No more DNR?
When a group of hundreds of retired DNR employees from all facets within the agency gets together and sends a letter to lawmakers explaining why this proposed breakup of the DNR is a bad idea, it seems it should make one sit up and take notice.
After all these people worked within the system and know what it's like, were dedicated to their jobs, and most importantly don't have any skin in this issue. Why do you think they would band together to voice their collective opinion in this manner?
P.S. EDIT: now even the Secretary has actually spoken and is against it too. How long before she's run out for speaking up?
Obscene, Disgraceful........... Sigh. Tim T just about any time you disagree with anything that the current administration studies or proposes you come up with these over the top characterizations. You certainly are entitled to your opinions but you are making a lot of assumptions on these topics that are not necessarily true. Tone it down and get a grip.Mrt.
Yes, the costs will be huge for us taxpayers. Entire new agencies will have to be formed among other things. I see where a group of 6 previous DNR Secretaries and one asst' Secretary, who served either before it became a Governor appointed post or served under Governor's of either party have signed a joint letter opposing this idea.
The worst part of this scheme is that it would also dissolve the Natural Resources Board. In case one is not aware it they who give the OK or thumbs down to DNR activities/proposals, etc. Who do you think would have final say then?? I shudder to think of the consequences of this obscene, ill-thought idea.
Sorry to burst your bubble but wasn't the "environmentalist whackos" of the DNR that had different zoning regs from the rest of the state. It was counties and lake associations that agreed upon more restrictive than state regs. Particularly Washburn Co. was less than happy with this underhanded tactic. Everyone there was OK with he regs they had. Now, you said local should have more say than the state. Which is it? Does this clarification make any difference? If the State now has say on shoreline zoning, rather than Cos., who do you think drew up the regs that are now in effect? I'm guessing it wasn't the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs or the Corrections Dept.
Tim better to have regulated uniform shoreline standards across the state instead of environmentalist whackos employed in our WDNR deciding their own standards. It had gotten absolutely out of control under Doyle's WDNR. As far as I'm concerned it should all be local control though.
something i haven't seen posted yet, is that with the split come the rising cost of everything attached to thos differet entities. Permits, licenses,forestry products. they will all need there own motorpools, offices and so on. Food for thoufght.
Interesting to hear your thoughts on zoning issues. Are you aware that in the last budget the state removed local zoning laws and made them uniform statewide. Locals have no controls anymore on this issue. I'm talking about shoreline zoning issues.
Ising pollution as an excuse to bully tax paying landowners into non developement on their own property is inexcusable. It was standard business under Doyle's WDNR. The WDNR should be working for the citizens of Wisconsin not against them. A split of all aspects of the WDNR would be a great start. Fish and game should worry about fish and game. Water quality should be in charge of water quality. Forestry should be in charge of the forests not deer populations. Make each entity responsible for its own tasks and watch them very closely for abuse. And zoning issues should only ever be handled by local entities,county or city or town zoning that can essentially be voted on through elections or recalls.