Conservation Congress in proposed budget at risk ??

I was told by a friend in Madison that the original draft of the state budget called for the Wisconsin Conservation Congress to be disbanded. So I called my state representatives in Madison. They knew nothing about the budget changes until the budget became public. I then called the Governors office. They would not offer any minutes from budget meetings of any kind. They suggested I file a freedom of information request. Which I did. The current issue of Wisconsin Outdoor News reports that Tom Tiffany is behind the changes to the DNR in the state budget. So I contacted him via facebook. He told me that "Gov. Walked drafted the proposed budget. Not me." At this point I was a little confused. The DNR staff had no idea of the changes proposed in the new budget. They were not consulted about the changes. Despite the open records laws in Wisconsin, no open records are available about who added the drastic changes to the DNR in the budget. Who in Madison wants to disband the Wisconsin Conservation Congress ?? Who stopped it from being in the budget ? Why are there no open records of budget meetings???

So it comes down to who we trust to make the decisions regarding our natural resources. As a scientist myself, I would favor the use of science in the decision making processes. I am, however, aware that there is a significant minority of people who do not view the scientific process as legitimate. So scientists are often attacked when their conclusions come up against what someone's pre-conceived notion was. It has always been that way, and there has always been debate between scientists as well. What is statistically significant numerically is what is legitimate in my mind. I guess I am more concerned about the scientists from the DNR who are losing their jobs this time around. Less scientific research, and more power to those with strong opinions poses a problem in my mind. In the end, short of evidence that is statistically significant, most of what is bantered about is simply opinion and/or conjecture. Given that this proposal is a change, the burden of proof should be on those who want to make the change. They need to show why their idea is the better idea. We did not get a chance to debate this prior to elections, so it will be interesting to see if we can have a legitimate debate now. Time will tell. And Kudos to all who care about the environment and our outdoor sports (like the organizations Mick stated and others).

Chemist thank you for the link. traditionally there has been bipartisan support for protecting the states natural resources. I can't get the link to post but many outdoor groups oppose the changes that are proposed Both the conservation congress and George Meyer have stated that the loss of authority constitutes a decrease in public input. And that is what many people think. There is an actual change in the NRB's authority. Even Robin boss is concerned about freezing the stewardship fund.Meyer, thinks the loss of the science positions will hurt the DNR in it's ability to manage both game and non game populations. Chemist, be sure to let your state reps know how you feel. This need not be a political issue.

Apparently this poll shows pretty broad, bipartisan support from the actual voters in Wisconsin with respect to funding for conservation. In my experience both friends of mine who are very far right and very far left on the political spectrum seem to feel the same when when we talk. (Yes, I talk to and actually listen to people with a diverse opinion of issues.) Here is the link. Please read it prior to firing off a comment ripping me, as seems to be the trend on lake-link message boards. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/poll-finds-large-support-for-state-spending-on-conservation-in-wisconsin-b99464705z1-296729761.html

Mick, read the facebook page for the wisconsin conservation congress and there position on the proposal. I'm sure there official position is located other places as well. Its spelled out as plain as it could possibly be. The proposed budget STRIPS the NRB of any policy making and puts it directly in the hands of political leaders. Allowing deals to be consummated behind closed doors without any public vetting. And yes this happens all the time. Again doing away with these checks and balances saves the state nothing.The term Streamlining government is an absolute joke. More and more conservation groups across the state are signing on as opposed.

Mick despite your rhetoric the conservation congress and the wisconsin waterfowl asociation. Believe that it would curtail the NRB's authority and oppose it. Your free to believe want you want and exspress those views to your state reps. As are those who don't support this. If you want more information go to the websites of groups that you trust,make up your own mind and act accordingly.

Mick you have the right to your opinoin and the right to laugh at me if you want. The fact remains this limits the authority of the NRB. Read the recent letter from the president of the cc to the gov.

Thanks Mick. For proving my point. The last comment in your thoughtful post reveals your agenda. I respect your opinion but clearly it is more political than anything else. The NRB will now only be advisory. That means less public input. Listen to what George Meyer former Dnr head under Thompson has to say. Lets get the politics out of this. Your comment about streamlining is clear. Hows about this get it out of the budget and lets put it on a referendum?

Ok Mick The DNR is the enforcement agency so if they weaken the DNR what happens? And what is happening now with frack sand? And Gogebic Mining complained that some people in the DNR are still "green". We need balance. The budget also cuts a number of science positions. Mick I respect your rational approach to this but in the end it comes down to values. I am not a protecionist but I want all voices to be heard. Why is the NRB now to be only advisory?

Redhook so are you in favor of making the NRB only advisory or not? You are right this is only a proposal but it weakens public input.

agreed redhook talking cost, not price ... fluctuations in price are certainly factored in before a project is green lighted