Need help understanding impact of WI budget on hunting

please help me understand the budget issue and the restructuring of the advisory board. One of the more constant bitches I hear from people is how the DNR wrecked deer hunting, or the DNR won’t stock fish, and so on.

Is the concern that an anti hunter politician will be elected and forever change WI hunting? On the flip side what if a pro hunter is elected and expands hunting? Who makes up the board that is there currently, and do they support sound management practices or is it filled with a bunch of wolf loving libs bent on intervention…..(no offense to any wolf loving Libs, just a “hot button” example)

As you can see I don’t know why this is bad and the old way is good or vs versa.

Can you clarify?

Cheers
Kyle

Good luck

The current structure requires representation in setting the DNR policy from a variety of geographic and stakeholder perspectives while preventing the foxes from guarding the hen house. The proposed changes would subject DNR policy to the whims of a single political appointee that may not be qualified in any aspect of resource management.

Qualifications of members of natural resources board are detailed within the Wisconsin State Statutes, Chapter 15.34:

At least 3 members of the natural resources board shall be from the territory north, and at least 3 members of the board shall be from the territory south, of a line running east and west through the south limits of the city of Stevens Point.

At least one member of the natural resources board shall have an agricultural background. The governor may request statewide agricultural organizations to submit recommendations for nominees under this paragraph. The requirements of this paragraph apply to individuals who are members of the natural resources board on May 1, 2017, and thereafter.

At least 3 members of the natural resources board shall be individuals who held an annual hunting, fishing, or trapping license, in this state or another state, in at least 7 of the 10 years previous to the year in which the individual is nominated, except as provided in subd. 2. The governor may request statewide organizations that are primarily interested in supporting hunting, fishing, or trapping to submit recommendations for nominees under this paragraph. The requirements of this paragraph apply to individuals who are members of the natural resources board on May 1, 2017, and thereafter.

No person may be appointed to the natural resources board, or remain a member of the board, who receives, or has during the previous 2 years received, a significant portion of his or her income directly or indirectly from holders of or applicants for permits issued by the department under ch. 283, except that this paragraph does not apply to permits issued under s. 283.33.

The majority of members of the natural resources board may not derive a significant portion of their incomes from persons who are subject to permits or enforcement orders under ch. 285. Each board member shall inform the governor of any significant change in the income that he or she derives from persons who are subject to permits or enforcement orders under ch. 285.

Current members are:
http://dnr.wi.gov/about/nrb/members.html

In the future when board members are appointed based on their related corporation’s campaign donations it’ll all sort itself out.

Dave Lozier wrote:

In the future when board members are appointed based on their related corporation’s campaign donations it’ll all sort itself out.

Ok, but from what I read on it, this board would only be advisory to the DNR Secretary and no longer directive so it may not matter who is on the board as whomever is put in charge of the DNR would be responsible for management practices and policy.

Spending the majority of my adult life in the Air Force with multiple political appointees being named to the Secretary of Defense position I have seen politics impact the mission to the benefit as well as detriment. I don’t know that any of that would be different via decision via advisory board.

Good point – I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. There’s another post around here in regards to state park funding. Sadly I think this may be a sign of things to come.

http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/willow-river-state-park-could-disappear-forever/

Sorry Mike, not looking for the political “I don’t like this because its Walker” as Gov. I would like to be informed and be able to speak about the merits/drawbacks of this particular issue.

As stated I have worked under the policies of politicians on both sides and weather the change was good or bad depended on which side of the political spectrum you are on.

If I am going to call my representatives on this I would like to be semi intelligent on the subject and not partisan.

I agree with Mike! To me it seems like most politicians are to easily influenced by campaign contributors, it’s the only way the can play the politics game. I would prefer to eliminate the opportunity for a person to gain monetarily by recommending our resources be used in a certain way.

That being said, if the plan goes through as I understand it, I believe Kyle is right the NRB board will be a “looks like transparency and citizen involvement” rubber stamp for the govenor, regardless of party.

I have a few mixed feelings on this entire proposal based on what I have been able to find and read so far. I think the the first objective is aggressively being gone after – and that is to reduce government size and involvement. But the complexity of what has been created since the first game restrictions in 1851 is nearly indescribable. The entity of the WI-DNR has grown to the point of often the right hand appears to have no clue of what the left hand is doing. There are so many different departments and responsibilities that I often question how they can affectively operate. Back in the late 90’s, there was a couple attempts to split the DNR into different agencies…and yet it has grown since.
Like so many others, I’m concerned on the who will be in charge and what kind of personal agenda will they try to implement. On the other side, there are things that need to be fixed, and more accountability for financial responsibility. Since 1990, WI has been aquiring land for public use. During budget debate in 2014, the DNR told legislators that the program is costing taxpayers $1.6 million a week in interest costs. (JSonline) Yes, access to 560,000 public acres is great- but I can’t afford to pay anymore fees or taxes to help fund this.

Another example – I put an addition on a home a few years ago that bordered a conservancy (near a river). You would think that was pretty simple. We hired the appropriate people to evaluate the site, the impact, and very ornate details to protect the land. Because the footing level was below the creek bed depth, our surveyor had to fill out some DNR forms and submit. From there, things just spiraled out of control. Wildlife study, impact on fish, pollution, hazardous material run off….and that went on and on. REALLY??? In every case, someone stopped out to the site and shook their head in disbelief that they wasted their time – and our money.

I believe something needs to be done to streamline processes, reduce government size, control costs, accountability for spending, and a lot more. But we have allowed this to grow into such a complex nightmare that there will never be an easy or short term solution. Any political party that tries to address this is pretty much doomed. They will need to propose or ask for something so much larger in hopes that when its settled that the mid-range is where we end up.

Thanks Randy, that is the type of information and insight that I am looking for.

The current system is not perfect as we all know, I just don’t know if what is being proposed to address the shortcomings is the answer. Accountability at one person may be a good start. The DNR Secretary appointed by the Governor (IMO) may be able to address issues like your head scratching examples more quickly. On the flip side this same person could be convinced to close down an entire area to hunting and recreational use because of some endangered species that spends two weeks a year in that location.

And, I whole heartedly agree with reduced size of government as well.

Republican or Democrat as GOV, I just don’t see them appointing someone to this job that is not knowledgeable in management especially in WI where the participation in outdoors is a major issue for many citizens. Most professional managers rely on the department heads for technical guidance and those folks should be your “long term” employees. I would hope they are experts in their fields and can help the DNR Secretary make sound decisions. If not, well there is always the next election cycle.

usafcatm, just a few more random pros and cons I thought of.
Let’s ASSUME all departments are split into their own agency and streamlined.

How do you assure that communications take place at appropriate times between different agencies?
How do you prevent over-reacting and assume other agencies will address issues that cross agency lines?
We now have a general society that is “all about me and what I want – screw you” Sop how do we prevent all users of our resources are represented equally?

When a previous Governor re-directed DNR funds to the general state funds, why wasn’t he stopped? Is this a major contribution to the mess that we are now cleaning up years later?

How many of the following can be consolidated, stand alone, put into an existing catagory,…..and so on????

Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Council
Council on Forestry
Natural Areas Preservation Council
Nonmotorized Recreation and Transportation Trails Council
Small Business Environmental Council
Snowmobile Recreational Council
Sporting Heritage Council
State Trails Council
Groundwater Coordinating Council
Invasive Species Council
Council on Recycling
Lake Michigan Commercial Fishing Board
Lake Superior Commercial Fishing Board
Lake Michigan Commercial Fishing Board
Wisconsin Waterways Commission

General divisions =
Air, Waste, and Remediation & Redevelopment
Customer & Employee Services
Enforcement & Science
Forestry
Land
Water

I’m not saying that any one of these is less important than the other. We just have a lot of people in the general population that ASSUME that everything is “just taken care of”….but by whom??? Many people don’t understand how much we (Wisconsin) is very committed to protecting our resources. Yet, over 10 million tons of sodium chloride is dumped on our roads. That has to be good for the environment????? It melts snow/ice, drains into the cracks/faults in concrete, refreezes and pop the concrete in a major way. Granted, it keeps tax dollars flowing into road construction and we never hear much about the impact of the acitic level of our lakes…”must be acid rain from China”

Ahhhh, yes the politics of our DNR…. Many moons ago when my Board President (I was a private Golf Club Manager) was the Chairman of the Natural Resources Board (NRB), the Gov. at the time took monies needed to help balance the budget out of the DNR coffers (part of our walleye issue). Then same Gov. installed into the budget the rule allowing the musky season to start early in the Northwoods. I was pretty disappointed that was “slipped” into the budget. My friend also was relieved of his duties as the Chairman, so he resigned.

Then our newest gov. friend came around and stuffed the teachers union, and appointed a private sector individual with no biological background to the Secretary of the DNR. I thought, well why not for a bit… maybe someone with a business perspective can do it… Then we got past the recall, the deer czar, etc. to where we are now. I was ok with the doings of the new guy as governor, but like the gov. before him, now we are trying to sneak things past the constituents in budgets and that’s something I don’t like at all.

As I see it, the politics doesn’t belong in natural resources. All of our outcrys of no walleyes, no deer are exactly what we asked politicians to do for us. We are putting ten’s of millions of dollars into projects that may or may not reap any benefits at all, we blame the biologists of all people… All the politicians want to do is what people want done, not what Ma Nature is going to do on her own. Can we stop the upswings or downswings of the grouse, woodcock, walleye or deer… how about snow geese, CWD, etc. Should get together with some of the biologists working for ya with a beer after hours once they believe that you will not narc on them, they’ll tell ya some stories.

IMHO, the NRB and Conservation Commission were a part of biological existence that was truly WI, the only state in the US that used such a system, and to watch it disappear or disappearing is truly a disappointment!!!

Mark

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES – Walker’s proposal
Here is the link to Wisconsin Public Radio – Scroll down and the entire budget with no editting is available to read for EVERY department

The Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources is pages 377 through 402

http://www.wpr.org/guide-whats-scott-walkers-new-budget-proposal

Thanks again Randy, I read through the whole thing and the only reference to the advisory board was this:

6. Natural Resources Board Modification
The Governor recommends eliminating the rule-making and policymaking powers currently vested with the Natural Resources Board and converting the board to an advisory council.

In short I still don’t understand why this is a bad thing or what was so special about the advisory board even though WI was the only state doing it.
So, I guess I am not convinced the sky is falling, management by committee can be an effective way to get things done but can also be an inhibitor to progress. Just look at DC and our current situation. Has the board really been an effective means of management of our DNR resources?
As mentioned above about the redirection of DNR funds, mismanagement of the deer herd, lack of stocking, head shaking environmental regulations, etc… all this happened during the reign of the advisory board. Not saying any of this could have been managed better with a single person in charge but maybe it could have been.

One board that I keep thinking about that in my opinion should be eliminated with extreme prejudice is the Met Counsel in Minneapolis. Non-elected members (appointed like the advisory board) who are able to use their influence in all sorts of ways unintended by the electorate they are supposed to serve.

In response to politicians that should not be making our DNR policy….way to late in the game for that. Public policies are what the politicians do, they make the laws that the department heads work from to manage their programs by enforcing via policy / law (i.e. limits, hunting hrs, seasons, etc). Without politicians and the policies they create at the bequest of the constituents we do not have Federal, State, or local parks. As another example just look at the AIS sticker issue in MN, members are calling and writing their representatives (politicians) to address the issue. Yes I know it was caused by the same representative body at the request of other constituents (LOA members) however it’s the politicians who are expected to address the issue. Bottom line your vote counts, use it wisely.

There clearly has been good and bad. But I think more of the “bad” came from over-reactive individuals pushing policy rather than utilizing the fielded voice of the public through our public hearings.
As an example, the entire CWD was pushed down our throats at the hearings. No one listened to the public on this. We had states like Colorado, WYoming,..that had already been down the road and made their mistakes. Rather than applying lessons learned, they pushed on and repeated so many of those mistakes.

I personally don’t want to see this entirely change. I appreciate our system where you can write a citizen resolution, present it and have it potentially move on.

Page 62 on here is important to me, and i feel many others

http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/spring_hearing/2015/2015SpringQuestionnaire.pdf

Randy,

You’re confusing the Conservation Congress with the Natural Resources Board. The former is not at issue, the latter is.

WV, I guess I didn’t spell it out the way I was thinking. It is the last box to the right on the bottom of the page:

All questions and results from the
annual convention in May are then
forwarded to the Natural
Resources Board as advisement
from the Conservation Congress

I’m just concerned that the proposed change will prevent our grass root efforts from being fulfilled.

I get your drift now. That makes sense…cutting the Natural Resources Board out of the policy stream reduces the potential infleunce of the CC.

EXACTLY If this change happens, I question having TWO advisories – WCC TO Natural Resources Board to then bring recommendations to the powers to be.

Lawmakers abandon Scott Walker’s proposed changes to DNR board

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/key-committee-to-take-up-scott-walker-budget-proposals-b99481087z1-299779721.html

With an ever increasing population what do you think is going to happen to public resources?? They are going to get whittled away little by little.