Please be aware that a bill is currently moving through the House Judiciary Ad Hoc Committee on Restructuring that would remove the DNR board and replace it with a Cabinet position. This would further politicize the group responsible for managing South Carolina’s natural resources as well as remove any oversight from its constituents.

Please read the email below from Cary Chamblee about this as well as the response from the South Carolina Wildlife Federation:

From Cary Chamblee: A bill, H. 4736, by Representative Jim Harrison was introduced last week that will remove the DNR Board and replace it with a Secretary appointed by the Governor. This gives SCWF great concern because it would remove access to DNR from hunters, fishermen and sportsmen. Important decisions about our beloved sports and our out of doors would be made by one person, a political appointee. The SC Wildlife Federation made comments at the first hearing last week and these comments are summarized below.

Please help save our DNR Board and our outdoor heritage by contacting your friends in the legislature and calling, emailing the committee and coming to Columbia on Wednesday to speak up for our voice at DNR. You may also wish to inform the members of your organization of this proposal. This may be the last opportunity for public input in the House. Click on H.4736 above for a copy of the bill.

Comments on H.4736 Restructuring DNR — House Judiciary Ad Hoc Committee on Restructuring

We are very concerned about this bill and oppose putting the DNR in the Cabinet, and swapping the Board for a single politically appointed Secretary.

DNR was restructured in 1994 under a restructuring law that took months to craft, with the input from user groups and stakeholders from many backgrounds and diverse interests. The current system, providing for a Board appointed by the Governor, and an Executive Director chosen from among conservation professionals is working quite well and should be retained. This system already has great influence by the Governor, but retains a link to constituents and user groups.

Hunting, fishing and boating is a $1.8 Billion industry in SC. These sports are enjoyed by well over one million outdoor enthusiasts. This is big business which is important to the economy and to the lives, jobs and well being of a large portion of our population.

DNR is a highly complex agency requiring expertise in many fields and disciplines. It is responsible for the management and protection of thousands of species of animals and plants, hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat and outdoor recreation areas, boating access and safety, law enforcement, fishery management, wildlife management, marine science,water management, conservation best management practices, and much more. Each of these areas come with their own constituencies, histories, traditions, problems, funding sources and complexities. It takes a lifetime of work in these fields to become proficient and even highly educated and seasoned professionals learn constantly. This is no place for a political appointee.

One way that DNR maintains contact with its varied constituencies is through advisory boards, each of which is chaired by a DNR Board member.This provides for an excellent conduit for information to travel from the outdoors enthusiast to the Board and to the legislature.

We are also concerned about politicizing DNR’s Law Enforcement Division. Their officers are in place to enforce game and environmental laws and must be free to do so without fear of undue influence and reprisal.

Removing the DNR Board would diminish its stature in government. It should be a high profile, somewhat independent agency.

One criticism of the current structure that we would offer is that DNR Board Members can be removed from the Board without cause. We recommend that the law be amended to allow removal of Board members only for cause. They should be free to make decisions of policy without fear of removal.

Changing direction every four years with the change of governors would cause inconsistency in direction and inefficiency. We are also concerned that an appointee without an appropriate background or experience could foul-up great programs and progress that took years to attain.

In summary, this is an agency that works well, and in this case, the risks of change far outweigh any perceived benefits. We hope that you will carry this bill over and allow for further study and greater input from DNR’s constituents.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!