The writer, Dr. David Lonzarich, is an associate professor of Biology at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, and member of the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.  The views expressed here are not necessarily  those of these organizations.

This is the same proposal recently rejected by the state Joint Finance Committee, and roundly criticized by the public (at two public hearings) and natural resource groups (including Trout Unlimited and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress).

From around the state news headlines read "DNR split finds few supporters" (Leader-Telegram, 5/16), "Proposed DNR split needs more study" (Green Bay Gazette, 5/16).  As a close follower of this debate, I have not read one compelling argument nor heard one natural resource group speak in favor of this proposal.  Yet, we stand on the verge of dismantling what is generally recognized as one of the top natural resource agencies in the country.  Is this really what we want? 

It was under the watch of the DNR that Wisconsin became the first state to achieve fishable, swimmable waters under the Clean Water Act, ban the sale of DDT and reduce acid rain emissions.  For all of its flaws (and what government agency is not flawed), the DNR still does a very good job protecting the state's natural resources and environmental quality.

Conceding that there are problems with the DNR that need fixing, I stop well short of agreeing that we are ready to discard the current structure for the alternative.  Remarkably, however, the state assembly is ready to do just that even though there have been no formal recommendations, and only very limited input, from professional resource scientists and affected public user groups.  Is this the way to achieve the solution that proposal supporters claim is in the best interests of the Wisconsin public and its natural resources? 

Consider some of the possible implications of this proposal.  On the one hand, in separating natural resource and environmental programs, we lose one of the DNR's chief virtues: the integration of fish and wildlife management with the protection of land and water quality.  We also risk creating an inefficient and redundant bureaucracy that could ultimately mean higher costs to taxpayers.  In Michigan, where a similar split took place, overhead expenses increased by $4 million, this according to Wisconsin assembly minority leader Spencer Black. 

So where do we go from here?  My advice - if you oppose the proposal on its merits or if you think we deserve a more open and thorough debate on the future of natural resource protection in the state, then call or email your assembly representative today.  Remind them that we must have a fair opportunity to hear about and to speak out on this topic. 

David Lonzarich

1738 Coolidge Court

Eau Claire, WI 54701

(715) 831-9133