Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LMITOUT

No more DNR?

28 posts in this topic

SF1657 was introduced on March 17th. Read below for a summary.

Creates an "Environment and Natural Resources Structure Committee" to advise legislature and governor. Abolishes the DNR, Environmental Quality Board, Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board, and Agricultural Chemical Response Compensation Board. Also abolishes certain powers and duties of the Dept of Agriculture, Health, Public Safety, and Commerce.

This Environment and Natural Resources Organization Advisory Committee will consist of 18 members: 6 public members appointed by the senate Subcommittee on Committees of the Committee of Rules and Administration (do you think they have enough committees on this?), 6 public members appointed by the speaker of the house, and 6 public members appointed by the Governor.

Duties. The advisory committee shall recommend a structure to provide an efficient and effective organization for state agencies and local governments to administer environment and natural resource policies. In making its recommendations, the advisory committee shall consider structures of organization that will accomplish:

1. reduction in administrative personnel

2. accountability to the public

3. consolidation of project permitting functions

4. professionalism in the provision of services

5. reducing political influence in the process

6. enhancing public participation and interaction with the public

7. alignment of services to meet current and expected future needs

8. utilization of new technology

9. providing assistance to businesses that will create and maintain jobs for the green economy

10. a reduction in overall personnel needed that will be accomplished through attrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think about it yet. I just got an update that this will be on the Committee on Environment and NR agenda for Wednesday. It kinda blindsided me.....didn't see this one coming at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a little insane. What about CO's, would those duties just go to the already short staffed county sheriff's or local PD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Not from what I interpret from the bill. It appears they want to consolidate the admin portion into one advisory committee. The rank and file below would more or less remain. I'd assume that many tasks crossover between the departments mentioned and they feel it would be best to just put these issues all under one roof. The positives I see of combining the departments is that there would be fewer cooks in the kitchen for one, and secondly the right hand would know more of what the left hand is doing. That's a lot of blind faith right there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a lot of blind faith. I don't think smaller will mean better. Might save some cash that they'll throw at some pet project and squander anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think of it as being similar to a staff meeting in any office with multiple departments. Each department has their own tasks and reports on them at the staff meeting, but some may cross over to the other departments and those depts can offer ideas or may have better resources to accomplish the job then your specific department could.

Projects can go a lot smoother when there is inter-divisional conversations and assistance is offered, which often means the tasks can be completed with better efficiency and therefore typically less money is spent then if one department had to struggle through it alone with their limited resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory this would be a good idea, to take some cream off the top in terms of salary and redundancy.

It would force the consolodated "head" to come up with programs and ideas that would work together and depending on who the "head" is who they will work for.

It all depends on who is "appointed" or assigned with the leader ship role in the end. Political or Agricultural/Sportsman Individuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh be rest assured it will be the same type of under qualified folks who are in charge of clean water act. sick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Abolishes the DNR, Environmental Quality Board, Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board, and Agricultural Chemical Response Compensation Board. Also abolishes certain powers and duties of the Dept of Agriculture, Health, Public Safety, and Commerce....

To me that they are trying to consolidate all of the above into ONE. Seems to me smaller government is usually better government. It'll be interesting to see how this rolls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pretty common strategy in the corporate world.

Its all about economy of scale. If you have 6 seperate entities you need 6 times the management resources. If each of the 6 entities overlaps each other then you'll have 6 different approaches to the same common goal which in some cases can be beneficial but it can also bog down the process and waste alot of money.

Think of it like 6 subsidiaries all being owned by the same parent company. They all do the same type of work with alot of overlap and a few specialties that only they do. Does it make sense for all 6 companies to have seperate HR departments with seperate guidelines, seperate buildings with stand alone IT departments, seperate CEO, CFO, COO, VP's, etc... You could condolidate them into 1 or 2 companies based on specialties where they can share common functions to cut costs and improve collaboration. More gets done and it costs less.

The wording on the bill doesn't get into enough detail to tell us what they are really trying to do here. I would need to hear more about exactly how they want to restructure to see if I would be onboard with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have one of the best Dept of Ag and Health departments in the country. Why would you want to risk that under a cost savings measure.

Last week I was fortunate enough to get a tour of the labs that the Dept of Ag and the Health Dept use. They are housed together since they work together on many things, yet they each have their specialties. They work together on issues of food safety - think the peanut butter case that our people in that lab solved. However, the Health department also uses that lab to test things the Dept of Ag has no place being part of (newborn blood screenings for example).

By combining all these departments into one, we will lose a lot of the expertise that we currently have. There is no way a committee of 18 can know enough about nine different departments to keep the standards as high as they are right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hate to see Wildlife thrown in with all the other groups, because who will win out when it comes to money issues? They are just trying to build one Big agencies out of many which will help the bottom line, but some areas may get lost in the pile they have to manage! frown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all complain about the money we kick for Taxes and fees, but yet when someone brings up a cost saving idea we the "Oh We Can't Change Anything" response. Can't have it both ways folks.

Administration/management cost some serious Cha Ching!! Having fewer out there that we need to pay has got to help. And there is nothing saying the outdoors/wildlife/game is going to be the one to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will more than likely be seeing much more of these type of cost-cutting measures coming up as the state and local governments get more and more strapped for cash.

Too bad there isn't more cost-cutting going on at the federal level...record spending going on there, and guess who pays in the end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A committee appointed by the senate Subcommittee on Committees of the Committee of Rules and Administration. wink

Stinks already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: LMITOUT
....Abolishes the DNR, Environmental Quality Board, Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board, and Agricultural Chemical Response Compensation Board. Also abolishes certain powers and duties of the Dept of Agriculture, Health, Public Safety, and Commerce....

To me that they are trying to consolidate all of the above into ONE. Seems to me smaller government is usually better government. It'll be interesting to see how this rolls...

Isn't this the root of communism? crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be serious, I'm not totally against. I like the idea of shrinking gov't. I just don't have faith that any money saved would be put to any good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats next our goverment just cant leave nothin alone

you got that right, anytime they decide to try and inprove something, it usally spells trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this gets the whole mess under the thumb of the legislature instead of the governor right? You thought there were politics at the DNR before, you ain't seen nothing yet if this passes. 2/3 of the members appointed by the legislature. Hmmm what party is that? And how dominated by the metro are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • I get that, not the point, or i wouldnt have posted in the first place. How about he is stubborn and wont wear a life jacket and instead of freezing in his old deer hunting garb a pair of new outerwear designed for ice fishing would be great and as a bonus add safety?
    • You were definitely against it.  BD not.   And, as the old joke goes, it is a matter of price.   If they can get jobs for 700 bucks a year subsidy per job, might well be worth doing.  On the other hand 200k per job or whatever it really is seems too expensive.     But if you are one of the purists, then oppose everything.    I'm not that doctrinaire. 
    • I thought it was worth mentioning that I;ve found great mounting boards and mounting ideas from checking the catalogs of some taxidermy supply page and catalogs. 
    • I get being concerned about the ones you love, that's aways a good practice, but it seems like no matter how well I try to educate my wife on ice safety and my precautions regarding it, she still thinks I'm going to die.  If they have $400+ to burn, so be it, but I've compromised by saying I'll wear a life jacket out the first time or two.  Seems like a more economical solution to me. 
    • I agree with Hawg and Sea Hage. This is a convection heater and heat rises through the top vents. At 15k BTU the area where you put the fan will reach 300+ deg. f. and deform the fan blades as they are made of plastic. Put the fan at the bottom as suggested. Your main objective is to get hot air circulation through the house. The floor will usually be cooler due to the holes but with the fan blowing at the bottom cold air is returned at the bottom of the heater through circulation. My house is same size as yours. I have a 9k BTU Dura Flame convection heater and tried several fan configurations. I did burn up the fan blades when installed as in you pic running at about 7k BTU. I than converted it to a forced air with air flow fan control using temperature controlled relays. The burner I posted earlier is from that heater where I increased the BTU to 12k. The temp in my house is very consistent floor to ceiling and operates same as my home furnace. May be a bit of overkill for what your looking for but really works well with great comfort at any outside temp and wind.   The bump  on the air duct has 3 four inch compute fans to maintain. Behind the white framed box I put a 4 speed auto fan for fast warm-up I turn off when warm. Runs at 12.5k BTU. The pipe duct going to the door I added this fall to heat my attached flip. Cold air return is opening below the heat chamber and at the auto fan.   When I am not in the house and want to keep it warm, I turn off the temp control relays and open the door to the original convection and turn the heat down.  
    • I have a Crossfire II 4-16x50 on my .308 elk rifle and I love it. Great scope, very clear and bright and Vortex quality. I have not had a single issue with it and the Crossfire is on the budget end of their glass. I've great reports from those with the higher end scopes. I wouldn't hesitate for a second. As far as which one to choose, I find the 50mm scope a little big and heavy. You'll likely have issues mounting to an AR due to its size. Mine had the benefit of the barrel taper allowing for the larger lens to fit. If I had a flat top like an AR it wouldn't fit as well. 
    • This is a post on the low flame issue that was brought up awhile back along with a question. As most said the low flame is normal and says so in the manual. I just picked one up, a used one. Hooked it all up and had very minimal flame. I have several of these units in rental houses so I am able to compare. The unit I just picked up is an abnormally low flame. I took a little square head bolt out of the black pipe that goes directly into the burner and blew it out. This was a mistake as at this point I can not get the burner to light. Ok now I need to get to the burner. I took apart the unit and took the burner out and blew it out real good then reassembled the unit and wa-la great flame and great heat, better then my newer units.   Now for the ? part of my post. I am having a 10degree drop in the temp before the unit starts back up. My other shacks are not much better but a little. Anyone have any experience with this issue?
    • usually 2 weeks to get stuff at st jo.  did brats3 weeks ago. buncha meat sticks this last week  
    • I would get side imaging. The C store has a Garmin echomap 73sv for $450 on Saturday as a doorbuster and $499 on sale.Regularly $999.   I have had 4 different Lowrance units but am 90% sure that I am going to replace my dead Elite 5 with a Garmin graph.Probably the Striker 7SV
  • Our Sponsors