By KAREN PARKER | County Line Editor
I have never heard of Wisconsin state parks referred to as a “commodity” until a May 31 press release from state Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) filtered to my email.
“Our state parks are one of our greatest commodities and we must continue to seek ways to improve them and manage them for future generations,” intoned the senator at the end of several paragraphs promoting the terrific idea of yanking state park funding from the DNR.
Just for fun, if you or anyone you know actively lobbied the legislature to stop funding our state parks, please let me know. I want to meet you.
Marklein is by trade a CPA, so maybe a state park is nothing more than a commodity to him, although it makes me think of pork bellies and corn futures.
As a lover of state parks, I call them treasures. Even those less enamored would categorize them as resources.
It’s possible Marklein’s predecessor, Dale Schultz, would not have shared his enthusiasm for depriving the park system of funding. Schultz, a Republican, voted with his party 90 percent of the time during his more than three decades of service in the Wisconsin Legislature.
But Schultz could not abide either Act 10 or relaxing mining rules, and when he failed to support the governor, his goose was cooked.
Wisconsin politics has a rich history of independent thinkers, but no more. Marklein mounted a primary challenge against Schultz, and reportedly with plenty of help from the Koch brothers’ organization, Americans for Prosperity, he was barely out of the gate before he had raised $100,000.
Schultz could see the handwriting on the wall. He could either devote his time to nothing but cadging money from supporters who will look for payback in the future, or go home and go fishing with the grandchildren.
But before he left, in 2014, he said something that should creep us all out.
“The business of politics is changed, and I firmly believe that we are beginning in this country to look like a Russian-style oligarchy where a couple of dozen billionaires have basically bought the government. And you know what? I always thought the job of a representative in government was to represent the people.”
Well, guess what folks? Oligarchs of any breed or billionaires of any stripe are not camping at the state park, building sand castles with the kids or melting s’mores over the open fire.
State parks are a refuge for young families looking for a taste of the outdoors, for senior citizens traveling on a budget, for city-weary folks with the urge to savor the natural wonders but not much money to do it.
Believe it or not, we have been here before. In 1878, the legislature established the first state park in northern Wisconsin, and then promptly sold it off to the timber industry in 1897.
A few years later, Minnesota designated the Dalles, along the St. Croix, as parkland. Not to be outdone, Wisconsin declared its side of the river as parkland as well, and thus was born the Wisconsin state park system. There are now 66 state parks, or 93 if you count forests, trails and recreation areas.
Protecting habitat and unique lands while also providing recreational opportunities always seemed one of those things that government was well equipped to do. Of all the dumb things we spend money on in this state, who could begrudge money for a hiking trail or a campsite or a park ranger?
But our new philosophy is, “If it works, break it.”
Well, perhaps this self-supporting idea has not been quite as successful as anticipated.
Marklein reports he has generously introduced a budget motion to allow the DNR to tap into its own account to the tune of $1 million a year for “maintenance and improvement projects such as repairing facilities, replacing signage, replacing drinking fountains and upgrading non-electric sites to electricity.”
It appears bike trails are on their own. If considering only state parks, that amount comes out to a whopping $15,000 a year per park. That ought to buy a part-time employee if there is any money left after electrical upgrades and new drinking fountains.
Still struggling with the funds to maintain a park? Marklein has a few more ideas.
• Lift the statewide cap for electrical sites from 30–35 percent of campsites statewide
• Increase the park sticker fee by $5 for residents and non-residents
• Create a $5 surcharge option for high-demand electrical sites at popular parks
• Increase the range up to $10 for nightly camping fees at the Secretary’s discretion
Yes, state parks can be self-supporting, but you may not like the result. Selling off naming rights, partnering with concessionaires and commercializing the property while pushing fees to exorbitant levels are some of the options.
Ten minutes on the Internet, and the senator could find a list of state parks systems that have tried and failed to be self-supporting. No state park system has been able to fund operations and capital development through park revenue over the long term.
Most states use dedicated funds to support their parks systems. Dedicated funds are fees or taxes that directly support a single government agency. But Gov. Walker and the legislature have resisted this idea.
But if the idea is to reduce these public properties to such a sorry state that it becomes easier to sell them off to the oligarchs and billionaires … well, who knows?
When the State Parks Board hired John Nolen in 1907 to draw up a plan for our state park system, he said, “Simple recreation in the open air amid beautiful surroundings contributes to physical and moral health, to a saner and happier life. State parks are the only means of preserving, protecting and appropriately improving places of uncommon and characteristic beauty. These parks would make, as no other agency can, adequate and permanent provisions for wholesome outdoor recreation and pleasure.”
I suspect Mr. Nolen would have some real differences with Marklein on how to best operate a state park system.
