'Covering' story from afar misses bad reaction to Green DNR plan

Candidate Mark Green got the story he wanted when he dragged out a tired old proposal to divide the state's Dept. of Natural Resources, the agency the right wing loves to hate.

But coverage neglected an important part of the story -- the chilly reception Green's idea got from the state's Conservation Congress, where he unveiled it.

DNR stood for "Damned Near Russia," the old curmudgeons used to say, because the DNR wanted to enforce some hunting, fishing, or environmental laws. "It's getting so a guy can't build an outhouse in his own wetlands. This kind of do-gooder, tree-hugging, liberal nonsense has got to stop."

Green's proposal, to split the department in two, plays right into that sentiment.

It's an easy hit, a cheap shot. Green no doubt thought the Conservation Congress -- the "redshirts" who hunt, fish, and trap.

So Green unveiled his proposal at the group's annual convention in Green Bay, his hometown, which attracted several hundred delegates chosen at county meetings across the state.

The Journal Sentinel front page story and the AP story noted that Green announced his plan at the event.

But it would appear that not a single reporter was present. The stories were written from news releases. Even the Green Bay newspaper used a wire story.

A reporter who had attended would have known that although Green got a pretty warm reception during his speech, and received strong applause several times, things cooled off.

When he got to the proposal to split the DNR, "there was initially stunned silence, then scattered boos," one person who was there told me. "When he first was introduced about 50 individuals in the group out of 350 stood to applaud. At the end of his speech there were two individuals.

"It would be safe to say that his introduction of the DNR split put a pall on the
audience. He had a large number of sportsmen and women come up to him later in the hall to indicate that they disagreed with him."

I was struck, in reading the JS story, by this rationale for splitting the agency:

He said he would split the agency to create a Department of Conservation, Forestry and Outdoor Recreation and a Department of Environmental Quality. The former would oversee state parks, fisheries, wildlife and forestry. The latter would enforce environmental laws and manage air and water quality.

The split would insulate conservation programs from politics and ensure that conservation funds are not spent on other efforts, he said.

The environmental secretary would be named by the governor, but the head of the conservation agency would be appointed by the Natural Resources Board, Green said.

"I want the decisions to be based not on politics but on science and the views of the Conservation Congress," he said.

So Green doesn't want conservation decisions being influenced by politics. But he does want decisions on environmental enforcement to be based on politics, apparently. Green, whose Congressional district includes the state's biggest polluters -- the paper industry -- wouldn't mind having environmental laws subject to political influence.

Why not just propose giving the right to name the DNR secretary back to the DNR board? That worked well until the day that Tommy Thompson decided he wanted to be able to influence decisions on pollution enforcement, and got the legislature to give him the DNR secretary's job as a cabinet appointment.

Doyle supports giving it back to the board to de-politicize it, but has not pushed to change it back because the Republican-run State Senate has refused to confirm his appointments to the DNR board, leaving GOP-appointed members in control. Doyle, understandably, wants his own board to be able to choose the next secretary if the change is made. If he's re-elected, perhaps he will finally get that opportunity.

Then there was this paragraph:

Green noted that the DNR, which spends about $500 million a year, is frequently in the middle of heated public debates. The agency tried to block Milwaukee festivals from launching fireworks from the island across the Summerfest grounds, but reached a compromise on the issue last year.

Perhaps the newspaper might have noted, as the AP did, that "the island across the Summerfest grounds" has become a state park, and the DNR was trying to maintain public access to it. That's a different story altogether.

The JS did point out that Green's idea wasn't exactly revolutionary:

The proposal resurrects an idea that surfaces in Madison from time to time.

In 2001, Gard and then-Sen. Robert Welch (R-Redgranite) tried breaking up the department, but then-Gov. Scott McCallum, also a Republican, vetoed the measure.

The DNR was once two agencies, but Republican Gov. Warren Knowles consolidated them in 1968 in an effort to make government more efficient.

In 1995, the Legislature gave Republican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson the power to appoint the secretary of the DNR - a move that Thompson said would make the DNR more responsive. Others said it made the agency more partisan.

Former DNR Secretary George Meyer applauded the idea of returning to the board the authority to hire and fire the DNR secretary.

In part to appease business interests, McCallum replaced Meyer, saying he wanted to have his own secretary running the agency.

To appease business interests? And Green wants to keep the environmental part of the agency political? Need I say more?