MADISON - While the elephant in the parlor destroys the hunting heirlooms of a dozen generations, Wisconsin's conservation leadership pursues with great passion appointment authority of the Department of Natural Resources secretary to the Natural Resources Board. More on the elephant later.
Since 1995, the governor has appointed the DNR secretary, a circumstance that critics argue makes the incumbent subject to undue influence from political elements. Having the NRB select the secretary will take politics out of the mix, supporters Assembly Bill 138 say.
It is almost laughable to listen to some advocates for the bill. Like a mugger complaining about crime in the streets, Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, waxes indignant about the lack of independence within the agency, which has supposedly led to untold damage to the environment. A life-long politician, Rep. Black never passes up an opportunity to heap scorn on political opponents, including a governor three administrations removed from the current office holder.
"Once we pollute an aquifer, destroy a natural area, or wipe out a species," Black opines in a recent editorial, "repairing the damage is difficult and expensive, at best, and often just impossible."
How many times have such environmental catastrophes occurred over the past 15 years? No one, it seems, is able to present examples of such environmental devastation, yet the urgency of this matter has everyone stoking the fires of reform.
Moreover, how should we rate the performance of the last three DNR secretaries, serving as they were at the pleasure of the governor? George Meyer, Scott Hassett and Matt Frank are hardly chopped liver. While roundly criticized for their support of Chronic Wasting Disease and Earn-a-Buck policies, are we to believe political interference had anything to do with any misguided decisions the latter two may have made?
Conversely, a highly influential seat on the governor's cabinet will be lost, thus shifting the balance of power not only to the Natural Resources Board, but also to the legislature.
Critics claim DNR secretaries lack the knowledge necessary to lead efforts at environmental protection and game management. The same could be said for the NRB itself. At a recent NRB meeting, one veteran member had to be coached on the meaning of the term NRCS being used by a presenter. That would be the Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency having in depth and widespread involvement in environmental protection for decades.
No doubt, there is wide support for the bill. The premise under which the bill accrued this support may be flawed, however. The governor will continue to appoint members to the Natural Resources Board; hence, politics as usual.
I've been getting e-mails for the last month from many notable outdoor organizations and individuals in Wisconsin promoting AB 138. Instead, I would rather they spent their political capital (there's that word again) confronting the assault on the Stewardship Program that occurred during the most recent budget process.
An agreement worked out during the previous budget cycle required the DNR to make available a directory of all land that was purchased with stewardship funds and that was open to the public. The agency was also required to provide a list of all stewardship land acquired before Oct. 27, 2007 for which public access had been prohibited or restricted and the reason for the restriction or prohibition.
The 2009-2011 Budget Act repealed both these requirements. Now, Senator Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, has introduced legislation to restore those important access-related requirements.
The Kedzie proposal would also reverses the part of the budget bill that specifies that a stewardship project proposal subject to review by the Joint Finance Committee (greater than $750,000) will automatically be approved unless a majority of members vote to modify or deny the proposal. Thus, current law acts to reduce the likelihood of legislative oversight of planned purchases.
According to Sen. Kedzie, "Prior law made no mention of a majority of JFC members in attendance at a meeting, which raises questions as to how that provision will be used and if that is the appropriate standard for legislative oversight."
While we champion a cause for which significant positive outcome is doubtful, no one is paying attention to important issues affecting our right to hunt, fish and trap on public land.
Great idea to limit political influence, but taking the politics out of the DNR is like trying to take suds out of soap.
- Lee Fahrney is the Monroe Times outdoors writer. He can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
Since 1995, the governor has appointed the DNR secretary, a circumstance that critics argue makes the incumbent subject to undue influence from political elements. Having the NRB select the secretary will take politics out of the mix, supporters Assembly Bill 138 say.
It is almost laughable to listen to some advocates for the bill. Like a mugger complaining about crime in the streets, Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, waxes indignant about the lack of independence within the agency, which has supposedly led to untold damage to the environment. A life-long politician, Rep. Black never passes up an opportunity to heap scorn on political opponents, including a governor three administrations removed from the current office holder.
"Once we pollute an aquifer, destroy a natural area, or wipe out a species," Black opines in a recent editorial, "repairing the damage is difficult and expensive, at best, and often just impossible."
How many times have such environmental catastrophes occurred over the past 15 years? No one, it seems, is able to present examples of such environmental devastation, yet the urgency of this matter has everyone stoking the fires of reform.
Moreover, how should we rate the performance of the last three DNR secretaries, serving as they were at the pleasure of the governor? George Meyer, Scott Hassett and Matt Frank are hardly chopped liver. While roundly criticized for their support of Chronic Wasting Disease and Earn-a-Buck policies, are we to believe political interference had anything to do with any misguided decisions the latter two may have made?
Conversely, a highly influential seat on the governor's cabinet will be lost, thus shifting the balance of power not only to the Natural Resources Board, but also to the legislature.
Critics claim DNR secretaries lack the knowledge necessary to lead efforts at environmental protection and game management. The same could be said for the NRB itself. At a recent NRB meeting, one veteran member had to be coached on the meaning of the term NRCS being used by a presenter. That would be the Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency having in depth and widespread involvement in environmental protection for decades.
No doubt, there is wide support for the bill. The premise under which the bill accrued this support may be flawed, however. The governor will continue to appoint members to the Natural Resources Board; hence, politics as usual.
I've been getting e-mails for the last month from many notable outdoor organizations and individuals in Wisconsin promoting AB 138. Instead, I would rather they spent their political capital (there's that word again) confronting the assault on the Stewardship Program that occurred during the most recent budget process.
An agreement worked out during the previous budget cycle required the DNR to make available a directory of all land that was purchased with stewardship funds and that was open to the public. The agency was also required to provide a list of all stewardship land acquired before Oct. 27, 2007 for which public access had been prohibited or restricted and the reason for the restriction or prohibition.
The 2009-2011 Budget Act repealed both these requirements. Now, Senator Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, has introduced legislation to restore those important access-related requirements.
The Kedzie proposal would also reverses the part of the budget bill that specifies that a stewardship project proposal subject to review by the Joint Finance Committee (greater than $750,000) will automatically be approved unless a majority of members vote to modify or deny the proposal. Thus, current law acts to reduce the likelihood of legislative oversight of planned purchases.
According to Sen. Kedzie, "Prior law made no mention of a majority of JFC members in attendance at a meeting, which raises questions as to how that provision will be used and if that is the appropriate standard for legislative oversight."
While we champion a cause for which significant positive outcome is doubtful, no one is paying attention to important issues affecting our right to hunt, fish and trap on public land.
Great idea to limit political influence, but taking the politics out of the DNR is like trying to take suds out of soap.
- Lee Fahrney is the Monroe Times outdoors writer. He can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
