Testimony of Todd Ambs Befroe the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Fish, Game and Outdoor Recreation.
My name is Todd Ambs. I am the executive director of the River Alliance of Wisconsin. The River Alliance is a statewide conservation organization. Our mission is to protect and restore the 40,000-miles of rivers and streams in this state.
I wish to testify today in strong opposition to the notion of splitting up the DNR. I believe our organization is somewhat unique in that our membership represents a broad cross section of outdoor lovers – from paddlers and kayakers to anglers and hunters. Some jokingly refer to us as the AC/DC of the conservation movement – our membership definitely goes both ways.
So I found it quite instructive recently to discover that there appears to be no sentiment whatsoever among our membership to support another reorganization of the DNR. In fact, our board unanimously voted to oppose any such effort to split the agency into separate environmental and fish and wildlife agencies.
"There is simply no getting around it. Our natural resources are so intertwined, the needs so connected, that we must have fish and game managers sitting down at the same table with other conservation and environmental professionals."
I believe our opposition is strong for three main reasons:
This proposal to split the DNR is not cost effective. There
is an old adage that two can live cheaper than one. That is most
certainly the case here. If you split DNR and separate the fish and
wildlife functions you will create the need for two houses, two infrastructures,
two lines of bureaucrats, two sets of supervisors.
In short, the numbers don’t add up – or maybe that is the problem – the numbers just keep adding up. When a proposal was last floated to split the DNR in 1991 the estimate of the cost of that split was put at $3.8 million per year in additional overhead plus 81 additional positions to maintain the same level of service. Michigan split into separate environmental and conservation agencies three years ago. The result – they took $4 million away from front line conservation and environmental programs just to cover the increased overhead.
I also have some direct experience with trying to work with a split bureaucracy like this. For twelve years I worked in conservation issues in Ohio. During that time I served as the spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and later as the executive director of the statewide river protection group there. In Ohio, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency handles most of the regulatory responsibilities. When I was at the DNR, we spent hours upon hours in meetings, committees, and interagency summits – all with one goal in mind. To try to figure out how these two agencies could better work together to protect our resources. There are nearly 6,000 state employees in Ohio -- all charged with the protection of the natural resources and the management of fish and wildlife. Yet, it was not uncommon to have the attorney general’s office in court representing both the DNR and the Ohio EPA because they were on the opposite sides of a legal issue – in some case even suing each other. Issuing a fish advisory in Ohio is such a bureaucratic morass that four agencies have to handle the task and often the fish biologists – those who should know the most about the topic – aren’t even involved in the exercise.
This move to split off the fish and wildlife functions would also in the end harm the very species we are trying to properly manage. The reorganization of the DNR is painful, has involved some choices that our organization did not necessarily agree with, but in the end has succeeded in getting DNR staff to look at natural resource issues in a more holistic way. This newly reorganized DNR tree is only now beginning to bear fruit. It is way too early to even consider cutting it down.
Science today tells us that the only way to protect rivers is by protecting the watersheds they flow through. Biodiversity is the scientific term of art these days – the idea that we must look at the diverse types of flora and fauna and realize that they are all interrelated.
Whatever you want to call it, the fact is we couldn’t split the fish and wildlife functions away from the rest of natural resources even if we wanted to.
If we have no forests, we have no deer.
If we don’t control polluted runoff, early trout season debates will be meaningless because there won’t be any trout.
Without proper toxic waste disposal, erosion controls and riparian buffer strips, the only wild turkey we will hunt in the future will be found in a bottle.
"Michigan split into separate environmental and conservation agencies three years ago. The result – they took $4 million away from front line conservation and environmental programs just to cover the increased overhead."
There is simply no getting around it. Our natural resources are so intertwined, the needs so connected, that we must have fish and game managers sitting down at the same table with other conservation and environmental professionals – looking at these issues holistically – as part of the same agency.
If there are concerns about how the money contributed to the state through the purchase of fishing and hunting licenses is being spent then address that issue – as the Governor and the DNR have attempted to do in the proposed budget. But don’t take this drastic step.
In closing, the members of the River Alliance of Wisconsin believe this proposal is not cost effective, is certainly not species protective, so we urge the Subcommittee to be reflective, gain some perspective and reject the split the DNR directive.
Thank you. I’d be happy to try to answer your questions.
