New act could dampen conservation efforts
Conservation has never been completely isolated from politics in Wisconsin.Even when the Wisconsin Conservation Commission was formed in the 1920s, its members were selected by the governor.
But since 1995, when the governor assumed the power to appoint the head of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the slippery slope principle has been on display.
The DNR has become increasingly staffed by political appointees and, arguably, the state's natural resources agenda has become increasingly dictated by lobbyists and legislators.
Legislation approved earlier this summer injects even more political control over natural resources issues and threatens one of the state's conservation traditions.You may not have heard of it, but get ready to say it: Act 21.Introduced in January by the Joint Committee on Organization and approved by the Legislature in May, the act gives the governor new power over administrative rules and requires an economic analysis of all proposed regulations.
The result: Act 21 will double the time to enact an administrative rule, according to a DNR review.
And it may require the spring hearings - formally known as the Department of Natural Resources Annual Spring Fish and Wildlife Rules Hearings and Wisconsin Conservation Congress Annual County Meetings - to change its name.Starting next year, the spring hearings may be held on a less than annual basis.
"We're looking at options," said Rob Bohmann of Racine, chairman of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. "For now, it looks like we'll have to make some changes, at least."
Act 21 places unprecedented power in the hands of the governor."Scott Walker's coronation is complete But is it necessary or desirable for a governor to approve even a change in hunting season dates or fish bag limits?The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation has been the only conservation group to speak in opposition to Act 21."Not only will it unnecessarily delay rules for fishing, hunting and trapping, but it will cost the fish and wildlife account," said George Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
Meyer said DNR staffers will bear the burden of the extra work brought on by Act 21.
"Is it necessary to do an economic analysis for the change in a fishing size limit?" Meyer said. "The DNR staff is stretched enough without the extra work this act brings."
The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation proposed a DNR exemption for parts of Act 21; however, none was included in the legislation.
Now that Act 21 is in place, it's natural to question the impact on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
It's hard to see how it helps the 77-year-old organization. Act 21 could prompt even more politicians to attempt to change DNR rules and regulations through legislation at the Capitol, further eroding the influence of the congress and the Natural Resources Board.
The congress has suffered from poor attendance at the spring hearings in recent years, including 5,575 this year. Wisconsin has over 1 million licensed hunters and anglers.
Wisconsin has held the spring hearings in April since 1984; before that, the date varied. But there always was an annual meeting. The meetings allow state citizens to elect local delegates, introduce resolutions and vote on proposed changes to conservation and environmental rules and regulations.
Bohmann said the congress' executive committee is scheduled to meet Sept. 2 to discuss the ramifications of Act 21.
The congress is likely to consider a range of options for the spring hearings, including: holding them every other year; holding a fisheries hearing one year and a wildlife hearing the next; or continuing with an annual congress meeting but incorporating DNR rules changes only every second year.
There's nothing wrong with a review of any rule that has the potential for significant economic impact on business.
But the political blanket of Act 21 is too broad and threatens to suffocate a conservation body and process that has served the citizens of the state well for more than 75 years.
Regardless of your view of the current administration, the implications and precedent of Act 21 should concern conservationists for the time when an anti-hunter, anti-angler or anti-trapper takes the governor's seat.
But since 1995, when the governor assumed the power to appoint the head of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the slippery slope principle has been on display.
The DNR has become increasingly staffed by political appointees and, arguably, the state's natural resources agenda has become increasingly dictated by lobbyists and legislators.
Legislation approved earlier this summer injects even more political control over natural resources issues and threatens one of the state's conservation traditions.You may not have heard of it, but get ready to say it: Act 21.Introduced in January by the Joint Committee on Organization and approved by the Legislature in May, the act gives the governor new power over administrative rules and requires an economic analysis of all proposed regulations.
The result: Act 21 will double the time to enact an administrative rule, according to a DNR review.
And it may require the spring hearings - formally known as the Department of Natural Resources Annual Spring Fish and Wildlife Rules Hearings and Wisconsin Conservation Congress Annual County Meetings - to change its name.Starting next year, the spring hearings may be held on a less than annual basis.
"We're looking at options," said Rob Bohmann of Racine, chairman of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. "For now, it looks like we'll have to make some changes, at least."
Act 21 places unprecedented power in the hands of the governor."Scott Walker's coronation is complete But is it necessary or desirable for a governor to approve even a change in hunting season dates or fish bag limits?The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation has been the only conservation group to speak in opposition to Act 21."Not only will it unnecessarily delay rules for fishing, hunting and trapping, but it will cost the fish and wildlife account," said George Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
Meyer said DNR staffers will bear the burden of the extra work brought on by Act 21.
"Is it necessary to do an economic analysis for the change in a fishing size limit?" Meyer said. "The DNR staff is stretched enough without the extra work this act brings."
The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation proposed a DNR exemption for parts of Act 21; however, none was included in the legislation.
Now that Act 21 is in place, it's natural to question the impact on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
It's hard to see how it helps the 77-year-old organization. Act 21 could prompt even more politicians to attempt to change DNR rules and regulations through legislation at the Capitol, further eroding the influence of the congress and the Natural Resources Board.
The congress has suffered from poor attendance at the spring hearings in recent years, including 5,575 this year. Wisconsin has over 1 million licensed hunters and anglers.
Wisconsin has held the spring hearings in April since 1984; before that, the date varied. But there always was an annual meeting. The meetings allow state citizens to elect local delegates, introduce resolutions and vote on proposed changes to conservation and environmental rules and regulations.
Bohmann said the congress' executive committee is scheduled to meet Sept. 2 to discuss the ramifications of Act 21.
The congress is likely to consider a range of options for the spring hearings, including: holding them every other year; holding a fisheries hearing one year and a wildlife hearing the next; or continuing with an annual congress meeting but incorporating DNR rules changes only every second year.
There's nothing wrong with a review of any rule that has the potential for significant economic impact on business.
But the political blanket of Act 21 is too broad and threatens to suffocate a conservation body and process that has served the citizens of the state well for more than 75 years.
Regardless of your view of the current administration, the implications and precedent of Act 21 should concern conservationists for the time when an anti-hunter, anti-angler or anti-trapper takes the governor's seat.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment