But a significant number are troubled by what they see as political influences on natural resources management, and more than a third feel that recent DNR reorganization has hindered rather than helped the agency fulfill its mission.
Those were the messages from an informal survey of people attending the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Sport Show, held March 13 - 22 in Milwaukee’s Wisconsin Center. The survey, which drew more than 2,200 responses, was conducted by the Wisconsin Stewardship Network, a recently formed statewide coalition of conservation and environmental organizations.
Almost 75% of the respondents agreed with the statement that "in general, the DNR staff is dedicated to protecting Wisconsin’s air, water, land and wildlife." Nine percent disagreed with the statement, and 14.5% were unsure.
One respondent said: "To me, it seems the DNR has always been effective. Whenever I go out into the woods or when I go fishing, I see evidence of the DNR’s work."
In 1996, the Governor was given direct power to appoint the DNR’s chief executive, the responsibility previously of a citizen board. Also in 1996, the duties of the Public Intervenors Office were substantially reduced, and during the past two years the DNR has been reorganized.
Those changes left the people of Wisconsin with a weaker voice in natural resources decisions, according to 45% of the survey respondents. Nineteen percent felt the people’s role was strengthened by the changes, while 35% felt there was no change.
Since the changes, political influence on the state’s natural resources management has been unacceptable, 36% said, while 25% called the political influences acceptable and 39% were not sure.
"Politicians have too much influence," one respondent said in a written comment. "The DNR is not able to make decisions based on solid scientific research, but rather is dictated to by politicians." Another said: "All decisions are now subjected to political whim. We won’t always have a governor who cares about hunting and fishing."
Resource protection has become less effective since the DNR reorganization, according to 35% of the respondents, while 15% felt the DNR was more effective and 29% felt there had been no change.
Since the removal of the watchdog function of the Public Intervenor’s Office, resource protection has become less effective, 43% said, while 9% said it was more effective and 24% felt it was the same. "Without the public intervenor we have no clout," said a respondent.
Asked who was hindering the DNR staff in protecting natural resources, 27% said politicians, 19% mentioned business and industry, 18% listed animal-rights groups, 11% said gun-control advocates, 10% said DNR administrators, 10% listed environmental groups and 5% said hunting and fishing groups.
Many respondents who gave written comments cited specific environmental or wildlife problems, but others seemed to feel that resource protection and management were showing good results.
"Waterways appear cleaner," one said. "Endangered species are coming back strong," said another. "More people are aware of how fragile the resources can be," was another comment. And one respondent said: "Game supply is up, poaching is more in control, communication is better."
And finally, one person knew things were getting better because "My pet deer, Chucky, is safe now."