My good friend, Ray, from South Carolina sent along today’s highlighted article. Thanks, Ray!
This story is more than just another example of catching someone inappropriately using wildlife management funds. There are lessons here about wildlife management concepts that go beyond funding.
Watchdog works to stop deer funds from going to the birds is the title of this article and it starts like this:
Even John Madigan admits it isn’t exactly the crime of the century. But he wants Michigan’s deer hunters to know that money they’ve spent every time they bought a license hasn’t been used for its stated purpose. And he wants them to know it’s going to stop.
Madigan is a member of Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission, the group appointed to set game laws and serve as a watchdog over the Department of Natural Resources. Madigan is a resident of the Upper Peninsula, and his beef is with something called the Deer Range Improvement Program, or DRIP. Rather, the way the DRIP money has been spent.
Exactly $1.50 of each $15 Michigan deer hunters pay for a hunting license goes to DRIP. The fund was established in the 1970s with one main purpose: to buy northern Michigan land that contains “deer yards.” Deer yards are stands of evergreens that shelter and feed deer during harsh northern winters. That habitat is critical to deer survival, and by buying that land the state ensures it won’t ever be turned into golf courses or condominiums.
The article then goes on to explain that a portion of DRIP funds have been used for other purposes not related to deer. Instead, those dollars were used for the management of jack pine trees in order to “restore” habitat for Kirtland’s warblers.
I applaud Madigan for bringing this issue to light and, especially, for his intent to see that the problem is rectified. All Michigan sportsmen should contact the gentleman and let him know he’s on the right path!
There are, however, three important points that need to be addressed beyond that.
1. This is simply one more example of how critical it is that sportsmen keep an eye on those we have entrusted to manage our wildlife and wild lands. It is entirely too easy to move money around on the state and federal level and we need to make sure we’re getting what we pay for. This is becoming even more important because of reason number two.
2. Russ Mason is Michigan DNR’s wildlife division chief.
Excerpt:
Mason said the wildlife division will not only re-examine the DRIP manual, but also take a close look at all its management plans and see what it can do in an age of dwindling budgets to focus on the species that pay the bills through licensing, such as deer and ruffed grouse.
“You always hear people say we’re going to have to do more with less,” he said. “I’m tired of hearing that. We’re going to have to do less with less. Forcing the issue right now is a good thing.”
Let’s face it, folks, our country is undergoing tough economic times and no one – and I mean no one – is immune from the necessity to tighten up the belt.
Less dollars are going to be available to manage our wildlife and our wild lands so we must be absolutely certain that the dollars we pay are being used on the best projects for the most appropriate reasons.
3. We must also finally come to the understanding that “habitat improvement” is in the eye of the beholder.
Excerpt:
Russ Mason, the DNR’s wildlife division chief, acknowledged that even though jack pine habitat is good for some game species such as ruffed grouse and especially snowshoe hare, it’s a “pretty crummy” place to spend money on deer habitat.
Every time that a habitat is “improved” for one species, there is another species making use of that habitat that will ultimately be impacted in a negative way.
There is no way around that fact.
If we are going to make the best use of wildlife management personnel, taxpayer dollars and other related resources we must come to terms with the fact that we cannot “improve” habitat every place for every thing.
We simply need to make sound decisions about which critters we want to manage for and understand which species will not do well under those “improvements”.
Honesty and transparency are the best policies.
We have the means to make our government agencies accountable to us.
The question is, will we make use of those means?
