Photo by Roger Packard / Madison Audubon
In the conservation community, Stewardship is incredibly popular and its successes (recall that interactive map) are widespread and well documented. Why so tough to renew the program?
To answer that, we can clarify a possible point of confusion in the last blog. I noted that Madison Audubon had used the Stewardship Fund (SF) to buy many acres in our sanctuaries, which mostly prohibit hunting. Now we don't use those grants because of the requirement to allow hunting. In the early days of Stewardship some organizations, including Madison Audubon, had used those grants to buy large tracts of land that they did not open to the public for some traditional and popular forms of outdoor recreation—hunting would head that list. Some legislators used that as a point of attack against the entire program. Policymakers reached a compromise to continue SF but require most of the land so purchased to be open to hunting.
Much of the opposition to SF then came from conservative Republicans; the intensity and breadth of that opposition has increased as the Republican majorities in both houses have increased and become more conservative.
One can be mystified by this change. SF had a bi-partisan origin. Its full name, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Act, signifies its bi-partisan support: Knowles=Governor Warren Knowles, a Republican and Nelson=Senator Gaylord Nelson, a Democrat. Governor Thompson oversaw and directly supported the purchase of thousands of acres for conservation and public recreation.
What happened? Republican skepticism toward government, public lands, and debt (SF is funded with long-term bonds) and the notion that SF catered to liberal elites. However and more importantly, enough Republicans believed in the program to keep it running. That's our source of hope and our task this year—finding enough Republicans to save Stewardship. The rest of this and the next blog will be devoted to convincing Republicans to support Stewardship because Democrats have been steadfast in their championing the program. WE OWE THEM OUR THANKS FOR THAT SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO CONTINUE IT THIS YEAR.
We'll have to secure the support of Republican leaders in the Senate and Assembly. Speaker Vos was helpful in extending SF last session; Senate Majority Leader LaMahieu is new to that position. Perhaps, a hopeful sign is that he's been willing to work with Governor Evers on COVID legislation. Having leadership on our side is necessary but only if they have a number of Republicans to lead.
Legislative leaders will be a key focal point of professional lobbying. Staff of key conservation organizations and lobbyists hired by those organizations are meeting with Republicans and their staff. One of the arguments they'll present is the economic benefits of SF. SF has greatly expanded outdoor recreation and the varied jobs that depend directly and indirectly on those opportunities. I'm an example with all the fishing gear and outdoor clothing I've purchased over the past 20 years, with a couple of binoculars thrown in. That's not counting the meals as I've happily searched for the perfect rural Wisconsin diner. Another is the COVID-revealed need for folks to be able to be outside in beautiful, healthy places.
Needless to say, if you know Speaker Vos or Majority Leader LaMahieu, please talk to them about renewing and funding Stewardship. The same request goes for any Republican legislator you know as a friend or family member, whether you live in their district or not. But the key to persuading Republican legislators is to have residents in their districts, their constituents, contact them. Part 3, the final part in this Stewardship blog series, has some pointers on that task.
Stay healthy and take care,
Topf Wells, Madison Audubon board member and advocacy committee chair
