Future of DNR at stake
As ever in early January, the view of the trail ahead is like a Wisconsin landscape covered with a fresh snowfall, a blank slate waiting for tracks to form the stories of the new year.
It’s natural to feel a mix of optimism and anxiety when contemplating the future.
In these first days of 2017, however, I have a greater concern than ever for the fate of the Department of Natural Resources.
Although some like to call it “Damn Near Russia,” as a lifelong hunter and angler I’ve always considered the DNR my ally in protecting and managing the state’s natural resources.
But the last few years, especially, the agency is under the influence of legislators who see it not as an asset to the state but as an object to squash.
This year the department faces an unprecedented agenda of change.
Responding to legislative demands, the DNR last year introduced a reorganization plan to “better align its staff and resources.”
The agency spent more than a year and likely thousands of hours of staff time planning the realignment.
Before it could even implement the proposed changes, in late December a plan by Rep. Adam Jarchow (R-Balsam Lake) was unveiled to draw and quarter the agency.
Although details aren’t set, it could include splitting off state parks to the Department of Tourism, sending forestry to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection and creating a new agency for environmental programs.
Gov. Scott Walker didn’t endorse the plan but said it was “interesting” and that his staff was working to weigh its merits.
Such a significant proposal for change to such important programs must be held to the highest levels of scrutiny.
Will it result in higher costs rather than “improved efficiencies”? Will it help or hinder fish and wildlife management? Or is it fundamentally designed to reduce protections and increase exploitation of the state’s natural resources?
The DNR also worked over the last year to fulfill a legislative request for a report on the agency’s Fish and Wildlife Account.
Lawmakers tasked the DNR to produce “recommendations for program reductions and hunting and fishing fee increases necessary to ensure revenue from hunting and fishing approval fees is sufficient to cover the cost of fish and wildlife management activities.”
The account, which gets nearly 90% of its revenue from hunting and fishing license fees and receives no general tax dollars, has had an annual shortfall of about $4 million in recent years.
The $4 million gap is mostly due to declining hunting license sales and increased operating costs, according to the agency. For example, the price of forage fish at state hatcheries and fleet costs for state vehicles have both risen by more than 40%.
The DNR report did an excellent job describing the agency’s programs and funding challenges as well as presenting options to the Legislature.
To cover the shortfall, the Legislature could, for example, enact a onetime license fee increase or establish a periodic increase tied to inflation.
It could also begin charging bird-watchers, hikers and other visitors to state wildlife areas.
Or it could require a registration fee for nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes.
Or it could simply eliminate the discounted licenses put in place through Assembly Bill 311 in 2012. The legislation created a $5 license for first-time or lapsed hunters and anglers. But 80% were unaware of the discount and would likely have purchased the license anyway. If the discount was discontinued, the DNR would take in $2.28 million more each year, according to an agency estimate.
The DNR included dozens of examples of programs put in place in other states. In recent years, for example, both Michigan and Minnesota have increased license fees. Minnesota in 2008 also instituted a sales tax to benefit conservation.
Here in Wisconsin, the Legislature has not raised the price of core hunting and fishing licenses since 2005; others have stayed static for much longer, according to the DNR.
The report noted public support has generally been good for a license hike, including 62% of voters at the 2016 spring hearings held by the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation has recommended a license fee increase for at least six years. More recently, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association also have supported higher fees. Change is inevitable. In the area of license fees, it’s past time for the Legislature to make publicly supported modifications to bolster funding for critical fish and wildlife programs.
A split of the DNR or any other idea conjured up by a legislator will require open, honest, thorough and intelligent consideration.
As evidenced by the discounted license program, even well-intentioned legislative initiatives sometimes turn out badly for the DNR.
If you, like me, value clean air and water, abundant public lands and healthy fish and wildlife populations, make sure to contact your elected representatives and tell them your future votes ride on their ability to ensure any changes at the DNR will be for the better.