I can't remember this subject being discussed very much here. Maybe it has and I missed it. For those that don't know, the legislature has been taking funds earmarked for the dcnr and diverting them to the General Fund to pay for other government services. I don't know how they get away with it - sure seems to me to be against the law.

Chuck Sykes writes a column for the Co-op magazine and he mentions this in almost every column he writes. I'm sure its very frustrating to him, and he never thought he'd be dealing with this when he took the job as director.

I thought about this last night when I took the survey that listed checking stations as a possible option for the future. It sure seemed like bad timing to me to mention something like that as even a possibility with the legislature about to tackle the next budget, and being more broke than ever. How long can it be before somebody comes up with the idea of privatizing almost everything the dcnr does except GWs in the field?

I'd be interested in opinions on the diversion of dcnr funds. I think its an outrage and some group oughta sue to make the legislature stop robbing us. But maybe others think its just good government?



http://www.alafarmnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5553:the-realities-of-state-government&catid=62:from-wildlife-and-freshwater-fisheries2&highlight=WyJjaHVjayIsInN5a2VzIiwiY2h1Y2sgc3lrZXMiXQ==

The Realities of State Government

As a state official, Chuck Sykes, center, finds himself required to quote facts and figures on agency budgets, legislative bills and political strategies instead of timber basal areas, food plot seed mixtures and harvest strategies.
After almost three years with WFF, I’ve learned a lot …and it hasn’t been about wildlife management!

by Chuck Sykes

It’s hard for me to believe I am working in a job that requires me to quote facts and figures on agency budgets, legislative bills and political strategies instead of timber basal areas, food plot seed mixtures and harvest strategies. But, that is the reality of my life these days. As I sit here writing this article, I can’t help but look back to where I was three years ago (happily working in the private sector) before I took this job. I knew very little about how state government worked and absolutely nothing about the interworkings of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and honestly, I didn’t care to know.

Three years ago, I probably would have fallen victim to the political rhetoric of "smaller government," "fiscal responsibility," "agency waste" and other buzz phrases. Those all sound good as media sound bites, but are they really accurate? Here is one similarity I have found between wildlife management and state agency management: You can’t make a broad statement that encompasses everything. Just like each property is different and you must manage accordingly, each agency is different and a cookie-cutter formula for management will not work. I can’t speak for all agencies, but I can for ours.

I have been through three legislative sessions, and so far each has been worse than the previous. Constant attempts to raid the coffers of the DCNR have left the agency management battered and bruised, and services and staff at all-time lows. Over the past four years, the DCNR has been forced to transfer more than $27 million from its operating budget to the General Fund. It is impossible to completely separate the four divisions of DCNR: State Parks, State Lands, Marine Resources and WFF. If one division suffers budgetary setbacks, the other divisions feel the pain as well; maybe not to the same level of severity, but the damage is felt across the board.

The WFF staff is responsible for managing Alabama’s wildlife and freshwater fisheries resources – an economic impact of almost $3 billion, generating more than $250 million in local and state tax revenue and creating more than 53,000 jobs according to the 2011 National Survey. Hunting and fishing are not only time-honored traditions that are the fabric of life in Alabama but they are also an incredible economic engine for the state. As far as hunting-related expenditures, Alabama ranks 7th in the nation! The excise taxes paid by manufacturers on these goods combined with dollars generated through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses pay for the staff and services provided by WFF. NO GENERAL FUND MONEY GOES TO WFF.

So, why do we have to fight every year during the legislative session to keep this money from being stolen instead of being held up as a positive example of a self-supporting agency? I wish I knew the answer. All WFF asks of the Legislature is to provide us with the spending authority to pay our staff and provide goods and services to the hunters and fishermen. That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Hunters and fishermen have already funded the programs that provide hunting access on public lands, public boat ramps providing access to incredible fishing on state-managed reservoirs, law enforcement staff who assist landowners, university research that will provide answers to wildlife and fisheries management issues, and a whole host of other services.

But what if you don’t saltwater fish, ride horses on property bought by the Forever Wild program, vacation in a state park, hunt or own property where the services of a conservation enforcement officer are needed on occasion? Why are the DCNR and its staff important to you? Those staff members are productive members of communities all over the state. In addition, when natural disasters occur, many of our staff are the first to respond. When the devastating tornados hit Alabama in 2011 and the ice storm of 2013 crippled many areas, the DCNR staff, equipped with four-wheel-drive vehicles, chain saws, tow ropes and compassion, were on the scene day and night assisting the citizens of Alabama whether they purchased a hunting or fishing license or not.

Further cuts to the budget of the DCNR, forcing reduction of staff and services, would be felt in all 67 counties. The DCNR staff can’t be asked to bear more of a burden than they already have. The old saying goes, "You cannot get blood out of a turnip." Well, we’ve been just about bled dry over the past four years. I know the politically correct thing to say is, "We will just have to tighten up our belt and do more with less." I’m a biologist and not a politician, so I’m not going to sugarcoat anything. We will be forced to do less with less. Our staff and the citizens of Alabama, especially the people who buy licenses and products that fund our programs, deserve better.

All I have to go on are facts, and the facts are not pretty. If past legislative performance predicts future results, we are in serious trouble. Amendment 272 of the Constitution of Alabama reads, "No funds accruing to the game and fish fund of the state of Alabama from any source whatsoever shall be expended for any other purpose than the payment of administrative costs of the game and fish activities of the department of conservation and for the protection, propagation, preservation, investigation of game and fish, and public use of the game and fish resources of this state." What else needs to be said?

The robbing has to stop. I bet it would be embarrassing to see how many GWs we are short right now. I bet there are several counties without a single GW.

Chuck hasn't seemed very happy with his decision to take this job from the day he took this job.

All I know is I miss my fix of the Management Advantage. Always enjoyed that show.

Some people get hired for a job based on their experience and what they can bring to the table to affect positive change.


Others are hired simply because they agree with certain people or groups about specific things that are desired, even if those things may not be in the best interests of the overall or have a big financial stake for some folks.


Diverting DCNR's WWF money is against the law, though, from everything I've been told over the years about it being specifically dedicated for WWF use. How the Legislature is legally able to do this is mystifying. Does the DCNR's Commissioner/Attorney not have the ability to legally fight this?

Privatizing the check stations could be the only way we get any.
It would have to charge a fee to check deer, has anyone considered making processors check stations ? They would have to pay to be check stations, but it would be another way.

Something needs to be done , it's not right to pull funds from the DCNR to use for anything other than natural resources .

Perch, are you saying or suggesting that a hunter would have to pay at a check-station to check/register a deer?

Because that ain't happening, ever. I've never heard of that ever happening in any other state, either. No hunter would pay extra to merely report a deer.

Clem, maybe they think a govt agency suing the legislature is only gonna make it worse? I dunno, just don't understand how this can stand. I've heard there are plans to take a lot more in the next budget. Looks to me like a group like the AWF would be the best to take it to court.

But the bottom line is that the legislature is able to get away with it because very few are complaining about it. A lot of folks seem to want more from the dcnr, but they are gonna have big problems in just maintaining current services unless this is stopped.

This is true.

Legally, though, DCNR's WWF money cannot be diverted. It is illegal for the wildlife money to be diverted and can result in federal excise tax money being withheld, further hurting the budget. This was the whole shebang last year.

But like you said, until someone legally stops the legislators they're just going to keep on trying or doing it. AWF logically would be the best group to push this issue but aren't they in bed with legislators as well? It's tough to be all cozy-buddy-drinky with them and then turn around and sue them.

A lot of folks didn't like Charles and Corky and the hardline asshat attitudes they sometimes toed, but the Legislature didn't pull this BS when they were in the director's chair. There's something to be said for longstanding institutional knowledge and experience, and knowing which battles can be fought with which legislators against others who are stirring the pot.

sure as helll wouldn't of happened under Charles Kelly...

someone with standing needs to take em to court...

I thought of that, but decided to be nice for a change and not say it. The avatar doesn't have to control me.

Some people have said a biologist should be in that position, but I think it's a job that really needs somebody with political skills and contacts. I hope Mr. Sykes can grow into that; he really does seem to be trying. I appreciate his honesty about the situation.

I will never forget Charles Kelley's speech to me on my first day on the job in 1990. Paraphrasing, "There is the right way, the wrong way, and Charles Kelley's way. If you want to get along, always do it Charles Kelley's way."

LOL - I sure enjoyed the old days a lot more than what we have now. It was nice to know that drastic changes weren't gonna be made with no warning.

From Clem:

>>>A lot of folks didn't like Charles and Corky and the hardline asshat attitudes they sometimes toed, but the Legislature didn't pull this BS when they were in the director's chair. There's something to be said for longstanding institutional knowledge and experience, and knowing which battles can be fought with which legislators against others who are stirring the pot.<<<

That's another thing I thought of saying, but didn't. I'm glad you and Troy are being the bad guys.

Montgomery is a place the eats political neophytes for breakfast. If you don't have the contacts and understand how it works, your constituency is outa luck, no matter who or what you represent. For a good example, look at what has happened to AEA since Paul Hubbert retired. It went from a big time player in AL politics to no influence at all.

I once had a job the involved lobbying the legislature, and it was the most miserable experience I ever had. It takes a special person to be effective at dealing with AL politicians, and I sure ain't one.

IMO, any state wildlife agency's director must be a businessman, psychologist, negotiator, worker-compromiser, leader, listener and get 'er done person with short- and long-range vision while being able to navigate the minefield of legislators, political operatives and those with agendas. Being a biologist would just be a great extra bonus.




I'm not trying to be bad or to kick Chuck around. I've never met him. I'm told by many folks he's a solid, stand-up guy. I've only met Gunter twice. In the last 25 years they are the only commish/director I've never dealt with after I left my previous job.

But the reality is, unfortunately, like you said the political machinations down therecan chew up neophytes. It's tough. I feel for him. And again, I didn't mean it as a kick with my comment about Charles and Corky. They'd just been around for a long time -- some believed too long for the former -- and knew a lot of the pieces to the puzzle.

Speaking of the Leguslatchure, money and state agencies, Alabama's esteemed solons on Goat Hill are requesting that agencies start at zero and prove they need every dollar they are asking for:

http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/a...-of-this-money/

I certainly wasn't bad mouthing Chuck when I said that, Charles Kelly was a different man in a different time.

A LOT of folks moaned and complained about Kellys hard line approach but some of the stuff that has happened after he left would not of been tolerated by him. HE NEVER, as far as I knew, ever ordered any GW to drop a case or interfered in a case. He would call you at home(scary) and ask you exactly what happened, and hang up. Usually the ticket was paid very quickly.

Lack of stafing is totally inexcusable when you look at other areas that money has been spent. You take care of the basic fundamentals BEFORE you spend a damn dime on anything 'extra'.

PERIOD!

Clem,

I've been with DCNR 2 months short of 25 years. Our current commissioner, Gunter Guy, has never been employed by DCNR as legal counsel. You may be thinking of Will Gunter - I don't know.

Unless I misunderstand your post, the statement regarding his serving in that capacity is not factual. Just trying to set the record straight.

Generally speaking - not directed at Clem,

It has been mentioned that Charles Kelley was in power at a different time and that is perhaps the best assesment of what's really going on now. It is true, Charles was one of the most astute political animals to ever have been associated with DCNR. Issues were much simpler then, his political prowess notwithstanding. Corky, in my opinion, rode on Charles' inertia to begin with but it became evident in his last years he saw the handwriting on the wall. He was opposed to turkey decoys, it happened; he was opposed to antler restrictions in Barbour County, it happened; and he was opposed to buck limits of any kind, it happened. Despite his best (and IMO misguided) efforts these things were run over him like a bus.

If you ask me, and I am aware no one has, it's kind of like saying Bear Byrant would've done this and done that. He was a man for a different time - I don't think he would've negotiated college football with the same results in 2015 as he did in 1978.

These guys are trying their best and have been forced to deal with issues that other commissioners and directors have not faced. I think Chuck would be the first to tell you he did not come into the job as a politician - he's not. Consequently, he tells the truth instead of what folks want to hear. I have seen his poltical skills develop during his time as director but he hasn't become a politician. I hope he never does. If you dismiss this as a$$ kissing that's fine - but keep in mind I'm 58 days from official membership in the KMA club and frankly, I've never kissed any a$$ in my tenture with the department. That's not my style.

Lastly, I do understand the frustration out there regarding "the government". But I can tell you if you are angry with the present state of affairs nationally, or statewide, that's OK - so am I. However, whether anyone will believe this or not, my agency truly just wants to do the best job we can do without screwing over our customers. We consider our hunters and anglers customers because they are - they don't have to purchase our product and if they hunt on their property, they can still use the resources and services without buying a license.

But the things folks want cost money. Money for protection, money for public land and the upkeep of that land, and money for management; and a whole other lot of services that many never even consider. The desire to get deer and turkey reporting is not now nor has it ever been viewed as a law enforcement tool. We've gone far too long without good information to assist us in making decisions. That's all we want - good information. I've frequented this forum since the old days when you didn't have to log in - we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. "Y'all don't have any data - what the hell? Y'all are trying to intrude on my privacy and take a big dump on me with this plan to get data!" Hell, which is it?

I hear all the remember when - well remember when was easy - we had so many deer we didn't know what to do. There's no consensus of the hunting community that is just happy seeing lots of deer now. We have a very broad spectrum of desires now.

I ask you to consider this: Hunting and fishing is a 3 billion dollar economy annually. If someone gave you 3 billion dollars or a 3 billion dollar gross business, or hell, $500K - would you not want competent finanical managers armed with the latest financial data managing that asset? Would you instead, just let grandaddy's buddy Charles take care of it using good ole tried and true principles like half a percent interest down at the First National Bank of Yesteryear? I don't think many folks on ALDEER would opt for the blind hog option given that scenario. Why then, are we asked to just that as if that's a good thing?

Some will never believe this, but in our case, yes, we are from the government, but we really are here to help. Misplaced anger about the current and sorry state of government is no excuse to criticize an agency staffed by folks that love wildlife and wild places as much as anyone on here; folks that have devoted their lives to working in this field and serving our fellow hunters and anglers; folks that aren't getting rich doing so and if the truth were known, likely share many, many of the same values as those on here taking us to task. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts. If you take exception with our policies that's fine - just don't do so on half truths and enuendo.

Thanks for the clarification, Eudon.