$25,000 for a “bigger presence” for DNR at pheasant fest
Posted on May 5th, 2008 – 10:14 AMBy James Shiffer
Investigative reporter David Shaffer used interviews, reviewed public documents and analyzed salary records to produce Monday’s story about how the state Department of Natural Resources spent nearly $400,000 last year on a game wardens’ conference.
It turns out that outlay wasn’t the only time the DNR has put up cash for a conference. And in the following dispatch written by Shaffer, he learned that the agency has access to a little-known pot of money:
At outdoors shows, it’s not unusual for major retailers to splash their names in front of sportsmen by plunking down big money to be event sponsors.
For the first time, the Minnesota DNR’s Wildlife section joined the big-donor ranks, handing over $25,000 to be a top sponsor at the January Pheasants Forever 25th Anniversary Convention in St. Paul.
Just as unusual is where the $25,000 came from – a little-known contingency fund controlled by top DNR officials.
Officials said the agency got its money’s worth from the National Pheasant Fest sponsorship because it came with prominent floor space to promote DNR programs among the nearly 30,000 people who attended.
“We want to have a bigger presence,” said Dennis Simon, head of the DNR wildlife section. He said one goal is to promote hunter retention programs.
Where does the contingency money come from? When anyone donates cash to the wildlife section for habitat improvement, wildlife food plots and other conservation efforts, that money typically sits in one of more than 40 special gift accounts until it is spent, Simon said.
Every month, those accounts generate a combined $1,000 to $2,000 in interest. Instead of adding small interest payments to each gift account, the lump sum is transferred into the contingency fund.
The money has been spent on studies, surveys, emergency asbestos removal and software, state records show. The latest purchase is a $21,000 modular display booth — to use at future outdoors shows.
On Monday, Legislative Auditor James Nobles said wants to know about how the Wildlife section raised and spent the $25,000, and will be looking into the matter as part of his just-announced inquiry into the DNR Enforcement Division’s spending of public money on a game warden conference last year.
11 Responses to "$25,000 for a “bigger presence” for DNR at pheasant fest"
Does the DNR ever wonder why residents are backing away from fishing and hunting in Minnesota? I have an idea why. It’s called “the practice of creating as many stupid laws as possible” in order to generate revenue for their personal slush funds. There have never been so many deer in Minnesota and most lakes continue to produce game fish. The DNR has little positive effect, if any, on this increase. The ruffed grouse population in northern Minnesota, where I live, is way down. To the point of hunting for an entire day and not seeing even one grouse. Has the DNR ever halted the grouse season for a year or two in order to take some pressure off the game? NO! Why not? REVENUE!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t for a second believe the DNR when they start throwing out statistics produced by 21 year old green-horn biologist with some Excel knowledge. Both the DNR and State Patrol are departments that are sustained at tax payers expense and when the coffers get low, out come the ticket books and more laws created to support the effort to collect fines (taxes).
Blah blah blah who cares?
dj,
Grouse have a cycle which can explain population trends. Early wet spring weather also has a negative effect on population. The DNR has done a lot of silly things, but to blame them for the decline in the grouse population in your area is not accurate.
Seems to me that having to purchase a multiple use display for hunter retention and also to PROVIDE information at these shows sounds like a good investment. At least they are trying to save some taxpayer money by spending the interest on principle on moneys they have invested sounds like resposible use of resources.
I was at the PheasantsFest and was very pleased to see the DNR there and so visible. I wished I would have had more time to spend there.
The reason why is because I was interested to speak to officials about habitat improvement, specifically on land I own.
Now, if I improve habitat for grouse on my own land, that will also have a positive effect on grouse for both public and private lands around me.
They were there for 30,000 people. That cost to the DNR less than $1 per attendee. The DNR was there for all and any of us who had questions. I think it was a prudent expenditure.
dj, I also live in Northern Minnesota and I agree that the grouse population was way down on a decent sized chunk of land I own and hunt. It was most disappointing.
But, oddly, the drumming count was way up a year ago. I spent time in the woods last spring and was excited for the amount of drumming I heard.
So, I would guess the loss of birds between spring and fall was weather related (a cold wet spring), or disease, or maybe an effect of avian predators rebounding.
I do not think you can lay the grouse cyle at the feet of the DNR because there is probably more and better habitat than ever.
Also, I was out last weekend counting drummers in the same area, there are less than last year by maybe half but still more than a few years ago when I heard very few.
Personally, I would not be so quick to dismiss the results of the biologists who work for the DNR.
Also, to an extent your comments undermine themselves, “if there are more deer and fish than ever” and the DNR manages those resources, then they must be doing something right, huh?
What does it mean when a comment is “awaiting moderation”?
I think it is very important for the DNR to sponsor these types of events. How much money do you think the DNR will be getting back directly from Pheasants Forever when they submit fund requests to support youth hunter recruitment and retention? The conservation officers can’t raise money on the clock for their employer, so are they expected to do it on their own time? Maybe it would be worthwhile for some of the critics to take a good look through their website and see what they are actually doing. Take a look at the lakefinder service and see how many lakes they stock and set restricitions on so everyone can enjoy fishing on them. This sounds like a left wing attack on highly conservative matter. $1 per person cost expense is hardly worth writing about. As far as the warden conference, if it was used primarily as a training tool, I think it was money well spent. Once again, are all of the wardens and C.O.’s required to pay out of pocket for training, out of town lodging and meals for this conference? Also as far as the grouse population is concerned, according to the Ruffed Grouse Society, we are 2-3 years from peaking so if your areas numbers are down, you may want to consult the DNR about what type of vegetation you could plant to provide supplemental forage. New growth aspen is also very good for them, so if you find this cover, odds are they will be around.
When a comment is in moderation, it usually means it’s the first time you’ve commented, so I have to look at it to make sure it’s not spam or filled with cuss words. Once I approve it, your future comments shouldn’t require moderation.
I agree with your comments Bones, but the size of any expenditure draws peoples attention. It is sometimes the way it is presented that makes the situation look like more government waste.
I do think it is important for citizens to make government departments justify their expenditures, but looking between the lines these two do seem to be in order.
The DNR gets a ton of money and assistance from Pheasants Forever (which calls Minnesota their national home), from the Ruffed Grouse Society, Minnesota Deer Hunters, Ducks Unlimited, Minnesota Waterfowl and others I do not even know.
I suspect when you look at the size of this investment against the return from these organization the profit would be sizable for the DNR without even considering the individual members.
For myself, habitat improvement is a special interest of mine as applied to my own land. I was grateful that the DNR was there in force.
This is just another example of the fun and games the DNR condones, it proves that the “Good Old Boy” network at the DNR is alive and well all the way from the bottom rung of the ladder to the top in the Ivory Tower Mr. Holstens calls an office. I would love to see the DNR officials start to enforce the laws impartially and get back to doing what their core function is, which is taking care of the environment and the fish and game in Minnesota instead of partying and playing games.
Hunters are evil, so is the DNR, as it does not care about animals or the environment. It cares about money and salaries, and courts hunters at the expense of animal welfare. They are also the first ones ready with their rifles when a “nuisance” animal is reported. Down with the DNR.
Please leave a comment
Your destination for righting wrongs, uncovering injustices big and small and holding people, companies and government accountable.
A comprehensive resource for finding out about your community.
Special Reports
Continuing coverage
Why did the I-35W bridge collapse? How do the victims and Minnesota move forward? Stay on top of the latest.
Subscribe to Whistleblower
Learn more about RSS
Complain here!
Other bloggers and columnists who can help
The Star Tribune investigates
Categories
- Aging infrastructure (2)
- Businesses in hot water (9)
- Buyer beware (8)
- Civil liberties (3)
- Complaint sagas (17)
- Corruption (1)
- Dangerous products (4)
- Government spends your money (15)
- Home improvement (3)
- How to blow the whistle (7)
- Neighborhood nuisances (6)
- Problems on the job (2)
- Property problems (10)
- Public records (20)
- Scams (1)
- The rich get richer (1)
- Whistleblowers (2)