DOCSLIB.ORG

The Concept of Tourism Capacity in Door County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Concept of Tourism Capacity in Door County September 2019 The Concept of Tourism Capacity in Door County ou’ve seen and heard it numerous times the number of visitors to Door County Yover the years: beaches closed, traffic is straining our environment, producing backed up the hill entering Sister Bay, no dangerous traffic conditions, overloading place to park, and the continuing call for our infrastructure, and creating economic more workers and affordable housing. hardships by “pricing-out” local residents in many places. Rental companies and Such experiences are not isolated. Crowds properties have increased the supply of of cell phone photographers in Fish Creek, rentable rooms throughout the peninsula, Ephraim, and Sister Bay causing traffic increasing lodging capacity and bumping slowdowns, “where-to-park?” parking up rents for existing residents. So goodbye problems, and affordable housing, even trampling on public if it ever existed in Door and private property, County. all to get the “perfect” sunset photo. Not only are business trends contributing to This phenomenon turning paradise into is known as “mass paradise lost, social tourism,” and like media is at work as the many festivals well, with Instagram in Door County, Sister Bay Photo by Mike Bahrke and Facebook pages and suddenly mass tourism groups leading tourists is everywhere. A combination of economic to clog vital roadways in search of the factors and business trends has led to more perfect photo, and sites such as TripAdvisor, visitors crowding onto the Door Peninsula. Yelp, and Google making restaurants, The relatively recent, large increase in hotels, beaches, lighthouses, and parks more 1 “discoverable” and thus “ruinable.” Local was much more limited until recently Door County residents have complained as commercial mass tourism has been about tourists for decades, and the tourists encouraged and developed. Mass tourism have frequently disrespected, thronged is the traffic jams, the lack of parking, the to, and damaged the natural beauty of the trampling of fragile natural habitats, and the peninsula for as long as tourists have been traffic accidents, among others. Fish Creek, visiting Door County. Ephraim, and Sister Bay accommodate only so many people, and summertime now seems All of this has local residents around the like a test to find out just how many that is. peninsula asking, “Are we loving Door Where is the tipping point? County to death?” What is Our Door County Tourism Capacity? Our Resources Are Finite Perhaps it’s time to begin thinking about Most would agree that our resources the concept of capacity in Door County? here in Door County are finite. Our air, This will be a very unpopular idea to many groundwater, surface water, capacity to people as new businesses, of course, need handle human waste, providing adequate new customers, or they draw from existing and safe parking, maintaining and improving businesses. What responsibility does the our roads, among others, are finite. We Door County Visitors Bureau bear? Perhaps cannot just keep increasing the number of rather than using the room tax to promote visitors every year by leaps and bounds. only increased tourism, part of the tax should But how much is enough? While we want be used to reduce or redirect tourists to a tourism-related businesses to do well, given location and provide these locations perhaps it’s time to discourage the new with revenue to improve infrastructure and business boom, at least in northern Door repair the damage that tourists inevitably County? Is everything about a quick buck cause. Perhaps the county, towns, and for today with no thought of the future? villages should better regulate tourism rather than just promote it. These regulations stand The Great Door County Balancing Act to become even more important in the future as travel becomes even more popular and Door County is now one of the Midwest’s affordable for more people. premier tourism destinations, attracting around 2 million visitors per year. In 2017, Mass tourism itself is a media phenomenon visitor spending in Door County increased that became apparent in 2017 with wall-to- by $10.9 million, or 3.14% over 2016. Since wall coverage of the problems in Venice, 2009, visitor spending is up 39.5%, an Amsterdam, Colorado, and elsewhere, increase of $101.6 million over 9 years. In helping to drive backlash against tourists as 2017, state and local tax revenue generated well as blowback to the blowback. by visitor spending in Door County increased by $1.1 million, or 2.95% over As for the blowback to the blowback, 2016. Mass tourism is a new thing and a some concerns about mass tourism may be very big thing. overblown and many local complaints about visitors may not be valid. While many tourist Tourism, as we now know it in Door County, destinations such as Orlando and Las Vegas 2 may have no problem with the number of Implications of Ecotourism visitors they receive, Door County is not Disney World nor the Vegas Strip. However, ourism is a major factor of the travelers and their investment remain vital to Tlife, economy, and challenges the Door County economy. And while many of Door County. Let’s explore what areas in Door County are not overcrowded, transmogrification from the current state of the problem is mostly one of villages, parks, tourism to ecotourism might look like and beaches, and roads being overwhelmed. What how it might come about. to do? Statistics from the Door County Visitor Our concern about too many people wanting Bureau show that the amount of money to visit Door County may draw complaints poured into the Door County economy from some, but inevitably increased tourism continues to rise, as does the number of will mean more complaints from local rooms available and the number of rooms residents, more environmental damage, more occupied each year. This raises the obvious and longer lines, increased cost of living, question: where does it end? The Door and more bad behavior. Do we keep bringing County Peninsula north of Sturgeon Bay in more people until we have gridlock is bounded by water, not geographically and permanently impair or destroy our capable of infinite expansion. The geologic environment? Do we just keep increasing the structure includes Niagara dolomite with number of tourists until people have a lousy karst physical structure, making protection time here, and decide not to return? Where of the groundwater a challenge. People are the jobs and money then? The long-term come to Door County for the arts and crafts, money is in protecting our environment and cultural activities, beautiful parks and views, the natural wonder of Door County. access to beaches and water sports, and to retire. But as the appetite for enticing This is not about being anti-business, but more tourists to spend time in Door County rather this is a call for long-term balance and seems to be insatiable, the available space to quality of life for all. Yes, increased tourism accommodate them increasingly encroaches also means more investment and greater upon what makes Door County an attractive exposure to the beauty of Door County, destination in the first place. Meanwhile, but do we really need another restaurant or highway expansion projects, while arguably campground? This is a matter of capacity and make travel safer, seem oriented toward balance, especially with new Door County increasing the traffic to and from the businesses. peninsula. Already, employing and housing adequate support staff for businesses in Is there too much of a good thing in Door Door County has become increasingly County and are we loving the Door County challenging, and of course bringing in more peninsula to death? Maybe it’s time to do waitresses, housekeepers, groundskeepers, something about it. etc. adds to the human footprint on this finite By Mike Bahrke peninsula. Resources: According to the Door County Visitor Door County Visitor Bureau, Wikipedia, Condé Bureau, visitors spent some $366.6 million Nast Traveler, The Atlantic, CNN. in Door County in 2018 compared to $257.1 3 million in 2009. And the county collected by Green Global Travel: $4,115,300 in taxes from goods and services compared to $2,903,389 in 2009. State 1. Build environmental and cultural and local taxes generated revenue of $38.8 awareness million in 2018 and $29.4 million on 2009. 2. Design and operate low-impact eco tours What these figures don’t tell us is the cost and facilities to the state, county, and its communities 3. Provide financial benefits for to provide services to its residents and conservation visitors as a result of this influx of people 4. Provide financial benefits for local people and vehicles over those periods and the net 5. Support human rights, economic economic impact. empowerment, and democratic movements in the area. Human waste, including both organic and synthetic waste substances, can quickly What would this look like in Door County? threaten the surrounding environment by First let’s recognize what we have. Door introducing foreign substances and chemicals County “is home to five state parks, nineteen to streams, rivers, soils, groundwater, and county parks, and a large number of local the air. As human populations grow, so too parks, nature preserves, and state natural does the consumption of goods, and in turn, areas for recreation” (Door County Visitors the generation of waste products rapidly Bureau). We have performance arts, hands- multiplies. The increase in traffic poses its on arts education, live music and concerts, own environmental threats. At what point art galleries and studios, arts and crafts, and does attracting more people to the peninsula several cultural venues. That’s a good start, become self-destructive? and preserving and enhancing those resources is key to embracing ecotourism as a goal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wisconsin Wisconsin
    LAKE WINNEBAGO WATERSHED (WI) HUC:04030103 Wisconsin Wisconsin Rapid Watershed Assessment Lake Winnebago Watershed Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help landowners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. Wisconsin October 2007 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 1 LAKE WINNEBAGO WATERSHED (WI) HUC:04030103 CONTENTS o g a b e n n i W e k a L INTRODUCTION 3 COMMON RESOURCE AREA DESCRIPTION 4 ELEVATION MAP 5 LAND USE AND ANNUAL PRECIPITATION MAPS 6 ASSESSMENT OF WATERS 7 SOILS 9 DRAINAGE CLASSIFICATION 10 FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION 11 HYDRIC SOILS 12 LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION 13 PRS AND OTHER DATA 14 CENSUS AND SOCIAL DATA (RELEVANT) 15 ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE 16 RESOURCE CONCERNS 17 WATERSHED PROJECTS, 17 STUDIES, MONITORING, ETC WATERSHED ASSESSMENT 17 PARTNER GROUPS 18 FOOTNOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY 19 2 LAKE WINNEBAGO WATERSHED (WI) HUC:04030103 1 INTRODUCTION The Lake Winnebago watershed is located in east central Wisconsin and surrounds the largest lake in the state, Lake Winnebago, which covers 137,708 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of the Lake Winnebago System [PDF]
    Lake Winnebago System (includes tributaries up to the first dam or barrier impassable to fish) SHAWANO Spencer Creek Shawano Willow Dam Creek School W Branch Shioc River Mill Rose Section Creek Pella Dam Brook Creek Schoenick Slab City Lake Creek Green East Branch Bay Clintonville Shioc River Dam Wolf River Mink Pigeon Creek River Herman WAUPACA Shioc Creek River Embarrass Black River Toad Creek Creek Scandinavia Millpond Dam Ogdensburg Millpond Dam Manawa Peterson S Branch Millpond Dam OUTAGAMIE Creek Little Wolf River N Fork S Branch Little Wolf Little Wolf River Sannes River BROWN Skunk Bear Creek Lake Lake Bear Creek Weyauwega Fox River Millpond Dam Black Otter Lake Waupaca Dam River Spencer Walla Walla Lake Creek Rat Little Lake Austin Hatton River Creek Creek Alder Butte des Morts LakeCreek Magdanz Poygan Creek Lake Arrowhead WAUSHARA Poy Sippi Winneconne Creek Millpond Dam Pine River Lake Daggets Butte Creekdes Morts Neshkoro Willow Millpond Dam Creek Pumpkinseed Spring Creek Creek Lake Sawyer Auroraville Waukau Winnebago Creek Millpond Dam Fox River Creek WINNEBAGO White River Barnes Creek Germania Rush Lake Puchyan Marsh Dam River Black Snake Creek MARQUETTE Creek W Branch Green Lake Fond du Lac Outlet Dam Mecan River River Oxford Montello Millpond River Dam GREEN Dam Lake Puckaway LAKE E Branch Buffalo Fond du Lac River Lake Parsons Creek Neenah Grand Campground Creek River Kingston Creek Fox River Dam COLUMBIA Dam or impassable barrier 6/07 Park Swan Lake Dam Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geography Fox-Winnebago Valley
    WISCONSIN GEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY E. A. BIRGE, Director W. O. HOTCHKISS, State Geologist Bulletin XU! Educational Series No. 5 THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE FOX-WINNEBAGO VALLEY BY RAY HUGHES WHITBECK Pro/ellor 0/ PhYliography and Geographu Uniuuluu 0/ Wilconsin ivm MADISON, WIS. PuBLISHED BY THE STATE 1915 "scolaln 68010glcal and Natural History Surve, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EMANUEL L. PHILIPP Governor of the State. CHARLES R. VAN HISE, Pusident. President of the University of Wisconsin. CHARLES P. CARY, Vice-President State Superintendent of Public Instruction. JABE ALFORD President of the Commis&ioners of Fisheries HENRY L. WARD, Secretary President of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. STAFF OF THE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION: EDWARD A. BIRGE, Director and Superintendent In immediate charge of Natural History Division. WILLIAM O. HOTCHKISS, State Geologist. In immediate charge of Geology Division. LILLIAN M. VEERHUSEN, Clerk. GEOLOGY DIVISION: WILLIAM O. HOTCHKISS, In charge. T. C. CHAMBERLIN, Consulting Geologist, Pleistocene Geology. SAMUEL WEIDMAN, Geologist, Areal Geology. E. F. BEAN, Geologist, Chief of Field Parties. O. W. WHEELWRIGHT, Geologist, Chief of Field Parties. R. H. WHITBECK, Geologist, Geography of Lower Fox Valley. LAWRENCE MARTIN, Geologist, Physical Geography. E. STEIDTMANN, Geologist, Limestones. F. E. WILLIAMS, Geologist, Geography and History. NATURAL HISTORY DIVISION: EDWARD A. BIRGE, In charge. CHANCEY JUDAY, Lake Survey. H. A. SCHUETTE, Chemist. DIVISION OF SOILS: A. R. WHITSON, In charge. W. J. GEIB,* Inspector and Editor. GUY CONREY, Analyst. T. J. DUNNEWALD, Field Assistant and Analyst. CARL THOMPSON, Field Assistant and Analyst. C. B. POST, Field Assistant and Analyst. W. C. BOARDMAN, Field Assistant and Analyst.
    [Show full text]
  • 65Th Annual Tri-State Geological Field Conference 2-3 October 2004
    65th Annual Tri-State Geological Field Conference 2-3 October 2004 Weis Earth Science Museum Menasha, Wisconsin The Lake & The Ledge Geological Links between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Winnebago Joanne Kluessendorf & Donald G. Mikulic Organizers The Lake & The Ledge Geological Links between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Winnebago 65th Annual Tri-State Geological Field Conference 2-3 October 2004 by Joanne Kluessendorf Weis Earth Science Museum, Menasha and Donald G. Mikulic Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign With contributions by Bruce Brown, Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey, Stop 1 Tom Hooyer, Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey, Stops 2 & 5 William Mode, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Stops 2 & 5 Maureen Muldoon, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Stop 1 Weis Earth Science Museum University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley Menasha, Wisconsin WELCOME TO THE TH 65 ANNUAL TRI-STATE GEOLOGICAL FIELD CONFERENCE. The Tri-State Geological Field Conference was founded in 1933 as an informal geological field trip for professionals and students in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. The first Tri-State examined the LaSalle Anticline in Illinois. Fifty-two geologists from the University of Chicago, University of Iowa, University of Illinois, Northwestern University, University of Wisconsin, Northern Illinois State Teachers College, Western Illinois Teachers College, and the Illinois State Geological Survey attended that trip (Anderson, 1980). The 1934 field conference was hosted by the University of Wisconsin and the 1935 by the University of Iowa, establishing the rotation between the three states. The 1947 Tri-State visited quarries at Hamilton Mound and High Cliff, two of the stops on this year’s field trip.
    [Show full text]
  • Bayfield County Aquatic Invasive Species Strategic Plan
    Bayfield County Aquatic Invasive Species Strategic Plan “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” -Margaret Mead Acknowledgements Current Bayfield County Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Committee County Supervisors: Jeremy Oswald, Washburn William Bussey, Bayfield Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa: Mike Defoe, Assistant Fisheries Biologist, Red Cliff Treaty Natural Resources Division Town Board: Jim Krueger, Supervisor, Town of Namakagon Lake Organizations: Sally Pease, Friends of the Eau Claire Lakes Area, Barnes Nan Olson, Long Lake Property Owners Association and former Board Director of Bayfield County Lakes Forum (BCLF), Iron River Lake-Related Business Representative: Sarah Boles, Northern Native Plantscapes, Cable Past Bayfield County Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Committee County Supervisors: Kenneth “Bucky” Jardine, Port Wing Dennis Pocernich, Barksdale Jim Crandall, Drummond Dee Kittleson, Washburn Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa: Matthew J. Symbal, Fish & Wildlife Biologist, Red Cliff Natural Resources Dept. Town Board: Tom Thornton, Supervisor, Town of Grand View Lake Organizations: John Kudlas, Eau Claire Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc./Friends of the Eau Claire Lakes Area, Barnes Lake-Related Business: Cy Zaeske, King Realty, Cable Advisors to Committee Andrew Teal, Bayfield County AIS Project Coordinator Tim Kane, Bayfield County UWEX Community Resource Development Agent Mary Motiff, Bayfield County Tourism
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Lake Sturgeon on the Winnebago System - Long Term Impacts of Harvest and Regulations on Population Structure
    Management of lake sturgeon on the Winnebago System - long term impacts of harvest and regulations on population structure R.M. Bruch Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 2565, Oshkosh, WI 54904, USA Summary Since the early 1950's various studies have documented an increase in Winnebago sturgeon stocks from 11500 (>102 cm) in 1959 The Winnebago System, Wisconsin, supports one of the largest self (Priegel and Wirth 1975) to 25300 (>114 cm) in 1980 (Folz and sustaining stocks of lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in North Meyers 1985) and to 46500 (>114 cm) in 1989 (L.S. Meyers, America. Winter spearing harvest of the Winnebago sturgeon Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), personal population has been actively regulated since 1903 and actively communication). Harvest trends though, began to show a steady assessed since the 1940's. While historic population assessments decline in the relative number of trophy size (>45.4 kg) sturgeon have shown a steady increase in sturgeon densities in the system, speared each year since the early 1970's. Trophy size sturgeon recent surveys indicated overexploitation of adult females. From comprised 1.9% of the harvest between 1955 and 1969, falling 1991-97, 13714 sturgeon were assessed through harvest and through the 1970's and early 1980's to 1.3%, and precipitously over spawning surveys to characterize the status of the current the last 13 years to 0.3% of the harvest. Information from various population, and historical data from DNR files were reassembled population assessments conducted in the 1950's, 1970's and 1980's and analyzed to discern population trends over the last 40 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Door Peninsula and Its Geomorphology
    WISCONSIN'S DOOR PENINSULA AND ITS GEOMORPHOLOGY Howard De II er AGS Collection, UW-Mllwaukee and Paul Stoelting University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Door Peninsula of Wisconsin is one of the premier tourist regions of the American r~iddle West. According to a recent geography of Wisconsin (Vogeler et al 1986,8) , the region is best known for its picturesque sea­ scape, New England-style architecture, fish boils, and cherry orchards. Among geomorphologists, however, the region is known for the great variety of land­ form types and for the complex and changing geomorphological processes which have operated in the peninsula. Towering bluffs, sand dunes, lake terraces, abandoned beach ridges, swampy lowlands, and drumlin fields are only some of the many types of landforms to be found in the peninsula. Indeed, the region can be viewed as a unique geomorphological laboratory and an excellent example for classroom study. In this short paper an attempt is made to describe and analyze some of the more prominent landform features of the peninsula and the processes which have influenced their formation. LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Door Peninsula, located In northeastern Wisconsin. is part of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands province of the state. The peninsula extends in a northeasterly direction into Lake Michigan to separate Green Bay on the west from the main body of Lake Michigan on the east. The peninsula is approximately 64 miles long and about 26 miles wide on its southern end, between the mouth of the Fox River and the city of Kewaunee on Lake Michigan (Map I).
    [Show full text]
  • A Lake Winnebago Success Story
    WISCONSIN FISHING By The Numbers 15,000 lakes 42,000 miles of streams and rivers 1.4 million anglers 88 million fish caught by anglers $2.75 billion in economic activity $200 million in tax revenues for local and state governments 30,000+ jobs 21 million days that anglers fished 12 million fish stocked Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, American Sportfishing Association, 2008 A Lake Winnebago success story viding fishing opportunities for local resi- Dear “Cleaner and clearer”, the lake dents, destination fishing for out-of-state WISCONSIN aficionados, and an annual $234 million is becoming a walleye factory. economic boost for the five counties sur- ANGLER rounding Lake Winnebago and the other OSHKOSH. — Twenty years ago wall- lakes in the Winnebago chain -- Butte des Welcome to Wisconsin – home of the best eye fishing on Lake Winnebago stunk. Morts, Winneconne, and Poygan. The Fish are Waiting Literally. The secrets of that success? Arrowood and most diverse fishing in the country. We Wisconsin Anglers --- Plan those special days on the offer more waters than dedicated anglers Scant rain and snow in the late 1980s and state fisheries biologists point to three could fish in several lifetimes…an incred- dried up walleye reproduction and the main factors: water with the 2012 A Year of Fish calendar. ible array of fish to catch…and some rare fishing with it while goosing the growth Calendar includes: ones just to appreciate. Fishing is a corner- of smelly algae blooms, recalls Mike Ar- 1) DNR, local governments and citizen Important fishing dates, moon stone of Wisconsin’s culture and economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens) As Endangered Or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act
    Petition to List U.S. Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 14, 2018 NOTICE OF PETITION Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 14, 2018: Gary Frazer, USFWS Assistant Director, [email protected] Charles Traxler, Assistant Regional Director, Region 3, [email protected] Georgia Parham, Endangered Species, Region 3, [email protected] Mike Oetker, Deputy Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Allan Brown, Assistant Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Deborah Rocque, Deputy Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Noreen Walsh, Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the United States as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, the Center requests that the USFWS define and list distinct population segments of lake sturgeon in the U.S. as threatened or endangered. Lake sturgeon populations in Minnesota, Lake Superior, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas-White River and lower Mississippi River may warrant endangered status. Lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan and the upper Mississippi River basin may warrant threatened status. Lake sturgeon in the central and eastern Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin) seem to be part of a larger population that is more widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: a Second Iteration
    Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration (Revised September 2000) Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2301 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 759-8017 Copyright 2000 Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Toward A New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes In 1996, The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Program launched a collaborative initiative to identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. This initiative was precipitated by the Conservancy broadening its focus beyond just rare and endangered species and natural communities. The Conservancy recognized that to effectively protect the full range of biodiversity, conservation efforts must include those species and natural communities that are more common and representative as well as those that are declining or vulnerable. Taking an Ecoregional Perspective To address this shift in focus, the Conservancy oriented its work based on ecoregions—large areas defined by the influences of shared climate and geology, the main factors that determine the broad-scale distribution of plants and animals.1 The Great Lakes ecoregion—which includes major portions of Canada and the United States—is one of 64 ecologically distinct regions of the continental United States. For each of these ecoregions, the Conservancy is developing a detailed plan that identifies the places that need to be protected to conserve native biodiversity for the long term. At many of these places, local communities, private landowners and an array of public and private entities are already leading important conservation efforts. The Great Lakes ecoregional planning initiative is a systematic approach that identifies all native species, natural communities and aquatic systems characteristic of the Great Lakes region and then determines how many of and where these elements of biodiversity need to be protected over the long term.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Ecological Assessment for the Eastern Lake Winnebago Wildlife Areas
    Rapid Ecological Assessment for the Eastern Lake Winnebago Wildlife Areas A Rapid Ecological Assessment Focusing on Rare Plants, Selected Rare Animals, and High-quality Natural Communities Properties included in this report are: Brillion Wildlife Area Collins Marsh Wildlife Area Eldorado Wildlife Area Killsnake Wildlife Area Wisconsin’s Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 January 2011 PUB-ER-826-2011 Eastern Lake Winnebago Wildlife Areas Planning Group 1 Acknowledgments We extend our appreciation to Dick Nikolai and Josh Jackl, property managers at Brillion and Killsnake Wildlife Areas; Mark Randall and Steve Easterly, property managers at Eldorado Wildlife Area; Aaron Buchholz and Kyle Christianson, property managers at Collins Marsh Wildife Area; Ellen Barth; and Tom Hauge for their support and assistance. Primary Author: Richard Staffen Contributors: Craig Anderson – botany, rare plants Jeff Baughman – birds Julie Bleser – data management Susan Borkin – lepidoptera surveys Andy Clark – botany, community ecology Drew Feldkirchner – report contributions Kim Grveles – birds Joe Henry – community ecology Randy Hoffman – community ecology, birds Terrell Hyde- zoology data processing Christina Isenring – community ecology, inventory coordination Jeremy Martinson – birds Julia Martinson – birds Ryan O’Connor – botany data processing William A. Smith – zoology, invertebrate inventory coordination Rich Staffen – zoology data processing,
    [Show full text]
  • The Ho-Chunk Nation
    The Ho-Chunk Nation The Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, formerly known as the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe was known to the French of Quebec, Canada, as early as 1616. This tribe has remained and continues to be one of the strongest indigenous Nations in the United States. The Ho-Chunk originated at Red Banks which is the Door Peninsula on Green Bay and means “People of the Big Voice.” By the 1660’s, the Ho-chunk had suffered devastating defeats at the hands of their enemies along with famine and disease that reduced their population from 5,000 people to 1,000 people. Adapting to the fur trade during the French and British regimes in Wisconsin, their population increased and they began expanding West to Lake Winnebago and along the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers towards the Mississippi. Abandoning the Green Bay area, they established 30 villages and laid claim to large portions of Southwestern Wisconsin and into Illinois. They accepted the British as allies after the defeat of the French in North America and allied with them in the American Revolution, particularly the War of 1812. Part of the Ho-Chunk tribe signed their first treaty with the Americans in 1816 pledging loyalty and peace in return for land. Unfortunately, between 1825-1829, American settlers were pouring into Wisconsin due to the lead mines. Hostility broke out near Praire du Chen and the Winnebago, as they were then called by the government, and gave up a third of their land. Many treaties were forced over the next 50 years, until The Ho-Chunk reservation was established in 1875 and spread over Dane, Jackson, Juneau, Clark, Monroe, Sauk, Shawno, and Wood counties in Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]