I absolutely oppose this idea and support Governor Doyle’s position.
In a move that would sharply weaken the powers of the governor to manage natural resources, the Assembly voted Tuesday to return authority to appoint the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources to a seven-member citizens board.
The Assembly voted 61-32 in favor of a bill that’s been pushed by conservationists and environmentalists since 1995.
The vote could put the Legislature on a collision course with Gov. Jim Doyle, who opposes an independent DNR secretary.
The DNR has incredible power in this state. They have authority through various permits to allow or deny development. They can render private property virtually worthless through wetlands declarations. They set the hunting seasons and parameters. Wardens have authority to detain people, enter homes, and seize firearms without a warrant. They have a LOT of power.
That’s why the head of the DNR must be politically accountable. In the current system the governor is elected and appoints the DNR secretary. If the public doesn’t like what the DNR is doing, they can hold the governor accountable. If we go back to an unelected board appointing the DNR secretary, there would be little recourse for a dissatisfied citizenry.
The environment is important and must be properly managed and protected, but it must be in balance with the other needs of the state, like jobs, industry, and commerce. That’s a balance more readily achieved with DNR secretary who is accountable to an elected governor than one who has no accountability to the citizens whatsoever.
Owen…
How do you feel about legislators making wildlife management policy?
Just curious.
Your pal…
Swamp
Generally speaking, I want someone who is elected or responsible to an elected person to make wildlife management policy. It’s too big an issue to give non-elected, unaccountable people the power to control.
Bear in mind, the Governor appoints the members of the Natural Resources Board, so all this does is move the Governor one step away from direct appointment. Thus, this notion that it gets politics out of the DNR is just ludicrous. The DNR will always be a politically-influenced agency, just like every other agency.
Oh, and by the way, changing it from a gubernatorial appointment to a Board appointment removes the ability for the Senate to offer its “advice and consent”. Thus, lawmakers are effectively abdicating their authority over this appointment and cutting the people of Wisconsin out of the process.
Nice.
How do they get away with grabing guns and entering your home with no warrent?
What’s the thought on electing this position (as opposed to governor appointment/citizen board) since this is a bit more significant than Secretary of State, or arguably Secretary of the Treasury?
We, the people need to have some way to combat the DNR. If this mean make the head to an elected position, I think that could be a good thing.
The DNR has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much power.
The DNR has way too much power and they still have the ability to screw up the potential conviction of 3 sick individuals who ran down deer with snowmobiles (the DNR law allowed the defense a loop hole by calling what they did as hunting).
Unlike the SOS or Treasurer, agency Secretaries are not constitutional officers.
Having elections for the DNR Secretary would not be a good thing. Just like WEAC has hijacked the DPI Superintendent, the Enviros would do likewise for the DNR Secretary.
Bad idea.
Doyle’s right. Whether he will veto the bill is unclear. Whether he can be sustained is also unclear. This is a measure of how lame he will be.
I think electing the board would be a good idea.
We need to have more conservation minded voters showing up to vote on a regular basis and this could do it.
The enviro wackos are loud and they are a tiny goofball minority, so I wouldn’t worry about their puny influence.