Governor
should chop DNR proposal
Veto
on splitting agency would prove McCallum can see forest through trees
Unless
Gov. Scott McCallum uses his veto authority, the Department of Natural
Resources will be out of the forestry business by this time next year.
Conservative
legislators led by Rep. John Gard, R-Peshtigo, have been trying to split
the DNR into a conservation agency and an environmental enforcement agency.
Basically they want to turn the clock back to the early 1960s, when the
old conservation department dealt with trees, fish and deer, and a separate
agency handled pollution laws.
Gard
didn't get the entire split he sought, but in the horse trading that went
on behind the closed doors of the budget conference committee he managed
to get a separate forestry department created.
In
a letter to the editor in Monday's Leader-Telegram, George Meyer, the DNR's
former secretary, wrote that this is a bad idea and that Gard and company
will continue whittling away at the DNR: "The provision's sponsors acknowledge
that this is the first step to splitting the remainder of these conservation
management functions. … This is a calculated move to reduce natural resources
protection in the state," Meyer wrote.
You
remember George Meyer: He is the former DNR secretary who was demoted for
the sins of being too outspoken and being better known than the governor.
At
a press conference Wednesday in Eau Claire, representatives of the Sierra
Club, Northern Thunder, Trout Unlimited and the Stewardship Network --
a coalition of state environmental and conservation groups -- warned that
the forestry split is just the tip of the iceberg.
They
said splitting off the forestry functions of the DNR is bad policy for
several reasons:
-
Separating
forestry will lead to a disconnect in forest management, with foresters
having poor communication with DNR staff working with recreation, endangered
species, fish and wildlife.
-
The new
department will be more expensive for taxpayers. Creating a new agency
requires a need for new office space, computers and new staff to handle
work that previously was shared jointly.
-
The public
doesn't want the split. At two hastily scheduled public hearings, 115 people
spoke against splitting the DNR, compared to eight who favored it. State
environmental groups and sporting groups have gone on record opposing it.
-
This was
a sneaky way of doing public business. A proposal to make major changes
to a state agency should be introduced as separate legislation rather than
slipped into the budget.
"This
is a split that was brokered in a backroom deal," said John "Duke" Welter
of Eau Claire, a representative of Trout Unlimited.
Welter
also is an elected delegate from Eau Claire County to the Conservation
Congress, a group created by state law to advise the DNR. The congress
holds public hearings each spring in every county.
The
Conservation Congress would have no authority to advise the new forestry
agency, Welter said. Moreover, the new department would not be governed
by the Natural Resources Board, a governor-appointed citizens board intended
to insulate natural resources decisions from the short-term whims of politicians.
State
forests are supposed to be managed for multiple uses, but environmentalists
are concerned that the new Forestry Department will look at forests mainly
in terms of timber production.
In
response to their concerns, Gard said Wednesday that people involved in
forestry management backed the split. He also said the forestry industry
was bigger than agriculture and tourism combined in Wisconsin, but unlike
agriculture and tourism, it does not have a separate department.
"Everybody
said we couldn't reform welfare, and we did," he said. "Everybody said
you can't send kids to private schools in Milwaukee, and we did. Everybody
is saying now you can't manage resources in more than one agency, and that's
just completely untrue."
Gard
said the proposal had nothing to do with campaign contributions he has
received from people in the timber industry.
"To
associate this with some sort of campaign contribution is just classic,
bitter, partisan politics," he said. "Forest products and forest management
are tremendously big issues in my area."
Gard
said environmentalists should listen to foresters, who care about trees
and support the DNR split to improve forest management.
"Maybe
they ought to stop hugging them for a while and look at how they're being
managed," he said.
The
Brule River State Forest and Flambeau River State Forest were established
mainly to protect wild rivers, a goal that may not be compatible with maximizing
timber production.
The
Black River State Forest is home to endangered Karner blue butterflies
and endangered timber wolves, and it soon may be the home of wild elk.
It also has high densities of both deer and deer hunters and has one of
the best cross-country trail systems in the state. Management that emphasizes
mainly timber production might neglect these other areas.
McCallum
got off to a shaky start with the state's conservation and environmental
community when he demoted Meyer. He redeemed himself when he showed some
leadership in getting wetlands protection last spring after a U.S. Supreme
Court decision left a portion of the state's wetlands unprotected.
Deciding
whether to veto the DNR split will be the biggest environmental decision
so far in McCallum's political career.
Knight
Ridder News Service contributed to this report. Knight, the Leader-Telegram's
Getting Out editor, can be reached at 830-5835, (800) 236-7077 or joe.knight@ecpc.com. |
