other benefits) because they are born on United States soil.

This is also easily disproven by hundreds of years of United States Tribal Sovereignty Law, including recent developments such as McGirt v. Oklahoma that reaffirm Tribal Sovereignty.

Conveniently, the article makes little mention of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s perspective on all of this. One of their concerns was the lack of care city officials displayed for cultural resources and burials located near the roads in question. It isn’t even mentioned that city officials themselves were the ones who allowed the existing easement agreements to lapse, creating this problem in the first place. I guess none of that fits the narrative Representative Tiffany is looking for.

Curiously, the article places the blame for everything on the shoulders of the federal government. Why? Not because of the land theft, cultural erasure, genocide, or broken treaties, but apparently because the federal government holds land in trust for Tribal nations. In the article its implied that this can be “fixed” only through the abolishing of the BIA, pulling of federal funds, and complete independence of Tribal nations, or complete deference to the U.S. Government. Needless to say, this is not a viable path forward.

The Verdict

Can we expect good-faith consultation from someone who features blatant misinformation and racist tropes on their campaign website? I really can’t say. I hope Representative Tiffany will come to his senses and do the right thing, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. All too often Native voices are drowned out in the planning of conservation projects. Sometimes Native people use resources on the land beyond the scope envisioned by conservationists. Sometimes we want more autonomy and decision-making power than being an ad slogan or interesting tidbit on a plaque. Sometimes we’re just “inconvenient” for the people writing these proposals. Regardless, I hope the Red Cliff Ojibwe get the information they requested and meaningful consultation can take place; their input is more than warranted.

Let’s strive for a better future for our National Parks, instead of repeating the mistakes of our past.

If you enjoyed this article, go ahead and put your email below to get more like it right to your inbox!