Natural Resource Planning in Wisconsin

Jared Wehner
11.04.2011

I am a land use planning student, so I was curious as to what processes the Wisconsin DNR was taking to manage their lands. After looking on their website I came across their method of planning. Their form of planning is a systematic approach, which isn’t a surprise, because the DNR is all about hard sciences. In their way of planning they have a lack of major public input; this is a characteristic of that form of planning.
One can argue that the DNR is the steward of the land and is therefore the expert; though many would disagree. As shown on the Wisconsin DNR website, the planning process first starts with identifying the goals that would be best suited with that parcel of property, by the experts. After that is completed then they go to the public for input, but only to develop an alternative plan by the department. As we have learned, with an educated public, wouldn’t it be a more effective approach to the planning process to involve the public in the planning process?
There are several ways to allow for this to happen without too much interruption to the planning process. One of the ways is to assign planners to the regions in Wisconsin that the DNR has already created (North, West-central, South Central, Southeast, and Northeast) and these planners would oversee the planners for the sub-regions. Each sub-regional planner would be a representative for the people living and using the land there. They would be in direct contact with the people, learning and listening to their story so that they may come up with a more effective plan on how to manage that sub-region. It would be the equivalent to having a county warden. By establishing a system such as this there would be a face to the DNR creating better public relations and enhanced public trust. To keep the system in check there would be a biannual survey mailed out to the residents of the sub-region asking about their satisfaction about the management of the state lands around them. The results would then directly affect pay or employment of the sub-regional and regional planners. Granted, this is a simplification, but how effective would this be in today’s society?
I understand there are some downfalls to a system such as this besides the costs of overhauling the structure of the DNR in Wisconsin. One of those downfalls would be that the sub-regional planner could interpret the wants, needs and desires of his or her constituents, and have a bias as to what should happen with a particular parcel of land, which in theory should be taken care with the biannual survey. Another concern would be that the process would be taking a more political stance, with the sub-regional involved in more decision making on allocating resources. Again, the surveys should balance that issue out. In every system there are going to be failures and inefficiencies, but the only way to truly find those is by trying these new systems out and adapting to public input.
In the end, the Natural Resources Board has the final say of the plans that are brought forth, which is another balance in the system, but it would only be a true balance if the board was either elected or appointed by the sub-regional and regional planners creating the checks and balances feedback.
By creating such a system the Wisconsin DNR can be a true steward of the land while keeping the public involved and represented throughout the whole process allowing for that trust to be built and further action to be taken to preserve and conserve the natural resources that the state of Wisconsin has to offer.